Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 497921 times)

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7509
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1800 on: February 07, 2017, 09:36:09 AM »


It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 

Personally, we may do a road trip to Yellowstone this year.  We also went 2 years ago and the place was absolutely overrun with foreign tourists.  Not complaining...but it was very noticeable from when we went the previous time (about 10 years ago).   It will be interesting to see if there are any differences this year.

We are among those who are considering not going on vacation to the US this year. I hear a lot of people saying the same thing, both IRL and in Norwegian social media. But we are a small nation, not a large part of the statistics. What should worry you more, is that there is a lot of outcry in the academic environments about larger conventions that often are placed in the US. Some, like the psycologists association, have asked their members to boycott already planned conferences. The medical association are considering doing the same. But many more are working to have the next international meetings and conferences located in countries where their colleagues won't be denied access. It is simply becoming too inconvenient to arrange things in a country where you can't know what the rules will be next week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/trump-immigration-ban-a-boon-for-canadian-tech-industry-say-executives/article33818200/

I'm curious to see if I end up in Canada in a year or so.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1801 on: February 07, 2017, 09:36:54 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.
As Walt stated, cheap natural gas has depressed coal, not solar panels.  The major cost for nuclear is the incredible costs for security and the long-term storage of spent rods (I'm currently working on a decommissioning advisory board for two nuclear plants).  Those are largely regulatory burdens put into place to keep i) terrorists from getting the materials to make a 'dirty bomb' as well as ii) ensure the public they won't blow up, a-la-3 mile island. 

The fastest increase among fossil-fuel powered plants is LNG.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

I hear you on solutions being cost-effective and reasonable, but I think your response has a lot of holes in it.  First, it doesn't address the questions of what a 'fair cost' for dirtier technologies should be.  Do we require extremely expensive scrubbers and impost a carbon tax? Do we pay for the disposal of the filters as part of the cost (now concentrated toxic waste)? I'd be fine eliminating all subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines if we also did the same with the fossil fuel industry (oil has been getting the motherload of tax breaks for the past century) as well as include the cost of everything that goes into the air and into our landfills.


Then there's the statement that "solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow."  That's frequently used as an argument why we shouldn't use or expand their usages.  What it ignores is storage capacity, which is one of the fastest growing fields in the energy industry.  Adding to that, wind tends to blow strongest in the evening and at night, while solar is best during the day; the two strategies do a lot towards complimenting each other's weakness. To be clear, I agree with you that fossil fuels can and should have uses for our electricity grid.

If your quotes for providing all your electricity via solar came out to $70k you are using a TON of energy.  Even ignoring all subsidies we priced it out just under $30k, and that was in cold, snowy New England.  I'd start by doing a comprehensive energy audit to figure out where all this electricity us going.

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1802 on: February 07, 2017, 09:48:04 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/

You have to look at the unanticipated consequences of your roadblocks. The roadblock put-up by Obama caused stopped burning, not mining. so our cheapest source of energy  25% cheaper than natural gas 80% cheaper than wind and 90% cheaper than solar (DOE numbers from 2014), yes renewables have gone down some, but the DOE has not quantified it yet.   Was still extracted (albeit at a slower rate) and shipped to mexico and mostly china, were it was sold, and burned and did even more damage to the environment because they have absolutely no controls or EPA. Not to mention the fuels burned in shipping. In the case of mexico so they could generate energy and sell that energy back to Southern California.  Do you think that is really good for clean air and water? Perhaps on a very local basis but that is very short sighted.It is far worse than if Obama had done nothing. The only sensible strategy is to keep it in the ground, all of it. The second best strategy, would be to burn it. Sure we get pollution, but at least we get cheap energy. What you got form Obama's strategy is pollution and expensive energy. the worst of both worlds!

farmecologist

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1803 on: February 07, 2017, 09:55:25 AM »

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/


Cool chart!  However, I'll tell you that many 'flyover states' are starting to produce quite a bit of alternative power ( mostly wind )..and will soon surpass the coastal states.

I'm from SE Minnesota.  Looks like we almost produce as much wind power as California now.  The entire I-90 corridor in the western half of Minnesota is solid wind generation...you can even see it on this chart.  Many more turbines are being added each year.  The grid was also updated recently to increase capacity.

Even 'king coal' North Dakota is adding quite a bit of wind generation.  We have family in central North Dakota and visit every year.  We pass a huge coal power plant there (Coal Creek Station).  This power plant also exports power to Minnesota. When you get close to it...you can tell that the air quality is 'slightly off', etc... BIG polluter.  Even so, most folks in North Dakota are very pro-coal.   And I'm happy to see that wind power is encroaching there as well.  Believe me, if wind can be successful in North Dakota, it can be successful anywhere.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1804 on: February 07, 2017, 10:00:54 AM »
Quote
This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

I chose solar as an example, but it isn't the only source of replacement.  Fossil fuel replacement isn't a one trick pony.  And I like natural gas as a stop gap, and I like nuclear as long as it is smart and well regulated. 

I know solar only works during the day, but they are quickly working on affordable battery storage to compensate for that. 

But I will be happy if coal gets moved to the periphery.  I know it won't, especially in the developing world, but I see that developing the expertise for next gen energy is a smart bet, and better that pouring federal funds into subsidizing old style power sources.

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1805 on: February 07, 2017, 10:01:51 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/

Great graph, but I think it proves HIS point. If you consider all but 5 states flyover states, you may have a point.

The fact of the matter is if you omit hydro (which most people dont consider renewable anymore), only 6% if our energy comes from the renewables, sun and wind. Even if you look at California it is only 15% between sun and wind, and even that fact is deceivingly high because that is only generation, not usage. California buys a huge percentage of its energy from Nevada, Mexico and Canada, I know because I built the 500kv and 230 kv transmission lines to pipe the energy in Also not quantified in this chart is when that energy is generated. Those of us in the industry familiar with the duck curve know that Solar works when the demand is moderate (afternoon) but not when it is most needed (evening) the result of that, and a lack of a suitable means of storage, is that a lot of solar energy sold back to the grid during the mid-day solar spike ends up getting wasted, un-utilized and dissipated as heat over time.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1806 on: February 07, 2017, 10:02:31 AM »

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.

