Thread: Obama: Your energy prices will skyrocket

In the same interview in which Sen. Barack Obama said that he would cause coal-burning power plants to go bankrupt, he also said that, as president, he would purposefully cause energy prices to “skyrocket.”

The two statements combined could make Obama’s position rather problematic in the last days of the campaign. For months, Obama campaigned as a reasonably moderate Democrat, preferring pragmatism over idealism. His voting record and increasingly more statements, past votes and actions and associations, however, indicate that the real Obama is the one who became the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.

What he said--Min0

“The problem is not technical and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington,” Obama told the San Fransisco Chronicle about energy. “The problem is, can you get people to say, ‘this is really important,’ and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. And climate change is a great example,” he said.

“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know — under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

He went on to say: “You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

Obama then went on to explain that this skyrocketing of the prices would hopefully result in people pursuing cleaner energy sources, which would then help combat climate change. “They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, ‘Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,’ or whatever their number is. If you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit,” he said.

As conservative blogger Ed Morrissey pointed out in a blogpost at Hot Air about the statements quoted above, “while no one doubts the need to start transitioning to better sources of energy, the manner in which that gets done means the difference of whether it gets done at all. A stagnant or receding economy does not produce scientific breakthroughs, especially when government both increases taxes and imposes steep cost burdens on energy. That cuts into both manufacturing and R&D, because as profits fall, fewer dollars go into research — which means that all of these wonderful developments would get delayed, or go unrealized altogether.”

If one wants to reform the American energy system, one has to do so prudently, and without destroying the economy. Obama agreed back in January of this year that his energy would plan would cause tremendous problems to the economy but, he hopes, these problems will be overcome years later. Perhaps, but also perhaps not. What can clearly be said is that Obama’s approach is once again distinctly immoderate and highly ideological. Pragmatists would look at the issue of global warming and energy, and would favor a plan that would bring change slowly and without destroying an entire economy. An idealist, on the other hand, would be willing to pursue plans that might not even work, one, and, two, that would do tremendous damage to the economy.

Developing alternative energy sources will take many years, decades even. Part of this energy will undoubtedly have to come from nuclear plantations - which is something Obama opposes, once again out of idealism.

Furthermore, the United States economy is already weak and extremely vulnerable. “Skyrocketing” energy prices would, as aforementioned Morrissey again worded perfectly, be a “disaster.”

Most amazing about today’s audios is not that Obama made the statements; many people such as myself have always said that Obama may be many things, but a moderate he is not. Pay special attention to Obama’s “whatever their number is”-remark. He does not even take the cost of his plan serious.

Instead, what is surprising is that American ‘old’ media have ignored them completely and even actively tried to bury them. This is more than worthy of coverage; energy is one of the most important issues in the coming years, the statements of candidates on it should be reported and shared with the public.

How would you go about it Brogers?

How about not create a new tax which will be passed on to consumers, just like every other tax on big bad evil corporations? Pretty simple, huh?

Destroying the coal power generation industry will virtually do the same to the coal mining industry. Coal miners, equipment operators, people who manufacture and service heavy mining equipment. Kiss it goodbye. 100,000's of jobs will be affected. He himself stated that his plan will "bankrupt" coal plants because of massive fees.

Yeah he's for the middle class though. Here's a $500 tax credit to go with your doubled power bill and job loss. Hopefully that'll cover the first 3 month's increase in your electricity bill! Coal is not a socially acceptable industry in the eyes of Dear Leader Obama. Screw everyone who developed their skills over the years in coal mining. Screw all the businesses and their employees that perform support operations for the coal industry.

Palin suggests Chronicle withheld Obama remarks

Palin suggests Chronicle withheld Obama remarks
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Monday, November 3, 2008

(11-02) 20:33 PST -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in a campaign appearance Sunday, criticized comments about coal technology that Sen. Barack Obama made to The Chronicle editorial board in January, and suggested that the newspaper withheld the information from the public - even though the interview has been posted on the newspaper's Web site since it was given.

At a rally in Ohio, Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, used the taped remarks to attack Obama's energy policy.



"Barack Obama explained his plan to The San Francisco Chronicle this year," she said. "And he said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says. But they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry.

"You gotta listen to the tape," she continued. "Why is this audio tape just now surfacing?"

Voices in the crowd could be heard shouting, "Liberal media!"

