Edwards Calls for Ban on Coal Plants

[bigtree]

1.14.08, 4:54 PM ET

PAWLEYS ISLAND, S.C. -

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Monday said a proposed coal-fired power plant shouldn't be built in northeastern South Carolina, continuing his call for a ban on those facilities.

"My view is that needs to stop," Edwards said of the $1 billion, 600-megawatt plant set to be built along the Pee Dee River in this early voting state. Santee Cooper officials are awaiting a final permit from state environmental regulators.

The utility's officials say they need the plant to meet energy demands, and can't wait for newer or cleaner energy to be developed, but have said the plant will be environmentally responsible. They hope to have it running about 2012.

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, told about 150 people at a campus of Coastal Carolina University that coal-fired plants are "taking a bad situation and making it worse."

He also said he was opposed to new nuclear power plants and that the U.S. has no credibility in global warming discussions. "We are the worst polluter on the planet," Edwards said.

He took a swipe at rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying the New York senator takes more money from power industry interests than any other presidential candidate.

"We have to have a president willing to stand up to the oil and gas industry," Edwards said.


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/14/ap4529274.html

[slor]

1. He just keeps getting...

better and better!

[madokie]

2. one can hope that we get a real grown-up this time around

He stands head and shoulders above the rest

[Triana]

3. John Edwards...

...is RIGHT. I agree with him 100%

I CANNOT BELIEVE ANYONE is still building coal-burning power plants! There's NO excuse for this. Alternatives CAN and SHOULD have been found by now and WOULD have been found by now if we had (a) leader(s) in Washington who DEMANDED that the coal, oil, and gas industry find alternatives - promoted it, rewarded it, helped fund it, and encouraged the additional JOBS it would create. That could have already happened years ago - except for the fact that a HUGE number of the bu$h admin are FROM the coal, oil, and gas industry - and that the coal, oil, and gas industry WROTE our energy policy - in SECRET - with DICK Cheney.

Pfft.

[spinbaby]

4. Well, now we know where we're not getting power

No coal, no nuclear. Does he also have a plan for where we ARE getting power? It's easy to slam power plants, but not so easy to come up with alternatives.

I'd like to see a solid energy plan from Edwards, including liberal funding for alternative energy--especially solar energy.

[bigtree]

5. Edwards on Energy

--The League of Conservation Voters, which has not yet endorsed a candidate for president, described Edwards' plan as the "most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date."

"Senator Edwards' plan demonstrates that he understands the magnitude of the challenge before us and the need for bold leadership to meet it," LCV President Gene Karpinski said.

The Edwards Plan halts global warming, achieves energy independence and jumpstarts a new energy economy by:

* Capping greenhouse gas pollution starting in 2010 with a cap-and-trade system, and reducing it by 15 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, as the latest science says is needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
* Leading the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries—including developing nations—to reduce their pollution. Edwards will insist that developing countries join us in this effort, offering to share new clean energy technology and, if necessary, using trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions.
* Creating a New Energy Economy Fund by auctioning off $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits and repealing subsidies for big oil companies. The fund will support U.S. research and development in energy technology, help entrepreneurs start new businesses, invest in new carbon-capture and efficient automobile technology and help Americans conserve energy.
* Meeting the demand for more electricity through efficiency for the next decade, instead of producing more electricity.

details of his energy plan: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/energy/


Key Points

* First presidential candidate to call for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, in March 2007. Would launch a cap-and-trade program in 2010 to bring emissions down 15 percent by 2020, as an interim step to the 2050 goal.

* First major presidential candidate to make his campaign carbon-neutral, in March 2007. He's buying carbon offsets to neutralize the effects of his campaign travel and office energy use, while also cutting energy consumption at campaign offices, buying recycled-paper office products, and encouraging staff to walk to work and take other energy-saving measures. (Tom Vilsack was actually the first candidate to go carbon neutral, but he dropped out of the race in February.)

* Introduced a detailed energy plan before any of the other candidates.

