Skip to main content

Here Is What A Real, Intellectually-Consistent Liberal Looks Like

...and I couldn't agree more with Robert Kennedy, Jr. on the reactionary, backwards-ass public subsidization of this extremely-dirty industry's pig-in-a-poke, brought to you by the Hopechange Industrial Complex.
RFK Jr. Blasts Obama as 'Indentured Servant' to Coal Industry

(Note : all links are original to the article, i.e. not mine)

"Clean coal is a dirty lie," says environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who calls President Barack Obama and other politicians who commit taxpayer money to develop it "indentured servants" of the coal industry.

Despite a series of expensive false starts and failures, President Obama proposed $3.4 billion in stimulus legislation to fund continued research on "clean coal" projects.

"Clean coal is like healthy cigarettes, it does not exist," says former Vice President Al Gore.

The coal industry has been running a multi-million dollar advertising blitz to promote the theory that coal can be made clean, using one of Obama's campaign speeches in its television commercials.

Click here to see the coal industry's commercials featuring President Obama.

"You can't tell me we can't figure out a way to burn coal that we mine right here in the United States and make it work," says Obama in the commercial, which ends with on-screen words: Yes We Can.

The "clean coal" theory is that coal's dangerous global warming gas, carbon dioxide, can be captured and sent by pipeline to be buried deep in the earth.

"It is the dirtiest of all fuels that we know of," said Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club, which says talk of "clean coal" is designed to put off efforts to wean the country off coal.

"Today in the United States, most of the pollution is coming from coal burning power plants," said Nilles.

After 24 years and billions of dollars spent trying, there is still no operating coal power plant using "clean coal" technology.


Clearly Obama won't let science and reality get in the way of his pandering to the filthy, environmentally-reckless coal-as-energy industry and, of course, those states profiting from its extraction, sale, and burning....# 2 of which is....(surprise!!)...ILLINOIS, followed by other coal-producing states critical to Obama's (re-)election such as WV (# 4), PA (# 6), OH (#7), and Indiana (#10).

I would like to think Obama is just terribly-misguided or ignorant and thus susceptible to correction on his intent to proliferate coal burning, "clean" or otherwise. But I suspect it is more about calculated, cynical, self-serving selectivity in his environmental/energy policies.

If you want to know about how "clean" coal will ever be, ask the coal miners and survey the geological rape left behind, all over the planet.

It's not just all about the tons upon tons of coal ash left over (which, for example, the corrupt government of Wilmington has colluded with polluters to mix with sludge) nor what comes out the smoke stacks...

Comments

Brian Miller said…
Clean coal is more attainable and commercially viable than $50,000 hybrid sedans, or 90% of power coming from wind power, or any of the other pipe dreams Al Gore is promoting.
Tyler Nixon said…
Attainable...or sustainable? Coal, clean or otherwise is absolutely not permanently sustainable. Period.

And a working demonstration of "clean coal" technology has been non-existent since the term was invented, much less its "commercial viability".

By no means does my position on coal mean I agree with Al Gore or any of his "pipe dreams". Cap-and-trade is a mother-frigging abomination.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...