Obama in bed with the mining industry...
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/02/28/news... \t
(excerpt)
The coal industry has given a combined $38 million to federal candidates since stepping up their climate change campaign three years ago. More than 65 percent went to Republicans, according to an analysis of campaign data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
But utility companies that burn coal are now putting almost half their money behind Democrats.
Obama topped the list of all recipients this cycle with $248,000. Clinton was second with $200,000, and McCain was ninth with $93,000.
The Center for Responsive Politics' Massie Ritsch said the coal industry's historical "true color" is red, but with Democrats controlling Congress and making a strong run at the White House, "they're having to renew some friendships with Democrats..."
Then there's THIS:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=E12... From 1990 to 2008 the large majority of coal mining contributions went to the GOP. And yes, that includes the 8 years Bill Clinton was President. All of a sudden the coal industry is stuffing Obama's pockets with gold??
What does that tell you, folks? Jeezus H. Christ, when are some of you Obama folks going to wake the hell up?
Please read the whole article for context as I can only provide a portion here, but it does underscore his HYPOCRISY!!!!!http://www.dailyyonder.com/turning-coal-liquid-turns-pr... ...The most interesting relationship to surface in the CTL debate was an alliance between Sen. Barack Obama, the sleek Democratic candidate, and Jim Bunning the rough-talking ex-ballplayer and Kentucky Republican. Obama had been supportive of Illinois Basin coal in the past and Bunning asked if he would support his Coal to Liquid Fuel Promotion Act. Obama initially said yes.
(Incidentally, in the first quarter of 2007, Obama received $154,000 in campaign contributions from the Chicago-based energy company Exelon, a possible beneficiary of CTL incentives.)Sen. Obama from Illinois quickly learned that life was different as Democratic presidential candidate Obama. His sponsorship of Bunning’s CTL Energy Act garnered criticism from pro-environment groups. Obama began issuing clarifications and explanations, backing away from the Bunning proposal.
The Daily Yonder contacted the Obama campaign to clarify the Senator’s muddled early June “clarification" of his position. An Obama spokesperson emphasized that Obama supports coal-to-liquid if it will (1) help achieve energy independence and (2) fight climate change. However, the text of the 2007 Bunning-Obama act does not include carbon sequestration regulations.MORE
http://votegibbonsout.blogs.com/votegibbonsout/2008/01/... A bit more from the WaPo article, in case you missed it:
On Tuesday night, the issue came up during the debate among the three leading Democratic presidential candidates.
Former senator John Edwards said, "I believe we need a moratorium on the building of any more coal-fired power plants unless and until we have the ability to capture and sequester the carbon in the ground."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said, "I have said we should not be siting any more coal-powered plants unless they can have the most modern, clean technology. And I want big demonstration projects to figure out how we would capture and sequester carbon."
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) did not commit himself on coal plants but said Americans had to make their buildings, lighting and appliances "more efficient."<snipping>
A long-time supporter of southern Illinois's powerhouse coal industry, Senator Barack Obama's campaign website triumphantly declares: "Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies."
Gee, do you think this could have anything to do with the vote in Wyoming, the nations' #1 coal producer, or Obama's love affair with Jay Rockefeller (WV)? For God's sake, why don't some Obama supporters around here do their homework?!! Or is the holy light of Obama blinding you from the truth? ?
Coal industry steps up effortBy MATTHEW BROWN and MATT GOURAS
Associated Press writers
Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:06 AM MST
Facing a bruising fight over climate change, the coal industry is on the political offensive this election year to ensure that no matter who wins in November, so does coal.
Billions of dollars in corporate profits are at stake for the companies that mine, ship and burn the nation's most abundant domestic fuel.
Some powerful Washington voices, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, have lined up against coal-fired power, which churns out 2 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually. Not shirking from a fight, coal's supporters are spending tens of millions of dollars to cement their support among members of Congress and the top presidential candidates.
The industry -- including companies that mine and ship coal in Wyoming, the nation's No. 1 coal producer -- is also appealing directly to the voters those politicians need....
<snipping>
...Sen. Barack Obama, for example, wants existing plants retrofitted with carbon-capture technology "as soon as it is commercially available." Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who acknowledges the intense economic pressures to use the fuel, supports projects that are at least partially cleaner than current technologies allow.
And therein lies the difference. Saying you'll support "clean coal" when the technology becomes "commercially available" puts no pressure on the industry to clean up its act and neatly sidesteps any timetables. Do Obama's supporters think that Robert Kennedy Jr. threw his support to Hillary on a whim? It's time they started facing the TRUTH about Mr. Obama!
And BTW, under current law Wyoming has no limits on state PAC contributions to candidates. Coal really is King in Wyoming and they know a friend to coal when they see one. http://www.ccsd.k12.wy.us/mines/PR/Pr.html (excerpt)
Powder River Coal Company in Gillette, Wyoming, is the second largest coal producing company in the United States. Powder River Coal Company owns and operates four surface mines in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. Together, the four mines control 2.5 billion tons of recoverable coal. The coal seams at the four mines range from 65 feet to over 100 feet thick.
These mines produce coal with high Btu's, low sulfur, and low ash, which means that much of the coal produced is compliant with the Clean Air Act. When coal is burned to produce electricity, the sulfur content combines with oxygen to make sulfur dioxide. The greater the sulfur content of the coal, the greater quantity of sulfur dioxide that is formed. When sulfur dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere, it can become part of the chemical cycle that produces acid rain. Because Powder River coal has such a low sulphur content, it is in demand for use by electric power companies all over the United States.