"This interview was given many months ago," Palin told the audience. "You should have known about this."

The Republican National Committee also sent out blog reports pushing the notion of a "hidden" Obama videotape withheld by The Chronicle.

Obama sat with The Chronicle editorial board Jan. 17 for the interview, and it has been available in its entirety on the newspaper's Web site since it took place in San Francisco during the Democratic primary season. In his wide-ranging session with the paper, the Democratic senator from Illinois spoke about his energy plan and an "aggressive" cap-and-trade policy, and spoke about coal technology.

"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," he said. In the same interview, the senator said that "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."

On Sunday, Obama's campaign said his comments were taken out of context by Palin, and that Obama called the notion of eliminating coal plants entirely "an illusion."

John Diaz, editor of The Chronicle's editorial pages, said the paper not only posted the entire audio and video of the Obama interview, but promoted it to readers.

"How can anyone suggest that we hid an interview that we did, immediately put up on the Web - and advertised to our readers?" said Diaz. "We promoted it like hell ... and I'm sure the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign scrubbed it. You can still find the whole 48 minutes and 33 seconds online."

Originally Posted by min0 lee

How would you go about it Brogers?

Go about what exactly? Creating a new tax? I already said: Don't do it. Don't force people to pay even more for energy and advocate bankrupting an entire industry. It is insanity.

Originally Posted by brogers

Go about what exactly? Creating a new tax? I already said: Don't do it. Don't force people to pay even more for energy and advocate bankrupting an entire industry. It is insanity.

How would you go about reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide in a cost-effective manner. Is there another way of doing this without being taxed?

McCain Pushes 'Cap-And-Trade' Plan to Fight Global Warming

McCain Pushes 'Cap-And-Trade' Plan to Fight Global Warming
GOP candidate promotes working with Europe on climate change, but only wants to 'encourage' involvement of 'rest of the world.'

By Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Business & Media Institute
3/19/2008 1:40:08 PM

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is using the idea of global togetherness to promote “a cap-and-trade system” to battle climate change. He said “Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren.”

According to the Arizona senator, whose opinion column appeared in the March 19 Financial Times, the United States needs to work with Europe to create a replacement for the Kyoto treaty.

“We need a successor to Kyoto, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner.” He said America needs to be willing to be “persuaded” by our European allies. McCain’s column was headlined “America must be a good role model.”

However, he never addressed the potential costs of his proposal.

McCain talked about Americans and Europeans leading together but only said he wanted to “encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.”

But experience has already shown that government intervention in environmental issues can have negative consequences. Ethanol mandates have artificially inflated demand for corn and affected grocery prices. And recent studies have shown ethanol isn’t any better for the environment than burning fossil fuels.

A recent report from the Nikkei estimated it would cost the Japanese economy $500 billion – split evenly between businesses and consumers – to meet its carbon reduction goals by 2020.

McCain in his column did advocate for increased use of nuclear power. “Right now safe, climate-friendly nuclear energy is a critical way both to improve the quality of our air and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.”

McCain’s cap-and-trade position is similar to both of his liberal potential adversaries. According to his campaign Web site, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) also supports “implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) also has a climate plan “centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions.”

Originally Posted by min0 lee

McCain Pushes 'Cap-And-Trade' Plan to Fight Global Warming



However, he never addressed the potential costs of his proposal.

He would probably surprise use later by doing the same exact thing Obama would. All politics.

A recent report from the Nikkei estimated it would cost the Japanese economy $500 billion – split evenly between businesses and consumers – to meet its carbon reduction goals by 2020.
Duh, I guess we have to continue down the same road.


McCain’s cap-and-trade position is similar to both of his liberal potential adversaries. According to his campaign Web site, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) also supports “implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) also has a climate plan “centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions.”

Cap and Trade 101


Cap and Trade 101
What Is Cap and Trade, and How Can We Implement It Successfully?

January 16, 2008



What is Cap and Trade?

The goal: To steadily reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide in a cost-effective manner.

The cap: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an “emissions permit” for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met. This is similar to the cap and trade program enacted by the Clean Air Act of 1990, which reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, and it met the goals at a much lower cost than industry or government predicted.

The trade: It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily. This creates a system that guarantees a set level of overall reductions, while rewarding the most efficient companies and ensuring that the cap can be met at the lowest possible cost to the economy.

