Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 241111 times)

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2848
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1100 on: January 19, 2017, 10:54:10 PM »
If you read anything by George Lakoff, you understand why trigger words work on both, and why for the past 4 decades - trigger language has been used to great effect by the GOP and little effect by the DNC. 

The GOP - who had the benefit of insightful business marketers - put this framing language to use many decades earlier than the DNC. Coupled with the end of the Fairness Doctrine and Telecommunications act of 1996, our largely objective media got baited into using this GOP crafted trigger language. ... and the country swung GOP - hard. Read up on Frank Luntz, for example, and you'll see what I mean about language.   

tax 'relief' instead of tax 'policy'  *trigger!* ("it's an affliction brought on by evil government." (never mind that the gov't is formed by people who are democratically elected)
gun control instead of gun policy *trigger!* ("they're trying to take our guns!" (even tho they've never said that))
death tax instead of estate tax *trigger!* ("I'm taxed my whole life and then the gubmint takes more when I die? I'm outraged!!!" (never mind that an estate tax is one of the most effective tools at preventing dynasties from forming - it should be called a dynasty prevention tax).

It works the other way too. You may recognize heavy use of these: 
Freedom fries
War on Christmas
Patriotic Hero
unAmerican
etc. etc etc.

All I can say is don't take the bait. Use honest (mainly progressive IMO) language instead. "Protect rights." "Opportunity for all." "Injustice"  "Violation of our constitutional rights" (e.g. with civil asset forfeiture).

It's hard work putting thought into EVERY frigging WORD. I mean, it's always been worth doing, but today, some phrases are landmines, still others are like heroin hitting the blood stream. So at this point, you really HAVE to think about every word, and use the right ones. Now more than ever. 
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1101 on: January 19, 2017, 11:32:50 PM »
The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.

We're not "great at business" like that guy who went bankrupt six times.

Sol - your point about climate change was exactly how I feel about the issue, but much more eloquently stated. There's no down side! Why the fuck can't people see that?

Even more than people who deny it, though, I'm annoyed by the people who will give lip service to "concern" about the environment and don't do shit to help. Yeah, sure, I believe you care about the environment with your giant-ass SUV to carry around just yourself just as much as I believe someone's a Christian while actively despising poor people and ignoring what their Man-God actually said. Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1102 on: January 20, 2017, 12:22:30 AM »
Yeah, very frustrating.

Typical liberals acknowledge the problem, but then have ridiculously ineffective solutions in mind.

Typical conservatives refuse to admit there's a problem at all.

IMO Elon Musk will be spraying the upper atmosphere to cool the planet eventually, because nobody has their shit together. Rich people will just take it on themselves - they have kids too, and sooner or later the problem will get really clear to everyone.

-W

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1103 on: January 20, 2017, 12:34:49 AM »
Yeah, very frustrating.

Typical liberals acknowledge the problem, but then have ridiculously ineffective solutions in mind.

Typical conservatives refuse to admit there's a problem at all.

IMO Elon Musk will be spraying the upper atmosphere to cool the planet eventually, because nobody has their shit together. Rich people will just take it on themselves - they have kids too, and sooner or later the problem will get really clear to everyone.

-W

At some point it'll have to tackled, and then it will be. I wouldn't mind if Elon or some other batman like figure just solved it for everyone though - of course it would give all the AGW deniers such fits "See, wasn't a problem anyway!"  But I'd take that easily over the alternative...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1104 on: January 20, 2017, 03:49:08 AM »
IMO Elon Musk will be spraying the upper atmosphere to cool the planet eventually, because nobody has their shit together.

Saw that in Snowpiercer. Didn't work out too well for them.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1105 on: January 20, 2017, 06:18:55 AM »
IMO Elon Musk will be spraying the upper atmosphere to cool the planet eventually, because nobody has their shit together.

Saw that in Snowpiercer. Didn't work out too well for them.

Why are documentaries so scary these days?

;-)
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1106 on: January 20, 2017, 06:31:50 AM »
The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.

We're not "great at business" like that guy who went bankrupt six times.

Sol - your point about climate change was exactly how I feel about the issue, but much more eloquently stated. There's no down side! Why the fuck can't people see that?

Even more than people who deny it, though, I'm annoyed by the people who will give lip service to "concern" about the environment and don't do shit to help. Yeah, sure, I believe you care about the environment with your giant-ass SUV to carry around just yourself just as much as I believe someone's a Christian while actively despising poor people and ignoring what their Man-God actually said. Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1107 on: January 20, 2017, 07:42:51 AM »
The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.

