Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from one of the term’s most important cases: Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. As I have previously discussed, the case involving the liability of energy companies for nuisance actions tied to climate change could have sweeping implications for the country. Justice Alito should be commended for avoiding even the appearance of a personal interest or a conflict in the case. However, the controversy should prompt the Court to explore a longstanding problem for justices in holding financial interests that can conflict with their duties. The solution is simple: justices need to use blind trusts.
Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris released a letter revealing that Alito decided he “will not continue to participate” in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County.
Suncor Energy, Boulder sued energy companies under “theories of public and private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, claiming that they knowingly contributed to climate change while misleading the public about its impacts.” The Colorado Supreme Court ruled for the city and the county in finding that such lawsuits are not barred by federal preemption. If such lawsuits are allowed to go forward, it would expose companies to potentially thousands of climate change lawsuits. Oral agument is set for Oct. 5,
The recusal is a blow for challengers who believe that the opinion could be close and Alito was believed to be on the side of barring such actions. It is now down to 8, so a single loss of another conservative could result in a 4-4 tie — leaving the lower court decision unchanged.
While the letter did not give a reason, critics had called for Alito’s recusal due to his financial interest in energy companies which could benefit from the decision.
That included 30 organizations which jointly asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate his involvement in the case. Notably, the court responded to media inquiries by declaring that Alito had no financial interest in any party to the case and that legal counsel had told him that there is no need to recuse himself.
Yet, the standard is whether a reasonable person could question his impartiality and, while he had no interest in the parties, he appears to have investments in other energy companies. Justice Alito previously withdrew shortly before arguments in a separate oil industry case earlier this year.
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA) established financial disclosure reporting requirements for many high-level government officials and employees, including the Justices of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices file publicly available financial disclosure statements that report certain financial transactions. However, they are not required to put their investments into a blind trust.
Justices should be able to have investment portfolios, but they can hold such investments in blind trust or qualified blind trust. In a blind trust the justice will “have no control over, will receive no communications about, and will (eventually as existing assets are sold and new ones obtained by the trustee) have no knowledge of the identity of the specific assets held in the trust. As such, once a blind trust is established and new assets obtained, an official will not need to (and will not be able to) identify the particular assets 13 5 C.F.R. § 2635.403(b).”
Other federal officials must use such trusts and there is no reason why justices should be exempt, in my view. This has been a continual and embarrassing problem. Years ago, the Court affirmed an appellate ruling in a major case involving a $400 billion lawsuit in American Isuzu Motors v. Ntsebeza (2008) without a hearing after four justices had to recuse themselves (Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito Jr).
The business interests of justices should not interfere with the business of the Court. You should either be an active investor in the markets or a justice, not both. The public has a reasonable expectation that, in seeking this high office, justices are willing to set aside certain privileges or interests. This is one of them.
This is not to cast aspersions on the justices. These recusals show that members, including Justice Alito, are cognizant and committed to avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Moreover, some judges and justices resolve this question by using diversified mutual funds or ETFs. where the justice does not control the micro-allocations within the fund. However, there is still knowledge of financial interests in given areas.
This is not a costless obligation for justices. Blind trusts add costs (which Congress may want to consider defraying) and can be complex. However, the business of the Court is too important to be routinely compromised or complicated by these financial interests.
While legislation has been introduced along these lines, it would be simpler for justices to voluntarily adopt this practice.
Consider it is the price of being one of nine. If you want to sit on this Court, you have to do justice which is only fully possible if your investments, like justice itself, are blind.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor who teaches a class on the Constitution and the Supreme Court and is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
A blind trust may work in some cases but not all. Jimmy Carter made his fortune in the peanut wholesale business by operating a warehouse. During his presidency, he put that business in a blind trust. But just because he was not managing his primary financial asset during his presidency did not mean that he was unaware that he possessed a peanut warehouse business. Now I am not accusing President Carter of pushing any self-interested government policies. Indeed after his presidency, Jimmy Carter found that he was on the brink of bankruptcy because his blind trust badly mismanaged his business. Similarly, President Trump has large hospitality and real estate investments. Even though these are independently managed by others, he knows that his fortune is tied up in these types of investments. Some would say to Presidents Carter and Trump that they need to sell it all off prior to taking office. While that is an answer, in my opinion it is not a good answer. Property sales of this nature takes a lot of time and planning. Holding an asset fire sale is not right.