The profits: If the federal government auctions the emissions permits to the companies required to reduce their emissions, it would create a large and dependable revenue stream. These financial resources could be used to achieve critical public policy objectives related to climate change mitigation and economic development. The federal government can also choose to “grandfather” allowances to the polluting firms by handing them out free based on historic or projected emissions. This would give the most benefits to those companies with higher baseline emissions that have historically done the least to reduce their pollution.

What Would a Successful Cap-and-Trade Program Look Like?

The goal: To limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming.

The cap: To achieve this goal, the U.S. government should steadily tighten the cap until emissions are reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Businesses would have to obtain permits entitling them to emit a certain quantity of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. All permits would be auctioned off by the government. Emissions permits in the near term would likely fall in the range of $10 to $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent.

The trade: Companies unable to meet their emissions quotas could purchase allowances from other companies that have acquired more permits than they need to account for their emissions. The cost of buying and selling these credits would be determined by the marketplace, which over time would reduce the cost of trading the credits as trading becomes more widespread and efficient.

The profits: Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources. The other half of the remaining revenue should be used to invest in renewable energy, efficiency, low-carbon transportation technologies, green-collar job training, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some resources should also be invested in the energy, environment, and infrastructure sectors in developing nations to alleviate energy poverty with low-carbon energy systems and help these nations adapt to the inevitable effects of global warming. Revenues from the permit auction would essentially be “recycled” back into the economy to facilitate the transition to an efficient, low-carbon energy economy and ensure that consumers are not unduly burdened by

The process is a purely economicial one. one that is going to take time to develop, but progress is being made. Nuclear power is getting looked at again. sites are being chosen and authorized again which hasn't happened in the US in a long time. (the last nuclear plant completed in the US was in '95) and in talking to maniclion he feels solar is much more economical and starting to make headway. as these forms of power production prove they can beat coal we will transition to them.

The economy needs cheep power to grow. more expensive power does nothing to help the economy already in a recession. artificially inflating the prices on energy does no good.

Regardless of Obama saying this is what he wants, i don't think he will get it. even from a democrat controlled congress. at least i hope that this is the case

Originally Posted by bio-chem

The process is a purely economicial one. one that is going to take time to develop, but progress is being made. Nuclear power is getting looked at again. sites are being chosen and authorized again which hasn't happened in the US in a long time. (the last nuclear plant completed in the US was in '95) and in talking to maniclion he feels solar is much more economical and starting to make headway. as these forms of power production prove they can beat coal we will transition to them.

The economy needs cheep power to grow. more expensive power does nothing to help the economy already in a recession. artificially inflating the prices on energy does no good.

Regardless of Obama saying this is what he wants, i don't think he will get it. even from a democrat controlled congress. at least i hope that this is the case

Good response.

What a bullshit OP.

Uhm....haven't energy prices already skyrocketed?

How about declining wages?

Rising inflation?

Rising gasoline prices?

Rising National Debt?

Rising Health Care costs?

Insurance costs.

Sheesh.......



You guys are really DESPERATE aren't you?

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

What a bullshit OP.

Uhm....haven't energy prices already skyrocketed?

How about declining wages?

Rising inflation?

Rising gasoline prices?

Rising National Debt?

Rising Health Care costs?

Insurance costs.

Sheesh.......



You guys are really DESPERATE aren't you?

Bullseye!

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

What a bullshit OP.

Uhm....haven't energy prices already skyrocketed?

How about declining wages?

Rising inflation?

Rising gasoline prices?

Rising National Debt?

Rising Health Care costs?

Insurance costs.

Sheesh.......



You guys are really DESPERATE aren't you?

Why, yes...things are tough now.

desperate no, we'll kick ass like we always do.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

What a bullshit OP.

Uhm....haven't energy prices already skyrocketed?

How about declining wages?

Rising inflation?

Rising gasoline prices?

Rising National Debt?

Rising Health Care costs?

Insurance costs.

Sheesh.......



You guys are really DESPERATE aren't you?

Are you retarded? I mean really? this whole thread is about an interview with obama. these are his quotes. stop sucking his dick and read a little bit before you post. you treat this guy like he is the next fucking george washington when there are some very real concerns with his positions and voting record. given this election is about the lesser of two evils, but holy shit. Could you be any farther up his ass?

