Burn Baby Burn: Trump Set To Eviscerate Obama’s Environmental Protection and Climate Change Reforms

With the health care reform defeat, the Trump Administration is moving aggressively toward new goals including tax cuts in Congress.  Today, however, he will keep another pledge and dismantle Obama orders protecting the environment and combating climate change and environmental protection. With the rescinding of the orders, Trump will place the United States in the most anti-climate change posture of any major nation, rivaling even China in the lack of hard commitments to move away from fossil fuels. Indeed, he is expected to open up new leases for coal and relax regulations to allow increased fossil fuel consumption.  As I have previously discussed, this move is not only running against the grain of other major nations but against the market itself. While other countries are moving aggressively toward clean energy and green markets, the United States will be moving aggressively backward.

Trump’s actions today reflect what I have long criticized about the Democratic strategy under Obama.  Democratic members supported Obama as he acted unilaterally and governed through executive orders.  Obama’s legacy therefore rests on clay feet — what one president creates through executive orders, another president may take away.  Despite my strong support for Obama’s views on the environment, I did have serious misgivings over his unilateral actions and circumvention of Congress. These are major decisions that should be made by the legislative branch.  However, Trump is using the same powers to rollback on protects, and more importantly to encourage the expansion of fossil fuel consumption.  The environment (and the public) will pay a hefty price if we break from the other Western nations and double down on coal and oil.

Trump has called climate change a “hoax” despite overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing rapidly and will produce disastrous consequences for this planet unless addressed. Trump aides are reportedly calling for our removal from the Paris Accord or refusal to meet any of the previous commitments under the agreement.  The Obama Administration had agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26-28% by 2025 compared to 2005 levels.

The new orders are expected to move toward the elimination or significant reduction of the clean power plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants. Also expected to be gutted is the climate action plan and he is expected to lift a 14-month-old moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands.  Prior estimates on the social costs of carbon and greenhouse gases will be rescinded as will the guidelines published by the White House Council on Environmental Quality last August will be rescinded.

In other words, it is bonanza for industry and specifically the fossil fuel industry.

I obviously view the rollback on environmental and energy policies to be a terrible decision for the public. Indeed, any rational review of the market can see that green technology and alternative energy is the future for the world economy.  We are going big on yesterday’s industries like the investors who bet heavily on new canal projects despite the obvious advancement of railroads.  Tesla is now worth as much if not more than Ford.  Solar energy not employs more than all of the fossil fuel industries combined.  Major nations are now moving to be fossil free with huge strides in the use of alternative energy sources, including Germany.

I have always been caught in a philosophical dilemma. I believe that these issues need to be decided by Congress even though I have little faith that Congress will move toward greater environmental protection and alternative fuels.  That is burden of a representative democracy. I do not believe that these issues should be decided unilaterally by Obama or Trump.  The decisions come with great costs either way.  It needs to be a decision of the country as a whole.  However, I believe that Obama was right about the need to move strongly in favor of these measures to protect the future of this country and the whole at large.  I have no objections to Republicans who raise questions about the real benefits of some measures, particularly given their high costs. I also believe that there is a need to address the skyrocketing regulations imposed on businesses. However, we need to take action (in my view) to curtail these pollutants and have this debate . . . on the floor of Congress.


126 thoughts on “Burn Baby Burn: Trump Set To Eviscerate Obama’s Environmental Protection and Climate Change Reforms”

  1. The House Science Space and Technology Committe had a hearing yesterday and the most pertinent testimony, I believe, came from John Christy. His position is that claims by the climate establishment, that man-made change is indisputable, is based on consensus building, and not on science (the scientific method). He then shows that, using the scientific method, the climate change hypothesis is unproven.




  2. The commenters here all need to learn some science. I suggest starting with “The Long Thaw” by David Archer.

  3. Al Gore is delighted that Trump is treating global warming as the scam that it is. Gore has only worth about $2 million from his family wheeling and dealing up through his vice presidency. But once he embarked on his global warming agenda, his net worth exploded nearly 1,000%, to more than $200 million. That is some SERIOUS monetary heat, at least proving the existence of global warming as a monetary trend–for some politically connected people!

    And now with Trump as President, Gore has already swiftly moved into action to make even more money than ever. Gore is coming out with an even bigger budget global warming scamster flick, loaded with Leftist propaganda. http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/03/29/delingpole-al-gore-global-warming-is-real-because-production-values/

    I’m sure that the Leftist dopes, dupes, and dolts will be lining up to pay for Gore latest piece of trash. And I would hardly be surprised if they don’t give Gore an Academy Award next year to further add to his ever expanding bottom line.