This should be automatic. I do not doubt that the Supreme Court is honest as the day is long. A recusal is perfectly fine. However, it is the appearance of impropriety that matters. A blind trust is a great solution. The bigger question is why is this not done automatically? Why provide fuel to the fire? There is a question of eroding the Court’s trust quotient. Why give anymore ammunition? This needs to get done for ALL of government
If you want to sit on this Court, you have to do justice which is only fully possible if your investments, like justice itself, are blind.
Not if Members of Congress get a pass. There exist 3 branches of government, coequal with each other. Nancy Pelosi didn’t bat an eye in profiting from her position in Congress. Alito should not have to worry about anyone casting aspersions on his credibility since no matter what he does, the Left will react to destroy him. Then there is the Stop Insider Trading Act (H.R. 7008) which passed in the US House only because Republicans carried the vote on July 22, 2026:
https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-7008
Republicans: 218 voted yes; all voting Republicans supported it.
Democrats: 13 voted yes, while 198 voted no.
Total: 232 yes, 198 no.
So, the bill passed with unanimous Republican support and limited Democratic support.
Justice Alito is doing a magnificent job while sitting on the bench for SCOTUS. The Democrats are a threat to our nation since all they seek is their own self-aggrandizement, power and the destruction of Western Civilization. They are bereft of any intellectual arguments. All they have is attack, attack and attack. OTOH, American Patriots are armed to the teeth so there is that.
This area of the law is one that needs more focus, especially in the case of government employees.
If blind trusts are require for justices, very specific policies, procedures and protocols should be implemented.
The legislation that passed the house a few months ago attempts to improve upon the STOCK Act of 2012. It misses the mark. The types of mutual fund investments permitted under this bill are not sufficiently narrowed and the penalties for noncompliance are not substantial.
Anyone who works in the financial services industry, including registered broker-dealers, registered investment advisers and mutual funds, is subject to much more stringent requirements and monetary penalties. Moreover, there are no term limits for the justices or members of Congress. Tighter rules and more substantial penalties should be viewed as an opportunity cost for the privileges attendant to public service.
It is weird that Trump has a list of media offenders.
This is what Hitler and Mussolini would have done.
The U.S. president should not be a peer of dictators, but this is how Trump is styling himself to be.
Really? Got proof?
Would you heed it?
At least he had the decency to recuse himself, I guess. Nevertheless, Washington in 2026 simply stinks to high heaven all the way around, and no, the solution isn’t to bend to millennials’/gen z’s idiotic notions of government picking up where mom and dad or grandma left off because they are pathetic, fragile, ignorant, and incompetent. Hoping the likes of Vance (who I disliked initially) are a trend.
Yes, decency is a quality to be admired, while indecency is not a quality to be admired.
Although Justice Alito has already recused himself, he could have his Estate Attorney and Tax Attorney setup a Blind Trust to administer his interest. Given that most of the Supreme Court Justices are of later age, one would think that They have already planned for this. The blind trust Trustee could also put the financial interests in a third party such as Vanguard, to further distance away the arms-length business.
A&O Shearman (fka. Shearman & Sterling) can handle these requirements diligently.
https://www.aoshearman.com/en/expertise/tax
The reason we need socialism.
@Anonymous
You are an idiot. Go back to China, troll, or at the least back to your parents house.
Somehow, blind trusts seem like a better solution. All socialistic / communistic systems become horribly corrupt, and still worse, have no means of self-correction. Why do you think American businesses that moved into Russia and China have given up and left?
Setting up a blind trust should be the first thing they do when they get confirmed. It should be automatic.
But Alito and Roberts are the only ones who have not divested from their stock portfolios.
LMAO Like this doesn’t happen in Socialism. Are you so naive as to believe that Socialist leaders and jurists dont get rich? ” Any government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have.” I hope your comment was sarcasm.
Socialism is unconstitutional, Karl.
Per Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to tax for only debt, defense, and “general Welfare.”
