Obama’s energy rollout

Ronald Quin, Van Nuys, Ca — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:53:33 GMT

I like obamas honesty, and you dont see that in politicians these days, anymore

Obama’s energy rollout

william b allen pk mi — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:06:42 GMT

It sounds like Obama might be E-OK, Environmentally & Ecologically OK.

Obama’s energy rollout

nancy zubrod philadelphia pa. — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:10:51 GMT

Why is CBS News.com the only one mentioning a brilliant maneuver by Barack Obamathat will burnish his civil rights credentials because he is blockinga controversial FEC nominee? The article points out this move could help him woo black voters.

Obama’s energy rollout

ki houston — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:53:21 GMT

what is this ,no blatent condescending attack in a artical about Obama(although you tried a little one before stating the actual facts ); what blog is this . this has not happen here in about 2 months.Dont think we can get a puff artical ,like ya girl gets all day ah.

Obama’s energy rollout

Urich Gath, Waltham, MA — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:56:08 GMT

Once again, Obama leads!! Fresh bold ideas that other candidates will no doubt claim as their own, or the usual; criticize without giving their own counter ideas.
Obama - You will be next president of the United States of America!!

Obama’s energy rollout

geeta — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:07:19 GMT

I say Obama might be E-OK, Environmentally & Ecologically OK + all people like obamas honesty.

Obama’s energy rollout

Eric Davens — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:09:44 GMT

Goal acheived by 2050? Wow. This is what passes for good ideas from the Democrats? Timelines so far out that they are meaningless. This, coupled with Obama's 2013 (maybe!) exit from Iraq, makes this man a bigger joke then he already is.

Obama’s energy rollout

ZTL — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:11:18 GMT

I see Al Gore joining Obama team soon.....

Obama’s energy rollout

ki houston — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:20:25 GMT

Eric , how ignorant is that comment . do you think things get done without planing for the future. Ever heard of social security ,and numerous other policies that are projected over a large period of time . Or dont you think your children will be around in 40 years . Or maybe you can snap your fingers and it will be done.

Obama’s energy rollout

RH Oregon — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:24:42 GMT

ZTL may have something.
Al Gore professes to not want the presidency.
But maybe another vice-presidency?
Power enough to push his eco goals without the extra BS. ???
He's got the experience, the dems & libs like him.
And he created the internet!!!

Obama’s energy rollout

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:25:18 GMT

the nuclear part is ridiculuos as there is no safe way to deal with nulear waste but I like his other ideas, they are good. If repubs regain control we will be in iraq til 2050.

Obama’s energy rollout

CJ — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:26:11 GMT

So we are supposed to switch from oil to coal? How does that fix global warming? Obviously Obama is just being loyal to his coal company sponsers and not trying to fix the real problem. If he wanted to help global warming he would switch to solar power. There is more than enough solar power reaching the Earth each day to provide energy for the entire world. Why waste it?

Obama’s energy rollout

BR, Dallas — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:35:31 GMT

Are initiatives to combat global warming already an "old issue"?

Sorry, Obama can't steal Gore's glory this week. Hopefully Obama will join's Gore's team soom.

Goal achieved by 2050? Yeah, some problem's are long-term and require a little planning and thinking ahead (wish Bush could have done a little of that instead of getting us stuck in Iraq until 2050).

Obama’s energy rollout

Jason, Brookline, MA — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:35:53 GMT

Ethanol is a boondoggle. There is not enough energy in all of the plants in the midwest to meet the fuel demands of US automobiles. We'd be better off removing subsidies for corn, planting a greater diversity of crops with less synthetic fertilizer, developing electric cars, and paying farmers to put windmills in their fields.

Obama’s energy rollout

Don Slowik, Wilton, NH — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:55:29 GMT

If the other candidates take Obama's lead on pushing forward on clean energy, that will be great. Just hope we elect him so that we have a leader for the next 4 years. We need one!

