Trump Signs Order Undoing Policies Obama's Clean Energy Plan

[paralleluniverse]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/c...te-change.html

The Clean Power Plan is the Obama regulation that caps emissions for coal power plants, it is the primary policy to reach the Paris Accord target. This is what happens when you vote for an anti-intellectual, anti-science hack that believes climate change is a Chinese hoax: he tries to destroy the planet.

And no, coal jobs are not coming back. Cheaper clean energy (thanks Obama) and automation has killed coal mining jobs.

But I'm sure the Trumpsters here can't wait to work in the great coal mines as promised by their God-emperor!

[Deleted]

The earth lost, get over it

[GennGreymane]

Good

We need more coal jobs. That is the biggest growing industry ever.

[melodramocracy]

Let me know when he and his party accomplish anything that isn't a rollback or impediment to our society.

[GennGreymane]

Goddam hippies dont understand that we need coal jobs. No other industry can possibly exist or hire people in the numbers we need.

[Sorshen]

Cartoon villain.

[Shadowferal]

Goddam hippies dont understand that we need coal jobs. No other industry can possibly exist or hire people in the numbers we need.

Trump can't bring back coal jobs; Coal CEO Warns

Trump EO Won't Save Coal Mining Jobs

Robert Murray, founder and chief executive of Murray Energy—the nation's largest privately held coal mining company—told the Guardian that many mining jobs were lost to technology and competition, rather than regulation.

Trump can't really change that, Murray said.
--------------------------

So the problems are technology...(oh my...robots? Close enough. Automation)
Competition; cheaper natural gas, and the boom in solar and wind generation.

[GennGreymane]

Trump can't bring back coal jobs; Coal CEO Warns

Trump EO Won't Save Coal Mining Jobs

Robert Murray, founder and chief executive of Murray Energy—the nation's largest privately held coal mining company—told the Guardian that many mining jobs were lost to technology and competition, rather than regulation.

Trump can't really change that, Murray said.
--------------------------

So the problems are technology...(oh my...robots? Close enough. Automation)
Competition; cheaper natural gas, and the boom in solar and wind generation.

No, fake news! SAD!

[Shadowferal]

No, fake news! SAD!

o...ic

[Deleted]

Good, just because he doesn't believe in leftist propaganda that hasn't even been proven doesn't mean hes anti-science. And even assuming it's all 100% true, I don't think that our taxpayers should pay more for so called "green energy" while the rest of the world keeps polluting. It's a waste of money and doesn't even do anything positive.

[Shadowferal]

Good, just because he doesn't believe in leftist propaganda that hasn't even been proven doesn't mean hes anti-science. And even assuming it's all 100% true, I don't think that our taxpayers should pay more for so called "green energy" while the rest of the world keeps polluting. It's a waste of money and doesn't even do anything positive.

We're not responsible for the rest of the world.
We're only responsible for shitting on our own kitchen table.

[Bodakane]

Good, just because he doesn't believe in leftist propaganda that hasn't even been proven doesn't mean hes anti-science. And even assuming it's all 100% true, I don't think that our taxpayers should pay more for so called "green energy" while the rest of the world keeps polluting. It's a waste of money and doesn't even do anything positive.

Honest question, what evidence would you accept?

[Deleted]

Honest question, what evidence would you accept?

How about peer reviewed evidence that proved human activity is responsible for climate change and it's not natural. I mean yea, they can probably prove the climate is changing but to jump to the conclusion that "it must be CO2" seems dishonest.

Also, they need to prove that even if the US .. and lets assume Canada and EU went 100% green, it would actually change anything considering we can't make China, India, even Russia and a few others stop without starting WW3.

[Acidbaron]

With a sign of a pen he can't undo everything and this bill will like the other be challenged again in the court room.

And so we can see him rage again once more on Twitter on how people not doing his bidding are traitors.

Something like that at least. And while this following reasoning is borderline sadistic, those who don't believe in the change that is coming to our earth based on our influence and vote accordingly locally since it can't be stopped anymore are the areas that's going to be the hit the hardest as they are unprepared for it. It's all a matter of adapting and damage control at this point, you just have to hope that these areas are subject to rising sea levels and natural disasters. As i said sadistic but it's the only universal justice one can hope for at this point, yet sadly it will probably be the children and grand children of said individuals being hit the hardest by it.

- - - Updated - - -

How about peer reviewed evidence that proved human activity is responsible for climate change and it's not natural. I mean yea, they can probably prove the climate is changing but to jump to the conclusion that "it must be CO2" seems dishonest.

Also, they need to prove that even if the US .. and lets assume Canada and EU went 100% green, it would actually change anything considering we can't make China, India, even Russia and a few others stop without starting WW3.

You are aware that China is putting in more effort in green energy for several reason than western nations are, so while this behavior in itself is rather silly to point fingers and say "look at them!", it's never a valid excuse to say why you shouldn't, since a lot of these plans will effect the fauna and flora locally regardless of what the "evil polluting nations" are up to.

[Dug]

How about peer reviewed evidence that proved human activity is responsible for climate change and it's not natural. I mean yea, they can probably prove the climate is changing but to jump to the conclusion that "it must be CO2" seems dishonest.

Right. Feels before reals

[Draco-Onis]

Good, just because he doesn't believe in leftist propaganda that hasn't even been proven doesn't mean hes anti-science. And even assuming it's all 100% true, I don't think that our taxpayers should pay more for so called "green energy" while the rest of the world keeps polluting. It's a waste of money and doesn't even do anything positive.

How do you figure? green energy, natural gas heck even oil are far cheaper, cleaner and efficient than coal. Even if you leave climate change aside what's your logic in defending a dying energy source?

[Dezerte]

The unfortunate thing about the climate is that it affects the whole world, and it's sad to see countries going backwards.

[RampageBW1]

I am going for satire here, so please don't take me too seriously.

It's almost as if Trump climbed up to the highest point he could get to, picked up a megaphone and screamed as loud as he could, "FUCK THE PLANET!"

[Berengil]

The Clean Power Plan is the Obama regulation that caps emissions for coal power plants, it is the primary policy to reach the Paris Accord target. This is what happens when you vote for an anti-intellectual, anti-science hack that believes climate change is a Chinese hoax: he tries to destroy the planet.

Hyperbole much? We can't "destroy the planet". We might make it unpleasant in some ways, lots of animals will go extinct, etc etc etc.

Me? Shts given = zero. 99% of every species that has ever lived is already extinct. The Earth has been far different in climate than it is now for most of its existence, even if you only look at its history since the emergence of life.

Are we affecting the climate? Yes, without question.

Are we a nothing more than a blip on the time scale, geologically speaking? Yes.

Will we one day live this shtbox behind and make our home elsewhere? Yes.

Will some kinds of life thrive the way the environment is heading? Yes.

About 500 million - 1 billion years from now, will this discussion be moot? Yes.

[Bodakane]

How about peer reviewed evidence that proved human activity is responsible for climate change and it's not natural. I mean yea, they can probably prove the climate is changing but to jump to the conclusion that "it must be CO2" seems dishonest.

Also, they need to prove that even if the US .. and lets assume Canada and EU went 100% green, it would actually change anything considering we can't make China, India, even Russia and a few others stop without starting WW3.

That all exists. There is peer reveiwed evidence that shows the climate is getting hotter and peer reviewed evidence that shows it's due in large part to human activity. Have you not seen these papers?