Congress, Environment, International, Society

Report: Solar Energy Employs More People Than All Fossil Fuel Industries Combined

fixed_tilt_solar_panel_at_canterbury_municipal_building_canterbury_new_hampshire398px-BarnettShaleDrilling-9323One of the greatest concerns with the Trump Administration remains the environment.  I share those concerns.  The United States is falling behind the rest of the world in advancing green industries and markets. A return to fossil energy could not only erase gains in the environment but push our workforce farther away from the most competitive economies.  A new report shows how important solar energy is to the workforce and the economy.  The latest report from the Department of Energy shows that solar energy in the United States employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined.  At the same time, we have seen other countries slash the cost of renewable energy and radically expand the use of such energy as global leaders in the new industry.  Notably, a recent poll showed that two thirds of the public oppose the return to fossil fuels for energy as opposed to alternative fuels.

According to the government report, solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016.  That accounted for 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce as compared to traditional fossil fuel employment of 187,117.  That is just 22 per cent of the workforce.

The proposed return to fossil fuel production occurs at a time when the net generation from coal sources has declined by 53 per cent between 2006 and September 2016 and electricity generation from natural gas increased by 33 per cent. During that same period, solar power has increased by over 5,000 per cent in the same period.

Wind power stocks have already fallen after the election.  Putting aside climate change concerns, the concern over the re-emphasis on fossil fuels could place the United States into a seriously diminished competitive position against our European allies.  That will cost jobs, exports, and economic growth.

161 thoughts on “Report: Solar Energy Employs More People Than All Fossil Fuel Industries Combined”

  1. I never like these “who’s got the bigger one?” stories. The comparisons are never valid and there’s too much preening and bragging going on by the contestants. In the long run, who cares?

    1. The US government employs more people than any single industry.

      “21,995,000 to 12,329,000: Government Employees Outnumber Manufacturing Employees 1.8 to 1”

  2. The Solar Power industry may employ more people than the fossil fuel industry but I would bet so does the fast food industry.
    What are the median salaries for these employees?
    Just curious.

    1. It doesn’t. The solr power employees do not outnumber fossil fuel employees. The hedline nd story r crp

      See link to the report erlier in thred.

      New keybord coming tomorrow. Thnk God

      Skweeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

        1. No. It’s the new one tht I put in bout two weeks erlier. But some keys don’t work for while, then they seem to when lptop gets hotter. I hve new keybord coming tomorrow.

          Skweeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

  3. I do not find the employment comparison at all useful. I’m not going to bother to try to explain why it is inappropriate.

    I take it solely as another example of why lawyers ought to stick to the law.

    Jeez…

    1. Personal opinion is not useful facts. Another example why regressives ought to stick to fairy tails. An example is 48.2% is not a majority AND it was a false conclusion of the wrong method of selection.

  4. If solar made any economic sense at all, it would be snapped up, and oil would die.

    But it doesn’t work and it’s expensive.

    The rest is just caterwauling.

    1. But it is being “snapped up” in the sunny parts of the world.

      Chile, Morocco, UAE, …

        1. Wihout the subsidies and federal mandates these renewable projects can’t survive. For example, in Australia, sales of solar systems “fell as soon as the incentives were cut back.” Since the Australian government announced that it was reconsidering its Renewable Energy Targets, “investments have started to dry up.”

      2. And Icelnd uses geotherml, & Washington Stte uses hydropower. So wht??? Who cres wht UAE does??? People use wht they hve. Some people cook food with bullsh*t, literlly. They bke nd cook over burning poop. In the U.S., we lso burn poop for electricty. Solr power isn’t wrong or evil, it is just not going to work well unless mjor tech discoveries.

        Skweeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. As John Adams said, Facts are stubborn things. So, then ,let’s have the planet get hotter, let the oceans get polluted ever more, let water get scarcer..and then hope “Squeeky Fromm” will have room in her helicopter for at least her family to fly away to Mars.

            1. Celsius: In the SI system, temperature is measured in degrees Celsius (C). This scale is defined by: The freezing point of water = 0 C The boiling point of water = 100 C. The boiling point of water changes somewhat with altitude, so it is important to add that 100 C is the boiling temperature of water at sea level. Actually, it is the atmospheric pressure that influences the boiling temperature, so, for accuracy, an average atmospheric pressure at sea level is used, taken as a pressure of 760 mm of mercury.

