More here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/19/healthscience/19epa.php

Don't expect a "sea change" any time soon. This is just the "beginning of the process".

Also, don't expect anything that slows economic growth, or increases economic burdens, in any states that produce or use coal and have Democrats in Congress -- Montana, Michigan, Illinois, W. Virginia, to name a few. And that's just Democrats -- don't expect support from Republicans, such as Spector from Pennsylvania or Voinovich from Ohio.

Instead, expect increases in funding for "clean coal" and "CO2 sequestration" research and development, including more large demonstration plants such as the Illinois facility ($2B) approved in the stimulus package.

I don't know what to expect from Obama and administration about this but the fact that Marler isn't bloviating some mindless tripe gives me hope for mankind.

that scientists blame for the warming of the planet,

I'm so sick of this type of writing. Its this type of writing that ever so subtly keeps that window of doubt rolling.

Its absurd.

The argument is over. The discussion has long since moved onto mitigation issues. I wish they would stop dancing around it.

As an aside, the need to step away from CO2 emissions could finally light a fire under the critical need to address nuclear power research, and force the energy companies who still want to build "Gen-One" atomic reactors to STFU. We just can't get everything we need in the way of electricity via solar/wind/hydroelectric, but we also have to start thinking seriously about kicking the oil/coal habit. Much of the technology for generating hydrogen still involves "cracking" it from water molecules, giving us one part more hydrogen and two parts more oxygen, but the equivalent of three parts less water.

Isn't their a shortage issue concerning water these days?

Sooner or later, someone's going to have to step to the plate and argue for meaningful research into safe nuclear generation---and that'll mean fusion, not the fission clunkers we've got today. It'll mean addressing redundancy-in-depth for in-plant safety protocols, and finding a better way to deal with the waste byproduct that doesn't mean shipping the equivalent of a few dozen Hiroshima bombs across the country and through everyone's neighborhoods. THAT is something I'd rather trust to an Obama administration; not the next rendition of rapacious Bushylvanian profiteers....

[Deleted. ]

"Don't stick former President Bush with the blame for pollution. Blame the American motorist and the American consumer for high CO2 emissions."

I'll stick Bush with passing a $70,000 tax credit to buy Hummers and other XXX-L SUVs that get atrocious gas mileage. I'll stick Bush with passing the "Clear Skies" Act, that significantly REDUCED air quality standards. I'll stick Bush with giving the finger to all the countries that are party to the Kyoto Treaty and doing nothing to offer an alternative. That's not even the tip of the iceberg.

Sure, Bush didn't invent pollution, but he sure went a long way towards insuring that no progress whatsover was made during the past 8 years.

Steve W. wrote: "We just can't get everything we need in the way of electricity via solar/wind/hydroelectric ..."

As a matter of fact, yes we can.

The USA has vast commercially exploitable solar and wind energy resources that are sufficient to provide several times as much electricity as the entire country uses -- with today's wind and solar technology, that is entirely mainstream and is being installed every single day right now.

For example:

The offshore wind energy resources of the northeast alone are sufficient to provide more electricity than the entire USA uses.

The onshore wind energy resources of a half-dozen midwestern states alone are sufficient to provide more electricity than the entire USA uses.

The solar energy resources of the southwestern deserts alone are sufficient to provide more electricity than the entire USA uses.

And in most parts of the country, distributed rooftop photovoltaics could provide most of the electricity consumed during peak periods, which in general are sunny summer days when air conditioning use is heavy.

There is simply no need for nuclear power.

And more importantly, the options that you suggest for future research, e.g. fusion, are irrelevant to addressing global warming, since we need to cap and then drastically reduce CO2 emissions within a few years, and there is no chance that such technologies can generate any electricity at all for decades.

The real solution is to mandate net metering regulations which would encourage home owners to convert to energy efficient non polluting electric generators fueled by hydrogen which I have been developing for decades. If gov. was smart, and utility companies were forced to pay reasonable rates with no annual cap on KWH output, the problem would be solved for all concerned, utility companies would not have brown outs, no need to invest in more capacity, so everyone wins.

I had developed super heat pump back in the late 80's and by the time it hit market, the tax and energy credits were suspended killing system. The same thing happened with solar. The gov. is to blame for so little progress in converting home to solar or wind for past two decades. Hydrogen powered generators combined with new HVAC system which heats and cools average home for pennies a day is the best solution.

Constructing wind and solar farms in the middle of nowhere is wrong strategy, just look at cost per mile of power grid to feed power to populated areas to see this is a real loser, $13.5M per mile. What a bad joke this is on the American taxpayer. lol

Nano-Electric.com

It's pretty simple. Republicans keep saying that wind, solar and wave energy are too expensive and non-competitive with 'clean' coal.

All the Obama Administration needs to do is make a rule/enact a law that requires that ALL energy produced needs to be carbon neutral.

That way each coal plant would need to install all the scrubbers on all their plants, in order to comply. Sure that would be very expensive.

However, it would level the playing field, as the carbon footprint for the environmentally friendly energy sources, are minimal in comparison. All of a sudden wind and solar wouldn't be all that expensive any longer.

It's one of those typical double standards applied by Congress, regulators and especially Republicans.

Febrile dreams.