  4. I don’t think anyone is going to convince GE to start producing incandescent light bulbs again. I doubt anyone will go back to transistor radios. Maybe some people will consider going back in the coal mines, but the market may not be there, and reviving a dead market may not be worth it. The car industry is way past producing gas guzzlers. Industries are moving at a fast pace, developing new products for a hungry consumer market. It probably will not take Trump long to figure this out. The real problem that needs to be solved is much more difficult than turning the clock back. We need a new paradigm for a culture and society that may not need to work 40 hours a week. If the robots already in the planning phase are rolled out the way their inventors intend, we will have to figure out how to live with them and without the high level of employment we currently enjoy. Robots are the threat to employment, not foreign trade. Maybe one of Trump’s kids can work on that problem. That is the one that needs solving.

    1. You sound like you read J H Kunstler’s Blog. However, it is hard to move to “sustainable”, when the Democrats are busily trying to stuff the ballot boxes with millions of illegal immigrants moving into the country each year.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    2. This is easy, adopt a final solution to the unemployed worker question.

  5. You think the future of our planet is a political issue? Really? Why should you care though, you’ll be gone by time the check comes and the water is lapping at the porch in Miami, am I right?

  6. looks like the tree hugges took it in the shorts on this exchange but let’s get back to important stuff. When can we warch the debate with Yoo?

  7. “Burn, baby, burn!” Was a phrase from the 1965 riots in Watts in Los Angeles. It was not a complaint but words used to encourage rioting and arson.
    It seems appropriate for Trump. He is draining the swamp and burning the palm trees.

      1. I agree. But don’t burn the swamp, drain it. Then burn the dead palm trees. Not in a pile but while still standing.

  8. Well, you got what you wanted. You got it good and hard. Congratulations.

  9. This is the same thing that Reagan did. Carter put mandates in place that would force Detroit to innovate regarding emissions and mileage, to compete with the rest of the world. The rest of the world innovated. Reagan allowed SUVs to be classified as trucks, exempt from the mandates. Detroit lost another two hundred thousand jobs as foreign auto manufacturers created better cars. This is the same old fast bucks to buy off the voters and worry later schtick. Denmark exports 40% of the world’s heavy wind turbines at ten mil a pop. The US imports most of their wind turbines. Ask yourself, why isn’t the US manufacturing and exporting wind turbines. It has nothing to do with labor costs. They are much higher in Denmark and Germany. It has everything to do with the stupidity of the fast buck entrepreneurs like DDT and the Republicans. Reagan, Bush, now DDT. When will Americans pull their heads out from where the sun don’t shine?

    1. issac – there are plenty of Democratic businessmen. They could build wind turbines. How about the vaunted Canadians? Or, are they too conservative?

    2. Now we know how the left wing idologues are twisting that story. and at the same time bitching because where the sun doesn’t shine can be found by Isaac bending over and taking a good look.

      No deals with foreign ideologies their foreign supporters.

  10. Despite my strong support for Obama’s views on the environment,

    BO’s ‘views’ are a set of attitudes adopted within a particular bourgeois subculture. The former president doesn’t know resource economics from tiddlywinks, has spent nearly his entire life in densely settled metropolitan zones, and has no rustic hobbies.

    Here’s a suggestion: institute some Pigou levies on emissions, institute a tradeable permits regime regarding certain other emissions, and institute command-and-control regulations selectively (say, with regard to nuclear or chemical waste dumps), and sequester certain landholdings (e.g. old growth forest). Get the Department of Energy and other federal agencies out of the venture capital business and eliminate tax preferences which generate a de facto industrial policy.

    With regard to arid-region water resources, annul extant water rights in return for an indemnity to current holders, build an infrastructure and inspectorate which can monitor water draws, set seasonal use levels per environmental criteria, and have multiple price auctions of tranches of water at which local water authorities will be among the bidders. Restrict compensation per worker at water authorities to a fixed % of the mean for a given metropolitan region and restrict permissible retained income to a fixed % of total personal income in their area of operation. Let their board of trustees set prices wherever they care to with 30 days notice, but require they rebate any excess retained income to their customers at the end of the fiscal year ($x per household and $y per commercial customer). ‘Droughts’ will mean higher prices for water, land taken out of production, and crop substitution. Full stop. People settling in Arizona will pay full freight for water going forward (and will have the sense to replace their lawns with desert gardens).

    1. dds – many of us in Arizona have or are expected to have ‘desert landscaping.’ That is what I have. I have no grass. Cut off S.Cals greenery, too. San Diego is a desert, they actually get slightly more rainfall than Phoenix does. By actually, I mean 0.2 inches.

      1. If Phil Mickelson or the Los Angeles Country Club wish to spring for grass, they’re welcome to do so, but they’re going to pay prices derived from auctions.

      2. Southern ‘Caifornia uses about 500 gallons of fresh water per day per capita. it has enough naturally to support 300,000. They are now building two huge tunnels from the San Francisco Bay area to suck water from the entire inland valley, area the surrounding mountains north and south and Shasta Damn area. for what? Golf Courses, Swimming pools and s said desert greenery. That happens with rain when it happens. Since I’m on the other side of the Great American Desert and in the Sonora Desert from Paul i see it happen year round.