* Proposes a $13-billion-a-year New Energy Economy Fund that would invest in renewable energy, efficiency, carbon-capture technology, and cleaner cars; help entrepreneurs start new clean businesses; encourage Americans to buy more-efficient appliances and save energy; and help workers in carbon-intensive industries transition to new job fields. The fund would be financed by the auctioning of permits to emit greenhouse gases and the repeal of some oil-industry tax breaks.

* Calls for a ban on new coal power plants unless they're compatible with carbon-capture and -storage technology.

* Opposes nuclear power.

* Opposes government investment in coal-to-liquid technologies.

* Has been endorsed by Friends of the Earth for his position on nuclear power and early support of strict climate legislation.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/31/edwards_factsheet/

[spinbaby]

6. Thanks:-)

Edwards is my favorite candidate at the moment, but I can't say I'm thrilled with his energy plan. I'm of the opinion that it's not enough to say we'll all just buy more energy-efficient cars and appliances to solve the problem. We need aggressive investment in alternative energy.

[bigtree]

9. He's long been a supporter of alternative energy, such as wind energy and other clean resources.

he's calling for such investments as part of his latest economic stimulus plan: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/14/12146/7322/711/436601

more:

"As president, I will invest one billion dollars into making sure that we make the most fuel efficient cars on the planet here in the United States, with union workers. We can do it by investing in new technologies like hybrid and plug-in hybrid cars, ultra-light materials, and hydrogen fuel cells.

I also support a national ban on the construction of all new coal-fired power plants that cannot capture their emissions. America will rely on its coal resources for decades or longer, and we need to find a way to use them without heating the planet. I am committed to investing $1 billion a year in research and testing to jumpstart the means to store large amounts of carbon dioxide safely underground. New coal-fired plants should be built with the required technology so that plants built today will be able to permanently and safely store their carbon emissions tomorrow."
http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/interview-with-.html


YouTube - John Edwards on Alternative Energy sources
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir_-kE-4HfI&feature=related

[fenriswolf]

24. he has an econimic stimulas package

which includes creating jobs in the new clean energy industry, comparable I think to FDR's new deal. He will use the 130 billion that obama would just "give" to us and use it to create jobs, create infrastructure all based around increasing the new, clean, renewable energy industry that will help take us off fossil fuel and dirty energy. Actually its very exciting and I became totally on board with edwards after reading it. (of course in my heart still a kucinich fan.)

[MyNameGoesHere]

7. That's great and he does not need these states to win

I am sure those Union coal workers are lining up to cast their vote for him.


State 2006 Total % of Total U.S. Historical High Year
1 Wyoming 446,742 38.4% 446,742 2006
2 West Virginia 152,374 13.1% 176,157 1947
3 Kentucky 120,848 10.4% 173,322 1990
4 Pennsylvania 66,029 5.7% 277,377 1918
5 Texas 45,548 3.9% 55,755 1990
6 Montana 41,823 3.6% 42,840 1998
7 Colorado 36,322 3.1% 39,870 2004
8 Indiana 35,119 3.0% 37,555 1984
9 Illinois 32,729 2.8% 89,281 1918
10 North Dakota 30,411 2.6% 30,775 2003
11 Virginia 29,740 2.6% 46,917 1990
12 Utah 26,018 2.2% 27,507 1996
13 New Mexico 25,913 2.2% 29,618 2001
14 Ohio 22,722 2.0% 55,351 1970
15 Alabama 18,830 1.6% 29,030 1990
16 Arizona 8,216 0.7% 13,203 1991
17 Maryland 5,054 0.4% 5,533 1907
18 Louisiana 4,114 0.4% 4,161 2005
19 Mississippi 3,797 0.3% 3,797 2006
20 Tennessee 2,804 0.2% 11,260 1972
21 Washington 2,580 0.2% 6,232 2003
22 Oklahoma 1,998 0.2% 6,070 1978
23 Alaska 1,425 0.1% 1,745 1988
24 Kansas 426 * 7,562 1918
25 Missouri 394 * 6,733 1984
26 Arkansas 2 * 2,670 1907
Total U.S. 1,162,750 100.00% 1,131,498 2005

[bigtree]

10. a measure of his integrity

I'm certain he can measure where the support for coal is in the U.S. and how important those votes are. I think the coal plant conversions and the waste disposal proposals he's outlined could actually generate as many jobs or more for these workers.

