• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate scientists give clear warning

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

https://theconversation.com/why-sci...limate-change-right-up-to-the-year-2300-92236
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,886
Reaction score
7,765
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

https://theconversation.com/why-sci...limate-change-right-up-to-the-year-2300-92236

Here is the problem. They have been saying that my entire life and despite the us increasing in population by 30% roughly 100 million people we are producing the same amount of carbon. So we clearly have made strides and by doing very little. Also every prediction about rising temperatures based on carbon in the atmosphere has been way too high. We clearly don’t understand exactly how carbon and warming work together.

So anyone making a doomsday prediction I simply don’t find credible
 

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
Here is the problem. They have been saying that my entire life and despite the us increasing in population by 30% roughly 100 million people we are producing the same amount of carbon. So we clearly have made strides and by doing very little. Also every prediction about rising temperatures based on carbon in the atmosphere has been way too high. We clearly don’t understand exactly how carbon and warming work together.

So anyone making a doomsday prediction I simply don’t find credible

They were hasty in their predictions. They are refining the science and now realize it will take far longer, probably over 100 years before we start seeing signs.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,886
Reaction score
7,765
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They were hasty in their predictions. They are refining the science and now realize it will take far longer, probably over 100 years before we start seeing signs.

Here’s the problem though, they are claiming the risk is just as dire as ever but that the signs have been pushed back 100 years. It’s essentially an invisible threat that they can use to justify any policy they want.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Let me guess: if we don't give them billions in research money and create more government control over the private sector, we're ****ed.

Am I close?
 

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
6,521
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

https://theconversation.com/why-sci...limate-change-right-up-to-the-year-2300-92236



Basically, we're ****ed.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,730
Reaction score
1,139
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The study doesn’t refute the claim that climate change will have devastating effects the next decades. Instead the study show that even with net zero emissions of C02 from today you will still have sea level rises for a very long time because of the temperature increase that have already happened.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02985-8

While it still worth taking action to combat climate change because you can reduce both the short time and long time term devastating effects. Also there are still hope that different carbon capture techniques may in the future reverse C02 levels there those measures will be less costly and less hard to accomplish if we act today.

There even federal reports published during Trump’s presidency warns about the devastating effects from climate caused by fossil fuels.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

Renewable energy could also become a bipartisan in US just like it already have become in other countries. That already are wind or solar power the cheapest electricity option in most Republican congressional districts.

"Republicans from Texas to Iowa regularly extoll the virtues of renewables like wind and solar power, and for good reason. Rural Republican districts are often the locations with the best solar and wind resources, and when those resources are harnessed they bring good jobs to places where new sources of employment are often otherwise scarce. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ #1 and #2 fastest growing jobs in the U.S. are solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians. These jobs are good, solid middle class jobs with annual salaries pushing close to six-figures. Beyond construction, the plants (particularly wind farms, with their many moving parts) offer good jobs in the long term."


https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#19e1ae563da7

Even if you still have politicians like Donald Trump that wants to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

https://theconversation.com/why-sci...limate-change-right-up-to-the-year-2300-92236

It is indeed too late. Too late, that is, for these government climate advocates to try to start sounding reasonable.

They have lost their credibility with anyone who matters, which is why most governments only give lip service and a few token actions to the climate issue. I predict that it will be a long time before they get their credibility back, if ever.

My question is this: How long will it take for the people behind the funding of climate doom research to learn that their money isn't taking the world where they want it to go? That is, toward an authoritarian world government.* When are they going to cut their losses?

*Nope, not just a conspiracy theory. Explicit calls have been made for exactly that.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The study doesn’t refute the claim that climate change will have devastating effects the next decades. Instead the study show that even with net zero emissions of C02 from today you will still have sea level rises for a very long time because of the temperature increase that have already happened.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02985-8

While it still worth taking action to combat climate change because you can reduce both the short time and long time term devastating effects. Also there are still hope that different carbon capture techniques may in the future reverse C02 levels there those measures will be less costly and less hard to accomplish if we act today.

There even federal reports published during Trump’s presidency warns about the devastating effects from climate caused by fossil fuels.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

Renewable energy could also become a bipartisan in US just like it already have become in other countries. That already are wind or solar power the cheapest electricity option in most Republican congressional districts.

