Obama says, YES..Gore says, NO!!!!

[Tellurian]

Obama's Coal liquification Energy Plan:

Barack Obama Supports Coal Liquefaction

According to The Washington Post, "The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Sen Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline."

..I'm not thrilled at the prospect of drilling more holes into the earth and worrying about trapped coal miners..and the reluctance of candidates not wanting to promote the use of alternative fossil fuel sources aiding in CO2 reduction, such as Ethanol..

Traditional environmentalists will scream at the 'Rock Star' senator now because he is not pure. They will not scream too loudly though because of Senator Obama's current popularity and his commitment to a clean environment in general. We are sure Senator Obama will support an equivalent carbon dioxide offset strategy and AAEA would be happy to advise him on his choices. Senator Obama is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, which is, and has been for decades, the highest ranked caucus in Congress on environmental issues. The CBC does not get much credit for this in the mainstream media, even though most of the caucus is liberal and composed totally of Democrats.

http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/2007/01/barack-obama-supports-coal.html

Gore: Special interests are 'out of control'

Thursday May 31, 2007

In an interview on CBS's Early Show on Thursday, former Vice-President Al Gore was asked about pressure from coal interests to have the US government not only pay for the building of coal liquification plants but order 25 years worth of fuel in advance. "That would be a horrible mistake," Gore responded, insisting that we need to shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables.

"In a democracy, we have always had power exerted by special interests -- but it's out of control now," Gore said. "The special interests almost every time now outweigh the public interests, and that's dangerous for our democracy."

Asked further, "Don't you have a greater obligation to make your views more public," Gore laughed at length and replied, "Well, I haven't been a shrinking violet. I haven't been shying away from making my views known. ... I don't hold back, and don't intend to."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Gore_defends_record_I_havent_been_0531.html

...Obama's Energy solutions are in direct conflict with Gore's Global Warming Programs. To date I haven't seen anything different or unique about Obama's plans or progressive ideas for clean burning fuels as a transition from oil to an alternative fuel source that would effectuate cleansing CO2 gases from our atmosphere. And frankly, I tend to believe Gore knows what is good/bad for the planet. If Obama has a new clean burning alternative fuel source program I'm not aware of.. please post it here.

[yurbud]

1. if you want diesel, bio-diesel is probably easier & cheaper to make:

squeeze oil out of plants

add a handful of chemical to 55 gallon drum of veg oil

heat overnight

apply to diesel gas tank.

[Tellurian]

3. Well, I believe you've got something there..

and I though like many others bio-fuels would take off and be the perfect solution for ending our enslavement to oil.

Apparently, some high ranking government officials (I wonder who?) commissioned a study at the UN on the use of corn, soy and other grains as a substitute for clean burning fuels. The results were astounding..The study said, we would create a World Food Crisis using products ordinarily intended for human consumption. They recommended a moratorium on the promotion of a concerted effort using these products for conversion to alternative fuel sources until further studies could be completed.

[yurbud]

11. I wouldn't advocate using it exclusively forever, but it is a good stopgap while we improve

battery technology.

[yurbud]

12. I'm suspicious of that whole food crisis bit since...

1. We have gigantic crop surpluses and dump grain on other countries to the point that their farmers can't grow crops and make a profit.
   
   
2. You can make it from the non-food part of food crops.
   

[Tellurian]

21. I agree, 100%..

If the Bio-Industry was allowed to take off, the holders of old OIL Trust funds would not be happy at all. And neither would the Bush Cartel be thrilled at the prospect of being replaced by a non-toxic, energy friendly cup of corn oil.

[yurbud]

24. it's similar to pot vs. alcohol

it takes a certain amount of equipment and hoohaw to make booze, but if someone wants to get high with grass, they could just grow it in their backyard (if it was legal).

Who's going to make a profit off that? So it must be illegal.

[Tellurian]

28. Actually,

Hemp seed was processed into oil and burned in lantern lighting during the signing of the Constitution documents, which itself was made from hemp paper. Hemp and it's byproducts are the most perfect source for renewable energy and is suitable for 100's of uses.

[yurbud]

51. I lot of my students choose to write research papers about that. they're very concerned about the

rope shortage.

[Tellurian]

63. and they should be..

pink plastic doesn't burn well atall!

[yurbud]

64. and it makes you cough

[Egnever]

81. And yet just the beginnings of it

are already driving up the cost of beef and corn in the stores. Have you bought an ear of corn lately?

[yurbud]

13. argument against bio-fuels is a lot like that against solar and wind

"What will we do when the wind isn't blowing?"

"What will we do at night when there is no sunlight?"

The answer is that same as for bio-fuels: you get your energy from more than one kind of source. We can keep old coal, natural gas, and other nasty plants, and just not build new ones, or only build enough to take up the slack from renewables.

Biodiesel is a lot simpler to make than alcohol, and could extend our diesel supplies, but biofuels should also be used in conjunction with hybrid technology, instead of just switching your Hummer over to corn squeezings.

[ben_meyers]

4. What plants?

How much energy and other resources does it take to produce a 55 gal drum of oil. Can this be done without the current government subsidies that exist for corn ethanol? Can we use bio-diesel to replace a significant percentage off our energy needs? It all sounds good but will it really work?

[yurbud]

15. think about the total subsidy we give oil not just in tax breaks, but military spending

I read an article on the guy who runs his school bus on used french fry oil that he converts to biodiesel. The process could be explained in a paragraph, and by the end, I was pretty confident I could do it myself.

I cannot say the same thing about extracting gasoline or diesel from crude oil.

I think that's why oil companies are in such a panic about biofuels--they can't monopolize and bottleneck it.

They can get into the business of marketing and distributing it, but if they charge too much, it would be easy for small businesses to start to make it and undercut them, or even for rural people to just start making it themselves.

[Tellurian]

22. Yep,it's a fantastic idea..

and conversion kits are becoming easily available for certain diesel cars. The VW and Volvo diesels can be converted to bio-fuel friendly within an hour or so. The internet has everything you want to know about doing the conversion. I read about it several years ago, the cost of a conversion kits were about $250/$300. They're probably less costly today and more widely available for different diesel car models. There is an easy formula for the purification of used fry oil as fuel for your car. If you get friendly with a Chinese Restaurant or a fast food place; your fuel cost could be pennies.

[yurbud]

23. I read about one system where a VW could run on pure vegetable oil so long as

it was started and warmed up with diesel.

That seemed unnecessarily complicated, but was an interesting idea.

[Tellurian]

29. In reality it's not that complicated at all..

a flip of the switch, after ignition via diesel, to vegetable oil is all it takes.

[yurbud]

52. okay, you've convinced me. You can give me one.

[Tellurian]

57. Is Christmas soon enough?

My next car will be a diesel and I will do the conversion.

Our heating is Natural Gas and our highest bill was $158 for the coldest month.

We have 10" thick insulation throughout and I invested heavily in the best double plated windows.
It is a good feeling not to be subsidizing Big Oil, next will be the auto.

[yurbud]

60. geeze--do you have an 80 room house in Wisconsin or something?

my gas bill is low enough that I don't even remember what it is.