Dead serious.
Read up on the rule. Perhaps a source you trust: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
Even Vox acknowledges the 1,700+pg rule (which is in addition to all the other thousands of pages of regulations) is "almost ludicrously complex".
It was one piece of the Establishment's War on Coal
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Good riddance. Many more to follow.

... you might want to re-read that Vox article. To put the "ludicrously complex" into context, here is the surrounding text:
Quote
And while it’s almost ludicrously complex, updating hundreds of older regulations, it basically puts a couple of key restrictions in place for coal companies seeking permits to expand or start new mines in the future:

    First, a company that wants to open a surface or underground mine needs to avoid causing damage to the “hydrologic balance” of waterways outside of its permit area. The rule goes into excruciating detail on what these definitions mean, but it’s basically a much stricter limit on dumping waste and debris in surrounding ecosystems.
    Second, companies and regulators have to do a baseline assessment of what nearby ecosystems look like before any new mining begins. They then have to monitor affected streams during mining, and the company has to develop a plan for restoring damaged waterways to something close to their natural state after mining is done.

This sounds basic, but the rule-making process involved numerous debates over best how to define “hydrologic balance,” how exactly to monitor waterways, how to deal with the variety of coal industry practices out there, and so on.

Having worked on rule revision processes, I can easily see how the final document would be long, because it would also track the changes in related rules to (hopefully) keep the regulations internally consistent. The baseline that they are asking for in the rule is reasonable and prudent policy. Elsewhere in the article, the economic analysis said that it would cost 124 jobs, within the conext of the industry shedding tens of thousands of jobs. Want to help coal miners? Work on things that will address the actual problem, not allow the very water they drink to become poison for very modest short term economic gain.

IMHO: this is the opposite of winning.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7509
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1807 on: February 07, 2017, 10:14:45 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/

Great graph, but I think it proves HIS point. If you consider all but 5 states flyover states, you may have a point.

The fact of the matter is if you omit hydro (which most people dont consider renewable anymore), only 6% if our energy comes from the renewables, sun and wind. Even if you look at California it is only 15% between sun and wind, and even that fact is deceivingly high because that is only generation, not usage. California buys a huge percentage of its energy from Nevada, Mexico and Canada, I know because I built the 500kv and 230 kv transmission lines to pipe the energy in Also not quantified in this chart is when that energy is generated. Those of us in the industry familiar with the duck curve know that Solar works when the demand is moderate (afternoon) but not when it is most needed (evening) the result of that, and a lack of a suitable means of storage, is that a lot of solar energy sold back to the grid during the mid-day solar spike ends up getting wasted, un-utilized and dissipated as heat over time.

I'm not sure he had a point other than "coal is cheap so we should use it because I'm tired of my money being stolen to pay for better alternatives."

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1808 on: February 07, 2017, 12:30:18 PM »
Excluding hydro from renewables sounds like a very good way to shoot yourself in the foot. Yes, there are environmental drawbacks, but so has all the other energy sources. When the hydro power plant has been built, it can continue producing for centuries without additional damages to the environment. You can't get that from fossil fuels. More than 90% of our electricity is from hydro, and I've never heard a single European voice calling it anything other than renewable, on par with or better than solar/wind. The Germans pay high prices for green certificates from these plants. We have stopped building the large dams, and curtailed the small scale hydro development to ensure we can keep the rest of the waterfalls for tourists. But even improving the old plants is enough to increase the amount of green power we can export.

Hydro is the perfect balancing power for solar and wind. There have even been experiments done where they use surplus wind to pump water back into the reservoir to store the energy.

What about biomass and waste? Do you exploit all this?

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1809 on: February 07, 2017, 12:52:58 PM »
Very little Biomass and waste. its growing but still less than .001%

In the US the environmentalists are call for dams to be torn out because they interfere with salmon migration. Even though all the dams that I know of have Salmon ladders. Hydro is a big deal in Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  Its the reason those three states (if you do consider it a renewable) have been more than 50% renewable for decades. MT, SD, TN, NY have respectable amount of hydro as well, but we pretty much have maxed out capacity. Many of the rivers in the rest of the US don't have enough vertical drop to make hydro worthwhile. There are a few, such as the Platte that may work. and others in northern California that would work if the environmentalists didn't oppose them.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7306
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1810 on: February 07, 2017, 12:58:54 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1811 on: February 07, 2017, 01:51:28 PM »

In the US the environmentalists are call for dams to be torn out because they interfere with salmon migration. Even though all the dams that I know of have Salmon ladders. Hydro is a big deal in Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  Its the reason those three states (if you do consider it a renewable) have been more than 50% renewable for decades. MT, SD, TN, NY have respectable amount of hydro as well, but we pretty much have maxed out capacity. Many of the rivers in the rest of the US don't have enough vertical drop to make hydro worthwhile. There are a few, such as the Platte that may work. and others in northern California that would work if the environmentalists didn't oppose them.

As it so happens my SO works on salmon and dams.  A few points:
Fish ladders don't work nearly as effectively as once though, and dams (even with decent fish ladders) are sizable barriers to salmon migration. As big a problem as they are to upstream migration, there's an additional problem with downstream migration; fish that errantly choose the turbine path get pummeled to bits, ones that go over the spillway often die (falling from great heights and whatnot), which leaves downstream fish-ladders... which many dams don't have and the ones that are only semi-effective.

