Obama

[El Barto]

Cough... EB, bro....

we as taxpayers are about to lose 11billion..id say thats more like failing, and Obama is manipulating the oil prices to coerse us into buying into the VOLT and his insane Cap and Trade bill..

As opposed to the cost of allowing a cornerstone industry to collapse?  I'd be willing to bet that 11b is a bargain.

And I'm going to assume that the horrific loss of 11 billion dollars only comes out of Obama's share of the 81, and not Bushes fairly hefty share.  

[EPICVIEW]

OH PLEASE

That is by far the most far fetched thing I've heard from you yet EV

Obama is NOT MANIPULATING OIL PRICES

of course he is, by the spectre of his insane Cap and Trade, his slamming of coal, and his no drill moratoreum. that allows speculators to rise the price. we are seeing it TODAY!!!

Many have said this week that if Obama came out and just saidmonth ago " Drill Baby Drill...and we will drill everywhere" it would change the game and prices would come down.. thats how it works. Obama is driving the prices up..PERIOD, there is NO DOUBT of it..sadly

why do you think its far fetched? its certainly not..

[EPICVIEW]

Cough... EB, bro....

we as taxpayers are about to lose 11billion..id say thats more like failing, and Obama is manipulating the oil prices to coerse us into buying into the VOLT and his insane Cap and Trade bill..

As opposed to the cost of allowing a cornerstone industry to collapse?  I'd be willing to bet that 11b is a bargain.

And I'm going to assume that the horrific loss of 11 billion dollars only comes out of Obama's share of the 81, and not Bushes fairly hefty share.  

who said it would collpase? it would not have, merger woudl have happpened is my guess

[GuineaPig]

If Obama is "slamming coal", then bravo for him.

As for offshore drilling, you do realize how long it would take from the word "go" for production to begin, right?  Words don't change gas prices, a steady supply of crude does.

[EPICVIEW]

If Obama is "slamming coal", then bravo for him.

As for offshore drilling, you do realize how long it would take from the word "go" for production to begin, right?  Words don't change gas prices, a steady supply of crude does.

so lets destroy the coal industry...super. we dont need those jobs and energy source. what will we use instead?

I know..Obama is saving us with Wind Power, how long till thats viable?

and of course everyone knows it takes years and investment to get a working rig on or off shore, but thats simply what needs to be done..and its being done in our backyard..JUST NOT BY US, look at the gulf and who is drilling..Obama is the worst..

[orcus116]

It's fun playing armchair president, isn't it?

[PraXis]

95% of mortgages were being paid on time during the "crisis." The global bankers stole our money to cover there backsides on creating the derivatives scheme.

[EPICVIEW]

OH PLEASE

That is by far the most far fetched thing I've heard from you yet EV

Obama is NOT MANIPULATING OIL PRICES

read this.. and then let me know if Im "far fetched"...I am not
its the whole issue, I only deal in the real issues actually
I know at times it seems im "off base" but I bring lots of issues into the pictures as they all are
part of the issue..

Please read

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cap-and-Trade-%E2%80%93-A-Future-Train-Wreck.html

[EPICVIEW]

95% of mortgages were being paid on time during the "crisis." The global bankers stole our money to cover there backsides on creating the derivatives scheme.

Yes...MBS. all dating back to Barnie Frank and Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and why TARP was needed to get that toxic assets off the books so lending could continue..etc. it actually dates back to Carter

[ClairvoyantCat]

Agh.  I never post here, but now I must.

so lets destroy the coal industry...super. we dont need those jobs and energy source. what will we use instead?

Oh, yeah.  The jobs.  We can't afford to not have people working in horrible conditions and catching black lung and getting killed by cave-ins.  We'd be getting rid of the ideal job, right?  Besides, I don't think coal will be done away with, at least not just yet.  Unfortunately, we rely on it. 

But hell, if he wants to inch us away from being a coal-reliant country, good for him. 

and of coursde everyone knows it takes years and investment to get a working rig on or off shore, but thats simplley what needs to be done..and its being done in our backyard..JUST NOT BY US, look at the gulf and who is drilling..Obama is the worst..

Do you understand that 30% of our oil production is done offshore already?

Also, let's not kid ourselves.  Our own oil production isn't exactly extremely consequential to our amount of oil.  We probably consume more than Europe combined, and possibly almost as much as Asia, but we don't produce nearly as much as other areas.  Not even factoring in the difficulties we would face (it would take years, as you said yourself) I don't think we're looking at a major difference if we start even making attempts to drill offshore more than the 30% that we already do. 

[PraXis]

We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.

[EPICVIEW]

We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.

and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..

the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.

[Adami]

We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.

and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..

the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.

Weren't you pro letting the industries helped by the bailout fail?

[GuineaPig]

Ontario's reduced the output of coal-based power plants by 70% over the last 7 years.  It's definitely possible to do, and the environmental impacts, particularly with regards to CO2 emissions, are overwhelmingly worthwhile.

[EPICVIEW]

We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.

and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..

the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.

Weren't you pro letting the industries helped by the bailout fail?