[Tellurian]

61. nooo, but I did just get rid of a 13 rm house..

that was prohibitive to heat when oil prices were low, The house was Historical...and as drafty as standing outdoors in the NE in mid winter.

[Tellurian]

2. I'd like to hear what Obama supporters have to say regarding this issue..

According to this article...Obama's popularity will conquer all, even environmentalists who feel we are far behind the learning curve in establishing fresh new ideas to halt Global Warming..

Then I would have to assume the country would sacrifice it's life and safety to elect a fresh face to the White House based strictly on popularity and rock Star status...

I would ask.. is the country becoming more stupid everyday, or is this just plain "audacity" without consequences?

[dionysus]

9. That's really pathetic using Gore to trash Obama.

typical froms you guys

[Tellurian]

14. If Obama has an innovative energy plan

I'd like to know what it is? Apparently, Gore isn't too happy with Obama, Obama is the only one who is advocating Coal/fossil fuel technology. Why is that considered trashing? I'm pointing out the best environmentalist in the World is telling us it would be a mistake if we went with Obama's idea.

Do you know what other programs Obama has available or he hasn't anything else to offer?

[karynnj]

32. Do you have a link to Gore saying anything about Obama

The only comments I've seen were that he had not been too happy with what the Clintons did in the 1990s. He did have a nice comment for Dodd's plan, as did John Kerry. Dodd is co-sponsoring Boxer/Sanders bill. Hillary and Obama are co-sponsoring the lamer Leiberman/McCain plan. I hope they switch to Kerry/Snowe or Boxer/Sanders which are better.

From what I have seen every plan includes coal - it is too big a source to eliminate in the near future - I assume EVERY one will be for funding research into cleaner coal technolagy - including the Jr Senator from NY.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3294606

I have NOT heard Gore say no coal - so I assume he would be for looking into ways to make it cleaner

[loyalsister]

65. 3 states

have a history of mining coal and could put more people to work with this. Missouri, Illinois and Kentucky. 2 are purple.

[Radical Activist]

120. Obama has an excellent environmental record

from his days as a State Senator in Illinois to today. His climate change proposals are very strong. How many other candidates went to Detroit to announce their plan for better fuel economy standards? Just because you support another candidate doesn't mean you have to distort Obama's positions on the issues.

[Dawgs]

5. Has Tellurian ever posted in a thread that didn't attack Democratic candidates,

other than Clinton?

BTW, what's Hillary's plan for anything?

[Tellurian]

16. I'm not supporting Obama..

If you are supporting him, you must know what programs he's offering to address Global Warming? Gore thinks Obama's Coal technology is bad for the planet. What other programs would Obama have as an alternative?

[zulchzulu]

40. Senator Clinton ALSO supports clean coal technology...

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269765

It's on her Senate web site. Granted, the poster you mentioned probably failed to see what her policy position was on clean coal technology before the limp attempt at trashing Obama...nothing new...

[Tellurian]

42. I'm going to lobby against the use of Coal..

I wish Gore had spoken out sooner on the Coal industry..

There is a graph included in this post showing how detrimental it is in contributing to green house gases.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3293846&mesg_id=3294683

[zulchzulu]

48. Ignoring coal as an energy source is immature and unresponsible

Ferchrissakes, do you get it?



More than half of the electricity used in the US is coal-generated. So we should ignore it?

[Tellurian]

62. Only if you are a Republican..

The Nation recently had a very good article on the problems with "clean" coal.

Unfortunately, it's for subscribers only:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/goodell

To summarize the main points of the article, the so-called "clean coal" idea is to capture the CO2 from coal plants, liquify it, and bury it underground. The problems with this are as follows:

* CO2 is exteremely difficult to capture from a smokestack. To capture CO2, it is likely that completely different types of plants will have to be built, where coal is first transformed into a gas before it is burned.
* It is far from clear how to bury CO2 on a large-enough scale to make a difference.
* Liquifying the CO2 will use up 10% of the energy obtained from burning the coal.
* There is no guarantee that the CO2 that has been pumped underground will not seep out
* Considering that CO2 can cause asphyxiation at concentrations greater than 20%, who is going to want to live on top of a giant pool of CO2?
* Pumping CO2 underground may make water more acidic, and acidic water dissolves more toxic heavy metals.



In summary, while "clean" coal is is a convenient cause for politicians to champion, it is not a simple solution. Even if the main problems are solved, it will be many decades before coal burning will be environmentally friendly.

As The Nation article states:

"Not surprisingly, for the past two decades Big Coal has worked hard to deny the existence of global warming and to undermine any legislation that would put a price on carbon. Today, even the dinosaurs of the industry know that carbon legislation is inevitable; the game now is to delay legislation and to make sure that when it does pass, the cost of carbon stays as low as possible for as long as possible. So get ready for years of talk about the promise of carbon capture and storage but very little action."

no better than Nuclear Waste!

[Rydz777]

6. On the Tweety show tonight, a guy from New Republic suggested

that a Gore/Obama ticket might be in the works if Obama cannot alone derail Hillary. It wasn't clear whether he was "reporting" or just speculating. Part of the lack of clarity was due to Tweety's constant interrupting. In fact he told the New Republic guy that a rule of the show was that when Tweety interrupts, everyone else must stop talking - and to remember that if he wants to come back.

[Bullet1987]

7. WHAT ABOUT THE ELECTRIC CAR?????

[Tellurian]

18. Gore had an electic car in the 90's...nm

[Greyhound]

30. I'll tell you why we don't have 'em anymore, because they're too good.

Fast, efficient, cheap, very low maintenance (practically none), in short; NOT VERY PROFITABLE.

They only use a tiny bit of oil in the production of the plastic parts, and an infinitesimal bit for lubrication (which can be entirely replaced). How do you expect all those shareholders and executives to rake in any bucks with that kind of transportation? What's left of our economy depends on military hardware and oil.

Same reason we're not going to get disbursed solar power, wind power, tidal generators, geothermal, etc. If it's not enormously expensive centralized production with a controllable distribution system, there isn't very much money in it.

[Tellurian]

47. good points, all-

thanks for posting them..

[Tellurian]

17. Interesting...

I didnt think Obama would play second to any candidate. At least thats what he said on Letterman.

What program of Obama's do you like best?

[Imagevision]

8. "Gore, insisting that we need to shift away" no concrete plan just shift away

Since Jimmy Carter they all keep saying;"we need to find alternative fuel solutions and none of them have done zilch about it, simply another campaign slogan...

[Tellurian]

19. Gore means Shifting away from burning fossil fuels..

and he's not standing behind Obama's recommendation as a cure for Global Warming.

[zulchzulu]

37. I'm for smell-free excrement too...

Um...Gore has it wrong if he thinks that clean coal technology should be ignored. We have a LOT of coal and we also have the technology to make it "clean", by "clean" meaning a hell of a lot better than the present dirty technology.

Yes, there are some byproducts. Yes, there is some waste. Yes, there is reality. This is Planet Earth, after all.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. At least he doesn't pilfer his ideas from others, unlike a certain old candidate.

That old lady running. you know. not an original idea in her pea brain.

[Tellurian]

20. Can you tell me some of Obama's ideas?

For instance, what do you think of Obama's Health Care program?

Does it exist anywhere else? Has it been tested before?

