Barack Obama thinks COAL is the green fuel of the future.

[Atman]

Seriously, people. In the Newsweek edition with Ahnold on the cover, they run down each of the candidate's positions on the environment. Obama's, imho, is second only to Romney's in lameness (Romney's idea of being "green" is using real ceramic coffee cups instead of styrofoam). Obama, if elected president, will push the Orwellian concept of "clean coal" to dig America -- quite literally, apparently -- out of it's environmental problems.

So let's do a quick Obama check: He's pro-war. He thinks coal is the solution to global warming. M'kay. What exactly about this guy makes him a democrat? Someone clue me in.

.

[Colobo]

1. LOL!

So Obama is a Republican now (second to Romney in lameness). You even say he's pro war, which shows you don't know jack about the guy...

What a lame post.

[Atman]

5. I didn't say he was a Republican, did I?

Do you know what his position is on Iraq? Apparently not.

.

[William769]

2. I would love for him to visit my birthplace.

Or better yet all of my relatives that have died from black lung. Sheesh. :eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

3. aye aye aye

:banghead:

[wtmusic]

4. Pro-war?

Howzat? :shrug:

[Atman]

7. What is his stance on withdrawal of the troops?

You can call it what YOU want. I'll call it what I want. Any so-called democrat who isn't calling for an immediate end to this illegal war ain't exactly a peacenik in my book.

.

[wtmusic]

19. An immediate phased withdrawal is not "pro-war"

any way you slice it.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/30/obama_calls_for_withdrawal_of_all_troops_from_iraq_by_march_2008

[mamab]

6. Liquefied coal.

That's what they use in Europe.

Liquid coal's environmental credentials stand up to questioning, too. Although old CTL plants (like existing ones in South Africa) are chronic polluters, nearly all the newest ones are models of eco-correctness. Underground carbon capture and sequestration (separation) technology can trap and bury the CO2 waste emissions, protecting the atmosphere from harm. With sequestration, powering a car with liquid coal is approximately 30 percent cleaner than using gasoline.

[Colobo]

8. Maybe he was referring to that

[Art_from_Ark]

32. He was probably pandering to his constituents in S. Illinois

where there are some coal mines that could probably benefit from an infusion of Federal cash.

http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/lmr/article8.htm

[Atman]

12. Do they get it from the ground through osmosis or magic or what?

Just curious. I've haven't heard his stance on reversing Bush's horrible mountain-top removal policies or strip mining. How does he get this black gold out of the ground and refine it into liquid coal?

.

[wtmusic]

20. Seems there are coal mining constituents in S. Illinois

and some sugar growing ones as well, which is his incentive to keep sugar prices so high that sugar-ethanol isn't practical.

That's a sellout.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. Mining coal is just as destructive as burning it

have they solved that problem yet?

[lakeguy]

62. a 30% reduction until...

a crack in the ground forms and poof...there go your savings.

[Strelnikov_]

73. Um, no. A) SUV burning CTL diesel emits just as much carbon as petro diesel

B) Since CTL requires much more process energy vs. conventional petroleum based liquid fuels (CTL EPR~5 vs. 20 conventional), the net is that it emits more carbon than conventional petroleum based liquid fuel sources.

The only way coal is viable is through carbon sequestration, which is still unproven. Kinda hard to sequester carbon from auto emissions.

The future is electric.

[mamab]

79. Sequestration is being done in Norway.

In the CTL process at least they are capturing CO2.

Yes, hard to sequester carbon from auto emissions but that is not the primary source of CO2--manufacturing/building is--and the power plants must be built regardless of type of fuel.

By "electric" I presume you meant hydro- or nuclear electricity? Or were you referring to electric cars?

[Strelnikov_]

96. Electric cars. Electric trains. Electric everything.

The electron economy, with its inherent efficiencies, and when combined with the conservation economy, can be powered by carbon neutral energy sources ready for deployment TODAY.

The only thing stopping us is the oligarchy of the GOP Reich mobilizing their Reichbots into a continued bleating of the wonders of the fossil fuel powered consumoeconomy.

And, no, the manufacturing and building is not the primary source of CO2. Most of this manufacturing and building is accomplished using electricity as an energy carrier which will allow a relatively easy transition to a carbon neutral energy source.

[amandabeech]

137. Link?

The Norwegians have tried sequestering carbon dioxide, but not from making oil from coal.

[karynnj]

124. self delete - found the answer in later post

[Strelnikov_]

128. ..

The Wind/CAES/Pumpback-hydro plant.

The distributed solar plants on the factory roofs.

The 4th generation nuclear power plant.

The hydroelectric plant.

The IGES coal plant w/ carbon sequestration.

The concentrated solar plant.

The tidal power plant.

[karynnj]

130. Thanks

[havocmom]

104. And it can go a long way to help the oil addiction that makes us slaves to Oil Diplomacy

And if you think coal mines are ugly, permanent scars on the land (like I once believed) take a trip to Thunder Basin area of WY or Coalstrip, MT. The coal seams are close to the surface, easy to restore to beauty & function and they go on for a really long way.

It isn't the best solution, but it is a damned good solution to the immediate problem and buys the time we need to keep pressure on for the long term solution to be set into motion.

If the word COAL conjures up images of horrible mine accidents deep underground and old power plants back east, belching out tons of particle matter each second, ya need to come out west and take a look at some new mines and some new power.

Coal has seen some changes.