[MyNameGoesHere]

16. It sure can and i want that too

but saying things like this killed Kerry in some of those states. Totally bonehead way to campaign.

[bigtree]

19. I think there's a move in these states to consider these proposals from Edwards and others

in order to generate more support for their coal production in the face of the growing concern about global warming and the growing move to limit carbon emissions. The industry is certainly interested, IF they can get a regulatory scheme in place which doesn't put their new plant at a disadvantage. Edwards isn't just proposing a moratorium on new plants without the 'clean coal' technology, he's proposing putting the money up to facilitate it. That means jobs, growth, and an environmental improvement. I think the notion that this can't be sold to folks in these regions ignores the pressure their industry is already under as a scapegoat for environmental concerns. That means problems with siting, and operations IF they manage to get permits for new plants. Proposals like Edwards are a means to preserve the industry in the face of those pressures. That should be welcomed by coal states, not panned. I don't see the same black/white opposition or debate you seem to be focused on. I see these states looking for ways to manage their industries in ways which have sustaining impacts on their environment. That's an approach which is both cost-minded and job-minded.

Now, go make the case to clean up this environmentally destructive industry which your neighbors can support.

[MyNameGoesHere]

20. sure agree

but he did not say how he was going to do it without costing those miners jobs. How is he going to get the industry to follow his idea? Money is the only thing they know. I stand by my first thought, good idea, boneheaded way to present it.

[DLnyc]

33. "and help workers in carbon-intensive industries transition to new job fields. "

from post #5

You make a very good point: 'change' candidates need to specify how ordinary workers are going to be affected by the changes envisioned. However, transition to alternative energy doesn't need to cost jobs and can reasonably be expected to provide jobs, IMHO.

As a naive but well-meaning idea, perhaps, could coal-mining skills be reasonably transferred to railroad-building skills? The construction of light rail transportation, especially in relatively dense (for rural) areas like WV, Penn., Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Ill., would do a lot toward changing the energy profile of the US, I think.

[AP]

12. I think lots of coalminers wouldn't mind if they left the mines for jobs in clean energy industries

[MyNameGoesHere]

17. Uhhh Yeah sure

You don't live in coal country do you?

[nonconformist]

35. I'm for Edwards, and my husband works in the mines

He's for Edwards too, btw.

But, I have to ask, what kind of jobs would those be?

[wuushew]

21. Don't you suspect that environmentalists outnumber coal miners nationally?

Hell even in Illinois the number of people directly involved in coal extraction is only a few thousand.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

41. I would think they would be all for it...

figuring out a way to capture the emissions would ensure that we can continue to use coal for several decades. If we don't figure something out we'll still use it, but those coal workers are the ones breathing in the most pollutants. Them and their families.

[cascadiance]

8. I wonder if he's trying to get RFK Jr, to switch to endorsing him instead...

RFK, Jr. has been a very long time critic of the coal industry, and the resulting pollution it wreaks on the environment in many places with mercury poisoning especially.

RFK, Jr. recently endorsed Hillary surprisingly to many of us. Many were wondering if this was more of a strategic move that might help him get in the Senate representing New York should Clinton become president, as opposed to a true endorsement of her platform/agenda. Perhaps if Edwards raise the ante enough and points out that Clinton is as much a part of the problem with the energy lobbyists, he might change his mind and be more interested in an Edwards administration, especially if promised a decent cabinet position to work on one of his issues like election integrity or the environment.

This is an issue that Obama is also weak on too, given his support of the coal lobby and liquified coal technology.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. There goes West Virginia's five electoral votes

[KharmaTrain]

13. And Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana and the Mountain West

I agree with Senator Edwards that in the long-term coal power...especially the "dirty coal"...is not an answer to this country's long-term energy needs, but we're not even close to getting that way. Thanks to over 30 years of sitting on our asses on energy in general, not only have alternative fuels been hampered from coming online, many existing power plants...nuclear and otherwise, are aging and will need to be replaced or we'll start seeing major disruptions on the national grid. Coal is far preferable to oil, gas and nuclear as far as temporary energy needs and then other forms of energy can develop.

