Forum Thread

Hillary's plan for coal country is "Trumped"

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 43 1 2 3 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Last fall, Hillary Clinton laid out a very detailed plan on how she as president would help the coal country transition from coal to other industries.

    Hillary Clinton’s Plan for Revitalizing Coal Communities

    "Hillary Clinton is committed to meeting the climate change challenge as President and making the United States a clean energy superpower. At the same time, she will not allow coal communities to be left behind—or left out of our economic future. That’s why Clinton announced a $30 billion plan to ensure that coal miners and their families get the benefits they’ve earned and respect they deserve, to invest in economic diversification and job creation, and to make coal communities an engine of US economic growth in the 21st century as they have been for generations."

    You can click on the link and read the details. Characteristic of the effort she puts into forward thinking on everything, her plan addresses all aspects of coal community redevelopment. It should have resonated with the voters in West Virginia, a state that she won over Barack Obama in 2008. It is based on reality in the sense that coal mining jobs lost are not coming back. However, in March she made a poor choice of words in talking about her program to help the coal mining communities: “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Those words were taken out of context from a longer discussion that included these words:

    “We’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people,” Clinton said. “Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.”

    Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has no detailed proposals for coal country other than his statement made to voters on May 5th:

    “While I strongly believe we need to combat climate change to make our planet habitable for our children and our grandchildren, let me be clear: We cannot abandon communities that have been dependent on coal and other fossil fuels,” he said, according to prepared remarks of his speech. “In my view, we have got to invest $41 billion rebuilding coal mining communities and making sure that Americans in McDowell County and all over this country receive the job training they need for the clean energy jobs of the future.”

    I searched and could not find any details of the $41 billion plan on Bernie's website. If someone can find it, let me know.

    Donald Trump, meanwhile, has promised to bring back coal mining jobs. None of this nonsense about rebuilding the communities. Just bring back the coal mining jobs. Quoting Trump:

    "We're going to get those miners back to work ... the miners of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week, Ohio and all over are going to start to work again, believe me. They are going to be proud again to be miners."

    Hillary is not very good at politics. She is wonderful in doing the deep thinking about how to make things really work without making promises. She lost West Virginia to Sanders, and she will probably lose West Virginia in the general election to Trump, whose promises even beat those of Sanders. All coal miners want is their jobs back, and that's what Trump is promising.

    Politics is not fair.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Last fall, Hillary Clinton laid out a very detailed plan on how she as president would help the coal country transition from coal to other industries.

    Hillary Clinton’s Plan for Revitalizing Coal Communities

    "Hillary Clinton is committed to meeting the climate change challenge as President and making the United States a clean energy superpower. At the same time, she will not allow coal communities to be left behind—or left out of our economic future. That’s why Clinton announced a $30 billion plan to ensure that coal miners and their families get the benefits they’ve earned and respect they deserve, to invest in economic diversification and job creation, and to make coal communities an engine of US economic growth in the 21st century as they have been for generations."

    You can click on the link and read the details. Characteristic of the effort she puts into forward thinking on everything, her plan addresses all aspects of coal community redevelopment. It should have resonated with the voters in West Virginia, a state that she won over Barack Obama in 2008. It is based on reality in the sense that coal mining jobs lost are not coming back. However, in March she made a poor choice of words in talking about her program to help the coal mining communities: “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Those words were taken out of context from a longer discussion that included these words:

    “We’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people,” Clinton said. “Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.”

    Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has no detailed proposals for coal country other than his statement made to voters on May 5th:

    “While I strongly believe we need to combat climate change to make our planet habitable for our children and our grandchildren, let me be clear: We cannot abandon communities that have been dependent on coal and other fossil fuels,” he said, according to prepared remarks of his speech. “In my view, we have got to invest $41 billion rebuilding coal mining communities and making sure that Americans in McDowell County and all over this country receive the job training they need for the clean energy jobs of the future.”

    I searched and could not find any details of the $41 billion plan on Bernie's website. If someone can find it, let me know.

    Donald Trump, meanwhile, has promised to bring back coal mining jobs. None of this nonsense about rebuilding the communities. Just bring back the coal mining jobs.

    Hillary is not very good at politics. She is wonderful in doing the deep thinking about how to make things really work without making promises. She lost West Virginia to Sanders, and she will probably lose West Virginia in the general election to Trump, whose promises even beat those of Sanders. All coal miners want is their jobs back, and that's what Trump is promising.

    Politics is not fair.