[karynnj]

33. None of their health care plans have been tested anywhere

including Hillary's.

[zulchzulu]

38. Why don't you visit his web site...

There are plenty of ideas there. Check it out.

There isn't a big button to tinker and twiddle about a campaign song there, however...

[doggyboy]

56. However

we can swoon over how Obama plays basketball.

Hillary is not the only candidate pushing trivialities. Every candidate does it. Kucinich sings 16 Tons. Kerry goes wind-sailing. The Kennedy's play football.

[silverback]

25. liquid fuels...

Coal liquification really isn't a bad idea in terms of energy independence, we're not going to spool up enough alternative/nuclear power overnight to replace the supply that could easily evaporate overnight when the hornets nest we've been kicking, which happens to sit on the worlds energy reserves, which of course is why we kicked it, finally stings us.

Bio-diesel is a complete non-starter, it works great as a recycling technology and all but when you start talking about replacing really significant portions of current demand with it the environmental damage is far worse than burning fossil fuels. Always keep in mind there are topsoil losses from tilling, growing and then harvesting plant matter, and current ag production is already way beyond sustainable levels. In a very real sense bio-fuels are simply mining carbon from soils, and soils are far more valuable and finite than fossil fuels.

There are similar issues with other alternatives, there's no easy answers.

Somewhat off topic but I've long been of the opinion that a great deal of our environmental problems can be traced back to an economic and monetary system that provides essentially unlimited amounts of credit which then translates into rapid growth rates with little in the way of feedback or consequences for poor decisions, what economists call malinvestment or moral hazard.

I think the same thing applies to the energy situation.

[Tellurian]

26. Is should be easier to replace topsoil..

than the prospect of cleaning up toxic spills in the oceans that kill any living thing that comes in contact with it. Composting is actually an easy solution for replacing topsoil. It's a cheap and efficient way as a renewable resource. Just to note. Green environmental programs are becoming very popular as new and innovative cottage industries for increasing the advantages of entrepreneurship.

"Somewhat off topic but I've long been of the opinion that a great deal of our environmental problems can be traced back to an economic and monetary system that provides essentially unlimited amounts of credit which then translates into rapid growth rates with little in the way of feedback or consequences for poor decisions, what economists call malinvestment or moral hazard."

I agree with you in some respect. What do you think would be an effective solution for the quickest reforms besides limiting credit?

[silverback]

27. topsoil...

Actually no, it isn't that simple. Composting is taking plant matter grown someplace else and concentrating it in one location, or at least returning waste plant matter to the soil, precisely what doesn't happen when you're growing high yield vegetation for oil and ethanol production. Again, composting is a great recycling program and sound farming practices are great, but the rate at which topsoil is produced by the ecosystem itself is incredible slow, it took billions of years to produce the wealth we have now, and already we've lost a large portion of it, tillage results in oxidation of carbon (humus)in soils and growing plants which are then harvested for plant matter to be burned (rather than dying down and providing cover and eventually returning to the soil) depletes it further. In many cases arable land is completely destroyed in short order by poor ag practices as degradation can rapidly lead to desertification, particularly when you're talking about large scale ag. Oxidation of carbon from tillage is also a major atmospheric CO2 source.

Oil palms in Indonesia are a good example, they've been growing them for biodiesel recently and it's completely destroying the ecosystems of the islands in question.

Ocean spills would seem to be another point in favor of coal liquification, since we're the Saudi Arabia of coal we could buy domestic fuels. Ultimately I think we'll need to go nuclear/electric or go to an agrarian society, and that just isn't realistic in a competitive world.

As for economic reforms in many ways so much damage is already done, the first thing is to stop digging the hole. One example of the magnitude of the problem is suburbia itself, which is really a horrible way to go about building a community from a social, environmental or energy perspective. That growth pattern never could have happened, at least not so rapidly and poorly, without the credit boom of the last century since we created a "lender of last resort" in the Federal Reserve system and the petrodollar system that resulted. Like energy conservation, appropriate policy would be somewhat painful and therefore politically unpopular.

The obvious first step is to reform that system. Perhaps go to treasury notes as JFK intended to do, before he was killed.

[amandabeech]

92. Thanks for the great post. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

31. The next and final paragraph from the African America Environmentalist Association

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. is the 'Saudi Arabia' of coal and we will produce transportation fuel from coal and oil shale. We will use biofuels, ethanol, methanol and hydrogen too. We need a mix of fuels to reduce our dependence on imported oil from hostile countries. Some of these countries will probably use our oil money to attack us. Keep on rocking Mr. Rock Star.

http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/2007/01/barack-obama-supports-coal.html

[Tellurian]

34. Coal is the centerpiece of Obama's Energy program

On the positive side, once Al Gore sees this he may realize he needs to jump in NOW to stop this...

Gore is already on it!

These should get you started:

Clean Coal: The Mother of all Oxymorons
Billions More for Coal While Alternatives Languish

TomPaine.com

It's the mother of all oxymorons: "clean coal." But politicians and their financiers expect us to scarf down their doublespeak. Their latest pet phrase is popping up in bills and proposals that would slop billions in taxpayer money into the trough to feed corpulent ole King Coal......Whatever the results of the taxpayer subsidized research might be, "clean coal" technologies definitely won't reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a major heat-trapping gas that is contributing to the greenhouse effect. Coal is primarily carbon, the combustion of which emits greenhouse gases and escalates global warming. According to some economists, we should follow the United Kingdom's lead and tax carbon emissions, not subsidize further pollution.

More at: http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron.htm


Unmasking the truth behind "clean coal"
“Clean coal” is an attempt by the coal industry to try and make itself relevant in the age of renewables.

What is (so-called) “clean coal”?

Coal is a highly polluting energy source. It emits much more carbon per unit of energy than oil, and natural gas. CO2 represents the major portion of greenhouse gases. It is, therefore, one of the leading contributors to climate change. From mine to sky, from extraction to combustion -- coal pollutes every step of the way. The huge environmental and social costs associated with coal usage make it an expensive option for developing countries. From acid drainage from coal mines, polluting rivers and streams, to the release of mercury and other toxins when it is burned, as well as climate-destroying gases and fine particulates that wreak havoc on human health, COAL is unquestionably, a DIRTY BUSINESS.

It is a major contributor to climate change – the biggest environmental threat we face. It is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, emitting 29% more than oil, 80% more carbon dioxide (the main driver of climate change) per unit of energy than gas.
Mercury is a particular problem. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), mercury and its compounds are highly toxic and pose a ‘global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.’ Coal-fired power and heat production are the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions. There are no commercially available technologies to prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

**** “Clean coal” is the industry’s attempt to “clean up” its dirty image – the industry’s greenwash buzzword. It is not a new type of coal.

**** “Clean coal” technology (CCT) refers to technologies intended to reduce pollution. But no coal-fired power plants are truly ‘clean’

**** “Clean coal” methods only move pollutants from one waste stream to another which are then still released into the environment. Any time coal is burnt, contaminants are released and they have to go somewhere. They can be released via the fly ash, the gaseous air emissions, water outflow or the ash left at the bottom after burning. Ultimately, they still end up polluting the environment.

**** “Clean coal” methods only move pollutants from one waste stream to another.

More at:
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/campaigns/climate-c...