Obama’s energy rollout

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:57:01 GMT

Obama is so far off the mark here, it defies logic.
Incandescent light bulbs aren't the problem, and, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as the "safe use" of nuclear power.
We in the Hudson Valley, live with a nuclear facility that leaks 30 gallons of tritium per month into The Hudson River. Tritium is radio active waste that carries a half life of something like 60 years per gallon. E.P.A., and the federal energy and nuclear regulatory agencies tell us this is an "acceptable level." Nice, huh?
The evacuation plan also calls for residents in highly populated neighborhoods to wait at bus stops to be picked up in case of a radiation leak or core meltdown.
Yeah right, we saw how good waiting for buses to pick people up worked in New Orleans.
Obama needs to pull his head out of his behind, here.
The problem is that local energy companies, along with the oil industry needs to be stringently regulated.
We shouldn't be allowing these greedy bastards (yes I said it) to be charging us three plus dollars a gallon for gasoline. Capitolism is capitolism.
But greed and price gouging are dispecable. (...and, I'm tired of hearing about the gas tax because it isnt what causes gas to be THAT much. The gas tax was in effect when Clinton was in office and gas was less than $2.00 a gallon when he left The White House in 2001. Also, we had a republiCANT congress along with a republiCANT president for 6 years...why didn't THEY repeal that tax?)
Obama needs to come up with more than a ban on light bulbs and reliance on nuclear power. This is among the many reasons why the man is experienced and completely out of touch.
And, to ki houston;.....all we saw for a solid week on First Read was "Norman Hsu, Norman Hsu, Norman Hsu," with Hillary's name attached to him.(I can only assume that Hillary is who you mean by "yo' girl") ....never a word of mention that Hsu gave money to the Obama campaign too,...and never a word about the indictment of Mitt Romney's National Fundrasing Co-Chairman and major Giulliani contributor, Alan Fabian.
I might add, that when Obama REPEATED what he had previously said about meeting with dictators and terrorists, NOBODY including First Read, called him on it.
So, if your intimation is that Hillary gets a pass in the media, you need to step off.
Because nobody gets more of a pass than little Baracky does.

Obama’s energy rollout

Nicole, Mississippi — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:57:33 GMT

I like how Obama votes but his speech regarding Pakistan discouraged me from voting for him. Hillary seems to be the lead candidate, but I don't like how she has voted. If Obama follows through on this energy plan, I, and many others, will vote for him. This plan will not only help our environment, but it will also end our dependence on foreign oil, hurt oil lobby, and unite us with the rest of the world in progression. As long as Obama doesn't threaten to take us into another war, I will vote for Obama.

Obama’s energy rollout

RH Oregon — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:03:25 GMT

Talking about the energy game. This came directly from a friend working in a couple of the regional electrical generating facilities.
Here is Oregon and Washington we have installed hundreds if not thousands of giant wind turbines. Great. Wind is free. Non-polluting. Crank them up. They are all up and down the Columbia river gorge. Just ask a wind surfer, it blows here.
The problem arises when it does blow. You see the power grid only holds so much juice. You can't just save the extra, or route it down to California at a moments notice. So... When the wind starts to crank up they SHUT DOWN the natural gas plants. Take them off line. We don't create more juice, we just get it from a different source. You might say, well at least the source is a green source. And you would be right, but my friend points out the largest part of thier polluting comes when the wind dies down and they have to refire up the cold gas plant. Thier start up dumps tons of pollution into the air while they get up to temperature.
And here I was feeling all warm and fuzzy about how eco our local PGE company was getting...

Obama’s energy rollout

steve — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:04:05 GMT

I like the idea of nuclear power. The chance of problems exist but can be made very small. I like solar energy as well but an volcano or asteroid can darken the skies which can kill solar power and cause problems. This issue has be thought through. As how feasible it is to switch the USA to using solar ( cost compared to nuclear ). Obviously a committee has to be formed with environmentalists, scientists, economists, military etc to look at the pros and cons of everything. Also windmills kill birds. This will have to be looked at.

Obama’s energy rollout

Emily Watts — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:04:26 GMT

if he is so concerned about the environment why does he smoke? im sure thats not good for the ozone.

Obama’s energy rollout

JWA, Columbus, OH — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:04:36 GMT

The real problem is not shifting carbon emissions, it's called contraception. This country is massively overpopulated and no technology other than contraception can fix that. We need to be more concerned with uterine emissions than carbon emissions. Face it. There is no more frontier. Based on the current understanding of the laws of physics, Star Trek is out of the question. It takes at least a decade for the fastest rocket to even navigate the Solar System, assuming it doesn't run into an asteroid. The notion of colonizing other planets is downright silly. America is stuck with the equivalent of the Jamestown colony. Get used to it, because it's only going to get worse.