One example: Social Security and Medicare address merely 18.7% of the population and do, therefore, not constitute debt, defense, or “general Welfare.”
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Apparently the innocent Americans still being tortured in 2026 through Cointelpro style blacklisting.
Todd Blanche has a new scheme, he’s making sure the family members of the torture victims are financially sound but never admitting fault or incompetence by DOJ over 25 years.
In other words, torture victims whose income and occupations were destroyed demeaning innocent torture victims.
The DOJ’s spineless solution is to pay their family demeaning the torture victims even more.
A true “Profiles in Cowardice” by DOJ officials that swear supreme loyalty to protect constitutional rights. Cowards!
How far does the conflict of interest extend to? As mentioned before any judge, not just a supreme court judge, is a citizen. Any of their life experiences may come before their court. Will those judges have the courage to recuse themselves like Alito did? Based on decisions I have read, especially from lower court judges with what appears to be an agenda, no they won’t. If they did then, IMHO, there would be a lot less reversals and probably no need for a shadow docket. It might also be hard for any judge to preside over any trial.
Thus the need for an honest non partisan judiciary.
rcs, follow this argument far enough and you end up at AI judges.
AI doesn’t own energy stocks. No house, no taxes, no electric bill, no retirement account. No stake in the outcome. Problem solved, right?
Except somebody trained it. Somebody chose what it reads, what rules it follows, and what “impartial” means. The interests didn’t disappear. They moved upstream, where nobody can see them and nobody recuses.
Judges have interests because they’re human. The question was never whether they have them. It’s whether they can keep those interests from doing the judging.
Keep demanding a judge with no stake in this country and eventually you’ll get one. It just won’t be a person.
I know, my post was to show that there is no real solution other than a fair minded and honest judge (person). Are they out there? Yes and Alito just showed it. In the case of Brown Jackson, she seems me, to decide based on her ideologue instead of the law. Which again, to me indicates she should be recusing herself from most cases.
What a stupid comment. Really, really stupid.
Not really. It’s bias. The law should be clear and applicable to 💯 of the people. Fewer laws and more freedom is the result.
Self interest enters and laws are written for fractional percentages as seen in transgender issues. Womens sports is for 💯 of the female population. I’d like to be a physicist but I’m not. Imo
Peace to all. Life is imperfect.
That’s right. It’s mobocracy. AI would give the popular opinion because it’s the majority. AI also trains the popular opinion. AI doesn’t have inviolable principles. AI says they’re fluid. Why? Because it’s global.
It’s Bill Gates and Sam Altman principles whatever that means.
Lowly federal employees are required to “divest” (sell) any stock investment that conflict with their job duties.
Regular federal employees can lose thousands of dollars divesting stocks in down markets just to prevent a “perception” of a conflict of interest. For example: federal employees of an agency regulating particular banks, must divest of that particular bank stock.
Apparently there is at least one current member of the U.S. Supreme Court that accepted a $300,000 RV vehicle and expensive vacations from litigants that later appeared before the court. Not just a perception but a clear conflict of interest. Any lowly federal employee would be fired for doing this.
The same standards should apply to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nobody should judge his own cause. If a justice owns stock in a company standing before the Court, recusal is easy to understand.
But how far does “interest” stretch?
This Court decides questions for the whole country. The justices live here. They own homes, pay taxes, buy insurance, pay electric bills, and save for retirement. A ruling involving energy companies can reach all of that. So can a tax case, a property case, or an environmental case.
At some point that’s not a conflict of interest. It’s citizenship.
The Court’s own Code says a justice is presumed impartial and has a duty to sit unless disqualified. No one can be substituted. Every recusal carries the possibility of a 4-4 tie that leaves the lower court judgment standing.
Blind trusts may be good policy. That’s a different claim from saying impartiality requires them. A justice without interests doesn’t exist. The job was never to have none. It’s to judge well in spite of them.
Well said.