"Republicans from Texas to Iowa regularly extoll the virtues of renewables like wind and solar power, and for good reason. Rural Republican districts are often the locations with the best solar and wind resources, and when those resources are harnessed they bring good jobs to places where new sources of employment are often otherwise scarce. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ #1 and #2 fastest growing jobs in the U.S. are solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians. These jobs are good, solid middle class jobs with annual salaries pushing close to six-figures. Beyond construction, the plants (particularly wind farms, with their many moving parts) offer good jobs in the long term."


https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#19e1ae563da7

Even if you still have politicians like Donald Trump that wants to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

None of the proposed solutions for climate change that are politically or economically feasible will have a significant effect on the climate according to the government climate scientists' models. Link
 

JustHanging

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
17,236
Reaction score
7,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

https://theconversation.com/why-sci...limate-change-right-up-to-the-year-2300-92236

Pffft.

The USA has millions of people who never made it past elementary school science, but they know far more than these tens of thousands of silly scientists who only spent their entire lives devoted to learning about climatology.

Fake news! "It snowed at my house. There ain't no global warming, my Mama taught me that and Jesus agreed with Mama. What a bunch of morans, they shoulda been home schooled like me. Yuck yuck yuck."

Amirite?!!??!

rick-perry-and-sarah-palin-rally-their-troops_4411024_36.jpg


get-a-brain-morans.jpg
 
Last edited:

Lesh

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
422
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Folks...the window is closing rapidly
 

D_NATURED

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
5,515
Reaction score
2,758
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Here is the problem. They have been saying that my entire life and despite the us increasing in population by 30% roughly 100 million people we are producing the same amount of carbon. So we clearly have made strides and by doing very little. Also every prediction about rising temperatures based on carbon in the atmosphere has been way too high. We clearly don’t understand exactly how carbon and warming work together.

That's not true. We DO know how carbon and warming work. The UV sunlight passes through the atmosphere, strikes the Earth, changes frequency to infrared light, which gets reflected back to the Earth by the carbon in the atmosphere. We've understood it for a long time. The struggle is not understanding the mechanics of warming, it's confronting the politics of it.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,730
Reaction score
1,139
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting documentary about how renewables are starting to outcompete fossil fuels. Thanks to communities, goverments, corporations and invidiuals leading the way.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/breakthrough-renewable-energy/


That even Republicans in the USA are one a local level starting to see the great potential in renewable energy.

"Republicans from Texas to Iowa regularly extoll the virtues of renewables like wind and solar power, and for good reason. Rural Republican districts are often the locations with the best solar and wind resources, and when those resources are harnessed they bring good jobs to places where new sources of employment are often otherwise scarce. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ #1 and #2 fastest growing jobs in the U.S. are solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians. These jobs are good, solid middle class jobs with annual salaries pushing close to six-figures. Beyond construction, the plants (particularly wind farms, with their many moving parts) offer good jobs in the long term."


https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#19e1ae563da7

That even Republican coal states like Indiana are replacing coal with renewable energy.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ev...are-cheaper-than-existing-coal-plants/540242/
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

https://theconversation.com/why-sci...limate-change-right-up-to-the-year-2300-92236

Hell's teeth, the 100 year predictions don't scare anybody so let's make it 200 years.

Do you think you are able to predict what fuel we will be using in 70 years?

Given we are now looking at 200 years don't you think that it might be reasonable to wait a couple of decades to see if this is real?
 

expat_panama

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
341
Reaction score
132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
...the temperature increase that have already happened...
Some partisan advocates speaking out on this issue have said that the earth's biosphere is right now 1.5C hotter than what it was in 1850. If this were a statement of scientific fact then they'd also present a credible current average biosphere temperature plus another temp for 1850, and the increase would be 1.5C.

They don't. It isn't.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,078
Reaction score
6,743
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
They were hasty in their predictions. They are refining the science and now realize it will take far longer, probably over 100 years before we start seeing signs.

If the doomsdayists learned anything from Algore, it's that you don't make near term projections. You may actually have to back your claim at some point.

Instead of all the ice disappearing by 2000, it's now 2100, and might, may, could, should have replaced will as the most used claim.
 

expat_panama

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
341
Reaction score
132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
...The UV sunlight passes through the atmosphere, strikes the Earth, changes frequency to infrared light, which gets reflected back to the Earth by the carbon in the atmosphere...
When the general non-political public spends money dealing with this process they work with numbers. For example, they decide on a target room temp, they look up the historic average incoming radiation energy and they choose how money they want to spend dealing with it. A mechanical engineer makes around $80K per year.

