America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 months ago by DrafterX. 53 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Trump Declares "Climate Change" Cured...
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
Moving forward with a campaign pledge to unravel former President Obama's sweeping plan to curb global warming, President Trump on Tuesday is set to sign an executive order that will suspend, rescind or flag for review more than a half-dozen measures in an effort to boost domestic energy production in the form of fossil fuels.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told “Fox & Friends” that the president will “set a new course” that is both “pro-jobs” and “pro-environment.”

“It’s going to create jobs in the oil and gas sector,” he said. “For too long, over the last several years, you’ve had certain industries, certain sectors of our economy that were within the crosshairs of the EPA.”

He added, “That is not going to happen anymore.”

As part of the new roll-back, Trump will initiate a review of the Clean Power Plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants.

The regulation, which was the former president's signature effort to curb carbon emissions, has been the subject of long-running legal challenges by Republican-led states and those who profit from burning oil, coal and gas.

Trump, who has called global warming a "hoax" invented by the Chinese, has repeatedly criticized the power-plant rule and others as an attack on American workers and the struggling U.S. coal industry. The contents of the order were outlined to reporters in a sometimes tense briefing with a senior White House official, whom aides insisted speak without attribution, despite Trump's criticism of the use of unnamed sources.

The official at one point appeared to break with mainstream climate science, denying familiarity with widely publicized concerns about the potential adverse economic impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels and more extreme weather.

In addition to pulling back from the Clean Power Plan, the administration will also lift a 14-month-old moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands.

The Obama administration had imposed a three-year moratorium on new federal coal leases in January 2016, arguing that the $1 billion-a-year program must be modernized to ensure a fair financial return to taxpayers and address climate change.

Trump accused his predecessor of waging a "war on coal" and boasted in a speech to Congress that he has made "a historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations," including some that threaten "the future and livelihoods of our great coal miners."

The order will also chip away at other regulations, including scrapping language on the "social cost" of greenhouse gases. It will initiate a review of efforts to reduce the emission of methane in oil and natural gas production as well as a Bureau of Land Management hydraulic fracturing rule, to determine whether those reflect the president's policy priorities.

It will also rescind Obama-era executive orders and memoranda, including one that addressed climate change and national security and one that sought to prepare the country for the impacts of climate change.

The administration is still in discussion about whether it intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. But the moves to be announced Tuesday will undoubtedly make it more difficult for the U.S. to achieve its goals.

Trump's Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, alarmed environmental groups and scientists earlier this month when he said he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming. The statement is at odds with mainstream scientific consensus and Pruitt's own agency.

Film at 11.... Mellow
delta1 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,253
...and while he's at it, he's paying off some of his wealthiest backers/cronies...


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/politics/carl-icahn-trump-adviser-red-flags-ethics.html?

WASHINGTON — Since Carl Icahn, the billionaire investor, was named by President Trump as a special adviser on regulatory matters, he has been busy working behind the scenes to try to revamp an obscure Environmental Protection Agency rule that governs the way corn-based ethanol is mixed into gasoline nationwide.

It is a campaign that fits into the charge Mr. Trump gave Mr. Icahn, to help the nation “break free of excessive regulation.” But there is an additional detail that is raising eyebrows in Washington: Mr. Icahn is a majority investor in CVR Energy, an oil refiner based in Sugar Land, Tex., that would have saved $205.9 million last year had the regulatory fix he is pushing been in place.


...other news sources report that Icahn could've saved $750* if the rule didn't exist since he acquired his interest in the company.

* edit: $750 MILLION or 3/4 Billion dollars
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
Kill the ethanol..!! Mad
MACS Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 59,911
All presidents appoint their own cronies. I'm certain they all benefit from it, too.

Invest in oil futures, Al... looks like they might be on the rise. Angel

DrafterX wrote:
Kill the ethanol..!! Mad


Agreed. That stuff sucks.
delta1 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,253
youz a sweet talkin Satan, MACS...
rfenst Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 27,533
Too bad that protecting the environment is a political issue.
dstieger Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 7,017
its a political issue because we all have different views of cost/benefit....where to draw the lines....any human existence on this planet will negatively affect the environment...we need someone to set the rules...if not government? who?
DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
dstieger wrote:
any human existence on this planet will negatively affect the environment...?



poor CROS... Sad
frankj1 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,742
delta1 wrote:
...and while he's at it, he's paying off some of his wealthiest backers/cronies...


