Bloomberg donates $50 million to Sierra Club anti-coal plant campaign

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 5:29 PM GMT
    Why is he not running for president? Because he can do a lot more good implementing (and supporting with his own money) common sense policies, away from the fractious, toxic atmosphere in Congress.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-climate-coal-bloomberg-idUSTRE76K4VD20110721(Reuters) - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg joined with the Sierra Club on Thursday in a $50 million, four-year plan to campaign for replacing one-third of aging U.S. coal-fired power plants with clean energy.

    "If we are going to get serious about reducing our carbon footprint in the United States, we have to get serious about coal," Bloomberg, founder of the news service that bears his name, said in a statement.

    "Coal is a self-inflicted public health risk, polluting the air we breathe, adding mercury to our water, and the leading cause of climate disruption," he said. The partnership with Sierra Club was announced outside a coal-fired power plant in Alexandria, Virginia.

    The $50 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies will pay for a significant part of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, which is budgeted at $150 million for four years.

    The campaign, begun in 2002, has stopped more than 150 new coal-fired plants from being built, the Sierra Club said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 5:30 PM GMT
    Living through his "reform" of public schools in NYC and his changing the law so he could run for a third term before changing it back so no one else could, I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 5:39 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidLiving through his "reform" of public schools in NYC and his changing the law so he could run for a third term before changing it back so no one else could, I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.


    But you have to see the big picture. Here's a moderate Republican (not faux moderate) who would put his money where his mouth is, and most of the time he's mouthing the right policies: clean energy, marriage equality, gun control, immigration reform, abortion rights, public health policies. True, he's a fiscal conservative, but he raised taxes if the occasion needs it.

    If it were between him and Bachmann/Pawlenty/Romney/Cain/Paul, I would vote for him.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 21, 2011 8:13 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidWhy is he not running for president? Because he can do a lot more good implementing (and supporting with his own money) common sense policies, away from the fractious, toxic atmosphere in Congress.


    That's a good reason.

    And to anyone who reads this, there is no such thing as "clean coal". That goes for you too, Obama. The term is a misnomer because what they mean by "clean coal" is that the ash, sulphur and heavy metals are removed from the coal, not that it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels.
  • dannyboy1101

    Posts: 977

    Jul 21, 2011 11:07 PM GMT
    That was the only reason I pondered trump before he opened his mouth. Ironically we need someone who is rich enough that he or she doesn't succumb to being bought off. I thought trump wanted the presidency just for the power and decision-making and I think bloomberg would be a republican I would vote for if he were running against Obama simply because of his more correct balance between left and right. Obama is too socially right and too fiscally left IMO. I want that opposite at this point and if he ever wanted it, B-baby the time is now. You will never have as many incompetents to run against you to make you look good ever again (hopefully). Maybe the republicans would finally be able to drop the religion card. I know I live in a fantasy land
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 11:20 PM GMT
    dannyboy1101 saidThat was the only reason I pondered trump before he opened his mouth. Ironically we need someone who is rich enough that he or she doesn't succumb to being bought off. I thought trump wanted the presidency just for the power and decision-making and I think bloomberg would be a republican I would vote for if he were running against Obama simply because of his more correct balance between left and right. Obama is too socially right and too fiscally left IMO. I want that opposite at this point and if he ever wanted it, B-baby the time is now. You will never have as many incompetents to run against you to make you look good ever again (hopefully). Maybe the republicans would finally be able to drop the religion card. I know I live in a fantasy land


    Not so much a card, more of a wedge that they get out every two years and shove right up America's ass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 11:23 PM GMT
    ..and Obama isn't a fiscal liberal IMO. I think he has proved that on pretty much every financial issue that he has caved on. From the bush era tax cut extension to putting social programs on the table for the "debt ceiling" hostag... Err negations. Hes been about boring middle of the road as anyone could have asked for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 11:25 PM GMT
    I shouldnt have listened to news radio on the way home from work tonight. No offense meant. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 11:46 PM GMT
    Ravco said..and Obama isn't a fiscal liberal IMO. I think he has proved that on pretty much every financial issue that he has caved on. From the bush era tax cut extension to putting social programs on the table for the "debt ceiling" hostag... Err negations. Hes been about boring middle of the road as anyone could have asked for.


    http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/25/news/economy/tax_increase/index.htmObama's real deficit problem: His tax cuts

    While Republicans portray President Obama as the biggest of big spenders, in fact the driving force behind the big deficits in his 2012 budget proposal isn't spending. It's his proposed tax cuts, and the increased interest costs that result, according to an analysis by the independent Congressional Budget Office.

    The $1 trillion in annual tax breaks also exacerbate the spending problem and have the perverse effect of pushing some rates higher.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 12:11 AM GMT
    While 4 years is a bit optimistic, 20 years isn't. You got to start somewhere:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2011/retire-coal.html

    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-2030-roadmap-chapter-5.pdfA comprehensive study by the U.S. Department
    of Energy (EERE 2008 )found that wind power has
    the technical potential to provide more than 10 times
    today’s U.S. electricity needs (see Table 5.1). That study
    also showed that expanding wind power from providing
    a little more than 1 percent of U.S. electricity in
    2007 to 20 percent by 2030 is feasible, and would not
    affect the reliability of the nation’s power supply.
    Achieving that target would require developing nearly
    300,000 megawatts of new wind capacity, including
    50,000 megawatts of offshore wind.
  • dannyboy1101

    Posts: 977

    Jul 23, 2011 4:46 AM GMT
    Ravco said..and Obama isn't a fiscal liberal IMO. I think he has proved that on pretty much every financial issue that he has caved on. From the bush era tax cut extension to putting social programs on the table for the "debt ceiling" hostag... Err negations. Hes been about boring middle of the road as anyone could have asked for.


    True. I guess he just plays nice too much. McCain wouldn't have turned into a dem in office. Why did this happen?