Originally Posted by min0 lee

How would you go about reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide in a cost-effective manner. Is there another way of doing this without being taxed?

I wouldn't. Of course, perhaps you think massive government involvement in energy is a good thing. We know how well the ethanol idea worked. Government always does a good job when it really gets its hand in something. Affordable housing was fantastic, the lending institutions are really thriving.

I'm sure the economy will surge when businesses have to fork out more and more of their money on their power bill to pay for new taxes on energy. Job growth must be amazing.

Solar, Wind, Tide, w/e are -not- viable at this time. They need more time to be developed. Using "massive fees" to Force unreliable and expensive technologies on the American people is idiocy. Of course maybe you won't mind "spreading more of your wealth around" to the power companies, because they WILL pass the tax on to you.

Originally Posted by brogers

you think

maybe you won't mind you.

This is not about me, but i'm honored.

I just wanted to know what your opinion was.

You have hate in you......you need a hug.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

You have hate in you......you need a hug.

LOL

Originally Posted by min0 lee

You have hate in you......you need a hug.

I need a hug! I've spent all day career hunting. Nobody is willing to offer me even close to the amount I am making now.

Ever thought about moving into a big city?
Boston, New York City, LA?

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Ever thought about moving into a big city?
Boston, New York City, LA?

Not without a job and place to stay lined up before I move there. Can I come live with you. I'm house broken.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Not without a job and place to stay lined up before I move there. Can I come live with you. I'm house broken.

LOL. you may want to include how much space you take up, and if you eat a lot.

What ever happened to you starting your own business?

Non-issue, McCain and Obama are both on the same side of this argument.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Not without a job and place to stay lined up before I move there. Can I come live with you. I'm house broken.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

LOL. you may want to include how much space you take up, and if you eat a lot.

What ever happened to you starting your own business?

He may eat my kids.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Non-issue, McCain and Obama are both on the same side of this argument.

On Kelju being housebroken?

Originally Posted by min0 lee

He may eat my kids.

a very real concern with a dude like kelju. but then again you wont have to pay for their college tuition so that could be a bonus. you have to ask yourself. how much do you really like your kids?

The Best Cities to Live and Work In | Employment Spot
From Seattle to Norfolk, the United States is brimming with terrific places to live and work. Whether you’re drawn to the mountains, the sea or the wide-open plains, there’s a spot for you to set up office. Prefer the quiet calm of a small town? Crave the fast pace of the big city? We’ll help you start surveying relocation options.

Top 20 Cities with Job Openings
1. Jackson, Tenn.
2. Lafayette, Ind.
3. Phoenix, Ariz.
4. Boise, Idaho
5. Biloxi-Gulfport, Miss.
6. Reno, Nev.
7. Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
8. Palm Springs, Calif.
9. Kansas City, Mo.-Kan.
10. Tucson, Ariz.
11. Baltimore, Md.
12. Orlando, Fla.
13. Philadelphia, Pa.
14. Columbia, S.C.
15. Lafayette, La.
16. Fort Myers-Naples, Fla.
17. Binghamton, N.Y.
18. Utica, N.Y.
19. Rockford, Ill.
20. Wichita-Hutchinson, Kan.

For more information on the survey visit: CareerBuilder.com



Best Cities to Live in for Mid-Level Professionals

1. Kansas City, Missouri – Downtown Kansas City offers affordable and roomy housing. A wide variety of dining and bar options add to the cheerful atmosphere.
2. Boise, Idaho – Outdoor enthusiasts will flock to this scenic spot at the base of the Rocky Mountains. Local employment opportunities include careers in the agriculture, forest and mining industries as well as knowledge-based industries like information technology.
3. Portland, Maine – Nestled between the ocean and a mountain, Portland is another ideal city for lovers of the outdoors. The area serves as a popular relocation destination for people from larger east coast cities and offers numerous career opportunities.
4. Huntsville, Alabama – With a booming economy, Huntsville offers many opportunities for career advancement. The technology, aerospace and defense industries are especially dominant. NASA has a Flight Center here, and the Army has Redstone Arsenal, both of which aid in boosting area opportunities.
5. Fayetteville, North Carolina – Local charm abounds in this Southern town. Plentiful employment opportunities exist due to the close proximity of Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base.