About Me

Name: Bob Wood aka...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Obama Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry (UPDATED)

Posted by Bob Wood aka TrekTek on Monday, November 03, 2008 12:58:12 AM
Obama Called Out for Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry

Quote:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- With only hours before election day, coal has become a major topic of Decision 2008.

Sunday an audiotape surfaced from an interview Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did with the San Francisco Chronicle in January.

In the interview, Obama talks about the importance of coal. He went on to talk about his cap and trade proposal to help curb global warming.

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Barack Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January.
 


 
This would be bad news for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. And although he made those statements in January, they are just being reported now - two days before the election?

Where is the MSM? 

{Oh, yeah! In the tank!}

Quote:
The Obama campaign says the quote is being taken out of context and that Obama is actually from a coal state and is a strong supporter of the industry.

The campaign sent a statement today saying "the point Obama is making is that we need a transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies."

Talk about trying to have it both ways! It's a wonder this campaign doesn't have a permanent case of whiplash!

But is he being quoted out of context? ABC's Jake Tapper has the answer:

Quote:
Here’s the entirety of Obama’s remarks:

“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.

“But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was 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 are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are 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 an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”

Yes. Obama plans to "fine" the "polluters" (power companies) heavily which will do two things:
    • Make electricity more expensive to everyone.
    • Increase the likelihood of "rolling brownouts."
Just remember, when you tax something, you get less of it. If you like the fact that the light comes on when you flip the switch, Obama is definitely not for you!  And he wants us all to be driving electric cars.  Just how does he think we are going to charge the batteries.

And he won't let us build nuclear power plants, and that is the safest, cleanest form of energy production available. The United States Navy has safely deployed nuclear-powered aircraft carriers - the biggest ships in the fleet - around the world for fifty years.  And now, the Navy is planning to build and deploy nuclear-powered destroyers and battleships because...  It does not make sense that the central ship in a battle group only needs refueling every 30 years, and the support ships are running on convential fuels that must be replenished much more often.  (But that is probably part of Barney Frank's 25% cut in the military budget.)

And there are people planning to vote for Obama? How much evidence of the harm he can do is necessary?
 
UPDATE:
Here's the video of the entire Obama statement:
 
 
I can only marvel at the smoothness with which this man can say nothing that makes any sense.
As always, I welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive