Obama might 'bankrupt' coal, but so would McCain
We get a lot of press releases here at the Opinion Manufacturing Division that pass without comment, but today's missive from the Western Business Roundtable is such a masterpiece of obfuscation that it cries out to be posted here, especially because it repeats similar baseless accusations against Barack Obama that were raised today by vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Here are the first two paragraphs of the release:
A bipartisan coalition of business leaders is calling on governors, state legislators and members of Congress to publicly express their opposition before tomorrow's election to proposals to "bankrupt" the U.S. coal industry and threaten to put out of work several hundred thousand Americans who work in coal-related industries.
The call was issued by the Western Business Roundtable following news reports that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama intends to make it so costly to build advanced clean coal power plants with carbon capture and sequestration that it will "bankrupt" any company that tries to do so.
Well, no. The "news reports" refer to tapes that appeared Sunday on YouTube, which were excerpted from a discussion held by Obama with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board in January. Here's what Obama said that has raised the ire of both Palin and the Western Business Roundtable:
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter.... 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. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
Note carefully what Obama is saying here: He wants a cap-and-trade program that would set a price for greenhouse-gas emissions. That would make it prohibitively expensive to build new conventional coal plants, because they emit vast amounts of carbon. Yet that's not the way the Business Roundtable, a marketing organization for a coalition of Western CEOs, puts it. Its release says Obama's proposal would make it impossible to build "advanced clean coal power plants with carbon capture and sequestration." Actually, if the technology to capture and bury carbon emissions from coal plants existed (it's still under study, and may never be commercially viable), such a plant would emit only trace amounts of carbon, and thus be perfectly viable under Obama's cap-and-trade scheme.
This is why business groups get a bad name for trying to "greenwash" environmentally destructive projects: The roundtable clearly objects to Obama's stance on dirty, conventional coal, but in order to look as if it cares about the environment, it's pretending that Obama actually opposes carbon-capture technology, which he has repeatedly backed (that's what Obama meant when he said "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it").
The Business Roundtable still could take a few pointers on Doublespeak, though, from the master: Palin. In a campaign appearance in Ohio, Palin brought up the same YouTube tape to blast Obama's stance on coal.
He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build new coal-fired plants, then they can go ahead and try. . . but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he's comfortable letting that happen.
What Palin neglected to mention is that the guy she's running with, John McCain, favors a cap-and-trade program very similar to Obama's, which would have the exact same impact on conventional coal plants. No matter who wins, the coal industry is going to be in trouble. Maybe after the election we can all stop pretending otherwise.
* Photo by Charlie Riedel / AP
There you go again rushing to your Messiah's defense. You should definitely change your newspapers name to "THE OBAMA TIMES." Hey, I know why don't you practice true investigative reporting and release the Obama tapes? Your paper will go down in history as the poster child for the "Death of Unbiased Journalism." Rest in peace.
Posted by: Cecilia Trent | November 03, 2008 at 03:29 PM
It seems McLiar can't help him self. He has to lie about everything in order to get elected. Then after he starts a fire, we need fire trucks to put it out.
Posted by: zoom | November 03, 2008 at 03:47 PM
Coal+Farrakhan+Wright+Rezko+Khalidi+ACORN+Aunty Illegal+Obamitable Taxman=McCain win tomorrow.
Woo Hoo!
Posted by: RM23 | November 03, 2008 at 03:50 PM
Hey Cecilia. I suppose you think they should LIE JUST LIKE McLIAR does in order to get votes RIGHT? Am I rigght Cecilia? Just lie your way to the top because we all know that's what McLIAR does best.
His plan stinks, so he must confuse every one with fake stories. I wonder why it is that McCain supporters feel like it's ok to go along with every dishonest thing McCain does? He deserves the name, McNixon for being so dishonest. and THAT's why I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A LIAR! He'd be a disgrace to our country.
Posted by: zoom | November 03, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Shut up Cecilia Trent. It is because of people like you that America is so divided today. Does it really hurt that bad to know your precious John McCain is going to lose? Sucks to be on the losers team I guess. I worry for the future of America when people as stupid as you are allowed near a computer.
Posted by: lisa | November 03, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Cecilia, Um Girl think about it. It's in the Opinion section, therefore it is okay for Charlie to state and use his opinion to back a particular candidate. Besides I've heard this same rhetoric and it's deceitful and a lie. Can anyone argue to anything in this article that is false? I think everything here is true. Cecilia do you have any facts, or are you just a whiner?
CC
Posted by: Chapter Cavanaugh | November 03, 2008 at 03:56 PM
One of the great stories of this election that has (unsurprisingly) gone almost completely unreported is the extent to which so many mainstream media outlets have completely abandoned even the slightest pretense of objectivity. If Obama wins, I wonder if the LA Times will be anointed the official state newspaper?
