-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wow, see Trumps Climate and Energy Policy just put up on the White House Site
- Thread starter florida2017
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
I wonder how he will both go "all in" on shale and natural gas AND prop up the coal industry. My understanding is the biggest thing killing coal is cheap natural gas.
GoGoGadget
Member
There are so many contradictory statements in Trump's plan... that was difficult to read.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
Oddly, propping up fossil fuels is interventionist policy, which is what conservative minded folks are supposed to be against. I guess the concept of free market is relative to where you stand?? Currently, it appears that the free market is favoring renewable sources over coal.
Haxster
Member
Looks like the earth will be getting the short end from the our "artful negotiator's" apparent deal with the devil.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
"Lastly, our need for energy must go hand-in-hand with responsible stewardship of the environment. Protecting clean air and clean water, conserving our natural habitats, and preserving our natural reserves and resources will remain a high priority. President Trump will refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water."
[My emphasis.]
Last on the list, of course. Lip service.
[My emphasis.]
Last on the list, of course. Lip service.
deonb
Active Member
Read it again. The exact words are:At least it mentioned 'EPA' in context that didn't include dissolution...
"President Trump will refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water."
That's code for - gut everything from the EPA that's not about protecting air and water. In other words, remove climate change from the EPA's charter.
Haxster
Member
Unless it causes any short-term financial stress to his supporters.
Redmiata98
Member
Nothing drastically new here except for the "clean coal technology" support. Nothing wrong with energy independence either.
deonb
Active Member
Yes, nothing new, and nothing he didn't run on.
Still, there is a difference between knowing you're going to hit the iceberg, and actually hitting it.
Sadly I can't seem to find "drill baby drill" in it.
That is essentially what he's going to do.
If you can drill it out, or mine it out he's going to get it.
Take, Take, Take.
That is essentially what he's going to do.
If you can drill it out, or mine it out he's going to get it.
Take, Take, Take.
Fine with me. Climate change never was in the legislation that created the EPA. It was one of Obama's creative interpretations of the laws, stretching them beyond their intent.
All agencies evolve with the times. When the EPA was created, there was no concept of climate change. OK for it to not be in EPA, but dead wrong for it to be nowhere. Dead as in your grandchildren dead. Get serious.
Redmiata98
Member
...and the EPA is part of the Executive Branch not the Legislative. It is up to Congress to legislate additional missions for the EPA, not for them to prempt the Legislative Branch. Support new legislation to task the EPA.
Not sure why you posted this under 'Model S' - there is a section where you can discuss environmental policy, this is not that section.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Not only agencies, but the very foundation of the USA, being the Constitution itself...
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington
I always find it somewhat ironic when Americans argue about the right to bear arms being a Constitutional right. Of course it is, but it's not set in stone. It's an amendment to the Constitution that took effect in 1791. The Constitution was signed in 1787. When George Washington made his State of the Union Address on January 8, 1790 there was no such right. He said:
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."
This is often said to have been the precursor to the amendment. But I'm making no judgment call on the right to bear arms. My point is only that what I admire so much about my neighbour to the south, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, is that it is not held back by religious or any other dogma. In fact, the exact opposite is true: nothing is set in stone. There are no commandments that are fixed in stone. If the Constitution can be changed then all inferior legislation, including EPA legislation, can be changed.
Now back to the EPA...
Similar threads
