YouTube - SHOCK Audio Unearthed OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY

The closer we get to an Obama President the clearer we see what an idiot he is.

Spin this libs. From the mouth of your idiotic moonbat Savior.

Wonder if the coal miners union would cont to endorse after hearing this.

To my fellow conservatives. We are now in the middle of sending this audio to every MSM we can to get it aired before Tuesday so people can see what a radical piece of shit Obama is. Past it along.

Lol @ the inanity of this. I love how that video cuts off just as Obama starts to discuss clean coal. How very honest of the makers of this video and of whoever spreads it.

And yet the point is the same. This cap and trade thing is designed to use funny math to punish energy producers. What the frack kind of logic goes behind trading emmisions? Yoiu might as well apply that to abortion and say in order to limit it, were going to cap the number of abortions per state, and states that dont have a lot of abortions can sell their quota to states that do. This is essentially what they are going to do with pollution. Only a politicians can come up with that bullshit.

__________________
"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

Please do send it to everyone you can, it shows just how desperate you are.

I see you would rather worship at the feet of your savior than do what is best for your country.

The new liberal motto....Obama before country.

Well he says basically that he will impose cap and trade in every unit of carbon emitted, then goes to acknowledge that that would bankrupt any new plants that were to be built, in short making it fiscally impossible to build a new one. Now, I don’t know if we are still building coal fired plants or how many.

The cap and trade bill that came up in the congress, was beat down by via bi-partisan effort as it was recognized as a industry and job killer.

He appears to be all over the pace as the article below describes.

Three years later, with Obama now a candidate for president, his embrace of southern Illinois and its dominant industry is showing signs of strain. Obama finds himself caught between his advocacy of huge federal subsidies for liquefied coal for transportation fuel, a technology that the Illinois coal industry views as a salvation, and environmental groups that reject it as a boondoggle that would set back efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the fight against global warming.
After co-sponsoring legislation earlier this year for billions of dollars in subsidies for liquefied coal, Obama more recently began qualifying his support in ways that have left both environmentalists and coal industry officials unsure where he stands. His shift has helped shape this month's Senate debate over how to reduce both dependence on foreign oil and carbon dioxide emissions; on Tuesday, he voted against one proposal to boost liquefied coal and for a more narrowly worded one. Both failed.
More broadly, Obama's contortions on coal point to the limits of the role he likes to assume, that of a unifier who can appeal across traditional lines and employ a "new kind of politics" to solve problems. In reaching out to the coal industry, some observers say, he may have been trying to show that he is a different sort of Democrat, but the gesture had the look of old-style politicking and put him in a corner, where he wound up alienating some on both sides of the issue.
"He was trying to throw a bone to the southern Illinois coal interests . . . and was surprised when people started saying, 'What the heck are you doing?' " said Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. "That's a rookie mistake for a presidential candidate, to think you can get in the middle of a controversial issue and no one will notice."


Coal Fuels A Debate Over Obama - washingtonpost.com

and here in March....
Obama: Green Coal?
Published by Alexander M. Tinker, March 21st, 2008 global warming
Co-authored by Alex Tinker and Jenny Bedell-Stiles
West Virginia, Thursday, March 20th: “We could be investing in renewable sources of energy, and in clean coal technology, and creating up to 5 million new green jobs in the bargain, including new clean coal jobs.”
Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s words yesterday were as hard to swallow as the sulfur dioxide rich output of dirty coal-fired power plants. The clean coal mythology must be stopped. Coal isn’t clean, it isn’t green and it has no place in the renewable-energy future we must rapidly make into a renewable-energy present if we are to avoid the worst-case scenarios of global warming.
Today, Friday March 21st, he made no mention of this fuel to thousands in Portland, Oregon. He talked about the clean energy revolution. He gave an anti-nuke shout out (to our aging hippies). He touched on cap and trade. He even talked about green jobs revitalizing our economy.
There was no mention of deriving green jobs from clean coal. Sure, it’s common (and savvy) for our political leaders to alter their message by location. But we, the climate positive movement, are a united and connected force and we’re listening to the differences in message Barack is sending us. While not contradictory, he’s telling folks from each region what we want to hear.
This morning, Barack said that as president, he would tell the American people what we need to hear, and not just what we want to hear. Barack, as the next president of the United States, you need to start telling us that coal must be weaned from our energy generation sources.
Coal has a powerful lobby in Washington, and there are important general election states with substantial coal industries. The climate movement needs to think long and hard about what would become of all those coal families if we got our coal moratorium.
Articulating the vision of an inclusive green economy to the people who stand to lose the most from the necessary changes is critical to the success of this movement. Articulating to the new President in 2009 our firm demand for aggressive action to tackle climate change is critical to the survival of the human race.
Obama: Green Coal? « It’s Getting Hot In Here



hes all over the map on the place on this issue it appears and this is all I could find on his site as to cap and trade-

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.
Obama and Biden will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. They will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world’s largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | New Energy for America

and http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issue...tFactSheet.pdf

pages 2 and 4 speak to coal, page 2 calling for a 100% cap and trade that is requiring an auction for all pollution emissions they release, no free trade off’sbetween co’s or industries....