Also, this isn't just environmentalism for environmentalists sake.  Salmon are important both for the ecosystem and for fisheries.  In California (until very recently) the Salmon fishery was valued at over $4B.  Now it's frequently closed for the entire year. In Puget Sound and BC it's a much bigger (and currently sustainable) fishery, in part because dams there were better constructed and because we use methods other than fish ladders to bypass dams such as active transport (capturing and trucking them above dams and natural barriers).  There's an entire scientific conference every year that's dedicated to nothing but studying and improving fish passage, because its so important and because its still far from optimal.  Ecologically, salmon (and their carcasses) are pretty vital to streams.  Those environments tend to be nutrient-poor, and salmon (+ alewife and others) are a huge transfer of ocean productivity into terrestrial environments.  For example, trees which grow near the river benefit from these nutrients, and you can actually see a "salmon signature" in the wood of trees.  No salmon, less tree growth.

The elephant in the room here though is cost.  In order to be economically competitive, dams need to be very large. Currently Canada has two major hydro projects, one in Quebec's Romaine river, and another one in BC on the Peace River.  Current costs are $13B and $8.3B, respectively. That dwarfs the cost of medium-sized LNG plants, coal plants, wind farms, etc. Only nuclear plants cost more (and there have been no completely new ones built for a generation due to cost, complexity and regulatory burdens. Dam construction takes longer than any other electricity project; the Rivičre Romaine damn will take 15 years assuming it doesn't run over. For a region it also "puts all your eggs in one basket" - a bit risky, especially given that droughts, sediment runoff, natural disasters and additional regulatory burdens (e.g. What you must do if your fish ladder does not operate as planned - a common problem)
 
I'm not saying dams are bad. I'm glad that most of our power here in Quebec comes from hydro, though its far from a 'perfect' technology. There's just a lot more issues at play than people often realize.  Hope this primer was a bit useful.


ETA: Final note: we are moving increasingly to a less centralized system of power generation.  This has positives and negatives, but things like solar and wind turbines and much smaller (yet efficient) LNG plants are allowing small municipalities to generate much of their power. Hydrodams, particularly the very large ones needed to be economical, move in the opposite direction.  This presents challenges with power distribution (new corridors of transmission lines are highly controversial, as they have a large overall footprint and get into NIMBY politics).

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4811
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1812 on: February 07, 2017, 01:57:56 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

HPstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Age: 37
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1813 on: February 07, 2017, 02:01:18 PM »

In the US the environmentalists are call for dams to be torn out because they interfere with salmon migration. Even though all the dams that I know of have Salmon ladders. Hydro is a big deal in Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  Its the reason those three states (if you do consider it a renewable) have been more than 50% renewable for decades. MT, SD, TN, NY have respectable amount of hydro as well, but we pretty much have maxed out capacity. Many of the rivers in the rest of the US don't have enough vertical drop to make hydro worthwhile. There are a few, such as the Platte that may work. and others in northern California that would work if the environmentalists didn't oppose them.

As it so happens my SO works on salmon and dams.  A few points:
Fish ladders don't work nearly as effectively as once though, and dams (even with decent fish ladders) are sizable barriers to salmon migration. As big a problem as they are to upstream migration, there's an additional problem with downstream migration; fish that errantly choose the turbine path get pummeled to bits, ones that go over the spillway often die (falling from great heights and whatnot), which leaves downstream fish-ladders... which many dams don't have and the ones that are only semi-effective.

Also, this isn't just environmentalism for environmentalists sake.  Salmon are important both for the ecosystem and for fisheries.  In California (until very recently) the Salmon fishery was valued at over $4B.  Now it's frequently closed for the entire year. In Puget Sound and BC it's a much bigger (and currently sustainable) fishery, in part because dams there were better constructed and because we use methods other than fish ladders to bypass dams such as active transport (capturing and trucking them above dams and natural barriers).  There's an entire scientific conference every year that's dedicated to nothing but studying and improving fish passage, because its so important and because its still far from optimal.  Ecologically, salmon (and their carcasses) are pretty vital to streams.  Those environments tend to be nutrient-poor, and salmon (+ alewife and others) are a huge transfer of ocean productivity into terrestrial environments.  For example, trees which grow near the river benefit from these nutrients, and you can actually see a "salmon signature" in the wood of trees.  No salmon, less tree growth.

The elephant in the room here though is cost.  In order to be economically competitive, dams need to be very large. Currently Canada has two major hydro projects, one in Quebec's Romaine river, and another one in BC on the Peace River.  Current costs are $13B and $8.3B, respectively. That dwarfs the cost of medium-sized LNG plants, coal plants, wind farms, etc. Only nuclear plants cost more (and there have been no completely new ones built for a generation due to cost, complexity and regulatory burdens. Dam construction takes longer than any other electricity project; the Rivičre Romaine damn will take 15 years assuming it doesn't run over. For a region it also "puts all your eggs in one basket" - a bit risky, especially given that droughts, sediment runoff, natural disasters and additional regulatory burdens (e.g. What you must do if your fish ladder does not operate as planned - a common problem)
 
I'm not saying dams are bad. I'm glad that most of our power here in Quebec comes from hydro, though its far from a 'perfect' technology. There's just a lot more issues at play than people often realize.  Hope this primer was a bit useful.


ETA: Final note: we are moving increasingly to a less centralized system of power generation.  This has positives and negatives, but things like solar and wind turbines and much smaller (yet efficient) LNG plants are allowing small municipalities to generate much of their power. Hydrodams, particularly the very large ones needed to be economical, move in the opposite direction.  This presents challenges with power distribution (new corridors of transmission lines are highly controversial, as they have a large overall footprint and get into NIMBY politics).

There's always the salmon cannon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9qA8c-E_oA

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1814 on: February 07, 2017, 02:08:36 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1815 on: February 07, 2017, 02:13:44 PM »
Quote
There's always the salmon cannon

Yup - I thought about including that but decided someone else was sure to bring it up anyway.  Thanks v8xr7guy!
In all seriousness, the fact that the salmon cannon even exists kinda shows how fish ladders tend to be inadequate. There's both a real economic and ecological need to keep fish habitat. 