Other Articles:

Clean Coal: The Myth Ends Today



http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/667 /


Clean Coal, Forest Biofuel and Other Fairy Tales
http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2007/01/clean-coal-fo...

[zulchzulu]

36. Gee..now what about that Senator from New York running for President...

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269765

A snip from her OWN web site:

"Deliver Clean Coal Technology. $3.5 billion in tax incentives and grants to build 5 clean coal plants that can capture and store carbon dioxide and reduce global warming."

So, it must be bad technology...
:rofl:

[Tellurian]

39. You're in the wrong thread zulu..

This is about Obama not Clinton..

Find the other thread..

[zulchzulu]

41. Oh wait...so...um..Senator Clinton's same policy as Obama's is not the issue here?

Wow. No wonder... ah...never mind...

[Tellurian]

44. No, Senator Clinton isn't in it with both feet..

The Coal Industry owns Obama at this point.

[zulchzulu]

46. So even if she says she supports clean coal in speeches, she...um...

..doesn't REALLY support it?

:rofl:

[Tellurian]

49. She can change her mind..

why would you think she couldn't?

I doubt Obama can, though. eh?

[JI7]

71. fucking pathetic

[Tellurian]

103. Tie a cow to a fence post in your yard..

and call it yard art!

just about as pathetic as your response!

[JI7]

105. seriously, do you ever read your own posts

Hillary has the same position as Obama yet you attack Obama by claiming Hillary will change her mind but Obama can't. what the fuck?????

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JI7]

110. keep it up, you still haven't answered my point

Hillary and Obama have the same position on something yet you attack Obama by saying HIllary can change but Obama can't ? no wonder you respond with such personal attacks.

[Tellurian]

111. No, Hillary and Obama don't share the same position..

Obama has a vested interest in "Liquid Coal"..He is a co-sponsor of a very detailed bill.


Hillary is supporting a super fund for research into alternative energy sources. Liquid Coal is just one source she has on her list. I don't see the similarity.

Here are the 3 bills exclusively on "liquid coal":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3293846#3297370

[JI7]

112. i still don't understand your attack on Obama

Hillary supports it , she has shown she supports it outside of that bill you bring up. i odn't get why you are attacking Obama over this one and saying Hillary has a better position.

[Tellurian]

113. I don't want the bill to pass, do you?

I spent several hours reading up all the info I could find on the internet.

Al Gore is right.. This is a bad deal for our future and the deal laid out in Congress is unacceptable.

[Egnever]

115. Then you better start taking hillary to task on it instead of

giving her a pass on it and then if she becomes potus, wondering why in the hell she is pushing for it still.

What will you say at that point? Well I told Obama it was bad! Why didn't she pay attention?

Stop the blind loyalty to your candidate it makes you look foolish.

[Tellurian]

116. It's obvious you haven't read the several threads relating to this subject..

in their entirety..and my remarks in them..Therefore, I can't properly answer or explain my position to you because you are seriously lacking in important information with which to properly frame the body of your comment..I'm just not into rebuilding Rome, at this time.

[mckeown1128]

43. You know if you think about it...

Tellurian you work so hard trying to find dirt to trash Obama and Edwards... Wouldn't it be easier if you left her majesty's court and picked any number of a thousand things for which to attack Hillary over. Every post about Obama and Edwards... and there you are ready to attack them while completely ignoring the fact that the same attacks most often apply to Hillary... I hate to call you out on this but you seem to be obsessed with negative attacks.

[Tellurian]

45. Post the threads with negative attacks.. This thread isn't an attack either..

Obama is a chief supporter of Liquid Coal. Al Gore is against promoting Coal as an alternative solution to green house gasses.. Don't attack the messenger for pointing out facts that are not to your taste.

There are 3 or 4 posters on this board that regularly post Hillary Attacks daily. So save the righteous indignation and lame attempt at citing me for things other posters do on a regular basis around here.

And for your information, you're not calling me out on anything mckeown1123.. your just making shit up because I won't join you in supporting Obama or Edwards.. It won't work!

[mckeown1128]

50. Let me get this straight...

you have 20 posts in a single thread "criticizing" Obama but I guess that you aren't attacking him negatively :sarcasm: I particularly like this one of yours

"I would have to assume the country would sacrifice it's life and safety to elect a fresh face to the White House based strictly on popularity and rock Star status..."

hmm... so you are suggesting indirectly that electing Obama would sacrifice this countries life and saftey... sure it's not negative at all. :sarcasm:


ohh by the way Mr./Mrs. Facts: here is Obama's energy policy...all of it... not just the part you are trying to show out of context. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ He is a supporter of Liquid Coal so we can be less dependent on foreign oil. Your own link claims that this liquefied coal

"burns as cleanly as gasoline"

so what is the problem with not being as dependent of foreign oil. This isn't the staple of his energy policy just a bit of it... I mean we will still have to use oil in the next few years...right!

[Tellurian]

53. show me the 20 posts criticizing Obama..?

The post you cited is in the OP..it doesn't count!

So show me!

[mckeown1128]

54. there you go again..

I never said twenty posts criticizing Obama I said twenty posts in a thread criticizing Obama. You have sure kept this POS hit piece thread going for a while with those twenty posts. And since I don't want to contribute to hit pieces this will be my last post in this thread. Ohh. and I am glad you have responded to all of my post as opposed to just the first line :sarcasm:

[Tellurian]

55. You can't post any because they don't exist..

IOW, there is nothing for you to complain about.

put me on your ignore feature..thats what it's for!

[Radical Activist]

118. bullshit

Obama has a lot more to his energy program. To call it the centerpiece is a gross distortion.

[zulchzulu]

35. We should ignore coal as an energy source since we have so much of it...

:sarcasm:

There is such a thing as clean coal technology.

As for Obama's strategies on clean energy:

Obama Says Energy Bill Helps Illinois by Doubling Ethanol Use, Investing in Clean Coal

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama Friday voted in favor of the comprehensive energy bill, saying it will help Illinois and start America down the path to energy independence by doubling ethanol use, greatly increasing the availability of E85 ethanol pumps, and investing in combination plug-in hybrid and flexible-fuel vehicles, as well as clean-coal technology. However, he warned that bolder action is required if lawmakers are really serious about dealing with the high energy costs that are plaguing American consumers.

"This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil," said Obama. "It requires that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be mixed with gasoline by 2012. That's 7.5 billion gallons of fuel that will be grown in the corn fields of Illinois, and not imported from the deserts of the Middle East. The bill will also help triple the number of E85 ethanol fueling stations in the next year by providing a tax credit for their construction. This will help the millions of people who already drive flexible-fuel vehicles to fill their tanks with fuel made from 85 percent ethanol that is 50 cents cheaper than regular gasoline."

"I am also pleased that the bill includes funding I requested for research into combination plug-in hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles that could travel up to 500 miles per gallon of gasoline, as well as more investment into clean-coal technology."

The Energy bill will do the following:

- Create a Renewable Fuels Standard that will nearly double the amount of ethanol used by 2012.

- Provide up to a $30,000 tax credit for the construction of E85 ethanol fueling stations.

- Provide a $1.8 billion tax credit for investments in clean-coal facilities.