              Fahrenheit: The Celsius scale is commonly used in every country except the U. S. where the old Fahrenheit (F) scale is used. That scale is defined by: The freezing point of water = 32 F and the boiling point of water = 212 F. There are a total of (212 – 32) = 180 Fahrenheit degrees between freezing and boiling, almost twice as many as in the Celsius scale. That means every Celsius degree represents almost twice as large a step as a Fahrenheit degree.

              I can get more complex if you wish…

              1. You got the main point, that the location of the laboratory affects the measurement. So much, that water boils at 203 degrees F. in Denver, instead of 212 F.

                The “laboratory” for temperature measurement has similarly changed. A weather station on a farm in 1900 might now be a station next to an airport in 2010. To account for this, some researchers “smoothed” the data, and then plugged the “smoothed” data back into their model. But the smoothing was done with the idea that temps had gone up. Which is a statistical no-no, and why the “hockey stick” showed up.

                https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/15/standard-deviation-the-overlooked-but-essential-climate-statistic/

                The comments at that link are illuminating, too.

                Or as it says at the justfacts.com link, above:

                “When this statistical operation is not used, the hockey stick shape does not appear in the statistical measure that shows the “closest fit” to the data. The shape appears in measures that show subordinate trends in the data.”

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. The “science lesson” was fun–but again it has NOTHING to do with the basic message by Professor Turley (and if squeaky from (who is a very interesting alias is offended..too bad ) was presumptuous enough to lecture those who disagreed with her) -it avoids the rebuttals given to her and just like Trump and his spokespersons tries to change the conversation and reinforce the “do nothing” view that unfortunately does a disservice to all ordinary faces–hopefully her helicopter will have room for at least have her family to be taken to Mars–as the rest of run burn as the planet heats up and the ocean continues to get polluted. Wishing all a good rest of the week.

                  1. Why am I not surprised that the concept of variable “laboratory conditions” was lost on you, along with the very informative links. I even “dumbed it down” and left out the whole “proxy” thing because I figured that would just make the issue more difficult.

                    Oh well, no good deed. . .

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. As I told you, an infallibility of knowledge denotes a closed mind and an aged crust prejudice–and if you feel big and strong by laying out insults, have at it….

                    3. Please check my Comments before where “FACTS” were discussed–but you seem to subscribe to the “alternative fact” reality that is the prevailing mode in Washington–You can “scroll” through the thread of comments here–but as a courtesy, here is one for your reading enjoyment you and others (who seem to subscribe to the alterantive reality realm): http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/; cheers…(PS–thanks for the compliment about AI BORE..)

                    4. Finally! A source!!! Another one!!!! Too bad your scholarly research could find no facts to present. noiw I’ve got three laundry lists if I have time but you know what? Your premise your job to support it. This comes under the heading if you can’t dazzle with brililance baffle with BS. Sorry when you grow up you’l never make it in the adult world. If you can’t udnerstand facts, reason, thinking, conclusions as opposed to the also necessary sources, cites, and sites. BUT your 50% ahead of the others so credit where it’s due.

                    5. All have been asked and answered–if your “opinion” is that they have not, you’re again entitled to your “opinion”.

                      Cheers.

          2. and do NOT forget deeper in BS. Subject fairy tails are not facts and can not be used to make a serious enquiry much less an evaluation or decision – and the answer to the one above is ‘pea souper.’ That was the standard slang for smog in London prior to the forced change. Coal industry and unions didn’t like it but labor lost to the GreenTories that time.

  5. Becoming a nation of solar-energy independent citizens is also threatened by the stack and pack transit-oriented development. Independent solar power depends on getting maximum sun onto the solar-power generators and the closer you are to the end user the more efficient the system is. Two main beneficiaries other than oil and gas industries are the developers and new public transit industries that are trying to compete with the private transit industries.

  7. And, may I also add, that I hope New York City, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, DC, and the whole state of California buy fully into the above story, and immediately move to convert to solar power within 5 years! In fact, they should begin shuttering power plants in their area post haste!

    🙂

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. You left out Florida, the sunniest state in the union. In fact the south would be the natural beneficiary of independent solar generation, yet, those states are the last to switch to solar.