        You want to help the environment and infrastructure shut down that project which will kill SF and San Pablo Bay. All for some airhead twits doing bikini advertisements. Well…that’s a good idea. The rest sucks.

        What do you bet California is already wanting on the list to try and get infrastructure rebuild for their next favorite project. The canal from Columbia River to the Shasta system. That idea and those tunnels deserve a truck load of dynamite.

  11. A totally bogus fake news article. Although the climate is changing, there is ZERO evidence that use of fossil fuels contribute in any significant or measurable way to any changes in the climate. That is 100% fact. NOBODY has demonstrated any causation between the two, and, believe me, they’ve tried. But they’ve FAILED. Hence, ANY policy based on climate change is a FRAUD.

    1. Oh, and I won’t be surprised if Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio take private jets around the globe at an astronomical cost to protest Trump’s common sense actions. Separating hypocrisy from the Global Warming Scamsters is like trying to pull apart welded steel pieces with your bare hands.

  12. This is obviously a multiply nuanced matter and to untangle it from politics will serve the world well. I’ve little time right now to write on this so I must be brief.

    As I’ve written here before, environmentalists are often times their own worst enemy. While they accomplished many great feats in drawing attention to pollution and conservation, their eventual alignment with only one side of the political spectrum and the castigation of the other lead to divisions that turn out to be a strategic defeat to their cause. Namely, they became too counter-culture to average Americans to take them seriously.

    From this environmentalism became a weapon or cause célèbre for one side to advocate and the other to fight. Then we found some of the “cry-wolf” behavior in the foisting of wild claims sparking doom-and-gloom if anything short of absolute certainty was not adhered to, rather than using a more balanced approached by offering actual risk or a range of risk based upon known scientific study.

    Setting this broken foundation, politics unfortunately dictates outcomes more than science. And politicians are often incompetent when it comes to science and are willing to look the other way if their party establishes policy that is contrary to what is truly needed to address pollution costs.

    The unnecessary regulation is as much a problem as it is to dump toxins into rivers. Had instead a more comprehensive and well crafted solution been made there is no reason to doubt both sides could have agreed. After all, when the EPA was established in the 1970’s pollution costs dropped dramatically and in fact industry became more efficient as a result of energy and resource conservation since there was impetus to reform and not simply rely on legacy systems.

    To tackle this problem, conservationists, a term I prefer to use because environmentalist has become tainted as a label for aforementioned reasons, conservationists need to once again convince the public through reasonable means that curbing pollution (rather than using the “global warming” tagline) is in everyone’s interests. Nobody will disagree that pollution is bad, and from there reestablish in people the need to reform our practices. Entreating politicians is not going to be completely effective.

    For me, I am a very headstrong advocate of protecting the environment and will always be. But tree-huggers simply make me cringe.

    1. Darren, You are a voice of reason. I do what I can regarding conservation. But, it is obvious the environmental evangelists, spurred on by cynical politicians, went all in on global warming a decade or more back. I have a pet peeve. Virtually all forms of pollution take a back seat to the cardinal sin of global warming. NO ONE ever talks about noise pollution as our planet gets LOUDER AND LOUDER by the day. Noise pollution has a daily adverse effect on humans and animals NOW, not possibly centuries down the road..RIGHT NOW!

      1. “Virtually all forms of pollution take a back seat to the cardinal sin of global warming.” I could not agree more, and find it very frustrating. We do very little to help our planet over all because our fixation on carbon takes the lion’s share of our resources.

      2. Nick, spot on with the noise issue! Leaf blowers are the worst IMO. I’m grateful for the texting revolution as I’m no longer forced to endure as many loud cell phone conversations in stores, the library, restaurants, etc.

    2. Darren – what a fantastic post.

      I’ve written to a well known environmental group that I have supported for many years, several times my dismay that environmentalism in general and their publication in particular, has become merely an offshoot of the Democratic Party. Each and every issue relentlessly bashes the Republican Party, and sometimes Libertarians, as well. I’ve written that environmentalist and conservation is an inclusive cause for everyone, and it should not be part of one party affiliation. It is a risk to shut out half the country. But I’ve never received a response.

      These are the wages of alienating half the country who feel they are not welcome in environmental issues.

    3. Great post Darren!

      I believe once this became an issue that could be exploited politically, then it only required “data” to entrench the divide. This is a classic “follow the money and power” scenario. There will be no amount of data that will convince either side of this debate they are wrong. As long as large sums of money are involved, as long as the political class make campaign promises on this and as long as hypocrisy is accepted, then this will be used to wedge money and votes out of the citizen class.

    4. Three Big Cheers and a Standing Ovation for the voice of reason.

      Take a big bow.

    5. Excellent post, Darren.

      It strikes me that fossil fuels causing global warming is off-point but makes a great target to whip.

      No one in politics or the MSM ever discusses anything except carbon, with the occasional mention of cows and methane.