More coal is produced in the state of Wyoming than in any other state in the United States. According to the Gillette, Wyoming Convention and Visitor's Bureau, Wyoming's Powder River Basin produces one-fifth of all the coal produced in the United States annually. One of the reasons is because of the low sulfur content of the coal found in the Powder River Basin....
http://www.thedailypage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=38453... Obama-Mining Lobbyist Ties Scrutinized Wednesday November 14, 5:55 pm ET
By Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press Writer
Obama's Ties to Mining Lobbyist, Opposition to Reform Bill Draws Scrutiny
LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Democrat Barack Obama opposes a bill that would change the nation's 135-year-old mining law -- the same stance as mining industry executives who employ a Nevada-based lobbyist advising the presidential candidate.
<snipping>
...The General Mining Law of 1872 allows the mining industry to pull gold, silver and other minerals from federal lands without paying royalties. The industry opposes changes to the law and several efforts to reform it have failed.
A House-passed bill would impose a royalty of 4 percent of gross revenue on existing hard-rock mining operations and 8 percent of gross revenue on new mining operations. The reform bill also would put new environmental controls on hard-rock mining, set up a cleanup fund for abandoned mines and permanently ban cheap sales of public lands for mining.
Obama said the legislation, favored by environmentalists, "places a significant burden on the mining industry and could have a significant impact on jobs." He also opposes the proposed fees....
....Vassiliadis, a longtime Nevada power broker, is a member of Obama's Nevada steering committee and has contributed $2,300 to his campaign. He is a lobbyist for the Nevada Mining Association at the state level and the chief executive of the advertising and lobbying firm hired by two mining companies to lobby for them in Washington.... MUCH MORE
http://www.dailyyonder.com/obama-opposes-mining-law-ref... Obama Opposes Mining Law Reform 11/08/2007
Sen. Barack Obama has said he thinks revisions to the Mining Law of 1872 passed by the House are too onerous on companies. Campaigning in Nevada, Obama said the House proposal to impose a four percent royalty on mining companies operating on federal land was too high. Obama's position was a hit with the National Association of Manufacturers. We couldn't agree more, NAM said in its ShopFloor blog. The environmental blog Grist couldn't agree less.
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107... Obama: New mining bill too tough on companies
ANJEANETTE DAMON
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
Posted: 11/7/2007
The recent mining reform billed passed by the U.S. House is "not optimal" and should be rewritten to reduce the economic burden on mining companies, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday.
During a conference call with Nevada reporters to present his rural agenda, Obama said he would seek a better compromise on the bill now that it is in the U.S. Senate.
"What's clear to me is that the legislation that has been proposed places a significant burden on the mining industry and could have a significant impact on jobs," he said. "We are going to have to keep on working to find the kind of legislation that is going to provide fair compensation for these federal lands and also enhances environmental protection (and) cleans up abandoned mines."
The legislation, passed 244-166, would impose 4 percent royalty fees on existing mines operating on federal land. New mines would be charged
8 percent. Mines currently pay very little to use federal land under the 1872 Mining Law.
The position, while popular with rural Nevada voters who depend on jobs provided by the mining industry, could alienate environmental activists, political observers said. Both are important constituencies in the Jan. 19 Nevada Caucus.
Idaho Mountain Express: House waves bye-bye to 1872 mining law ... "We have long passed the time when this 19th-century law can be depended upon ... Barack Obama Opposes House-Approved Mining Reform, Says It's Burdensome, ...
www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005117860
http://quartz.he.net/~beyondch/news/index.php?itemid=54... The Obama Craze: Count Me Out by Matt Gonzalez‚ Feb. 27‚ 2008
Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.
<snipping>
This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.
But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to rein in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.... A MUST READ!!
http://www.thinkingarizona.com/?p=43 February 19th, 2008 at 07:52 pm by Larry in Environment, Howard Shanker, Misc, Native Americans, Political Issues
Barack Obama needs to change his stance (see: Obama’s Position on Mining Law Questioned…) on the Mining Law of 1872 and the use of nuclear power to solve our energy needs. First on the mining law, why should the taxpayer continue to foot the bill to clean up mines and for the medical bills of people who are sickened by mining pollution? Take a look at what Asarco has left the citizens of Hayden and Winkleman in Arizona! Asarco made the profit and leaves toxic waste that affects the health of everyone in the area. When sued to clean things up and take care of their former workers and families, mining companies simply file bankruptcy and the U.S. taxpayers are left to take care the environment and the sick.
By not supporting changes in the mining law, Barack Obama allows the mining companies to make a killer profit at the taxpayer’s expense. These multi-national mining companies employ people for a couple dozen years then pack up and leave the miners to fend for themselves. When it comes to polluting the environment, the mining companies bring in their experts to argue that everything is fine and despite counter-arguments and studies by the U.S. Government they basically get off free-and-clear of any responsibility.Also see:
He loves goldhttp://www.lasvegasgleaner.com/las_vegas_gleaner/2007/1... http://www.lvrj.com/news/11077406.html http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/01/11/rockybarker... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/1... http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/04/01/m... /
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/wy.... And there's plenty more where those came from!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