Page 4 speaks to exporting climate friendly technologies, whatever that means as to clean coal.


pretty thin, no particulars at all.... etc. So I guess hes leaving us to parse his words through radio interviews and his mish mash of stances depending on where he is and to whom he is addressing at the moment.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

So it OK to destroy and whole industry even after your BS GW has been proven to be nothing but a money scam by your fellow liberal hero's?

Take a look at what the reputable scientist are now saying about the whole GW scam.

Funny how everytime Obama is caught saying something that is damning you liberals claims his words are taken out of context. Its his words plain and simple and you guys know what a mess this asshole will cause this country economy but you care about winning more than you do about your country.

heres a 5 day old article on energy policy in broad strokes from both, I will say, that any time we have langauage like; federal mandates, regulations and subsidies. He would increase the ethanol and biofuel production" etc...I get worried.

The Election Choice: Energy
Major differences on nuclear power and oil exploration

Discounting election-year hyperbole, Barack Obama and John McCain are broadly like-minded in their approach to energy and the environment. Though important policy differences exist, both support "energy independence" and a large-scale reorganization of the U.S. economy in the name of climate change. The candidates, in other words, come in different shades of green.

Global warming. Both Messrs. McCain and Obama support the taxation and regulation of greenhouse gases, which is also a top priority of congressional Democrats. A "cap and trade" program would set an economy-wide limit on emissions that declines every year. Businesses would then buy and sell permits that stand for the right to emit these gases, and pass the costs down through the energy chain to consumers. Mr. McCain, who joined with Joe Lieberman in 2003 to introduce Congress's first climate bill, wants to reduce U.S. emissions to 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. Mr. Obama would shoot for 80%.


Cap and trade. Mr. McCain's cap-and-trade stance is more market friendly: He would allow its built-in incentives to motivate the investments and behavioral changes necessary for a postcarbon economy. Mr. McCain would also include offsets, which allow businesses to meet their emissions targets by paying someone else to reduce carbon usage. Offsets would reduce the overall burden of a carbon program but would also result in fewer real emission cuts.

Mr. Obama is stricter, overlaying his cap-and-trade agenda with an array of federal mandates, regulations and subsidies. He would increase the ethanol and biofuel production requirement to 60 billion gallons a year by 2030 -- 67% higher than the current goal. Mr. Obama would also double fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks; mandate that all new vehicles are flex-fuel, which means able to run on any blend of gasoline and ethanol; require that all new buildings are carbon-neutral by 2030, in addition to multiple other efficiency rules to discourage energy consumption; and detail a 10-year, $150 billion project of government-directed research into alternative energy technologies.

Carbon auctions. Another important difference is that Mr. Obama would auction off all carbon permits on the "polluter pays" principle. Mr. McCain would initially give away the permits to utilities and other industries while introducing auctions over time. The Obama approach is more efficient. Once the permits are waved into existence, they immediately have dollar value; the question is who benefits. Auctions would also raise trillions of dollars that could be used to offset the economic drag of a carbon crackdown.

However, Congress is unlikely to devote its windfall to cutting taxes elsewhere, such as on labor and capital. Instead, the money will likely to go to political patronage, such as Mr. Obama's "green-collar jobs" program, or to compensate states in the South and Midwest that rely more heavily on carbon energy and would be hit especially hard by cap and trade.

Nuclear power and electricity. Mr. McCain wants to expand America's fleet of nuclear power plants, which emit no greenhouse gases, and he promises to fast-track and build some 45 by 2030. Mr. Obama hasn't ruled out expanding nuclear power, but he says safety and waste storage concerns must be resolved before moving forward.

Mr. Obama would impose a "renewable portfolio standard" that utilities generate at least 25% of their power by 2025 from noncarbon sources such as wind and solar, which are currently marginal parts of the energy mix. He promises to invest in smart metering, distributed storage and eventually a national electricity grid. Mr. McCain says he'll modernize the grid too.

Coal. The Democrat is especially hostile to conventional coal plants, which today supply nearly 50% of U.S. electricity, and Joe Biden has said publicly the U.S. should build no more coal plants. Mr. Obama does claim to support "clean coal," as does Mr. McCain. However, this technology to capture carbon and bury it underground is far from commercial deployment, and it is unclear if even new funding is enough to overcome its practical limitations.

