It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama wants to bankrupt coal companies

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:55 PM
First...This is Cap and Trade and BOTH McCain and Obama support it.

Second...From Black Lung Disease to Greenhouse gasses to Strip Mining to literally shaving the tops off of mountains etc. etc. Coal is a horrific way to create energy.

Third...He is talking about the Future and also acknowledges a transition is neccessary from coal to clean coal technology and ideally to renewable energy.

"Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. It’s strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).”

BOTH McCain and Obama agree a transition is neccessary and that YES one day in the FUTURE it will be too expensive relative to renewable energy to build new coal powered power plants.

This is a good thing.


BOTH of them will put the cap and trade program in place to GRADUALLY move us away from a dependance on coal toward cleaner, renewable energies...THANK GOD!

It's like progress and technological advancement are a bad thing!

PA, KY, VA, TN etc....they have generations of families that have died in this industry.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:58 PM
He doesn't want to bankrupt coal companies, he wants to push the companies to use cleaner technology. Clean coal is possible, so why are we so hesitant to use it? Look how LAZY and apathetic people are! We can solve world hunger, cure diseases than run rampant in many parts of the world, and solve the homeless problem... why don't we? "Well, it's not MY problem" seems to be a favorite. The coal companies pull the same crap. We all need a serious kick in the butts to actually care about the world we live in, let alone the people in it.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:48 PM
We gotta slow this down somehow!

Coal: Mining the Stores

Coal plants that are built today emit just as much CO2 as coal plants built 50 years ago (there have been some marginal gains in efficiency, but not much). Even worse, some of the measures that are taken to reduce conventional air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide actually increase CO2 emissions.

Every body (I believe) knows that we have to cut back the CO2 levels from burning coal, there are incentives now for them to build new "cleaner" coal burning plants.

If they build a new plant that isn't cleaner, they should be penalized.

For fifty years the coal industry has done almost nothing to decrease the CO2 output, don't you think it's time they did?

Okay, well they already have had the incentives laid on the table if they do build a cleaner coal burning plant, but if they don't take the incentives and just keep building these old coal burning plants, what's to keep them from doing so?

The answer is nothing, unless they are penalized for building new plants that don't produce less CO2.

It as simple as that! They are going to have to change, one way or another!

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Keyhole]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:42 PM
Wow. If I wanted to see stuff like this, then I'd just watch commercials. More twisted, out-of-context crap to confuse people at the last minute. "I want this to be an anti-Obama message, so I'll twist it to mean what I want it to mean!"

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by GamerGal

I agree. too close to Bush. She has to do her own thing and separate for a while and then she may have a chance.

I like Colin Powell. I would like to see him run.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Harlequin
did you ever understand what was put? he wants teh coal companies to invest in carbon capture technologies - which right now they , dont.

so maybe your brother needs to be asking `why is this company wanting max $$$ and not trying to save taxes?` - the tax breaks are allready there for CO2 reduction but as an industry coal companies use them the least as they cant be assed.

Ohh really! Well Mr. Liberal, that is not what your vice presidential candidate Joe the shmuck biiden says.

Here is Bien on video saying "no clean coal plants here in America, build them in china."!

Biden says no clean coal plants for America

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:21 PM

“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.

Doesn't the above statement contradict itself?

Somebody builds a coal-powered plant.... They get charged a huge sum of money. They CANNOT pay that HUGE sum of money, so they go bankrupt.
If this is what actually happens, how will it ever generate any money if the company is bankrupt?

So where exactly is the money going to come from to invest in solar wind etc. If all of these companies go bankrupt?

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:26 PM
Just one day before our historic Presidential election, here is some LATE BREAKING NEWS regarding Barack Hussein Obama that may shock you. After you discover this secret of Obama's (text and photographic evidence included), please share the information with friends and family.

The clock is ticking. We CAN win this election.

Here's the link to the article: "Evidence of Obama’s Socialist Connections"

Currently, this is the top story on the political blog's home page.

The home page is: LukeAmerica2020

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:06 AM
So, is Obama going to build more nuclear plants? Is he going to put a wind generator on every city block? Build more hydroelectric dams to displace more people and eradicate the wildlife behind them? How about destroy CRP land, forests, and natural areas so farmers can grow more corn for ethanol?

That is what infuriates me. He talks only of taxing, destroying industry, and spending and redistributing the wealth. He doesn't talk about the solutions to the problems all this "change" would create. And, people are getting ready to elect this idiot?

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:30 AM
Finally something I and Obama actually agree on! Kudos to him for believing in a hard line policy to force change that helps the environment instead of helping to line peoples pockets. It's about time the USA towed the line on carbon emissions! However, having said that, I hope he has viable solutions.


[edit on 4/11/08 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

Where is the electricity to power all these cute little electric roller-skate cars going to come from?

He's like every other politician out there. He panders to environmentalists without a solution. All people have to do is think these questions through and ask him. But, he's usually not available to answer any follow up questions. And if you do get a follow up question through, you get punished with a background check like "Joe the Plumber"

Obama-topia is fiction. It will always be. I do think if he has his way on everything he wants, the Obama-Nation (USSA, formerly USA) will be well on its way to becoming a Third-World Country.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 02:47 AM
Coal is so 20th century, like John McCain.

Now I am not saying Obama is really going to do something about America's energy policy, but coal is so old-fashioned that it is a shame Western countries still use it.

Nuclear-fusion is the feature. In France a nuclear fusion plant is currently being build (ITER)

The technical requirements to do this, which scientists have spent decades developing, are immense. But the rewards, if Iter can be made to work successfully, are extremely attractive.

One kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000 kg of fossil fuel.

Fusion does produce radioactive waste but not the volumes of long-term high-level radiotoxic materials that have so burdened nuclear fission.

