No, the object is to punish polluters. We don't allow people to dump trash in the streets or chemicals in the water, why should people who want to foul the air get a free pass?

There actually is a LOT of logic behind the cap-and-trade method of controlling emissions. It isn't a lot different from the auction of the radio-frequency spectrum. When there is a limited resource, an auction is the free-market way of allocating that resource. Do you not believe in the free market?

That may well be, but OP is using the not existing future of the coal mining industry as a rally cry against Obama. Modern industrial countries are all moving away from it and reconverting their industry into something of the 21st century.

Moreover, if Obama is at the same time pushing for the cap system then his support for coal as fuel seems indeed a joke. While the whole cap system on itself is a joke ... But keeping the coal burning for the sake of the coal miner unions' votes is bad for the US.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

Btw, he supports coal when indeed it would become clean. Now clean coal is a mirage, and he just telling the truth that it's no longer feasible. If voters want to punish a candidate for making sense, let them do so, at their own demise.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

Actually, BHO is a big supporter of the coal industry; rather the coal industry is a big supporter of BHO. He advocates huge subsidies for liquified coal. And, conveniently enough for his past, Illinois would greatly benefit from that. Earlier this year, he co-sponsored legislation that would give billions of federal dollars in subsidies to liquified coal. Now, he has realized that doesn't wash too well with those concerned about carbon emissions. So, where exactly does he stand on this now? I find it hard to tell, and by your posts, it seems you can't tell either. We're both in the dark on this one. I suppose he thinks no one will notice.

Liquefied coal would only address the US dependence on ME oil. It will still be bad for the environment, but 'defense hawks' should love it. If he combines it with the cap regulations, he'd make sure that only green technology is coming out of it. These subsidies, were those for research?

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | New Energy for America
JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008

Both programs are basically copies on energy. Also McCAin supports 'clean' coal. Sadly, I don't see any mention of nuclear energy and research into fusion technology.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

Hmmm. How does burning a "clean" hydrocarbon actually reduce carbon emissions?
Nope. And, as you're the one who said clean coal is bullshit, I find it interesting that you seem to be defending it now that you have discovered that BHO is a proponent of it.
I don't either, and I also find that sad. He does not seem to be a proponent of nuclear energy, does he?

The 'clean coal' idea is based on stabilizing somehow the carbon dioxide that is released during combustion. So far, it is not a feasible technology.

I listened to the Youtube movie and heard him saying that right now, coal as a green energy source is economically not viable. At the end you hear him say he's all for it if it really becomes clean. And if it sounded like I was defending it, that's just because it addresses the problem of dependency to ME oil.

Sensitive issue in the US? In Europe, and especially in France, the nuclear energy lobbies are very powefull. The majority of our electricity is nuclear.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

Yes, and if people dont like coal, they shouldnt buy it. Govt control is not free market. Carbon credits are false pollution. We already have plenty of laws against pollution. Carbon credits are a scam.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

*Spits out Coke onto screen* How exactly is carbon dioxide "stabilized" such that it is not classified as a carbon emission contributing to greenhouse gases?

And you are very fortunate to have that. I wish folks were not so afraid of the words "nuclear" and "radiation", but the ignorance abounds. France's nuclear energy program is the envy of all who support nuclear energy. Although it pains me to say, France has done a superb job in that arena.

That's another discussion. I don't really believe in them either, but right now, they give a sense of value to the carbon pollution. Anyhow, both candidates support the cap 'n trade system. So no use in picking either candidate about it.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

You'd better had a good look at that Coke before you tried to drink it. That's a good example of 'stored' carbon dioxide. The idea is to store the carbon dioxide 'dissolved in'/'bound to' some substrate (which in your case was pressurized Coke).

Extra: CO2 sequestration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

LOL. And the energy required to do that would emit more carbon than emitting the CO2 would. So, again, how is it that this "stabilization" (BTW, CO2 cryogen is not stabilized), would reduce carbon emissions? And, dissolving it is quite silly as to do so would require energy to pressurize. Transporting that to be used in beverages would require energy. I could go ont, but the point is clear.

And, is clean coal still "bullshit" or is it now great stuff now that you were told BHO supports it?

As I said, and I will repeat myself. Clean coal right now is a mirage. The technology isn't viable yet for the reasons you so eloquently mentioned.

I will also repeat myself on Obama's opinion that right now, the cap 'n trade system would render the technology not economically viable (as indeed it would probably produce more CO2 units than it would capture. But, and I will re listen the fragment, Obama says "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it".

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

The topic is Obama. I have no problem picking on both, however. Simply because the majority is in favor, doesnt make it right.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

For Obama being the topic of OP, I don't think he should be attacked for telling the obvious. Wish MCCain (and his followers on this board) had the courage to do the same.

The caps 'n trade system will only help in giving carbon emissions a sense of value. It's a first step which will lead, as Obama predicted, to the demise of primitive energy industries and favor the development of clean technologies.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.