Obama's view on coal-new audio released

[lyeag]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

Should be very interesting to those whose economies depend on this source of energy.

Decide for yourself.

 

[bicker]

"That's why we must invest in clean coal technologies that we can use at home and share with the world." ~ Barack Obama

"Perhaps no advancement in energy technology could mean more to America than the clean burning of coal and the capture and storage of carbon emissions." ~ John McCain

No big difference there.

 

[lyeag]

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

 

[lyeag]

So no one finds it interesting that Obama is willing to bankrupt an entire industry? What would that do to the economies of areas that depend on this industry? If you think times are hard now, what will happen to all those people who work in places who don't meet his yearly quotas for emissions?

If you dig a little deeper, the SF Chronicle reported this interview in January of this year while omitting the mention of be willing to tank a major industry.

 

[bicker]

McCain is evidently willing to "bankrupt the entire industry" as well. See message #2.

Also note that with new clean coal technology, as both Obama and McCain mentioned, it could indeed be possible to profitably use coal. Moreover, credit to both Obama and McCain for insisting on such new technology, rather than allowing the energy industry to mortgage our environmental future for profit.

 

[corndog]

So no one finds it interesting that Obama is willing to bankrupt an entire industry? What would that do to the economies of areas that depend on this industry? If you think times are hard now, what will happen to all those people who work in places who don't meet his yearly quotas for emissions?

If you dig a little deeper, the SF Chronicle reported this interview in January of this year while omitting the mention of be willing to tank a major industry.

It's not that it's not interesting, it's just that it's old news (for both Obama and McCain).

 

[lyeag]

So you have no problem with this either? By the way, he must be talking about a lot of lightbulbs.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

 

[bicker]

I think you're missing the point: McCain has pretty much the same positions. You may not like what Obama is saying about some of these things, but since McCain is saying pretty much the same thing, there is no value in trying to factor this issue into the decision about who to vote for.

 

[lyeag]

I don't believe I have heard/read McCain saying he is willing to damage to economy to get it accomplished.

 

[bicker]

I don't believe I have heard/read McCain saying he is willing to damage to economy to get it accomplished.

Neither did Obama.

 

[lyeag]

Skyrocketing energy prices and destruction of an industry doesn't hurt the economy?

With our economy in such a shaky situation, I would be concerned with anyone who proposed to cause more instability. Granted, these comments were made earlier in the year, but I would like to hear just how quickly he thinks these things should occur.

 

[AndyLL]

Skyrocketing energy prices and destruction of an industry doesn't hurt the economy?

With our economy in such a shaky situation, I would be concerned with anyone who proposed to cause more instability. Granted, these comments were made earlier in the year, but I would like to hear just how quickly he thinks these things should occur.

Why don't you ask McCain those questions?

 

[bicker]

Skyrocketing energy prices and destruction of an industry doesn't hurt the economy?

Third base.

With our economy in such a shaky situation, I would be concerned with anyone who proposed to cause more instability.

Good thing none of us are voting for John McCain. He's too erratic.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

So you have no problem with this either? By the way, he must be talking about a lot of lightbulbs.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

Interesting ... talking about the climate change or global warming. Here is an article the should ruffle some feathers.

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/11/mit-scientists-baffled-by-global.html