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/politics/carl-icahn-trump-adviser-red-flags-ethics.html?

WASHINGTON — Since Carl Icahn, the billionaire investor, was named by President Trump as a special adviser on regulatory matters, he has been busy working behind the scenes to try to revamp an obscure Environmental Protection Agency rule that governs the way corn-based ethanol is mixed into gasoline nationwide.

It is a campaign that fits into the charge Mr. Trump gave Mr. Icahn, to help the nation “break free of excessive regulation.” But there is an additional detail that is raising eyebrows in Washington: Mr. Icahn is a majority investor in CVR Energy, an oil refiner based in Sugar Land, Tex., that would have saved $205.9 million last year had the regulatory fix he is pushing been in place.


...other news sources report that Icahn could've saved $750 if the rule didn't exist since he acquired his interest in the company.

two things...

we have an agent planted in Sugar Land, Texas

and

I sure could use $750 right about now.
victor809 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 12,067
Dating. I think there is a rational discussion there. For instance, people like myself could make the argument that any environmental regulations are ultimately mostly going to benefit future generations, none of which are my spawn nor are of any consequence to me. So why would I want to pay anything extra to help them out? That's the logical conversation "everything we do has an impact on something, what's the specific cost of anything we do vs the benefit across generations?"

However one cannot get to that discussion when one side doesn't acknowledge an impact at all. That is where the logical disconnect lies for me.

I'm perfectly ok with someone who acknowledges a pretty well established connection but simply says "meh... my kids suck, why should I leave them a functioning environment? They took the best years of my life I'm not gonna make my fried chicken more expensive for them too". That's a respectable stance.
victor809 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 12,067
Dating = dsteig + autocorrect
delta1 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,253
frankj1 wrote:
two things...

we have an agent planted in Sugar Land, Texas

and

I sure could use $750 right about now.



haha...me too...but I could REALLY use $750 Million...

...he could help a million poor people that could use $750 and who voted for him to "drain the swamp."

...seeing a few stories of buyer's remorse popping up....
MACS Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 59,911
delta1 wrote:
youz a sweet talkin Satan, MACS...


You know better, Al. I'ze a good dude.

I just believe that the more the gov't gets involved in something, the worse it gets. Waste, fraud, abuse, over-reach, over-regulation... and for what? We spend a few trillion so the co2 emissions drop a small amount, then a volcano erupts and makes it 5 times worse than what we just spent a trillion on?
delta1 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,253
volcanoes are the work of Satan...
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 12,067
I thought climate scientists caused volcanos to ensure continued funding?
RMAN4443 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 822
I heard they got all the cows to stop farting.......gave em all Gas-X
teddyballgame Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 526
and that CO2 is a green house pollutant MY ASS!

Carbon Monoxide I get.. but Carbon Dioxide.. well hold on, I am a conservative and I must hate plants.. so yes I am all for it.. I want CO2 emissions from everything to be ZERO.

Oh wait, photosyntha-what?

Doesn't matter, we are all dead because all plant life, that uses CO2 to grow and become a food source and also emit Oxygen into the air, is non existent. and the animals that ate the plants are dead now too...and the carnivores that ate them are dead.

But we do have no CO2 in the air for all of our dead posterity.

Yay Us- more Soilent Green anyone?

tailgater Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,306
victor is dating dsteig?
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,306
The roadblock to reasonable discussion is politics.
And pig headed viewpoints.

True, some on the right think that because the left push the "climate change" agenda that it must be false.
But just as many use the term "climate change" interchangeably with "man induced climate change" to benefit their argument du jour.

CO2 is blamed as a cause, but evidence shows it is very likely an effect.
Say that out loud and the response is "oh yeah? Well...CONSENSUS!"

I'm not a climate scientist.
It's likely that the earth's climate is changing.
Fact is, I'd be more scared if it weren't.
Because it's been changing since the beginning of time.
Only now we have determined that it's economically advantageous for governments to blame humans.
Politics.

Which is a damn shame.
Because 98.2% of all climate change protocol is actually good for our environment, but just doesn't justify the over reaction by money grubbing governments waiting to tax the air we breathe.