When it comes to Federal climate change spending, Ideological factions just have to say something both emotionally provocative and vague like "...the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon." In 2017 Al Gore had a net worth of over $300 million.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,730
Reaction score
1,139
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fossil fuel companies are amongst the most profitable companies in the world and have spent a lot of time and money trying to delay the transition away from fossil fuels. For example that have funded massive disinformation campaigns for many decades about the realities of climate change. So they could of course have funded research to disprove manmade global warming if any evidence of that existed.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W81x53szaUk

Instead their own studies show that manmade global warming is real and will have devastating effects the coming decades.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

Trump also appointed a Republican that had said that he didn't believe in manmade global warming as head of NASA and their climate research. So Jim Bridenstine could have directed NASA to disprove manmade global warming if any evidence of that existed. Instead he looked at the evidence and now accept the scientific evidence for manmade global warming.

https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-...n-climate-change-he-is-a-scientific-hero.html

Also as I wrote the study in the OP doesn’t disprove that climate change will have devastating effect the coming decades. Instead it just show that sea level rises for a very long time because of the warming temperatures.

Also that global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment like for example loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,504
Reaction score
2,535
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
...predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly.

You seem to be misrepresenting the article. Very, very badly, considering there's already been a significant reduction of the northern polar ice cap, particularly in the summer months. And, from the article:
"For instance, one paper estimated that, if we fail to tackle climate change, the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free all year round somewhere between 2150 and 2250."
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,504
Reaction score
2,535
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Here is the problem. They have been saying that my entire life and despite the us increasing in population by 30% roughly 100 million people we are producing the same amount of carbon. So we clearly have made strides and by doing very little.

Your GHG emissions peaked in 2007 about 15% higher than 1990 levels. So yeah... all you needed was a global depression to reduce them, followed by a Presidency which didn't view climate change as a Chinese hoax :roll:

Speaking of which, all those 'Made in China' labels you see on a lot of stuff... that stuff takes energy to transport and produce. Outsourcing emissions to other countries is a politically expedient option (even moreso for Europe, I gather), but it's not exactly progress. Global GHG emissions have risen somewhat slower than global GDP, which is good - and in part an indication of some effectiveness on the part of climate science communicators and policy makers - but they've still risen sharply over recent decades.

fossil_fuels_1.png
 
Last edited:

D_NATURED

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
5,515
Reaction score
2,758
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
When the general non-political public spends money dealing with this process they work with numbers. For example, they decide on a target room temp, they look up the historic average incoming radiation energy and they choose how money they want to spend dealing with it. A mechanical engineer makes around $80K per year.

When it comes to Federal climate change spending, Ideological factions just have to say something both emotionally provocative and vague like "...the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon." In 2017 Al Gore had a net worth of over $300 million.

The UN recently gave us a concrete date, not a vague warning at all. Besides, who gives a **** how much money Al Gore has? That's irrelevant to the issue. Global warming is not caused by Al Gore's money, it's caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

If what you're arguing is that being aware denotes a responsibility to an issue, I agree. However, there are a lot of Repubs who play stupid so they can absolve themselves of any guilt for contributing, personally or politically to the problem. They are much worse examples of humanity than Al Gore, who has only done a great deal to create a public understanding of the mechanics of climate change.

Would you be happier if he were a poor shlub complaining about fossil fuels? No, everyone would just dismiss the facts all the same.
 

expat_panama

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
341
Reaction score
132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
...who gives a **** how much money Al Gore has? That's irrelevant to the issue. Global warming is not caused by Al Gore's money, it's caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

If what you're arguing is that being aware denotes a responsibility to an issue, I agree. However...
The answer is that a lot of us care about Al Gore making tons of money by selling vagueness --and the reason we care is that we need to know what the markets are doing, what's selling, and what folks are buying. Today the market's are soaring and what I'm seeing is that companies that grind out numberless doom'n'gloom have become hotter than Facebook & Apple. mho.

We can both agree that acting on awareness is a good idea but on this thread the only thing that we can be aware of is that the thermodynamics on the table here is nothing like the science used when folks are actually getting something done. When we buy a toaster oven you want something that will use a KW to heat your bagel to 90C in 2 min. When we talk AGW it's the biosphere getting maybe 1.5C hotter now than 1850, or its 1.0 hotter than 1720, or not.