    Again Schmidt, I don't want to hammer this into your head; copy what Europe did!!!! In the Netherlands they had huge coal mines in Limburg; it all got changed in a hurry to natural gas. Why does n't anyone ask how they got that done. All these people got support via social security and re-schooling. It was done in a very short time and it does not look like the rust belt here afterwards but as a nice clean landscape.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch -- Did you read Hillary's detailed proposal for supporting the coal country transition above. It sounds like maybe Hillary is copying much of what Europe did. That's another reason to vote for Hillary. She has a plan and put it out to be peer reviewed. Read it and tell me what is wrong with it. I want your outside perspective.

    I'm still looking for Bernie's $41 billion plan.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Read EPA vs Ed Krug. Instead of making coal clean they have opted to abolish coal. There are far better ways to deal with problems than by eliminating the object.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dutch -- Did you read Hillary's detailed proposal for supporting the coal country transition above. It sounds like maybe Hillary is copying much of what Europe did. That's another reason to vote for Hillary. She has a plan and put it out to be peer reviewed. Read it and tell me what is wrong with it. I want your outside perspective.

    I'm still looking for Bernie's $41 billion plan.

    Schmidt; sure I read what you posted. What I'm missing is: What is in the plan besides jobs and re-training? Don't forget the environment as well housing and infrastructure; the landscape is ruined and will take millions to re-construct and make it livable again; as well re-introduce "clean" industries there. So it is not as easy just to throw "money" at it.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Read EPA vs Ed Krug. Instead of making coal clean they have opted to abolish coal. There are far better ways to deal with problems than by eliminating the object.

    Clean coal is an oxymoron.

    There is and never has been clean coal. It's something the coal industry tried to convince us they could do in order to continue to get their billions of dollars in government subsidies. Thankfully, the Obama Administration actually listened to scientists and not the coal industry.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dutch -- Did you read Hillary's detailed proposal for supporting the coal country transition above. It sounds like maybe Hillary is copying much of what Europe did. That's another reason to vote for Hillary. She has a plan and put it out to be peer reviewed. Read it and tell me what is wrong with it. I want your outside perspective.

    I'm still looking for Bernie's $41 billion plan.

    Schmidt; sure I read what you posted. What I'm missing is: What is in the plan besides jobs and re-training? Don't forget the environment as well housing and infrastructure; the landscape is ruined and will take millions to re-construct and make it livable again; as well re-introduce "clean" industries there. So it is not as easy just to throw "money" at it.

    Dutch -- Maybe you missed this from her $30 billion plan:

    "The infrastructure in coal communities today was built to mine, ship, and burn coal. Unlocking new drivers of economic and employment growth in these communities will require new infrastructure that connects workers to new jobs and companies to new markets. Clinton’s infrastructure investment program will include a focus on economic diversification and revitalization in coal communities, building new roads, bridges, water systems, airports and transmission lines, including completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System. She will also work with the Department of Transportation and the railroad companies to develop a strategy for leveraging available rail capacity previously used to ship coal to support broader economic development in coal-producing regions.

    "With rich soil and abundant water, abandoned coal mines can provide prime real estate for new investment – whether in forestry, agriculture, or manufacturing. But significant remediation, site preparation, and infrastructure development is often required before this land can be successfully repurposed for new economic activity. Clinton will unlock existing unappropriated resources from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to help finance this work. Clinton will provide similar support for redevelopment of retired coal power plant sites to attract new investment, such as Google’s plans to build a data center on the site of a recently closed coal plant in Alabama.

    "Complementing the public investments in infrastructure, land, energy, and innovation described above, Clinton will attract new private investment by extending and expanding the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program so all communities suffering from a decline in coal production or a coal plant closure qualify. The NMTC program has steered billions in investment to low income neighborhoods since it began in 2000. Clinton will also offer companies a chance to eliminate capital gains taxes on long-term investments in hard-hit coal communities."

    There is much more on other issues...small business investment, education. retraining, health and wellness, retirement and security, housing, clean energy challenge, and more. I know it gets kind of long in reading, but that's what a comprehensive plan to transition out of coal and redevelop the area encompasses. It can be boring and voters are just not into this kind of stuff. They like the Trump words much better: "We're going to get those miners back to work ... the miners of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week, Ohio and all over are going to start to work again, believe me. They are going to be proud again to be miners."

    Or in other words: "I will make coal miners great again." Hey!