Just one of those things that have to be taken into consideration when debating energy sources, like coal's impact on the environment, solar's 'duck curve' or the likelihood that an LNG plant could go "boom".

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7306
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1816 on: February 07, 2017, 02:18:58 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination

Yep. It is literally possible -- maybe even likely -- that she has never been INSIDE a public school.

Malloy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1817 on: February 07, 2017, 02:32:02 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination

Yep. It is literally possible -- maybe even likely -- that she has never been INSIDE a public school.

This one is bad, but not nearly as WTF as Ben Carson being HUD Secretary.  I mean, the dude is clearly smart on many levels and would even be a great candidate for something like Sec of HHS or head of the NIH or Surgeon General under a Republican president.  There is just no logic to him being the HUD pick other than the saddest answer.  Even Trump supporters have to admit that Trump probably picked him because his neurons have forever linked "black" and "urban" and HUD has the word urban in it. 

On the other hand, I think that Ben Carson is a decent human being and will try his level best to do a good job, while Betsy DeVos will instead use her position to try and make things worse.  I mean, she's part of the Amway family and the Blackwater family. Hasn't that family caused enough misery to last a century? I shudder to think of the Amway-ization of public schools.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1818 on: February 07, 2017, 02:39:44 PM »
^^ Privatization of wars, privatization of public schools.
I guess the ethos is the same - why should government be involved when you can contract out?
/sarcasm.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1819 on: February 07, 2017, 03:12:35 PM »
There is a somewhat distinctive irony in not knowing about the job you are about to take when it is secretary of education. I wonder if she will hire a tutor?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7306
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1820 on: February 07, 2017, 03:55:14 PM »
There is a somewhat distinctive irony in not knowing about the job you are about to take when it is secretary of education. I wonder if she will hire a tutor?

Those who can, teach.
Those who can't, become Secretary of Education.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1821 on: February 07, 2017, 04:28:15 PM »

This one is bad, but not nearly as WTF as Ben Carson being HUD Secretary.  I mean, the dude is clearly smart on many levels and would even be a great candidate for something like Sec of HHS or head of the NIH or Surgeon General under a Republican president.  There is just no logic to him being the HUD pick other than the saddest answer.  Even Trump supporters have to admit that Trump probably picked him because his neurons have forever linked "black" and "urban" and HUD has the word urban in it. 

On the other hand, I think that Ben Carson is a decent human being and will try his level best to do a good job, while Betsy DeVos will instead use her position to try and make things worse.  I mean, she's part of the Amway family and the Blackwater family. Hasn't that family caused enough misery to last a century? I shudder to think of the Amway-ization of public schools.

Agreed.  Carson's appointment to HUD seems like nothing but a kickback for loyalty to me.  Neither Carson nor DeVos have any experience either in government or in the fields they are suddenly in charge of (though Carson presumably will do his best while DeVos apparently wants to tear apart public education).


I just have this skit in my head where Betsy DeVos came in to interview for the position

EdDept:  So Mrs. DeVos.  You're here to interview for a position within the education department. We have many listed on our website, so which positions do you think you are best fitted for?

DeVos: No, I'm interviewing to RUN the education department


EdDept: Oh - well we do have an opening in our top spot, and this it is an open hire, so let's start. What experience do you have with our country's public education system?

DeVos: none whatsoever. 

EdDept: okaaay.  Well where did you go to school?  Any of our fine public institutions?

DeVos; god no.  I went to a private christian high school and then Calvin College, another fine Christian school.  Both very excellent schools, both very expensive, very exclusive.

EdDept. I see.  Well with our public schools we aim to provide education to everyone.  And we can't mix religious teaching with our secular curriculum.

DeVos: oh, I see.  Well I have some wonderful ideas on how we can get around those restrictions.

EdDept: Um..yeah.  Well we don't see them so much as restrictions as our 'guiding principles'.  But let's move on.  What suggestions do you have for improving our public education system?  Let's start with k-12.

DeVos:  I'm glad you asked.  I think the best thing we can do is allow for more children NOT to be in it.

EdDept: So your solution is fewer students, with more money for the ones that remain?  that could work, only how will you -

DeVos: Not exactly.  It isn't fair to make families who aren't using the public school system to pay for it, so I want to start a voucher program where we take money AND students away from the public system and funnel it towards special "charter" schools.

EdDept:  I see.  Leaving less for everyone left behind.

DeVos: Best of all it gets around all those pesky rules of not including Jesus in the classroom! Parents can send their children to religious institutions and get money from the public school system to help offset the cost!  Everyone wins

EdDept: except for those who choose to remain in the public education system

DeVos: Right, but they will have the choice to leave too.  Maybe someday we won't need public schools at all.

EdDept.  Interesting that you followed that logic.  Tell me then, what role should the federal government play in education?

DeVos: My personal motto is: "the less, the better!"


EdDept: And yet you are applying to lead the Department of Education.  Interesting.  Well thanks for coming in, we'll be in contact.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Guest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1822 on: February 07, 2017, 08:43:15 PM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/

"Anything" is a rather strong word to use. Here is Tyler Cowen on this issue:

Quote
Now, I know how this works.  Many of you probably are thinking that we need to do whatever is possible to attack or shrink the coal industry, because of climate change.  Maybe so!  Maybe we want to stultify the coal companies, for reason of a greater global benefit.  But a) there is still a role for evaluating individual policy changes by partial equilibrium methods and reporting on those results accurately, and b) “putting down the coal companies,” as you might a budgie, is not what the law says is the proper goal of policy.

Imagine holding an attitude that places the Trump administration as the actual defenders of the rule of law!

...