      No one discusses lowly microbes and chemicals:

      ” With an overload of fertilizer, soil microbes on farms may belch unexpectedly high levels of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with 300 times as much heat-trapping power as carbon dioxide.”


      Not to mention the effects of other chemicals on the soil microbiome and the degree of carbon sequestration, nitrous oxide emissions, and methane emissions. What about these same chemicals affecting water microbes?

      These issues are glaringly absent from the discussion (what discussion there is to be had anyway).

  13. So! the following comments are from first hand knowledge and observations only. They all have one common factor

    1. PBS interviews the original bell ringer of the impending global warming disaster who corrects the initial statement and admits to fudging and cherry picking the figures in order to ‘get funding grants.’ in summation still finishes with ‘if we only had more funding we could establish a world wide system of measuring these trends more exactly. A counter was offered by one of those jumped on the band wagon follow ons who thought the figures still showed a trend even after correction but offered no back up except if we only had funding .

    (They are still asking although the world wide system was completed some time ago and put in place by commercial businesses windtytv and intellicast weather to name sources show the results from thousands of weather stations world wide. They helped verify the current mini ice age of a 1 C. minus average projected over 200 years. Paid for by subscribers and advertisers. Global warming has, apparently, been postponed by Mother Nature.)

    2. Al Gore sold off his tobacco interests but apparently the crops weren’t changed under new ownership. Instead coal mining wads the next venture. Not clean burning anthracite but dirty burning bituminous. He then personally as VP arranged for the western USA anthracite areas to be locked up from use even though plants such as Boardman, Oregon had to pay CSX to bring them dirty eastern coal significantly increasing the cost of fuel .

    The Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire while State Attorney General joined in a major lawsuit with other states and won funding paid for by the tobacco companies to offset the cost of treating lung cancer. As governer she spent the money on other things and left office leaving Washington in debt. Gore continues to run his secular 700 club. Gore is now a muliti millionaire and still lives in a non-green house.

    3. During the height of the spotted owl frenzy the director of Sierra Club for Oregon clear cut his property of old growth timber. The main lawyer for that effort one David Adkins worked pro bono until the shutdown of timber cutting in prime pot growing areas was completed. Then he charged the federal government and the nations taxpayers and became a millionaire.

    4. Concern for the fishing industry resulted in the permanent shut down of a large part of the US Pacific fleet including buying the licenses and the boats and retraining fisher folk in new job skills. The boats went to Russia on a US government sponsored loan which was forgiven. All this arranged by Tyson’s through their friends the Clintons. The boats never got to Russia to help provide the needed protein for the Russians. They could be seen routinely offloading at the Tyson docks in Fife, Washington just north of Tacoma and as there were no busses that ran that far out we often gave Russian crew members rides

    5. About six and seven years ago the northern California coast crab fishing hit a bonanza. Crab boats moved in from everywhere and the locals lrestricted to 300 or 500 pots were outclassed by others including Alaskan boats with modifed entry gates. These had five to ten times the capacity. Boats showed up with pots and their support trucks brought down more on flatbed 18 wheelers. Concerned with the amounts being taken locals checked with Fish and Wildlife whose test beds located in areas different than the open crabbing areas did not allow any crabbing and they showed PLENTY so not to worry. Next season had the predictable crabbed out results.

    6. Tyson’s did ok for helping out Hillary and her investments in the the hog belly futures market of Chicago but then it was shown the amount of investing was physically impossible and we found out Tysons had been betting both ways and giving the winner each time to the wife of the future President. Later that same President got Tysons the contract for eggs and poultry to the entire SE and Eastern area military forts and bases market.

    7. Any Questions?. There is no quiz. That was failed a long time ago.

    You will excuse me for these first hand observations but it makes it very difficult to believe these scare stories and further more diverts attention from real problems such as burning bituminous coal instead of anthracite which served only to enrich people like Al Bore. One might also think to suspect the ‘insider trading’ privileges of the Congress which the rest of do not have ….except with a charge of a felony attached.

    In summation I have no reason to believe this is anything but a hoax at best scam at worst .

    Corporatist Socialist like Tysons and CSX and of course Al Bore are laughing all the way to the bank and now you know where a lot of that extra 7 or eight or nine trillion ended up and why when we lost 30% buying power on the 2008 collapse SOME doubled their wealth….Soros 8 billion to 16 billion for example.

    And the carbon tax emission scam made even more money ….for some.

    1. Reviewing government mismanagement of most things they touch is depressing.

      I was wondering if you had a link to the interview mentioned in #1, or its text? I was aware of the loss of much of the original data after they had homogenized it, the moving or loss of weather stations, the change in accuracy of probes over the past 100 years, and of course the hockey stick fiasco, but I had not heard about that interview.

      I am an environmentalist and a conservationist. And yet I have been deeply disturbed by the admitted wrongdoing in the arena of ACC, including wildly inappropriate conflict of interest and the complete loss of original data, which would lead to lawsuits and perhaps criminal charges should this have happened in the pharmaceutical industry. Once Climate Change was worth money to politicians in the form of taxes, tariffs, and fees, and money to special interests in the form of grants, government venture capital, etc, the integrity of the science immediately suffered. And it’s a shame. Environmental science is a crucial study. Every shred of doubt on the part of the public as to our climate may be laid squarely at the feet of each and everyone involved who engaged in bad acts that eroded the public trust. Well, that, and the fact that predicting climate is a bit of an art, we’re comparing the exact temperature readings over millions of years based on estimates, the climate has always oscillated wildly, and every single computer model has been inaccurate. And a little known fact is that the mainstream scientific community is in fact deeply divided over the percentage impact humans have over our naturally changing environment, and if it is even over 50%. Most believe that humans do indeed impact our climate. How could we not when overgrazing and overlooking desertified the Middle East and ruined the cedar forests of Lebanon, leading to dryer air, erosion, and a cascade effect on microclimates? But the percentage impact and what we can do about it is in flux.

      Meanwhile, we pollute our air and water, chop down our forests producing our oxygen, clearcut rainforest to grow ethanol and biodiesel, and ACC gets all the money and glory. We could be making our world a healthier place right now, but we don’t have the money. It all goes to the cause celebre.

      And, meanwhile, as we sanctimoniously champion anti-ACC measures, we still buy most of our stuff from the heavy hitter polluters like China. We just dump our toxins in their backyard, including our eWaste from all our nifty new iPhones and computers.

      We have no high horse to sit on.

      1. “overlooking” was suppose to be ‘over-logging.” Darn autocorrect!

        1. Perhaps the Chines can add some gas masks to their next order of red Trump caps.The logo should read “Make America Dirty”.

      2. KarenS, re: “And, meanwhile, as we sanctimoniously champion anti-ACC measures, we still buy most of our stuff from the heavy hitter polluters like China” excellent point. I just got back from my local fish monger – hadn’t been there in a few years as I tend to buy direct from the fishing boats. I was shocked to see how much of their of wares were from China! fortunately the shrimp was wild and local.

        Until we change our shopping habits nothing will change.

      3. Karen – but, but, but, we grow all those new Xmas trees each year. And we grow three crops of alfalfa here every year. Some people have posited that there are more trees now than there were 200 years ago. When Lewis and Clark crossed the Great Plains there were no trees. Now there are towns and cities with trees in them. Roads with trees planted along side them.

      4. I heard it on PBS All Things Considered one day. But the same was in more than one printed source and fired up a good fight between the scientists and the pseudo scientists and the charlatans. The rest is just personal observation. I’ve seen the clear cut on the Sierra Club dudes land. I was there during crab season when the Fish and Wildlife let that industry get clear cut.

        I paid attention when Gore did the lock the anthracite scam and then turned his tobacco interests into bituminous coal stocks. On the radio and in the papers every day until the media decided to support his movie. Someone mentioned China as a heavy hitter polluter I researched that myself as an emerging market capitalism nation they are close to catching uip or have surpassed pollution contributions and besides they were EXCUSED from making any cutback in that Paris fiasco that we are not a part of …legally…and with good reason.

        I actually watched on TV as that idiot Obama violated his oath of office in signing his own name as an individual to that stuff. It has nothing to do with our nation.

        Last I coud find the total output of wind an solar combined are equal to one nucler power plant.

        i worked at Boardman Oregon plant which replaced Trojan Nuclear it was set up to run on anthracite and had to convert to bituminous with a heavy increase in clean air degradation in the local area. Who cared?

        And while we are at it what happened to those nuclear submarines sunk in the White Sea and nearby with their radioactive engines under constant attack by the number one corrosive in existence. Sea Water. Suddenly the left stream press got all silent on the subject.

        Get real. The spotted owls were living in KMart signs. The whole thing was a way to protect the pot growing areas of Southern Oregon and Northern California. How do I know: I lived there right near the Kalmiopsis and watched the foriegners invade the area and form Headwaters.

        Spare me the platitudes I learned more about being a good steward of the land in FFA than the culture warriors will in a lifetime.

    2. Haha. It’s Tuesday, that the green pill. Really, what are you talking about? If two people know about a story, it’s no longer a secret. You’re not the “9-11 is a false flag attack” guy too, are you?

  14. “Solar energy not employs more than all of the fossil fuel industries combined.”

    I stated the first time JT posted about this. This just shows how stupid solar is. It takes more people to produce what, maybe 10% of our needs. This quote is not a selling point but a sign that solar is a joke.

    1. I suspect that’s a factoid. Solar’s more cost-effective than it was 40 years ago, but it’s still not competitive in most circumstances.

      1. I hope it will be cost effective one day and no longer generate toxins to build solar panels.

        It is one of my dreams to go solar.

        I think I’m the future the focus will be on end user power generation and the grid will either be gone or run by users.