I was an executive at a financial services company for many years. In that role, I had no access to our company’s investment or acquisition plans, and I had no ability to influence the company’s stock or bond prices. Even so, I was a “transaction restricted” employee – I could not freely trade in equities or bonds on the open market. The terms under which I was allowed to invest in individual equities and bonds were so onerous that I ended up putting everything in index mutual funds (which, fortunately, worked pretty well for me.) Our compliance team insisted this was necessary in order to demonstrate company integrity to the FDIC and our Fed regulator. If someone as inconsequential as me faced those restrictions, Justices, Legislators and Executive branch leaders and employees should definitely face them.
Retired Fed here. Congress and the Judges should have to convert their holdings, tax free, to the Thrift Savings Plan, open to all federal employees. It has diverse holdings in funds that mimic S&P 500, NASDAQ, International, and Bonds. Problem solved.
If you are aware of the requirement beforehand then I see no problem with justices being required to have blind trusts. I would not mind if all elected officials and justices be required to have their finances in a blind trust. Seems the Justices’ finances pale in comparison to the trading activities of congressman and senators. Nancy Pelosi and others come to mind.
The problem is a what level of office do you draw the line. Or what type of occupation would require a blind trust and which would not. Like I said I would not mind all officials having their finances in blind trusts. However that might preclude some people from serving at all. Some finances can be managed more easily but some affected individuals may have a business that requires day to day action like a legal group or a plumbing business Like Former Senator Markwayne Mullin (and now Sec of Homeland Security).If you go too far then only rich elites end up in higher offices. I don’t think we want that either..
You got a point in there, somewhere, anywhere GEB?
Pssst someone tell Pelosi and the rest of the corruptcrats in Congress.
Good job, Professor.
What is not mentioned is the fact Justice Alito is the only Justice who holds a sizable portfolio of corporate stocks. This presents a big problem for the court. Justice Roberts holds stocks on corporations, but the difference is his holdings are minuscule compared to Alito.
The rest of the justices have divested their holdings into what are basically index funds in blind trusts. Perhaps Alito should divest as well. You would think a sitting Justice would realize this should have been a common sense move a long time ago.
Did you actually read Turley’s opinion? Alieto recused. So its moot. “Alito is the only Justice who holds a sizable portfolio of corporate stocks.” Big deal. So what…..
If you were honest in your claims, but you being a pathological liar, they all have sizable portfolios of investments. If you’re gonna make such a claim, then at least put the numbers in perspective. Again George, you are a pathological liar.
If you would actually do some research instead of spouting off with nonsense. You would have realized by now how wrong you are.
Alito is the only Justice with sizable corporate stock portfolios.
Chief Justice Roberts has a much smaller portfolio. Too small to be meaningful enough to recuse. The others have BLIND trusts invested specifically on what you and I could consider broad index funds. Alito is the only one with specific stock with specific companies.
Specifics matter. Pay attention man.
Did RBG have a portfolio? Did any liberals or are conservative Justices the only stars in DC that have investments? I suppose that if KJB has a small investment in some corporation it is ok because, in your words, it isn’t huge? But if she is newer and has less money her small investment has the same impact on herlife as a more wealthy person’s large investment.
I guess Pelosi is also an outlier?
Size is not the issue. It’s the divestment that matters. Alito and Roberts are the only two justices who have not divested from their portfolios.
The others have blind trusts and their investments are in index funds. More generalized than the two who are not.
George you do not know what investments SCOTUS have. YOU DO NOT KNOW. So shut-up.
It’s public info. They are required by law to report their investments and if they have them in blind trusts or have divested. Google is your friend.
It’s integrity. Win or lose the law is the law.
As you wrote George, “Specifics matter. Pay attention man.” So where are the specifics George? Waiting ….
LOL!! You really do need to learn how to read. Pay attention man. It’s all there.
Divest? In fact you have no idea what Alieto or the others own for investments.
Who is Alieto? Twice you misspelled his name. I know of his investments because it’s public knowledge. He’s required to report it. A simple google search provides it.
Simple google search you say? Okay, now tell us which stocks SCOTUS have invested in? Come on liar, spit it out.
Search it man. It’s’ there. Why do you need me to do YOUR work for you. Is it really that hard? All you have to do is ask google.
So you state, search google. You made the statement, you prove it.
James, it’s incredibly easy. You can look it up yourself. That’s how I am able to make the claim. Don’t be lazy now.
Then why didn’t you provide that info? You are a pathological liar.