On a more practical political level, Trump wishes to send a signal to Appalachian voters that he is looking out for coal and looking out for them.  This is actually a very weak action, and it was chosen because for procedural reasons it was quite easy to do.  The more you complain about it, the stronger it looks, and that’s probably a more important fact than any of the particular details of this study.  Whether you like it or not, the coal debate is not really one that favors the Democrats.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/02/wants-coal-company-pollution-water-streams.html

I understand the downsides to coal but Braziling it to death is foolish for the reasons given above. It's the same strategy used by pro-lifers to keep abortion technically legal but practically inaccessible in some states.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5652
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1823 on: February 07, 2017, 09:16:43 PM »
Cut all the regs on coal you want. It doesn't mean anything. There is a basically inexhaustible (in the medium term) supply of cheap natural gas that will strangle it faster than anything else, and has been for the better part of a decade.

Now, if you want to extract coal to sell it abroad, it's no longer benefitting Americans nearly as much. As such, you better do a damn good job making sure you don't f things up for our local environment just because you want to sell it to China.

-W

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4811
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1824 on: February 07, 2017, 10:11:19 PM »
Again, it's shocking how fast we have gone from 'Make America Great by reinvigorating US Coal' to 'holy crap, we should subsidize our coal industry in order to make a buck to supply China'.  WTF happened to our great nation, seemingly overnight?  We are better than this!  Why is it that every other country knows that we are better than this, but we have loud stupid people telling us that we aren't?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1825 on: February 07, 2017, 11:38:11 PM »

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.

Dead serious.
Read up on the rule. Perhaps a source you trust: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
Even Vox acknowledges the 1,700+pg rule (which is in addition to all the other thousands of pages of regulations) is "almost ludicrously complex".
It was one piece of the Establishment's War on Coal
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Good riddance. Many more to follow.
why on earth would you think that vox would be a source I would trust over others?
I wouldn't characterize myself as a bleeding-edge liberal.

As for the 'ludicrously complex' regulations surroudning coal, I think it's inherent in an implicit strategy to limit the amount of coal we mine.
I agree we could make this less complex overall, but then we run into the question about what the fair cost for coal should be; is it merely the cost of pulling it out of the ground, or do we incorporate the wide range of health risks to both humans and the planet that it creates?
Since carbon-taxes and cap-and-trade regulation have largely stalled, what would you propose?

If we are going to remove overly ornerous regulation (which I support doing) I believe we need to have some sensible regulations to replace it with. 
Striking down regulations and then saying "well, we'll come up with something better down the line as problems arise" is a really dumb strategy IMO.
Why in the world would overly-burdensome regulations have to be 'replaced with something'? If the plan is bad, it's bad. This stream rule was bad. It was designed for one specific type of coal mining, and then applied to coal operations in entirely different environments in which is served zero purpose except to make things more expensive.  Jesus, it's not the 70's anymore - coal has come a long way, and is still improving. It's still very much needed until renewable technology is feasible and cost efficient to take over our energy needs.

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Yes, raising energy prices in some of the poorest communities across the country would be a direct problem from shutting down coal before technology catches up. Of course, this is not a problem for some people.

And clearly some people are quite uniformed on reclamation work, current and proposed EPA standards, clean air standards (some of the cleanest air reports from the EPA come from counties with coal-fired power plants) or the exciting progress in energy generation (such as the Allam Cycle) that will allow coal to play a part in domestic energy portfolio for a long time.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 11:45:13 PM by Metric Mouse »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1826 on: February 07, 2017, 11:40:08 PM »
There is so much misinformation in this thread I'm not even sure where to start.

Please, people, don't believe everything you read on the forums.  If something looks suspect to you, go do your research and decide for yourself.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1827 on: February 07, 2017, 11:45:53 PM »
Back on topic...

Today's potential impact of a Trump Presidency:  In 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear two groundbreaking new environmental cases, one about whether or not the Clean Water Act applies to tributaries or just to the main stem of rivers and the other about whether or not the Clean Power Plan applies to all pollutants or just the ones with immediate human health impacts.

The Clean Water Act and the Clean Power Plan are both enforced by the EPA.  The plaintiff in both cases is former Oklahoma Attorney General (and current climate change denier) Scott Pruitt, who is the new head the EPA. 

So the Supreme Court is going to hear two landmark  environmental law cases in which Scott Pruitt will be responsible for defending the US government from the lawsuits that he himself originated. 

Trump has already promised to repeal the Clean Power Plan and to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act ("burdensome regulations" you know), but for now these are still US law that he cannot just unilaterally overturn as President, despite what he thinks.  The Supreme Court provides him with a potential shortcut around Congress to overturning these laws, and since he now owns both the plaintiff and the defendant in these cases, he apparently gets to decide which side is going to fail to show up for court that day. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1828 on: February 08, 2017, 12:11:39 AM »
Cut all the regs on coal you want. It doesn't mean anything. There is a basically inexhaustible (in the medium term) supply of cheap natural gas that will strangle it faster than anything else, and has been for the better part of a decade.

Now, if you want to extract coal to sell it abroad, it's no longer benefitting Americans nearly as much. As such, you better do a damn good job making sure you don't f things up for our local environment just because you want to sell it to China.

-W
Correct. As long as fracking is not litigated out of existence, nat. gas will kill coal (and possibly slow the growth of development of many other forms of energy production) as humanely as possible, without any worry of destabilizing the energy grid. It'll be exciting to see the infrastructure projects that evolve from this.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1829 on: February 08, 2017, 12:13:30 AM »
Back on topic...

Today's potential impact of a Trump Presidency:  In 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear two groundbreaking new environmental cases, one about whether or not the Clean Water Act applies to tributaries or just to the main stem of rivers and the other about whether or not the Clean Power Plan applies to all pollutants or just the ones with immediate human health impacts.

The Clean Water Act and the Clean Power Plan are both enforced by the EPA.  The plaintiff in both cases is former Oklahoma Attorney General (and current climate change denier) Scott Pruitt, who is the new head the EPA. 

