Environmentalists are again calling foul after the announcement of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that the Obama Administration has approved the expansion in coal mining and four new permits for deepwater offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The increased coal production could cause U.S. climate pollution to rise by more than 50 percent, Glenn Hurowitz, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, has claimed that the expansion of the coal production could increase pollution by more than 50 percent.
As noted below, environmentalist are noting that the expansion occurring after a recent Harvard study found the country’s dependence on coal “costs taxpayers about $345 billion a year in medical bills for health problems and pollution that occur in and around mining communities and power plants.”
Once again, larger environmental groups appear to be relatively silent over such changes — as opposed to their more vocal opposition to the same policies by Bush. Environmentalists appear to be having the same division as other liberal groups in opposing Obama. Civil libertarians remain the most vocal and opposed to Obama among traditionally liberal groups.
Source: Mother Earth News
Shocking. Another racist and incoherent posting of psycho-babble from Taliban Tootie.
And it was so nice and quiet here for a while … sigh.
Now that it is brown folks who are causing the greatest increase in population, the enviro-loons are silent. Conclusion: only a burgeoning white population is bad for the USA environment; and burgeoning brown one apparently has no environmental impact. It must be magic.~tooties horn
——————————————–
Tootie,
Only you could see skin color and the rape of the environment as being causally linked. Is this some form of delusion that helps you get through your day? If so, the magic would be that it works.
Perhaps you are evading the cause of the messes …I believe it has nothing to do with the ‘folks’ of the world but in deaf governments and corporate abuses…’folks’ have been screaming for different energy sources and less environmental impact for years….you nasty thing.
Blouise,
“By first washing it in off-shore oil?”
So that’s it! Here I was thinking perhaps a nice bubble bath did the trick … silly me!
American environmentalists are silent about the immigrant invasion which is stressing our environment: the clean water supply, more cars on the roads, urban sprawl, and burdening the infrastructure systems which work less efficiently.
Apparently, the environmentalist were only hysterical about population growth in the USA when whites were doing it. Now that it is brown folks who are causing the greatest increase in population, the enviro-loons are silent. Conclusion: only a burgeoning white population is bad for the USA environment; and burgeoning brown one apparently has no environmental impact. It must be magic.
So don’t not believe a WORD the environmentalists say.
They are not worried about the health effects of energy production nor the costs to health and welfare. They are just jealous that some people get rich from energy production. It drives them nuts. Truly, their main goal is the totalitarian control over the lives of other people.
We are dead in the water if we don’t develop these resources. This is what the environmentalists really want and their pro-immigration stance proves it. Obama sees this. But he sees it as a reason for not getting elected again. He is not interested in the prosperity of the American people (except for black people) nor their standard of living (except for black people). He only knows he will not get elected if energy costs drive people to the Republicans.
It is all about Obama and his quest for power (of the political variety).
If Al Gore and the rich Democrats were serious about the environment they would start up companies to produce environment products for us to buy that were clean and safe. But they don’t. This is because they don’t really believe the asinine things they say.
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/ecology.htm
What I don’t get is what happened since the Carter administration. At that time everyone was buying efficient cars. In 1981, I almost bought a Toyota “Starlet” which got 52 mpg — a 4 door 4 cylinder car. Lots of cars then got over 30 mpg.
All the city planning courses at the time emphasized the idea of building homes similar to what was really built in parts of Europe. All the architecture courses discussed energy efficiency / passive solar etc. None of us would have predicted that a few decades later the U.S. would be building big houses in locations that require a car to go anywhere.
Can I invest in Massey?
Stamford Liberal,
By first washing it in off-shore oil?
Blouise,
Thanks for the reminders … :/
I guess the term “clean” coal begs the question – how does one “clean” coal??
Stamford Liberal,
I remember all the “clean-coal” commercials that were running during the presidential election… the ones that centered around children telling us how good clean coal was for the environment were something. They even had coloring books.
Then there were all the “I Believe” commercials for clean coal technology. And, of course the big one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GehK7Q_QxPc
Anyone shocked by Obama’s actions today weren’t paying attention back then. (Notice, in the background, the slowly building clapping that leads into, “Yes we can”.)
Now people are seeing a lot of Clintons policys are really hurting the little guy.
A few DADT
Repeal Glass-Steagall
To name a few.
Mike S.
“Obama is the same as Bill Clinton policywise.”
Bingo!!
That is the something missing,you have felt something before and you couldn’t quite put your finger on it.And you have just called it.
bdaman,
“Maybe it’s the timing SL. His trip to Brazil and the announcement of Petrobas America. They should have been smarter than that.”
Or a case of some insisting 2 + 2 = 6
Maybe it’s the timing SL. His trip to Brazil and the announcement of Petrobas America. They should have been smarter than that.
Blouise,
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmyiXN1EPO8&w=640&h=390]
Petrobras America, Inc.
Company Overview
Petrobras America, Inc. engages in the exploration, production, refining, and trading of petroleum and petroleum products. The company’s products include crude oil and refined products, such as fuel oil, gasoline, naphtha, marlim and Brazilian crudes, and liquid petroleum gas. It also involves in the procurement of materials and equipment. Petrobras America, Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is based in Houston, Texas. It has operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Petrobras America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Petroleo Brasileiro.
10350 Richmond Avenue
Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77042
United States
Founded in 1987
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6414060
Obama is the same as Bill Clinton policywise. They both are what would have been called Centrist Republican’s 50 years ago. However, Richard Nixon was also a Centrist Republican.
Bda,
It’s all corporate driven … any Corporation willing to bid for the services of almost any politician can buy one. Any stockholder who earns a dividend from any corporation that has bought a politician is just as guilty as the corporation itself … except we never really talk about that, do we …
0.15-0.25 dollars per gallon sold doesnt seem like inflated profits to me, especially when the government takes over 0.50 dollars for doing nothing.