This report is a great rebuttal to those who claim, erroneously, that clean energy means more expensive energy. To the contrary:

We just wanted to take a few moments away from our focus on clean energy issues to comment on the unspeakable tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut this past Friday morning. We join the rest of the nation in mourning the loss of these precious children, and agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of Rep. Rosa DeLauro and former Sen. Christopher Dodd.

Back in 2011, a Harvard study found that “when the entire life-cycle of coal is considered — extraction, transport, processing, and combustion,” they add up to a cost to the American people of “roughly US$300 to US$500 billion...annually.” Also in 2011, we interviewed Professor Michael Hendryx of West Virginia University, whose research has found that coal mining “is a loser economically, environmentally, and in terms of public health.” Now comes yet another report, this time illustrating how coal is a loser for a coal-producing state's budget.

How is this in any way acceptable?

After reading this article, please don't anyone tell us that wasteful corporate welfare isn't alive and well in the federal budget.

These days, if you open a newspaper, turn on a radio or TV set, it's highly likely that you'll come across an energy-related discussion, analysis, op-ed, etc.  In fact, given the centrality of energy and energy-related environmental, economic, and national security issues in today's world, it's almost impossible to miss discussion of this subject. That's a good thing, as long as the discussion is above board, with full disclosure by everyone regarding where their economic interests lie.  Unfortunately, as a groundbreaking new study by the Checks and Balances reveals, such disclosure is actually rare.

A new report by the  the National Intelligence Council, "Global Trends 2030: Alternate Worlds," takes a look at "possible global trajectories during the next 15-20 years," including "megatrends" and "game-changers." Among the "megatrends" listed is one that caught our eye: the "Growing Food, Water, and Energy Nexus." A  few key points from that section of the report highlight the challenges we're facing on that "nexus."

The Solar Energy Industries Assocation (SEIA), along with GTM Research, is out with its U.S. Solar Market Insight report for the third quarter of 2012, and it's a good one.  Here are a few highlights, bolding added by us for emphasis.

Grist is posting sections from a new book, called Carbon Zero: Imagining Cities That Can Save the Planet, by sustainability expert and author Alex Steffen. The book begins with Superstorm Sandy, warning that it's a "forewarning of what a planet in climate chaos has in store for us." So what are we doing to avoid this chaos? In Steffen's view, clearly not enough. Instead, he argues - correctly, we believe - that "we're losing the climate fight," with "unimaginable catastrophe on ourselves, our children and our descendants" the likely result if we don't start winning it fast.  Why are we "losing the climate fight?" Steffen has a clear answer to this question. Here's an excerpt, courtesy of Grist, which we think is particularly clear and powerful.

Is this story about climate activist Tim DeChristopher an Onion parody or for real?

The United States has fallen far behind many other countries on offshore wind energy development, but hopefully this news is a start in turning that situation around.