So the Supreme Court is going to hear two landmark  environmental law cases in which Scott Pruitt will be responsible for defending the US government from the lawsuits that he himself originated. 

Trump has already promised to repeal the Clean Power Plan and to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act ("burdensome regulations" you know), but for now these are still US law that he cannot just unilaterally overturn as President, despite what he thinks.  The Supreme Court provides him with a potential shortcut around Congress to overturning these laws, and since he now owns both the plaintiff and the defendant in these cases, he apparently gets to decide which side is going to fail to show up for court that day.

Yikes...

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4811
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1830 on: February 08, 2017, 05:38:25 AM »
It's almost impossible to keep up.  You do know that tax reform is going to kill the estate tax too?  So folks like Trump and DeVos can be dynastic with their wealth.  Ugh.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1831 on: February 08, 2017, 06:29:20 AM »
Trump has already promised to .... to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act
really? source?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1832 on: February 08, 2017, 07:03:51 AM »
Trump has already promised to .... to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act
really? source?

Trump has vowed to slash funding for the EPA as well as curtail enforcement of its regulation
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-vows-to-slash-funding-for-education-epa-1452551107

As Sol already pointed out above, he hired the attorney who was suing the EPA over Clean Power Plan which regulates discharges into tributaries among numerous other things.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-vows-to-slash-funding-for-education-epa-1452551107

In his 2015 interview with Chris Wallace Trump called talked about the need for eliminating more environmental regulation:
Quote
TRUMP: Environmental protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations. They're making it impossible...
WALLACE: Who's going to protect the environment?
TRUMP: -- they -- we'll be fine with the environment. We can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/18/full_replay_and_transcript_donald_trump_with_fncs_chris_wallace.html
Trump has also spoken of eliminating the EPA entirey as an "aspirational goal" that would best be achieved by incremental demolation rather than an executive order. 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-plans-to-abolish-environmental-protection-agency

I'm not sure how much clearer this could be - DJT has actively campaigned on curtailing EPA regulations and seeks to dismantle it entirely, and has put in charge its biggest legal foe

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1833 on: February 08, 2017, 07:42:21 AM »
Trump has already promised to .... to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act
really? source?

Trump has vowed to slash funding for the EPA as well as curtail enforcement of its regulation

As Sol already pointed out above, he hired the attorney who was suing the EPA over Clean Power Plan which regulates discharges into tributaries among numerous other things.

I'm not sure how much clearer this could be - DJT has actively campaigned on curtailing EPA regulations and seeks to dismantle it entirely, and has put in charge its biggest legal foe
No argument.
Still looking for the "promise to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act".

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1834 on: February 08, 2017, 07:49:59 AM »
Trump has already promised to .... to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act
really? source?

Trump has vowed to slash funding for the EPA as well as curtail enforcement of its regulation

As Sol already pointed out above, he hired the attorney who was suing the EPA over Clean Power Plan which regulates discharges into tributaries among numerous other things.

I'm not sure how much clearer this could be - DJT has actively campaigned on curtailing EPA regulations and seeks to dismantle it entirely, and has put in charge its biggest legal foe
No argument.
Still looking for the "promise to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act".
Now you are just being pedantic. Vowing to eliminate EPA regulations (which include the CWA), having an aspirational goal of eliminating it entirely, and nominating the very person to lead the EPA who has sued over the CWA all adds up to the same thing. DJT's statements have been pretty clear (cited in part above) and his actions have backed up his statements.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3311
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1835 on: February 08, 2017, 08:04:06 AM »
I've come to realize that Trump is a symptom of our privately funded two party system. Even if you voted for him, I imagine you don't like the fact that congressional action correlates with the wishes of donors and not constituents. Fixing the system would hopefully fix this phenomenon.

As such, I'm focusing on ways to fix the system.  Here's something you can do right now.  Read my post about House Resolution 48 - check out the link to the text of the bill, and if you like what it says, follow my lead and contact your rep. So far, it's all dems and one republican sponsoring this bill. If we tell our reps to support it, maybe we can get bi-partisan support.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/house-res-48-stop-corp-personhood-trump's-a-symptom-let's-fix-the-system

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1836 on: February 08, 2017, 08:08:49 AM »
I believe long term unemployment will skyrocket in the coming decades due to automation. Think about never needing a human driver again within 20 years. To that end, I believe "full employment", currently stated to be 5%, will jump to be 40-50%, while the country will still prosper. I have long wondered what we will do with all those people "doing nothing", and have even halfheartedly joked that we could have half of them dig a hole, and then have the other half fill it up the next day. No net benefit, but everyone "working".

I now believe that the border wall idea, on the wrong side of the country, no less, (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz), will eventually be realized as my dig-a-hole theory, only you fill it up first, wait until the wall deteriorates, and then remove it instead of paying to maintain it. It is really the exact same thing.


Thoughts?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4928
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1837 on: February 08, 2017, 08:40:34 AM »
I've come to realize that Trump is a symptom of our privately funded two party system. Even if you voted for him, I imagine you don't like the fact that congressional action correlates with the wishes of donors and not constituents. Fixing the system would hopefully fix this phenomenon.

As such, I'm focusing on ways to fix the system.  Here's something you can do right now.  Read my post about House Resolution 48 - check out the link to the text of the bill, and if you like what it says, follow my lead and contact your rep. So far, it's all dems and one republican sponsoring this bill. If we tell our reps to support it, maybe we can get bi-partisan support.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/house-res-48-stop-corp-personhood-trump's-a-symptom-let's-fix-the-system
ROFL

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1838 on: February 08, 2017, 09:09:50 AM »
I believe long term unemployment will skyrocket in the coming decades due to automation. Think about never needing a human driver again within 20 years. To that end, I believe "full employment", currently stated to be 5%, will jump to be 40-50%, while the country will still prosper.
...
Thoughts?

