Shedding Light on Obama’s Clean Power Plan



Comments (12)

  1. seema randy says:

    This clean energy bill is nothing but a con of deceit thrust down the throat of common man, and was invented by the genius Al Gore as he was jobless and wanted to get even with republicans for the 2000 election defeat. I hope common sense prevails and people know that the real problem is not burning coal, but deforestation. If we have enough trees/plants that take in C02 then other gases are not going to kill us. Obama is just another stooge. In places like Indonesia they have cleared out oh so much forest for growing cash crops it is unbelievable. This has been going on since 1980s.

    [Reply]

    Samantha Solomon

    Samantha Solomon Reply:

    Thanks for your comment, Seema. You are correct that deforestation is contributing to the damage emissions are doing to the planet. But simply planting more trees and preserving the ones we have is not enough to counteract the level of emissions the industrial world produces.

    [Reply]

  2. seema randy says:

    Having said that I will say that today only the following two 2016 candidates seem to show some conviction in leading the people with ethics and morals:
    1. Bernie Sanders
    2. Ted Cruz
    I am not sure if Rick Perry is good, but definitely Trump is a bad CEO! Look who he has chosen as his team -1. Stock market speculator Carl Icahn (as treasury secretary),2. rogue CEO Jack welch (apparently his retirement package in 2002 or so cost GE about $900 million. I don’t know how much is the annual hit to GE now! must be at least $5 million.
    Yes, Bernie also believes in climate change but what I like about him is he opposes war in Middle East that has killed millions of children! He also raises issues that affects the 99% and minimum wage earners. Of course it is anybody’s guess how he will implement this nice to have xmas wish list!

    [Reply]

    Samantha Solomon

    Samantha Solomon Reply:

    Check out our Politics section for more analysis of the 2016 election.

    http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/political-news/

    [Reply]

  3. Kevin Beck says:

    Maybe include the fact that this plan will take 185 years (that’s right… until the year 2200) to have the effect of reducing temperatures 1 degree Fahrenheit.

    [Reply]

  4. seema randy says:

    Finally, I also want to say that sometime early this year in Wall Street Daily, I gave my call on crude oil prices. I told the author Karim that oil will go down. The reason is not just supply it is about oil reserves – they are plenty. I also named one for him in Australia which hold nearly 30 trillion units of gas and oil. In fact, this oil market has become a game of liar’s poker. People in USA have already called the bluff of Saudis and now experts know that Saudis want to retain their market share at any cost. Therefore oil will keep falling.

    [Reply]

  5. Tom Stiles says:

    Even though some readers think that Obama’s plan is a scam, the world must address the carbon emissions for our future generations. Continued use of heavy emissions throughout the world is spelling disaster to the climate. Why not continue to use gas fired plants as the US has abundance of this natural resource? It is cleaner and efficient.
    I am not an Obama fan at all, but someone must realize what is really happening with global warming and address the issue worldwide.

    [Reply]

  6. chitra mathew says:

    Obama is much better than Bush/Clinton, because Obama never aggravated the war in Iraq or any other place. We should thank him for that. However what I don’t like is he has increased the military budget. Why? This proves that the President has not much authority to cut defense spending.

    [Reply]

    Samantha Solomon

    Samantha Solomon Reply:

    Chitra, check out our Politics section for more analysis on federal policy.

    http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/political-news/

    [Reply]

  7. Harold Hansen says:

    Chitra. I believe that we do have some problems over there.
    Now it doesn’t matter if we go around trusting people that are doing what they are doing or not, as much as I’d like to see the gov’t cut our Defense spending it’s just a little hard to come back and say, “Well, maybe we shouldn’t have!” I’m one that is a Vietnam Vet, and it’s hard to tell your troops that we’re going over there, but we can’t give you an M-16. I think you should give that some more thought, I mean if you want to live in Peace. You can bluff all you want, but someone is going to ask you to “show your hand!”

    [Reply]

  8. Marilyn Sigler says:

    I am terribly worried about our armed forces. We have cut them to the bone while China, North Korea, Iran and other countries are increasing theirs. It is simply stupidity to be weak when we need to be strong. If not for strong forces, we could be speaking German or Japanese now.
    This country is in grave danger.

    [Reply]

  9. wally M says:

    @ S. Solomon: Obama has an agenda that only includes the destruction of existing energies and the promotion of green energies. Is he doing this because he is a true believer that CO2 is going to destroy earth as we know it or is it because he has some skin in the game? He and all the Warming groups keep spreading their propaganda that the sky is falling and if a carbon tax isn’t instituted and CO2 levels aren’t eliminated , the earth will be cooked by the run away heat of the planet. The problem is that the climate scientists and their models have not proven their case that humans burning CO2 and the resulting increases in CO2 are the driver of warming the earth. Informed citizens know that the statement that 97% of scientists agree is pure hogwash. Yet, the warming groups keep repeating this falsehood in the hope that a lie repeated often enough will somehow stick and become accepted. It will not work. There are thousands of scientists who are skeptics and do not believe CO2 is the driver of warming. Dr. Freeman Dyson, an astrophysicist who has been compared to Einstein has stated that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not to be regarded as a significant threat to the earth. The benefits of added CO2 to the atmosphere far outweigh the slight warming that occurs as CO2 levels increase. Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, the former doctor of the Max Plank Institute for Meteorology, stated that the climate scientists have not proven their claim that CO2 is the driver of warming. He further states that the scientific study of climate change must use the true scientific method and that any claims must be proven by actual temperature observation. This has not been done in the claims of the climate scientists. Therefore, he and thousands of other scientists will not support the climate scientists claim that CO2 is the driver of warming. Many of the skeptic scientists have recognized that the issue of CO2 as the driver of warming is no longer scientific but rather is now political. Even the IPCC has admitted that the proof of CO2 as the driver has not been demonstrated. Do they care? Of course not since they have gone to the next step without dwelling on the truth. Thus, they promote instituting a carbon tax on all industrialized nations for CO2 emissions. Their goal is to achieve funding for their agenda which is to gain more power over the lives of all citizens and to diminish the power of industrialized nations. The out come of such a tax would be that the UN would increase its funds and have more control over all other nations, The poor nation governments would receive funds which should make the poor of those countries have an improved life. What isn’t stated is that the poor citizens will see very little of the funds. Instead, the government leaders will become rich and the poor will remain poor. The government of the US will have more funds to spend. However, the poor of this country will see very little of those funds since those dollars will become spread out to various other uses. The industrial nations and their corporations will be poorer and less competitive since existing energy costs will eat away at their profit margins.
    S.Solomon and her article do not give a balance view of both sides of the climate change theory. Is it because she already has agreed that the science is settled and that the next steps are to promote green energies by subsidizing their efforts? I think I already know that answer.

    [Reply]

Add Comment