If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Obama burns coal. Hope and Change, my sweet fanny   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 45
    More: Cool, Obama, Antarctic ice sheet, Southern Co., transatlantic flight, environmental standards, coal-fired power plants, National Mining Association, D-Mass  
•       •       •

1259 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Sep 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-20 08:47:01 AM  
Trolls are coming...
 
2013-09-20 08:47:58 AM  
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know - Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it - whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers. - BOB

Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-09-20 08:50:19 AM  
He's taking it slowly.  I'd prefer swifter action, especially as a lifelong asthmatic.
 
2013-09-20 08:52:36 AM  
The thing hurting coal these days isn't regulations on carbon emissions, it's the abundancy of cheap natural gas.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/05/30/shale-gas-takes- on -coal-to-power-americas-electrical-plants/
 
2013-09-20 08:56:19 AM  
The Obama administration has decided to revive a controversial loan guarantee program at the Energy Department, administration officials said on Thursday...This time, though, the program would devote as much as $8 billion to helping industries like coal and oil make cleaner energy. Link

Obama hates coal so much he's giving them $8B.
 
2013-09-20 08:56:58 AM  
*goes to add Coal-Burner to the Big Spiffy List of All the Bad Things Fartbama Is*
 
2013-09-20 09:02:43 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: *goes to add Coal-Burner to the Big Spiffy List of All the Bad Things Fartbama Is*


Fartbama burns coal in his pants. That is to say, he farts a lot. Fartbama and Pooty-Poot have this in common.
 
2013-09-20 09:02:46 AM  

theknuckler_33: The thing hurting coal these days isn't regulations on carbon emissions, it's the abundancy of cheap natural gas.


Even though it's going to kill my home state, I have to admit that the shift to natural gas is inevitable at this point and will likely benefit the country as a whole, not just environmentally but economically as well.  Some projections have us becoming a net exporter of energy in the coming years with the shift to natural gas, which will give the economy a shot in the arm while reducing our dependence on the Middle East for energy.

That said, the transition is going to cost a lot of jobs in communities that really, really need jobs.  Change can be painful.
 
2013-09-20 09:11:22 AM  

Aristocles: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know - Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it - whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers. - BOB

Thanks, Obama!


Who is Bob?
 
2013-09-20 09:12:31 AM  

imontheinternet: Some projections have us becoming a net exporter of energy in the coming years with the shift to natural gas, which will give the economy a shot in the arm while reducing our dependence on the Middle East for energy.


...and raising natural gas prices way back up to where they were before. Awesome.
 
2013-09-20 09:14:40 AM  
Headline is too clever to be understood. Thanks Obama
 
2013-09-20 09:24:25 AM  

oryx: Headline is too clever to be understood. Thanks Obama


I'll take that as a compliment
 
2013-09-20 09:29:57 AM  

max_pooper: Aristocles: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know - Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it - whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers. - BOB

Thanks, Obama!

Who is Bob?


makeameme.org
 
2013-09-20 09:30:52 AM  
if the whole of Earth's history was scaled from your left fingertip 4.5 billion years ago outstretched to your right finger tip today, multicellular life began at your right wrist, the Cenozoic at your finger print, and the whole of human history could be removed with a single stroke of a nail file.

I'm not even sure if "flash in the pan" really captures our exploitation of fossil fuels in the last 200 years.
 
2013-09-20 09:37:02 AM  

DarnoKonrad: if the whole of Earth's history was scaled from your left fingertip 4.5 billion years ago outstretched to your right finger tip today, multicellular life began at your right wrist, the Cenozoic at your finger print, and the whole of human history could be removed with a single stroke of a nail file.

I'm not even sure if "flash in the pan" really captures our exploitation of fossil fuels in the last 200 years.


The dinosaurs existed for 300 million years.  I'm sure the amount of coal and oil they burned must have been astronomical in comparison, right?
 
2013-09-20 09:59:38 AM  

Great_Milenko: DarnoKonrad: if the whole of Earth's history was scaled from your left fingertip 4.5 billion years ago outstretched to your right finger tip today, multicellular life began at your right wrist, the Cenozoic at your finger print, and the whole of human history could be removed with a single stroke of a nail file.

I'm not even sure if "flash in the pan" really captures our exploitation of fossil fuels in the last 200 years.

The dinosaurs existed for 300 million years.  I'm sure the amount of coal and oil they burned must have been astronomical in comparison, right?


tchester.org
 
2013-09-20 10:02:22 AM  

Chabash: Trolls are coming...


yes, one was simulposting you-

holy crap that guy below you is a troll.
 
2013-09-20 10:13:37 AM  

Chabash: Trolls are coming...


You realize people are going to start bugging you for Powerball numbers now
 
2013-09-20 10:16:46 AM  

xxcorydxx: Chabash: Trolls are coming...

yes, one was simulposting you-

holy crap that guy below you is a troll.


It's a gift.
 
2013-09-20 10:16:55 AM  
Coal is terrible for the environment

We really should stop using it.

We have cleaner sources of energy like nuclear that could shut down every coal plant in this country

Its a shame that we can't muster the political will to make the switch
 
2013-09-20 10:17:47 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Chabash: Trolls are coming...

