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

[hockeythug]

*Ignored Member*

 

[RichardC]

It will be interesting, in the coming days, to see whether the new Commander In Chief implements any of the recommendations made by the non-partisan group of 43 U.S.-based military, national security, homeland security, intelligence and foreign policy experts in the Briefing Book on Climate and Security which they prepared for the New Administration. These recommendations include the following:

• Assigning a cabinet-level official to lead on domestic climate change and security issues;
• Establishing senior climate security leadership within the offices of the National Security Advisor and Secretary of Defense
• Directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a National Adaptation and Resilience Strategy
• Prioritizing climate change in intelligence assessments.

See: Climate and Security Advisory Group: Briefing Book for a New Administration

 

[nwdiver]

I'm actually cool with Rex too. But exactly what does this have to do with this thread topic?

Well... seeing how our last secretary of state was instrumental at getting the Paris climate agreement, the secretary of state is appointed by the president and he appears to be a publicly funded oil lobbyist it appears to have everything to do with this thread.

Time will tell with Tillerson. I'm not optimistic. I don't see someone that spent their entire professional career in oil working to accelerate the demise of that industry.

View attachment 211940

It's almost like he doesn't want the government to get in the way of his plans...

 

[bkp_duke]

Time will tell with Tillerson. I'm not optimistic. I don't see someone that spent their entire professional career in oil working to accelerate the demise of that industry.

Got to give the man a chance, not prejudge him.

After all the last Chairman of the FCC was eviscerated for being a former broadband lobbyist. Who would have thought a guy like that would have been the biggest champion for Net Neutrality.

How a former lobbyist became the broadband industry’s worst nightmare

 

[ohmman]

Got to give the man a chance, not prejudge him.

It's not prejudging when you're using the prior actions of the individual to make a judgment. That's just making an educated judgment.

 

[nwdiver]

It's not prejudging when you're using the prior actions of the individual to make a judgement. That's just making an educated judgment.

LOL....yep, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I'm not really prejudiced to say 'I think that's probably a duck'....

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Got to give the man a chance, not prejudge him.

After all the last Chairman of the FCC was eviscerated for being the former broadband lobbyist. Who would have thought a guy like that would have been the biggest champion for Net Neutrality.

How a former lobbyist became the broadband industry’s worst nightmare

Trump's Telecom Chief Is Ajit Pai, Critic Of Net Neutrality Rules

I mean, anybody can change their mind, I suppose...but I think I'll base my opinion on the facts I have at hand, instead of hoping for a change of mind.

 

[bkp_duke]

Trump's Telecom Chief Is Ajit Pai, Critic Of Net Neutrality Rules

I mean, anybody can change their mind, I suppose...but I think I'll base my opinion on the facts I have at hand, instead of hoping for a change of mind.

Not the new chairman, the outgoing one.

You obviously didn't read the link.

 

[bkp_duke]

LOL....yep, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I'm not really prejudiced to say 'I think that's probably a duck'....

If we all sit in the warm comfort of our biases, we are all morons and nothing will ever change the status quo.

I'll judge Tillerson when we have some "actionable data" of how he does in the job selected. Hell, even Elon has given him the benefit of the doubt, and I believe and trust Elon a lot more than any of the people in this thread.

 

[nwdiver]

If we all sit in the warm comfort of our biases, we are all morons and nothing will ever change the status quo.

I'll judge Tillerson when we have some "actionable data" of how he does in the job selected. Hell, even Elon has given him the benefit of the doubt, and I believe and trust Elon a lot more than any of the people in this thread.

He can't effect DAPL but he can stop KXL... that will be the first test.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Not the new chairman, the outgoing one.

You obviously didn't read the link.

Yeah, I'm well aware. My point was that we have to take the facts as presented, not expect people change their opinion after confirmation.

 

[bkp_duke]

I could care less about the pipelines, and you should too. Canadian oil is going to flow to those refineries, and if it isn't via pipeline, it will be by rail-car, which is FAR more hazardous.

There are millions of miles of pipeline in the USA (Pipeline101 - Where-Are-Pipelines-Located). Why DAPL and KXL were singled out has no basis in logic.

 

[nwdiver]

I could care less about the pipelines, and you should too. Canadian oil is going to flow to those refineries, and if it isn't via pipeline, it will be by rail-car, which is FAR more hazardous.

There are millions of miles of pipeline in the USA (Pipeline101 - Where-Are-Pipelines-Located). Why DAPL and KXL were singled out has no basis in logic.

I want oil to be more expensive... pipelines make it cheaper. What part of WE NEED TO BURN LESS OIL confuses you? DAPL will lower the cost of getting Dakota oil to Market by ~$7/bbl. That can make the difference between it staying in the ground or being extracted.

The first rule of holes is to stop digging.

 

[bkp_duke]

I want oil to be more expensive... pipelines make it cheaper. What part of WE NEED TO BURN LESS OIL confuses you? DAPL will lower the cost of getting Dakota oil to Market by ~$7/bbl. That can make the difference between it staying in the ground or being extracted.