But we live in the age of Bernie Sanders. Where socialism is viewed as empathetic and just. Where snowflakes want, nay, NEED the government to interfere cradle to grave.

delta1 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,253
The most vehement climate change denial advocates have changed from "global warming is a hoax" to "global warming and climate change is a natural phenomenon". Most of those claims have been linked to the industry that is the biggest contributor to the causes of accelerated climate change phenomenon.

This is similar to how big tobacco waged a media campaign for decades, arguing that smoking cigarettes did not cause lung cancer. They depend on paid and popular spokespersons, with a built-in receptive audience, hammering home the message everyday. This is an orchestrated media campaign to convince a large army of defenders who have bought into their loud and long propaganda campaign to repeat the paid for studies that exonerate them and fling insults at any who question them and look for the truth...

History has shown, more often than not, that rational debate begins to divulge the side that will ultimately prevail when the other side resorts to name-calling and insults...

Hope the awakening isn't too late...
teddyballgame Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 526
So all the data manipulation on the global warming (oh wait, climate change) side is not an orchestrated campaign? Where those scientists that state man made global warming is fact, real data or no real data?- Oh and they get paid with grant after grant. And then the scientists that site sound, conflicting data and take a stand saying that there is no proof man is responsible for all this, much to the detriment of their careers, are just part of the lie against climate change?
Al Gore's hockey stick, and the data was a lie and many computer models were based off this.

Man made climate ruination is the biggest lie foisted on man, so that the angels the rule us can once again redistribute wealth for the betterment of us imbeciles. The U.S. being the biggest target from others around the world.

What is the correct ambient temperature of the earth? Maybe we are too cold now?

I think this man said it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4
dkeage Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 03-05-2004
Posts: 12,849
frankj1 wrote:
two things...

we have an agent planted in Sugar Land, Texas

and

He sure could use $750 right about now.


Whistle
tailgater Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,306
delta1 wrote:
The most vehement climate change denial advocates have changed from "global warming is a hoax" to "global warming and climate change is a natural phenomenon". Most of those claims have been linked to the industry that is the biggest contributor to the causes of accelerated climate change phenomenon.


The biggest problem with this is terminology.
When arguing climate change, it is fair to assume we mean "man made" climate change.
But another issue the moving target:
The Next Ice Age (circa 1970's)
Global Warming (circa Al Gore)
Climate Change (generic enough to lay claim to a consensus)

And try not to forget that most of the data is generated by government funding.



delta1 wrote:
History has shown, more often than not, that rational debate begins to divulge the side that will ultimately prevail when the other side resorts to name-calling and insults...


Then it's settled. Because one side is absolutely insulting the other.
The climate fear mongering is constantly attacking the "deniers" and insulting their grasp of science. It's constant and it's from nearly every source.
Insults go in both directions, but is not an even distribution. Not even close.
delta1 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,253
to may to

to mah to
delta1 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,253
Trump's executive order to reverse EPA climate regulations is a victory for big oil and those who advocate that mankind's activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels for energy, are not the cause of climate change.

I hope that this isn't a pyrrhic victory...like the Chief who won the argument that it was the right thing to do to cut down the last trees on Easter Island, to make more symbols of his greatness...

(above typed in the least insulting, inoffensive manner, with the softest and lightest key stroking possible)
frankj1 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,742
dkeage wrote:
Whistle

your secret is safe with me
jjanecka Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 2,230
I'd say I'm a spy too but they'd see me miles away.
DrafterX Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
Brewha's a Chief..?? Huh
tailgater Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,306
delta1 wrote:
Trump's executive order to reverse EPA climate regulations is a victory for big oil and those who advocate that mankind's activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels for energy, are not the cause of climate change.

I hope that this isn't a pyrrhic victory...like the Chief who won the argument that it was the right thing to do to cut down the last trees on Easter Island, to make more symbols of his greatness...

(above typed in the least insulting, inoffensive manner, with the softest and lightest key stroking possible)


The thing is, I'm in favor of regulations that help protect the environment in a reasonable manner.
Pollution is real and without government stepping in it would be out of control.
And further, we should absolutely be looking towards renewable energy to replace current fossil fuel technology.

I simply abhor using lies and half truths to make policy. Made worse when there is government incentive to perpetuate them.

But that's just me.




tonygraz Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 8,413
Or maybe that's just what you have been led to believe - you were doing good until the 4th sentence.
teedubbya Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
I completely agree with his 4th sentence. We may disagree on when it is happening and when it isn't. but I agree with it.