[demobabe]

142. Take a trip to the mountains in West Virginia

...where they are literally removing mountains from the top, altering weather patterns and destroying towns. Really bad scene. Coal is horrificly polluting and the manner in which they're mining manages to pollute the aquifers from the blasting with deadly chemicals. Even if they stopped, the pollution will be there for hundreds of years to come.

[havocmom]

144. New coal mining in the west where coal is just about on the surface

just doesn't make the mess, isn't as dangerous as those underground death traps and there is plenty of it around here. I can't toss a rock without hitting a coal seam within a couple feet of the surface.

[amandabeech]

136. Link please to current European coal to oil plants.

The Germans did it in WWII, but did not sequester.

Why would oil from coal with sequestration pump less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Same chemicals, same combustion.

Again, please provide links.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. "clean coal" is just a PR name, there's no such thing as "clean coal"

Clark/Obama '08!

[mamab]

18. It needs to be sequestered.

They do it in Norway and elsewhere. Gore talked about it before Congress.

http://www.sesec.fsu.edu/documents/biomassarticles/444677a.pdf

Also read:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7874053

[xxqqqzme]

75. Thank you.

I go up a wall every time I hear 'clean coal'. Tp clean coal, it has to be washed and THAT polluted water has to go someplace. I know I tested the water in coal company holding ponds once upon a time. I also had to test run off streams; record rainfall & temperature. Nothing associated w/ coal is clean!

[havocmom]

105. Come visit my area sometime

We'll take a drive. Have a picnic... on some old coal diggins.

[jsamuel]

10. he isn't "pro-war" but he is against Reid-Feingold because he thinks we should compromise with Bush

I don't agree and agree with Edwards on that, but I wouldn't distort what your saying with that.

If coal is his idea of environmentalism, we are in trouble. Again, I agree with what Edwards proposes on the environment.

However, we should verify Newsweeks article. The media tends to distort things from Democrats.

[Colobo]

14. Here is what Obama is proposing

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

[jsamuel]

22. eeeeee.... This is not good to me. I don't agree with this policy.

Look at who he is working with on alternative fuels. Don't get me wrong, working with the other side can be good. But he apparently is ONLY working with the other side and this is one issue where the other side is dead wrong. The only reason why these Republicans are even willing to do this is because it would benefit their particular states, but damage the rest of us and the environment compared to other alternatives.

Senator Jim Talent (R-MO)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)

[Atman]

23. His position only addresses "energy needs," not cleanliness.

And he's big into ethanol, too, another bit of eco-nonsense that does nothing to clear the air or reduce global warming, but does make sure only giant industry can play in the market. Let's not talk about what happens if we have another dust bowl. Where is that corn going to come from then? Not to mention that farmers are already experiencing hardships because ethanol speculators have caused corn prices to rise so fast that they're having trouble paying for feed corn for their cattle.

And the two big energy initiative he touts on his web page are co-sponsored with some of the most notorious republicans in Washington.

:shrug:

.

[jsamuel]

29. lol, your right, they only have an "Energy Needs" section and no "Environment Section"

Well, there you go.

[Colobo]

36. Maybe you'll like this

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-ener... /

"Maximize the Potential of Cleaner, Safer Coal: Coal will be an important source of U.S. and global electricity for decades, but it is responsible for more than 30 percent of America's carbon dioxide emissions. Edwards will invest $1 billion a year to research ways to burn coal cleanly and recycle its carbon underground permanently. He will also strengthen mine safety laws to ensure it is mined safely. Two large power companies, TXU and American Electric Power, recently announced plans to build experimental plants to capture carbon. "

So... let's see you jumping on him too.

[Atman]

Okay, I'll jump on Edwards for it, too.

Thanks for pointing that out.

.

[Colobo]

40. No problem.

[jsamuel]

59. The difference being here (and I am not the op) that John Edwards site mentions Global Warming

And lists many ways to help the environment, not just biofuels and coal (Obama's says "Global Climate Change" - a Republican modification frame - and only spends 2 short paragraphs on it).

Achieving Energy Independence & Stopping Global Warming Through A New Energy Economy
http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/



Halting Global Warming by Capping Carbon Emissions

- Cap and Reduce Global Warming Pollution
*** Use Science to Set the Caps
*** Make Polluters Pay

- Lead the World toward a New Global Climate Change Treaty
*** Make Our Own Commitments to Restore Our Moral Leadership: The U.S. has 4 percent of the world's population but produces a quarter of its carbon dioxide emissions.
*** Involve Developing Economies


Creating the New Energy Economy and 1 Million Jobs

- Create the New Energy Economy Fund

- Invest in Renewable Sources of Electricity
*** Make 25 Percent of Our Energy Renewable
*** Dedicate Resources to Renewable Energy
*** Maximize the Potential of Cleaner, Safer Coal

- Transform the Auto Industry to Lead the World in Cars of the Future
*** Reduce Oil Imports by 7.5 Million Barrels a Day by 2025
*** Help U.S. Automakers Modernize
*** Produce 65 Billion Gallons of Ethanol a Year by 2025
*** Raise Fuel Economy Standards


- Open the Electricity Grids to Distributed and Renewable Generation
*** Create Millions of Local Sources of Renewable Energy
*** Encourage Distributed Generation
*** Research the Next Generation of Small Scale Renewable Energy

Meet the Demand for More Electricity through Efficiency

- Meet New Demand for Electricity through Efficiency for the Next Decade

- Make Efficiency Profitable for Utilities

- Expand Smart Meters and Smart Grids to Use Energy More Wisely

- Invest in Weatherized Homes and More Efficient Buildings and Appliances

- Reduce the U.S. Government's Energy Use by 20 Percent and Make the White House Carbon Neutral.