Although it's not yet certain nuclear-fusion will succeed, it does offer a viable alternative to our energy dependence and polluting habits - the first non-experimental reactor should be build in 2040-2050. Until then, nuclear power plants can do the job.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:59 AM
reply to post by Mdv2

So, where do we put the nuclear waste from it? Can we ship it to France? Dump it in the world's oceans?

So, you know we have coal plants in the US right? How many cases of "Black Lung" have you heard of lately? I work at a Processing Plant and the cost of the emissions equipment to keep the environment clean is nearly as much as the production equipment itself. There are already EPA regulations in place to control plant emissions in the US. AND, we have a BUTTLOAD of coal resources.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:32 AM

Originally posted by CreeWolf
So, where do we put the nuclear waste from it? Can we ship it to France? Dump it in the world's oceans?

Nuclear fission is not the ultimate solution, but the lack of a cheap, efficient and relatively clean substitute makes it the best temporary solution. Waste can be safely stored in underground bunkers or even in old coal mines, whereas coals are highly polluting and damaging the future for the generations to come.


Electricity generation consumes 40 percent of U.S. primary energy and is responsible for 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. In the electric power sector, coal accounts for 83 percent of the emissions. The bar graphs in the figure below show emissions from electricity generation apportioned among energy-use sectors.

Look at the following table:


Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash.[7]

Originally posted by CreeWolf
I work at a Processing Plant and the cost of the emissions equipment to keep the environment clean is nearly as much as the production equipment itself.

This proves my point, coal fuel is inefficient and old-fashioned. In fact, the emission requirements make it more expensive, while nuclear plants don't have such problems.

Originally posted by CreeWolf
There are already EPA regulations in place to control plant emissions in the US. AND, we have a BUTTLOAD of coal resources.

Of course there are regulations, but the fact remains that America is one of the biggest polluters in the world. Regulations only will not be effective enough. More need to be done, whether people like it or not. If you look at it from the other side, it could create a lot of jobs. Americans have always been innovative, I am sure they will come up wit creative solutions now they are forced to think and try.

Germany also has extreme amounts of coal (and using them), doesn't mean you should go for the easiest option - that's too short-sighted.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by Mdv2]

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:39 AM

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Wow, even more Republican Propaganda.

Notice how there's no dirty fighting from the other side?

That's because one party knows how to act like adults and allow people to think for themselves, and the other try everything they can to warp opinion, including outright lies, misinformation and propaganda.

I'm not even American, I have no vote in this, but I am already embarrassed for the Republicans. How do average Americans cope with all this BS being thrown at them to try to force people to vote their way!?
Leave people to make an educated decision, instead of telling them what they should do!

Now I really do believe the stories about McCain supporters trying to con people at the voting stations.

Shameful, truly shameful.

STOP TROLLING. This isn't even a response to the article, it's only political baiting. You didn't even mention the topic of the thread. Why don't you do us all a favor and try to enjoy a scratch n sniff sticker at the bottom of a pool.

I quoted the whole thing on purpose because I didn't want to leave out one word that proves my point.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:46 AM

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Quite frankly, I think that his middle class supporters are so politically and economically ignorant, that McCain could say "Obama wants to take money from the rich and give it to you", and they would still boo the idea. It boggles the mind really.

Wow it boggles your mind that middle class people could be so "ignorant" as to turn down stolen money? Interesting. I guess if you found a wallet packed with cash you'd just keep it without a second thought.

No one denies that wealth redistribution would benefit some middle class (a term that has a subjective meaning anyway) people at least in the short term. However, even those who would benefit balk at the idea because it is morally wrong to accept what is stolen from someone else to better one's own life. It's no different than accepting a stolen diamond ring as a gift or a stolen tv that you could never otherwise afford. Sure, it improves your standard of living but it's wrong.

The fact that "middle class Republicans" would turn down money that they didn't have to earn shows that they have a more stolid moral fiber than any would-be Robin Hood. That's not ignorance; that's character.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:31 AM
All these people for Obama?,what are you going to think when he shuts down towns by bankrupting all their source of jobs and revenue,then thank him for tripling your energy costs,wow he seems like a cool guy

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:09 AM
I hate to burst anyones bubble here but Calpine built a fleet of the most efficient gas fired turbines in the country and guess what they went BK when nat gas went so high they couldn't make money. But maybe that was the plan all along, you run up the debt real high go BK wipe out all the share holders all the while you short your own stock that ran up way to high but you knew that. So you make a killing the whole way up, then down plus you go BK, start fresh and your stock takes off because when you come back from BK you have no debt dragging you down. I guess the problem with us sheeple is that we think going BK is bad and we avoid it all cost. Big business uses BK as a business tool. Yeah keep thinking this isn't all planned. And for the bunch on here that think wind turbines will save us, well they won't. We have already put as many as you can in the major wind producing areas. Not saying we can't improve them but this is not new tech and what do you do when the wind doesn't blow. I doubt any major electric company would ever include wind in base load capacity. There are truly better ideas out there but everyone tends to just focus on the MSM rhetoric. Yeah Boone pickens think it great so it must be, no he just has a major stake in all that he supports. Anyone here of using Algae to make bio fuel, plus you can eat it. There are people out there trying to amke things better but it is not the people you see on TV. The people on TV are trying to take your money not help you. Just be a good consumer and grow, consume, create, build, and consume some more.

Here is my solution, stop consuming!

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555

MCCAIN HAS THE EXACT SAME PLAN! IT IS ALMOST AS IF OBAMA STOLE IT FROM HIM! So to say Obama's plan is bad for America is to say McCain is bad for America. David, Palin is an idiot. I don't defend idiots. **SNIP**

Admin Note: Removed unnecessary comments including derogatory language.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by Crakeur]

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:32 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in