WTF (Obama edition)

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Bankrupt coal plants?

... really? This is the guy you guys want in office?

Thats gotta be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

[Harlowe]

He didn't say bankrupt "coal plants", he said building new plants that use coal could end up bankrupting that plant because of the charges due to their emission of greenhouse gases. We have to cut down on greenhouse emissions, that one is a no-brainer.

Newsbusters? Really? And you have an issue with Raw Story?

You might want to look into things said in the latest Robocalls. ABC already reported on this being taken out of context.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... ns-to.html

This also includes the full transcript, not just the smear piece.

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.”

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Still... You're willing to stifle new industry and more american jobs just because a plant uses Coal for energy?

That's straight up retarded... I mean, how many years will it take us to get more Nuclear plants/wind/solar farms online to replace our current coal consumption? And you want to cripple new industry if they use coal in place of these cleaner options when those cleaner options are hardly in place?

[Trollbait]

P.S. Harlowe. Posting rebuttals from blogs is fail.

You have posted from several dubious places lately. Stop criticising others for their sources until you get your own house in order.

Let's start a thread where we hash out acceptable sourcing and agree on legitimate news sources.

Then our conversations can be about content rather than source.

[Harlowe]

That's not about stifling new industry, they are supporters of clean coal technology. You just jump on every new robocall smear that comes up. It's like your pet interest.

And Jecks, you are never interested in actually debating, just baiting, so what would be the point?

The "blog entry" was from ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

“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.

First of all, Global Warming is a farce.

How is it not stifling industry when you're punishing new plants that use coal power? What if those cleaner alternatives aren't available? Do you expect new industry to only crop up around current clean technology while the less fortunate area's aren't allowed to expand their industry and have to wait for clean energy to come to them? That's simply retarded...

Go to the doctor, Harlowe. You're starting to foam from the mouth.

[Lurker]

First of all, Global Warming is a farce.

Oh boy. Is there any right wing propaganda you haven't swallowed hook line an sinker?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Right Wing propaganda?
Really?

[Lurker]

Those articles don't come close to backing up your statement that "global warming is a farce". Quite the opposite.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data

One surprising feature of this recent growth is that it occurred almost simultaneously at all measurement locations across the globe. However, the majority of methane emissions are in the Northern Hemisphere, and it takes more than one year for gases to be mixed from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. Hence, theoretical analysis of the measurements shows that if an increase in emissions is solely responsible, these emissions must have risen by a similar amount in both hemispheres at the same time.

However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

No, dumbass. They're suggesting that this was a natural occurrence and nothing to do at all with global warming theory.

[Harlowe]

Wow. Even McCain & Palin acknowledge global warming.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochu ... apter1.htm

Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 25 percent since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago (Figure 1). During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels. Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the “carbon cycle” (Figure 2).

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes/

Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics

The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming, and the warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-10-30-voa66.cfm

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

[Lurker]

Funny, isn't it?

Fallakin reads a couple articles dealing with one methane gas study and concludes that "Global Warming is a Farce!"

[Ddrak]

How is it not stifling industry when you're punishing new plants that use coal power? What if those cleaner alternatives aren't available? Do you expect new industry to only crop up around current clean technology while the less fortunate area's aren't allowed to expand their industry and have to wait for clean energy to come to them? That's simply retarded...

Explain to me how nuclear power isn't available?
Explain to me how the "clean" coal tech isn't available?
You're talking *new* plants here - they can always build on a different technology. Sheesh!

As for global warming, who cares whether it's a "farce" or not. We should minimize our environmental impact simply because we don't understand what the results are and that means the dirty coal plants should be regulated.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Dd,

Nuclear power is available, but not in the multitudes we need for it to replace coal.
Clean coal is an option, but he didn't say that... he made a blanket statement about anyone using coal, period.

I've never bought into the "global warming" bullshit, the earth simply goes through warming and cooling cycles.

[Harlowe]

No he didn't make a blanket statement. He talked about new plants and they've been talking about clean coal for half the year.

So what Ddrak said.

You're talking *new* plants here - they can always build on a different technology. Sheesh!

[Partha]

Nuclear power is available, but not in the multitudes we need for it to replace coal.

By the by, this is quite the bullshit being spread.

[Ddrak]

Dd,

Nuclear power is available, but not in the multitudes we need for it to replace coal.
Clean coal is an option, but he didn't say that... he made a blanket statement about anyone using coal, period.

I've never bought into the "global warming" bullshit, the earth simply goes through warming and cooling cycles.

Nukes are available everywhere last I looked - if you're gonna build a coal plant then you may as well build a nuke plant.