- Provide $85 million to Southern Illinois University, Purdue University, and the University of Kentucky for research and testing on developing Illinois basin coal into transportation fuels.

- Provide $40 million for research on combined plug-in hybrid and E85 flexible fuel vehicles that have the potential to drive 500 miles per gallon of gasoline used.

- Provide incentives to promote biofuels from agricultural resources.

While voting for the bill, the Illinois Senator also said he believes that the legislation still falls short of what could and should be done to put America on the path to energy independence.

"Although this a step forward, it's not a very big step," said Obama. "The Department of Energy predicts that American demand will jump by 50 percent over the next 15 years. Meanwhile, the conservative Heritage Foundation says this bill will do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And it won't reduce the price of gasoline paid by hardworking Americans. Even President Bush and supporters of the bill in Congress concede as much."

"We could have done more today, and we should do more in the future. We must accept and embrace the challenge of finding a solution to our dependence on foreign oil as one of the most pressing problems of our time. It won't be easy and it won't be without sacrifice, but we owe it to ourselves and to our children so that we can bring down gas prices, protect our environment, and strengthen our national security. This should be one of our top priorities in America."

"So, I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey towards energy independence."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050729-_obama_says_energy_bill_helps_illinois_by_doubling_ethanol_use_investing_in_clean_coal/index.html

[ieoeja]

58. I was going to post the same thing.

Coal is *not* the centerpiece of Obama's environmental strategy. Ethonal, which Tellurian keeps touting, has been the centerpiece of his strategy to date.

[Tellurian]

59. The Green Gripe With Obama: Liquefied Coal Is Still . . . Coal.

The Green Gripe With Obama: Liquefied Coal Is Still . . . Coal.

Who, but who, would soil the environmental reputation of Barack Obama?

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has reintroduced the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. It's a development that has the coal crowd cheering. So why then, environmentalists ask, is Obama backing a law supporting the expanded use of coal, whose emissions are cooking the globe? It seems the answer is twofold: his interest in energy independence -- and his interest in downstate Illinois, where the senator's green tinge makes the coal industry queasy.

The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline.

Environmentalists say focusing on coal does nothing to arrest climate change. Instead, they say, lawmakers should back cleaner alternative fuels and stricter automobile and industrial emissions standards.

"The rationale is, 'We have a lot of coal in the ground, let's put it to some use,' " said Frank O'Donnell,

...who does that sound like????

president of the D.C.-based nonprofit group Clean Air Watch. "It's not the best use of the coal and it's one that's almost certain to exacerbate the global warming problem." Obama's advocacy of coal liquefaction, he said, might have to do with his getting "hammered" by Illinois coal interests.

National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich counters that "our friends in the green community . . . don't want us to use our most abundant fuel," and adds: "They're sort of indifferent to the trend line toward greater importation of transportation fuels."

Coal liquefaction, Popovich said, is "used quite extensively in countries like South Africa."

David G. Hawkins, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in Senate testimony in April that "while it appears that technologies exist to achieve high levels of control for all or most of these pollutants, the operating experience of coal-to-liquids plants in South Africa demonstrates that coal-to-liquids plants are not inherently 'clean.' "
Popovich concedes he point: "Liquefied coal produces a diesel fuel cleaner than other diesel fuels, not necessarily cleaner than conventional gas," he said.

What about Obama? "Senator Obama has introduced legislation to drastically increase the production of biofuels like ethanol, and has authored legislation to increase fuel economy standards that would eventually save us 4.3 million barrels of oil a day and would reduce global warming," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.

And, oh, yes: "Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Senator Obama believes it is crucial that we invest in technologies to use these resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

well, I'm not interested..in liquid coal or creating another Bush cartel..so, no go, for Obama, Illinois coal and any Republicans Obama chooses to hook up with!!! If Obama want to make deals with Republicans why doesn't he just run as one!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html

[Ethelk2044]

66. Yet, Hilllary Supports Coal

You support Hillary. I do believe this is what is called a hypocrite.

[Tellurian]

67. Hillary isn't a co-sponsor of the Bill- Obama is..

I'm against Coal as an alternative fuel. How about you?

[calteacherguy]

72. What we really need are more electric cars, and more nuclear power plants

to generate the electricity...along with solar, wind, and other renewables. I'd rather plug it in than fill 'er up.

[Tellurian]

73. yeah,nuclear power plants..

whats your plan for dumping toxic waste?

nimby?

[calteacherguy]

108. Dealing with nuclear waste is far easier on the environment than dealing with coal-burning waste. nt

[Tellurian]

109. yeah, tell that to the kids fighting Leukemia..

in and around Yucca Mt. The life threatening disease contracted by drinking contaminated water poisoned by toxic waste from expended nuclear waste dumped in the vicinity of their water sources, ordered by Dick Cheney.

[Tellurian]

68. Obama has reintroduced the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007.

As a co-sponsor does he mention it on his website?

you can read #59 for more info..

[Ethelk2044]

69. Hillary is sponsoring a coal bill herself, yet you are supporting

Hillary

http://global-warming-awareness.org/2007/02/27/hillary-... /

[Tellurian]

70. Not necessarily..

the quote:

"Is part of her tour, she pledged to wean the US from foreign oil dependency, and as Senator will be introducing a bill in the near future — "

Sen Clinton hasn't said definitely what her bill will promote. I'm hoping she's for Cellulosic Ethanol. If you look at the graph I posted up here again, you'll see the difference between Liquid Coal which is a huge CO2 polluter and Cellulosic Ethanol which will reduce hydrocarbons by 91%, greatly affecting Green House emissions.



Liquid Coal would be our death knell and I will do everything to discourage her from supporting it. She might be unpopular with the Congress but the people who like breathing...will love her..

Obam is in it, waist deep.. unless you just say no to him! He's working for you, Ethel and I'm sure you want to curb Global Warming...yes? You like breathing just like the rest of us!

http://www.investincellulosicethanol.com/

http://www.energy.gov/news/4827.htm

[Tellurian]

74. Sponsors and Cosponsors of Coal to Liquid Fuel

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00155:@@@P

H.R.370

Title: To promote coal-to-liquid fuel activities.

Sponsor: Rep Davis, Geoff (introduced 1/10/2007) Cosponsors (30)

Related Bills: S.155

Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. COSPONSORS(30), ALPHABETICAL :
(Sort: by date)


Rep Bachus, Spencer - 1/10/2007
Rep Boucher, Rick - 1/10/2007
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. - 1/10/2007
Rep Cannon, Chris - 1/10/2007
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore - 1/24/2007
Rep Costello, Jerry F. - 1/12/2007
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 1/10/2007
Rep Davis, David - 5/15/2007
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 1/10/2007
Rep Drake, Thelma D. - 1/10/2007
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. - 1/10/2007
Rep English, Phil - 1/12/2007
Rep Everett, Terry - 1/10/2007
Rep Hastert, J. Dennis - 1/10/2007
Rep LaHood, Ray - 1/10/2007
Rep Lewis, Ron - 1/10/2007
Rep Murphy, Tim - 2/27/2007
Rep Pickering, Charles W. "Chip" - 1/10/2007
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II - 1/10/2007
Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. - 1/10/2007
Rep Rogers, Harold - 1/10/2007
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 1/10/2007
Rep Rush, Bobby L. - 4/25/2007
Rep Shimkus, John - 1/10/2007
Rep Shuster, Bill - 1/24/2007
Rep Souder, Mark E. - 1/31/2007
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 2/27/2007
Rep Whitfield, Ed - 1/10/2007
Rep Wilson, Charles A. - 2/7/2007
Rep Yarmuth, John A. - 1/10/2007

S.154

Title: A bill to promote coal-to-liquid fuel activities.