You realize people are going to start bugging you for Powerball numbers now


I've given them my solution to winning the Powerball. They never go through with it.
 
2013-09-20 10:19:27 AM  

cman: Coal is terrible for the environment

We really should stop using it.

We have cleaner sources of energy like nuclear that could shut down every coal plant in this country

Its a shame that we can't muster the political will to make the switch


Agreed that nuclear gets an unfairly bad rep
 
2013-09-20 10:19:47 AM  
The economy sucks.  Hey! I've got a great idea.  Let's make electricity more expensive.
 
2013-09-20 10:23:53 AM  

Cataholic: The economy sucks.  Hey! I've got a great idea.  Let's make electricity more expensive.


You've got a bright future with the democrat party, sir or ma'am.
 
2013-09-20 10:26:52 AM  
This is all just a ruse.  Obama agreed to do this so McConnell would be guaranteed to win re-election.  The question is what the president got in return.

/Mostly joking.
//But this will kill the Democrats in Kentucky and West Virginia
 
2013-09-20 10:27:57 AM  

Aristocles: Cataholic: The economy sucks.  Hey! I've got a great idea.  Let's make electricity more expensive.

You've got a bright future with the democrat party, sir or ma'am.


how about we cut oil subsidies and start electricity subsidies?

oh, wait, won't someone think of the shareholders??
 
2013-09-20 10:40:16 AM  

llortcM_yllort: //But this will kill the Democrats in Kentucky and West Virginia


Obama's been playing ball with the coal industry and their attempts at greenwashing since before he was even president, trying to sell lefties on "clean coal" as part of the solution in his first campaign. In return, all he's gotten Big Coal is a lot of heel dragging, and a LOT of attacks on him and his party in the region, up to and including attempts to blame him for the simple economic reality that natural gas is kicking their asses.

If they're going to keep throwing their money into killing Dems there anyways, he has nothing to lose.
 
2013-09-20 11:13:08 AM  

cman: Coal is terrible for the environment

We really should stop using it.

We have cleaner sources of energy like nuclear that could shut down every coal plant in this country

Its a shame that we can't muster the political will to make the switch



Nuclear is much more expensive than setting rocks on fire (for any number of reasons).  Period.  If those who controlled capital saw huge profits in nuclear, there wouldn't be any "political problem."   Coal is simply cheap to exploit, and as such they expend their political capital on ensuring carbon pollution (which makes coal cheap) goes unregulated as a massive market externality.  It's a basic economic incentive.  The shiatty free market at work.
 
2013-09-20 11:38:57 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: cman: Coal is terrible for the environment

We really should stop using it.

We have cleaner sources of energy like nuclear that could shut down every coal plant in this country

Its a shame that we can't muster the political will to make the switch

Agreed that nuclear gets an unfairly bad rep


While I agree, it doesn't help that the entire North Pacific is contaminated.
 
2013-09-20 11:40:21 AM  

Cataholic: The economy sucks.  Hey! I've got a great idea.  Let's make electricity more expensive.


Are you familiar with the economic term "externalities?"
 
2013-09-20 11:47:23 AM  

imontheinternet: Even though it's going to kill my home state, I have to admit that the shift to natural gas is inevitable at this point and will likely benefit the country as a whole, not just environmentally but economically as well. Some projections have us becoming a net exporter of energy in the coming years with the shift to natural gas, which will give the economy a shot in the arm while reducing our dependence on the Middle East for energy.

That said, the transition is going to cost a lot of jobs in communities that really, really need jobs. Change can be painful.


I agree here.  Needs to be a gradual shift, but the market is already headed in that direction.   Then we can keep the coal for when the technology is better and when we really need a 'Plan B'.
 
2013-09-20 11:50:33 AM  

Aristocles: Cataholic: The economy sucks.  Hey! I've got a great idea.  Let's make electricity more expensive.

You've got a bright future with the democrat party, sir or ma'am.


Expensive electricity is good for the tax-payin' Muricans. Study it out.
 
2013-09-20 12:04:49 PM  

max_pooper: Aristocles: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know - Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it - whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers. - BOB

Thanks, Obama!

Who is Bob?


He keeps saying BOB. According to Urban Dictionary, one of the top definitions is "Battery-operated Boyfriend," so let's assume it's that.
 
2013-09-20 12:19:12 PM  
Listen, VW and KY had their chance to vote for Obama - twice.  And they blew it.  Election have consequences.
 
2013-09-20 12:26:39 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Nuclear is much more expensive than setting rocks on fire (for any number of reasons). Period. If those who controlled capital saw huge profits in nuclear, there wouldn't be any "political problem." Coal is simply cheap to exploit, and as such they expend their political capital on ensuring carbon pollution (which makes coal cheap) goes unregulated as a massive market externality. It's a basic economic incentive. The shiatty free market at work.


Baloney.  The excessive cost of nuclear power in the US is in large part due to regulatory burdens and litigation costs.  Besides that, the Democratic base is against nuclear power in any form.  As long as the Democrats hold power, nuclear is a lost cause.
 