Funny how you always attract critics. Maybe it’s because you are not accurate with your statements. Just saying 😉
What is inaccurate about my statements on this subject. Can you show they ARE inaccurate?
“. . . the case involving the liability of energy companies for nuisance actions tied to climate change . . .” (JT)
So to recap:
Some 60 years ago, the Left began systematically destroying America’s nuclear power industry. That, of course, left us more dependent for energy on the fossil fuel industry. And now Leftists want to sue into oblivion the very companies that fixed a “problem” they created.
More dependent? Nuclear power had serious issues with safety and a big problem with how to deal with nuclear waste. Renewables like solar and wind before Trump started systematically destroying it were a much more cost effective alternative. Trump is trying to keep old inefficient coal-fired power plants running to make up for the diminishing of renewable energy he keeps crapping on.
China is doing the opposite. They are investing heavily on renewable energy and it’s paying off.
Wrong
Oh stupid George … the opinion is about SCOTUS not nuclear power. As for that China statement, you’re lying again.
Learn to read man. I was responding to Sam. Pay attention.
Show where the lie is. What is the lie?
Prove what you wrote about China … “China is doing the opposite. They are investing heavily on renewable energy and it’s paying off.”
We’re waiting ….
Again, google is right there at your fingertips. Use your noggin man. This is the Information Age. Take advantage of it.
“As for that China statement, you’re lying again.”
Yep. If it comments, its lying:
“China has significantly increased its coal power capacity.” “Additional data shows that China has a staggering 500 gigawatts of coal power capacity under construction.” (2026)
P.S. Coal is a fossil fuel.
Here’s another liar, can’t source its comment. Just like George.
If you copy and paste those quotes (they’re not a “comment”) into a search engine (you know, that Google thing), the sources appear in a matter of seconds.
And in a matter of seconds you can answer your own question. Why is it so hard to find out for yourself? It’s just a couple of seconds, Right?
Since GSX uses ChatGPT rather than his brain, I asked ChatGPT the question at hand.
Yes. China’s coal-fired power capacity is still increasing in 2026.
In the first half of 2026, China brought 30 GW of new coal-power capacity into operation.
Only 2.7 GW was retired, so the net increase was roughly 27 GW.
Another 25.4 GW began construction during those six months.
At the same time, coal’s share of electricity generation is falling because China is adding wind and solar even faster. Coal supplied 49.7% of electricity in the first half of 2026.
So the simple answer is:
Coal capacity ↑, while coal’s share of electricity ↓.
That distinction is important. China is not currently shrinking its coal fleet. It is adding coal capacity while massively expanding alternatives.//
Note: This is ChatGPT’s opinion only, and it wasn’t altered.
S. Meyer, you confirmed what I pointed out. BTW I don’t use ChatGPT.
Note what it said. It is massively adding alternatives meaning….renewables.
Nothing you posted proves I lied. Thanks.
“BTW I don’t use ChatGPT.”
Did you change to something else? The evidence is overwhelming that you have used AI for responses at least in the past.
You are a slippery fellow, but not in a good way; grease from a sewer. Do not confuse slippery with intelligence. We have a lot of morons in jail who are likewise slippery.
“BTW I don’t use ChatGPT.” Are you being slippery again?
“Nothing you posted proves I lied.” Post what you are talking about.
S. Meyer, boxed in? LOL!! You confirmed what I said was correct. You didn’t show I lied.
There’s nothin disingenuous about using AI to research on a topic. It’s called being smart about it. You keep accusing me of being a liar by confirming what I have been saying is correct. LOL!!! Hilarious!
As I said in an early reply. I approve of you using AI when it is used correctly. Your problem is arrogance and being someone who never learns from his mistakes, proven by not admitting them and running away. They are also proven in black and white, but it is just as easy for you to search that out as it is for me.
I want to make sure that you understand I am not the only one to accuse you of being a liar. Far more proof comes from others.
S. Meyer, I never changed to something else. I have never said or claimed I don’t use AI when I do research into a subject.
Slippery? How? You still have not showed I lied.
What I am doing is being smart about how I use AI to confirm a suspicion or provide data in an argument. It’s better than guessing. Wouldn’t you agree?
