• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump and the Environment

thumb.jpg
 
I am super pissed that these fucking senators snuck Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling into this tax bill. I've been calling and writing my congressional reps and senators since the 1990's to stop that garbage and they sneak it into a tax reform bill.
 
I am super pissed that these fucking senators snuck Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling into this tax bill. I've been calling and writing my congressional reps and senators since the 1990's to stop that garbage and they sneak it into a tax reform bill.

They didn’t sneak it. They announced they did it as a means to buy a vote. #SwampTheDrain #MAGA
 
Notice anything about these countries? We have enough problems with getting away from fossil fuels in the most technologically advanced nation in the world, what do you expect developing countries to do? Fossil fuels are cheap. Developing countries can't afford to waste valuable funds on developing or implementing renewable energy sources that will not provide cheap energy and most importantly, economic growth to their citizens and economy. It is unfortunate, but our longtime reliance of fossil fuels has hamstrung our renewable energy progress and hence, our ability to deploy technology in these situations. In 15-20 years, we would be able to provide the technology to developing nations to pop up a fusion plant or solar farm, but it isn't feasible. That is why I am concerned about Trump, we are poised to continue leading the world in renewable energy development, but Trump is a known climate change denier and is surrounding himself with a like minded cabinet.

Continue leading the world in renewable energy? Maybe in total production because we're a yuge country but by percentage we're way behind even average. And one of the 3 "developing" countries the article mentioned was Australia. We 're not helping them develop, we're making money by building shit we couldn't get away with here, to their detriment.

A couple of things here.

First, fossil fuels are more expensive than renewable energy in a lot of developing countries. Those that are lower on the development spectrum actually have (and some are taking) the opportunity to leapfrog coal and gas directly to renewables. That's especially the case for large wind and solar farms, but the real benefit comes from distributed resources (rooftop solar, etc.) that can be rapidly deployed to rural areas that are growing but don't have electricity. Distributed energy is more expensive, however. It's actually easier to build a grid on renewables than to transition a grid from coal to renewables, due to assets on the books etc.

A lot of these countries are either subsidizing dirty energy because that was the model they initially chose, or China/US/others are willing to fund fossil fuel plants under financing schemes that they already understand. That technology was transferred by private companies and the same can occur with renewables. Tech transfer is actually a key tenant of international low-carbon development, and isn't just about panels and turbines but also computer systems, modeling tools, etc.

We don't lead the world in renewable energy. China does. And the current administration is doing pretty much everything it can to keep it that way.
 
LNG is a viable alternative fuel, especially in Australia where a vast majority of their power is generated by Brown and Black coal.

Australia also has incredibly high solar potential and the highest per-capita rooftop solar capacity in the world. It would be 100% easier and cheaper to reduce FF subsidies and instead incentivize solar in the country.
 
So progressives are going to stick with "not being a CO2 alarmist" = "climate denier" rhetoric, eh? LOL. If progressives can't be honest about the opinions of others, why should anyone believe anything else they say on the topic?

Yes, we are. I know you still stick with the very few scientists who don't believe this to be a global emergency, but it is.
 
If this was posted elsewhere, then all due apologies. Though this article isn't strictly about the environment, it's easy to surmise that's a big driver of this list of forbidden words and terms for the CDC:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...03837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html

If you've used up your Post articles for the month, the words are:
vulnerable
entitled
diversity
transgender
fetus
evidence-based
science-based
 
The CDC should put out the following tweet: "For your information, we are no longer able to use the following words: vulnerable
entitled
diversity
transgender
fetus
evidence-based
science-based

Thank you for sharing in our bewilderment. "
 
After stopping the recovery program for the world's only red wolf population located in NC, Zinke had now put an end to grizzly repopulation in the northwest.
 
It continues to amaze me that we can post these destructive acts every day, but it's nearly impossible to use that tactic for getting anyone to care about environmental/climate protection. Why is that? Do people just not see the destruction in their lives? Do they never consider the larger consequences of environmental destruction?
 
Back
Top