Obama’s energy rollout

PS — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:05:34 GMT

Hamas Obamas - you ask where will the $150B come from? Well, if we hadn't invaded Iraq I think we'd have saved that amount. To date we have already spent $456B (yes, as in Billion!!) on the Iraq war with no conceivable end in sight. Do the math you racist.

Obama’s energy rollout

FL — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:05:45 GMT

"A mere $150 B as in BILLION on top of more welfare payments to those losers in exchange for their votes. And just where are these sums (in addition to funding all his other wild-eyed schemes) going to come from? Middle class, hard working-suckers, those funds will be coming from your paycheck instead of going to your families."

But we can afford to spend trillions in Iraq for lies. Let's start investing in America again!!!!!

Obama’s energy rollout

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:07:13 GMT

Eric-Curious, what innovative, dynamic and/or fresh ideas have Republicans put forth in decades? Let me see; Tax and spend liberals which is a joke considering that they are anything but fiscally conservative with record deficits that will cost all man,women and child about $30,000 per year; moral/family values party that includes Craig, Vitters, Guliani, Gingrich and so many others, flag admendment, displaying of the ten commanments, Terry Sciavo, abandonment of New Orleans, gay marriages, trees causes pollution(Reagan),flip flop, shredding of regulatory agency that allows Chinese toys from entering our country, no bid contracts for cronies, Dubai ports,warrentless wiretaps, partisan hacks in the justice department and yeah....IRAQ,IRAQ AND IRAQ.

Obama’s energy rollout

Matt, Burnsville MN — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:12:22 GMT

I am deeply concerned with this push for ethanol based fuels by all of our candidates. The fact of the matter is that we will continue to see a rise in the costs of our food as a result of increased reliance on corn for ethanol production. But my biggest concern stems from the way in which we manage our soils currently, If wee see a big move for ethanol based fuels with out any push to educate and implement sound land care practices such as no-till agriculture we could experience a return to the dust bowl.

Obama’s energy rollout

Ben Johnson, San Diego, CA — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:13:58 GMT

He's bolder than the rest of the crowd, but not bold enough to be a great president. Everything he says only tilts in the proper direction, but he always throws in a few wavering caveats - like the coal issue. Coal must go, the sooner the better. Clean nuclear power is clearly the answer; it is a limitless source of power for the future. We simply must move into that track and stop hoping for the miracle "other" solution. You solve a problem by acting, not waffling.

Obama’s energy rollout

Tamerz, Chicago, IL — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:14:42 GMT

mikeeg,

Please do a little research on nuclear power before making a comment like that. The tiny amount of waste from nuclear plants doesn't even slightly compare to what we are doing now. Also, the advances in technology since the last plants were built have been tremendous. The waste can be transported and contained safely. Even one of the cofounders of Greenpeace believes that it is the most eco friendly way of producing electricity in this country:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Obama’s energy rollout

jus sayin — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:15:57 GMT

hamas lay off the drugs and make sense. 9:37 post

Obama’s energy rollout

Elaine Rosmann, Memphis TN — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:18:59 GMT

Why do the Democrats energy plans always involve raising taxes?

Obama’s energy rollout

Dr. Greg — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:20:33 GMT

Wow - finally an article that actually balances criticism with the facts. Thanks!

P.S. - for all of you out there who don't have a Ph.D. in physics (i.e. mikeeg and Hamas Obamas) let me enlighten you a little about nuclear power and electricity.

1) A conventional nuclear reactor gets its source of energy from the controlled fission reactions of Uranium-235, the not-so-common isotope of Uranium. This is a metal, which is dug up from the ground. Ironically, if it is left there, it naturally decays into Radon-222, that annoying gas that makes it hard to resell your home. That means that you - yes, you - are living on top of some small Uranium deposits. Now, spent Uranium is canned and placed in deep underground bunkers, where it is about 10 times deeper and 10 times more contained than it was prior to being dug up. So, please stop watching The Simpsons for your Nuclear Physics education.

