Obama wants FutureGen's "clean" coal-fired power plant in Illinois. I've seen presentations by this group, in which they don't count the energy used before and after the coal is burned:

-the coal still has to be mined
-it still has to be shipped
-the waste products have to be shipped
-sequestering the carbon in underground mines and shafts will require energy expenditure

With net energy gain reduced by these processes, you're better off with wind and solar.

More nuclear power plants will endanger the people and our environment.

Watch the movie "POISON DUST", see what your government is doing with the nuclear waste.  

There is a reason the corporate media was hyping Obama and Hillary before Hillary even announced that she was running, because they have sold out to the New World Order; and the owners of the FEDERAL RESERVE approve of Obama and Clinton.  

Only Kucinich has an environmentally sound plan for the U.S., but the corporations that rule this fascist country will not let Kucinich be heard.  

And you "Progressives" are OK with that?  

"Hello?  Is there anybody in there?"-Pink Floyd

let's collectively take a deep breath.  Obama is not perfect on the environment.  Neither is Hillary, nor John Edwards.  No competitive presidential candidate is, nor will ever be in this country.

The important thing is to get the major obstacles out of the way.  Obstacles like Bush.  Cheney.  Julie MacDonald.  Gale Norton.  The increasingly reactionary members of the Supreme Court.  The increasingly corporate-controlled media.  

These are obstacles that need to be removed one brick at a time, deliberately and painstakingly.  This takes work, time, patience, persistence.

This won't happen overnight.  There is no single political savior out there.  There never will be.  The people have to lead.  The people have to vote in supportive Senate and House candidates that will encourage rather than discourage our commander-in-chief to make progress on environmental issues.  The people have to support think tanks and environmental organizations and media outlets that are eager to speak truth to power and wrestle with difficult environmental questions.  

At that point, even imperfect politicians will have to either get on board or get out of the way.  Similar to the United States' reluctant signing-on last month to the international agreement to address climate change.  

At some point, even self-serving swine like the Bush Administration, if unable to do anything progressive, will at least get out of the way and quit being obstructionists.

Iowa and Illinois are making TONS of money off corn-based ethanol and the crop subsidies that accompany it, related environmental degradation notwithstanding. Being from Illinois and having used Iowa as a springboard for launching his Presidential bid, Obama will probably not, if elected, throw biofuels overboard--immediately. But the environmental case against biofuels is strong, and growing, and Obama is, if nothing else, pragmatic and non-ideological. He is also very, very receptive to input from all quarters and has a demonstrated willingness to tell folks stuff they don't necessarily want to hear. He understands the country's hunger for a leader who can exhort people to make meaningful sacrifices in order to secure a better world. That's where we come in. One of Obama's top energy policy advisors, Jason Grumet, told me at a meeting in Nevada, Iowa in mid-2007 that he personally preferred a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade system for  reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but that, for the moment, a cap-and-trade system was far more politically feasible. THIS SUGGESTS TO ME THAT AN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER A CARBON TAX AS OPPOSED TO A CAP-AND-TRADE SYSTEM IF WE PUSH HARDER FOR IT, PUTTING PRESSURE ON ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. The best thing about Obama is that he believes so strongly in everyday citizens who are engaged in community improvement. He spent 3 years in the "trenches" as a community organizer, and it has shaped his thinking ever since. His campaign motto is Respect, Empower, Include. This is a guy we can work with, and moreover, I believe that his election could signal to would-be terrorists abroad that America might not be so awful after all, which could give us the breathing room we need to help mend our relationships abroad--such an important precursor to the crafting of stronger worldwide environmental standards.  

In response to the comments regarding futuregen not being clean, your right it isn't clean, however it is CLEANER than the current coal fired power plants it would potentially replace.  I think we can all agree that the US needs to fundamentally change the way it currently produces energy, and most of us would agree that nuclear is not the way to go.  That leaves us with natural gas (we're rapidly running out), hydroelectric (anyone here a big fan of damns?), wind/solar ( which I lump together as they are both a product of the suns input) and coal.  Now I am the first person to say that wind/solar is the way to go now and in the future but without an rapid developement of a massive system of energy storage for the days when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing that leads us back to coal.  We have tremendous domestic coal reserves and if we would actually spend the money to research cleaner ways of utilizing this coal (I'm looking at you DOE)then perhaps it could be a viable energy source.  Sure FutureGen has some serious flaws, but at least it's a step towards cleaner energy production.  Now if only we didn't have to mine the stuff........

What more to say. He is the only candidate to support these practical solutions instead of falling completely for the alternative fuel fantasies.