Fossil fuels. Despite the green aspirations of the candidates, the U.S. economy will continue to depend on oil, natural gas and coal for decades, though obviously their prices will rise substantially if carbon is taxed. While Mr. McCain was skeptical of drilling in his 2000 presidential bid, he currently favors expanding domestic offshore energy exploration, and he'd give states a share of the leasing royalties if they permitted drilling off their coasts. The Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Mr. Obama initially opposed all new drilling but reversed himself in August. He now says he could support a limited expansion as long as it is part of a larger energy package. Mr. Obama has also called for a windfall profits tax on the American oil majors.

Pressured by the GOP's "drill, baby, drill" offensive, Democrats allowed the offshore moratorium to lapse earlier this fall, and they plan to reinstate it next year if Mr. Obama wins. That move would be far more difficult politically if Mr. McCain wins. A McCain Interior Department could significantly expand domestic oil-and-gas production, depending on its willingness to confront the environmental lobby.

-- By Joseph Rago

The Election Choice: Energy - WSJ.com

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Hmm does this sound familiar?


John McCain: Speech 05/12/08

Same program Obama is talking about, and McCain is instrumental in it's inception.

But if "clean" coal technology is as clean as everyone is claiming, I don't see what the problem is. If "clean" coal technology can run power plants, and stay below the carbon caps, then they won't be bankrupted by cap-and-trade. But what Obama is saying, if you're going to operate a coal power plant and don't take steps to be close to, or under carbon emission caps, you're going to get dinged, and the greater the offense, the greater the penalty.

And now we have Bush trying to push through all kinds of deregulation that will allow polluters to pollute even more, hurray for George Bush.

Seems like you aren't on the same page as either John McCain or Barack Hussein Obama, you sound more like a solid George Bush supporter.

__________________
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

We must switch our energy economy away from fossil fuels and to renewable, non-greenhouse energy (and/or nuclear). This means we will no longer be burning coal. This means the coal industry will go bankrupt and no longer exist. Likewise the oil industry. Likewise the natural gas industry. Other industries will arise to replace them, employing just as many people or more, because we will still need energy. The only people that will be hurt is the large-scale stockholders of those industries, and considering they are all multimillionaires, I suspect they will survive somehow.

yes agreed BUT we have a 30 year window to efficable alternatives being infrastructurally viable etc. as to mass use....until then we are denied even addressing that now with a 7 year build window- nuclear power.
There’s a large sect of the greens who want nothing built, they are well funded and are efficient, they will stop as they already have transmission lines being built, land clearing for mass solar panel use, windfarms etc. You know I know it.

They want us to stop using ANY energy that will in any way shape or form “harm” the environment, which frankly is impossible. They ballyhooed the hell out of ethanol and its nothing more than a boondoggle. That’s why their positions are so absurd and we are still stuck here.

In the mean time, fossil fuels like it or not, and nuclear power are the only way to begin, to bridge the gap until we start suffering such power denudation that the congress will write a bill short circuiting the greens short circuiting of building anything to get us there.


Obama is all over the place, McCain well I guess he a oil guy because its nore realistic....in the short term hes got more on the ball than Obama admits to at least.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Not necessarily a 30-year window, and we aren't talking about the coal industry going bankrupt overnight, either. If the cap-and-trade system means no new coal plants can be built, that won't destroy the coal industry, it will simply limit its growth. New plants can be built NOW using existing technology to generate solar or wind power. There's no reason not to do that, instead of building new coal-fired plants, to meet new energy demand.

Whatever the window of time is for a complete overhaul of our energy economy, the same timeline exists for the phase-out and obsolescence of the coal industry. The one won't happen before the other does.

Won't the carbon credits put pressure on all forms of fossil fuel for electricity? I'd think so.

I doubt that this carbon tax will lead to the demise of the coal industry. It certainly will make it more expensive to build a coal/oil/gas fired electricity plant (which is what Obama said would be bankrupted not the coal industry); and this will make it easier for alternative forms of energy to compete.

One thing that we might get out of this is that we will see more gasification/liquefaction of coal as a replacement for imported oil. Thing is, I don't know that Western coal (e.g. from Wyoming) is suitable for this type of conversion.

I think that the clean coal technology might not be that far from being practical. There was a recent article (IEEE Spectrum or Scientific American?) that talked about this technology and its development. It would seem to me that this technology could be applied to any plant that burned fossil fuel but it might require special geologic conditions for the plant. It is something that we should probably work to develop and if carbon tax will provide incentives for the development of the technology, bring on the carbon tax.

I sure wish we (America) didn't have so many really hard problems to deal with at once.

Clean coal is bullshit! And everybody better starts accepting that in stead of playing some demagogic games around it. Sending the world from the oil age back into the coal age is a backward idea.

Promoting coal just because it fits your candidate while it is bad for the US and the world is cheap!

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

I agree about clean coal. However, BHO strongly supports this.