      1. As for Florida, As long as Rick Scott is Governor, not much is going to change.

        1. Maybe Trumpie will want to protect Mira Lago and won’t drill offshore in Florida while at the same time he ravages the tribal lands in North Dakota.

    2. First of, I have been having a lot of fun reading up the contributions…so keep it up!!!

      Hope “Girl Reporter’ is not offended when I say I don’t need a lecture on “Googling”…. .as I stated, you “Girl Reporter” is entitled to her opinion not the facts–but it appears that she seems to be a total believer in the alternative Fact World that is peddled by the Trump White house and pushed by Fox News and others. It is my fervent hope that California continues the path of resistance to Trump and his policies. One of the “so-called” experts that you claim “debunks” is an entity called the National Center for Policy Analysis headed by a Heritage Foundation guy and among the board of directors boasts Allen West which I won’t bother to look up his pedigree. Some of the very things you say “was debunked” was debunked by this Salon Article back in 2014:

      http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial_the_scientific_consensus_is_not_a_myth/

      You will say, “this is liberal” etc etc etc–again you’re entitled to your opinion–but you must also be willing to accept this admonition paraphrasing a scene from the movie, Advise and consent, assuming an infallibility of knowledge denotes a closed mind and an aged crust of prejudice.

      Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

        1. Your satisfaction, again, is “SUBJECTIVE”–as I stated before, you’re entitled to your opinion–not your facts–and asking a question that is frankly immaterial to the point Professor turley is making is not proving your assertions by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts…

            1. It is not material to the discussions–that’s my view–as I respected your views, have the backbone to respect mine–if you don’t, that’s fine too–since you seem not to want to even want to listen as everything you noted has been debunked–and if you are offended by it, too bad. Thanks for again sharing your thoughts.

      2. Plus, I don’t get offended by stuff like this. Call me names if you like, and I will call you some back, and it will be great fun for all!

        Plus, I want the “Blue” areas to lead the way in getting rid of coal, nuclear, and oil/gas generation. I have some really good sure-fire ideas to save energy, but there is zero chance anybody will listen.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      3. mikepouraryan – first, I would not allow my students to use Salon magazine as a reliable source. second, Salon has worked as an arm of the DNC.

  8. JT’s article, the article referencing the Department of Energy, and the Department of Energy are all simply FAKE NEWS. If you bother to read the DOE report and you understand what is going on in the economy you will understand their deception. The DOE says that 374,000 were employed in the solar industry during the period 2015-2016, while the oil and gas industry only employed 187,117.

    But the DOE–being the fraudulent Obama-run organization that it is–OMITS a critical fact that makes the DOE’s statements FALSE and MISLEADING

    The key omission is that during the period 2015-2016 351,410 employees in the oil and gas industry were CUT FROM THE WORKFORCE. Thus, if you add the 351,410 employees back to the 187,117 employees in the DOE report, employment is much greater in the oil and gas industry than the solar industry.

    The reason for the layoff of oil and gas employees is that the Obama administration has worked in concert with the Saudis to destroy the American oil and gas industry by artificially causing oil and gas prices to plunge, putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work during that period to solidify the Saudi’s market share.

    And THAT is the REAL NEWS.

    (Whether Trump will change anything that will have a significant impact on improving employment in the American oil and gas industry remains to be seen. Trump and his family have many business interests in the Arab nations, and, consequently, he has some of the same conflicts of interests that the Clintons had, with their own close ties to the Saudis.)

  9. Why is something, that produces so many toxic byproducts (the manufacturing of Solar panels), called GREEN? Every source of energy we use, in one way or another, produces massive amounts of toxic waste. Green my rear end. LOL, Next you’ll try and tell me Free Trade is Free!

    1. The difference is two fold. Once the panels and turbines are built they produce no more toxins. The lifespan of these devices is now about 20 years. With each generation of devices the efficiency improves and costs go down. The wind turbines of today produce ten times as much electricity as one ten years ago. The cost, toxic impact, and space is the same. The wind turbines of the future will produce even more. The direction is forward over the foul rotting arguments that seem to gum up the works.

