No specific subject discussion

[duane1969]

When and where did Obama say this?

Obama admits that under his "cap and trade" plan that electricity rates would skyrocket
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v16428009rDBSbTHy

Obama says that new coal plants will be bankrupted by new EPA laws and regulations

Joe Biden clearly states that he wants no coal plants in America

Is that enough??? Obama and Biden clearly have an agenda against coal with no plan of how to deal with the fallout of the shutdown of 50% of our electric plants.

[pghin08]

I have two thoughts on this:

1. I'm not a fan of doing something without a long-term plan in place (a la Bush/Iraq). So if the administration wants to invest in alternative energy sources, do it while we lessen our dependence on coal, rather than the other way around.

2. The regulations themselves will someday be necessary. Coal is flat out dangerous, to those who mine it, and those who don't. To be fair, I know of zero energy sources that come with no dangers. However, we know coal's effects, and they suck.

[Star_Cards]

I have two thoughts on this:

1. I'm not a fan of doing something without a long-term plan in place (a la Bush/Iraq). So if the administration wants to invest in alternative energy sources, do it while we lessen our dependence on coal, rather than the other way around.

2. The regulations themselves will someday be necessary. Coal is flat out dangerous, to those who mine it, and those who don't. To be fair, I know of zero energy sources that come with no dangers. However, we know coal's effects, and they suck.

well said.

[INTIMADATOR2007]

Hey lets try Solar power its great right , Obama says its the way to go right . Lets give them $535 million for the future . Solyndra a solar power company that Obama VISITED and spoke golden about the future of solar power and gave $535million tax dollars to last year has...wait for it .... went out of bussiness . I feel bad for the 1100 people that bought into the fraud and lost there jobs but some where somebody got $535 million in tax payer dollars in there pocket . Yeah solar is the future ...


The company received $535 million in taxpayer money from the U.S. Department of Energy and $1.1 billion in private venture capital funding.
President Barack Obama touted Solyndra as a poster child for clean energy after the company received the federal funds.
"Companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future," Obama said during a 2010 visit to the company's Fremont headquarters

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...128802718.html

[Star_Cards]

I wonder if a reason for these new energy options failing is partly because the old ways are just the standard. They are all just so entrenched into normal every day life it's hard to get switched over because products have yet to be switched. At some point it needs to be more affordable and more mainstream before it succeeds. I don't know if government backing is the key but at some point something has to spark it.

[duane1969]

2. Coal is flat out dangerous, to those who mine it, and those who don't. To be fair, I know of zero energy sources that come with no dangers. However, we know coal's effects, and they suck.

Not like it used to be. Times have changed in mining.

*Ventilation is required and if the ventilation system fails then the miners are immediately pulled.
*They have developed catalytic burners that burn off a lot of the carbon that is produced by burning coal in electric plants.
*Black lung illness claims are down by 90% since 1969.

This isn't the mining industry of the 19th century. It's not perfect but it isn't the death sentence job that it was just 60 or 70 years ago.

Each year about 400 people die from lung related illnesses due to mining. Compare that to tobacco (443,000 deaths per year). If the government wants to regulate something that will clean the air, protect the environment and save people's lives then they need to start with Pres. Obama's favorite sin.

[duane1969]

I wonder if a reason for these new energy options failing is partly because the old ways are just the standard. They are all just so entrenched into normal every day life it's hard to get switched over because products have yet to be switched. At some point it needs to be more affordable and more mainstream before it succeeds. I don't know if government backing is the key but at some point something has to spark it.

It is industry controlled, not government controlled. Oil became popular because cars, heaters and equipment use it. Start making heaters and equipment that burns alternative fuels and the alternative fuel will become more desirable.

All government involvment and regulation does is make everything more expensive and ultimately costs taxpayers more dollars.

----------------------------------

EDIT: As I said, government involvment just costs the taxpayers more money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44350029...s-going_green/

Over $500 million in Federal loans and all that is left is 1100 unemployed workers and a bankruptcy filing.

