• Trumps head of energy is a climate change denialist
    213 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51343494]There's already some evidence suggesting millions have died already, from the global dimming aspect of climate change in africa.[/QUOTE] This is true. Black carbon released from fossil fuels and woodburning (in addition to other pollutants and factors) caused the 1984 Saharan Drought, and close to a million people died (possibly more than a million depending on whose estimates you go with. [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/703958.stm[/url] It's been reversing since the 1990s, but who knows how this will affect things if our energy policy turns to shit.
[QUOTE=Govna;51343665]This is true. Black carbon released from fossil fuels and woodburning (in addition to other pollutants and factors) caused the 1984 Saharan Drought, and close to a million people died (possibly more than a million depending on whose estimates you go with. [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/703958.stm[/url] It's been reversing since the 1990s, but who knows how this will affect things if our energy policy turns to shit.[/QUOTE] A million is gonna be nothing compared to what's in store for us in the future. Just wait until the equator becomes unsuitable for human civilization.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51343684]A million is gonna be nothing compared to what's in store for us in the future. Just wait until the equator becomes unsuitable for human civilization.[/QUOTE] I don't think it'll actually come to that. I don't even think humanity is at danger from global warming. It will be horrendously disastrous for our economies, and a lot of people will die, biodiversity will be damaged a lot, but we'd make it. Unless we do start horrible resource wars over something like peak oil (which, thankfully, is becoming less likely.)
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51343715]I don't think it'll actually come to that. I don't even think humanity is at danger from global warming. It will be horrendously disastrous for our economies, and a lot of people will die, biodiversity will be damaged a lot, but we'd make it. Unless we do start horrible resource wars over something like peak oil (which, thankfully, is becoming less likely.)[/QUOTE] We may not be in any direct danger, but other things are, and they will put us in danger either way, we like to screw ourselves when we're blind to the consequences
Sensationalist headlines shouldn't be completely false. He is not going to be the head of energy hes leading the transition team. A few things - By Timothy Cama - 09/26/16 10:16 AM EDT From september, and the source they are quoting label him as handling the EPA transition team. Nothing about the dOE except for when they actually state "The Trump team has also lined up leaders for its Energy Department and Interior Department teams. Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is heading the DOE team;" Now can we please stop making threads without actually knowing what we're talking about? Your source - [url]http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/297755-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-trumps-epa-transition[/url] The source your source used that you completely missed somehow - [url]http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060043378[/url]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51343684]A million is gonna be nothing compared to what's in store for us in the future. Just wait until the equator becomes unsuitable for human civilization.[/QUOTE] Yep. And a lot of people also don't seem to realize that we can't just pick up our crops and start moving to more climatologically-pleasing areas. If the soil conditions aren't right for the crop, then it won't work. Not only that, but we're also faced with the fact that we're depleting our topsoil faster than it's being replenished. And again, we're depleting our aquifers faster than they're being replenished, and they account for about 30% of our freshwater. It will be horrifying. [editline]9th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;51343756]Sensationalist headlines shouldn't be completely false. He is not going to be the head of energy.[/QUOTE] No, he's just going to lead the EPA transition team for Trump's administration. That's totally different guys.:downs:
[QUOTE=G3rman;51343188]Off to a good start. I'm sure the supporters will say that this is a minor sacrifice in the name of all the good that can come from Trump's presidency for the working class.[/QUOTE] Having spoken to many of his supporters, they're not exactly keen on "science" or "facts". [QUOTE=1legmidget;51343218]His opinion on nuclear energy can be summed up as he "[URL="https://cei.org/content/little-update-energy"]prefers energy sources compete in a free market setting with no help from federal, state, and local governments[/URL]" Outlook not so good as far as building new reactors go methinks.[/QUOTE] "with no help from federal, state, and local governments" So does that mean this corporate welfare bullshit will end for the energy industry? Fat chance. [QUOTE=Grimhound;51343294]Clean coal is a meme. Coal is a dead energy source. Natural gas is cheaper and more plentiful. The coal regions are fucked.