2) Incandescent bulbs are ancient, and very inefficient at producing light. This is simple to prove - turn on a 100 W incandescent light bulb for about five minutes and then touch it. If it is hot, that means it takes the electricity YOU paid for and makes itself warm, instead of making light, like it is supposed to. Now, if you use one of those newer fluorescent light bulbs, you will find that it requires about a third of the actual power to generate the same amount of light - because it's not making a lot of heat to do it. But hey, it's your electric bill...

Obama’s energy rollout

Dawn, Jackson Hole, Wyoming — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:23:02 GMT

It's a start, but if he had real guts he would propose a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline and use the proceeds to invest in wind farms and solar energy research.

Obama’s energy rollout

Carl, Gainesville Florida — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:27:35 GMT

I agree that honesty is valued... but telling the truth about reprehensible actions does not excuse them.

Obama’s energy rollout

Dr. Greg — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:30:09 GMT

CJ -

You make an interesting point about Solar Power. Indirectly, solar power provides ALL of the energy we see around us. The hard part is capturing it. I sat through a number of solar panel lectures while I was a graduate student, and the basic problem is that it is LITERALLY a fair-weather technology. So long as you have clear skies, you solar panels will remained charged for about 6-12 hours or so (i.e. daytime). Further, the BEST solar panels in the research labs (not even on the market) can capture as much as about 10% or so of the solar radiation, due to quantum limitations and absorption properties of the photo-sensitive diodes. Nuclear power (fusion power especially) works 24/7, and there is a LOT of material to use. But, because of the "radiophobia" people have, no politician but Obama (and Carter before him) was willing to stick their political careers on it.

Obama’s energy rollout

ki houston — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:30:40 GMT

do you notice that most people that dont like Obama dont have anything of substance to say that is true ,or could be called inteligent . All they offer is name calling ,lies about his position or religion and charater assasinations with no basis. wonder why ?

Obama’s energy rollout

quincy bey, sandy,uath — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:39:40 GMT

i like him he a state man and that what we need now days

Obama’s energy rollout

trilogy — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:51:12 GMT

Environmental issues should be stressed in such a way that theres no room for mistakes. Take a look at the war in Iraq. Retaliation costs a whole lot of lives as we'll as money to incorporate into such a political mess. Congress and Bush both have their hands on a bank roll thats at a 10-1 split cause you have to consider the outrageous gas prices in America. A change is so severely needed when it comes to this.

Obama’s energy rollout

ki houston — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:59:34 GMT

j ,like i said before ,here we go . you are seriously going to compare 4,000 that was planted ,more than likly by clinton to about 1 million. yea and how much did any of the msnbc pundits take her to task on hsu on tv . did the o man say anything ,did chris mathew bring it up . Be for real or honest ,which ever you can muster.

Obama’s energy rollout

Bee — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:32:18 GMT

Obama/Gore 2008 35%
Obama/Edward 2008 60%
Obama/Jim Webb 2008 68%
Obama/Tom Daschle 2008 55%

As someone that believe in free market. I think this proposal is bold and innovative. I guess a new commodity market can be created for this purpose.

Obama’s energy rollout

Eric, Newtown, PA — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:33:49 GMT

Thanks for the informative posting. It's a nice change from fluff about lapel pins, etc.

Obama’s energy rollout

Lura, Philadelphia, PA — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:45:32 GMT

About Dr. Greg’s defense of Nuclear Power:

This author is “cherry-picking the data” by conspicuously omitting any mention of plutonium as one of the waste products, produced in quantity, by nuclear power plant reactors. Prior to 1940, plutonium occurred naturally only in trace amounts in the immediate vicinity of naturally decaying uranium. Within 20 years of Nuclear Power Proliferation, plutonium existed in quantities of hundreds of tons on the planet.

According to the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", a massive compendium of much of the known data for the elements and chemical compounds, "The maximum permissible body burden, or the amount that can be maintained indefinitely in an adult without producing significant body injury, is 0.06 micrograms (.0000021 oz). Plutonium (Pu), therefore, is one of the most dangerous poisons known." Also worth noting is that the half-life of Pu (time for half the mass to disintegrate) is 24,360 years.

And all this refers only to chemical and radiological toxicity. This does not include the significant fact that Plutonium can also be made to reach a critical mass as demonstrated by the Nagasaki bomb which was Plutonium based (Hiroshima was a Uranium based bomb).