    I kind of like Hillary's well thought out plans better. Agree?

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Read EPA vs Ed Krug. Instead of making coal clean they have opted to abolish coal. There are far better ways to deal with problems than by eliminating the object.

    Clean coal is an oxymoron.

    There is and never has been clean coal. It's something the coal industry tried to convince us they could do in order to continue to get their billions of dollars in government subsidies. Thankfully, the Obama Administration actually listened to scientists and not the coal industry.

    Destructive distillation powered some cars in the 1900's. Heard of the "Streetcar Scandal" ? Similar actions with oil and coal companies in 70's setting coal back. There are multiple technologies for clean fuel from coal.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dutch -- Did you read Hillary's detailed proposal for supporting the coal country transition above. It sounds like maybe Hillary is copying much of what Europe did. That's another reason to vote for Hillary. She has a plan and put it out to be peer reviewed. Read it and tell me what is wrong with it. I want your outside perspective.

    I'm still looking for Bernie's $41 billion plan.

    Schmidt; sure I read what you posted. What I'm missing is: What is in the plan besides jobs and re-training? Don't forget the environment as well housing and infrastructure; the landscape is ruined and will take millions to re-construct and make it livable again; as well re-introduce "clean" industries there. So it is not as easy just to throw "money" at it.

    Dutch -- Maybe you missed this from her $30 billion plan:

    "The infrastructure in coal communities today was built to mine, ship, and burn coal. Unlocking new drivers of economic and employment growth in these communities will require new infrastructure that connects workers to new jobs and companies to new markets. Clinton’s infrastructure investment program will include a focus on economic diversification and revitalization in coal communities, building new roads, bridges, water systems, airports and transmission lines, including completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System. She will also work with the Department of Transportation and the railroad companies to develop a strategy for leveraging available rail capacity previously used to ship coal to support broader economic development in coal-producing regions.

    "With rich soil and abundant water, abandoned coal mines can provide prime real estate for new investment – whether in forestry, agriculture, or manufacturing. But significant remediation, site preparation, and infrastructure development is often required before this land can be successfully repurposed for new economic activity. Clinton will unlock existing unappropriated resources from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to help finance this work. Clinton will provide similar support for redevelopment of retired coal power plant sites to attract new investment, such as Google’s plans to build a data center on the site of a recently closed coal plant in Alabama.

    "Complementing the public investments in infrastructure, land, energy, and innovation described above, Clinton will attract new private investment by extending and expanding the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program so all communities suffering from a decline in coal production or a coal plant closure qualify. The NMTC program has steered billions in investment to low income neighborhoods since it began in 2000. Clinton will also offer companies a chance to eliminate capital gains taxes on long-term investments in hard-hit coal communities."

    There is much more on other issues...small business investment, education. retraining, health and wellness, retirement and security, housing, clean energy challenge, and more. I know it gets kind of long in reading, but that's what a comprehensive plan to transition out of coal and redevelop the area encompasses. It can be boring and voters are just not into this kind of stuff. They like the Trump words much better: "We're going to get those miners back to work ... the miners of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week, Ohio and all over are going to start to work again, believe me. They are going to be proud again to be miners."

    Or in other words: "I will make coal miners great again." Hey!

    I kind of like Hillary's well thought out plans better. Agree?

    Yes Schmidt; if that is the case and does not gets screwed up by "backpocket" investors who "milk" it and draw it out forever , then may be that will work. I'm always skeptical of any "government" work projects; seldom "brains" are used as well no oversight, where the "money" went. I see that daily in our county, as well the federal government.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch -- Yes, there are always unscrupulous investors who will see opportunity to make a quick buck. The point that many people are missing is that Hillary has many plans like this covering all aspects of society. She puts them out on her website to be scrutinized (peer reviewed) by economists, social workers and the general public, if they are at all interested. Are some of her plans flawed? Most certainly, but that's why giving them public scrutiny is so important, and Hillary, more than anyone else has a track record of modifying her positions based on that input. She does not have pride of ownership of many of her plans. She has consulted with many experts in putting them together, but there are always other views to be considered.

    I suppose, however, many of them could be categorized as incrementalism, or more specifically, rational progressivism. They generally do not encompass the big (or is it yuuge) leap forward vision promoted by Bernie Sanders.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I should also add that I did find reference to Bernie's plans for the Appalachian coal mining area embodied in his comprehensive plan to combat climate change, and in his December 2015 proposed legislation.