- Create GreenCorps

[NastyDiaper]

151. Ethanol not reduce global warming?

Pointing out that solution is not perfect makes an easy, and false argument.

Of course the price of corn is going to rise, unless you raze the entire midwest, which would turn it to a dustbowl.

Cows should be eating grass anyway.

[mamab]

30. Yes, he is for "clean coal",

which is the liquefaction process using sequestration.

Liquefied coal is converted to biofuel and the CO2 is sequestered--even stored elsewhere and turned to other uses.

South Africa leads the world in production of biofuel from liquefied coal (see Sasol).

[Atman]

33. Welcome to DU...now please explain how this is done "cleanly"

Obama never addresses the environmental aspect of it, only the "energy needs" aspect of it.

Just sayin.

.

[mamab]

44. Article posted above.

Please read at #18...and thank you for the welcome!

[Atman]

16. Anyone who want to compromise with Bush is...is...

Uh...okay, maybe not "pro-war," but it ain't pro-peace.

.

[Telly Savalas]

11. Obama may be pro-war

but at least he's against Edwards plan to kill the first-born child of every American.

[Matsubara]

15. LOL

NT

[BlooInBloo]

72. Perfect.

[Double T]

13. Obama does NOT have the necessary experience to be running for.........

President in the 2008 elections.

[jakem]

68. Well then I guess it is McCain and Kucinich

they are both experienced at running for the office.


Ill take someone intellegent and inspired for $1000 Alex.

[Double T]

87. Experience running for 'the office' has nothing to do with it..........

experience in national and world politics and the ways of Washington has everything to do with it.

[jeffrey_X]

139. Oh bull shit. This is his strength in my opinion. Give me someone who isn't tainted

by our fucked up political system.

[Pirate Smile]

17. Link?

I assume this has to do with carbon sequestration research.

edit to add - I suppose it actually has more to do with primary politics.

[XemaSab]

35. Um... says that on the dude's website

:hide:

[Pirate Smile]

21. "Obama's, imho, is second only to Romney's in lameness" - Sure, Tancredo is very green.

[Colobo]

24. Maybe he likes Tancredo

[Atman]

25. Tancredo isn't really a playa

His run for president will last about a week.

.

[Captain Hilts]

26. He wants to win Ohio and West Va. Lower income Dems favor Clinton. nt

[Paulie]

27. We have lots of coal in Illinois

except the sulfur content to too high to burn in Illinois, so it's shipped to Kenosha Wisconsin to burn there...

So yes, our Illinois Senators like Coal. :)

[Colobo]

34. Read Edwards's plan. It includes "clean coal" as well

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/

"Maximize the Potential of Cleaner, Safer Coal: Coal will be an important source of U.S. and global electricity for decades, but it is responsible for more than 30 percent of America's carbon dioxide emissions. Edwards will invest $1 billion a year to research ways to burn coal cleanly and recycle its carbon underground permanently. He will also strengthen mine safety laws to ensure it is mined safely. Two large power companies, TXU and American Electric Power, recently announced plans to build experimental plants to capture carbon. "

So... let's see you jumping on him too.

[Atman]

42. Okay, okay...we get you're point! Edwards backs "clean coal" too.

So I have a problem with Edwards, too. Don't you know any other tunes?

.

[Colobo]

45. I'm just making sure

that if my candidate gets smashed for something others do, then those others get the same treatment.

[Atman]

49. Fair enough.

I don't like Edwards' position on this, either.

It seems these guys all back the "alternatives" that are impossible for Joe American to install or use without having to stay attached to the mega-corporate teat.

I can order a solar plant online, big enough to run my house. Costco sells 'em. I can buy a windmill for less than $10,000. But I can't mine my own coal, create my own ethanol, or any of the other so-called "alternatives" the major candidates are pushing. Seems to me their positions are more about making sure the corporate supporters get to hold on to their shares, while doing nothing that will seriously, honestly address the REAL issue -- global warming.

.

[Colobo]

53. In fact, I agree with you.

It's just that this is not just Obama, is pretty much all of the leading candidates.

[Big Pappa]

31. Thats

because we have clean coal technology. Although nothing can beat wind or solar for safety.

[Atman]

37. There is no such thing as "clean coal" technology. It's a marketing campaign.

And it's a total crock. The government touts the dramatic improvement in coal burning "cleanliness," and the dramatic improvements made -- but that is AFTER rolling back the standards to 1970's levels. Look it up. It's all marketing.

.

[Big Pappa]

71. You

could be right. I do hear the pundits tout clean coal though all the time. Thanks Atman.

[XemaSab]

38. It's true and it's LAME

:o

[Colobo]

39. Is this lame too?

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-ener... /

"Maximize the Potential of Cleaner, Safer Coal: Coal will be an important source of U.S. and global electricity for decades, but it is responsible for more than 30 percent of America's carbon dioxide emissions. Edwards will invest $1 billion a year to research ways to burn coal cleanly and recycle its carbon underground permanently. He will also strengthen mine safety laws to ensure it is mined safely. Two large power companies, TXU and American Electric Power, recently announced plans to build experimental plants to capture carbon. "

So... let's see you jumping on him too.