No containment method, including burying in mountains, even if we assume no breech, such as earthquakes or other explosions, can be expected to last for more than a few centuries before leeching out into the environment.

“Contrary to the claims of its proponents, nuclear power is not only tremendously expensive, but also very dirty and highly dangerous — producing thousands of tons of long-lived radioactive waste each year, for which there exists no permanent storage facility”. ~ Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr.org)

Nuclear Power is most assuredly not a clean energy alternative.

Obama’s energy rollout

Bee — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:50:34 GMT

This is a bold idea from a thoughtful candidate. Personally, i believe American ingenuity comes from innovation. Therefore, Nuclear power should be on the table. With technology i believe we can figure out how to take care of the waste.

Here is Obama's quote for folks that are skeptical about Nuclear power " There is no silver bullet to our energy problem"

Put all options on the table and lets figure out which is better for our strategic interest.

Obama’s energy rollout

RH Oregon — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:55:26 GMT

Somebody posted above that Obama is a cigarette smoker.
Is that true? Anyone?

If so it shows some questionable personal decision making.

Obama’s energy rollout

Kelly Yost — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:56:42 GMT

Obama is an ultra-liberal who hasn't run anything in his entire life. His position on the issues is located at the far left of the political spectrum. It's not a character assination, it's not name calling. Where's the lie?

Obama’s energy rollout

Charlie,Lafayette IN — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:00:58 GMT

"I like obamas honesty, and you dont see that in politicians these days, anymore "

Ron Paul, if anything he is the most honest.

Obama’s energy rollout

Heather Lowell, Ma — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:08:17 GMT

My only fear with many of these plans is that the actual cost will always be on the consumer. If it is taxes or cap and trade, the cost will be passed on the end consumer.

Most likely it will be both. Some form of tax and cap and trade. But when you add a cost to businesses, that business passes it on by raising the cost of the products it creates.

Obama’s energy rollout

Jonathan Cohen, Hanover, NH — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:21:45 GMT

Its nice to see a candidate who is actually trying to get ahead of an issue rather than just catering to the lowest common denominator. Obama definitely has my vote!

Obama’s energy rollout

Dawn, Jackson Hole, Wyoming — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:34:50 GMT

Dr Greg - I don't think anyone's successfully produced fusion nuclear reactions yet. I heard the Chinese were close, but I bet we'd have heard about it if they had been successful. In the meantime, we have an extremely limited supply of uranium and there are huge environmental consequences for digging it up - similar to coal - and exactly where are we supposed to store all the nuclear waste for the next 10,000 years where we can be absolutely certain it won't be subjected to earthquakes, theft, vandalism, etc. Last I heard Yucca Mountain was off the table - do you have an alternative? Meanwhile, solar is actually up to about 25% efficient, and growing all the time. Soon we will have solar wraps, solar paint, solar clothes. Perhaps what we all need to realize is that our 150 year orgy with fossil fuels is coming to an end and we will all just have to power down a bit. We may have to locally and individually be responsible for producing the energy we each use every day. Would that really be so bad?

Obama’s energy rollout

cjohnson — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:40:25 GMT

Incandescent bulbs stink if you want to make light, but they are fantastic if the goal is to make heat! Stores maybe should move them away from the main lightbulb and lighting section (maybe put them in hardware?) or raise the price (a carbon tax for the difference in electricity use compared to more efficient technologies?) to discourage people from buying them for general lighting purposes. But I still want to be able to buy them if I need a heat lamp!

After a recent beverage spill on my laptop keyboard, I used two 40 watt incandescent light bulbs to dry the water out of the inside.

Obama’s energy rollout

Class Warrior, D.C. — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:45:11 GMT

Obama is being honest and asking Americans to do hard things, make sacrifices for the sake of future generations. Good for him. It's exactly why he'll never get elected by a soft, fat, bloated, lazy American electorate who likes their standard of living. As Paul Simon once sang, "God loves our standard of living---LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY!"

Obama’s energy rollout

Paul, Reno, NV — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:48:52 GMT

"Even one of the cofounders of Greenpeace believes that it is the most eco friendly way of producing electricity in this country:"

The Gods have spoken... fishy fishy fishy

Obama’s energy rollout

Kenny S., Richmond, CA — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:54:07 GMT

Only some of his points are truly worth embracing. The carbon caps, etc. are helpful in terms of slowing things down but it's a band aid at best.