Sponsor: Sen Bunning, Jim (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (12)

Related Bills: S.155

Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. COSPONSORS(12), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Bond, Christopher S. - 1/4/2007
Sen Byrd, Robert C. - 5/2/2007
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 1/4/2007
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. - 1/11/2007
Sen Enzi, Michael B. - 1/4/2007
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 1/4/2007
Sen Lugar, Richard G. - 1/4/2007
Sen Martinez, Mel - 1/4/2007
Sen Murkowski, Lisa - 1/4/2007
Sen Obama, Barack - 1/4/2007
Sen Pryor, Mark L. - 1/4/2007
Sen Thomas, Craig - 1/4/2007

S.155

Title: A bill to promote coal-to-liquid fuel activities.

Sponsor: Sen Bunning, Jim (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (12)

Related Bills: H.R.370, S.154

Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. COSPONSORS(12), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

Sen Bond, Christopher S. - 1/4/2007
Sen Byrd, Robert C. - 5/2/2007
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 1/4/2007
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. - 1/11/2007
Sen Enzi, Michael B. - 1/4/2007
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 1/4/2007
Sen Lugar, Richard G. - 1/4/2007
Sen Martinez, Mel - 1/4/2007
Sen Murkowski, Lisa - 1/4/2007
Sen Obama, Barack - 1/4/2007
Sen Pryor, Mark L. - 1/4/2007
Sen Thomas, Craig - 1/4/2007

[Tellurian]

75. Brief History of US spending for Coal conversion to Liquid..

The Bureau of Mines first studied the extraction of oil from oil shale between 1925 - 1928.

Between 1928 and 1944, the Bureau experimented with coal liquefaction by hydrogenation using the Bergius process. A small-scale test unit constructed in 1937 had a 100-pound per day continuous coal feed. The methodologies employed underwent extensive development in this period, delivering significant increases in efficiency, culminating in the Karrick process.

Between 1945 and 1948, new laboratories were constructed near Pittsburgh. A synthetic ammonia plant Louisiana, Missouri (Missouri Ordnance Works) was transferred from the Army to the program in 1945. The plant was converted into a coal hydrogenation test facility. By 1949 the plant could produce 200 barrels of oil a day using the Bergius process.

Part of the personnel were German scientists, who had been extracted from Germany by Operation Paperclip.

In 1948, the program was extended to eight years and funding increased to $60 million. A second facility was constructed at the Louisiana plant, this time using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Completed in 1951, the plant only produced 40,000 gallons of fuel.

In 1953 the new Republican-led House Appropriations Committee ended funding for the research and the Missouri plant was returned to the Department of the Army.

In 1979, after the second oil crisis, the U.S. Congress approves the Energy Security Act forming the Synthetic Fuels Corporation and authorizes up to $88 million for synthetic fuels projects.

In 1985 Congress abolished the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program after 40 years and total spending of $8 billion.

[Ethelk2044]

76. Hillary Sponsoring bill on Clean Coal

Edited on Sat Jun-02-07 05:06 PM by Ethelk2044
Hillary

http://global-warming-awareness.org/2007/02/27/hillary -... /

[Tellurian]

77. Thats not what it says..if you look at who the sponsors are...her name is not there...Obama's IS!!

[Ethelk2044]

78. What about she Touts Clean coal you do not understand!

In her continuing efforts to be an environmentally attractive candidate for the globalwarming aware crowd, Hillary Clinton toured a clean-coal facility in upstate New York.

As part of her tour, she pledged to wean the US from foreign oil dependency, and as Senator will be introducing a bill in the near future — doubtless in as showy a fashion as possible.

She touts clean coal technology, among others, to combat globalwarming.She touts clean coal technology, among others, to combat globalwarming.echnology, among others, to combat globalwarming. The US has a lot of coal, although mining coal is frequently dangerous and has long-term health hazards for miners.

[Tellurian]

79. The word "Tout "and the word "Sponsor". Are they synonymous to you?

TOUT

verb (used without object)

1. to solicit business, employment, or the like, importunately.
2. Horse Racing. to act as a tout.
–verb (used with object)
3. to solicit support for importunately.
4. to describe or advertise boastfully; publicize or promote; praise extravagantly: a highly touted nightclub.
5. Horse Racing.
a. to provide information on (a horse) running in a particular race, esp. for a fee.
b. to spy on (a horse in training) in order to gain information for the purpose of betting.
6. to watch; spy on.
–noun
7. a person who solicits business, employment, support, or the like, importunately.
8. Horse Racing.
a. a person who gives information on a horse, esp. for a fee.
b. Chiefly British. a person who spies on a horse in training for the purpose of betting.
9. British. a ticket scalper.

SPONSOR

–noun
1. a person who vouches or is responsible for a person or thing.
2. a person, firm, organization, etc., that finances and buys the time to broadcast a radio or television program so as to advertise a product, a political party, etc.
3. a person who makes a pledge or promise on behalf of another.
4. a person who answers for an infant at baptism, making the required professions and assuming responsibility for the child's religious upbringing; godfather or godmother.
–verb (used with object)
5. to act as sponsor for; promise, vouch, or answer for.

Here is an example describing the difference in the two meanings.

Bill goes car shopping with his brother, Joe. Bill finds a car he and his brother like. Bill says, should I get this car, Joe? Joe says, (touting) sure, why not, and proceeds to point out all the nice things about the car. Bill says, but I don't think I can get this car unless you sign on the note with (sponsor) me. Joe says, I can't do it, and gives 10 good reasons why he can't.

The article your citing says the same thing, Clinton visited the facility and is touting the program. Has Sen Clinton signed on to the program as a co-sponsor? NO! And I hope she NEVER does!

[Ethelk2044]

80. Check my other post with her stances.

She is pushing for clean coal as well. She has in as much pushed for funding for it as well. Her stance is no different from Obama's. Therefore when you bash Obama you need to be bashing Clinton as well. There are several positions papers on her Senate website where she is backing Clean coal.

Do the research of all candidates before you try to bash one.

By Timothy J. Burger and Kristin Jensen

May 24 (Bloomberg) -- Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposed on Feb. 27 more research funds for new energy technology, including ``clean'' coal systems. The next day, Mark Penn, her top campaign strategist, had a different take on coal.

In an internal blog at his other job, as chief executive officer of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, Penn wrote of how Burson worked ``behind the scenes'' for TXU Corp., a Texas company seeking to build power plants fueled by pulverized coal, which some environmentalists say would be major polluters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYaUqMqpWpW4

[Tellurian]

82. And???

Sen Clinton is not sponsoring any Coal related bills..

Sorry, you can keep trying to Tar her with Obama brush, but it won't stick!

"You're beating a dead horse!"