  10. OK, this is directly from the “report”, not the idiot reporters linked above in the article:

    Page 8:

    Electric Power Generation and Fuels technologies directly employ more than 1.9 million
    workers. In 2016, 55 percent, or 1.1 million, of these employees worked in traditional coal, oil,
    and gas, while almost 800,000 workers were employed in low carbon emission generation
    technologies, including renewables, nuclear, and advanced/low emission natural gas. Just under
    374,000 individuals work, in whole or in part, for solar firms, with more than 260,000 of those
    employees spending the majority of their time on solar. There are an additional 102,000 workers
    employed at wind firms across the nation. The solar workforce increased by 25% in 2016, while
    wind employment increased by 32%.

    https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf

    I believe the number of fossil fuel employees is low. At any rate, last time I looked, 2 million is way bigger than 374,000.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. My first suggestion is, for people to quit lying. There is definitely a place for solar power, and nothing wrong with it. But it isn’t a magic bullet. For example, assume the phony numbers in the article were true, where is the comparison with actual electricity generated? At present, about 1/2 of one percent of electricity is solar in the U.S.

        If that 1/2 of 1% requires twice as many employees, then what is going to 50% solar generation going to require? Well, 50% is 100 times .5% sooo assuming an equal rate, it would require 37 million, 400 thousand employees to handle the labor. We currently have about 125 million people employed in the country. So about 1/3 of the country needs to be employed in solar???

        And, IIRC, the panels have abiout a 20 year payback period, and them have to be replaced about every 25 years, so just about the time the panels pay for themselves, it is time to replace them again.

        Does that seem reasonable to you? For a process that won’t work in the rain, or at night, or in the case of an atmospheric dust condition?

      2. And also, I think the U.S. needs to invest in more nuclear power, and begin localizing more of its agriculture and manufacturing. It seems wasteful of energy to pile 8 million idiots into New York City, and then truck in produce from 3,000 miles away, and meat from probably an average of 1,500 miles. I think we need to be laying plans for a more sustainable way of living.

        Squeeky Fromm’
        Girl Reporter

        1. Just some brief thoughts on “nuclear power”: There are a lot more cost effective options and fukushima is a lesson that the world needs to take to heart as Germany will do away with its’ nuclear power–and if you listened to Rick Perry’s Testimony, there is a lot of challenges already with existing US Nuclear sites (e.gl Hanford).

          1. Squeeky,

            There are people who understand base load energy and then there those who don’t. Arguing with the ones who don’t is useless.

            Mike,

            Nuclear is the safest power generator we have. Try looking up sodium reactors are thorium reactors. If you do, and you still think it is the wrong approach, then you are just lying to yourself.

  11. My goodness, but this story was sooo hard to debunk. NOT.

    Clinton said “we now have more jobs in solar than we do in oil.” But the numbers don’t support that claim.

    For the oil industry, she didn’t look at the whole picture. And self-reported calculations by both the solar and oil and gas industry aren’t close. Oil and gas reports 10 times more jobs.

    http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2016/jan/29/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-claims-more-jobs-solar-oil/

    There is a lot more at the link. This story qualifies as FAKE NEWS.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. Obama gave $535M of taxpayer’s money to Solydra solar company, which promptly went bankrupt.

    I presume Europe largely finances their renewable energy industry w/taxes. The dollar has done incredibly well vs. the EU and GBP over the past 2+ years. If the USA was to stop paying for Europe’s defense (the sooner the better), their economy would severely tank.

    Rewind to Republicans vying for the 2008 nomination, including Utah’s great ex-governor Jon Huntsman (millionaire philanthropist/avid motorcyclist). During the campaign, Huntsman said the actual cost of automotive fossil fuel is about $12/gallon, if including tax dollars for military intervention and related health care costs. I presume this statement put a permanent nail in his aspiration for national office for either party. I also presume he told the truth.

    1. Einstein reminded us that insanity is doing the same over and over and over again and expecting the same result–The world is moving ahead as America is moving backwards. That seems to the message here. Can’t we do better? Shouldn’t we do better? Simply blaming it on the “media” or the “liberals” is not an answer….I also want to share this as well..and yes some will say it is fake news, but this is from ane entity owned by the Murdoch clan–so we have to take of our air, our water and our land–otherwise there is nothing left folks–is that what you all want? http://news.sky.com/feature/sky-ocean-rescue-10734494

      1. No, the world isn’t necessarily moving “forward” while the America moves “backward.” That is a CONCLUSION, or an OPINION, which is a result of circular reasoning, that solar is good while coal/nuclear is bad. It is only “forward” because you believe it is “forward.”