–don’t play holy, X.
You have never disclosed (including AI use and the fact that you are not a bona fide lawyer) UNTIL YOU WERE CALLED OUT ON IT.
“ –don’t play holy, X.
You have never disclosed (including AI use and the fact that you are not a bona fide lawyer) UNTIL YOU WERE CALLED OUT ON IT.”
Didn’t have to. What I don’t deny is that I didn’t. I wasn’t “called out on it” I admitted it before you even knew. You’re one seriously confused fella.
GSX: Many, including the anonymous above, find you disingenuous. Why is that? We hear these complaints and then get excuses and obstinacy. The evidence is overflowing; you are a liar and slippery.
S. Meyer, you’re losing track of the conversation. You’re not paying attention. You accused me of lying and you haven’t proved I did. All you did was confirm what I posted is correct.
No. I am letting you box yourself in. You are a liar, and that is proven by many sources, including me.
Sam, but that’s not what you said.
By the summer of 2026, China’s installed solar capacity reached 1,286 gigawatts, officially overtaking its total coal capacity (1,285 GW) for the first time in history. In 2025 alone, China installed an unprecedented 315 GW of solar—more than double the entire installed solar capacity of the United States. Combined wind and solar capacity had already beaten out coal the year prior.
Fun fact: In the first half of 2026, coal’s contribution to China’s total power output fell below 50% for the first time on record.
If coal generation is shrinking, why does China have hundreds of gigawatts of coal projects in the pipeline?
The answer is grid stability and political inertia, not energy expansion. China’s government uses these new, highly efficient coal plants as “backups” or battery alternatives to stabilize the grid when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.
WE are trying to resurrect old inefficient coal plants which cost more and are not “backups”.
Care to try again?
In 2024, China built approximately 94.5 GW of new coal power capacity, marking the highest level of construction in the past ten years.
As of early 2023, there were 243 GW of new coal power plants either under construction or permitted for construction, indicating a robust pipeline for future coal power expansion.
This trend reflects China’s ongoing reliance on coal as a significant energy source, despite its commitments to reduce coal consumption in the future.
Doh,
So what does that prove? They built coal plants which STILL only make up less than half of their power generating capacity. What IS still true is they are investing MORE on renewables like solar and wind a LOT more than coal.
For the first time in China’s modern industrial history, coal-fired power dropped to 49.7% of the total electricity mix.
They are on track to have renewables be the leading source of power for them. Because they know how much more cost effective it is and it produces LESS pollution.
We are going in the opposite direction. Trump is reducing emissions standards and cancelling renewables at a record pace. Costing us MORE. Not smart.
oh, now X is going to replicate “Duh.”
“What IS still true is they are investing MORE on renewables like solar and wind a LOT more than coal.”
Likely that is because they can’t get enough oil. But if we compare polluters, China wins.
Can’t get enough oil? ROFL!!
S. Meyer you better check your facts. China has a MASSIVE oil reserve. THEY are the ones able to keep oil prices stable in their region. If you doubt me check ChatGPT and ask about China’s oil reserves compared to ours.
We have nearly depleted our SPR. They still have well over a billion barrels of oil in storage. Enough to last a year.
You are ROFL in blissful stupidity. Go back to ChatGPT and learn what it told you. China has enormous oil inventories because it needs them. It has very little underground compared to its needs. The US has much less oil inventory because it is a large producer of oil and natural gas and has large amounts of both underground. We can now add much of the oil in Venezuela, which has the largest proven oil reserves in the world.
The Hormuz problem is serious for China because it gets much of its oil through those straits, and it probably caused them to slow down industry to protect their oil inventories. Presently, they probably export a lot less oil to neighboring countries as well.
Significant amounts of China’s oil come from Iran.
“Care to try again?”
another response learned by X from the NICE people on this blog.
Wrong
“China is doing the opposite.”
Keep it up, GSX. Once you are known as a liar, it doesn’t make a difference how many lies you add. All you have to do is run away.
What is the lie S. Meyer?
You haven’t shown me I’m wrong. BTW just because I didn’t immediately answer your post does not mean I “ran away”. I do have a life besides this blog.