[XemaSab]

50. I'm not one of his fangirls, so I'd rather not jump on him, thanks

:D

[Colobo]

55. But, is his position lame as well?

[XemaSab]

78. I think industry can figure out ways to make coal work

without obscene cash giveaways to some of the wealthiest polluters in the country. :shrug:

[hatrack]

66. Name one operational coal plant in the United States that sequesters carbon

One.

One plant, one facility (not experimental or in an engineering department in a land-grant college or corporate lab or in a shiny Powerpoint) that is now producing electricity in megawatt quantities or above while simultaneously pumping carbon underground.

Name, location, ownership, output.

I'm not harshing on Obama in particular on this issue. I think Edwards also displays a depressing lack of awareness of simple thermodynamics. I think the ethanol delusion is equally depressing and pandering no matter which politician slavers on its boots, and the same holds true for "clean coal".

[BeFree]

108. Polk City, Florida

Claims that it is in the forefront of clean coal. Run by a company called TECO - Tampa Electric CO - I am not, repeat, NOT saying that it is successful but they are making the claim that they are trying to get to *clean coal*.

Thing is this: America is addicted to foreign oil and the politicos are trying to place themselves in a position that uses home-based resources to break that addiction.

And all of them recall how Carter went down because he tried to wean us, so they are mighty leery of doing the same. Afterall, they are first and foremost politicians.

[snappyturtle]

41. Another man that thinks coal is the ticket is....

Montana Gov. Schweitzer. I saw a program about his coal "mining" efforts there......far different than anything I've seen, WVA. He's not destroying the land either. If I weren't so sleepy I'd Google a link for you. Aside: I think Schweitzer would make a wonderful President....Google him.

[Jcrowley]

43. How long into the future?

The short-sighted consider the future to be no further away than the end of their nose. And usually have troubles with color schemes.

Wake-up all you Obama supporters. This is bad news wrapped in a pretty package.

[Colobo]

46. Wake up all you Edwards supporters. This is bad news wrapped in a pretty package.

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-ener ... /

"Maximize the Potential of Cleaner, Safer Coal: Coal will be an important source of U.S. and global electricity for decades, but it is responsible for more than 30 percent of America's carbon dioxide emissions. Edwards will invest $1 billion a year to research ways to burn coal cleanly and recycle its carbon underground permanently. He will also strengthen mine safety laws to ensure it is mined safely. Two large power companies, TXU and American Electric Power, recently announced plans to build experimental plants to capture carbon. "

[Jcrowley]

48. I agree

Clean coal is a lie. Any candidate that espouses that is ill-informed or being dishonest about this. Unacceptable either way.

[Atman]

54. I wonder if he backs government subsidies for TXU and AEP for their...

...experiments? These are MASSIVE companies. If it's viable and there's money to be made, they'll put their own capital into it. If it's a likely boondoggle, they'll demand WE pay for its development, then charge us an arm and a leg for the resulting crap.

.

[BeyondGeography]

47. We get it, you hate Obama

:boring:

[Atman]

51. No, I don't at all.

In fact, I just read about his position yesterday. I can't possibly hate the man. I've never even met him.

.

[BeyondGeography]

56. "Pro-war," implying he's not a Democrat

get lost.

[Atman]

58. We get it, you love Obama

:boring:

.

[bling bling]

52. "What exactly about this guy makes him a democrat?" OH C'MON.

Spouting this ridiculous un-researched rubbish is the equivalent to breathing on everyone here with monstrously bad breath.

This lack of taking any effort to inform oneself of the facts is equivalent to lacking to take care of one's personal hygiene. It's bad grooming and icky to have to be around.

Responsible reporting of information should be a more of a goal around here.

[Atman]

57. So what are YOU contributing to the debate? Bad breath metaphors?

Got anything deeper? Where do you think I came up with this, just made it up? Read the man's own web site, for crissake. Or contribute something to the discussion. Maybe you could add smilies to your post or something.

.

[BeyondGeography]

60. Oh, it's a debate? Next time, try an OP that isn't flame-bait

You'll get much better results.

[Atman]

61. Says the man with the Obama avatar.

:eyes:

One poster's flame-bait is another's enlightenment.

.

[JNelson6563]

89. I have no horse in this race

and yes, your OP was inflammatory. If you were looking for rational dialogue and reasoned debate your choice of words was very poor.

Just sayin'.

Julie

[Atman]

90. Says the poster who had an Obama avatar last night until I pointed it out.

Just sayin.

I'm sorry if you feel my comments were inflammatory. That opinion is probably colored by your support for Obama, don't you think? I'll still vote for him when/if the media tells me I have no other choice. But I think EVERYONE needs to seriously evaluate his position on coal. He makes almost no mention of environmental stewardship in his position papers, merely about "energy independence." Coal might release us from the shackles of the Middle East, but it will wreak havoc on the environment. Coal is filthy, no matter how you mine it. It is the wrong answer at a time when America needs a new direction that doesn't just shift our environmental issues from one dirty, polluting fuel to another. Obama is backing the option that best serves INDUSTRY, not the planet, not the people of the United States.

BTW, I like your new avatar better. There's certainly no horse there now!

.

[JNelson6563]

92. Uh, sorry, never had an Obama avatar

You are mistaking me for another my friend, I've not sported any candidate's avatar this season. Last one I did that for was my man Dean.