        All forms of energy generation have their good points and their bad points. I would love it if I could put a panel on my house and have “free” electricity. But then it rains, and my battery, which is full of stinky chemicals, runs out. No lights, no computer, no fridge, no charging the electric car, and no TV. No street lights, or traffic lights. Darn good thing we have the “backward” coal or nuclear plant.

        Oh, lookee! We just had another Krakatoa, and the Western Hemisphere is covered with a haze for 2 years, and the solar panels only produce about 1/3 of what they can on a clear day. Dang, wish I had some backward coal or nuclear plant.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. What you just have noted is all opinion–and that’s fine-the problem is folks who are skeptics like you don’t like to be “challenged”–when 97% of the world scientists say we’re in trouble, it seems we need to listen. You and those who believe like you (and one prominent example of it sits in the White House..and one is about to take charge of the EPA) just don’t want to listen. Doing more of the same is NOT working–why is that so hard to realize?

          1. No. The “97% of scientists” story is phony and misleading, too. Google it. I think insanity is also when people think that reality is what they want it to be, not what it actually is.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

          3. The focus seems to be on CO2, emissions, and attacking power plants (at least as it is presented in the msm).

            What are your thoughts on the effects of chemicals on the soil and water microbiome and to what degree this affects climate?

            Just as the focus on fat/cholesterol cause heart disease was wrong, I suspect the focus is off-target for this discussion, too.

      2. For some decades now merchant and commercial shipping has been required to separate out and return to land any form of plastic and keep a log of all trash kept or dump in a ‘garbage log.’ An inspected item by the US Coast Guard and a few other agencies.

        There are violations to be sure and some intentional dumpings that eventually come to light HOWEVER the worst by far that is still allowed is dunnage. That’s the wooden pallets and other chunks of wood of whatever size used to stow cargo. by blocking it in place or supporting it. Dumping of pallets is routine. One of the industry inspecting agencies suggested cutting wood into sizes no greater than six inches in any dimension but nothing in the Marine Pollution Act requires it. The danger of course is collision by smaller vessels

        In two instances I personally watched rifle fire was used to sink a very large propane style or shaped container of about 30-40 feet in length while in another a large shipping container of the kind used on trucks, trains, and ships was reported but nothing done.or resulted. That was in the Chagos Archipelago area.

        The heavy emphasis though is on oil spills and the standard is a teacup amount All in all the industry is probably 95% in compliance insofar as US shipping is concerned EXCEPT for dumping of dunnage. Don’t know why it’s not mentioned but I reckon no one in the last administration cared enough to ask for an amendment to MarPol much less alert the other maritiime nations to take the same steps.

        It wasn’t because USCG and EPA weren’t notified including copies of falsified garbage logs and the same was part of a lawsuit on another subject. So it’s a matter of record.

        However for the most part we can be very proud of the lengths the industry goes to comply it’s a shame that doesn’t extend to offshore drilling inspections and subsequent actions citing the BP disaster which they skated on paying for sticking the US taxpayers with the bill. You can thank both the Bush II and the Obama administrations for that.

  14. “One of the greatest concerns with the Trump Administration remains the environment.”

    Say WHAT? One of his biggest concerns is how to GUT the EPA as much as possible.

  15. Just think with the 5 Trillion we spent on wars in the last 25 years, we could have put solar panels on every American home. 🌞

    1. Yeah but the status quo prevents this. The grid and subsidies are the domain of the fossil fuel and other established energy producers. The infrastructure that conveys electricity in the US is so convoluted and in need of revamping that up to 15% of the electricity moved around is lost to inefficiency. The solutions are there but standing in the way is that great partnership of ignorance and the status quo. Remember the arguments of ‘Big Tobacco’, same thing.

  16. Solar power is not viable unless you are planning to live in your house forever, which people do with kids. However, here in AZ people trade in their houses every 5 years.

  17. To keep the information balanced compare the current output of energy from fossil fuels, hydro fuels (dams etc.) nuclear production and alternaive energy including bio-mass, ocean motion, wind, solar and one other cost of ethanol. Fossil fuels include bituminous (dirty) coal, anthracite (clean) coal, extraction of liquid fossil fuels from coal, offshore oil, on shore oil, heating oil and CNG versus LNG. .