Show me what is the lie.
“Show me what is the lie.”
I sent two of your fabrications about where you ran away. As for China, you were informed by someone else that China is building huge coal processing plants. It is true.
Yes, you ran away, and one of the comments I think demonstrates that fact. We don’t need proof anymore. You are a liar.
S, Meyer, you sent? What fabrications? You have not pointed out exactly what it is that is a lie.
You’re not making any sense. I didn’t run away. What comment? You have not proven what is it that I lied about. It’s clear you have nothing to show. Quote exactly what I said that is a lie. I’ll wait.
Still waiting S. Meyer, letting you know I have not run away.
“what it is that is a lie.”
GSX writes: “The claim that “Iran never wanted a nuclear weapon” is not media nonsense—it is the consensus of the United States Intelligence Community. The specific information originates from the U.S. Annual Threat”
“Iran never wanted a nuclear weapon” is an outright lie you attribute to the United States Intelligence Community. That is a lie and it is just one of a vast number. Run away again, GSX.
GSX, you wrote, “what it is that is a lie?” Since then, at 9:47 AM, you wrote well over a dozen responses, but none to my response to your question. Maybe you are working hard to figure out a slippery response, or maybe you are just running away. I bet you are hoping to run away.
X, you are really misinformed here. Today’s nuclear power plants are extremely safe and also very efficient; only 3%-4% is high level fission waste. Nuclear power is also 1005 reliable. Renewable energy (wo=ind and solar) are not reliable – that is a great set back – but also produce waste at the end of their life cycle (10-15 years), which takes up a lot of space. For example the blades of a windmill are the length of a football field and made of fiber glass which cannot be broken down, thus it needs to be buried and remains buried forever. Nuclear waste disappears over time as radioactive activity deteriorates. Wind and solar also kill tens of millions of birds each year.
China builds a lot of coal plants as a matter of fact.
DoubleDutch, I didn’t say they were unsafe. Sam accused the “left” of systematically destroying nuclear power. That’s quite a reach and a lazy accusation.
Nuclear power is indeed safe, but…..hugely expensive. That safety also comes with dangerous waste that nobody wants to deal with. Right? We had Three Mile Island, and of course there was Chernobyl. It was not just the “left” destroying nuclear power.
Renewable energy is far, FAR more cost effective now and more abundant than coal or Nuclear power with zero waste. China recognizes this and is investing a LOT of money into it and it’s paying off for them. We, on the other hand, are going in the opposite direction. Trump is cancelling renewables, offshore wind farms, and solar capacity. Right when we need it the most when data centers are gobbling up so much power. China can handle it because they are investing heavily on it to great benefit.
Nuclear waste does disappear over time, like after a coupled thousands of years. Wind and solar are infinite and….zero waste. Which do you think is going to be more cost effective in the long run? Solar panel efficiency is bound to increase every the years making it even more effective in the future. Heck we might have fusion reactors by then. But for now. Nuclear is not exactly the most cost effective. It’s still expensive to build and who wants a nuclear power plant next to their homes in addition to data centers? Right?
“Wind and solar are infinite and….zero waste.”
GSX: One can rebuild both, but to think there is zero waste is incredibly ignorant. Building these energy producers takes energy, mostly from gas. Placing these farms destroys land, including trees, and harms birds. They are renewable, but they are not, because they have to be replaced, and when that happens, they leave large amount of waste.
Building anything produces waste. That’s not what I was saying. Perhaps I should be more specific for you. They produce zero pollution/waste as a by product in the process of creating energy.
“ They are renewable, but they are not, because they have to be replaced, and when that happens, they leave large amount of waste.”
The materials used to produce them can be recycled. Destroying land? The impact is minimal compared to building a coal power plant or NG plant. Solar farms can be removed much easier than a power plant. Wind turbines take up a tiny amount of land per turbine.
I am sure you can agree that the sources of energy, wind and the sun are infinite. Require no purchase for fuel and are more cost effective than coal, gas or other fossil fuel. Right?
X/George, what a vapid, non-thinking, empty skull you have. Without AI and the INternet, I doubt you could graduate from eighth grade.
So what you’re saying is you’re not smart enough to come up with an argument. We already knew that. So what else can you offer?
