... the decline in the value of the dollar? And perhaps that decline has something to do with runaway deficit spending that resulted from Republican fiscal policy and the Iraq war?

It's the repubs same old gambit. Deny that a problem exists, sit around a bitch about the anyone who says its a problem, then swoop in at the end and claim credit for any success that has occurred despite their efforts.

I once had an argument with a history professor who claimed that environmentalists exaggerated global warming. I asked him, "so what you are saying is, its not as big a problem as those wacky scientists are claiming? Are you suggesting that we wait until it IS as serious as they claim before we try to do anything about it?"

Its all about status quo. Republicans (politicians that is) are largely wealthy and unwilling to do anything that threatens the pile they have already made. When a problem becomes undeniable, they will announce other people's ideas as their own, give the contracts for implementation to their buddies and try to profit in any way possible.

Burn Newt Gingrich, you lying immoral prick, burn in your non-existent hell.

THe Repukeliscum have refused to increase the CAFE standard. That means that millions of low-mileage cars have been built, when American car makers could (?) have built something like the Prius.

Also, during this time, this insane war in the desert has been run. Billions upon billions of gallons of gas have been wasted.

In addition, there is the minor, inconvenient fact that billions of new Chinese drivers and billions of new Indian drivers now exist that did not exist 8 years ago.

Those are the real issues. Repukeliscum are stupid.

At our local paper, its blog is loaded with bitter right-wingers who say it's all the fault of the Democrats. Which, of course, ignores who controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006, which party completely controlled the gummiment from 2000 to 2006, appointing people to such posts as Department of the Interior and the Minerals Management Service. I guess the reason for their vitriol is that they know that high gas prices are a potent issue heading their way in November.

"The discipline of environmental economics is built on the premise that if you properly price all the negative externalities associated with industrial production and economic growth, investment will be channeled into technological innovation and ways of social organization that do not pollute the air, poison the water, exterminate biodiversity and overheat the planet. But that requires that the costs of those sins are correctly assessed."

I am pleased to see the issue of externalities raised in your column. I would add that the (so-called) free market is also supposed to be premised on proper pricing of all externalities - but it rarely is. Perhaps you could research and then write a column on externalities - and include some of the most egregious violations that are common and accepted in the US economic system. And maybe include the violators who brag about being champions of the free market system.

But something the right wing seems to have a special gift for: using both external sphincter muscles to verbalize their ideations.

In the long-, middle-, and sometimes even short-run, switching to environmentally-sound approaches is often lucrative ... if externalities are accounted for. Unfortunately, much of Corporate America is currently built on taking advantage of existing externalities and creating more. Changing that culture is going to take some serious and sustained effort, even if Obama and lots of other Dems win this November.

Whenever someone talks about "developing" the environment, I read for my thermite. Newt obviously doesn't understand a damn thing about the environment. It developed itself, and when we develop we destroy it. It's that simple.

From what I've been able to find out, even if sequestering is possible - and likely it is in some way - it's going to be *pricey*. As in, all of a sudden wind and solar are way cheap. Goodell et al have pretty much summarized that's why "clean" coal hasn't happened. It would show very clearly how, once you really do start factoring in externalities, how bad things get - and that's just once you start burning it.

With regards to coal, there is also the issue that it doesn't address liquids - another problem entirely. Sure, there is CTL (Coal to Liquid) via Fischer-Tropsch, but for a few problems:

CTL uses massive amounts of water... which, IIRC, is becoming a bit of a problem.

We're getting coal out of the ground pretty much as fast as we can now, just to make electricity. There isn't "extra" for CTL.

Even if we had both of the above, producing diesel (which is the product of CTL) isn't the same as gasoline, and it's doubtful we could make much of a dent in our gas usage. This ignores the idea that it would take some time to get these plants online, let alone enough online to matter.

That "400 years of coal" is from the early 20th century, and even wrong then. We should peak our coal sometime this century, assuming we keep our usage at about current levels or less.

"Clean" coal may be cheap *eventually*, but I tend to think by that time we'll be mostly out of it - as well as having blown what time we should have spent using our fossil fuel lottery win to transition to something that won't run out.

If you want to preserve the environment, and simultaneously maintain a life-style in which you get to drive all you want in big cars, it's going to cost you.

The discipline of environmental economics is built on the premise that if you properly price all the negative externalities associated with industrial production and economic growth, investment will be channeled into technological innovation and ways of social organization that do not pollute the air, poison the water, exterminate biodiversity and overheat the planet. But that requires that the costs of those sins are correctly assessed.

I am conflicted about this reasoning. I am always afraid that someone is going to think I am not in favor of good environmental policy, so I tend to keep my mouth shut. But…

First, I do not see a big difference between luring people into risky mortgage terms by exploiting their human nature and then expecting them to take the foreclosure on the chin to teach then a lesson al a Greenspan libertarianism on the one hand, and luring people into bigger nicer vehicles by exploiting their human nature and then expecting them to take the results on the chin.

Add to that the fact that I do not have much confidence that a market approach to energy conservation, at least in the form of high prices, will ever work. The energy market is sensitive to policy and that means that when high prices motivate increased investment in research and development for alternatives, the price goes down to discourage that investment by taking the political will away from the incentives needed to sustain the cost of the R & D.

There are so many things that contribute to the fact that we are not preparing for the environmental future of ourselves and our children, and prices that have been historically low is only one. What I have come to believe is that what is needed is not the little guy taking it on the chin yet once again, but real leadership; the kind of let’s-get-a-man-on-the-moon kind of leadership that can bring us together on the problem. There are so many reasons why that may not happen, but it is the only real solution.

One last thing. As prices go up for gas, those of us who can afford it will continue to drive. Those who can't afford it will have to find other ways. Unfortunately, the power to make other ways available generally lies in the hands of the people who don't need it. So the infrastructure to provide alternate means to driving remain at a low level of effectiveness, convenience, etc. If you don'e believe me, try catching a bus in the summer in Houston, TX. Look at the route you must take to get anywhere and the condition of the bus on which you are riding. Note how many times out of ten the air conditioning in the bus actually works.