Obama Will Bankrupt The Coal Industry (updated)

If John McCain had said that his policies would bankrupt any industry, do you think that we would not heard about it?  


Well, this past January Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Not a word!   


Well, there's at least twenty seven States producing coal where voters ought to be really upset about this information. The major coal-producing states are (in descending order as of 2000, with annual production in thousands of short tons)  
Wyoming (338,900), West Virginia (158,257), Kentucky(130,688), 
Pennsylvania(74,619, ),Texas (49,498),Montana(38,352, ), Illinois(33,444), 
Virginia(32,834), North Dakota(31,270), Colorado(29,137), Indiana(27,965), 
New Mexico (27,323), Utah(26,656), Ohio(22,269), Alabama(19,324), 
Arizona(13,111) Total United States: 1,437,174 


Now that doesn't even begin to address all the other's in this country who turn lights on, or who want to charge the batteries in their hybrid cars.  We'll all be paying significantly more for our energy under Obama, and there might even come a time when the lights brown out.


Here' Obama's actual comments recorded live in January.....

Here's the transcript from the above interview:

(Obama) 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 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 (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them.

Now here's the San Francisco Chronicle's report of the same January, 2008 interview with Barack Obama, notice anything different? I'll tell you what it is.......... won't find the above statement. Nice job SF Chronicle. Still think that the Fourth Estate isn't in the tank for Obama, and against the people?

Full Text  (2486  words)

(C) San Francisco Chronicle 2008

IN HIS OWN WORDS

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in a meeting Thursday with the editorial board of The Chronicle:

On his rationale for running:

"This is one of those moments where ambition is not a sufficient justification for the presidency. ... There were a set of things that I can do that no other candidate can do. I can bring the country together around a working majority for change in a way that Sen. Clinton, for example, cannot.

"Rather than simply duplicate the elections of 2000 and 2004, where 47 percent of the country is on one side, and 47 percent of the country is on the other, and 5 percent are in the middle - all of them living in Ohio and Florida, apparently - I believe I can expand the political map, get people involved who haven't been involved before, get independents and Republicans to rally around a progressive, although nonideological, agenda. And I think I can do that more effectively than any of the other candidates in the race."

On whether he has the experience to handle the toughest challenges as president:

"If the question is, do I have the internal fortitude to make tough decisions and take on tough issues, I would say throughout my career I have dealt with very difficult issues.

"Sen. Clinton keeps touting her experience, but has no management experience that I can see in her resume. It's presumed through osmosis, as a consequence of having been first lady. But I would point to this campaign, where I went from zero, starting from scratch, to compete with a legendary political organization 20 years in the making built by a former president.

"That's not an accident. It shows my capacity to put together a team and point it in a direction that I think is important.

"The skill sets that are required to move the country are not different from the skill sets that are required to move somebody across the table. It means listening to them, it means having very clear principles - what you're willing to fight for, where you're willing to compromise. And it means being willing to walk away from the table.

"Those skill sets are the ones, I think, I am most confident I can apply ... where I think I have an edge over Sen. Clinton, who I think has a tendency - when confronted with somebody who doesn't agree with her - to demonize them or push them away."

On his own view of what makes his campaign different:

"I do think that I have tried to conduct my political career and my campaign in a way that is honest and candid and straightforward and minimizes spin.

"It doesn't mean that I have no political sense about me, and that I'm above modulating my tones or positions as I go through ... my career. But generally speaking, I tell the truth.

"And that's part of the reason why I think we have been getting people who are turned off to politics attracted to my campaign. ... They sense that I don't try to trim my sails.

"If I'm asked in a debate what my biggest weaknesses are, I don't answer by saying, 'I'm just too passionate about poor people' [laughs]. Or that I'm too impatient to solve the problems of America. I say, well, you know, my desk is messy - so I need somebody around me."

Asked what he meant when he said, "Generally speaking, I tell the truth," Obama said with a laugh, "What I meant was that I always tell the truth, but sometimes you avoid telling hard truths.

"And one of the things I've tried to in this campaign is to tell people what they need to hear, as opposed to just what they want to hear." He said observers have noted that "there is a core there. ... I think that core is something that I communicate."

On his foreign policy experience:

"There's going to be a lot of repair work to be done internationally. This is an area where Sen. Clinton and others have suggested they are most concerned about my experience. It's actually the area where I most trust my judgment, because I've lived, traveled, have family overseas. If you look at my track record over the last three or four years on big issues - like opposition to the war in Iraq, the need to engage directly with Iran, our approach toward Pakistan and putting all the eggs in the Musharraf basket - on big strategic issues, I've been right and the conventional thinking in Washington has been wrong."

On how an Obama presidency would change the country:

"The day I'm elected and sworn in, not only does this country look at itself differently, but I think the world looks at itself differently. And that's not just symbolic. When I go to a poor country and talk to them about America's obligations, but also that poor country's obligations to help itself by dealing with corruption or to reduce ethnic tensions, I do with credibility as somebody with a grandmother who lives in a small village in Africa without running water. If I convene a meeting of Muslim leaders ... I do so with the credibility of somebody who lived in the most populous Muslim country on Earth for four years and has a sister who is half-Indonesian. ... That will allow me ... to be an effective spokesperson for a different version of American foreign policy."