[/QUOTE] You know, I used to work for an HVAC contractor, and if there's anything I've learned from the people who manage the place (two of the "half-owners" went on trial for child abuse and are known to be crooked as fuck), it's that the reasons we make up for keeping things the way they are are hardly justifiable. At this point, dirty energy industries are simply here because "think of all the jobs!", or as an old foreman was reported to have said if you had nothing to do at the shop "Do something, even if it's wrong". [QUOTE=Saphirx;51343416]the world [I]needs[/I] the US to set a precedent for clean energy, for fuck sake why should China and India push for it when the US won't[/QUOTE] The US won't push for it because environmentally, we've not nearly fucked things over as industry has in China/India. Part of that is because we had the fore-sight to put standards in place for vehicle emissions (hence less smog) and chlorine-containing compounds (CFCs and HCFCs). That and they're convinced there's no money to be made in it, so they go for the "'cheap' to produce, lucrative to sell" options of oil and coal. We've put all our eggs in two baskets, and neither are sustainable. What many fail to realize is that neither of these options are going to be available forever, seeing as we literally burn these materials for energy when it took millions of years to create them in the first place. Solar panels and lithium batteries also have their own environmental problems due to the mining necessary to gather the materials, but what many of the anti-green people forget is that solar cells and batteries are recyclable, and take less energy to recycle than they do to mine. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51343435]It's ironic because if you had turned on Hillary and stopped her at the DNC when it was painfully obvious to the rest of us that it was a corrupt shitshow you [I]could[/I] have given us Bernie. Thanks for that, Democrats. Just wait until he turns out to be an authoritarian asshole, the mental gymnastics justifying that are going to be interesting.[/QUOTE] That's what really bothers me. We finally had a candidate that: 1) Wasn't bought. 2) Stuck to his guns but was willing to change his opinion based on new evidence. 3) Was scandal-free outside of the stuff the right-wing pulled out of their asses ("rape fantasy" paper, honeymoon in Poland, etc.). And THESE TWO were the best we could do. But it's not entirely the Democrat's fault. Another key problem is that Trump only had to rely on a cult of personality, which got him tremendous gains considering the sheer number of opponents he had to contend with. Percentage-wise, most Republicans in the primary preferred anybody BUT Trump, but because the vote was split between so many candidates, Trump pulled ahead.
[QUOTE=Govna;51343792] No, he's just going to lead the EPA transition team for Trump's administration. That's totally different guys.:downs:[/QUOTE] Considering the EPA and the Department of Energy are two different government organizations and the EPA isn't a cabinet department yeah its a little different.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51343487]Even if Trump supporters actually agree with the underlying point in this and other threads--that Trump is going against his campaign promises, and that it's for the worst--, who is going to come and post here when it's an echochamber of hostility towards Trump supporters with posts like [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1541045&p=51343210&viewfull=1#post51343210]this[/url]. Even if we accept as fact "Trump supporters got duped", the long-term solution isn't to insult or ridicule them. Maybe doing makes you feel better right now, or maybe you think they deserve it for the impact their choice will have on the country, but doing so is just counterproductive. Spewing and supporting this hatred just alienates people who might otherwise come to agree with your position, people whom in 2 years might otherwise be willing to vote for a different direction than what they voted for yesterday.[/QUOTE] That's cherry picking a post if I've ever seen it, the lions share of posts in this thread are purely constructive. Maybe it wouldn't be a echo chamber if they posted a rebuttal. Maybe they wouldn't be accused of being fanatics if they didn't outright admit that Trump could do basically anything and still get their support. Regardless of what the long term solution is, I'm still absolutely going to point out the hypocrisy and lies of Trump's campaign compared to Trump's presumptive administration. If that counts as "spewing and supporting hatred" then so be it. The only people I'm alienating are people who weren't open to the idea that Trump has problems as a person or a politician anyway. I'm sick of this self-fulfilling circular logic nonsense that Facepunch is an echo chamber because Trump supporters refuse to engage unless they are "drinking liberal tears lmao xD" and because they refuse to engage it's an echo chamber because people observe overwhelming numbers of people who disagree.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51343435]It's ironic because if you had turned on Hillary and stopped her at the DNC when it was painfully obvious to the rest of us that it was a corrupt shitshow you [I]could[/I] have given us Bernie. Thanks for that, Democrats. [/QUOTE] Fuck right off, you know true and well that the only reason Hillary won the primary was because the DNC pulled some shady ass shit to trick a huge amount of older voters.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51343435]It's ironic because if you had turned on Hillary and stopped her at the DNC when it was painfully obvious to the rest of us that it was a corrupt shitshow you [I]could[/I] have given us Bernie. Thanks for that, Democrats. [/QUOTE] Don't try to make it sound like this is what every democrat wanted. A lot of peeps here, including myself, wanted Bernie and were not in favor of Hilary. Stop throwing blame on what didn't happen and realize the reality of it is that Trump is here now, and he's already fucking shit up. We're all in this together.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51343435]It's ironic because if you had turned on Hillary and stopped her at the DNC when it was painfully obvious to the rest of us that it was a corrupt shitshow you [I]could[/I] have given us Bernie. Thanks for that, Democrats. [/QUOTE] okay what should an individual facepunch user have done at the DNC after Clinton already won the popular votes for Democratic nominee? I'm really interested in what exactly "if you had turned on Hillary and stopped her" entails.
