Obama says he will bankrupt new coal power plants

Status
Not open for further replies.
darkdog

darkdog

New Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
1,354
Reaction score
0
Audio from a January 2008 interview with the San Fransisco Chronicle: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ]YouTube - SHOCK Audio Unearthed OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY[/ame]

I found a transcription at Gateway Pundit:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

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.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing that I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."
Click to expand...
 
What's wrong with YouTube today? I couldn't get the video to work.

What Obama said this past January has absolutely no bearing on my vote.
 
Means nothing to me because I am against coal power. It may be cheap but we can do much better. Hell, I would take nuclear power over coal power.
 
Just more evidence that Obama believes in moving forward, not backward.
 
BradB08 said:
Means nothing to me because I am against coal power. It may be cheap but we can do much better. Hell, I would take nuclear power over coal power.
Click to expand...
Even if you don't use coal power, if the price goes up for coal power it goes up for all energy users and for the goods you buy.
 
Reba said:
No matter who he hurts in the process.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter who is in the leadership role. Someone is always going to get hurt in the process.

Oh wait a minute.....it's the taxpayers getting the royal screw! :giggle:
 
Reba said:
No matter who he hurts in the process.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's send the miners back in. A few more people dying of Black Lung Disease and leaving families without support is a wonderful thing!
 
jillio said:
Yeah, let's send the miners back in. A few more people dying of Black Lung Disease and leaving families without support is a wonderful thing!
Click to expand...
In the years since the federal government has regulated dust levels in coal mines, the number of cases of black lung disease has fallen sharply. Since the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, average dust levels have fallen from 8.0 mg. per cubic meter to the current standard of 2.0 mg. per cubic meter. The 1969 law also set up a black lung disability benefits program to compensate coal miners who have been disabled by on-the-job dust exposure.

Despite the technology available to control the hazard, however, miners still run the risk of developing this lung disease. The risk is much lower today, however; fewer than 10% of coal miners have any x ray evidence of coal dust deposits. When there is such evidence, it often shows up as only small black spots less than 0.4 in (1 cm). in diameter, and may have been caused by smoking rather than coal dust. This condition is called "simple CWP" and does not lead to symptoms or disability.
Click to expand...
Black lung disease

So, would you prefer to put all the miners out of work? How would that be helpful?
 
jillio said:
Yeah, let's send the miners back in. A few more people dying of Black Lung Disease and leaving families without support is a wonderful thing!
Click to expand...

lol then we should do same for factory/construction/high-risk occupation workers :laugh2:
 
That interview is OLD NEWS!

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in a campaign appearance Sunday, criticized comments about coal technology that Sen. Barack Obama made to The Chronicle editorial board in January, and suggested that the newspaper withheld the information from the public - even though the interview has been posted on the newspaper's Web site since it was given."

Palin suggests Chronicle withheld Obama remarks
 
Everybody wants progress, but the question is how to achieve it. I don't see government intentionally bankrupting entire industries as a viable solution. When coal goes away, what will replace it? Obama's not very nuclear friendly either and even if he were, nuclear plants can't be built over night.

Now, if some great new technology comes along that's cleaner and cheaper than coal, then coal will naturally go bankrupt and that's fine. That's real progress. But such a technology will require research and development which costs money. The first thing that goes out the window in tough times is R&D, and artificially bankrupting a major energy source can only add to that.

Obama would have to be dumb as a box of rocks to follow through with this policy given the times we're in. Fortunately, I don't think he's that dumb. However, there are lots of goodies that he has promised that he won't be able to follow through without severe economic ramifications. The government's debt is so high that the money simply isn't there.
 
think long-term dude..... think long-term..... money will be there.
 
jillio said:
Are you talking about a phase out of coal?
Click to expand...

I don't see why not have a coal power plant because we're already advanced enough to make it very efficient. The proven efficient technology is usually the old technology. Plus - this is cost-effective solution as well... we have ABUNDANT amount of coal in here.... which means less dependent on foreign oil and more jobs for Americans. It's not like we're going to build hundred of them but just saying...

Our cars are going from gas to hyrbid/electric/water.... isn't that going backward since it's already been done? Think Model T car.
 
Jiro said:
I don't see why not have a coal power plant because we're already advanced enough to make it very efficient. The proven efficient technology is usually the old technology. Plus - this is cost-effective solution as well... we have ABUNDANT amount of coal in here.... which means less dependent on foreign oil and more jobs for Americans. It's not like we're going to build hundred of them but just saying...

Our cars are going from gas to hyrbid/electric/water.... isn't that going backward since it's already been done? Think Model T car.
Click to expand...

How about working towards those technologies that will reduce our dependence on all fossil fuels? And no, its not going backwards.
 
jillio said:
How about working towards those technologies that will reduce our dependence on all fossil fuels? And no, its not going backwards.
Click to expand...

Exactly - we're not going backward. we are revisiting it... with addition of advanced technology and knowledge because it's a proven technology. We can work toward those green-friendly technologies but we have to be practical and realistic. Technology like solar power... hydrodam... those are far too inefficient for us and not readily available due to geographical disadvantage.

But if we are to just go ahead with it anyway... we would have to destroy a tremendous amount of natural environment to build those in order to meet the power demand that one coal power plant can easily meet especially for California. Solar Power technology would work for Nevada and a couple of desert states (but mind you - the efficiency rate of current solar power technology is rather mediocre). Wind Power would work well especially in west & mid-west. These takes decades and crapload of money to develop and research. Coal Power Plant is easily done cheaply. Until those green-friendly technology arrive.... I'm sure coal power plant will be phased out. It's just that Americans cannot wait any longer for green-friendly power plants to come.

Just gotta be practical and cost-efficient especially for metro-areas with population of over millions. Nuclear/Coal Power Plant can provide those with ease without harming environment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top