Then there is Trump
Stinkdyr Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,803
dstieger wrote:
its a political issue because we all have different views of cost/benefit....where to draw the lines....any human existence on this planet will negatively affect the environment...we need someone to set the rules...if not government? who?



Ed Zachary..........so end welfare breeding!
Fewer mouths to feed = less pollution.

fog
dstieger Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 7,017
Stinkdyr wrote:
Ed Zachary..........so end welfare breeding!
Fewer mouths to feed = less pollution.

fog



seems a bit extreme....but if the party's on board, well....let's get to it...

logic may dictate that this would not be a good time to overturn RoeVWade and defund Planned unParenthood....

Go Green. Free abortions for all.
tripleguy Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 09-15-2011
Posts: 60
Jobs in coal mines or jobs in solar - where's the future? We double down on coal to fulfill a campaign promise and China projects to spend $360 billion with a B from now until 2020 on solar. Guess where you'll be buying solar tech from? Appalachia is not the correct answer. Long Wongs House of Solar. Bend over.
teedubbya Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
Yall act like politics and executive orders have to actually have impact. All you really need to do is convince the right folks you are their buddy. Nothing really needs to change.
victor809 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 12,067
Ok... tripleguy is clever...
RMAN4443 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 822
dstieger wrote:
seems a bit extreme....but if the party's on board, well....let's get to it...

logic may dictate that this would not be a good time to overturn RoeVWade and defund Planned unParenthood....

Go Green. Free abortions for all.






Soylent Green
tailgater Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,306
tonygraz wrote:
Or maybe that's just what you have been led to believe - you were doing good until the 4th sentence.


I'm just glad you can now count to four.

Baby steps.
tailgater Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,306
victor809 wrote:
Ok... tripleguy is clever...


Sounds like a rugby love triangle.

tailgater Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,306
Long Wong's makes solar now?

Everything else they sell is intended for where the sun DON'T shine.


tripleguy Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 09-15-2011
Posts: 60
Long Wong is into everything thses days. Just ordered my Long Wong slipcovers from Ali Express.
delta1 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,253
Many of the huge oil and petroleum companies have been doing their own global warming/climate science research and their internal documents show they have pretty much found what most outside scientists have said, which is different than the self-serving protective messages they disseminate. Most of them privately agree with the consensus. That's why you'll find that they have built off-shore platforms and rigs based on sea-level rise studies. Hence, the forward thinking ones have been expanding into sustainable energy development, environmentally friendly extraction processes and production methods, greenhouse gas containment systems, and positive green public service announcements. So Long Wong shouldn't celebrate yet, too early.

Some of the biggest oil co., like Exxon-Mobil have also been spending resources preparing for possible liability and risk management, expecting to be treated like big tobacco if the chickens come home to roost. The smartest ones are looking at ways to exploit and dominate sustainable energy industries, like they did with oil, petroleum and gas, while continuing with their primary business as long as it is profitable to do so. A glance at all the patents they hold in those areas will show their level of commitment. Smart capitalism...

Too bad the coal mining industry didn't do that...
Brewha Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,843
But now at least we have "Clean Coal".
Clean, clean, really clean coal that will make the air even better when we burn it.

LOL





Sometimes I just crack myself up......
DrafterX Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
Brewha..!! Laugh
Brewha Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,843
DrafterX wrote:
Brewha..!! Laugh

What up, Big D?
DrafterX Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
Attempting to clean out my shed.. should not have started... found a bag of tobacco leafs tho... gotta be almost 10 years old I think. .. Mellow
elRopo Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 02-17-2014
Posts: 888
dstieger wrote:
seems a bit extreme....but if the party's on board, well....let's get to it...

logic may dictate that this would not be a good time to overturn RoeVWade and defund Planned unParenthood....

Go Green. Free abortions for all.

I would favor free abortions for all but, only if they make it retroactive.whip
Brewha Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,843
#46 - Vintage!!!!
DrafterX Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
All crumbly... Sad
elRopo Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 02-17-2014
Posts: 888
Brewha wrote:
But now at least we have "Clean Coal".
Clean, clean, really clean coal that will make the air even better when we burn it.

LOL





Sometimes I just crack myself up......

They're mining coal in So. Texas now.

More jobs for the illegals.....
I should open a "gun & knife" bar nearby?
If we can't get rid of them we should at least make a profit.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>