Under Obama: Electricity Prices Will Skyrocket

[HenryReardon]

Moving away from fossil fuel will, in the long term, mean that you get to keep Florida and Manhattan and a bunch of other low-lying coastal areas without the need for extra canoes.

)

Spare us the al gore crap, it's been done to death.

 

[Spensed]

^^ Not taken out of context...

...But it sure is revealing that Obama supporters don't listen to what he said, but instead try to pretend he didn't mean what he was very clear about.

In context, what Obama said makes perfect sense and your focus is, as usual, a complete anti-Obama distortion.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...&type=politics

http://www.israelated.com/node/55523

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...e-3c63383449fb

The interview was many months ago in January and the McCain campaign and their camp followers have only just discovered the "story" on the eve of trying to win over blue collar votes from coal industry communities.

Funny how that goes.

 

[Spensed]

Spare us the al gore crap, it's been done to death.

Not enough apparently. LOL.

 

[Spensed]

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

This time, the coal clip followed the same path to prominence as the previous mini-scandal: from YouTube, to right-wing blog, to the Drudge Report, to Fox News to McCain stump speech.

Obama was discussing his support for a cap & trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which would create a market on which companies could trade emissions credits.

Such a system, proponents say, would reduce pollution while spurring investment in cleaner sources of energy. Obama also has said he supports "clean coal" technology, which researchers hope would allow exploitation of coal power without as much pollution.

"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," Obama said in January, referring to traditional coal plants.

Suddenly worried about all the jobs such "bankrupting" would cause, McCain made the line a central point when he spoke in Virginia Monday. The GOP candidate trails there and in Ohio, two states President Bush carried in 2000 and 2004.

The union representing coal miners came to Obama's defense Monday.

"Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America," said Cecil E. Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, in a statement released Monday afternoon.

Roberts noted that McCain and the Republicans ignored Obama's overall point during his interview.

The Democratic candidate told the Chronicle, "This notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion," noting the amount of energy the US dervies from coal. Obama pushed for development of technology to sequester carbon emissions, the central tenant of so called "clean" coal.

"Despite what the McCain campaign and some far right-wing blogs would have Americans believe, Sen. Obama has been and remains a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal," Roberts said.

The coal issue is a particularly tricky one for McCain. Before he became the Republican Party's presidential nominee, McCain demonstrated his willingness to diverge from GOP orthodoxy on climate change and environmental regulation. In 2003, he and Sen. Joe Lieberman co-sponsored one of the first cap and trade bills in the Senate aimed at reducing carbon emissions. McCain removed his name from a similar measure that was debated earlier this year.

Indeed, on his Web site, McCain still touts his proposal for a cap and trade system and development of low-emissions alternatives. Surely he and Obama would quibble on the details of such a system, but they share the same basic goals.

Nonetheless, the coal industry traditionally supports Republicans, and John McCain is now the party's nominee. So the industry is doing its part to flog the campaign's latest talking point painting Obama as anti-coal.

"Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it," said Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association and a short-lived former Republican congressional candidate.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Miners_union_McCain_camp_twisting_truth_1103.html

 

[greydog]

McCain did not say the same thing.

That's not even good spin.

I'm not spinning anything Nick

The union representing coal miners came to Obama's defense Monday.

"Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America," said Cecil E. Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, in a statement released Monday afternoon.

 

[Kulindahr]

He said it. In that context. Not something like it; exactly it.

Here's the full interview in full context:

http://www.rinconhillsf.org/2008/01/20/216

I've sat here through an entire M*A*S*H episode watching that video load... but not play.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

For Obama









shhhh....don't tell McCain


Link:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/not_coming_clean_on_coal.html

 

[Kulindahr]

Okay, I finally got the whole thing.

Nick's quotes are accurate; there's no question of that. But to spin it that he means to bankrupt an entire industry, or even companies, is unfounded.

On examination. McCain is "saying the same thing" as Obama; their plans may as well be identical.

So Nick, you are engaging in distortion.
And you can't call me an Obama supporter -- I already voted, and ity wasn't for him.

 

[Kulindahr]

As for rising prices, wasn't it Bush Senior who deregulated the utility market allowing the likes of Enron to emerge? (I recall reading someowhere that the California blackouts of the early 90s were a direct result of this and that the power companies essentially sabotaged their own plants by cutting back on maintenance to justify huge price rises in order to keep the juice flowing. (Something like that anyway)

Sort of.

The Enron problem arose because the market was randomly regulated: some parts were tightly regulated, some were lightly, some weren't at all -- and this all varied from state to state. That made room for someone with a good ability to track it all and make quick decisions to make lots of money... and plow it right back in to play the game some more.

So the Enron situation didn't arise from deregulation; it arose from stupidity -- very much like putting a 3" lift and a 48" wheel on just one corner of a car, and leaving the others factory issue; you either change all the tires, or none (well, you might get away with just two, but I wouldn't ride in it!).