We're not "great at business" like that guy who went bankrupt six times.

Sol - your point about climate change was exactly how I feel about the issue, but much more eloquently stated. There's no down side! Why the fuck can't people see that?

Even more than people who deny it, though, I'm annoyed by the people who will give lip service to "concern" about the environment and don't do shit to help. Yeah, sure, I believe you care about the environment with your giant-ass SUV to carry around just yourself just as much as I believe someone's a Christian while actively despising poor people and ignoring what their Man-God actually said. Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.

I suspect Canada is more progressive politically than the U.S., and certainly I think science and objective measurable data are held in higher regard there. Not so here, with our long and 'proud' history of anti-intellectualism.

StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1108 on: January 20, 2017, 07:55:47 AM »
I agree with Nereo that I see people (Americans in my case) making active choices for the environment. I know lots of people, in many different cities/states who are choosing to eat less meat, signing up for CSAs, forgoing air conditioning in the summer and biking/taking public transit to work. All for the environment.

One of my coworkers teaches a few adjunct classes for a local university's business program and his final project for one class was to have his students come up with an effective business that helps people offset their carbon.  One of the outcomes of his project was that several of us at the office ended up pooling funds to donate to a tree planting organization and we're just middle class business and engineering people (though some of us have hippy dippy leanings for sure).

People are thinking and taking action. Not enough yet, but I do agree there is a change happening.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2565
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1109 on: January 20, 2017, 08:02:42 AM »
I also see people changing/modifying their actions because of climate change.

Then on the other side, there are people who are "rolling coal."

We can only hope that the ridiculous attitudes of the latter will change over time.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1110 on: January 20, 2017, 08:10:35 AM »
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2565
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1111 on: January 20, 2017, 08:15:08 AM »
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Me, too.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1112 on: January 20, 2017, 08:23:45 AM »
Quote
I suspect Canada is more progressive politically than the U.S., and certainly I think science and objective measurable data are held in higher regard there

I was speaking of the US actually, though I live in both countries.  Sadly I think Canada fell behind the US on the environmental front over the last decade, though that might change with the change in governments (though time will tell).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5572
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1113 on: January 20, 2017, 08:44:40 AM »
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Me, too.

Isn't this the line of thinking that leads supervillains to try to wipe out humanity?

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1114 on: January 20, 2017, 08:47:42 AM »
Yes, but one of us breeders might make the scientist that creates a solution to mitigate climate change, so feel free to thank us now. 

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1115 on: January 20, 2017, 08:52:57 AM »
Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.

That was the trend, but that trend has been reversing. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/01/17/vehicle-miles-traveled-another-look-at-our-evolving-behavior

I look at this a little different. I don't want to discount any form of energy: coal, oil, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear. One good thing I see happening is the fossil fuel industy is getting a ton of pressure to clean things up (generally speaking). If the industy is able to develope new tech that can cost effectivly scrub their stack air I don't see why we shouldn't use those sources of energy.

I don't want coal to be demonized simply because it's coal.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1116 on: January 20, 2017, 09:07:42 AM »
Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.

That was the trend, but that trend has been reversing. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/01/17/vehicle-miles-traveled-another-look-at-our-evolving-behavior

I look at this a little different. I don't want to discount any form of energy: coal, oil, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear. One good thing I see happening is the fossil fuel industy is getting a ton of pressure to clean things up (generally speaking). If the industy is able to develope new tech that can cost effectivly scrub their stack air I don't see why we shouldn't use those sources of energy.

I don't want coal to be demonized simply because it's coal.

Like unicorn-hair filters?
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1117 on: January 20, 2017, 09:27:27 AM »
No like actual air scrubbers that remove imputies from the air. They are extremely expensive to run so coal companies simply shut down.

This is actually how they are being shut down in the US, by increasing the air quality standards to a point that makes them cost ineffective. If the tech catches up they will be a fine source of energy for people to use. Until then they will continue to export to countries that don't have those standards.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1118 on: January 20, 2017, 09:34:26 AM »
Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.

That was the trend, but that trend has been reversing. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/01/17/vehicle-miles-traveled-another-look-at-our-evolving-behavior

I look at this a little different. I don't want to discount any form of energy: coal, oil, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear. One good thing I see happening is the fossil fuel industy is getting a ton of pressure to clean things up (generally speaking). If the industy is able to develope new tech that can cost effectivly scrub their stack air I don't see why we shouldn't use those sources of energy.