But "safe" use of nuclear power? Has he magically solved the nuclear waste storage problem? Did he forget that that the Seabrook, N.H. nuclear plant is just a few miles away? He's probably too young to remember the intense demonstrations and protests against that plant in the 70's. Also his support for the coal industry seems like politics as usual.

Is he better than the worst Republicans on climate control. Yes. Is his stance worth getting excited about? NO!

Obama’s energy rollout

Jamie, Elmwood Park, IL — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:03:07 GMT

Emily - Obama is currently trying to stop smoking and has not smoked for a couple of months now.

Obama’s energy rollout

Gary Fishback — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:07:15 GMT

C'mon, folks, wake up! You won't need to worry your little heads if Obama is elected our Pres. You won't have a head left after the Muslims get through with you!

Obama’s energy rollout

Yiannis, Baltimore — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:08:49 GMT

Wind energy is the future provided they manage to somehow STORE the energy they generate. That's why Obama is advocating for RESEARCH...

Ethanol is a special interest game and I'm not decided about coal.

Once again Obama LEADS with a plausible and congress-friendly plan

Obama’s energy rollout

Wilfred Candler, Annapolis, MD — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:17:08 GMT

If Obama wants to limit global warming while helping coal companies, why does he not propose giving carbon caps to energy companies, allowing them to produce 5% less each year? …. The result would be more competition from utilities for the restricted coal supplies, higher electricity (gas and petrol) prices, and very much higher incomes for the owners of the carbon caps. … This is of course the problem with any cap program where caps are given to some industries: The industries make windfall profits from the use or sale of the caps. … The windfall profits can be avoided by selling (auctioning) caps to industries. … What to do with the income from selling caps? Why not return it to citizens (specifically registered voters) though a monthly Energy Dividend? Citizens pay more for fossil-based electricity (and gas and petrol), but get a check to offset this. Those who manage to reduce their use of fossil fuels would benefit those who don’t would be under financial pressure to do so. For full details apply to the undersigned

Obama’s energy rollout

Dawn, Jackson Hole, Wyoming — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:32:53 GMT

Heather - who should pay the cost if not the "consumer?" The animals? The atmosphere? Santa Claus? Come on, people! Can we for once get real and start realizing that we live on a finite planet with finite resources and it has all been a wonderful gift? If we don't get our act together it's going to come crashing down in less than 100 years.

Obama’s energy rollout

Bruce, NV — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:53:22 GMT

Cap and trade is a boondoggle that will only benefit the emitters and brokers, whilst costing all of us a fortune. It won't decrease energy use--it hasn't in europe

Obama’s energy rollout

Felix, Littleton CO — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:53:59 GMT

Obama would make perfect VP for Al Gore. Recently saw Gore present his "Inconvenient Truth" in Denver and he was significantly thinner than he appeared months ago. Don't see how a Gore/Obama ticket could be beat. Which duo could run more convincingly as the candidates for real,inspired, breath-taking change? Which would be more popular with both the base and the independents who hanker after real change, not politics as usual with careful nibbling around the edges? Both were also on the right side of the war from day one. What more could Dems want for 2008?

Obama’s energy rollout

Dr Coles, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:48:17 GMT

August 2007 Update: Manmade Catastrophic Global Warming Not True.
In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ and Flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros.

Obama’s energy rollout

Don, Sammamish, WA — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:01:02 GMT

Barack Obama sets a very high bar regarding the safe use of nuclear power, and that's the sensible way to approach it. He is committed to addressing our serious environmental problems, and I'm increasingly concerned that we'll soon be forced to recognize this as our primary challenge.

I see in Barack Obama someone who knows we're not going to get there as long as we continue to think in terms of Us vs. Them. We're going to have to start bringing out the best in each other, and that means people and industry working together for shared goals.

While we fiddle with trivial disagreements, "Rome" burns. We need to share a vision of the future that begins to really make sense, and believe we can achieve it. I like hearing someone who thinks that way, and can get it done. I like Barack Obama's chances for helping us to turn this thing around.