 

[NickCole]

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

The Truth:

1. If Obama is President and gets his way on energy policy the way he's explained it, "electricity rates will necesarily skyrocket."

2. The same goes for his version of a cap and trade policy: "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them." Those are harsh words but they are his words and one can only conclude that it's his intent or he's lying.

3. With a filibuster-proof Democratic majority there's no reason to think Obama won't get what he wants with energy policy.

4. The only alternative option is that Obama is lying again and will break his promise about his energy policy.

Your continued disingenuousness in "defending" Obama by either lying or mistunderstanding the truth only shows what Obama needs to get elected and what kind of President he'll be.

 

[NickCole]

Check and Mate.

Check and mate what?

If you understand what's going on you know Obama said exactly what I posted and that he either meant it, and your electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket, or he's lying and will break another promise.

Do you want a President who intends, in his own words, to send your electricity rates skykrocketing and bankrupting businesses who build new coal-powered plants, or a President who's a liar about vital issues like the environment and energy policy? Take your pick.

 

[NickCole]

Okay, I finally got the whole thing.

Looks like you may be the only one here who actually took the time to know what Obama said.

And it's interesting you're not voting for Obama.

Nick's quotes are accurate; there's no question of that.

Thank you for your informed verification.

And I thank Jackoroe, at the start of this thread, for noting I'm an honest man and respecting that my consistent honesty has value and means what I post can be trusted.

But to spin it that he means to bankrupt an entire industry, or even companies, is unfounded.

I posted his words exactly. Verbatim.

What he "means" to do, or intends to do, I can't know and didn't pretend to know. For all I know, he's lying and doesn't mean to follow through on any of his energy promises, or means to follow through on only some of them.

I didn't say he "means to" bankrupt an industry or companies. I merely drew the conclusion that his words characterize; I wrote, "We're heading into an economic crisis, Obama just spent $4 Million making an ad to convince us he's going to help struggling families, and here he's said he's going to send electricity rates skyrocketing, and that an important sector of the energy industry, which employs tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of people, will be bankrupted if it tries to expand," and trying to expand is what building new coal plants would be. But you are right that I could have better said "individual companies" rather than a "sector of the energy industry." I stand corrected on that wording.

What he means to do, I don't know and neither does anybody else here.

On examination. McCain is "saying the same thing" as Obama; their plans may as well be identical.

Their energy plans are not at all identical.

McCain's energy plan is totally different from Obama's, which changes the whole ballgame. McCain, for instance, favors off-shore drilling and building 45 nuclear power plants by 2030.

Specific to cap and trade, McCain proposes reducing greenhouses by 60% from 1990 levels by 2050 while Obama proposes 80%. 20% difference may not seem much but it is, and with other energy sources like nuclear plants providing energy, electricity rates would not skyrocket.

So Nick, you are engaging in distortion.

You already conceded Obama said exactly what I claim.

I didn't post that Obama "means to bankrupt an entire industry, or even companies." I drew reasonable conclusion from his words, I did not distort them.

One can approve of Obama's plan or McCain's plan, or disapprove of either, but they are very different plans that will bring about different results. And it's revealing that Obama supporters like spenced have spent two pages disingenuously arguing Obama didn't mean what his own words said, rather than arguing on behalf of what will result from his energy policy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Right here's your distortion:

"...here he's said he's going to send electricity rates skyrocketing, and that an important sector of the energy industry, which employs tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of people, will be bankrupted if it tries to expand."

Looking at his words -- what your words right there say aren't in his.


Under any cap and trade system, electrical costs are going to skyrocket, because we get half our electricity from burning fossil fuels. He didn't say he was going to send rates skyrocketing, he was commenting on the inevitable outcome of a plan -- indeed of any plan -- to clean up our emissions.

Further, he said nothing at all about bankrupting an entire industry.

 

[NickCole]

Under any cap and trade system, electrical costs are going to skyrocket, because we get half our electricity from burning fossil fuels.

That's not true.

If significant new sources for electricity are added to the system, as McCain proposes with 45 new nuclear power plants, that would mitigate electricity costs to the public. Have you ever lived in a town where a new power plant was built? Electricity rates decline, they don't skyrocket.

He didn't say he was going to send rates skyrocketing, he was commenting on the inevitable outcome of a plan -- indeed of any plan -- to clean up our emissions.

"Indeed of any plan," is disingenuous. To the point of ridiculous.

All plans are not alike and will not produce the same results.

Individual elements of these energy plans do not exist in a vacuum. As I've pointed out, McCain's plan to build 45 new nuclear power plants makes the notion of "any plan" having identical results ridiculous.



I've already addressed the rest of your post.