[bigtree]

14. he's pushing emission-capture for new plants

but, his position is that no new plants should come on-line without these improvements. That's not unreasonable or difficult *to understand. I think to suggest that folks in these coal towns are disinterested in the effects of the industry on their environment to the extent that there is some wall of resistance to his proposals is just not accurate. He's not anti-coal, he's pro-clean coal.


"I support a national ban on the construction of all new coal-fired power plants that cannot capture their emissions. America will rely on its coal resources for decades or longer, and we need to find a way to use them without heating the planet. I am committed to investing $1 billion a year in research and testing to jumpstart the means to store large amounts of carbon dioxide safely underground. New coal-fired plants should be built with the required technology so that plants built today will be able to permanently and safely store their carbon emissions tomorrow."

http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/interview-with-.html


Global Warming and the Future of Coal

Carbon Capture and Storage

By Ken Berlin, Robert M. Sussman

May 31, 2007

Read the full report (PDF)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/05/pdf/coal_report.pdf

Watch Bob Sussman discuss the report (YouTube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gPPUeKNUMo

Watch Ken Berlin discuss the report (YouTube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oa9Ib4gxs4

{snip}

Barriers to the Adoption of Carbon Capture and Storage Systems

Industry experts today are projecting that only a small percentage of new coal-fired plants built during the next 25 years will use IGCC technology. IGCC plants currently cost about 20 percent to 25 percent more to build than conventional state-of- the-art coal plants using supercritical pulverized coal, or SCPC, technology. What’s more, because experience with IGCC technology is limited, IGCC plants are still perceived to have reliability and efficiency drawbacks.

More importantly, IGCC plants are not likely to capture and sequester their CO2 emissions in the current regulatory environment since add-on capture technology will reduce efficiency and lower electricity output. This will increase the cost of producing electricity by 25 percent to 40 percent over plants without CCS capability.

These barriers can be partially overcome by tax credits and other financial incentives and by performance guarantees from IGCC technology vendors. Even with these measures, however, it is unlikely that IGCC plants will replace conventional coal plants in large numbers or that those plants which are built will capture and store CO2. There are two reasons for this.

First, even cost-competitive new technologies are usually not adopted rapidly, particularly in a conservative industry such as the utility sector, where the new technology is different from the conventional technology. This is the case with IGCC plants, which are indeed more like chemical plants than traditional coal-fired plants.

Second, there is now no business motivation to bear the cost of CCS systems when selecting new generation technologies even though the cost of electricity from IGCC plants is in fact lower than from SCPC plants once CCS costs are taken into account. This is because plant owners are not required to control greenhouse gas emissions and CCS systems are unnecessary for the production of power. The upshot: IGCC units (with and even without CCS capability) will lack a competitive edge over SCPC units unless all plant developers are responsible for costeffectively abating their CO2 emissions. No such requirement exists today.

A New Policy Framework to Stimulate the Adoption of CCS Systems

This paper considers how best to change the economic calculus of power plant developers so they internalize CCS costs when selecting new generation technologies. Five policy tools are analyzed:

* Establishing a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program
* Imposing carbon taxes
* Defining CCS systems as a so-called Best Available Control Technology for new power plants under the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program
* Developing a “low carbon portfolio” standard that requires utilities to provide an increasing proportion of power from low-carbon generation sources over time
* Requiring all new coal power plants to meet an “emission performance” standard that limits CO2 emissions to levels achievable with CCS systems.

Each of these tools has advantages and drawbacks but an emission performance standard for new power plants is likely to be most effective in spurring broad-scale adoption of CCS systems.

more: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/05/coal_report.html

[wtmusic]

26. Right now CCS is a pie in the sky

and will be for the near future. To base policy on that is wishful thinking.

