The Washington Post covers the coal rush today. This popped out at me:
Even after a pledge last month by a consortium of private equity firms to shelve eight of 11 planned coal plants as part of their proposed $45 billion buyout of TXU, the largest utility in Texas, many daunting projects remain on drawing boards. Any one of the three biggest projects could churn out more carbon dioxide than the savings that a group of Northeast states hope to achieve by 2018.
Ouch! And of course, the reason? "Utility executives say that the coal expansion is needed to meet rising electricity demand as the U.S. population and economy grow." Bruce Nilles, of the Sierra Club, promotes the Springfield energy plan, but the Post gives it a pretty brief and desultory mention.
Grist has a couple of good responses. David Roberts says we need to change the terms of the debate, while Gar Lipow says we can phase electricity emissions out in a decade if we choose to. Heady stuff: all wind, with a better grid and 12 hours of storage. Sadly, all of that stuff is outside of our hands, and Lipow himself emphasizes that this doesn't even touch the issue of efficiency and conservation, which is where I think we can really shine at the local level.