Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Wow, see Trumps Climate and Energy Policy just put up on the White House Site

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Nothing wrong with energy independence either.

Except that is impossible. If we burn only oil from the US, we run out before the rest of the world does (last time I did the math it was 3 years). At that point we are dependent on people who don't like us, and would love to screw us over oil that they have, that we don't. How much will the oil we use to wage war on the middle east cost, when we have to buy it from the middle east?

Thank you kindly.
 
Read it again. The exact words are:

"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.

As many have mentioned, climate change was never in the legislation. Regardless of what you think of the topic, the lesson here is to pass LAWS to create the government you want. It was a huge oversight to find ourselves in this situation where so many of the governments actions are controlled by the executive branch.

How did that come about? Each successive administration twisted the existing powers granted to add new powers and regulations.

If you feel strongly that greenhouse gases and climate change should be addressed by the federal government, vote for representatives that will make those into laws and (where required) amendments. Bitching about the whims of a president should be the clearest indication that we have lost sight of how this system works.
 
Opinion: n. a view or judgment formed about something.

Pointless and off-topic post from a liberal whining about the 2nd amendment where he doesn't belong, so Canuck can keep his "facts" to himself if you want to be pedantic about it.


Most of @Canuck's post was factual, not opinion. Except for the part about admiring the Constitution.

Interesting response.
 
Opinion: n. a view or judgment formed about something.

Pointless and off-topic post from a liberal whining about the 2nd amendment where he doesn't belong, so Canuck can keep his "facts" to himself if you want to be pedantic about it.
Oddly, many Canadians actually know legislative history of US Constitutional amendments pretty well. Oddly, A. Scalia ignored that history when he wrote that famous ruling. This is neither liberal nor conservative. It is about US Constitutional law. The current reigning view flatly ignored the history and textual context in 1791, as well as the United States v Cruikshank (1876). What has happened during the last decade is that the impact of massive commercial interests and political advocacy of anarchical rules brought about dismantling of the Second Amendment principles that endured from 1791 until 2008. Those are facts, which can be proven by reading source documents rather than news coverage, fake or true.
 
As many have mentioned, climate change was never in the legislation.. .
"The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national pol- icy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony be- tween man and his environment; to promote efforts which will pre- vent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare or man; to enrich the under- standing of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation"
http://www.epw.senate.gov/nepa69.pdf
It might help to actually read the enabling Act. The precise words "climate change" or "global warming" were not used in 1969 because the world did not yet understand the temporal consequences of the pollution and other environmental damages that man was causing. The preamble I quoted above makes it clear and obvious that the intent of President Nixon and the legislators was to "...promote efforts which will pre- vent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare or man...".
Were the scientific evidence to have been available in 1969 it would surely have been included. By no means did any President expand the original intent that led to then EPA by centering attention to greenhouse gasses, among other things.

It really is irritating to,loisten to people express opinions taht are not supported by direct evidence, especially related to legislation when statements of purpose and intent are so readily available.

Of course, back in 1969 even public schools taught science and the US deeply believed in scientific progress. It's sad to see such decline into pseudo-religious views rejecting science, whether that leads to the perversion of jihad or the unfounded assertion that climate science is "unsettled".

I do not want to rant. I do think everything from education policy to EPA to health policy suffers from scientific ignorance.

For the record: unlike several Cabinet nominees who are about my age I remember the National Defense Education Act without which I could not have afforded higher education. I also remember other Federal and State Scientific grants that gave me nearly a complete funding of Bachelor, Master and Doctoral studies in Physics. I never would have made it without that help. Now it is all at risk, including primary education standards. Bizarrely I attended a public high school in rural Michigan, and grew to love science there. In Betsy DeVos's Michigan that would be impossible. My old high school is a 'disaster' now that Michigan has accepted the DeVos principles and getting worse.

There is no way around it. Tesla will probably continue to do well, but the new administration hates the very idea of sustainability or scientific integrity, so it will not be easy.
 
It's sad to see such decline into pseudo-religious views rejecting science, whether that leads to the perversion of jihad or the unfounded assertion that climate science is "unsettled".

I couldn't agree more... the nonsense from conservatives is IMO more dangerous but there's a lot of nonsense from the 'left' too. Trump appears to have tapped into both. Andrew Wakefield was at the inaugural ball....

Science is Science.... GMOs and Vaccines are safe. Climate change is real. I feel like we're sliding into a second dark ages.... at least in the US.

~10% of us are landing rockets on barges and discovering gravitational waves... the other 90% is obsessed with chemtrails, franken foods and climate change conspiracies.....
 
As many have mentioned, climate change was never in the legislation. Regardless of what you think of the topic, the lesson here is to pass LAWS to create the government you want. It was a huge oversight to find ourselves in this situation where so many of the governments actions are controlled by the executive branch.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I'm just saying to all of those who said "at least Trump mentioned the EPA" - the mention was specifically for the purpose of gutting the EPA to where he thinks it should be.

It's not about preserving, expanding, supporting or leaving the EPA alone - the statement is about gutting it. It's just phrased as polispeak.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RichardC
Personally I have gone back and forth on climate change. So much info and misinformation to wade through. But I do find it ironic , it seems every time there is a climate gathering lately they get frozen out.
Latest example:
Below-freezing temperatures arrive with opening night film 'An Inconvenient Sequel'
Maybe God is putting his 2 cents in.
Oh, I love my model S!
Now I feel apart of the model S thread :)
Just clearly demonstrates many don't understand the issue. It's not about a single day. It's the impact of rising average temps.
 
If you think the vague language of the clean air act covers climate change, you are welcome to that opinion. feel free to blog, post, whine, bitch, and complain on the inter-web. My point still stands: why leave this up to the discretion of the latest presidential administration ?

Some people forget that it's a democracy. it's not a perfect utopia for YOUR belief system. if you don't like the government, vote for people who believe the way you do. if the popular opinion differs from yours, try to persuade others.

The fact that the president can defeat all the regulations you cherish with the stroke of a pen proves my point.
 
Just clearly demonstrates many don't understand the issue. It's not about a single day. It's the impact of rising average temps.
No not about a single day but ironic nonetheless.
I am old enough to have lived through scientists predicting an ice age, acid rain, ebola virus, Zika, bird flu etc.............. all causing mass hysteria. The world will end blah,blah,blah.
I'm not saying global warming is a scam. I get the co2 ppm is over 400 and that is not a good thing. It's just hard to buy into theories when they have been wrong so often.