Are you familiar with Keynes' 15 hour work week?
In summary, John Kaynes predicted in 1930 that increasing automation and productivity gains would reduce our necessary work week down to ~15 hours, and we would have the same quality of life.  In one way he was right; productivity and autonomy did mean huge economic gains, but people continued to work 40+ hours, mostly because we've all increased our consumption to match (2.5x larger houses, fancy cars, eating out, etc). Much of the jobs lost in factories were offset by gains in the service industry - the 'average' person pays other people to do many of the things we used to do ourselves. 

It's likely that automation and productivity gains will continue, but this doesn't mean people will work less or have less to do. In a very real way this has been the way our country has been progressing for the last 150+ years; ever increasing specialization.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1839 on: February 08, 2017, 09:44:53 AM »
Now you are just being pedantic.
No, I asked for source of a very specific claim. None has been forthcoming. The claim smells like misinformation.

Back on the general topic of realistic impacts of the Trump presidency: He has turned conventional communication on it's head.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/312146-how-trump-changed-the-political-communication

Trump's methods are reminiscent of WJ Bryan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan_presidential_campaign,_1896

I am curious if this will be a 'communication expectations reset moment' - i.e. future candidates will be expected to twit, etc.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1840 on: February 08, 2017, 09:51:56 AM »
Quote
I now believe that the border wall idea, on the wrong side of the country, no less, (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz), will eventually be realized as my dig-a-hole theory, only you fill it up first, wait until the wall deteriorates, and then remove it instead of paying to maintain it. It is really the exact same thing.

Don't forget wars.  The best damn jobs programs ever.  Trust me, they never really want people to stop working, because work is become less about providing value, and more about social and economic control. 

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8723
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1841 on: February 08, 2017, 10:04:25 AM »
Now you are just being pedantic.
No, I asked for source of a very specific claim. None has been forthcoming. The claim smells like misinformation.

Here is a White House statement saying that "President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule" -

https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy

The "Waters of the US rule" appears to also be known as the "Clean Waters rule", presumably because it was made under the Clean Waters Act -
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/315339-us-supreme-courts-waters-of-the-us-gift-to-the-trump
https://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule

Possibly the problem with finding definitive information about it is because the White House required the EPA not to announce it, and the White House Press Office only confirmed it after a leak -
http://anewdomain.net/trump-gags-epa-dump-clean-water-rule-for-113-americans/

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6693
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1842 on: February 08, 2017, 10:43:49 AM »
The fact of the matter is if you omit hydro (which most people dont consider renewable anymore), only 6% if our energy comes from the renewables, sun and wind. Even if you look at California it is only 15% between sun and wind, and even that fact is deceivingly high because that is only generation, not usage. California buys a huge percentage of its energy from Nevada, Mexico and Canada, I know because I built the 500kv and 230 kv transmission lines to pipe the energy in Also not quantified in this chart is when that energy is generated. Those of us in the industry familiar with the duck curve know that Solar works when the demand is moderate (afternoon) but not when it is most needed (evening) the result of that, and a lack of a suitable means of storage, is that a lot of solar energy sold back to the grid during the mid-day solar spike ends up getting wasted, un-utilized and dissipated as heat over time.

I too priced out a system big enough to get us off of the grid almost entirely (power neutral, still grid-tied) and we were looking at $25K or so - and that was full retail, not even bargain hunting.

http://www.backwoodssolar.com/

Excess grid power can be used in some creative ways that seldom get discussed in these debates such as pumped-hydro storage. Use the excess power to pump water on top of a mtn and then let it fall back to a lake in a valley in times of electrical need.

Then there are the stationary battery designs which can last decades and still be recyclable. Nickel-Iron comes to mind - they can last 50+ years. So does some of the NiMH batteries that were used in EVs until GM/Chevron/Cobrasys patent encumbrance. Some of those batteries were very long lived and well suited to different uses such as solar and wind electrical storage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1843 on: February 08, 2017, 10:45:45 AM »
Now you are just being pedantic.
No, I asked for source of a very specific claim. None has been forthcoming. The claim smells like misinformation.


Acroy- with Former Player's addition to the dialog, including this from the WH's energy plan -
Quote
For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
and
Quote
Then, in a move it ordered the EPA to keep confidential, it killed the Clean Water Rule. After a leak, Pres. Donald Trump’s press secretary confirmed the move.
do you concur that DJT is actually attacking the EPA's CWR and in general seeking to reduce the environmental regulations surrounding US rivers and tributaries?

Adding to the dialog, DJT also froze all new grants, work assignments and grants for the EPA.  This effectively (if only temporarily) cuts the ability of the EPA to monitor and enforce its own regulations.  Its akin to saying "Highway speed limits will remain in effect, but we're removing all police enforcement of speeding for the time being"

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6693
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1844 on: February 08, 2017, 11:52:41 AM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination

From Wikipedia:

"DeVos is married to Dick DeVos, the former CEO of multi-level marketing company Amway, and is the daughter-in-law of billionaire and Amway co-founder Richard DeVos. Her brother, Erik Prince, a former U.S. Navy SEAL officer, is the founder of Blackwater USA. DeVos is the daughter of Edgar Prince, founder of the Prince Corporation and owner of the Orlando Magic."

"...in response to Senator Maggie Hassan's questions, that she had nothing to do with the contributions made by her mother’s foundation to anti-gay rights groups including Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. The Council has also lobbied against preventative health care programs, such as "needle exchanges."