Obama’s energy rollout

Dan — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:18:05 GMT

Obama said one thing that is accurate...there is no silver bullet for our energy problems. Mainly because people are not willing to drive slower, turn the lights off in unoccupied rooms, etc. Americans are also highly susceptible to marketing. For example the recent craze about "bio fuels" being "greener". People need to quit watching Homer Simpson and pick up a book. ANY type of combustion creates greenhouse gas (i.e. carbon dioxide). The basic products of perfect, efficient combustion are water vapor and carbon dioxide. That's physics. Burning vegetable oil in a diesel engine produces just as much CO2 as burning diesel fuel.

Comments posted on sites like this provide evidence that democracy is a failing experiment in government. People vote for emotional reasons, not based on logic. The political process utilizing glitzy video clips and sound bites is designed specifically because politicians and their handlers understand how little the facts actually matter.

Obama is honest??? How in the heck would anyone know? We see what they want us to see.

Obama’s energy rollout

Kenny S., Richmond, CA — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:36:29 GMT

Only some of his points are truly worth embracing. The carbon caps, etc. are helpful in terms of slowing things down but it's a band aid at best. We need more bold and radical action now.

But "safe" use of nuclear power? Has he magically solved the nuclear waste storage problem? Did he forget that that the Seabrook, N.H. nuclear plant is just a few miles away? He's probably too young to remember the intense demonstrations and protests against that plant in the 70's. Also his support for the coal industry seems like politics as usual.

Is he better than the worst Republicans on climate control. Yes. Is his stance worth getting excited about? NO!

Obama’s energy rollout

squintz, philly, pa — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:42:40 GMT

RH Oregon - Yes, Senator Obama was a smoker. He now says that he has quit, at the urging of his wife and, I imagine, since this country hasn't elected a smoker (of tobacco) since Eisenhower.

I hardly think it establishes anything other than the fact that he is a real person, and real people are occasionally addicted to unhealthy things. You know, like President Clinton and McDonalds. At least he wasn't getting arrested for cocaine possession when he had two young children at home, like a certain President we know!

Piousness isn't a very useful Presidential quality, in my opinion.

Obama’s energy rollout

Lee Holmes — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:07:05 GMT

Obamas jive is the same as everyone elses. The key point to observe here is that the 800 pd.gorilla of fossil fuels is still sitting in the room. Banning incandescents won't get the job done. Neither will allowing tens of millions to cross our borders creating tens of millions more in progeny and then believing that somehow an environmental handle can be placed upon immigration and controlled. Politicians will always opt for the feelgood,instant approach regardless of party. The reality is much differant. Take CAFE standards for automobiles. The Senate passed these with bi-partisan support. In the House,it is Democrats who are blocking these standards ensuring that automakers will get no closer to a ''green''day than any other industry. Enviros do not want coal,nor nuclear,nor fossil. Yet their own solutions are ridiculous in their puny impact upon global warming. And using vehicles that even liberal Democrats[such as those along the eastern seaboard],do not even want,such as windfarms. Solar power is touted as end-all be-all for the same hopeful reasons,but with results that they simply are not addressing,such as high rain and cloud areas of the nation,long winters,installation cost,their use of quite dangerous chemicals inside panels,and even should all of America get on board,retrofitting and even new installation in such a manner as would have real impact on fossil fuel dependance would take decades,even longer.
Americans will not wait even one month. Back in summer,when gas prices were approaching[and in some cases exceeding],four dollars a gallon,even for this short two month period,food prices skyrocketed and businesses across the nation were closing in on temporary layoffs at a minimum,while lawmakers squawked and did nothing.[including Obama,Clinton,Guliani and all the rest].
Almost certainly,it will get worse,far worse,before it gets better and no,no one ideology or political party is leading the way here,including Obama who would find himself blocked by the same environmental interests that be not be belied until America howls and says,enough.[4.50$ p/g and higher will begin this backlash].

Obama’s energy rollout

Steve, Greensboro, NC — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:44:54 GMT

What is it with you people and the smoking? Of all the crap we have to face right now, and this is your main voting criterion? Yes, he smoked. Past tense. So did I. Like me, and like almost every other smoker, he took it up as a teen when he thought he was immortal, was judgment impaired (that's the definition of being a teenager, remember?) and wanted to be rebellious and bad. By the time he grew up and realized he wasn't immortal, he was hooked. The problem with being a nicotine addict is that the craving is unbearable, the fix is easily available and the social sanctions are minimal compared to, say, shooting up or driving down the road with a quart of bourbon. That's how it works. That's why the cigarette companies are still in business.