    2. It has it’s place but as a major power source not yet. I use solar and wind generation on my boat which in turn uses sails and a diesel auxilary. it’s not for everyone everywhere. One day without wind and sunshine and guess what.

      HOWEVER a poll I saw asked for the safest way to transport energy. The obvious answer was left off the list. Convert it to electricity at it’s sources and transmit it by wire.

      Best way is bury the cables as much as possible. Now that is an infrastructure improvement worth doing.

  15. Some of these moves may be good and some bad. You are to consider that merely claiming something is good for the environment does not make it so. For example, we cut down acres of trees to turn into wood pellets for the U.K. To burn as clean renewables. This produces more carbon than burning coal, but accounting sleight of hand takes it away because the trees can technically be replanted and remove some carbon theoretically in a few decades. In reality they would just be cut down again. Then there were the carbon credits Ponzi Schemes which were really just more tax revenue for the tax and spend set. Then there was the CA Air Resources Board which suddenly required new engines for trucks and drove the price up on all goods and services.

    So we have to be suspicious about what measures actually do help the environment. I want a clean environment, prioritizing cleaning up air and water pollution and battling de-vegetetation and the removal of adapted native plants. But the garbage taxes and regulations that just swelled government coffers and enriched donors but did nothing for the environment can go.

    1. . Then there were the carbon credits Ponzi Schemes which were really just more tax revenue for the tax and spend set. Then there was the CA Air Resources Board which suddenly required new engines for trucks and drove the price up on all goods and services.

      Karen, tradeable permits are a tool to contain certain sorts of emissions. I first heard of the idea (then not implemented) more than 30 years ago courtesy Dr. Steve Hanke, who’s now a fellow at the Cato Institute (he was at Heritage when I knew him). There’s a considerable literature on them within resource economics. Like any tool, they’re not optimal for every type of situation. For some reason, knucklehead partisan Republicans have gotten the idea in their head that they’re some sort of scam invented by Al Gore. (Blah blah blah ‘cap-and-tax’ blah blah blah).

      1. When I looked into them they were not actuating reductions but a revenue generator instead. They were poorly implemented.

        I would be happy to be wrong about that issue however. If you have any good luck now to post I would revisit.

    2. and along with that let’s not forget the ethanol scam. Enough to keep me off gasoline powered vehicles for life. Diesel if you have to use but not that ethanol crap. All it’s for is buying votes and burning up peoples expensive automobile engines to keep them in debt on reduced value money.

      No more foreign ideologies.

  16. Trump’s latest rollback of environmental standards is breathtakingly stupid. He should talk to foreign leaders about walking back the Paris Agreement before renouncing US commitments. It will cause major loss of US credibility and leadership. He should limit his changes to areas where less burdensome regulation would work as effectively to protect the environment.

    1. Who gives a toss what the Davos set thinks? Progressives are people for whom high school never ended.

    2. The USA has nbo comitments. That requries a treaty and we have no treaty with that group. Treaties require the advise and consent of Congress and that never happened. A signature of one individual alone no matter how dictatorial inclined means less than squat nothing and in no way binds the USA to anything. We are not part of it neither as followers and leaders nor participants. That was ONE individual who struck out on their own.

      The President would be stupidly foolish to break the law by having anything to do with it. Since he needs the support of the same Congress plus more to get iimportant things done which doesn’t include sucking up to a bunch of tree huggers who like us can’t pay for their current legal commitments and bills. Japan, China, Germany and most especially France.

      Doing so without going throught he proper procedure would indeed be an impeachment offense and then should be followed up the trial and removal. I guarantee Pence would just laugh at your suggestion.

      Price you pay for living in a Constitutional Republic and thinking it’s a socialist democracy. Incredibly stupid.

      End of conversation. Period.

      No deals with foreign ideoligies.

  17. You know, if there is really a problem with the climate, and we need to fix it, here are some easy solutions!

    1. Roll up the sidewalks at 9:00 PM. Yep, even the “City That Never Sleeps” starts going home, by 9:00PM. No more restaurants and bars open to 3:00 AM, or later. No more all night Wal Marts, and concerts and football games that go on to midnight. The lights go out and 9:00. Exceptions could be granted to keep maybe one all night WalMart in a larger city, or it could alternate with an all night Target. Exceptions could be granted for a Waffle House here and there, and service stations could also alternate. Think of the electricity that would save! And the gas. No more cop cars patrolling the highways at midnight looking for drunks!

    2. Eliminate all limousines. I mean really, you have this big huge car to tote around some rich schmucks, so they can impress people? Or drunk college kids? Nope. Let ’em Uber, in Corollas.

    3. Eliminate yachts.

    4. Eliminate private jets.

    5. Eliminate multiple homes for rich people. They get two, maybe three homes, those being their main residence, and one or two vacation cabins.

    6. No more illegal immigrants. Most illegals come from “low energy usage” countries to here, which is a “high energy usage” country. From a country where they walk, or ride a burro, to a country where they drunkenly careen around in cars.

