Obama's first serious salvo on Global Warming and greenhouse gases; sure to cause an uproar among the deniers.
Over a year ago he told our local San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that he wants to bankrupt the coal industry. (Even while running 'clean coal' campaign ads in the Appalachians.)
Whatever one's own stance on this issue, he sounds plenty serious to me.
It's the difference between talk and action, Paul. His administration (EPA) is taking action.
By the way, if you review the actual San Francisco records, I think you'll agree with me that Obama's words were misinterpreted by the right-wing media. He said nothing about bankrupting the coal industry or even a part of it. He was discussing electrical power companies, building new power plants, and limiting greenhouse gases.
Here is my interpretation of what he said to the reporters: He said he wants penalties on carbon emissions to insure that any newly-built coal-fired power plant which doesn't limit the output of greenhouse gases isn't economically feasible; that is, the electrical power company will go bankrupt through paying the penalty. Here's the pertinent quote I lifted off the Internet.
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Edited to get the markups right and apparently you can't embedd utube videos in a reply. Here's the URLs: http://www.youtube.com/v/SMwBbl6RoI
Edited at 2009-12-10 09:14 pm (UTC)
IMHO "bankrupt them" is plain and simple enough.
Over on Facebook, and on two science fiction interest boards, I'm currently engaged in fierce debates about Climate Change, humanity's role, and its possible consequences.
It's clear where you stand, and I won't launch any arguments here. :-)
"His" EPA is getting awfully big for its britches.
Except in this case, "them" is an individual electrical power plant company rather than the entire coal industry which, as far as I know, doesn't build a great number of power plants.
I have no interest in debating Global Warming or Climate Change. I'm a 'fence-sitter.' I just wanted to correct a bit of mis-information.
Just curious. What do you think about Facebook? I've been told I need a Facebook account, but I'm having trouble understanding why.
Yep, I have already 'called a truce' with another real-world friend, concerning the 'health care reform' debate. Liberals trust the government and I do not, so we were never going to agree, and would rather stay friends. :-)
As for Facebook, I've already seen articles/essays from proud ex-FB users. They had a fling, then got back to whatever else.
I've a friend from Macedonia whose opinion is now being reflected in the past week's Rose Is Rose comic strip, that direct and personal 'over the fence' conversations are much superior to online posts, and for many reasons.
Then again, unless by immediate neighbor is a wise and well-informed polymath, those conversations are going to be emotionally comforting, but soon (to me) boring and repetitive . . .
Nobody "needs" a microwave oven, or a computer with an Internet connection, until they actually use one and see.
As I've told others, Facebook can be as shallow and silly as the person who posts there, and a massive waste of time, in a thousand trivial ways.
There are some good surveys and tests, such as GeoChallenge, and a genuine IQ test.
FB is unparalleled for contacts and networking, on whatever topic or issue or cause is important to you. It's also great for looking up folks you've known over the decades.
In recent weeks I have made topical posts -- and gotten replies from old schoolmates, congregants, SF authors and readers, relatives, ideological activists, friends from work, and others -- all chiming in with different perspectives.
LiveJournal *might* fill that role, but right now, only Facebook has that amazing wide scope. (I have almost 800 friends, and rising.)
Hope this clarifies things. -PC