So far I've been unable to download the files at the BLM site and look at their very lengthy materials, but it was possible to do a search on the draft, and (no guarantees I did it right) I did not find a single mention of "climate" or "carbon dioxide". That, I think, gives a hint at how much they care about the President's Plan and the global situation.
Mike On 6/2/15, 8:44 PM, "David Hawkins" <dhawk...@nrdc.org> wrote: > Thanks for sending this chapter. One indicator of its sloppiness is that it > stops its description of proposed legislation IN THE U.S. Congress in 2009, > ignoring what happened in the six years since then. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 31, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Mike MacCracken > <mmacc...@comcast.net<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote: > > See attachment > > > On 5/31/15, 6:05 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Mike cc List > > I have a few friends deeply involved in this issue - and agree that a travesty > is going on here, and worth making a noise about as this dwarfs EPA¹s Clean > Power Plan activities. I have found some very lengthy documents just released > late last week on this - but can¹t find anything resembling the reference you > make to ³page 4-130². Can you give a more specific citation? > > The one I found (almost 3000 pages) is at: > https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36597/58409/63200/BFO_PRMP-F > EIS.pdf > > Ron > > > On May 31, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: > > For those who argue that it is best to keep relying on mitigation as the > only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful decisions such as > described in: > > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras > e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change > > that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a couple of lawsuits > trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The Administration could > have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the > consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they > have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis > starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have > imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use > the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no, > leases would be at very low prices. > > So, first, the criticism that those of us favor geoengineering first are > just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this > keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether > geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having to go deeper and > deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the devastating > consequences of warming lying ahead. > > Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the rest of the world > is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough to make a > difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it makes all the > clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar sands development > ring very hollow. > > Mike MacCracken > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscribe@ > googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to > geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > <Powder River Basin-08chap4-1.pdf> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
