Strategic Energy fund to Invest in - Clean Coal

http://campaignsandelections.com/nh/releases/index.cfm?ID=716


Strategic Energy Fund – Hillary has proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject

$50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels, and more. Hillary’s proposal will create tens of thousands of jobs in America’s heartland by fueling a new clean energy industry while also reducing our dependence on foreign oil and addressing global warming


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Announces Legislation to Create “Strategic Energy Fund” to Invest in Clean Energy Technology



SNIP

The Strategic Energy Fund will:

• Invest in Renewable Energy. Move America towards the goal of producing 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 by extending the production tax credit for generating electricity from wind and other renewable sources for 10 years.

• Transform America’s Vehicles. Put more efficient vehicles on the road by doubling the consumer tax breaks for hybrids, clean diesel, and other advanced vehicles, and creating a tax incentive for fleet owners to purchase more efficient vehicles.

• Accelerate Homegrown Biofuels. Speed the development of cellulosic ethanol by providing loan guarantees for the first billion gallons of commercial production capacity, and providing $1 billion for research.

• Speed Infrastructure Conversion. Increase availability of “E85” fuel pumps to 50 percent of gas stations by 2015 by providing gas station owners with a 50% tax credit for the cost of installing pumps.

• Unleash American Ingenuity. Accelerate energy research by creating a $9 billion “Advanced Research Projects Agency” for energy.

Senator Clinton also discussed renewable electricity, clean coal technology, and making better use of the strategic petroleum reserve to buffer the economy from oil price shocks.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=255988&&

yet, until your post, no one has said a word about Hillary and coal.

I want to see all of Hillary Supporters bashing Obama to push her to reverse her stance as well.

we should focus on energy that doesn't require burning or growing something to create fuel.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYaUqMqpWpW4

By Timothy J. Burger and Kristin Jensen

May 24 (Bloomberg) -- Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposed on Feb. 27 more research funds for new energy technology, including ``clean'' coal systems. The next day, Mark Penn, her top campaign strategist, had a different take on coal.

In an internal blog at his other job, as chief executive officer of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, Penn wrote of how Burson worked ``behind the scenes'' for TXU Corp., a Texas company seeking to build power plants fueled by pulverized coal, which some environmentalists say would be major polluters.

'Clean coal' and ethanol make us believe we are doing something about mitigating global warming and Peak Oil.

In fact, those formulas put us even further behind the 'eight ball'.

Conservation, conservation, conservation -- that has to be number one.
Then, I agree, energy sources that do not consume energy in their production -- wind and solar, geothermal, etc.

Politicians who advocate for 'clean coal' and biofuels do so because they are afraid to ask us to change any of our habits. That is too bad -- we need courage and brave leadership.

Period. End of story.

Check out Ethel's thread on this very suject from yesterday and read WHY:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3294606

TC

I am tired of all the Bashing of Obama by Hillary's supporters. She has the same stance on clean Air. There have been mutiple posts by Hillary's supporters. All three of the candidates have the same stance. We should all be pushing for all three to back down from Clean coal not just Obama and Edwards. If you research one candidate's stance research them all to find out what they are all doing instead of trying to spin. That is why.



The spin that she is not backing clean coal is not true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3297298

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3293846&mesg_id=3293846

indicating that I did not agree with the phrase. :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3294606

Which is your vested interest in this subject? -- Clean coal or Hillary Clinton?

TC

We Should be pushing for all three candidates to move away from their stance on clean coal not just Edwards and Obama. All three of them are for clean coal.

I totally agree with you.

I have misunderstood your motives, and again, apologize for my mistake.

TC

--wind and solar, geothermal, etc. And "conservation, conservation, conservation."

But, I fear Gore is right in the case of "clean coal" technology--special interests outweigh the public interest. There are too many people who would profit from these nonrenewable energy sources--as well as the jobs they would create in the various coal rich states.

Did Gore support the production of ethanol when he campaigned in Iowa in 2000?