On differences between himself and Sen. Clinton on health care:

"I admire the fact that President Clinton and Sen. Clinton tried to reform health care (in the 1990s). But I believe they did it in the wrong way. It goes to the point of accountability. Their theory was you go behind closed doors, you come up with your theory with the help of your technical experts. You don't even invite members of Congress from your own party into the negotiations and discussion. And while they were behind closed doors, the insurance company was busy shaping public opinion as well as maneuvering Congress, and by the time they released it ... it was dead in the water. Now, I would do things differently. I would have a table, around which you'd have doctors, nurses, patient advocates. The insurance ...companies would get a seat at the table; they just would not get to buy every chair.

"And I would put my plan forward ... and these negotiations would be on C-Span ... so the public would be part of the conversation and would see the choices being made. ... That builds in accountability in the system."

Chronicle staff writer Joe Garofoli contributed to this report. E-mail the writers at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com and jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.

Credit: Carla Marinucci Chronicle Political Writer

Notice?  Nothing said about Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry. But this story shouldn't be a complete surprise, remember the fleeting coverage that the press gave to Joe Biden's similar comments back in September about Clean Coal production and use? He said, "No coal plants here in America", and that wasn't a gaff this time.
Tip a' the hat to Jack Murray, and thank's to P.J. Gladnick of newsbusters.org, for providing us with this lead and information. 

Here's an update on this issue.  Seem that the Democrats are attempting to preemptively use the concept of CO2 as a polutant (which it isn't, and hasn't been declared so by the EPA) as a means of closing down coal fired plants, with two subsequent effects: increasing the amount of real pollution as these plants degrade and cannot cost effectively be renewed, significant increases in the cost of generating electricity, and probably the reduction in the amount of electricity available for consumers.  Thank you Babara Boxer and Henry Waxman.  

New Source Rescue 

Nov. 3, 2008 Wall Street Journal

Trying to kill coal plants on the sly.

When environmentalists oppose regulations that yield environmental benefits, something is afoot. So it is with the gathering furor over a possible Bush Administration upgrade of U.S. clean-air regulations.

Senate Democrats Barbara Boxer and Tom Carper wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency last month expressing their "grave concern" about "this dangerous proposal." House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman is "gravely concerned" too, about the EPA's "reckless disregard of legal constraints on its rulemaking authority." The trio and the green lobby are already shouting about "midnight regulations," the last-minute ritual at the end of every Presidency.

But this rule was first proposed in 2005, and the Administration may -- or may not -- get around to issuing a final verdict this week. The proposal would usefully reform a permitting test called New Source Review, or NSR, which requires power plants to install state-of-the-art pollution controls when they expand their generation capacity, thus increasing smog- or soot-forming emissions.

The real question is what qualifies as an emissions increase. As plants operate, they deteriorate, meaning they produce less power and also less emissions. Routine maintenance restores both to their original capacity, but not further. Under the current NSR regime, the EPA often compares premaintenance and postmaintenance emissions and calls the latter a "new source" of pollution.

This is a bogus measurement and environmentally detrimental: NSR is often so costly -- as much as $100 million per facility -- that electric utilities slow or cancel much-needed projects that would improve efficiency at existing power plants. The new rule would move the baseline to hourly emissions from cumulative emissions, giving utilities some leeway before they are required to run the NSR gauntlet.

On the contrary, argue Mr. Waxman and Ms. Boxer: Efficiency projects mean that the plant in question will be run harder and therefore increase overall emissions. But electricity is produced to meet demand, which grows with the economy but is relatively stable. So if one plant generates more power after an efficiency project, then another, less-efficient plant -- and thus more polluting -- will be run less. Another way of putting it is that the new rule will redistribute generation to those plants that are most eco-friendly.

In any case, overall emissions can't increase because emissions for the entire U.S. are capped under the Clean Air Act. Opponents of the Administration's proposal make much of the fact that an appeals court vacated its cap-and-trade system for SO2, NOX and mercury, but the decisions only ruled out one specific approach. In other words, the trade was thrown out, but the cap remains in place. States still have a legal obligation to strictly limit traditional pollutants.

Mr. Waxman gives the game away when he claims that the new rule would increase carbon dioxide emission by 74 million tons annually, even though CO2 is not (yet) regulated under clear-air laws. What he really means is that without this rule change the EPA will soon force the decommissioning of a large portion of the U.S. coal-fired power portfolio under New Source Review. Some 71% of the national's coal capacity is between 27- and 57-years-old, and environmentalists want to measure any emissions change as an "increase" so that these plants are shut down.

If Democrats want to legislate such a change, then so be it. But it will be hideously expensive, as electricity prices rise in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio that rely on coal. It also risks blackouts, as the U.S. is already approaching the limits of current electric capacity because the greens have made it nearly impossible to build new plants.

But this kind of major change to U.S. energy policy should not be waved into existence by distorting decades-old statutes. The Bush Administration ought to move ahead: Its NSR reform will improve the safety and reliability of the country's power, and it will force an open debate.