The Democrats’ War on Energy

ChicagoBoyz.Net ^ | November 2nd | David Foster

[Leisler]

Barack Obama, speaking with the San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008:

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.

and

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

Left unsaid:

1)Would he also bankrupt those who already operate coal-fired plants, which produce about 40% of the nation’s electricity? Presumably, yes, although he might give them a few years’ grace period.

2)Would he also charge carbon taxes on coal *exports*? For one who believes that CO2-based global warming is among the most critical world issues, it would be irrational to suppress the use of coal at home while still permitting its transfer abroad. Expect the carbon fees to eventually be applied at the mine mouth, not just the point of use.

3)What about the integrated steel companies, which use coke (made from coal) in their blast furnaces? Does he want to bankrupt them, too?

Note also that Obama and other key Democrats are not going to support nuclear energy in any realistic way, even though it is irrational–indeed almost insane–to identify CO2 as a dominant concern and also to continue to suppress nuclear power.

Obama’s energy plan, if implemented, would greatly increase the cost of electricity for households and industries. Don’t kid yourself that solar and wind would fill the gap in any near-term time frame. There are no practical means to store electricity, and sun and wind do not always make themselves available when the power is needed. Increased energy costs for manufacturers would result in many plant closings and job losses; increased energy costs for consumers would reduce discretionary incomes and squeeze the entire economy.

The plan would of course directly harm the coal industry; it would also harm other industries, particularly railroads, which get a lot of their revenue from moving coal. If the carbon charges were extended to the mine mouth, thereby cutting off the coal export market, the impact on the railroads would be devastating, probably resulting in bankruptcies in that industry too…not to mention the effect on the balance of trade.

Obama likes to talk about the middle class. The existence of a broadly-affluent middle class is dependent on broadly-available and reasonably-priced energy, and the Democratic plans are a serious threat to that.

[Leisler]

Audio at this site, click here

[Chairman of the Bard]

In response to the Republicans’ push to vote on offshore exploration and drilling, Obama said that if we all just inflated our tires, we would save enough gas to offset all that we could produce by drilling.

And he got away with it!!!

[Brilliant]

It will be interesting to see how much of this opposition to energy survives the election. It’s quite possible that the Dems are simply adopting this position because it’s popular with their base, and they want to sabotage the Bush Presidency by causing an energy disruption that impacts the economy. If that’s the case, then expect them to turn on a dime after the election and start encouraging energy production.

It will also be interesting to see if the Dems pass Kyoto. They’ve been attacking Bush for 7 years because he refused to sign it. If they control the White House, then logically, one of the first things Obama should do is sign Kyoto. The second thing, is that the Dem controlled Senate should ratify it. Anything less would be hypocrisy.

[Leisler]

It is in their interests as a organism to sign it. This gets them more in between more parties and locks in their position as middlemen. For a fee, mind you.

[pnh102]

How can so many people in this country be so stupid to support a candidate who wants to gut out energy supplies. If this was a sane world, someone like Hussein would do no better than fringe kook candidate.

[calex59]

It will be interesting to see how much of this opposition to energy survives the election. It’s quite possible that the Dems are simply adopting this position because it’s popular with their base, and they want to sabotage the Bush Presidency by causing an energy disruption that impacts the economy. If that’s the case, then expect them to turn on a dime after the election and start encouraging energy production.

You are deluding yourself if you think he is not serious about this. What he is doing now in the coal states is saying he supports coal. He is lying his tail off because in reality his plan is to eliminate coal(and other forms of energy!). He wants to bankrupt America and then rebuild her as a communist society, it is always the way with marxists. That is how they operate and he is deadly serious about bankrupting coal companies.

[Leisler]

"If this was a sane world"

It's not sane, never has been IMHO.

[Brilliant]

We’ll see. I think it is either a ruse, or he is the most foolish politician ever to live. I don’t think he could get away with it. 300 million unemployed Americans groveling in the street are not likely to be persuaded by his ideological arguments.