    7. No more pick up trucks unless your job requires it. No more big SUV’s unless you have a family that needs it. And, bring back the lowly one-wheel drive station wagon.

    8. Eliminate all concerts and sporting events. Most people have big screen TV’s so let them watch at home. Make all games “broadcastable”. That eliminates all the gas going to the events, and all the lighting, heating, etc.

    9. Start again to close businesses on Sundays. That eliminates 1/7 of a lot of the energy it takes to run a store. Plus, it save the gas it takes to get to the store for customers, and workers. Exceptions could be made for rotating stores to be open for emergency type purchases.

    10. Stop school busing students to far away neighborhoods. Too much gas.

    11. Start executing large numbers of criminals. That reduces the food intake, the energy requirements, the DOC requirements.

    12. Close down all bars. You wanna drink, go home and drink. You wanna find a girlfriend, or boyfriend, then use Tindr, or EHarmony.

    I estimate this would save a tremendous amount of energy, reduce our carbon footprint, and let people have a good night’s sleep!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Oh, and another big thing:

      13. Eliminate most tourism. Have you ever thought about how much energy is wasted on tourism? I mean I would love to go to Italy, or Central Europe, or poke around book stores in Paris, but think of the effect on the environment. It takes energy to get me there, then energy to drive me around to all the places, and what do I see when I am there? Beautiful art, or beautiful buildings, and while that is great, isn’t it also pretty darn narcissistic and energy wasting? How many trees had to die to get me to Europe?

      And the idiots who travel here to go to Disneyland or Epcot or whatever? Why? So they can let their brats rides in a Magic Teacup ride, or throw chickens to alligators? Or watch a special effects Indiana Jones thingy? Its fun, but if we really have all these energy concerns, isn’t it also very hypocritical?

      Or, to pick on our host a little, isn’t it like flying to Guam or Alaska, and using all that energy, so that he can then “hike”, which is the same as walking, in those environments? I mean I have nothing against that, but how do you justify all this concern with our carbon footprints, when you are flying and driving all over the place so that you can “walk” in a new and beautiful environment?

      It looks to me like if you are really concerned about the impact of energy consumption on the environment, you should be thinking about things like this. Because planes use a lot of fuel, and so do little boats and helos puttering around from island to island in the Pacific.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Squeeky – I did read that tourism was down in London. Probably other parts of the EU as well.

        1. Tourism down in London is fear. Lots of people renting RV’s to see their own country, USA. For me, there is no way to predict the weather. I’d say it’s done a lot of damage the last two years. If you want evidence you have to dig. I think the access to information, and the curiosity of the next generation, will find a lot of facts unknown today. 150 years is a long time.

            1. Squeeky – reports on the VR show that sales are slow because of motion sickness. 🙂

      2. Come on Squeeky Fromm: You forgot about the easy way. Allow only one child per couple.

        1. Yeah, but that ain’t going to work in America. What do you think is going to happen when you tell black women they can only have ONE illegitimate baby, and by extension only ONE baby daddy. RACISSSSSST! To enforce it it you would have to sterilize them, which I think ought to be done anyway after their first welfare baby. But it can’t happen here. Then, you have our beloved Mexican immigrants, who are also popping out illegitimate kids like gum from a gumball machine. Not to mention the ones who cross the border with a a passel of kids. You really think the Democrats are going to let their voting base get diminished that way?

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

      3. Tourism down in London is fear. Lots of people renting RV’s to see their own country, USA. For me, there is no way to predict the weather. I’d say it’s done a lot of damage the last two years. If you want evidence you have to dig. I think the access to information, and the curiosity of the next generation, will find a lot of facts unknown today. 150 years is a long time.

    2. Well Squeek,I’m glad you’re in favor of leaving a few Waffle Houses open =)

        1. Well, there are some place that have to be open all night, like hospitals, fire houses, power plants, and police stations. Plus, there are truck drivers. Those people need to eat, too. But so much of what we do is just out and out wasteful. Which if the climate is such a big concern to some people, then start doing the little things that would cut out a lot of usage, and not make too big an impact on our standard of living. Like just going to bed at night, and not using a lot of electricity to keep things lit up, when we should be asleep anyway.

          Rich people waste a whole lot of energy on their lifestyles. Really, does Al Gore, a single man, need a 15,000 square foot house? Or Leo Dicaprio his own little private jet? Some banker his own little yacht? I suspect that if we start making rich people live more energy efficiently, a lot of the scare talk would subside. Or, if we started making the jet set get off the jets, and start taking ocean liners with sails to Europe, then we would be presented a more realistic view of what is actually occurring.

          Or, if the SJW types were booted out of their nightclubs, coffee bars, and other hangouts, and had to go home and go to bed, then they would lose a lot of their fanaticism.