:toast:

Julie

On edit, though now that I think of it I should put up a Stewart or Colbert avatar considering my sig-line. :-)

[Atman]

93. I'm sorry, Julie. My bad.

:blush:

It was/is the poster above you. So, I take back the snark about "your support for Obama." But I hope you'll consider the rest of my post! - Atman

.

[JNelson6563]

94. No worries Bunky!

It's all good! :hi:

[illinoisprogressive]

140. Well, edwards sounds like some lame 1970s democrat. Hey, it's 2007

[bling bling]

63. You questioned whether Obama is even a Democrat.

AND you asserted that he's pro-war. How is that deep?

Pretty serious remarks considering the guys a *Democrat* and especially considering that the remarks are not grounded in reality.

You can look up his voting record as a U.S. Senator and an Illinois State Senator to determine why Obama is considered a Democrat. You can look up Obama's explainations for his votes on funding the troops. I dare say once you read them you can't seriously accuse him of being "pro-war."

[NastyDiaper]

150. personal hygiene - lol

People do come here for a bit of groggy and emotive, morning-breath chatter.

Obama is Green. People also need to respect that Obama also has to vote in a single seat majority.

[JVS]

64. is anyone pro-nuke?

[ToeBot]

112. Sure, If anyone can figure out how to do it Off-Planet. n/t

[JVS]

113. I mean among the candidates

I support nuclear power.

[lakeguy]

65. there is no such thing as "clean coal"

unless you ignore the facts that it pollutes just like coal and you have to "hide" some of that pollution underground where it hopefully doesn't excape one day. nuclear is cleaner than "clean" coal.

[jakem]

69. Until it kills us all. nt

[Colobo]

70. This guy thinks otherwise

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-ener... /

"Maximize the Potential of Cleaner, Safer Coal: Coal will be an important source of U.S. and global electricity for decades, but it is responsible for more than 30 percent of America's carbon dioxide emissions. Edwards will invest $1 billion a year to research ways to burn coal cleanly and recycle its carbon underground permanently. He will also strengthen mine safety laws to ensure it is mined safely. Two large power companies, TXU and American Electric Power, recently announced plans to build experimental plants to capture carbon. "

[Duppers]

67. does anyone know what coal mining does to the environment?

Whether it's turned into 'liquid' coal or not, it has to be mined---a nice word for land-rape.


Also, remember this? Hatch (R-Utah) and Obama proposed legislation that would allow individuals in bankruptcy to continue giving to churches. Which logically makes the creditors of those in bankruptcy fillings donors to churches. Can we say unconstitutional?

[Solon]

74. Blowing off the top of mountains isn't unheard of...

or, at the very least, shearing off the tops. Open pit mining is the standard, generally.

[Duppers]

119. mountaintop mining has DESTROYED ONE MILLION ACRES of Appalachia's mountains

YouTube - Mountaintop Removal Movie from iLoveMountains.org More than 450 mountains have been destroyed by mountaintop removal coal mining. Watch this video of mountaintop removal featuring Woody Harrelson...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE


Across the Appalachian coalfields, more than 1,200 miles of streams are now buried and destroyed by mountaintop removal. In West Virginia, more than 400,000 acres have been leveled. And mountaintop removal mining has destroyed roughly one million acres of Appalachia's mountains!


FROM THE PETITION SITE:
Keep Millions of Tons of Mountaintop Mining Waste Out of Our ...Millions of tons of debris from mountaintop removal (a radical form of coal mining in which entire mountaintops are literally blown up) are being dumped ...

...Coal power is currently America's single biggest source of global warming pollution and brain-damaging mercury emissions. In addition, coal mining pollutes ...
www.thepetitionsite.com/


FROM THE WAPO:
Appalachia Is Paying Price for White House Rule Change ..."Mountaintop removal" mining has flattened many peaks, such as these near Kayford ... Government studies show that mountaintop mining inflicts a heavy toll. ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6462-2004Aug16.html



Independence Coal (a Massey Energy subsidiary) operates the Upper Big Branch surface mine (permit # S-3019-99), where this massive valley fill looms over the devastated landscape The valley fill is locally known as the Birchton Curve Valley Fill.


A massive dragline, dwarfed by the huge scale of the operation, at work
on a mountaintop removal operation near Kayford Mountain, W.Va
(THIS USED TO BE FOREST!)

for more pics: http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/index.html



Mountaintop removal mining -Mountaintop removal mining (MTR) is a relatively new form of coal mining which takes the mountain off the coal. Up to 1000 vertical feet of local relief are ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal

[Individualist]

110. ...or what it does to coal miners?

Black lung, cave-ins, etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. My most negative impressions of Obama so far have to do w/a lack of specifics

and, as you allude to, questionable positions on the Environment and Global Warming.

I don't think "pro war" is a fair characterization of his position, but the Global Warming thing alone is enough to make me want a different candidate, perhaps someone who has demonstrated a serious commitment to raising the public's awareness of the issue.

[earth mom]

77. Gotta say it: Told ya'll so.

The dude is a TOTAL DINO. Just like Hillary.

Can't be for solar power or wind power now can he? Why?! Because there's NO MONEY IN IT. :puke:

[GreenTea]

80. I like coal used in my haircuts...'bout 400 bucks worth.

[w4rma]

98. No way, coal in $1500 haircuts are much better. (nt)

[Atman]

100. I prefer Dapper Dan.

.

[Colobo]

109. Edwards and Obama are for clean coal

[Exiled in America]

81. Well let's see - I think lying makes you "biased."

Claiming he is "pro-war" only shows you are apparently a supporter of some other potential candidate and totally biased. That's the biggest load of spin dishonesty I've ever heard.

