Many readers will remember the "coincidental" circumstances in the primaries that one of the sham fronts of the coal industry sponsored the debates and hardly any questions were asked, among hundreds, about how to solve the environmental issues facing America and the world.

Now, we're going to have only three presidential debates, and I want to do my little bit to ensure that doesn't happen again. I'd like you to, too.

Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology — fossil fuels — rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology — renewable energy? As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. “Typewriters, baby, typewriters.”

I've heard it said several times that no matter who wins the election, we're going to have a cap-and-trade system that will put a price on carbon emissions, because both candidates support it. But I struggle to believe that McCain will actually be willing to see energy prices rise through an act of government — even if it would begin to reshape the nation's energy use away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources.

Of apparently more certain agreement are both camps' endorsement of nuclear.

It's laughable to hear the party of Freedom Fries and other sneers and smears cite France as a paragon, but that is, of course, what happens in the realm of nuclear energy. With both candidates saying they support nuclear-plant development, it's a fair question to ask: What is France's experience?

They have almost 60 plants nationwide. Only the US has more: 104.

Via Jetson Green, news of a new database that lists the zero-energy buildings of the US. So far, the only sites listed are the ballyhooed Aldo Leopold Legacy Center in Wisconsin and projects in Ohio, Minnesota, and California, though it surely will grow.

I'm not above using Wikipedia as a source, but I've never written, or rewritten, an entry, and always try to remember that though it is an awesome compilation of information, it can be manipulated, at least in the short term, and should never be trusted as a sole resource.

It is from that perspective that I pass along word, via ecogeek, of green.wikia.com, introduced yesterday by Jimmy Wales, the guy behind Wikipedia and many other little wikis.

Everyone knew that Dick Cheney and Still President Bush were in bed with the oil industry, but some of their underlings took the phrase — and their oil industry contacts — much closer to their bosom.

You can't make up this sort of stuff.

Using Swedish technology, a utility plant in Spremberg, Germany, near the Polish border, has begun capturing the carbon released by the burning of coal for electricity.

First, the lignite coal is being burned in pure oxygen, which makes the effluent cleaner — still carbon-laden but with less sulphur, mercury, and other elements typical to coal burning.

The effluent is then compressed until it is liquid, and injected underground into naturally occurring caverns.

I've mentioned previously a story I wrote about electric bikes for E, the Environmental Magazine, and though it has been available to subscribers for more than a week, it's now available electronically as well. I commend it to you, but duh, I wrote it, y'know?

Link.