Yes. coal is not looking for a bailout, but to be allowed to thrive and not be destroyed under Cap and Trade

[PraXis]

We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.

and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..

the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.

Weren't you pro letting the industries helped by the bailout fail?

Failure through awful business practices is one thing (companies that didn't need help to fail), but going out of business because of a bully, nannystate, envirowhacko gov't is another thing.

[EPICVIEW]

Ontario's reduced the output of coal-based power plants by 70% over the last 7 years.  It's definitely possible to do, and the environmental impacts, particularly with regards to CO2 emissions, are overwhelmingly worthwhile.

great see coal can work

[GuineaPig]

How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source?  It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects.  Why would you use it when you could use anything else?

[ClairvoyantCat]

We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.

and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..

the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.

So you're only concerned about an enormous loss of jobs when it's coal? 


Also, I'm pretty sure searching for a new source of energy would create at least as many jobs.  Less dangerous and harmful ones, too. 

[EPICVIEW]

How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source?  It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects.  Why would you use it when you could use anything else?

what are you going to use instead? coal is viable.

[jsem]

I would actually say put more effort into nuclear power and phase out coal.

[EPICVIEW]

We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.

and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..

the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.

So you're only concerned about an enormous loss of jobs when it's coal? 


Also, I'm pretty sure searching for a new source of energy would create at least as many jobs.  Less dangerous and harmful ones, too. 

no.. Im saying Obama deals in hypocrisy... and Cap and Trade is a disaster

[ClairvoyantCat]

Oh.  ok. 

[PraXis]

How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source?  It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects.  Why would you use it when you could use anything else?

If you can replace it with something cheaper and just as effective at producing energy (or even better production) then more power to you, but let the market create it. Someone will become very rich, and in the process, create jobs. Nuclear power is excellent. I'm a huge fan of Thorium... much safer than Uranium.

[orcus116]

We seriously need to create more NPP, only this time use a standard design like a lot of European countries.

[GuineaPig]

How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source?  It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects.  Why would you use it when you could use anything else?

what are you going to use instead? coal is viable.

Coal is not viable.  It's a massive greenhouse gas emitter, it's inefficient, and it's dangerous.  Nuclear is a far more attractive, safe, and efficient alternative.  Wind and solar, to a lesser extent, are possible short-term alternatives as well.  Hydroelectric is decent.

Ontario's on target to completely eliminate coal-fired power plants by 2014.  That's 11 years to completely remove what was 25% of the province's energy production.

Also, during this process, profits for Ontario Power Generation have also increased significantly.

[EPICVIEW]

We seriously need to create more NPP, only this time use a standard design like a lot of European countries.

sounds good to me..we need it all.. coal, crude, oil, nuke. and we need the goverment out of it

[EPICVIEW]

How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source?  It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects.  Why would you use it when you could use anything else?

what are you going to use instead? coal is viable.

Coal is not viable.  It's a massive greenhouse gas emitter, it's inefficient, and it's dangerous.  Nuclear is a far more attractive, safe, and efficient alternative.  Wind and solar, to a lesser extent, are possible short-term alternatives as well.  Hydroelectric is decent.

Ontario's on target to completely eliminate coal-fired power plants by 2014.  That's 11 years to completely remove what was 25% of the province's energy production.

Also, during this process, profits for Ontario Power Generation have also increased significantly.

we need it all... really.. coal has its place..

[GuineaPig]

The free market doesn't care about the atmosphere, so I'd say the government most certainly has to be involved.

[ClairvoyantCat]

@EV

So, explain to me how we "need" coal.  And for the love of god, don't just say that it's "viable" again. 

[jsem]

The free market doesn't care about the atmosphere, so I'd say the government most certainly has to be involved.

Unfortunately yes

unless consumers opt for environmental-friendly energy sources which aren't as accesible atm and will very likely mean spending a bit more. (not very likely)

[EPICVIEW]

@EV

So, explain to me how we "need" coal.  And for the love of god, don't just say that it's "viable" again. 

Because parts of our country need it to to create electricity..and its an industry unto itself.

not unless you want to shut down  electricity parts of the USA, we need it.

[Adami]

@EV

So, explain to me how we "need" coal.  And for the love of god, don't just say that it's "viable" again. 

Because parts of our country need it to to create electricity..and its an industry unto itself.

not unless you want to shut down  electricity parts of the USA, we need it.

To be fair, you were asked to explain "how" we need coal, not just restating that we need it.

[GuineaPig]

@EV

So, explain to me how we "need" coal.  And for the love of god, don't just say that it's "viable" again. 

Because parts of our country need it to to create electricity..and its an industry unto itself.

not unless you want to shut down  electricity parts of the USA, we need it.

If Ontario can completely eliminate coal (previously providing 25% of its electricity) in 10 years, the United States, with all its wealth (not to mention the need for some public works projects in a recession) could presumably do the same with its electricity situation (coal accounts for 49% of electricity production).  Hell, just loosening some of the insanely complicated regulations regarding nuclear power and encouraging private investment in it would go a looooooong way.

[ClairvoyantCat]

We don't need it to create electricity.  I assure you there are other, better possible ways of doing so.