I don't want coal to be demonized simply because it's coal.

Regarding the coal, there's really two issues at play.  One is harmful particulates and the other is greenhouse gases. Filters and scrubbers can take care of the particulate issue to some degree, though they still present a problem of what to do with the spent cartridges (which are now basically super-concentrated). Good scrubbers are incredibly expensive, and require frequent maintenance and monitoring.  Preventing the release of green-house gases are far trickier and hasn't been accomplished at a commercial scale. Even if you eliminate 100% of harmful particulates you're still releasing green-house gases.  This still happens if you burn, say, natural gas or petroleum, but gas doesn't have the particulate problem coal does. Obviously "clean" source have neither problem, but have their own inherent impacts.

Regarding the miles driven - you are right that it's a bit more complicated. Total number of miles driven has risen from it's lull, though the correlation to fuel prices suggests that may explain some of what we are seeing. Accounting for changes in population we still haven't hit our former peak, and again, we might not should fuel prices increase a bit more. Expressed as fuel consumed the curve looks even more rosy, as fuel efficiency standards have shot up int he last decade, especially on the least efficient vehicles (trucks and small SUVs).  Unfortunately many people are still buying them, and the latest surge has been more people to SUVs (again coupled with low fuel prices).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1119 on: January 20, 2017, 09:51:10 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1120 on: January 20, 2017, 09:58:39 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1121 on: January 20, 2017, 10:02:32 AM »
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Me, too.

Isn't this the line of thinking that leads supervillains to try to wipe out humanity?

Well, something can be said for thinking outside the box, getting to the root of the problem and taking drastic steps to adress the issue.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1122 on: January 20, 2017, 10:11:07 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

I agree, but it's not just limited to solar. Wind turbines, particularly the offshore kind which would produce the most energy/cost have run into major roadblocks for people who don't want it to 'spoil the view' and (ironically) to environmental groups concerned with bird strikes. Ironic since both mining and burning of fossil fuels creates their own major environmental problems, but it's easier to litigate against point-source impacts than diffuse ones.

Often ignored is that a large chunk of energy concerns could be addressed by much better energy efficiency in our homes and buildings (currently ~50% of our energy budget). Unlike cars which have a roughly decade-long lifespan, homes last on average 50 years - commercial buildings slightly longer.
Geothermal (another green energy source) can also help with this.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1123 on: January 20, 2017, 10:12:34 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. The market will decide which technology wins or looses, it always does. I'm just hoping people keep an open mind about all sources of energy.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1124 on: January 20, 2017, 10:16:49 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

I agree, but it's not just limited to solar. Wind turbines, particularly the offshore kind which would produce the most energy/cost have run into major roadblocks for people who don't want it to 'spoil the view' and (ironically) to environmental groups concerned with bird strikes. Ironic since both mining and burning of fossil fuels creates their own major environmental problems, but it's easier to litigate against point-source impacts than diffuse ones.

Often ignored is that a large chunk of energy concerns could be addressed by much better energy efficiency in our homes and buildings (currently ~50% of our energy budget). Unlike cars which have a roughly decade-long lifespan, homes last on average 50 years - commercial buildings slightly longer.
Geothermal (another green energy source) can also help with this.

That's the thing though, solar has the fewest negative externalities out of any of the currently viable technologies, or technologies likely to be viable in the near-term. I mean, hydrogen would be great, but right now it costs more energy to extract than it produces.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1125 on: January 20, 2017, 10:17:38 AM »
Nereo, I agree with you about housing efficiency. One of the issues I see with this is strict building codes. I watched a documentary on the guy that builds earth ships. His biggest issue was being allowed to experiment and actually build his houses because of the building codes. Allowing people more freedom might help get new technology experiments doing on a very local level.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1126 on: January 20, 2017, 10:18:28 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1127 on: January 20, 2017, 10:23:15 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. The market will decide which technology wins or looses, it always does. I'm just hoping people keep an open mind about all sources of energy.