          Oh, and number 14: A Mansion tax. Any home over 3,500 square feet either gets rooms shut down, or a huge tax gets paid. No more Hollywood types living in 10,000 square foot homes, with 10 bathrooms and hot tubs preaching to us little people about saving energy. Nope. The new rules should start with them, and their Conspicuous Consumptions crap.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. I agree with your ideas, Squeeky, but surely additional exceptions have to be permitted. For example, what if Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio need to take private jets, reside in fancy hotels, and eat at 5-star restaurants around the globe, and then make local limousine trips to protest Trump’s policies. Surely, in your heart of hearts, you understand that because they know what’s best for the rest of us, so they would need separate rules to apply to them?

          2. I don’t have any issues with global warming; personally I hate snow! But I did take a class in “Environmental Economics” way back in the 80s, and the studies we reviewed showed the biggest negative impact on the environment is 3d world to 1st world emigration. But that’s not going to change because the leftists in Europe and the U.S. love to bring in people from China, Mexico and the Middle East, where they can swap their bicycles, mules and camels for SUVs, and their thatched huts for central heat & air conditioned homes. And yet I’m supposed to go to bed at 9:00 and recycle my beer cans to make up for the Pakis next door with 3 cars? I don’t think so…..!

    3. The rulers need to incentive people to move to higher ground inland. They should eliminate government subsidized flood insurance and raise property taxes on beachfront property.

      Sea level is rising at a catastrophic 1/10th of an inch per year. I doubt the rich people on Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, The Hamptons, or up and down the Pacific coast will be able to get out of the way fast enough.

    4. You can’t eliminate all yachts then I would n’t have a house and besides my 32′ sloop is far more energy efficient than your house on the land with car can ever hope to be. Second Carter tried that with his luxury tax and it put a ton of people out of work that used to build those items you personally dislike . In just one town on the Oregon coast three such operatioins closed down and when they went the side business of bujilding commercial fishing boats went. The town is now full of ghosts except for retired Californians but the Oregonians were forced to move elsewhere looking for work You went over the limit this time. All the rich people did was buy from yacht builders in other countries didn’t slow them down a bit and the other countries benefited. while USA citizens went on unemployment then welfare and food stamps.

      Wrong answer. Take an economics course. Ij like number 11 It’s a very fast cure for recedivism .

      But your worst idea is no SUVs or trucks etc. I’ve seen those roller skate and go kart with a sort of imitiation car built around them. Death Traps. Nothing but. Try NOT living in a city. They all suck anyway.

      1. Tourism Ii do that every day and take my house with me then use local transportation. Ever seen Copper Canyon or Canon Cobre. Bigger than the Grand Canyon and one can ride the rim area in a train that runs from the Baja coast to El Paso on a regular passenger and freight route There is a smaller version near where I am now a mere five mile walk to the entrance. three or so miles up and three back and five back to the town. I do that during the non hot season part of the year. What I would agree with you on is going to places like New YORK CITEEEE!!!! I’d rather buy Pace Picante.

    5. So, moving on from whatever this list is supposed to represent, are you saying that climate change doesn’t exist? Or are you saying that the climate change is not caused by human actions?

        1. I think climate change is a fraud perpetuated by the “elite” to get in control of energy for their own financial reasons, and to virtue-signal so they can feel like good and smart people. But even if the planet is warming up, so what? There is no law of the Universe that says people have to live in the physical area of “Miami.” Move inland, and enjoy the benefits of the increase in plant life from the carbon dioxide.

          BUT, if they think it is real, and want to tell everybody it is real, then let them start the ball rolling by ditching their toys first. And, let them pick up the slack with higher taxes to make up for all the people who will lose their jobs.

          The best thing you could ever do in this country to bring a sense of reality back is to require balanced budgets at every governmental level. And no cheating with “Bond” issues. Nope, make it pay as you go, and let taxes fluctuate as needed to pay the bills. Right now the entire country is living with “credit cards” disguised as “Bonds”, or “Deficits” so that we can live in LaLa Land. IMHO, this is where the Boomers screwed the whole country over. They got to do their virtue-signalling on the next dozen or so generations’ dime.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

  18. Trump is always going on about what a great businessman he is. If that were true he would realize that “energy independence” does not come from draining the earth of non-renewable resources. They run out. That isn’t very bright. Energy independence would mean reliance on renewable, clean(er) energy.

    The US used to be an innovative nation. We had some of the most brilliant inventors in the world and we drew on them to solve difficult problems. For some reason, we don’t do this any longer. We act like there are no good solutions even though there are. We pretend this stupidity is the only option.

    The water protectors are correct. Once you poison water through extraction technologies you have two things: 1. energy that will run out and 2. water that cannot be used for drinking. A good business person would not accept such a stupid way of doing things. To the two-bit, third quarter, small thinking people who pass for business people in our nation sure, that’s good enough for them.

    I’d like to see Trump live up to being a real business person and get cracking on supporting lasting solutions which do not depend on finite resources or poison what every person needs to live, clean air, water and soil.

Comments are closed.