As someone else said above, being a supporter of an immediate phased withdraw of troops is not being "pro-war."

So basically, I don't care whatever other point you have to make. Either be honest or don't post.

I haven't made up my mind on a candidate this early, but I get so sick of the deception of people who already have.

[Atman]

86. Thanks for your pre-conception, but I've made no choice of candidate

Since I don't back your guy, though, apparently it gives you the right to call me a "liar" as you scramble to figure out a way to slap down Obama's detractors.

Like you, I haven't made up my mind on a candidate this early, and I get sick of people saying that pointing out anything negative about a candidate's position simply indicates support for another candidate. That's what you've done. You're 100% wrong about my position. Either be honest or don't post.

.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Sadly, he's probably right

Americans don't want to conserve and they don't want to pay more for green energy.

Oil is going to be $60 a barrel or more for the near future, especially with the instability by supporting the overthrow of Chavez and threatening war with Iran.

Until you can make green energy economical, Americans will keep burning coal no matter what any politician says.

[conscious evolution]

83. He must be talking about coal liquafaction

Coal liqufaction reduces greenhouse gas emmissions by a large factor.Unfortunately it must still be mined in the same way as coal has always been mined.
All in all a nasty trade off.

[Breeze54]

84. Yeah!! He hates people over 35; Just like DLC Chairman Ford!!

What's to like?? :shrug:

He's a SALESMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read Obabma's book! "Baby Boomers are useless, never did anything good!! EVER!!!!" (paraphrasing)

See Charlie Rose interview with DLC "Chairman" Ford! :eyes: All I can say is: :wtf:

Two peas in a pod!!! :puke:

[H2O Man]

85. If you are going

to make shit up out of thin air, you should add a few other fibs: Obama voted in favor of the Vietnam War; he took part in the Wounded Knee massacre in the 1800s; he lived with the Manson Family in the late 1960s; he hates school children ..... what else can you make up?

[Atman]

88. What did I make up?

You may disagree with my use of the term "pro-war," but that's certainly open to interpretation. Other than that, what, exactly, did I "make shit up out of thin air?"

.

[progressoid]

95. Well, your OP covers two topics: your 'pro-war' bit and the coal bit so...

that would mean 50% of the topics of your original post could be defined as "make(ing) shit up out of thin air?"

[Atman]

99. So again, which part am I making up?

I'm assuming you think the pro-war part? I'm sorry you disagree with me on the semantics, but right now, with over 70% of the country opposed to this ILLEGAL war, any representative who votes to continue funding it is "pro-war." You can call it something warm and fuzzy if it makes you feel better, but it changes nothing. If he wants this war to end, he can do his part to stop it. He's choosing to enable Bush instead.

.

[progressoid]

115. Semantics....that's one way to put it.

I doubt that 70% of the country would agree that anyone that doesn't vote to cut funding is pro-war.

Frankly, I'm undecided about Barak at this point. But your categorization of him as pro-war based on a single issue is a stretch to say the least.

[MethuenProgressive]

91. "There is no such thing as 'clean coal' and there never will be. It's an oxymoron".

Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program, believes that the term clean coal is misleading: "There is no such thing as 'clean coal' and there never will be. It's an oxymoron".

[Th1onein]

97. WHAT?

Is he getting money from the coal lobby?

[Atman]

101. Illinois is apparently a big coal state BUT...they won't even burn it there.

I think it's farther up in this thread. I don't want to misspeak, but apparently they ship their coal to other states with laxer laws. So there's big money in it for his state, and they don't think they have to suffer the dirty consequences. They're wrong, of course. But when did being wrong stop politicians from doing what makes their donors money and wins them votes?

.

[cooolandrew]

102. Yeah, I am an Obama fanatic but this is his weakest area. One person said clean coal is like saying.

... clean dirt.

[WI_DEM]

103. pro war? oh well, maybe we'll carry West Virginia for the first time since 1996 with Obama.

[ecstatic]

106. Besides Kucinich and Obama, who was against this war?

It certainly wasn't the co-sponsor, Mr. Edwards, or Sen. Clinton... :shrug: They all have very bad baggage but why pick on Obama's opinions (which could very well change if he's given better information) when the IWR vote was criminal?

[Atman]

107. Don't read my complaint about Obama as support for Edwards or Clinton

It's not. I'm only speaking of Obama. Edwards and Clinton both have plenty of their own issues.

.

[tex-wyo-dem]

111. A USA Today article regarding "carbon sequestration"

Burying the evidence of global warming

A doctor can bury his mistakes, the architect Frank Lloyd Wright once noted, a luxury not available to other professions. But all of humanity might look towards burial for help with one of its potentially biggest mistakes, global warming, a new study suggests.
The idea is called carbon sequestration — basically injecting carbon dioxide produced by coal-burning power plants into underground aquifers. Carbon dioxide is perhaps the most worrisome greenhouse gas that burning fossil fuels, the mainstays of the modern era, produces.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography measurements show that in less than half a century the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased about 20%, to levels unseen for at least 800,000 years (and likely much longer), largely as a byproduct of industrial activity.