Have to disagree Pooplips, but the market hasn't decided which technology wins or loses in the energy sector. Regulation, subsidies, public sentiment and 'inertia' often skew things.  As examples, several nuclear power stations have gone offline recently before their end-of-service dates(I'm currently doing sub-contract work for one decommissioning).  The broad reason given was that smaller-capacity nuclear plants cost more to operate than other sources, but when you look at the costs it's predominately for storage and safety, both of which are heavily influenced by ornerous regulations (e.g. The promised nuclear repository was never built).
Wind farms are being challenged because they 'ruin the view' in many locales. At the same time there are subsides paid to the oil and gas industries, as well as both federal and state taxes on gasoline. SHift those in either direction and whether driving an EV is a good economical decision changes with it. FInally, there's 'inertia'.  Most homes in New ENgland use heating oil, because the infrastructure was built out first. It's often the MOST expensive option for heating in the region, but the cost to convert older homes is prohibitive. There are a lot of restrictions on wood burning and pellet stoves.

To say the market will decide is completely false.

ETA: to avoid accusations of favoring only 'green' technologies, we currently provide federal subsidies on residential solar, and for buying EVs.  On and on...
The "market" is deciding our choices only after we (often arbitrarily) place incentives or burdens on all different sorts of energies.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 10:28:32 AM by nereo »
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1128 on: January 20, 2017, 10:26:16 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

Apples and oranges though. Fossils are here, we use them, they're cheap and efficient. I get it. I'm talking about research spending. Improving solar cell efficiency and/or bringing down cost is going to have a more significant payback, dollar-for-dollar, than trying to clean up existing dirty tech. Hell, improving battery technology for transportation (even when it's fueled by fossil-electric) is probably a better use of our money.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1129 on: January 20, 2017, 10:32:43 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. The market will decide which technology wins or looses, it always does. I'm just hoping people keep an open mind about all sources of energy.

Have to disagree Pooplips, but the market hasn't decided which technology wins or loses in the energy sector. Regulation, subsidies, public sentiment and 'inertia' often skew things.  As examples, several nuclear power stations have gone offline recently before their end-of-service dates(I'm currently doing sub-contract work for one decommissioning).  The broad reason given was that smaller-capacity nuclear plants cost more to operate than other sources, but when you look at the costs it's predominately for storage and safety, both of which are heavily influenced by ornerous regulations (e.g. The promised nuclear repository was never built).
Wind farms are being challenged because they 'ruin the view' in many locales. At the same time there are subsides paid to the oil and gas industries, as well as both federal and state taxes on gasoline. SHift those in either direction and whether driving an EV is a good economical decision changes with it. FInally, there's 'inertia'.  Most homes in New ENgland use heating oil, because the infrastructure was built out first. It's often the MOST expensive option for heating in the region, but the cost to convert older homes is prohibitive. There are a lot of restrictions on wood burning and pellet stoves.

To say the market will decide is completely false.

ETA: to avoid accusations of favoring only 'green' technologies, we currently provide federal subsidies on residential solar, and for buying EVs.  On and on...
The "market" is deciding our choices only after we (often arbitrarily) place incentives or burdens on all different sorts of energies.

Listen we are on the same side. I agree with what your saying. Sol and I had this discussion months ago. I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

I have to disagree with you though. The market does decided... based on the information available. As taxes, subsidies, regulations, tech, etc. change the market changes.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1130 on: January 20, 2017, 10:35:00 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

Apples and oranges though. Fossils are here, we use them, they're cheap and efficient. I get it. I'm talking about research spending. Improving solar cell efficiency and/or bringing down cost is going to have a more significant payback, dollar-for-dollar, than trying to clean up existing dirty tech. Hell, improving battery technology for transportation (even when it's fueled by fossil-electric) is probably a better use of our money.

Maybe.

We do need to figure out the battery situation though. Lithium mines aren't exactly "clean".

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1131 on: January 20, 2017, 10:37:58 AM »
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1132 on: January 20, 2017, 10:42:06 AM »
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

As long as you don't care about groundwater or earthquakes.

Fracking is a bad idea. It is not fun to see.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1133 on: January 20, 2017, 10:43:58 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.
"There cannot be two skies"

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9343
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1134 on: January 20, 2017, 10:45:27 AM »
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Me, too.

Isn't this the line of thinking that leads supervillains to try to wipe out humanity?

Well, something can be said for thinking outside the box, getting to the root of the problem and taking drastic steps to address the issue.

", he said, glaring out at the world from behind his monocle and sinister mustache while stroking a fluffy white cat.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1135 on: January 20, 2017, 10:52:56 AM »
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

There's an enormous amount of energy available with fracking, but much of it is natural gas which has its own challenges.  We currently don't have the infrastructure to use lots of natural gas (e.g. Few cars are set up, no fueling network) and limited ability to ship it to foreign markets (plus large LNG storage terminals have huge risks associated with them(. Oil of course is extracted too but lately we have a glut of global oil - that will probably flip at some point, and the technology will likely keep a ceiling on future oil prices for a while.