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17472
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1845 on: February 08, 2017, 02:42:25 PM »
For those wondering whether DJT would indeed separate his family's business aspects with the presidency, these two incidents are cause for concern:
1) DOD is inquiring about renting out a floor of Trump Tower at an estimated cost of $1.5MM/year
2) Trump uses twitter to lash out at Nordstoms for dropping daughter Ivanka's clothing line

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
  • Location: Southern California
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1846 on: February 08, 2017, 05:39:25 PM »
^Coupled with his wife suing a paper.....this is quite the first family. I'm amazed. Our conservatives.....please dig Jeb or Cruz out of the dustbin and dust him off as a threat come 2020. This is horrible. Making Bush look like an effing statesman here.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1847 on: February 08, 2017, 07:49:03 PM »
Its fucking Trump of course he is going to cash in on being President. His only asset is his brand and nothing could make him more famous than being the reality star that became a President. There is literally nothing anyone can do to stop him from making money off of this deal. I will literally puke in my mouth if someone bitches about the Clinton's and their foundation again. Keeping track of Trump and his families potential profiteering and pay for play is an absolute cluster fuck by comparison.

As for good old Betsy. I would imagine, with my limited understanding of the scoop of Federal Educational department, that the worst should could do is divert all federal funding away from public schools or get the department shut down all together.

I believe the net effect of this would simply be to crush poor public schools that can't get enough funding locally and rely on federal funding to keep afloat. Which means poorer states, and poorer school districts will see schools go away and consolidate. While school districts in wealthy districts or reasonably well off areas will go more or less untouched since they get plenty of local funding.

Maybe if that happens enough of the lower middle class base will wake up and not vote for the clowns that put here that position again.

I understand the sentiment behind wanting to argue for privatizing schools and avoiding federal intervention in state education but the Republican solutions in that direction rarely seem to try to adapt to reality and will go right ahead and rip the rug out from under the poorest Americans who rely on the current federal funding system.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Guest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1848 on: February 08, 2017, 09:58:57 PM »
I believe long term unemployment will skyrocket in the coming decades due to automation. Think about never needing a human driver again within 20 years. To that end, I believe "full employment", currently stated to be 5%, will jump to be 40-50%, while the country will still prosper.
...
Thoughts?

Are you familiar with Keynes' 15 hour work week?
In summary, John Kaynes predicted in 1930 that increasing automation and productivity gains would reduce our necessary work week down to ~15 hours, and we would have the same quality of life.  In one way he was right; productivity and autonomy did mean huge economic gains, but people continued to work 40+ hours, mostly because we've all increased our consumption to match (2.5x larger houses, fancy cars, eating out, etc). Much of the jobs lost in factories were offset by gains in the service industry - the 'average' person pays other people to do many of the things we used to do ourselves. 

It's likely that automation and productivity gains will continue, but this doesn't mean people will work less or have less to do. In a very real way this has been the way our country has been progressing for the last 150+ years; ever increasing specialization.

There is an argument that this time is different. Prior technological innovation automated only highly routine physical work, which left non-routine and cognitive-based jobs for people.

In narrow domains, the ascendancy of AI can be quick--and the rate at which systems improve is also getting faster (time taken from project initiation to better than best human players: Chess -- Deep Blue -- 12 years, Jeopardy -- Watson -- 6 years, AlphaGo -- Go -- 3 years). Recently, deep learning has taken image recognition and translation between many language pairs up to parity with human performance or better. The problem of driving is also being solved. Rather than being merely fun and games, these are increasingly the sorts of domains in which people are employed. If machines are stronger and computers/algorithms smarter, that doesn't leave much behind for low-skilled people.

Naturally, there will be adjustments made along the way as people reorient their efforts to other tasks. But the rate of dislocation due to technological progress will only increase and the impacts broaden--and it's hard for people, who might successfully accommodate such shifts on the timescale of decades or generations, adjust adequately when the disruptive technologies emerge and dominate within several years.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 10:00:40 PM by lost_in_the_endless_aisle »

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1849 on: February 09, 2017, 07:47:51 AM »
I believe long term unemployment will skyrocket in the coming decades due to automation. Think about never needing a human driver again within 20 years. To that end, I believe "full employment", currently stated to be 5%, will jump to be 40-50%, while the country will still prosper.
...
Thoughts?

Are you familiar with Keynes' 15 hour work week?
In summary, John Kaynes predicted in 1930 that increasing automation and productivity gains would reduce our necessary work week down to ~15 hours, and we would have the same quality of life.  In one way he was right; productivity and autonomy did mean huge economic gains, but people continued to work 40+ hours, mostly because we've all increased our consumption to match (2.5x larger houses, fancy cars, eating out, etc). Much of the jobs lost in factories were offset by gains in the service industry - the 'average' person pays other people to do many of the things we used to do ourselves. 

It's likely that automation and productivity gains will continue, but this doesn't mean people will work less or have less to do. In a very real way this has been the way our country has been progressing for the last 150+ years; ever increasing specialization.

But it DID reduce the NECESSARY work week, as measured by the amount of time spent maintaining the household.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/16/keynes-15-hour-work-week-is-here-right-now/#28ec4c19767e

Where Kaynes was off in his theory is what people then would do with that "extra time". Instead of taking it as leisure, it was exchanged for a higher standard of living, 8x higher as measured by the article (greed, not always bad). More-so in the US than in other countries.

While this desire to seek a higher standard of living will still exist, I believe it will reach a point of diminishing returns. It already has for 1 small, but increasing group of people, those of us on this thread.

We already see large swaths of the population uncounted or under-counted in the unemployment numbers. Those no longer looking, or those working part time for example.

I do believe that as technology makes people more productive, they will begin to see that trying for that higher standard of living will no longer be the payback it used to be. That will result in using that "extra" time for leisure.

Where "it is different this time" is that the standard of living will reach a point that more and more people will say enough.

It is kind of like Microsoft word upgrades. It reached a point where "different" was no longer better, and what people had was good enough. They no longer needed the added features, as the new features did not add enough significance to justify the cost. Now you can have google docs for free, and it is "good enough". Does anybody really believe there will be long lines waiting for the Apple 15 phone? Oh, but now I can get a watch that I can charge EVERYDAY. How great is that?

I also agree with Nero that the KIND of work about to be replaced will be an added game changer.

Interesting times.