Show me where you indicated, “Building anything produces waste.”
“They produce zero pollution/waste as a by product in the process of creating energy.” But they produce plenty of pollution when created, including fossil fuels. They destroy massive amounts of land, mineral wealth, and birds.
“The materials used to produce them can be recycled.” Only some and that requires fuel, frequently fossil fuel.
“Destroying land? The impact is minimal compared to building a coal power plant or NG plant. Solar farms can be removed much easier than a power plant.”
Prove it, taking in the total costs of each item. I am not against solar and wind when used properly. That is why a marketplace exists, to make the best use of our resources. Solar and/or wind are not reliable and need to be backed up by fossil fuels.
Using your generalized and slippery type of speech here is ChatGPT’s answer.
Wind farm ~19,000–145,000 acres*
Natural gas plant ~110 acres for the plant site
Coal plant roughly a few hundred acres for the plant site
Wind takes up enormous amounts of space.
“energy, wind and the sun are infinite. Require no purchase for fuel and are more cost effective than coal, gas or other fossil fuel. Right?”
No, you are wrong. The answer is in the use, the environment, and all sorts of other things. I used to use solar, backed up by electricity, for my swimming pool. I didn’t install them in my present house because of cost, potential damage, and risk. In this house, solar was used for hot water, but age meant I had to buy a new one at a high cost. With maintenance adding to the costs, I removed the solar and went back to electricity.
Now you can run away again, be slippery or debate like a man instead of a child.
S. Meyer,
First of all, congratulations on discovering that building things requires manufacturing. Did you think you cracked a secret code? Literally no one has ever argued that solar panels or wind turbines materialize out of thin air via magical eco-pixies. Of course there is an initial manufacturing footprint. The entire point—which is clearly flying right over your head—is the lifecycle emission footprint. A solar panel offsets its manufacturing footprint within 1 to 2 years of operation; after that, it produces net-zero emissions for the next 25 years. A coal or gas plant, on the other hand, never stops burning, never stops emitting, and requires a continuous supply of fossil fuels until the day it dies.
To suggest a wind farm “destroys” 100,000 acres because the turbines are spaced apart across a vast prairie is a level of deliberate denseness that is genuinely impressive. Farmers literally get paid by energy companies to put turbines on their land while their cows graze safely underneath them. You can’t graze cows inside a coal furnace, hope this helps!
No one is running away. You just aren’t bringing anything to the table besides a bruised ego, bad math, and a pool-boy perspective on macroeconomics. Come back when you’re ready to look at real data instead of crying because a solar water heater was too complicated for you to figure out.
“First of all, congratulations on discovering that building things requires manufacturing.”
It was you who didn’t include the costs of manufacturing, not me.
“Literally no one has ever argued that solar panels or wind turbines materialize out of thin air via magical eco-pixies”
You infer that in many postings that deal with the costs; such continuous use of inference, frequently pointed out, makes it a lie.
“Farmers literally get paid by energy companies to put turbines on their land while their cows graze safely underneath them. “
I have no problem with that in a free market system as long as my electricity remains on.
“You can’t graze cows inside a coal furnace, hope this helps!”
“You can produce electricity when the wind doesn’t blow, or the sun isn’t out; hope this helps.?
If only Merchan judges on the left Merchan would also Merchan have the decency to Merchan recuse themselves when Merchan they have conflicts Merchan of interest Merchan.
What does he have to do with the issue at hand?
I agree with Professor Turley. However, let’s have some fun for a moment. While interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court Ruled that money is speech. If the Supreme Court believes that its Rulings apply to everyone including themselves, then how can anyone expect the Supreme Court to also Rule that any statute limiting the Justices use of their own money is not an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment right to Freedom Of Speech? (LOL)
What a stupid and irrelevant comment.
The First Amendment does not regulate how government officials invest their money; it primarily protects free speech and expression not investment decisions by SCOTUS or anyone else. Turley made it clear that they have options. However, there are laws like the STOCK Act that prohibit government officials from using nonpublic information for personal profit. Nothing more.
Case closed, off with your head. Remind me not to seek yo out when I have an free speech issue with the government.