    There are a huge amount of resources including the use of garbage especially in Europe. Side comments in two areas. safety including the transportation of energy and costs of same, environmental concerns and costs. One last one what is the cost of charging up an electric car as compared to the cost of filling it with diesel or gasoline.

    This subject area is tremendously complicated and I didn’t even mention government regulations.

    But just for funz and grinz add in the cost of litigation in start up, on going maintenance, and eventual shut down costs.

    1.. I’m betting just off the top of my head that electric cars are, on a per mile basis expensive to ‘fuel.’ Unless in a desert area with solar panel arrays

    2. The most efficient and safest way to transport energy is electricity through transmission cables.

    3. Wood heat is the least expensive where logging is in operation using only the pine and hardwoods such as oak, madrone etc. Of bought by the truck load and sawed, split where used. Second is wood pellets if a back up generator is available.

    4. The least expensive and safest is nuclear EXCEPT for disposal of nuclear waste.

    5. going back to #2 producing electricity where the fuel source is found (near oil wells/refineries, coal mines, and tidal or ocean motion generators etc and then moving it by transmission cables is the most cost effective.

    Some of you may have researched these areas and done all the spade work.

    As for me I live on a boat, main motive power is sails, main power production is solar and wind. But I don’t own land, house, or vehicle other than my dinghy..

    Life’s a trade off

    Any takers?

    Some tips.

    Which nation uses the most fuel of all kinds and produces the most pollution.

    .

      1. Holland is very windy and flat.

        It is also 1/4 the size of Iowa but has about 8x the population.

        Can the New England states produce a comparable amount of wind power for their commuter rail?

    2. The facts have been available for decades. Alternative power industries are many times the potential that was and is the tech industry. And, America is not getting it. The US imports heavy wind turbines from Germany, Denmark (Denmark exports 40% of the world’s heavy wind turbines), China, and other countries. People who don’t believe it pay their electrical bills and the profits go back to Chinese, German, and other country’s companies. It’s time to wise up.

      1. Some of that nine trillion in debt Obama ran uip could have gone for that sort of infrastructure rebuilding but instead went …….where? Union payoffs, propping up companies that had run themselves broke. It WAS a possibility but now there’s the small matter of the 20 trillion dollar debt to take care of Let’s see

        What is the value of the world economy?

        World GDP (official exchange rate) Factbook > Countries > World > Economy.
        GDP (official exchange rate): GWP (gross world product): $74.31 trillion (2013 est.) Definition: This entry gives the gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year

        World GDP (official exchange rate) – Economy – IndexMund
        http://www.indexmundi.com/world/gdp_(official_exchange_rate).html

        Of which 20 trillion is US Debt. So yes it was probably possible but the money didn’t go there. Bill Gates worth went from 40 Billion to 80 billion. Soros went from 8 billion to 20 billion. Wonder where did that money go to…..Chelsea Clinton was listed as having more money than her parents …..Where DID that money go?

  19. Reblogged this on Mikepouraryan’s Weblog and commented:
    I appreciate Professor Turley noting this especially in light of the Executive Orders issued by President Trump reinstating Keystone & Dakota–and the EPA ban. This is as President Trump is expected to issue Executive Orders regarding the Wall and a ban on visas for Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Somalia on Wednesday.

    It has been quite a few days……

  20. Thank you for this–I also hope the EPA Media Ban (that the Press Secretary today said “..they’re looking into”) should also be of concern–as I also hope you have a chance to share your insights on the proposed ban the President is apparently proposing based on multiple reports out there including this from politico:
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/donald-trump-immigration-234142
    It has been quite a few days…..

    1. AltUSNatParkService
      ‏@AltNatParkSer

      President Trump will build a wall to keep people out of the US, & piplines to make sure oil destroys our nature reserves. #resist #Keystone

      1. What about the existing pipelines? And let’s not forget supporting the bituminous dirty acid raini producing coal while locking up the clean anthracite coal. Let’s see that last one had something to do with a certain former vice presidents whose making a ton of money off of inconvenient fibs AND dirty coal investments.

Comments are closed.