No matter. Unlike the bagel we have no idea what the biosphere temp is now or what it was in 1850 (or 1720) but what we do know is that as long as we avoid numbers we make a lot more money than we would if we sold toaster ovens.

Is America great or what!!!
 

D_NATURED

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
5,515
Reaction score
2,758
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The answer is that a lot of us care about Al Gore making tons of money by selling vagueness --and the reason we care is that we need to know what the markets are doing, what's selling, and what folks are buying. Today the market's are soaring and what I'm seeing is that companies that grind out numberless doom'n'gloom have become hotter than Facebook & Apple. mho.

We can both agree that acting on awareness is a good idea but on this thread the only thing that we can be aware of is that the thermodynamics on the table here is nothing like the science used when folks are actually getting something done. When we buy a toaster oven you want something that will use a KW to heat your bagel to 90C in 2 min. When we talk AGW it's the biosphere getting maybe 1.5C hotter now than 1850, or its 1.0 hotter than 1720, or not.

No matter. Unlike the bagel we have no idea what the biosphere temp is now or what it was in 1850 (or 1720) but what we do know is that as long as we avoid numbers we make a lot more money than we would if we sold toaster ovens.

Is America great or what!!!

We know from ice cores what the CO2 levels were in the past. We also know the effect that gas has in creating the greenhouse effect and how it reflects heat energy back to Earth while not being a barrier to UV energy. We know all that. Furthermore, some overwhelming majority of published climate scientists agree climate change is happening and it's OUR fault.

Al gore's profits are NOTHING compared to what is made, in the oil fields and in Washington, from the "controversy" persisting this long. If Al is immoral to make money from alerting people to reality, those who obscure the facts to make money, at the expense of human life, are way worse. Why aren't you mentioning them?

Is America great? Sure, we're great at allowing our "soaring markets" to distract us from our plummeting future. So what if some day we decide that we could have driven our V8s for much longer, what have we lost? We can always bring them back. The alternative, though, if the scientists are actually right on this like they are on nearly everything else, and we persist to deny because we feel that our demise stimulates the economy, we have failed irretrievably. Where is the wisdom in nit picking the best guess we have when so much is at stake?
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,464
Reaction score
33,410
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here’s the problem though, they are claiming the risk is just as dire as ever but that the signs have been pushed back 100 years. It’s essentially an invisible threat that they can use to justify any policy they want.

Except that (a) the things predicted have been happening, (b) predictions have been getting more accurate.

The real problem is that you lot act like science isn't a process, that either a theory is proven correct utterly and never questioned, or it isn't worth anything at all. No. The core of understood AGW has been growing steadily and surely. The fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean we should sit paralyzed in inaction as if we knew nothing, yet that is always the way it is used.

The second equally real problem is that people find it so easy to brush off because no matter when the predictions for the worst are, those predictions are always after the brusher-off's death. Kicking the can down the road is bad unless it benefits the kicker.




And the idea that scientists swarm for lucrative grants by bull****ting climate science? Seriously? Nobody who thinks there's some kind of money-related conspiracy here - on top of things I can't say about them - must never have known someone who worked in a lab and had to seek grant funding from any agency.

The idea that Democrats are deliberately doing this to transfer wealth away from America (surely you remember this said under Obama)? It's painfully absurd.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,730
Reaction score
1,139
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sadly the fossil fuel companies have had and still have a huge negative influence on our societies For example that fossil fuel companies understood climate risks by the 1980s, yet spent huge sums to sow uncertainty and misinformation about climate science.

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/fumes/moments/0

While today the fossil fuel companies have a huge influence over the Trump administration.

“The memo was written by Robert E. Murray, a longtime Trump supporter who donated $300,000 to the president’s inauguration. In it, Mr. Murray, the head of Murray Energy, presented Mr. Trump with a wish list of environmental rollbacks just weeks after the inauguration.

Nearly a year later, the White House and federal agencies have completed or are on track to fulfill most of the 16 detailed requests, even with Monday’s decision by federal regulators to reject a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry to subsidize struggling coal and nuclear plants.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html

“When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them.

But it turns out that there was a hidden beneficiary of the plan that was pushing for the changes all along: the nation’s oil industry.

In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the country’s largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards,a New York Times investigation has found”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html
 
Top Bottom