I would be willing to bet what we have is nothing compared to Canada and many European countries ;)

Edit: Seems like I would have won, too:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/racing-up-and-down-the-performance-index/

Man, I'd hate to live Switzerland, with all that government policy apparently keeping the air clean!

Since climategate they were forced to change names and strategies to keep the lie alive

Former "global warming" is now called "climate change".As the word climate change does not have the strong manipulative impact as "global warming" they need to add some new words-just like"climate pollution".

wanna know more about climate lie?

Donna Lafromboise book"the delinquent teenager..." 

Which is exactly why it doesn't matter.

All cheap energy gets used.  US and Europe forgoing coal doesn't help the enviroment one bit... because all that coal just get picked up by China, India and other countries.

So all it is, it a meaningless feel good measure that costs American's power billls.

Putting money towards Solar research and other research like that isn't a bad idea... if the US gets the rights to the solar technology or at least part of it.  Any patent liscensing money if researchers hit a goldmine would be a big benefit to the government.

It should be for research though.  Money towards solar companies and plants is wasted and worthless.

No ones denying America is taking huge steps ;). Anyone who says otherwise isn't giving us enough credit. That being said, unfortunately, we have to take further steps to at least reduce OUR own output of CO2 and lessen the effects of global warming, regardless of what China or India do, though in the end those countries are going to become the big issue.

Unfortunately, I did some research on at least the first source, and discovered that it is apparently a conservative thinktank:

http://www.humanevents.com/2010/08/08/conservative-spotlight-institute-for-energy-research/

This is a check I always need to do when I hear thing that contradict my general understanding, as I've been mislead numerous times by sources that I later find out to either be conservative thinktanks, new sites, or hacks, especially in regards to climate change.

And with this, unfortunately, I'm done with this little back and forth. I personally only put my full trust into neutral (IE not purportedly conservative or liberal) sources. I don't know if Human Events falls under this category, but it doesn't really matter here. Because...given that it was praised by Rush Limbaugh as the energy equivalent of the Heritage Foundation, The Institute for Energy Research is most definitely NOT neutral.

so did you find any fault in the actual data collection? or the numbers? or just dont like the source? I find most information come from a "biased" source as someone who is vested in something is more likely to research it. so its hard to dismiss bias sources as just about every source is biased. so i find it best to look at their numbers and their methods to see if they are sound.

The climate does change (for hotter or colder) every other thousand years, whether we humans contribute to this change or not is another matter. Maybe some parts of the media blow it out of proportion. But we must change our livestyles in case the worst happens or we will the face ultimate consequence, extinction. Recycling and increasingly relying on renewable and effiecient energy is apart of our future, whether you like it or not. Coal, oil and gas are running out anyway, so we might as well start the change.

The change in climate in the last 1000 years is known, it's fact from the accounts of people who lived back then. It's certainly not a lie that climate changes, although co2 being a factor for this change, probably is a lie. 

We are n ot running out of any of those. it wont happen anytime soon or in the foreseeable future. every year more sources are found, and more ways are found to extract it.  Nor is there any danger of going extinct due to pollution. if pollution reached that levels, as people died of there would be less pollution made until there was a balance again.

Haha, this is funny. This is what I get for doing this nonsense between college classes.

Human Events is a conservative source commenting on another conservative source. Now I definitely don't believe anything coming from this think tank.

From how I've always understood it, natural gas is what's really been killing coal, not the EPA:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/30/news/companies/clean-coal_vs_natural-gas_BTU-price.fortune/index.htm

Natural gas is cheap and getting cheaper. It's probably only a matter of time until it becomes the primary source of energy in the US. With our without the EPA, looks like coal would be on it's way out either way. And given that it's a cleaner source to, I would think it's all for the best in the long run.

Oil at least will run out sooner rather than later, why else are we seeing wars over it? And also, the fossil fuels especially oil are being found in some of the worst places to drill them such as Alaska and the Arctic Ocean, of which both have very unpredictable weather patterns and extreme climates. Remember how difficult it was to clean the gulf of Mexico after BP's oil spill in 2010? Well, it would be impossible if that happened in the Arctic and the devastation to wildlife and people's lives would be ridiculous. We are willing to risk everything just to get another barrel of oil, we need to move on.

And even if pollution doesn't kills us in great numbers (3 million died in China and India alone from pollution last year) , why should we put up with it, just because of the greed and selfishness of others. We all should take responsibility and look after the resources we have, especially food and water.

Well for one... we aren't seeing wars over oil.

At least not since the FIRST Iraq war when Iraq attacked Kuwait... which was also debt focused.