<more>

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2006-08-20-carbon-sequestration_x.htm?csp=34

[Atman]

116. Ask the bees about "Law of unintended consequences."

I just can't believe man is still stupid enough to pull this shit on Mother Earth. If the aquifer was meant to be filled with carbon dioxide, it would filled with carbon dioxide. We have no clue what this will do to the planet, the aquifer, anything. Sure, scientists think it might be safe, they've studied it. It's the stuff they never thought of that kills us. As with the disappearing bees, water hyacinth, the killer snake fish, or even global warming itself -- the initial thing that sets it off always seems like a good idea. But its 50 years later when we realize we've seriously fucked something up. This just sounds like a terrible, terrible idea, particularly when we have cleaner alternatives like solar and wind. Sure, neither can replace the volume of energy we need but remember, Obama isn't doing this because of environmental concerns. In fact, he gives such concerns short shrift in his position papers. He's only worried about more energy, and his coal-producing constituents. I'm very disappointed to learn this of him.

.

[yellowcanine]

135. 90 % of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. That isn't going to change overnight.

"Clean" coal could help bridge the gap. Obama should be applauded for looking for creative solutions, not slammed.

[slackmaster]

114. Illinois is the 8th largest coal-producing state

Not a huge player, but more is mined there than in most of the other 26 coal states.

http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_production_state_rank.pdf

[never cry wolf]

117. This thread is beyond ridiculous, read his full policies

It never ceases to amaze me how some post a few out of context ideas and attribute their own interpretation of them to one of the best candidates we have seen in decades. He is not and never has been pro-war. Where does he say liquid coal is a "green" solution to anything? Do you have a link?

You want to know what makes him a Democrat? How about his record showing him 10th most liberal. http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc

also see: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/2008-pm-update-ratings-and-appearances/

On a scale of one to 100, with 100 being the most liberal, here are the Democratic contenders’ lifetime ratings:

Senator Barack Obama: 84.3
Representative Dennis Kucinich: 79.4
Senator Christopher J. Dodd: 79.2
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 78.8
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.: 76.8


his thoughts on coal:

Senator Obama is the lead Democratic cosponsor of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act, along with Senator Bunning. It must be a national priority to improve fuel economy and expand use of renewable fuels and other low-carbon or carbon-neutral fuels, but coal is currently America’s most abundant domestic energy source and will be a critical resource for many years to come. One of America’s largest coal beds lies beneath Illinois and neighboring states. Senator Obama believes that any new coal technologies must be developed strictly in the context of anticipated mandatory carbon control legislation, using technologies to reduce carbon emissions. This bill provides incentives for the development of this diesel technology that can transform coal into cleaner diesel fuel, while encouraging the sequestration of carbon emissions and reducing American reliance on importing fossil fuels.

In addition, Senator Obama has been working within Congress and with the State of Illinois to bring FutureGen, the nation’s first near-zero emissions coal power plant, to Illinois. The billion dollar project would use Illinois coal in generating electricity and hydrogen gas while sequestering carbon emissions.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/energy/index.html

on climate change:

Global Climate Change

The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. Senator Obama believes the U.S. must act now to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. He is an original cosponsor of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act , which was introduced by Senators Lieberman and McCain in the 110th Congress.

More info: Senator Obama's speech to the Associated Press in April 2006 on climate change.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/environment/index.html

direct link to above mentioned speech on climate change: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060403-energy_independence_and_the_safety_of_our_planet/index.html

[Atman]

120. Great press releases. Thanks.

My source, btw, is the "How Green Is Your Candidate" section of the April 16th Newsweek. Under "What he'll (Obama) do" is where I found out he was a backer of coal (I refuse to use the term "clean coal"...it's a lie). Also, under "How green is he," it states Obama's campaign uses a GMC YUKON (10-12 mpg?) but that it's flex-fuel...although they admit they can't find much E85 to run it with. Which means, of course, it using gasoline. Why can't he drive a Prius? Is he too good to sit in a regular sized car seat? Why does he need to be transported around in a fucking YUKON?

I'm glad to see he has ardent supporters. Good on ya. But your claim of Obama being "one of the best candidates we've seen in decades" has far less to back it up than my objections to his "green coal" platform.

.

[never cry wolf]

121. Found the Newsweek article online, at least part of it

Those were not press releases by the way, they are under issues on his senate website. Also, I still do not see anywhere where Obama says coal is green unless the technology is developed to make it so.

Barack Obama

What He’s Done: Co-sponsored McCain’s greenhouse gas bill. Introduced a bill giving tax breaks to gas stations selling alternative fuels. Advocated an increase in fuel-economy standards.

What He’ll Do: “Talks Up” clean-coal technology. Promises to increase research funding for alternative-energy sources and push for a plan to require the government to use either flex-fuel or hybrid vehicles. For more detailed information on Barack Obama’s plan, please visit his website at www.BarackObama.com
How Green Is He?: Obama’s campaign leases a flex-fuel GMC Yukon, but admits that it is hard to find ethanol in Chicago.

http://umichdems.com/blog/?p=61

So, his campaign leases the Yukon, how many campaign posters can fit in a Prius anyway? How many aids and assistants can fit? That is not his personal car.

From his site, he supports funding research into clean coal, he does not say he would advocate it's use if it were not able to be clean.