[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;51343823]Considering the EPA and the Department of Energy are two different government organizations and the EPA isn't a cabinet department yeah its a little different.[/QUOTE] McKenna doesn't inspire much hope either. I can't find much about him personally, but looking at the institutions he worked for I'm not impressed. [URL="http://americanenergyalliance.org/initiatives/ozone-rule/"]Decreased ozone regulation[/URL]? Why on earth? [URL="http://americanenergyalliance.org/initiatives/renewable-fuel-standard-2/"]Less biofuels[/URL]? While I agree corn ethanol is a bad idea, Trump stated he was for it back when he was campaigning in Iowa during the primaries. [URL="http://americanenergyalliance.org/initiatives/end-wind-welfare/"]Cutting wind subsidies[/URL]? After all we've invested in fossil fuels over the past couple hundred years wind is hardly a threat. The other organization's site isn't all that better, [URL="http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/energy-efficiency/"]with bits railing against promoting more energy efficient products[/URL], and still nothing promoting the use of nuclear power. More coal. More oil. That's about it.
You guys are fucking drama queens holy shit
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344014]You guys are fucking drama queens holy shit[/QUOTE] Explain?
[QUOTE=Chaitin;51344017]Explain?[/QUOTE] Freaking out about things that may or may not happen not even 12 hours after he is elected. You do realize that if Hillary was elected there was a very real chance of full scale nuclear war?
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344014]You guys are fucking drama queens holy shit[/QUOTE] Care to address any of the points brought up in this thread, or would you rather drive-by shitpost?
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51343715]I don't think it'll actually come to that. I don't even think humanity is at danger from global warming. It will be horrendously disastrous for our economies, and a lot of people will die, biodiversity will be damaged a lot, but we'd make it. Unless we do start horrible resource wars over something like peak oil (which, thankfully, is becoming less likely.)[/QUOTE] Real selfish thinking there buddy [editline]9th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344048]Freaking out about things that may or may not happen not even 12 hours after he is elected. You do realize that if Hillary was elected there was a very real chance of full scale nuclear war?[/QUOTE] Ya complain about us getting worried about stuff thst apparently may not even happen and then you pull thr nuclear war zinger
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344048]You do realize that if Hillary was elected there was a very real chance of full scale nuclear war?[/QUOTE] Are you fucking high?
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344048]Freaking out about things that may or may not happen not even 12 hours after he is elected. You do realize that if Hillary was elected there was a very real chance of full scale nuclear war?[/QUOTE] I think your first and second point heavily contadict themselves.
[QUOTE=simkas;51344062]Are you fucking high?[/QUOTE] No? Maybe look up mass US military mobilization along the Russian border and/or talk to infantrymen currently enlisted who are stationed on the border now routinely running attack response drills and preparing for a nuclear attack.
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344071]No? Maybe look up mass US military mobilization along the Russian border and/or talk to infantrymen currently enlisted who are stationed on the border now routinely running attack response drills and preparing for a nuclear attack.[/QUOTE] Okay? And what in the hell makes you think Clinton would have ever just gone up and ordered a full attack? You even mentioned that those preparations are for defense not attack.
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344014][b]You guys are fucking drama queens holy shit[/b][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344048]Freaking out about things that may or may not happen not even 12 hours after he is elected. [b]You do realize that if Hillary was elected there was a very real chance of full scale nuclear war?[/b][/QUOTE] holy shit indeed
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344071]No? Maybe look up mass US military mobilization along the Russian border and/or talk to infantrymen currently enlisted who are stationed on the border now routinely running attack response drills and preparing for a nuclear attack.[/QUOTE] Ever heard of keeping up appearances?
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344048]Freaking out about things that may or may not happen not even 12 hours after he is elected. You do realize that if Hillary was elected there was a very real chance of full scale nuclear war?[/QUOTE] Guys, stop getting worried about things that can happen - you should be worried that things didn't happen!
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344048]Freaking out about things that may or may not happen not even 12 hours after he is elected. You do realize that if Hillary was elected there was a very real chance of full scale nuclear war?[/QUOTE] and we are the drama queens ahah
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344071]No? Maybe look up mass US military mobilization along the Russian border and/or talk to infantrymen currently enlisted who are stationed on the border now routinely running attack response drills and preparing for a nuclear attack.[/QUOTE] you think clinton can order a nuclear attack? that's funny
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344071]No? Maybe look up mass US military mobilization along the Russian border and/or talk to infantrymen currently enlisted who are stationed on the border now routinely running attack response drills and preparing for a nuclear attack.[/QUOTE] Oh my god military personnel are training for possible situations stop the presses boys its WW3 Lets not worry about what Trump IS doing on focus on what Clinton may have done.
[QUOTE=ChinChilla;51344071]No? Maybe look up mass US military mobilization along the Russian border and/or talk to infantrymen currently enlisted who are stationed on the border now routinely running attack response drills and preparing for a nuclear attack.[/QUOTE] Oh dear lord, thanks for giving me a laugh I needed it.
real question: What options do we have to push for energy reform under a Trump administration? Maybe it's too early to ask, but this is very concerning.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.