Regarding getting rid of all subsidies how exactly would we accomplish this?  Is the cost of burning coal simply the cost of pulling it from the ground, or do we require it to be burned "cleanly"?  What level of "clean" do we establish (and do we use Carbon Taxes or Trade-and-cap?) Who's responsible for security of our LNG terminals and nuclear waste?  If we say "the companies who own them" what happens when they go out of business?
Is the federal tax on gasoline imposed for our highway fund fair when EVs don't pay into it?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1136 on: January 20, 2017, 10:53:42 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1137 on: January 20, 2017, 11:02:21 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

...yet one of the stated purposes of the subsidies for cleaner technologies is to get people and municipalities to switch.  Its opposite sides of the same coin.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2565
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1138 on: January 20, 2017, 11:03:39 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1139 on: January 20, 2017, 11:07:27 AM »
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

There's an enormous amount of energy available with fracking, but much of it is natural gas which has its own challenges.  We currently don't have the infrastructure to use lots of natural gas (e.g. Few cars are set up, no fueling network) and limited ability to ship it to foreign markets (plus large LNG storage terminals have huge risks associated with them(. Oil of course is extracted too but lately we have a glut of global oil - that will probably flip at some point, and the technology will likely keep a ceiling on future oil prices for a while.

Regarding getting rid of all subsidies how exactly would we accomplish this?  Is the cost of burning coal simply the cost of pulling it from the ground, or do we require it to be burned "cleanly"?  What level of "clean" do we establish (and do we use Carbon Taxes or Trade-and-cap?) Who's responsible for security of our LNG terminals and nuclear waste?  If we say "the companies who own them" what happens when they go out of business?
Is the federal tax on gasoline imposed for our highway fund fair when EVs don't pay into it?

Natural gas does have it's challenges, but everything has challenges. Natural gas is an option in the Trucking industy. Trucks can be cheaply converted to natural gas. The infrastructre will certainly take time to develope but so will any alternative energy source infrastructure.

I partially answered your question in my last post. It's easier to explain with an example.

In the industry I work the EPA sets limits on what we can discharge to the local waterways. As long as we are below that limit everything is great. If we go over we pay heavy fines. We have found ways to lower our discharges further below the limits with some investments and no one wants to hear it. Why spend money when we already meet the limits?

I would like to see a particulate or pollution tax ($/1 ppb or whatever). That way special interests and what not can be kept out of it. If your industy produces pollution you get taxed accordingly with no favoritism. That way you have every incentive to reduce your pollution as it keeps you cometitive in the market against other technology.

I am writing this fast, I haope it makes sense.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5572
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1140 on: January 20, 2017, 11:08:11 AM »
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

Just to be totally clear about this, fossil fuels are only cost competitive because they are so heavily subsidized by the government. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9343
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1141 on: January 20, 2017, 11:09:11 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Maybe the problems have been solved?

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1142 on: January 20, 2017, 11:11:43 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

...yet one of the stated purposes of the subsidies for cleaner technologies is to get people and municipalities to switch.  Its opposite sides of the same coin.

I think it is different because who decides which tech gets the subsidy? Wind? Solar? Fossil Fuels? Some magical energy we don't even know of yet? All of them.

Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

I think doing it the way I descibed creates a level playing field as well as imposes costs on polluting industries.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1143 on: January 20, 2017, 11:33:30 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

...yet one of the stated purposes of the subsidies for cleaner technologies is to get people and municipalities to switch.  Its opposite sides of the same coin.

I think it is different because who decides which tech gets the subsidy? Wind? Solar? Fossil Fuels? Some magical energy we don't even know of yet? All of them.

Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

I think doing it the way I descibed creates a level playing field as well as imposes costs on polluting industries.

I'm not disagreeing with you per-se, but rather saying that it would be functionally near-impossible.

To illustrate, consider this.  You mentioned EPA regulations - but what level do we set the regulations at?  One idea is to look at the existing technology and take what's 'cleanest'* and say that all other sources must meet this level or penalized/taxed up the wazoo.  For wind there's a minor environmental penalty with their construction, plus bird/bat strikes of about 1.6/turbine (location dependent).  No particulates or green-house gases over 3 decades of operation

So - oil/gas/coal would have to not only strip out all particulates, but also somehow recapture all greenhouse gases.  That would make them non-starters, particularly if we eliminated the governmental subsidies already in place. I saw one group try to calculate out the costs and they put gasoline between $12-15/gallon.