[bigtree]

29. the policy is based on what's responsible for the environment and for the health of the industry

It's ALREADY being done in Britain and China . . .


Europe Tests Carbon Capture at Coal-Fired Power Plant

ESBJERG, Denmark, March 15, 2006 (ENS) - The world’s largest pilot plant for the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) from a conventional power station was opened in Denmark today. It is the first installation in the world to capture the CO2 in the flue gases of a coal-fired power station.

The pilot project at the Elsam power station near Esbjerg, will demonstrate new technology for capturing carbon dioxide emissions as they are produced by power stations and then storing the CO2 emissions underground, so they cannot enter the atmosphere and produce the greenhouse effect responsible for global warming.

“The European Commission is committed to a low-carbon future, said European Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik, commenting on the inauguration of the new pilot plant at the 420 megawatt Elsam power station.

"By signing the Kyoto Protocol, the EU has committed itself to reducing CO2 emissions," the commissioner said. "However, with projections showing that fossil fuels will continue to provide about 85 percent of our energy for the foreseeable future, it will be difficult to achieve these reductions through switching to other forms of energy, such as renewable solar, wind, wave, biomass or nuclear."

While the plant at Elsam will be the first such pilot, the field of carbon capture and storage is a long-term priority for the European Commission and the sector as a whole.

This pilot plant is an important part of research that will help develop better processes for carbon capture, increase public acceptance of the technology and achieve a major reduction in its costs.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-15-06.asp


The United Kingdom to Help China Bury It's Carbon Emissions

11.20.07

The first phase of a European-Chinese partnership to nearly eliminate carbon-dioxide emissions from coal plants in China launched today in Beijing.

Representatives from the British Geological Survey and their Chinese counterparts at the Ministry of Science and technology are meeting this week to discuss ways to capture carbon dioxide from coal exhaust and inject it underground in China. The first order of business is to search China for geological formations where CO2 can be stored. Experts say carbon capture and storage is crucial in China where coal power is booming

"Partnerships of this sort are absolutely critical," said Elliot Diringer, director of international strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "In the developing world, it's imperative that soaring energy demand be met with low-carbon technologies. These countries won't be able to do that on their own and it's very much in our interest to help them do it."

The first phase of the Near Zero Emissions Coal initiative is funded by the British government and hopes to demonstrate that carbon capture and storage can help mitigate global warming.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/china_coal

[AntiFascist]

54. To 'base policy on this' is the NECESSARY thing to do...

the coal industry itself is promoting carbon capture in their commercials, it is time for them to live up to their hype and Edwards is the candidate who will make them do this. Change certainly won't happen overnight, but as we've seen under the Bush Administration, it can certainly be delayed while the problem grows worse and our dependency on undesirable sources of energy grows worse.

Coal plants are the WORSE polluters when it comes to carbon emissions.

[Lasher]

40. Al Gore would be our president today if he had gotten those 5 votes in 2000

Writing off the small states is no way to win.

[Yukari Yakumo]

56. Hell...

We could have had Al as Pres if WV or any Rocky Mountain state went the other way.

We can't take any vote for granted.

[DemGa]

15. With every new statement I read from John Edwards

I respect his views more. I want a fighter to represent me. But the effing media has called it between Clinton and Obama, Sheez.

[Bonobo]

18. Do some people still think he is a "con-man"? Really? Do you?

Calling for a ban on coal plants is political suicide.

Is this what a snake oil salesman would say?

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. Exactly!

:thumbsup:

[Romulox]

22. Don't worry; China can pick up any order we aren't able to fill. John Edwards MADE SURE of that!

Stringent new environmental standards at home; expansive new trade deals with countries that respect no environmental standards abroad!

[wuushew]

23. How is Edwards responsible for the industrialization of China?

If you want to blame somebody blame Bill Clinton.

[fenriswolf]

25. in all fairness even if you support a candidate you

need to look at their records. John hasn't really been strong on free trade and I havnt heard anything from him about reppealing nafta. It is americas trade policy that is directly responsable for chinas new coal plants. Its the cheapest way to mass produce crap for us to buy. If we get out of nafta and WTO then maybe we would stop having such a horrible impact on chinas environment and thus the world.