[pghin08]

Not like it used to be. Times have changed in mining.

*Ventilation is required and if the ventilation system fails then the miners are immediately pulled.
*They have developed catalytic burners that burn off a lot of the carbon that is produced by burning coal in electric plants.
*Black lung illness claims are down by 90% since 1969.

This isn't the mining industry of the 19th century. It's not perfect but it isn't the death sentence job that it was just 60 or 70 years ago.

Each year about 400 people die from lung related illnesses due to mining. Compare that to tobacco (443,000 deaths per year). If the government wants to regulate something that will clean the air, protect the environment and save people's lives then they need to start with Pres. Obama's favorite sin.

Well now that's just funny.

And to your points about the mining industry: you're right, it's definitely safer than it was a few decades ago. But everything is. My dad works in a steel mill. Is it as dangerous as it was in 1970? No. Is it still a dangerous job though? You bet.

Though I will admit, since you're from West Virginia (if I remember correctly), I'll defer to your likely superior knowledge of the mining industry. My only experience in a coal mine comes from when I went down in one when I was 10. I'm sure you have family/friends in the industry (much like myself, being from Pittsburgh, I still know many in the steel industry).

Back to the point on tobacco, it's a little unfair to compare those two numbers in any light. There are a ton of smokers in this world (lawyers, accountants, whatever), but coal miners are a very limited group. I would bet that within the realm of mining, those 400 deaths, if extrapolated out to the entire smoking world, would be a similar percentage of their respective populations.

[duane1969]

You are correct, I am from WV and know a lot of miners. Mining is by far the #1 industry in our state. If you take coal mining away it will essentially bankrupt our state.

Yes, it is a dangerous job, but they get paid well for it. Just like underwater welders and skyscraper steelworkers get big money because their job is risky, so do miners. Every miner does his job knowing that there are risks. But that is their choice and it certainly isn't the government's job to regulate them into the unemployment line "for their own good".

I would imagine that you may be right about the ratio of miners to deaths versus smoking. However, the fact remains, politicians will focus all of their energy on one microcosm of need while totally ignoring the big picture. The last thing I need is a politician telling me that the coal industry is bad for the environment and people when we have nearly a half million people dying every year from smoking tobacco.

Fix the big things, then the small things.

If you want to talk about impact on the environment then ignoring cigarettes while outlawing coal would be pretty narrow-minded.

[pghin08]

You are correct, I am from WV and know a lot of miners. Mining is by far the #1 industry in our state. If you take coal mining away it will essentially bankrupt our state.

Yes, it is a dangerous job, but they get paid well for it. Just like underwater welders and skyscraper steelworkers get big money because their job is risky, so do miners. Every miner does his job knowing that there are risks. But that is their choice and it certainly isn't the government's job to regulate them into the unemployment line "for their own good".

I would imagine that you may be right about the ratio of miners to deaths versus smoking. However, the fact remains, politicians will focus all of their energy on one microcosm of need while totally ignoring the big picture. The last thing I need is a politician telling me that the coal industry is bad for the environment and people when we have nearly a half million people dying every year from smoking tobacco.

Fix the big things, then the small things.

If you want to talk about impact on the environment then ignoring cigarettes while outlawing coal would be pretty narrow-minded.

I agree, but only to a point. When you start getting into cigarettes, a CHOICE that is a part of many people's daily lives, you're getting into sketchy territory. What can and can't the government regulate? Outlawing cigarettes is just like prohibition, which if done today, I'm quite certain the world would explode.

And to be fair, we're not OUTLAWING coal. Plus, the harvesting of tobacco and coal are very different. And smoking itself doesn't leave a large carbon footprint. I think driving one mile in a car is equivalent to smoking 80 cigarettes. So why not outlaw driving? Even the most hardcore environmentalist would say that outlawing smoking wouldn't do a tremendous amount to help the environment.