To be clear that would be extreme, but where we set the line precisely determines whether a technology is viable or not. Most environmentalists would argue they are already way too leanent.  The GOP thinks they are already way too stringent.

Adding to the complexity is that the effects of pollutants are non-linear.  If we had only one coal fired plant we'd be fine just doing some particulate filtration and calling it a day.  But each one ton of pollutants we add is more costly than the last ton.  That in a nut-shell was the idea behind cap-and-trade.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

SomedayStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
  • Live Long and Prosper
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1144 on: January 20, 2017, 11:35:31 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Fuck.  This is really happening.

OurTown

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1145 on: January 20, 2017, 11:36:20 AM »
Grab America by the pussy and don't let go.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2848
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1146 on: January 20, 2017, 11:36:53 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Thanks for giving an appropriate response to this post on my FB feed:




Blech.  Patriotism: so we can take credit for accomplishments you had no part in, and have an excuse to hate people we never met. (-Carlin I think)
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 11:47:03 AM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5572
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1147 on: January 20, 2017, 11:38:57 AM »
Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

Is my mic on?  I feel like I'm repeating myself.

We already subsidize fossil fuels more than any other energy source except maybe nuclear (just because the long term costs of nuclear are less well known).  The government has been "playing favorites" for over a hundred years on this issue, and the last decade of incrementally increased subsidies to renewable energies are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

When official US foreign policy is driven by access to renewable energy for the next 100 years, I'll consider the scales evened out a little.  Oh, and we'll have to make all of our federal lands available for lease at below-market rates to renewable energy companies.  And we'll have to use imminent domain to acquire property for renewable energy processing and transportation facilities.  And the US Navy will have to protect all of the renewable energy shipping routes.  And renewable energy companies will have to get the same tax breaks that oil and gas companies get for all costs related to research, exploration, production, and equipment amortization.  And whatever negative consequences the renewable energy industry generates will have to be paid for and cleaned up by several new federal agencies with multibillion dollar per year budgets devoted to the renewable energy equivalent of acid mine drainage, retention reservoir failures, fly ash uranium contamination, acid rain, strip mining operations that go bankrupt, black lung disease, increased asthma rates, river and aquifer contamination, mercury contamination of fish, and oh yes let's not forget the slow and inevitable release of greenhouse gas emissions that threaten all life on earth for the next twenty thousand years.

When faced with the trillions of dollars we have spent on subsidizing the oil and gas industry over the past 200 years, we'd be hard pressed to ever give renewables a fair shake.  We could devote half of the federal budget to it for the next decade and totally solve the world's energy crisis, and STILL be way behind what we've spent on subsidizing carbon extraction industries.

So ya'll can just knock it off with the "renewables aren't cost competitive" bullshit.  Renewable have been cheaper than carbon burning since the middle 90s, if you look at the cost to the country instead of the cost to the consumer.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1148 on: January 20, 2017, 11:41:18 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1149 on: January 20, 2017, 11:43:14 AM »

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Just because this is true of you and your peer group does not mean it's true everywhere. And I can't even say what I see is because I'm currently in a liberal state. My former red state, people are thinking about these things and talking and making changes as well. I currently know quite a few people who are carless -- with families! My own family has one car which gets used approximate 1-2 times per week, always with more than one person, and there are three adults/drivers who have use of it. (Me, spouse, brother.) We each, individually, put more miles on our bikes each week than we collectively do for the car.
I could list all the other ways we work at being environmentally friendly (giving up the dryer, turning down the heat, turning off lights and electronics, etc.) and we didn't even need to buy fancy new tech for it! You know, we "gave stuff up" the way you're saying people don't. And it's spreading among my peer group! Yes, my life and those of my family are having an impact on the planet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're trying to minimize that impact.
On the other hand, why should I tell you about these measures? You think it's useless anyway, and are using that as a shield to ignore your own hypocrisy and avoid taking action. Awesome.
I'm thinking that your dander is up because you are one of those people I was talking about. Go ahead and whine that we're screwed anyway. The rest of us will actually be out there trying to make the world a better place because that's worthwhile. Your defeatist attitude? It is not worthwhile, in any way shape or form. Have fun with it, though! "Here lies MetricMouse, who believed we were all screwed anyway and lived his life in a way that ensured it. RIP."