[bigtree]

30. John Edwards is the only 2008 Democratic candidate . . .

. . . with a separate webpage devoted to outlining his trade policy proposals.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/trade/

Former Sen Edwards supports "'smart trade' policies: insisting on pro-worker provisions in new deals, holding trade partners to their commitments, investing more in dislocated workers and communities, and ensuring that imports are safe. He believes that the U.S. should not enter any new trade deals that do not meet these tests. His agenda is based upon three principles:

* Help Workers as Well as Corporations
* Lift Up Families Around the World
* Build on Other Efforts to Share Prosperity"

In early 2004, former Sen. Edwards stated in a campaign forum event:

"I believe we need trade that works for America and the world, and have outlined a new approach to trade agreements that will protect American jobs and require labor and environmental standards in trade agreements."

And at a January 2004 primary debate, Edwards commented:

"I didn't vote for NAFTA. I campaigned against NAFTA. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president."

As a senator, John Edwards voted NO on every U.S. free trade bill, except for the Andean countries free trade agreement.

Summary for John Edwards on Free Trade

* Is he generally a supporter of U.S. free trade: NO
* Does he actively push for major modifications to U.S. free trade arrangements? YES

http://usliberals.about.com/od/2008candidatesonissues/a/DemFreeTrade.htm

[Romulox]

32. Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

42. and this is why...

"Edwards also voted in favor of granting China permanent normal trade relations in 2000. That vote ensured that China could enter the WTO and enjoy the benefits the U.S. granted to other WTO members. In an August interview with The Des Moines Register, Edwards said he voted aye in the China vote because it brought China into the community of nations whose trade behavior is governed by international rules."
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/as-senates-08-presidential-hopefuls-absent-peru-free-trade-deal-approved-2007-12-05.html

[Romulox]

44. Nonsense. MFN status with the US is NOT a prerequisite to joining the WTO. nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

46. Incorrect.

The WTO membership rules...

A country wishing to accede to the WTO submits an application to the General Council, and has to describe all aspects of its trade and economic policies that have a bearing on WTO agreements.<66> The application is submitted to the WTO in a memorandum which is examined by a working party open to all interested WTO Members.<67> After all necessary background information has been acquired, the working party focuses on issues of discrepancy between the WTO rules and the applicant's international and domestic trade policies and laws. The working party determines the terms and conditions of entry into the WTO for the applicant nation, and may consider transitional periods to allow countries some leeway in complying with the WTO rules.<63> The final phase of accession involves bilateral negotiations between the applicant nation and other working party members regarding the concessions and commitments on tariff levels and market access for goods and services. The new member's commitments are to apply equally to all WTO members under normal non-discrimination rules, even though they are negotiated bilaterally.<66>

When the bilateral talks conclude, the working party sends to the General Council or Ministerial Conference an accession package, which includes a summary of all the working party meetings, the Protocol of Accession (a draft membership treaty), and lists ("schedules") of the member-to-be's commitments. Once the General Council or Ministerial Conference approves of the terms of accession, the applicant's parliament must ratify the Protocol of Accession before it can become a member.<68>

snip>

WTO members do not have to be full sovereign nation-members. Instead, they must be a customs territory with full autonomy in the conduct of their external commercial relations. Thus Hong Kong became a GATT contracting party, and Chinese Taipei (Republic of China) acceded to the WTO in 2002.<[br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#Accession_and_membership


For many years, People's Republic of China was the most important country in this group which required an annual waiver to maintain free trade status. The waiver for the PRC had been in effect since 1980. Every year between 1989 and 1999, legislation was introduced in Congress to disapprove the President's waiver. The legislation had sought to tie free trade with China to meeting certain human rights conditions that go beyond freedom of emigration. All such attempted legislation failed to pass. The requirement of an annual waiver was inconsistent with the rules of the World Trade Organization, and for the PRC to join the WTO, Congressional action was needed to grant PNTR to the PRC. This was accomplished in late-1999, allowing the PRC to join WTO in the following year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Trade_Relations

[Romulox]

49. You've misread. The US would be in violation of the WTO treaty if China joined

and the US withheld MFN status.