Here's an interesting blog article that goes into detail on what Obama has done in his short time in the Senate. The author has no horse in the race. I encourage all to read the whole post.

ll that said, though, I can't imagine why we're talking about this stuff when we haven't even had the 2006 elections yet. There are a number of people I could imagine getting behind, and I'll decide which of them to go for when the election is closer, and the question a bit less hypothetical. But I do want to add one little data point while people are talking about him, because it's something I haven't seen people say. And it's this: a lot of people are going on about how Obama has not sponsored legislation on any of the Vital Issues Of The Day. Personally, I think that he'd have to be delusional to introduce, say, his own solution to the health insurance crisis: no bill on such a topic introduced by a freshman senator from the minority party would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, and the only reason to introduce one would be to grandstand. For that reason, I think that his failure to do so tends to speak well of him.

(Besides, consider how many Senators must have been watching for any hint of self-importance when Obama arrived in the Senate, given the press he had coming in; how many of them would have had to have been waiting for any sign that he was thinking: here am I, the wondrous Barack Obama, ready to set the Senate straight! The fact that he seems to have disarmed most of them is, I think, an achievement in its own right; it would have been impossible had he introduced his own comprehensive anti-poverty program, or something.)

But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

[Atman]

122. Thank you for the info

Seriously, absolutely no snark or sarcasm. I'll certainly use it as a basis for further exploration. But I will tell you, so far I'm way less than impressed with this man. He's a great candidate and a great campaigner. I don't feel, from what I've seen, he'd be anywhere near as "great" as an actual leader. I still have serious issues with his willingness to enable Bush and his war.

But I'm willing to listen.

.

[never cry wolf]

125. Fair enough.

Obviously I have no idea how he would be as a leader either, nor how any of the candidates would be as leaders. I am listening to all also.

[Strelnikov_]

126. "never ceases to amaze me"

Welcome to primary season.

[Little Wing]

118. All of them will eventually endorse coal for the votes in the Virginias

and that area of the country. Might as well get used to it.

Hmm, wonder what Dennis thinks, nobody ever asks that guy.

[karynnj]

123. Clean coal that sequesters the Carbon dioxide

will likely be one of the interim solutions. The energy needs of the US are high, coal is plentiful and there are several competing ideas for how to seuester it.

Obama is not pro-war. He was against the war in the first place. I wish he would have voted for Kerry/Feingold, but no current candidate did. (Edwards was more pro-war than anyone but Leiberman in 2004 and did not urge people to push for Kerry/Feingold)

[paparush]

127. Old news...Bush said the same thing LAST year....

[geardaddy]

129. But the real question is:

What does Alec Baldwin think about clean coal?

[mdmc]

131. he might make a good veep for Clinton

:toast: to the DLC

[jillan]

132. I used to really like him as a candidate

But if this is what comes out of his mouth when he finally decides to discuss issues...

[never cry wolf]

143. This did NOT come out of his mouth

Don't read the OP's subject line and take it as truth... Obama has NEVER advocated coal as a green solution... He HAS strongly advocated federal funding into research to see if coal can be made into a clean fuel, after seeking funding for alternative energy sources...

wow, the level of ignoran... nevermind... read the man's policies, ok?

[jillan]

145. Thank you -

I still don't have my mind made up about Obama so I am glad you corrected me.

[and-justice-for-all]

133. With dumb shit comments like that.....

...he is losing ground with me.

There is NO such thing as clean coal, in any form. SOLAR, WIND and alternative fuels are the future and in the future there is no coal.

Who in the hell can be PRO-fucking WAR!? Please Obama, get some sleep or have a reality intervention.

[yellowcanine]

134. It IS possible. Coal can be processed into methane and then into hydrogen.

Hydrogen when oxidized produces water with no byproducts. Can't get any cleaner than that.

[Colobo]

138. Edwards is also for "clean coal" and I don't see you guys bitching about it

[Cameron27]

146. Edwards also voted yes on an amendment to allow

mountaintop-removal practices:

"During his first year in office, 1999, he voted in favor of an amendment to allow mountaintop-removal mining practices. Later, he voted to exempt pickup trucks from fuel-efficiency standards and supported the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (though he has since agreed to support Kerry’s position that Yucca shouldn’t become a dumping ground). Edwards also voted against an amendment that would have prevented farm subsidies from helping to expand industrial farms, and voted against stricter prohibitions on the use of pesticides in parks."

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/07/16/griscom-edwards/

[bling bling]

147. Well, you can judge a man by how he votes on issues. Or by what he *says* about issues.

Apparently conservative actions speak more quietly than words when the words sound really, really progressive.

[ends_dont_justify]

141. Why not convert ice into hydrogen for fuel rather than letting oil melt it all? N/T

[Clarkie1]

148. We need to take another look at safe and affordable nuclear power. nt

[NastyDiaper]

149. Nuke or Coal sequester?

Wrong question. The issue for government is to CAP and TRADE.

1) LIMIT EMISSIONS - Brake and reverse. Government will measure emissions and enforce caps. If you go over, you must purchase carbon.
2) TRADE CARBON - A carbon ton must have real, trade-able value. The government needs to create the carbon economy, not the specific technology.

Obama is an original cosponsor of legislation to establish limits on greenhouse gas emissions. To remain below these limits, the bill encourages the market to determine how best to reduce greenhouse gases, rewarding cost-effective approaches through a system of trade-able allowances. Revenues generated from this program will be directed to helping industries and individuals most affected by the limits, and also to fund research and development of new, more efficient, energy technologies.

Now, the excerpt is from Obama08, but it's not hard to find more on the bill. Obama is Green. I'm still holding out for Gore; but I'll listen to anyone.

I don't think it's going to be hard to know where each stands; The hard part is judging if they will actually follow through if they get the job.