Obama Refines His Position on Coal
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 06.26.07
Tip O'Neill said "all politics is local" and perhaps it is if you are a senator, but it sure gets complicated when you are running for president. The state of Illinois sits on 100 billion tons of coal, and its senator is Barack Obama; it really should be no surprise that in 2005 he attached a provision to the energy bill for 85 million dollars to test using Illinois coal for transportation, or that he co-sponsored legislation earlier this year for billions of dollars in subsidies for coal-to-liquid technology.
In January Obama said "The people I meet in town-hall meetings back home would rather fill their cars with fuel made from coal reserves in southern Illinois than with fuel made from crude reserves in Saudi Arabia.
According to the Washington Post, environmentalists were not happy and let him know. "When our friends do things that we think are not smart, we tend to call them and talk to them about it," Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said. "We thought this was a mistake. We let them know that we thought it was a mistake and why."
"He was trying to throw a bone to the southern Illinois coal interests, and was surprised when people started saying "what the heck are you doing? said Frank ODonnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "that is a rookie mistake for a presidential candidate, to think you can get in the middle of a controversial issue and no one will notice."
Since introducing the bill in January Obama has been "refining" his position, and now will support subsidies for CTL only if the fuel can be created with 20% lower CO2 than petroleum based fuels, a goal that is not currently technically feasible. When push came to shove he voted against his own co-sponsored bill.
President of American Coal Company Robert Murray says "on the one hand he says he 's for CTL, but then he votes against it. I am going to assume that he is not a friend of coal' ::Washington Post
Well, in this process, he has pissed off BOTH sides of the issue.
On the one hand he says he 's for CTL, but then he votes against it. I am going to assume that he is not a friend of the environment.
I think it is a rare example of a politician realizing that he / she has done something wrong and took action to correct it.
But the previous poster may be correct, he very well may have angered people on both sides of this issue.
I'm going to assume that he's learning as he goes. He seems like the kind of man who:
1) doesn't know everything
2) freely admits that he doesn't know everything
3) makes decisions based on what he knows
4) learns as he goes
and
5) therefore kind of changes his mind about some of the decisions he's made in the past.
I mean, I've done that before. I've changed my mind about something after learning more about it.
Haven't you?
Another reason to vote for Dennis Kucinich!
without a doubt, dennis kucinich would make a better president than, well, just about anybody! yet, and this is an important part of the picture, without a doubt, dennis is not going to win. unfortunately, there's no way. voting for him would make a powerful statement of course, but isn't it true that times are so urgent that we need to consider electability in our strategies of who to support?
so what do we do? one thing we may all be able to agree on is that we need a shift in energy, a new type of person who while they may not be as sweet and sincere as the ideal, is at least not as deeply entrenched in the worlds of politics and big business. someone who is, as obama's critics point out, younger and less experienced. he does have political experience, but not as much as clinton as far as corruption, shrewdness, and a culture of dishonesty. sometimes the culture of dishonesty gives a nod to environmentalists and sponsors good policy, if its politically correct.
but when i think of clinton's character compared to obama's . . . obama actually seems the one who represents the feminine shift this planet needs. its not about gender, its about energy. and as lil' hugger and anonymous point out, obama seems someone who is willing to learn as he goes. and being willling to listen and learn and admit one doesnt have all the answers are profoundly important qualities.
Well in all fairness he voted against his own bill because he listened to the American people. Enough people told him that they didn't like that and he listened and voted against it, regardless if he co-sponsored the bill.
President Bush doesn't listen to anyone besides himself and advisors, therefore President Obama would be a giant leap in the right direction for American.