Posted by: ........ | November 03, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Cecilia, you are AWESOME. Don't mind these Kool-Aid Drinkers. LOL! Oh, no, it doesn't matter that most of Obama's allies belong in prison, it is the VISION, that's the thing. Yeah, that's the ticket...change...the vision...yeah...that's right...
Posted by: RM23 | November 03, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Sounds like something I heard in the middle school at which I work. " Oh yeah! Well,so are you and more of it"
Like it or not, BOs words speak for themselves.
Posted by: Liam | November 03, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Yes Cecilia, it's terribly biased and unprofessional for them to expose the doublespeak and half truths of a political campaign. Maybe they should let both campaigns say whatever they want without fact checking and report it all as fact. That would be some good unbiased journalism. If you think they're making one candidate look better than the other maybe it's because one candidate actually is better than the other.
Posted by: Jef | November 03, 2008 at 03:59 PM
I take back the prison thing...THAT was a little harsh...but the Chicago alliances ARE somewhat unsavory, are they not?
Posted by: RM23 | November 03, 2008 at 04:02 PM
McCain isn't going to bankrupt ANYTHING. Obama specifically promises to bankrupt new coal plants and does not care if electric prices SKYROCKET!!! Obama promises!!! Release the Khaldi tape LA TIMES. STOP BEING OBAMA PRESS MACHINE. PEOPLE ARE BEING TO NOT TAKE THE LA TIMES SERIOUSLY.
Posted by: Deborah | November 03, 2008 at 04:03 PM
mr.mcche would raise prices to a extreme of bankruting a company that holds holds 100's and thousands of jobs!
nice try though la times,since u have time trying to defend obama why dont u quit protecting him and release his tape with him and his radical friends!
Posted by: charrenee | November 03, 2008 at 04:04 PM
Liam wrote, "Like it or not, BOs words speak for themselves."
I agree.
"Change, change, change, change, spread the wealth, change, change, change, "Coal plants will go out of business", change, change, change, change, "Civilian National Security Force", change, change, change, (hires special advisors to help him "reset" expectations on campaign promises AFTER the election), change, change, change, change"
....'xcuse me while I throw up my dinner...
Posted by: RM23 | November 03, 2008 at 04:07 PM
The Broadcast & Print Media have actively selected "items of interest" to report that generally favor Sen. Obama. With so many legitimate questions about Sen Obama's past & his credentials still not being given any real analysis, it really prevents me from having any faith in much of anything these news outlets report. I may as well read Pravda. To give an example on how unbalanced the reporting has been, if Richard M. Nixon had been running in this campaign & had ANY of these questions pending in his past, the Media would send LEGIONS of reporters & investigators to sniff out what they could for public dissemination & humiliation. Sen Obama is a great speaker & very charismatic. Other than that he's an empty suit. Being from the NYC area, the first lesson in "street smarts" is :Anyone telling everything you want to hear is a "con-man".
Posted by: T.M. Dwyer | November 03, 2008 at 04:08 PM
So if coal companies make a big stinking mess they have to pay to clean it up?
That's controversial?
Posted by: Queen Sarah | November 03, 2008 at 04:12 PM
Obamafever for ever...
I think it is an excellent idea to bankrupt coal industry. It will improve the environment and people can live longer who are dieing of carbon dust filled in their lungs. Vote democratic tomorrow and boot out those Bush/Cheney republicans who are nothing but a bunch of war-mongering, gun-toying, oil-sucking. wire-tapping. secretly-prisoning, illegally-torturing, environment-nazi, wall-street mafia !!!
Posted by: Obamafever | November 03, 2008 at 04:12 PM
Wow, amazing how whenever a Republican or McCain supporter speaks their political opinion we are bashed for being stupid, backward, hicks "clinging to our guns and God." I'm sorry but this story is biased, rushing to the defense of Obama as soon as something unflattering comes out about his ideas. I have yet to see the media rush to defend McCain when he is politically questioned.
Personally, I am quite looking forward to America crumbling under Obama. The problem is too much government intervention, GET OUT OF MY LIFE. I do think we should get cleaner fuels and energy, but you can't do that OVERNIGHT, and killing coal plants will knock out 50% of our power, thus making it pretty difficult to develop new technology...(also I wonder why environmentalists don't avoid SUVs, trucks, cars, planes, power, anything that pollutes...they just demand that the little guy should. But I digress.)
I have a great fear that Obama is going to mandate how we live our lives, what we eat, what we do, what we believe, all in the name of supposedly improving America, when in reality he would be reversing the entire idea of America = Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...with equal opportunity NOT equal results...
Posted by: martin | November 03, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Is there a connection between Khalid al Mansour, OPEC, and Obama’s bankrupting America’s Coal Industry?
We all know that Percy Sutton connected Barack to Khalid Al Mansour in a news reel that exposed al Mansour as a proponent of Barack’s entrance to Harvard. A lot of people are stating that Khalid al Mansour works for OPEC. Without doubt, it would be to OPEC’s advantage to bankrupt America’s coal industry. Is this just a conspiracy, a coincidence or do we really have a fox in the hen house?
http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/is-there-a-connection-between-khalid-al-mansour-opec-and-obamas-bankrupting-americas-coal-industry/
Posted by: joeschmoepolitico | November 03, 2008 at 04:28 PM
Additionally, in response to Obamafever's claim that bankrupting the coal industry will allow people to live longer, where really is the evidence for that. Before coal lifespans were considerably shorter but this was of course due to other complications. Yet, if you want to examine any other historical lifespans, such as the Roman Emperors like Augustus Caesar lived nearly 80 years...this without a lot of pollution, but also with ancient healthcare.
It is also increasingly difficult to claim that removing pollution will significantly lengthen our lives. Some of the oldest humans, of recent times, living to about 120 years old have been lifelong smokers and did not lead "healthy" lives.
PSALM 90
Lord, you have been our dwelling place
throughout all generations.
Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
You turn men back to dust,
saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men."
For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.
You sweep men away in the sleep of death;
they are like the new grass of the morning-
though in the morning it springs up new,
by evening it is dry and withered.
We are consumed by your anger
and terrified by your indignation.
You have set our iniquities before you,
our secret sins in the light of your presence.
All our days pass away under your wrath;
we finish our years with a moan.
The length of our days is seventy years—
or eighty, if we have the strength;
yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away.
Who knows the power of your anger?
For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you.
Teach us to number our days aright,
that we may gain a heart of wisdom.
Relent, O LORD! How long will it be?
Have compassion on your servants.
Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love,
that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days.
Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us,
for as many years as we have seen trouble.
May your deeds be shown to your servants,
your splendor to their children.
May the favor [b] of the Lord our God rest upon us;
establish the work of our hands for us—
yes, establish the work of our hands.
Posted by: martin | November 03, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Martin, I appreciate your post, but I wanted to address one of your points because it's something I hear a lot from critics of environmental initiatives like the ones that both Obama and McCain support. Absolutely no one, including Obama, is talking about doing away with coal power overnight: That would be insane. Under a cap-and-trade scheme, you set a cap for how much carbon coal plants can emit, and you gradually lower the cap over time. This would discourage construction of new coal plants, but it would only lead to a gradual phasing out of existing ones.
Also, I see from many of the comments here that McCain supporters don't seem to be aware of their own candidate's policies on the environment and global warming. There is very little difference between Obama and McCain on this issue, the only real one being that Obama wants to cut greenhouse gases 80% by 2050 while McCain calls for only 60%. If you don't think this is true, I urge you to check out McCain's website: http://www.johnmccain.com/climatechange/
Posted by: Dan Turner | November 03, 2008 at 04:41 PM
'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"
No mention of advanced coal tech, Obama only says that "it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenshoud gas that's being emitted."
Note that It is not the same as "That would make it prohibitively expensive to build new conventional coal plants, because they emit vast amounts of carbon. "
The editorial implies Obama means to cut advanced coal tech some slack but with the evidence submitted in the column does not mention cleaner coal getting any breaks.
There is no supporting information presented to indicate Obama agrees with the writer. Not denying it is out there, but it is absent from this article with discredits the view.
Posted by: David L | November 03, 2008 at 05:04 PM
A vote FOR McCain is vote against naked Marxism... it's time for all the 'Kool-Aid drinkers' to bone up. The great disaster is that they don't really KNOW the 'who & what' it is they're voting for. Some do. Most don't. When 'awakened', should Obama be their president, they will woefully regret having participated in their country's demise. Get a grip, you foolish people... aside from the shady alliances, and all other such issues, the bankrupting of coal companies means, in the process, your electric bills will be hiked enough to cost you a lot more than you'll ever 'get' from Obama. This, in & of itself is a mere sneak-peek into your future.
Posted by: Miss Prince | November 03, 2008 at 05:14 PM
WOW, People are stupid if they don't agree with Obama? People who think for themselves and are not lead by the nose are the reason America is so divided? Remember people, mantras were the tools of the now defunct Socialist Peoples Republics. A big part of why they are defunct. One other funny coincidence (please not the sarcasm), they were all Deomcratic Peoples Republics.
A guy writes a book called dreams of my father, a father that left when he was six months old, that he visited once when he was ten and had no other meaningful contact with, but he wrote a book about his fathers dreams, and made millions on it. Does that sound like a con man to anyone else?
Posted by: Kevin McGrath | November 03, 2008 at 05:40 PM
I fear for the country that we have created. In communist countries, the government controls the press. What we have sunk to is far more dangerous. Under the guise of an objective press, the liberal, elite media push their agenda. You have abdicated your responsibility to the country and your fellow citizens. Trust me, you may win some battles, but in the end, our country will lose the war. When the machine that you've created turns on you (and trust me it will), I pray that you will be able to withstand the persecution.
Posted by: Jon Lipsky | November 03, 2008 at 07:36 PM