[Ethelk2044]

84. Try to spin all you want

All three leading candidates are backing clean coal. We should be pushing all three to back down from it. Instead of you trying spin that your candidate is not backing it. She is on record where she backs it. It is also on her Senate website where she backs clean coal. Since you are trying to spin it the other way. It would be better for you to ask her to take it down from her website where I found the information where she is pushing for money for funding the research for the clean coal initiative.

[Tellurian]

85. Gore isn't and neither is Hillary..

[Ethelk2044]

88. No Hillary just appropriated the Money to fund Clean coal

Anyone with any sense can look on her Senate website to see her stance on Clean Coal. They will find she is for it. She also sponsored a bill to fund it.

All Three leading Dem's are for clean coal. When you try to separate them. You need to do more research to find out where they are different. She is no different from Edwards or Obama. If you want to continue to try to spin, please send her an email and ask her to take down her position off her Senate website. If not. it only make you look foolish for trying to continue to spin.

Furthermore, We should be pushing all three candidates to change their stances on clean coal because they all have the same stance.

Commonsense when spinning - Make sure your candidate does not have the same stance.

[Kingstree]

83. Don't Worry, She Already Has

You believe everything you read verbatim, don't you? Do you actually believe that Hillary Clinton would by pass an opportunity to gather support for her campaign. Her mere presence at this facility indicates her full support. Don't believe everything this politician says. She does not have the guts to turn down support for her campaign. She's to driven and focused on winning and her wanting to become president so badly makes her say and do anything. Here a tip: politicians blur and merge words and meanings all the time and never give you straight answers. Just as someone said in the past, the Clintons are the BEST LIARS in the political game. Just give it a little time, the truth will come out and she will have a really good reason to support her stance. Besides, Obama and Edwards also supports clean coal so don't bash one unless you bash all. Oh by the way, what's with the dictionary meaning. THIS IS POLITICS!! Actual word meanings are irrelevant in this case. Use common sense and think.

[Tellurian]

86. Who's name is a co-sponsor for the "Coal" bill.. OBAMA or Clinton?

[Kingstree]

87. You Just Don't Get It. Do You?

Go back and read by entry again.

[Tellurian]

89. Answer my question...whos name is on the bill..Obama or Clinton..

[Ethelk2044]

90. Kingstree Does not need to respond

because the statement speaks for itself she sponsored the funding for Clean Coal. Anyone one can research it on her website. She is for Clean Coal. Spin when you have someting else to say where she differs from the other candidates. Right now it looks foolish

[Tellurian]

91. Nope, Hillary is advocating research money for ALL energy alternatives

NOT co-sponsoring a bill for Liquid Coal as Obama is doing. Obama stands to gain big time by bringing home the pork to Illinois, at the expense and safety of the people. Not a very good plan for the environment..

[Kingstree]

93. Video of Clinton Pushing Funding for Clean Coal

Video showing Clinton Speaking about funding Clean Coal.


http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=270002
/

[Tellurian]

94. Is she signed on any of the 3 bills as a co-sponsor, like Obama has?

funding research is not the same as sponsoring a bill for "liquid coal". No matter how you try, you can't deny Obama is up to his neck in corporate interests! Obama might deny it, but you can't!

[Kingstree]

95. Does not matter Her stance is the same as his

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=270002. She does not differ. You should be writing her and asking her to change her mind on clean coal. The video says it all.

Next Spin please!

[Tellurian]

96. Fact is not spin...answer the question. Is Senator Clinton sponsoring a bill for "liquid coal"?

Or is it Obama? Think you can talk him out of it? I doubt it!

thanks anyway for keeping my thread kicked to the top of the page..

I do appreciate it! :hi:

[Kingstree]

97. Answer Write Hillary and Have her change her position on

Supporting Clean Coal. Yes, it includes the video others should view. It will allow them to also see your spin. When you are pushing against the other two when Hillary does the same thing. Yes, of course I want others to see your spin.

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=270002

[Tellurian]

98. Obama has a 'coal mine' around his neck...

All Al Gore has to do is point a finger at Obama for sponsoring a bill vouching for "liquid coal".

All Hillary has to do is say, the research doesn't warrant her support for "liquid coal"...big difference!

I myself and several others here have already emailed Sen Clinton with our opinions against the bill for liquid coal, asking it be defeated.

[Kingstree]

99. If so then Clinton has the same one around hers

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=270002

[Tellurian]

100. We shall see, won't we?

Remember just because you say it, doesn't help make it True.

[mckeown1128]

101. Give it up...

They all support clean coal... how is this so hard to understand??? IT DOESN'T MATTER IF OBAMA IS CO-SPONSORING IT... hillary supports it just the same... sponsoring a bill doesn't mean shi% :wtf: just admit you were so rabid to attack anyone that dare run against President Elect Clint...uhh hillary that you didn't check all of you're facts.

[Tellurian]

102. I'm all set with that! Facts straight...Obama dropping like a rock in the polls..

wonder why?

You should be out there stumping for your candidate, no?

[Kingstree]

104. It is Good for him not to be in the lead

The leader always drop when it gets closer to election time.

[Tellurian]

106. Ah, Ok!

donations are not as strong as they were in the first quarter. Supporters rationalize this is a "good thing". Obama's ties to "special interest groups" " Liquid Coal" is good for America but he's hiding that fact. But because you support Obama, it's another "good thing".

You support polluting the atmosphere with CO2 because Obama is the "authentic" candidate. He sells his constituency out for a piece of the action in an Illinois Coal Mining Project. Do you think he actually cares whether he gets elected or not? Why should he...he's become an instant millionaire regardless if he wins the election or not...he can wait, can you? He's got his piece of the action, thanks to his supporters who believe in Rock Star dreams! How about you?

You're backing the wrong candidate... How bitter are you going to be about life after you realize your candidate threw the race? I feel your pain..

OK. just a side note in case you're starting to believe your own BS. Obama believes the majority of the public are enamored with his Rock Star persona. Not all of us are, and not me. I know flying BS when I hear it especially when it's a politician selling the audacity of dreams like in his book...

I'm not there and never will be there..I'm from the 'show me crowd'...and so far, most of the people who've been there and done that know the difference!

[mckeown1128]

114. maybe you should admit that

"You support polluting the atmosphere with CO2 because" Hillary "is the" married to Bill Clinton "candidate."

"OK. just a side note in case you're starting to believe your own BS." Hillary "believes the majority of the public are enamored with" her married to Bill Clinton "persona. Not all of us are, and not me."



I can't believe this deceptive pos is still going. I hate to give it a kick that it doesn't deserve but people need to know how dishonest this is. Once again all three top tier candidates support this not just Obama.

[Tellurian]

117. Then it won't be..

too much of a stretch for you to understand...Obama is the ONLY top tier candidate that is the bill's sponsor!
The others can turn on their heel at any time when they come to the realization, it's not in the best interests of the country to support the bill. Better you answer this question.."Will Obama have the courage and the integrity to help Kill the bill if the obvious detriments of "Liquid Coal" outweigh the benefit to the County and the people?"