    Bernie Sanders: Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet

    "Ban mountaintop removal coal mining and invest in Appalachian communities. Across the Appalachian Mountain Range, coal companies are blowing up entire mountaintops to get at the thin coal seams below. The communities in the region are paying for this destructive practice in their health, their culture and their natural heritage. Bernie is in staunch opposition to this dirty and damaging practice and believes we must invest in Appalachian communities to help them transition to a clean, prosperous, and healthy future."

    Bernie Sanders: Sanders Introduces Major Clean Energy Jobs Package

    "Together, the incentives in the American Clean Energy Investment Act of 2015 and The Clean Energy Worker Just Transition Act would drive over $500 billion in clean energy investments between now and 2030. The bills, both co-sponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), would create new sustainable energy jobs and allocate $41 billion to helping oil, gas and coal workers as they transition out of the fossil fuel industry. The costs for these proposals are completely offset by repealing all subsidies for fossil fuels and ending the tax breaks that encourage corporate inversions.

    “We have a moral responsibility to help working families in the fossil fuel industry find new jobs,” Sanders said. “We must act now to reenergize our manufacturing base, bolster our clean energy economy and protect the livelihoods of these workers and the communities they support.”

    "Coal communities have been under pressure for decades as coal-mining jobs have been lost due to more efficient mining practices, competition from cheaper natural gas and the public’s desire to move to cleaner sources of energy. The Clean Energy Worker Just Transition Act would help coal miners and other fossil fuel workers and their families by connecting displaced workers with new job opportunities through vocational education and job skills programs. The bills would also provide support so transitioning workers and their families could maintain family-level wages, health care and pensions until they are able to start new jobs."

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Okay, as a final point if I haven't bored you with these plans, Bernie's campaign rhetoric right before the West Virginia primary stated specifically that he planned to spend $41 billion to help coal mining communities. The $41 billion in his actual legislation covers workers in other fossil fuel industries than just coal.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Destructive distillation powered some cars in the 1900's. Heard of the "Streetcar Scandal" ? Similar actions with oil and coal companies in 70's setting coal back. There are multiple technologies for clean fuel from coal.

    What does a mid 20th Century GM scandal have to do with clean coal?


    And no, there are not multiple technologies for clean fuel from coal; there are zero technologies for clean fuel from coal.

    Coal is fossilized carbon from plants and trees that died millions of years ago. When carbon is burned it emits greenhouse gases that traps heat in the atmosphere. Too much of this carbon being burned is the reason the global climate is rising at a dangerous rate.

    There is no technology around that is able to convert a burning fossilized carbon into a clean source of energy and it would be a massive waste of money to try to figure out a way to make it happen when there are so many other sources of energy that don't kill the earth.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Okay, as a final point if I haven't bored you with these plans, Bernie's campaign rhetoric right before the West Virginia primary stated specifically that he planned to spend $41 billion to help coal mining communities. The $41 billion in his actual legislation covers workers in other fossil fuel industries than just coal.
    Schmidt, excellent work from your side; compliments. Sure if Hillary can pull this off, as well have a good management team in place with strict oversight then I'm all for it. Indeed as you say "the big picture" looks like someone has thought this over very well. So lets hope there are no obstructions in "you know where" ( things still have to go through the "mill", so it still may end up as "nice" on paper)
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Destructive distillation powered some cars in the 1900's. Heard of the "Streetcar Scandal" ? Similar actions with oil and coal companies in 70's setting coal back. There are multiple technologies for clean fuel from coal.

    What does a mid 20th Century GM scandal have to do with clean coal?


    And no, there are not multiple technologies for clean fuel from coal; there are zero technologies for clean fuel from coal.

    Coal is fossilized carbon from plants and trees that died millions of years ago. When carbon is burned it emits greenhouse gases that traps heat in the atmosphere. Too much of this carbon being burned is the reason the global climate is rising at a dangerous rate.

    There is no technology around that is able to convert a burning fossilized carbon into a clean source of energy and it would be a massive waste of money to try to figure out a way to make it happen when there are so many other sources of energy that don't kill the earth.

    Jared, sorry but Chet has some good points. I worked in an office in Alexandria VA, right besides an "coal" fired powerplant; they used the latest technology to keep the "exhaust" clean via "scrubbers" and filters as well water too cool. Actually only "steam" was produced. I'm more "sick" in FL because of "pollen", more so, then the "exhaust" of an coal fired power plant in the middle of Alexandria.