With the congressional climate change bill moving through the Senate and the U.N Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen around the corner, we’ve been hearing a lot of different opinions from government officials, academics and journalists on issues concerning energy and the environment.

On the climate bill:

Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.), Grand Forks Herald (7/17) “We are a major energy producing state. And we have large deposits of coal, which is our country’s most abundant form of energy,” he says. “I’m not signing up to create a new financial market to trade carbon securities. In my judgment it is exactly the wrong way to address this issue.”

Rep. Steve Austria (R-Ohio), Lancaster Eagle Gazette (7/18) “We have coal; lots of it. And we shouldn’t be penalized in the form of higher electricity rates as a result.” Austria concludes that as the bill moves to the Senate: “It is my hope that they either will vastly improve the legislation, or refuse to pass the bill at all.”

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), E&E News, (7/22) “[The climate bill] penalizes parts of the country that rely primarily on coal and natural gas for their electricity while giving too much benefit to more energy efficient power companies.” Harkin believes that the bill’s provision distributing allowances to all utility sectors “50-50 between companies based on their historic emission levels and retail sales” only “helps people in areas where they have hydroelectric power, for example.”

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Bluefield Daily Telegraph (7/22) “Improperly drafted legislation could have had a major adverse effect on both our region’s coal industry and electricity rates in our area.”

Wall Street Journal editorial (8/12) “Although President Obama has assured that the pending energy legislation ‘won’t hurt the economy,’ it appears that “at least 10 Senate Democrats disagree. It is ‘better to call the whole thing off,’ rather than ‘opt to impose a huge carbon tax and drive jobs overseas,’ or ‘impose the tax along with a tariff, and kick off a trade war.’”

Economist Thomas Crocker, co-inventor of the cap-and-trade system, Wall Street Journal (8/13) “I’m skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon.”

Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Forbes (8/18) “There is no more devastating piece of legislation for rural America, for the Midwest, for agriculture, for farmers and for small business than this piece of legislation at a time like this economy — bar none. Electric rates will go up in Midwestern states like Kansas that depend on coal-fired plants because those utilities will have to pay for permission to emit greenhouse gases, as opposed to coastal states that generate electricity by hydroelectric power.”

On clean coal technology:

Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-N.Y.), The Post Journal (7/26) “Coal would be—if we could find a way to make it clean — a very cheap, long-lasting source of energy. What’s better is that it won’t be imported; it would be something we could mine and use right here.”

State Rep. Kenton Onstad (D-N.D.), Grand Forks Herald (7/26) “Just take a look at some good news for the state. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently came to Bismarck to announce an historic $100 million investment for clean coal research so we can continue to use coal in our future. That is important to keep those good jobs in our state.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), on Praxair Inc.’s Jamestown clean coal project, The News-Times (8/18) “I conveyed directly to [Praxair CEO] Steve Angel that I was ready to use all my influence to support the Jamestown project, I told him that all the supporters felt the Oxy-Coal project was superior and that we wanted the Jamestown project to be listed as their No. 1 priority…I will continue to press Praxair to see if there is any way to alter this decision.”

Mohammed Al-Juaied, visiting scholar at the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Bloomberg (7/31) “Start-up costs for carbon-capture and storage, known as CCS, are high enough to need some kind of subsidies for 10 or 20 years before the technology can compete with other forms of low-carbon power generation. Government support should be there to accelerate the learning process.”

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, WFAU (8/7) “New coal plants need to have technology that would capture pollutants and lower emissions.”

Keith Johnson, Environmental Capital Blog, Wall Street Journal (8/7) “Although ‘so-called clean coal’ is still embryonic, there’s increasing consensus in the US that making it viable is crucial to meeting emissions goals and keeping the lights on.”

Rob Jackson director of Duke University’s Center on Global Change, NPR (8/7) “Of all the things that we could do, this would be the best — would be to remove those gases from the atmosphere, to go carbon neutral, if you will.” Jackson added, “There are many, many places around the world to store carbon, potentially. Deep in the oceans is one. … But in principle, those kinds of approaches could work. You know, natural gas, for instance…stays under the ground for millions of years. So there’s pretty good evidence that those approaches could work.”

David Kidney, U.K. Undersecretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, London Guardian (8/18) “I feel I must point out the importance and urgency of developing carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). With world demand for coal set to increase by over 60% over the period 2006-30, according to the International Energy Agency, as countries like China and India build the new power stations they need, it is clear that there is no credible solution to climate change without CCS.”

Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis, Charleston Gazette (8/8) “Modern mining is a complex and technologically advanced process, staffed by some of the hardest-working and most professional individuals in the world. It was evident that management and labor can work together to ensure that workers are safe, earn a good wage, and can be proud that their work is contributing to meeting our nation’s diverse energy needs.”