Are you happy with how coal has improved people's standard of living, or do you wish to take it away?

I am always happy when people can enjoy life. After all, that is what our creator created this Earth for. For man's enjoyment. If it means taking dormant energy out of the ground and utilizing it, then so be it. They used coal way back in the Bible times. Just look at the huge golden urns for the temple, for lack of a better word, that took great amounts of heat energy for their castings.

But then you have the greenies who only think of control and hideous environments for people.

Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Collapse? Is that a word that would be used by one who is trying to save the world? How much pain and suffering would be involved in that 'collapse'? How many people would die because of that collapse? Just look at the UK. People froze to death because of this collapsing action. And it is only a statistic to the greenies. How many more innocent deaths are going to be sacrificed on the alter of 'environmentalism'?

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

We can see by their words that the greenies have no intention of making it easier for humankind. They gain control of people only by pain and suffering. And that is a planned 'pain and suffering'. That is considered collateral damage to them and of no consequence. The greenies have a long history of death and starvation caused by their actions, and yet they still say 'trust us'. Well Germany did trust their judgement. They shut down nuclear facilities and replaced them with windmills and solar farms. Now they are going back to coal at great expense, just because the greenies got their way and almost caused a total collapse, just like Maurice Strong wanted.

I am for benefitting all mankind. Not just a few greedy greenie elitists, who say, "I fly in my jet planes and I am wealthy and I have heat in my homes and I have food on my table and I have all the luxuries of life. We got ours and you suckers provided them. So eat your hearts out and envy us because you schmucks elected us. Ha! Ha! You schmucks cut your own throats and now we rule."

Hydroelectric has historically proven the most cost effective method of power generation and cleanest. However, it is limited due to geography. But even at that the greenies have shut down dams. As I write this there are forces that are working to shut down Hoover Dam.

Nuclear is another option, but follow the history of San Luis Obispo's Diablo Canyon power station. While it was being constructed plans were changed adding to delays and cost. Greenie zombies shut down construction many times adding to delays. It is clear that cheap efficient power is not deemed in the best interests of the schmucks who elected these idiots by the elitists themselves. These elitists are hell bent on subjecting every individual on the earth and nothing is going to get into their path if they can help it.

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "We contend that the position of the nuclear promoters is preposterous beyond the wildest imaginings of most nuclear opponents, primarily because one of the purported “benefits” of nuclear power, the availability of cheap and abundant energy, is in fact a liability."

Yes it is a liability to those power hungry greedy human hating people who call themselves 'environmentalists'. For it is an obstruction in their path to their stated goal of world domination.

Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both government#content# Democrats are still blaming Bush for just about everything these days, so why not?

Here's a snippet from a memo titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America" by Frank Luntz to then President George Bush (in 2002). Do read the whole thing (linked below).

Frank Luntz is a political consultant best known for developing 'talking points' for the GOP.

Re your update 2:

It is obvious that you haven't bothered to read the entire memo which I linked to nor do you appear to grasp the subtleties of 'political speak' (as in 'saying what your likely voters will want to hear') and what politicians actually do once elected.

The "Frank Luntz Memo" is an excellent example (but not the only one) of the use of political euphemisms: say/claim one thing while you mean the exact opposite. The objective is not to clarify one's position but to make people (read voters) believe you are for something when in reality you are against it.

BTW, the memo was not directed to GB senior but to then president George W Bush who does know all about 'new world orders' with his links to and support from the Project for the New American Century (with its' support for eugenics in the form of targeting specific genotypes as a "politically useful tool").