As a matter of basic logic, the US' decision to grant or withhold MFN status could not bar China's membership in the WTO, for the same reason that *your* GPA wouldn't help me in *my* college application.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

52. "for the PRC to join the WTO, Congressional action was needed to grant PNTR to the PRC."

from the last paragraph. I did not mis-read.

[Romulox]

31. He voted for "free trade" with China while in the Senate, that's how. nt

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

48. Oh, please STOP mischaracterizing reality. He NEVER voted for slave trade!!!

Trade around the world has existed for quite some time.

The "free trade" you push is a Bush/neocon/corporacrat abuse Edwards NEVER SUPPORTED,...and I suspect you know that but seek to hide the truth and destroy a man for altruistic purposes.

[Romulox]

50. "Everything looks bad when you remember it!" -Homer Simpson. He ABSOLUTELY voted for it.

As he explained his vote on Sept. 19, 2000, Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina, told the Senate, “Trade between U.S. companies and the Chinese will likely explode in the coming years, generating jobs and revenues in this country. It could easily be the keystone in the continuing prosperity of this nation.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21536832/

[AntiFascist]

55. Bill Clinton made sure of that and Hillary is following in his footsteps...

look at the shady Chinese campaign donors she has. This is the tip of the iceberg.

[donsu]

27. thank you John, the earth thanks you John

nt

[wuushew]

28. kick

:kick:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. I Thought His Comments Of The Same In The Debate Tonight Were Some Of His Strongest.

Not sure I agree with his rigidity on Nuclear energy, but I totally respected his conviction as it related to new coal fired plants.

[deacon]

36. k + r n/t

[Sanctified]

37. That sounds great but how does he plan to replace 51% of the electicity in the United States?

I will be the first to admit that coal energy sucks but until we have an alternative that can make up the 51% of electricity that it produces I don't think a ban on coal is the solution.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

43. He's not banning coal, just new 'dirty' coal plants.

Most of the ones we have running now will last for years. We just need to generate enough new energy to meet rising demand. We can temper that rise with conservation and efficiency. Then ideally, phase out the old plants as new sources come online.

[NickB79]

53. Except that we don't have time to phase out the older ones

And we don't have time to build ANY new plants, even if they are more efficient, cleaner-burning ones.

We are at the tipping point with regard to global warming. The time to slow our CO2 emissions has passed. The time to stabilize our CO2 emissions has also passed. If we want to avoid catastrophic climate change and the deaths of billions over the next several decades, we must find ways to be carbon-NEGATIVE, removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

We can't afford to a) build even one new coal-fired plant, and b) to allow the existing ones to continue to operate.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

58. I don't believe we can convince Amerikans to go cold turkey.

they're too soft. This seems to be the most rational plan out there. :shrug:

[NickB79]

59. I don't think we can either

But Mother Nature probably will, unfortunately.

[amandabeech]

57. I like where he's going.

I'm all for conservation and renewables, but I sure would like to see a detailed plan on how we're going to do without any more conventional best-available coal plants or nukes given:

1) our growing population; and

2) our love of gadgets; and

3) making enough extra electricity for industries that want to build more plants here.

My guess is that as President, he'll have to give some on that.

However, on his website, he has an excellent discussion of how agriculture can decrease emissions and store carbon. Perhaps he'll get something up shortly on coal and nukes.

Who are his environmental advisors? Anyone know?

[and-justice-for-all]

38. I heart John...

:loveya:

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. As do I!

:loveya:

[Kurovski]

39. K&R. (nt)

[Romulox]

51. [China] could easily be the keystone in the continuing prosperity of this nation.” - John Edwards

As he explained his vote on Sept. 19, 2000, Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina, told the Senate, “Trade between U.S. companies and the Chinese will likely explode in the coming years, generating jobs and revenues in this country. It could easily be the keystone in the continuing prosperity of this nation.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21536832/