Edwards Calls for Ban on Coal Plants

[jackson_dem]

-snip-

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.

-snip-

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.

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

[itsrobert]

1. We just lost West Virginia

uh oh. But, this is REAL CHANGE, FOLKS!

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Only if the choice is between...

...coal and nothing.

I don't think people are really so stupid to believe that is the only choice there really is.

I would think there are even people in West Virginia who value their land and air and drinking water over something as filthy and destructive as coal.

But, at the same time, with the way the economy has been taking a dump, how they would be worried to lose even the miserable jobs they currently have.

[Big Blue Marble]

7. Kentucky too.

[redqueen]

2. Thank you! I love how the article uses month-old poll numbers...

"A CBS (nyse: CBS - news - people ) News poll last month showed Edwards with just 13 percent of the vote compared with Barack Obama's 35 percent and Clinton's 34 percent."

:rofl:

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN!

[asdjrocky]

4. Funny, ain't it? n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

5. Edwards' opposition to coal

sets him apart from at least Obama, I believe. What is Sen. Clinton's position on this?

[cascadiance]

11. Clinton and Obama are both with the Republicans on liquified coal...

Their corporatist leanings are showing!

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/industrials/article/obama-huckabee-clinton-rockefeller-romney-support-coaltoliquid-fuel_427417_6.html

[bunnies]

6. I agree with Edwards 100% on energy.

Which is one of the reasons Id be content with him as President.

[hayu_lol]

9. Yawn...ya know, Gore signed on to the construction of the recently-approved...

30 coal fired plants.

We need power plants, but the cleanest available right now are Nuke plants.

Coal fired plants release more radiation than any of our nuke plants...among other toxic emissions.

[cascadiance]

12. Big problem with coal is that strip mining affects water quality in areas...

... where strip mining happens, putting in a lot of unhealthy mercury in the aquifers up there. RFK Jr has been speaking on this and has noted that with the mercury poisoning that's getting into our water supply and subsequently also in to fish as well, around a sixth of all women have levels of mercury in their systems that will produce adverse hereditary effects on children they have.

Here's an article that where he says this:

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Homesteading-and-Self-Reliance/2004-10-01/Wise-Livelihood-Environmental-Justice-for-All.aspx

Wise Livelihood Environmental Justice for All

Wise Livelihood
by Amanda Griscom

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says defending our environment must transcend political partisanship.

...

Mercury pollution is another issue Kennedy deals with at home: Most of the fish his family catch in the rivers near their home are unsafe to eat because of high mercury levels — public health officials now warn it is unsafe to eat freshwater fish in most of New York, and all of Connecticut; 38 other states from Wisconsin to Florida also have issued warnings against eating locally caught fish because of mercury pollution. Eating mercury-contaminated fish can lead to increased risk of heart attacks and neurological damage, especially among children and pregnant women. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 40 percent of mercury emissions in the United States come from coal-burning power plants.

Outraged by the mercury warnings in his state, Kennedy recently had himself tested and discovered toxic mercury levels in his body. “If I were a pregnant woman, my child would have cognitive impairment — permanent IQ loss,” he says. “That’s what Dr. David Carpenter of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the State University of New York at Albany told me. I asked Dr. Carpenter, ‘You mean might have?’ He said ‘No, the science is pretty certain that those levels would impact a baby’s IQ.’” The EPA estimates that one out of every six American women carries unsafe levels of mercury in her blood, putting 630,000 newborns a year at risk of IQ loss, blindness and autism. Adults with high exposure to mercury, mainly from eating contaminated fish, are at risk of kidney failure, tremors, heart disease, severe liver damage and even death. Kennedy criticizes the Bush administration’s plan to weaken rules intended to dramatically reduce mercury emissions, and postpone the compliance date. (For more information on mercury pollution, visit cta.policy.net.)

...

[bunnies]

14. Do you live near a nuke plant?

I do. I live in the "no evacuation possible" zone. And when you have a President thats pro-war, its not a very comforting thing.

and on edit: What about nuclear waste?!

[amandabeech]

21. Reuse and recycle.

I used to live about 10 miles from Three Mile Island.

I see the downside to nukes, and I don't think that the plants are being run correctly. Deregulation has not improved safety and security with nukes, and I think that it should be reversed.

However, I don't see coal as an alternative, and in many parts of the country, the potential for renewables is limited and the renewable "hot spots" are too far away.

The choices really are conservation, whatever renewables are available, and coal or nukes.

[Big Blue Marble]

8. That is great if he offers viable alternatives.

i live in Kentucky. All we have here are coal fired power plants. And who will pay to
make a transition from coal to ???

[doc03]

10. Ohio too. Let's see we can't use oil it comes from the

Middle East, we can't use coal it's too dirty and we can't use nuclear it's too dangerous. The USA has more coal than any country on earth and we can't use it! If we don't use our coal they will burn it in China or someplace else where there are no environmental standards. Al Gore lost the steel and coal producing states for that very reason. If he would have just carried the state of WV or his own state of Tennessee (another coal producing state) he would be in his second term today. Coal fired plants are very clean now compared with a few years ago the power companies have put billions of dollars into pollution control equipment. I don't work in a power plant but I work in a steel mill and I know how much we have improved over the last 40 years. The company I work for literally put 100s of tons of pollutants in the air and water (each day) 40 years ago. The steel industry too put billions of dollars into environmental equipment and many are now out of business today because of that. Do they still pollute some, yes, it's a dirty process but it would be impossible to reduce pollutants to zero. A lot of the steel that used to made in this country is now made in places like China where they have absolutely no environmental laws and an average wage of 50 cents an hour.

[Vincardog]

13. That is the false choice the flat earthers want to force you into. Either you buy our

steel with its' environmental cost added on or you buy their steel with no labor or environmental cost to it. We need to demand that anybody that sells to us meet our labor and environmental standards. If they do not they pay a tariff equal to those costs or they can not sell here.

[doc03]

19. Duh and who made that trade agreement? n/t

[Vincardog]

20. That was the argument Clinton made when he sold us NAFTA

[doc03]

22. Bingo, and when he was running for President he said he

was going to demand other counties comply with our environmental and labor standards. Now Hillary Clinton is telling us she is going to put those protections in trade agreements. Is there any reason I should believe her? I live in an area that has been decimated buy NAFTA and WTO and whenever the loss of jobs comes up Republicans are quick to point out a Democrat Bill Clinton made the agreement. I know it passed Congress with an overwhelming Republican vote but we get the blame anyway.

[Vincardog]

24. No sentient person should ever vote for ANY corporatist enabler.

[paparush]

15. Hell Yes!

Somebody has to beat this drum.

If he starts talking about population control incentives...my very heart might melt with joy!

[ileus]

16. And he'll still get the UMWA endorsment.

[Left coast liberal]

17. Instead of sending people into a mine, let's put solar, wind energy

...everywhere.

There are a lot of Green jobs out there, once we get away from the scary carbon spiral this country is on.

Go John Edwards!

[jackson_dem]

18. Edwards' plan to create a million such jobs

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

[Thothmes]

23. Except near Nantucket Island.

[Occam Bandage]

25. Good for him, though I disagree with "no new nukes."