Did you read his speech (Harlowe posted it)? He specifically said right after that "bankrupt" statement that the way around it would be to use the clean technologies, so you've been misled into thinking he said something else. His entire point, in fact, was that if you make a new dirty plant then you'd go bankrupt under his schemes and would be forced to invest in clean tech, which isn't nearly what you've been led to believe.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Well if they streamline the process of getting approval to build a nuke plant I will agree......that said you can probably get a clean coal plant built in 1/10th the time.

[Harlowe]

hehe, oooh busted. McCain said the same thing as Obama. Another discredited smear via Newsbusters, Drudge & Fox. You know if you are going to just be opposition to Obama or Democrats in general, that's peachy, hell honest opposition and holding candidates responsible for their actions is a good thing - but how about just use some factual information rather than fabricated. This gets freakin tiresome and they end up having zero credibility.

OMG AND THIS IS WHO YOU WANT FALLIKAN???? IT'S THE MOST IDIOTIC THING I'VE EVER HEARD. He also mentions that farce "climate change".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP6iqcrHvsE

In fact, McCain agreed that his plan would require sacrifice, but he also argued that in the long-run, America would be better off. In other words, he made the exact same arguments as Barack Obama -- and as you can see above, it was all on video.

Video of a June 21, 2005 Senate floor debate between Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and John McCain on legislation proposed by McCain to fight global warming has just surfaced. I'll post video within the next couple of hours, but for now, here's some text. Voinovich told McCain that his legislation would "put coal of out of business." McCain agreed that his legislation would "require sacrifice" acknowledging that critics said it would cost "thousands of jobs." Nonetheless, McCain stood by his legislation, and even said that he wanted a tougher set of rules.

Here's more from Voinovich's statement:
On one side of this debate, there are proposals to create a mandatory domestic program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the amendment that will be proposed by Senator McCain, to my understanding, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

It is my understanding that the amendment, according to Charles Rivers Associates, which analyzed its provisions, would cause the loss of 24,000 to 47,000 Ohio jobs, in 2010, and energy-intensive industries to shrink by 2.3 to 5.6 percent in 2020. We are talking about manufacturing industries, energy-intensive manufacturing and chemical and many others.

The McCain amendment will put coal out of business by forcing fuel switching to natural gas.

And John McCain's counter-argument:
Does it involve some sacrifice on the part of the American people? Yes. ... This amendment, I am sure, will be attacked--thousands of jobs will be lost, we will find some obscure scientist, some will talk about the dangers of encouraging the use of nuclear power. The fact is, we are going to win on this issue. The reason we are going to win is because every single month there is another manifestation of the terrible effects of what climate change is doing to our Earth

.

[Harlowe]

Aaaand the SF Chronicle busts Newsbusters as well. This is from the SR Political Writer for the SFC (I know Jecks will tsk tsk because it's a so-called "blog", but it's the Senior Political Writer for the Chronicle's "Spin Cycle" feature).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfg ... y_id=32228
Lies, Half Truths and Contradictions: Chronicle ''Hidden'' Audio on Obama
by Carla Marinucci

It's not true.

But the Drudge Report, the Republican National Committee and apparently even GOP VP candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fell for completely fabricated news from a shady website called Newsbusters today suggesting the San Francisco Chronicle has ''hidden'' audio with Sen. Barack Obama regarding his statements on coal.

''Barack Obama explained his plan to the San Francisco Chronicle this year,'' she told a rally in Ohio Sunday. ''He said that sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry.''

She added, ''And you've got to listen to the tape.''

''Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?'' Palin asked the crowd, according to a report from CBS News. Someone in the crowd shouted, ''Liberal media!'

Let's be very clear: the Chronicle did not, and has never, hidden any interview, audio or video, of Obama from its readers.

The truth: the paper's January editorial board session with Obama included comments about coal. The entire interview has been in the public domain, available on line to the public -- and to the McCain campaign -- since early January.

''How can anyone suggest that we hid an interview that we did, immediately put up on the web -- and advertised to our readers,'' said editorial page editor John Diaz Sunday, regarding his hosting of Obama at the session. ''We promoted it like like hell...and I'm sure the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign scrubbed it. You can still find the whole 48 minutes and 33 seconds on line.''

Obama's campaign responded to Palin's comments today, noting correctly that the wide-ranging interview also included the Illinois Senator's comments that the idea of eliminating coal plants was ''an illusion.''

Apparently neither campaign, until now, ever felt there was much worth mentioning regarding Obama's coal comments. But it's now two days before the election and McCain is in a do-or-die battle in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

A final note: the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle's coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ''hidden'' Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn't confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

He got taken. And so did the rest.