 

[Spensed]

Your continued disingenuousness in "defending" Obama by either lying or mistunderstanding the truth only shows what Obama needs to get elected and what kind of President he'll be.

It's not so much that you are misquoting Obama's words themselves, but rather you are quoting them out of the context of the rest of the interview.

Obama is only saying the obvious, that traditional coal facilities would be too expensive to build in a reduced pollution environment and that he supports clean coal technology.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Miners...ruth_1103.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...&type=politics

http://www.israelated.com/node/55523

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...e-3c63383449fb

Why next you'll be telling us that Palin wasn't guilty of any ethical breaches in Troopergate. LOL.

 

[Spensed]

More fun:

 

[NickCole]

It's not so much that you are misquoting Obama's words themselves,

Characterizing it as "not so much" that I misquoted Obama's words themselves is flatly dishonest.

I did not misquote Obama's words at all in any way shape or form.

but rather you are quoting them out of the context of the rest of the interview.

I did not quote them out of the context of the rest of the interview.

The interview's right in this link, I quoted him verbatim and within context.

Obama is only saying the obvious, that traditional coal facilities would be too expensive to build in a reduced pollution environment and that he supports clean coal technology.

That may be what his supporters are spinning what he said, but it is NOT what he said in that interview, which was clear and specific.

Obama was asked about his own energy plan, he's saying that if his energy plan is adopted, "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them." John McCain's plan is different from Obama's and the results of Obama's energy policy would be different from the results of McCain's, which includes the lower threshold McCain plans for greenhouse gasses and the 45 new nuclear power plants McCain wants to build.

And maybe even more important to many millions more Americans, Obama saying "electricity rates will necesarily skyrocket." was about the results of his own energy plan. He might want folks to believe that'll happen under McCain's plan but the truth is McCain's plan is different, calls for building 45 new nuclear power plants, and electricity costs would be mitigated by that.

Why next you'll be telling us that Palin wasn't guilty of any ethical breaches in Troopergate. LOL.

I never said that and your attaching that to me is more of your consistent dishonesty.

 

[Spensed]

^ You're just wasting your time repeating yourself and ignoring the previous points and links that don't support your anti-Obama distortions.

The union representing coal miners came to Obama's defense Monday.

"Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America," said Cecil E. Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, in a statement released Monday afternoon.

Roberts noted that McCain and the Republicans ignored Obama's overall point during his interview.

The Democratic candidate told the Chronicle, "This notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion," noting the amount of energy the US dervies from coal. Obama pushed for development of technology to sequester carbon emissions, the central tenant of so called "clean" coal.

"Despite what the McCain campaign and some far right-wing blogs would have Americans believe, Sen. Obama has been and remains a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal," Roberts said.

The coal issue is a particularly tricky one for McCain. Before he became the Republican Party's presidential nominee, McCain demonstrated his willingness to diverge from GOP orthodoxy on climate change and environmental regulation. In 2003, he and Sen. Joe Lieberman co-sponsored one of the first cap and trade bills in the Senate aimed at reducing carbon emissions. McCain removed his name from a similar measure that was debated earlier this year.

Indeed, on his Web site, McCain still touts his proposal for a cap and trade system and development of low-emissions alternatives. Surely he and Obama would quibble on the details of such a system, but they share the same basic goals.

Nonetheless, the coal industry traditionally supports Republicans, and John McCain is now the party's nominee. So the industry is doing its part to flog the campaign's latest talking point painting Obama as anti-coal.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Miners...ruth_1103.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...&type=politics

http://www.israelated.com/node/55523

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...e-3c63383449fb

 

[NickCole]

^^ You can cut and paste other people's spin all you want, it doesn't un-say what Obama said and what the context of his words make clear he meant. I posted the entire interview, it's there.


Cutting to the chase, in an Obama administration:


"electricity rates will necesarily skyrocket."

"if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them."


People who're fooled when politicians lie to them are foolish enough, but voters who are fooled even when a politician tells them the truth are a special kind of foolish.

The irony, for me, of this and some other threads is I don't necessarily disapprove of the substance of what Obama said and I could defend it (though I still think his I'm gonna help struggling Americans ad was bullshit and this is evidence of that). I guess that's why that quiz said Obama should be my candidate and Nader, et al, should be the candidate for many Obama supporters. But most Obama supporters here can't defend Obama's position(s), so they just spin it like a top instead.

 

[iman]

The point that is being missed in this discussion is that there is no way of building a coal fired plant that is economically feasible that won't have unacceptable co2 emissions. There really is no such thing as clean coal and many of do not want any more coal burning plants.

McCain's energy policy, drilling and nuclear, is probably more realistic than Obama's, but the Democratic environmental left is not particulary realistic and Obama won't alienate them before the election. Energy policy will have to be determined politically after the election and I give Obama a pass on his vagueness at this point.