« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Environmentalist groups criticize Obama's pro-coal industry record
Back in 1998, Barack Obama voted against the Kyoto protocol that Al Gore fought so hard to negotiate. He wanted to please her buddies in the Illinois' coal industry.
Now he appears very excited about and supportive of Al Gore's new call for reduction in emissions.
The USA Today has an article today titled, "Obama shifts stance on environmental issues."
Analysts from both Greenpeace and the non-partisan Clean Air Watch expressed their distrust for Obama when it comes to his willingness to fight against the coal industry.
"He's definitely trying to straddle two
politically irreconcilable objectives: taking decisive action against
global warming while keeping a healthy coal industry," said Frank
O'Donnell, president of the non-partisan Clean Air Watch. "Obama's
record certainly suggests that environmentalists aren't going to be
calling the shots in his administration without input from industry."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-17-obama-coal_N.htm
Comments (23)
Umm care to explain how voted against Kyoto in '98 when he was in the IL. House?
July 18, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a bill seeking to condemn Kyoto, and Obama voted "aye". That's what the article means by being against it.
the same forbade state regulations to curb greenhouse gases.
July 18, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got it thanks.
July 18, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, if 10 years ago I thought one way about something, but over time -- and with similarly shifting public opinion and scientific opinion -- I changed my mind and see where both environmentalists and industrialists need to find common ground, I'm suspect?
If there is a desire to "wean our dependance" on foreign oil -- and coal is one (not the only, but one) means to do it, shouldn't both the environmentalists and coal producers sit at the same table to figure the problem out?
July 18, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign still defends his vote on Kyoto. It's not like he changed his mind on that particular vote. Read the article.
July 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You did not provide a working link to the article. How about you cleaning up your toxic dump first.
July 18, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wanted to make a joke about a toxic dumb. That's why you lied about the link not working, because the link I provided works perfectly. Let me type it again in case you are mildly retarded:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-17-obama-coal_N.htm
July 18, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I typed "toxic dumb" instead of "dump", probably because I had you on my mind.
July 18, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A working link is clickable.
A working uniform resource locator (URL) is a string of text one can type or paste in the address bar of a Web browser to reach a certain site.
As Liam said, you did *not* provide a working link. You provided a working URL. A little reading comprehension next time, before you prematurely and inaccurately flame someone's intellect.
July 18, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you were too lazy to use 2 seconds of your life to past the link into a browser window?
And yes, it is a WORKING LINK, because the URL I type links to the article in question. If you said "clickable link," then that's another story. But you simply said link the first time around.
July 18, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You provided a broken link. What you just provided is a working link, and you are still a clueless MORON.
July 19, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, truthseeker, you initially did not provide a way to link to the article that you referenced. (Or, if you did, it was not visible on the thread on my screen, either). I was wondering how to access it, also. Liam was right.
However, thanks for correcting the problem. The link is now executable.
July 19, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is impossible to edit posts, so you are lying when you claim that I fixed the link.
Why do you lie?
July 24, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for deniers and cornucopians, anyone in the industrialized world is likely to be both dismayed about the many ill effects of producing and using energy on their environment, and at the same time reluctant to give up the comfort and convenience that cheap energy makes possible. That an essentially moderate politician like Obama also struggles with such issues is hardly surprising.
July 18, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That comment is just one example of how Obama supporters will manage to rationalize any move by Obama in order to kiss his butt and pretend he never makes mistakes.
If Obama had voted against condemning Kyoto back then, you would be praising his move and congratulating him for his support of the environment, blah blah blah.
Grow an independent spine.
July 18, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'd prefer he had voted for Kyoto, but in realpolitik you have to balance green stances with pro-jobs stances. You don't find many admitted doomers in office.
July 19, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters are just like supporters of every other politician in the world. They represent diverse groups, whose needs and desires vary based on their gender, age, geographic locations, cultures, economic status, medical conditions, personal interests, etc.
I live in VA where tobacco was king for decades. We all know the seismic battles that have raged regarding the economic benefits vs. the detrimental health issues relating to that issue. Each individual state has had to take advantage of whatever unique natural resources are available to sustain life and their individual economies. Coal-rich states are no different.
ALL past and current sources of energy present positives and negatives that must be debated and weighed. Blaming Obama and his supporters for having to make tough decisions, with imperfect solutions, is unfair and dishonest. Most energy sources that were touted as safe 10 years ago are no longer considered so, based on new technology and the increasingly detrimental effects on the environment. Those who are too rigid to adjust to changing conditions have no business conducting the business of America or the world.
July 19, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
When has Obama's position on the environment or on coal shifted? Coal is big business in Illinois, especially in the south of the state. What replaces those jobs if the coal mines close right now? Of course, the environment is of critical importance. However, employing people is not only good for the people in question, it's also essential for remaining an elected official.
Where in Obama's record has he opposed using coal? He hasn't dumped the coal industry. Even his clean-coal proposals still use coal. That's logical, given that coal is a major player in southern Illinois.
The quote in the article states that Obama wants to help the environment while still using coal. That is a difficult objective, but it doesn't mean he's shifted positions.
July 18, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no doubt that as an Illinois politician you'll be able to find pro-coal activity. Illinois produces vast amounts of coal. Mother Jones is buried in southern Illinois. That he supported some pro-coal industry measures is not really a very big deal. Now, if he whored himself to the coal barons at all times it would be different, but I doubt that occured. If it did, he would never get the endorsement of the UMWA and I believe he has it.
July 18, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain, who now backs limits on carbon emissions, was among 95 U.S. senators who voted in 1997 to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Straddle that.
July 19, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you act as if we didn't know that?
July 19, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is of course somewhat compromised by his Illinois experience. It may be shocking, but political success requires helping your constituents and financial supporters.
But after winning a national election what debt will Obama feel to Illinois coal producers? And to complicate things, while it is hard to capture carbon from a car's tailpipe, it is not so hard at a power plant. Other possibilities for clean coal exist; we have to make sure it is not cover for cheating, like it was under Bush.
July 19, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Extract from the article:
"Obama's overall environmental record was exemplary, said Gene Karpinski, president of the Washington, D.C.-based League of Conservation Voters, which spent $400,000 to help Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate primary.
In one of his first acts in the U.S. Senate, Obama bucked his state's energy industry and voted to kill a Bush administration air-pollution proposal opposed by environmentalists. "When forced to chose between the coal industry and the broader public interest, he chose clean air," said Jack Darin, head of the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club."
July 19, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment