http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_coalIn states like Pennsylvania, where voters will cast ballots this Tuesday, and in West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Montana — upcoming primary states — coal sways voters.
While increased mechanization has produced a dramatic decline in coal industry employment, the numbers remain substantial. There are 47,000 coal workers in Pennsylvania and West Virginia and 21,000 in Kentucky, according to the National Mining Association. The three states are the country's biggest coal producers after Wyoming.
Both Obama and Clinton have rallied environmentalists with their promises to develop windmills, solar power and other renewable energy sources and order mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases from power plants to counter global warming.
It's an energy policy that would seem to target coal, which produces half the country's electricity but also nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, each year.
Instead, "clean coal" has become the mantra of both candidates. Some environmentalists are not too happy with that.
"They keep using the term 'clean coal.' That's really an oxymoron," snaps Brent Blackwelder, president of the environmental group Friends of the Earth. "They absolutely are pandering the coal industry's propaganda that clean coal is the hope of the future. There's no such animal as clean coal."
Not all environmentalists are as critical, acknowledging that coal will remain an integral part of the country's energy picture. The two Democratic presidential aspirants' support for coal is outweighed by their strong push for renewable fuels and — unlike President Bush — their call for mandatory, economy-wide action on climate change.
"How they finesse things on the margin is up to them," said Cathy Duvall, the Sierra Club's national political director, as long as they also "talk about moving away from conventional coal ... and putting money into and investing in a renewable energy economy that will provide jobs."
Obama, by representing Illinois, a top 10 coal producing state, has a little more experience at it than Clinton. Fifteen months ago, he joined Republican coal-state Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky in calling for loan guarantees and tax breaks for coal-to-liquid processing plants.
Environmentalists protested and he modified his proposal to include a requirement that such plants have carbon-capture technology and produce 20 percent less greenhouse gases than conventional diesel fuel refineries.
In reality, there is little difference in the broad energy agendas of Obama and Clinton.
end of excerpt
~~
Knowing Obama's stance on nuclear and now coal, I really am beginning to wonder if I can push the button next to his name on a ballot. This to me proves that their so called 'change' is nothing more than saying what they need to say to get elected or get a certain endorsement. How can we now be sure they will really institute any real changes environmentally if they can't even stand up on the campaign trail and say that there should be a moratorium on coal fired power plants in this country? That liquid coal is a dirty source of energy that is not green? Again, WHY should I trust them on the environment? Especially when they vote for bills that show the opposite of their words?
Please STOP PANDERING to the coal and nuclear industries and get some guts! Enough status quo politics.
I miss John Edwards. At least he had the guts to say no more coal and nuclear! And please don't tell me they have to run this way... not if they are truly 'change' candidates. Change isn't just about policy in Washington Dc. It is about the way you live your own life and inspire others. It is also about telling truth. How can people reach a higher consciousness about this crisis if candidates won't help them get there? I am very disappointed with them both regarding their stances on this. How will they then be different from McCain on this? How many votes will they hand to him because of it? I am even beginning to wonder if they only mention it now to have Al Gore's favor.
I would hope they are mentioning it because they care, but then they have both been in Congress long enough to call for that change. However, Obama even voted for the Bush /Cheney energy bill that gave more subsidies to nuclear, oil, and ethanol. And he absolutely "had to" do that? He couldn't stand up for principles and at the very least vote no and say we need more? For environmentalists like myself, I was looking for someone who I at least thought was sincere about this. I guess that just isn't going to happen.
It is obvious this crisis cannot be solved effectively from inside that beltway. It is going to have to be us in concert with business, environmental organizations, and states. And that is what makes me angry.... because there are no other choices (and we allowed the real fighters to be pushed out) so I will be forced to place my vote next to someone who I emphatically disagree with regarding an issue I hold dear to my heart and which is the crux of our sustainability on this planet.
I say, shame on them for their playing along with this system and pandering to it and for not bringing the real change we need to see which again is not just about achieving your political aspirations. This planet is more important than their egos and endorsements or pandering to the same status quo lobbies that got us into this mess to begin with. It makes me wonder just how impervious to corporate pressure they really will be in the WH based on their track records.
This is the reason for my frustration: McCain was picked to be the Republican nominee for a reason: he was the only Republican candidate even mentioning climate change. The Republicans in Congress and this regime though they either think it a myth or that it is not important on the whole still see that the debate will focus on this for the general election and they want votes too ... so why do you think McCain is in this besides his war talk? And really, McCain touts wanting to address climate change and yet continues to support an environmentally devastating war? Where is the logic and reason in that? Will that distinction however even be made?
This is the one issue where we should be making the difference because there is a difference, and they all basically have the same policy. So what will voters have to vote on regarding the environment? True, they all claim they will work to provide renewable energy... but how long will we have to wait while they continue to appease the same lobbies that will try to thwart the transition?
So for those of us who live this, who think about this with almost every waking breath because we so love this planet and want a better one for our children... WHERE is the choice? I have also tried to find something I could even agree with Obama about regarding policy, and I simply can't. And his support of liquid coal and nuclear and his backing down to the nuclear lobby in Illinois does bother me...So regardless of what Democrat gets in this time should that happen, they will not get a free ride regarding solving this crisis now. And frankly with what is at stake, they shouldn't.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