So cut the man (and the rest of us who fight every single day to keep from lighting up because we had a week of stupidity when we were kids) some freaking slack and judge him on the basis of his positions and leadership.

Obama’s energy rollout

whatever — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:58:30 GMT

Here is a substantive summary of the plan. It is by far the best summary of the speech that I have seen so far:

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/NEWS81/710090084

Obama’s energy rollout

Harmony — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:18:28 GMT

League of Conservation Voters rates Obama higher than even Kucinich Here's an article by them on Obama's Energy Plan:
http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/page.jsp?itemID=36430548
They like his energy plans. No one has a magic wand. New sources of energy cost $ and step on Big Oil's toes. Nuclear power has drawbacks. Even the new light bulbs create a mercury hazard.
What we need is someone who has the leadership to get the best plans implemented. That can only be done by someone who is diplomatic but not afraid to say it like it is, not just what we want to hear.
By the way, Obama is trying hard to quit smoking, I think he said (joking)that his wife is most influential in making him quit.
Obama is our best choice. He has proved brave enough to say what may be unpopular, and is an inspirational and wise leader.

Obama’s energy rollout

Feb Moria — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:29:03 GMT

CAN MSNBC explain why they always use the word
"attempted" when they are reporting on obama??
Obama did not attempt! He laid out the best energy plan there is!

DO the other candidates also attempt or do they just do it?

Obama’s energy rollout

True Believer, AK — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:52:35 GMT

Obama didn't put his real energy solution on the table. When we can't afford heat and lights, at least the women will be warm in there burkas reading the koran at home by tallow candle light.

Obama’s energy rollout

Born in the USA — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:01:49 GMT

I don't get what the big deal is about nuclear reactor waste. People are behind the times. Hasn't anyone heard of depleted uranium ammunition? We can get rid of all the waste in Iraq.

Obama’s energy rollout

Don, Sammamish, WA — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:11:21 GMT

"True Believer", do you think up those comments all by yourself? Momma would be so proud of you!

"Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care."
-- Jimmy Buffett

Obama’s energy rollout

Michelle, Chino, CA — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:04:38 GMT

Uh...This article is wrong. Clinton does support cap and trade:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/energy/

hopefully they check this enough to update

Obama’s energy rollout

Rick Aucoin, Dallas, Texas — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:52:04 GMT

Dawn of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, you think it's possible for the entire population of, say, Chicago to "power down a bit" or "be responsible for producing the energy" they use every day? I'm sorry, that's simply not feasible. It might be in rural America, but the vast majority of our population doesn't live in places like Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

I think banning incandescent bulbs won't hurt anyone and will reduce electrical consumption. Similiar improvements in air conditioning technology are desperately needed, as the South uses a LOT of electricity just keeping their homes bearable in the summers.

Nuclear power is our best hope for now. No reason Yucca Mountain shouldn't continue, other than knee jerk left wing eco-nuts. Sorry folks, you might think "going back to the land" is a dandy idea, but there are 260 million or so of us in the U.S.A. and hunter-gatherer tribalism just isn't really on the table for an energy policy.

Obama’s energy rollout

ki houston — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:04:07 GMT

kelly , Where is the substance, where is the proof . ideal, what you call slander.

Obama’s energy rollout

bd allen pk mi — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:35:02 GMT

Is Obama E-OK ?

Obama’s energy rollout

True Believer, AK — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:10:17 GMT

Don Samantic WA,
I can tell you're a good liberal by your partial quote of Buffet's words so you could use them out of context to suit your needs. The song goes:

"Is it ignorance or apathy, I forget these lessons taught to me, some say life isn't fair, Hey I don't know, I don't care"

The entire quote is very fitting for the subject. Libs obviously have forgotten both their history and science lessons. The history for the political perspective and the science for the energy debate issues.

Also very fitting for me, life isn't going to be fair for the burka crowd. But I'm old and don't have a daughter, so "I don't care"

So when they taught you how to twist words in the commie boot camp did they also teach you how to recover when you happen to spew your propaganda out to someone who is knowledgeable on the subject?