2013-09-20 12:43:47 PM  

Chabash: Trolls are coming...


makeameme.org
 
2013-09-20 12:57:51 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Cataholic: The economy sucks.  Hey! I've got a great idea.  Let's make electricity more expensive.

Are you familiar with the economic term "externalities?"


Are you familiar with the economic term "bankruptcy?"
 
2013-09-20 01:17:22 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: Baloney.  The excessive cost of nuclear power in the US is in large part due to regulatory burdens and litigation costs.


Regulatory burdens.  You mean, making sure it doesn't kill us?

Coal and nuclear are both ways to heat water.. seems like there should be easier ways than those.
 
2013-09-20 02:57:46 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: DarnoKonrad: Nuclear is much more expensive than setting rocks on fire (for any number of reasons). Period. If those who controlled capital saw huge profits in nuclear, there wouldn't be any "political problem." Coal is simply cheap to exploit, and as such they expend their political capital on ensuring carbon pollution (which makes coal cheap) goes unregulated as a massive market externality. It's a basic economic incentive. The shiatty free market at work.

Baloney.  The excessive cost of nuclear power in the US is in large part due to regulatory burdens and litigation costs.  Besides that, the Democratic base is against nuclear power in any form.  As long as the Democrats hold power, nuclear is a lost cause.



Baloney?  You just agreed with one of my points dingus.  Unless you want nuclear power to be unregulated.  Sounds like a brilliant plan.
 
2013-09-20 03:18:11 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: cman: Coal is terrible for the environment

We really should stop using it.

We have cleaner sources of energy like nuclear that could shut down every coal plant in this country

Its a shame that we can't muster the political will to make the switch

Agreed that nuclear gets an unfairly bad rep


Gee, I wonder what political party gave nuclear a bad rep by crying "Giant Lizards!! and Three Eyed Babies!!" for a generation, opposing every new nuclear plant for decades while calling those who thought nuclear was a good idea "insane".

Now they tell us because of our use of coal the oceans will vaporize in hellfire and earth will be a shiathole. You just can't win with these idiots. "We're doomed!" is their mantra. Always.
 
2013-09-20 03:50:11 PM  

imontheinternet: theknuckler_33: The thing hurting coal these days isn't regulations on carbon emissions, it's the abundancy of cheap natural gas.

Even though it's going to kill my home state, I have to admit that the shift to natural gas is inevitable at this point and will likely benefit the country as a whole, not just environmentally but economically as well.  Some projections have us becoming a net exporter of energy in the coming years with the shift to natural gas, which will give the economy a shot in the arm while reducing our dependence on the Middle East for energy.

That said, the transition is going to cost a lot of jobs in communities that really, really need jobs.  Change can be painful.


Think about all those asbestos miners and buggywhip makers.
 
2013-09-20 03:54:28 PM  

cman: Coal is terrible for the environment

We really should stop using it.

We have cleaner sources of energy like nuclear that could shut down every coal plant in this country

Its a shame that we can't muster the political will to make the switch


I'm all for nuclear power plants but it's got a bad rep and usually are not cost effective.
 
2013-09-20 04:00:08 PM  

radioshack: Crotchrocket Slim: cman: Coal is terrible for the environment

We really should stop using it.

We have cleaner sources of energy like nuclear that could shut down every coal plant in this country

Its a shame that we can't muster the political will to make the switch

Agreed that nuclear gets an unfairly bad rep

Gee, I wonder what political party gave nuclear a bad rep by crying "Giant Lizards!! and Three Eyed Babies!!" for a generation, opposing every new nuclear plant for decades while calling those who thought nuclear was a good idea "insane".

Now they tell us because of our use of coal the oceans will vaporize in hellfire and earth will be a shiathole. You just can't win with these idiots. "We're doomed!" is their mantra. Always.


Well to be fair, they were against coal fire plants too at the time (see..."Acid Rain") and there were two major Nuclear Power Plant Disasters within 10 years of eachother. Not to mention the fact that we were in the zenith of the cold war and there was a conflguration of Nuke Bombs and Nuke Plants. Lots of people were scared not just tree huggers.
 
2013-09-20 04:04:12 PM  

Cataholic: The economy sucks.  Hey! I've got a great idea.  Let's make electricity more expensive.


I think a goverment shutdown or default will do more damage than improving restrictions on dirty sources of electricity. Both in the long and short run.
 
2013-09-20 04:29:05 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: Cataholic: The economy sucks.  Hey! I've got a great idea.  Let's make electricity more expensive.

I think a goverment shutdown or default will do more damage than improving restrictions on dirty sources of electricity. Both in the long and short run.


Why? There was a "government shutdown" in the mid-90's, followed by one of the greatest economic advances in US history under Clinton. The government will not default on any debt. Obama will mint his magical trillion dollar coin and all will be ok if by some minuscule chance the debt ceiling isn't raised.

Raising the price, as Obama has said is necessary, of energy would have a much greater effect on the economy. If it was a republican doing this shiat all we'd see on fark is "The President hates poor people! He doesn't care if they freeze to death if they can't pay their heating bill!!" Because it's Obama we get something like "The Earth is dying and we all have to sacrifice!!" It's all political bullshiat.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report