[mckeown1128]

126. who cares if he is sponsoring it...

the point is that he AND hillary will both vote for it. (not that is a bad thing). if he doesn't sponser it others will. It is also funny how you let hillary pass because she might flip flop on the issue but you don't give Obama the same benefit of the doubt. Just quit with the candidate bashing crap. You have lost this point of yours.

[Tellurian]

134. It won't happen. Much to your dismay..it won't..

GreenPeace and all environmental agency's will rise up whether you like it or not, and you will suffer the consequences for your blind obedience to a candidate unworthy of the presidency..

[Radical Activist]

119. Here's Obama's alternative fuels plan

since you've chosen to remain in ignorance of it.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Here are parts of the page:

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Our Fuels

The oil used in the U.S. transportation sector accounts for one-third of our nation's emissions of greenhouse gases. Barack Obama's plan will reduce carbon in our fuel supply by establishing a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The standard would require that all transportation fuels sold in the U.S.contain 5 percent less carbon by 2015 and 10 percent less carbon by 2020. The legislation would let market forces decide the most efficient way to reduce emissions and would spur significant investment in renewable fuels, such as corn and cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel made from plant oils such as soybeans. According to one estimate, Obama's legislation would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180 million metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking over 30 million cars off the road in 2020.

Breaking the Fuel Efficiency Logjam

Senator Obama led a bipartisan effort to raise CAFE fuel economy standards, which have remained frozen for 20 years because of congressional gridlock. He developed an innovative approach to gradually increase CAFE standards while protecting the financial future of American automakers. The resulting Obama-Lugar-Biden bill would establish concrete targets for annual CAFE increases while giving industry the flexibility to meet those targets.

[Tellurian]

121. Since you've chosen ignorance as part of your denial campaign..

Obama's website info on:

"Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Our Fuels"

The oil used in the U.S. transportation sector accounts for one-third of our nation's emissions of greenhouse gases. Barack Obama's plan will reduce carbon in our fuel supply by establishing a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The standard would require that all transportation fuels sold in the U.S.contain 5 percent less carbon by 2015 and 10 percent less carbon by 2020. The legislation would let market forces decide the most efficient way to reduce emissions and would spur significant investment in renewable fuels, such as corn and cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel made from plant oils such as soybeans. According to one estimate, Obama's legislation would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180 million metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking over 30 million cars off the road in 2020.

Flys in the face of logic, as to why, he is a Co-sponsor of the most CO2 polluting project on the Planet..in case you missed it..

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/goodell


More at: http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron.htm


Unmasking the truth behind "clean coal"

“Clean coal” is an attempt by the coal industry to try and make itself relevant in the age of renewables.

What is (so-called) “clean coal”?

Coal is a highly polluting energy source. It emits much more carbon per unit of energy than oil, and natural gas. CO2 represents the major portion of greenhouse gases. It is, therefore, one of the leading contributors to climate change. From mine to sky, from extraction to combustion -- coal pollutes every step of the way. The huge environmental and social costs associated with coal usage make it an expensive option for developing countries. From acid drainage from coal mines, polluting rivers and streams, to the release of mercury and other toxins when it is burned, as well as climate-destroying gases and fine particulates that wreak havoc on human health, COAL is unquestionably, a DIRTY BUSINESS.

It is a major contributor to climate change – the biggest environmental threat we face. It is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, emitting 29% more than oil, 80% more carbon dioxide (the main driver of climate change) per unit of energy than gas.
Mercury is a particular problem. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), mercury and its compounds are highly toxic and pose a ‘global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.’ Coal-fired power and heat production are the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions. There are no commercially available technologies to prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

**** “Clean coal” is the industry’s attempt to “clean up” its dirty image – the industry’s greenwash buzzword. It is not a new type of coal.

**** “Clean coal” technology (CCT) refers to technologies intended to reduce pollution. But no coal-fired power plants are truly ‘clean’

**** “Clean coal” methods only move pollutants from one waste stream to another which are then still released into the environment. Any time coal is burnt, contaminants are released and they have to go somewhere. They can be released via the fly ash, the gaseous air emissions, water outflow or the ash left at the bottom after burning. Ultimately, they still end up polluting the environment.

**** “Clean coal” methods only move pollutants from one waste stream to another.

More at:


http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/campaigns/climate-c ...


Other Articles:

Clean Coal: The Myth Ends Today




http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/667 /

Clean Coal, Forest Biofuel and Other Fairy Tales

http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2007/01/clean-coal-fo...

[Radical Activist]

122. That's an incredibly misleading post.

The first article you're quoting about "clean coal" is about coal fire power plants, not coal to liquid fuel technology. Its very dishonest for you to pretend its about fuel and then call it the "most CO2 polluting project." Coal fire power plants are the biggest source of co2 pollution, but that's something very different than coal to liquid fuel technology.

Also, why doesn't ecogeek blog cite a source for the chart that you've pasted into this post? Why should I believe it?

Why can't you just admit the fact that Obama's fuel plan is not centered on coal? That's very obvious from his public statements, website, and major policy speech at detroit. It looks like you're more interested in doing a one-sided, misleading attack than discussing where Obama really stands on the issues.

[Tellurian]

123. Keep reading...

it's gradual buildup over a span of almost 100 yrs of trying to liquefy coal.

It's been the elephant in the living room right along and the claims made in the 21st century, as recently at 1/07, finding a
solution to sequestrating CO2 emmissions have neither had the time or the ability to perform testing to ensure the safety to the planet.

[Radical Activist]

127. You just completely ignored the points I made.

I guess you don't really have anything to say. I can read all day and it won't make your false statements true.

[Tellurian]

128. If it's convenient for you to withdraw..

fine with me.

[Radical Activist]

130. LOL

Withdrawal from what? The fact that I showed how ridiculous your posts are and you failed to respond? I hope you don't think anyone is taking you seriously at this point.

[Tellurian]

133. you've showed nothing..

on the contrary..you might say, you been tested and failed to provide any proof your candidate has the country's best interests at heart.

[mckeown1128]

124. don't even try using logic

Tellurian will just ignore what you say and repeat the same thing to someone else. It is all about attacking another candidate than the one they support.

[Ethelk2044]

125. Yet his candidate has a video

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.c...

[Bullet1987]

129. Tellurian...

you're full of sh*t! Stop being a blind loyalist...that's no better than the Rethugs that's ready to walk with Bush over a cliff. Hillary supports clean coal...it's on her site and she's said so. Just because she didn't co-sponser a bill doesn't mean sh*t nowadays.

[Radical Activist]

131. Yes, I can see that now.

Its almost funny.

[Tellurian]

132. You've offered not a shred of proof I am wrong..

just insults and campaign rhetoric from a candidate's website.

Do your own research and determine the viability of Liquid Coal as an alternative fuel source for clean energy combating CO2 emissions and post it here. I'm open to valid discussion, but sorely opposed to bullying pile-on tactics from people competing as to who can yell the loudest or longest when an opinion contrary to their own beliefs rubs them the wrong way.

[mckeown1128]

135. what are you talking about...

how is pointing out your hypocrisy on ignoring Clinton the campaign retoric....ohh please tell me where on Obama's website does it even mention Clinton??? Stop making accusations to distract from facts.... when it comes to yelling load and long 1. How load is my typing??? 2. You have many many many more posts here than
I do. Before you attack others' candidates look at you owns position.