The first rule of holes is to stop digging.

Pipeline usage is such a MINOR contributor of cost. The major two factors are extraction cost and refining cost. Everything is low single digits at best. Even if that $7 per barrel number is right (care to give a reference?), blocking the pipeline for oil from Canada will just drive the economics for more fracking in the Permian Basin and other areas within the USA.

You want to stop people from using oil, reduce the DEMAND. OPEC has shown us for decades that supply side economics is a falicy that does not work.


On a separate, but related note:

Do you know why I cannot stand talking with you? You are an arrogant prick that insists on throwing insults like this one:
"What part of WE NEED TO BURN LESS OIL confuses you?"

Anytime someone tries to have a CIVIL conversation and bring up an opposing point, and all you do is throw insults. No wonder the liberals lost the White House. I'm not one of them, but many people would rather see the ice caps melt and the air be so toxic it's un-breathable than be talked down to like you do to people.

 

[JHuberman]

Hay Trump, you want more jobs in the USA? Encourage solar!

"Job creation in the solar sector grew 12 times faster than overall job creation. By contrast, oil and gas producers slashed 351,410 jobs worldwide since prices began to slide in the middle of 2014, according to Houston-based Graves & Co." *

* Clean Energy Jobs Increasing, Fossil Fuel Jobs Decreasing, Says IRENA

This is a very encouraging article to read - good news is hard to find.​

 

[RayW]

We were already doing that...

U.S. Dependence On Foreign Oil Hits 30-Year Low

Our domestic energy policy was working fine. Now Trump wants to push us back to the 1800's by promoting antiquated fuels which only third-world countries will be using in a few decades.

 

[Merrill]

It is sad that we could become the most polluting country in the world, talk about moving backwards.

 

[nwdiver]

Pipeline usage is such a MINOR contributor of cost. The major two factors are extraction cost and refining cost. Everything is low single digits at best. Even if that $7 per barrel number is right (care to give a reference?), blocking the pipeline for oil from Canada will just drive the economics for more fracking in the Permian Basin and other areas within the USA.

You want to stop people from using oil, reduce the DEMAND. OPEC has shown us for decades that supply side economics is a falicy that does not work.


On a separate, but related note:

Do you know why I cannot stand talking with you? You are an arrogant prick that insists on throwing insults like this one:
"What part of WE NEED TO BURN LESS OIL confuses you?"

Anytime someone tries to have a CIVIL conversation and bring up an opposing point, and all you do is throw insults. No wonder the liberals lost the White House. I'm not one of them, but many people would rather see the ice caps melt and the air be so toxic it's un-breathable than be talked down to like you do to people.

If you think that's an insult you have incredibly thin skin... you're obsessed with getting more oil to market. WHY? KEEP THE FOOLS FUEL IN THE GROUND!!!! There's two sides to supply / demand.

Yes... I understand that less oil from the Bakken means more oil from the Permian. The point is to restrict supply to drive up cost. Anything that makes oil cheaper drives this pathetic addiction further. There's two sides to supply / demand.

The primary source is behind a paywall but this cites the cost savings of DAPL at $7/bbl.... that's a 12% discount at current market prices.

This is why Trump won....

The reality is that every drop of fools fuel you burn increases the risk to others. It's a form of intergenerational theft that is beyond pathetic.... But that's a truth that most people would rather ignore than face.... The harsh reality is that only morons and monsters burn fools fuel where alternatives exist. That's not an insult... it's the cold hard truth.

 

[Incredulocious]

From You know, Trump also just made the Keystone XL way more expensive (and illegal) to build :

That's because this is the kind of action that gets you sued by the World Trade Organization. Member-nations (Like the United States) are supposed to allow companies to compete fairly on the price of goods. They're not supposed to favor their domestic goods or materials over the goods or materials of other nations.

The Obama Administration sued China to kingdom-come for this kind of behavior. It's why we have a 500% tariff on Chinese steel, for example. After that, China said it would continue a controversial tax rebate for its steel exporters. Either way, member-nations, including the Chinese, will not take kindly to this particular Trump dictum. It will become fuel to fire an impending trade spat.

We should also note that this US steel requirement is doubly rich considering the fact that US Senator Al Franken (D-MN) proposed the same requirement in early 2015 and got shot down by Republicans.

What's more, forcing American steel onto the Keystone pipeline will undoubtedly make it more expensive. After we slapped that tariff on Chinese steel, all it did was suppress demand here in the US. Manufacturers who use steel as a raw material didn't want to buy the expensive US steel.

 

[tomas]

From You know, Trump also just made the Keystone XL way more expensive (and illegal) to build :

I was just having this discussion with a group at lunch. While pushing to increase US manufacturing and US manufactured materials is a good thing, trying to move too fast can have all kinds of unintended consequences. Like it or not, there's now a world-wide economy full of dependencies. Hard to unravel overnight. OK to set objectives, but dangerous to try to move too fast.