Yet another Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry
prytoj
Posts: 536
link takes you to the actual audio and full article posted here.
cap and trade to bankrupt the coal industry in the name of developing technology that isn't yet feasable, raising our enerygy bills and killing thousands of jobs in the process. Yummy!
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry.html?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry
Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, 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? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine):
"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."
Amazing that this statement by Obama about bankrupting the coal industry has been kept under wraps until this time.
UPDATE: NewsBusters' Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here when you scroll down to the "In His Own Words" section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle!
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
cap and trade to bankrupt the coal industry in the name of developing technology that isn't yet feasable, raising our enerygy bills and killing thousands of jobs in the process. Yummy!
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry.html?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry
Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, 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? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine):
"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."
Amazing that this statement by Obama about bankrupting the coal industry has been kept under wraps until this time.
UPDATE: NewsBusters' Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here when you scroll down to the "In His Own Words" section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle!
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Why, maybe you know how this will bankrupt existing plants? It seems it just provides incentive to switch to cleaner energy...
Can you point to how exactly he wants to bankrupt the coal industry?
He'll fine dirty energy producers on their new plants which will fund new cleaner energy technologies which will help us break our reliance on foriegn oil.
He also supports clean coal technology.
But, it's just antoher copy/paste, no thought of my own, no positive things to say about John McCain weak attempt by our favorite Obama basher.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
HIS WORDS
With Republicans out of office, party time for the fossil fuel industry is over.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
that's fair, republicans did fail to properly address the corporate greed in our capitalist system. Not that dems helped, but a fair point.
another big reason barry's gotten this far.
Good advice for everyone.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
It's funny, my brother-in-law is the personal bodyguard for Timbaland, and they are touring with Chris Cornell. Last night, they were in San Francisco, and he texted my wife saying he'd never seen so many fags with dresses on in his life.
I'm not saying he saw you or anything. But I thought that was pretty funny.
I have a gay brother who lives in Long Beach, CA. I'll have to give him some education.
Quoting this to preserve the immense stupidity of your post.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
People down here, except in Miami, are a little skittish about that stuff.
I just saw that you were from San Fran, a great place to visit.
No wonder why that state is in such a financial mess. It is a free for all.
we have a republican governor, what do you expect? :rolleyes:
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
and all but two representatives in the state house are democrats.
and the governor preceeding him (democrat) f-ed up so badly that he was actually recalled mid-term.
how bad a leader do you have to be to get recalled mid-term?
rolling eyes right with you
more eyes rolling.
brutal.
the lies and the anger, at least on this board, are coming from the left, period.
As soon as we tell you the truth, you call us "a-holes", tell us "there's a special place in hell for us", among other choice quotes. Shall I dig?
At least guys like digster and commy have something relevant to say. the rest of the lefties here have been gross.
more brutal spin. but whatever.
more rolling eyes. can we stay on topic now?
How is he bankrupting the industry, again?
I answered your copy/paste post ... you didn't respond. You went off topic.
It seems to be your M.O. ... you start a thread with a copy paste, no real thoughts of your own ... then people post rebuttles ... you take the thread somewhere else, then, accuse others of going off topic.
You had the assinine post about San Francisco, and your brother in law's not so tollerant comments ("fags", really? are you in high school?) ... pretty stunning when you then go on to discuss your brother.
Oh, and you may want to check out Cali's state legislature again, you got the numbers wrong during another off topic post of your own.
But again, my first post in this thread stands, unanswered by you.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/republicans-to.html
Republicans to Try Burning Obama on Coal
November 02, 2008 3:23 PM
“I’m calling on behalf of John McCain and the RNC to tell you that coal jobs, which are so important to our community are in jeopardy,” says the robocall being made to voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, among other coal-producing states.
Continues the robocall: “Listen to Barack Obama's plans to bankrupt the coal industry.”
The call then plays this quote from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: "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.”
You can listen to the robocall HERE.
The quote comes from a January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle; the Obama campaign says the quote is being “wildly” taken out of context, that in the full interview Obama praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is “an illusion.”
“The line they pulled out is in the context of cap and trade program,” says an Obama spokesperson. “The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies -- and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program.”
Is it being taken unfairly out of context? You be the judge. Here’s the entirety of Obama’s remarks:
“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.
“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.
“But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.
“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”
-- jpt
yes the big picture ... as in, read wolfbear's post.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
the first thing I did was point out cap and trade, if you refer to the original post. Thanks for the whole thing, I posted what I could find in it's entirety. And the added paragraphs DO NOT change the context, but rather enforces it.
The technology is being developed right now to capture carbon and other greenhouse gases, and feeding those gases to algae. This interface will produce biofuel as a byproduct. My argument is there is no need to impose governement taxes and penalties for greenhouse emissions when the private sector so close to turning those emissions into a benefit all by itself.
Gub'ment, get out the way.
So you cant answer the question, thank you...
what is it, 5 republicans? why don't you clarify it for me smart guy? what's the actual number of all state reps, and how many are republicans?
riiiiiight. sorry I was a little off.
The only thing I don't understand about this is that there is this overall feeling that government needs to be completely and entirely removed from this monumental and urgent process, and there's very little precedent of that in the 20th century. With the help of government, there was a New Deal. With the help of government, there was an Apollo program and a man on the moon. A rapid move towards energy independence would likely dwarf even those two challenges in scope and importance. All the more recent for government to not necessarily take control, but aid as opposed to hinder. Complete government removal would not have aided either of those two endeavors; do you think we would have created the technology to get a man to the moon and return him safely in less time if the government had been completely uninvolved? Why isn't that type of national commitment, and that semblance of government involvement, welcome in the attempt to become energy independent with alternative energy sources? We've been talking about becoming energy independent for over thirty years, and the private sector has taken baby steps. Let's do it already.