White House Climate Control Page Purged and America First Energy Plan in place

What do you make of this Off Topic? Does this frighten or excite you? The Trump change is happening. Whether it is for better or worse is up in the air, but it is happening.

Personally, I am not one to deny climate change. I think it is an issue that we should be researching and trying to figure out, but it looks like all that is about to come to an end as far as US Government involvement is concerned.

We do get a first energy policy though. Looks like allowing drilling on Government protected land is now going to happen. What gets me is, aren't we the least dependent on foreign oil than we have been since 1970? I guess we can always be less dependent. I just hope this isn't just to line the pockets of Tillerson with his over 2 million stocks in Exxon he is due to get.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/the-white-house-websites-page-on-climate-change-just-disappeared.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy

I just wonder, even if you are against human made climate changes, don't you want the air you breath to be clean?

Frightening. Just earlier this year, my homestate of Utah just got a bad start of bad air and it's crap like this that makes me fight climate change. Damn it Donald. Even China is telling you that they didn't invent it.

Energy regulation is suppressing the middle class. Find an affordable alternative BEFORE you make my coal too expensive to afford heat.

And find a way to train those coal miners for different work before shutting down the coal mines.

@DaBrainz: energy regulation has almost nothing to do with the decline of coal

@PraetorianMan: I know for a fact that DTE is closing coal power plants because they can't meet new national emmision standards.

Yup. Shale oil and fracking have done more to kill the coal industry than any government regulation.

I agree. All these talk of the problem of global warming while the economic challenges are far more immediate. Alternative energy is all well and good but it comes with a very real detrimental effect to our economy and our competitiveness on a global market (against nations that refuse to comply to environmental restrictions). I don't agree with Trump's outright denial of climate change (just the fact that the earth is getting warmer nothing else), because that's just idiotic.

Alternative energy is also just a delaying tactic. Take a look at how many of these alternative energy technologies require fossil fuels to even exist.

Unfortunately, temporary solutions end up not being temporary. A lot of people forget our modern dependence on oil was supposed to be temporary when it started.

So ultimately, alternative energy will just push the problem off on future generations while potentially leaving them in an even worse position for solving the problem.

Make a nuclear power plant. This plant will have many rubber and plastic parts all over, of course. Add the amount of natural gas this plant needs in order to produce nuclear energy. Compare this number against the amount of natural gas needed to convert the same amount of electricity over a year's time. It;s an easy ass answer.

Geothermal, tidal, solar, wind, wave, nuclear are all worthy contributions towards lessening our oil consumption.

I fail to see how alternative energy would push the problem to the future generations. Every leap forward technologically has given mankind new questions to ponder, and new problems to solve. Mankind found the benefits of this progress too great so simply not go forward with these advances. I dont see how investing in renewable energies is simply can kicking.....

Show us where natural gas is used in a nuclear power plant.

I didn't say nuclear was the answer either. Especially since nuclear relies on people not being stupid with reactor design and management.

Why it's can-kicking: Because it won't be temporary. The gasoline engine was supposed to be phased out by 1950; it's 2017 and the gasoline engine still dominates. Oil was supposed to be phased out for nuclear power by now, and yet oil is still one of the top sources of power. So we have to think of this from the perspective that anything we put in place is still going to be there when the next environment problem hits. And, yes, I do mean "next;" we've been stumbling from one environmental problem to another since the late 1800s, and each one has been progressively worse. It started as minor environmental disasters involving horse manure and flammable rivers, and now we're at the minor apocalypse stage.

And, let's face it, the population is not going to stop growing. Any pollution savings we make now will be temporary, and it's arguable whether or not the current human population already outstrips any benefit we'd see. Thinking about savings when we only have seven billion people doesn't stop us from having worse problems when the population becomes double that.

That's the reason why it's just can kicking. The entire focus on alternative energy assumes it'll be out the door before it becomes a major problem and thus ignores major scaling with world population.

So, what is your answer, simply keep moving forth while throwing hydrocarbons into the air all the same?

I was speaking toward the fact that these facilities use computers, made with plastic, that comes from oil. The machines have rubber and plastic tubing in certain components. Stuff like that. My point was that although we would still technically be using oil to utilize alternative technologies, it would be an absurdly lower order of magnitude than simply burning it.

Welcome to rich mans America.

Actually, yeah.

And then engineer bacteria to get those hydrocarbons back out of the atmosphere and convert them directly into oil. We can also make ones to convert plastic into oil. This would allow us to both reduce the amount of atmospheric pollution and recycle plastics into other usable materials.

It wouldn't be hard to do this with other atmospheric pollutants.

How is nuclear the "easy ass" answer here. Nuke power plants make nuclear waste. We are running into issues with nuclear waste storage with current limited numbers of nuclear power plants. Where would you recommend we put those additional waste at?

Currently all alternative energy come with a cost to our economy and negatively impact our competitiveness against countries that lack environmental constraints. There's no easy answer to this issue. If there was we would have taken it years ago.

clean coal technology

There is no such thing as "clean coal"

Trump only supports energy that benefits him or those around him. He doesn't recognize climate change so he seeks to diminish the science, just as he said he would do with NASA

The man is utterly one dimensional, and will harm us immensely over the coming years.

So, make oil a renewable source? I'm not exactly sure if you are being serious.

Finding out places to put nuclear waste into is nowhere near the level of problem we have with burning hydrocarbons at such a scale. I meant the fact that nuclear energy is a known application. We know how to make it safe, and cheap. Whether or not it is executed in practice like it is in principle, now that is a different problem.

Yes. And, I am.

In the most part because one of the reasons we're so dependent on oil is the carbon. That's also what makes it so useful in making so many products.

Reasonably, we don't have any solution that doesn't leave us dependent on oil. We don't even have the basis of such a solution without destroying human civilization. So, I'm just looking at a way to achieve an environmental goal without unnecessarily hampering ourselves or passing the buck to the next generation.

My problem is that if we could make bacterium, specialized, on a planetary scale, it seems like our technology would be so advanced, we would have moved beyond reliance on oil at all. If you can manufacture these mini machines, why do you need oil to begin with? It seems like these nano machines, specialized bacteria, etc would be able to alter the atomic structure around them, so why would you need the oil aspect? Could you not simply manufacture energy?

Turning those waste gases back into oil is just chemistry. We have the tech to engineer bacteria to do it now. We might even have the gene sequences to do it with. We just haven't tried. And you need oil because it is an essential raw material for too many different products, as well as a current source of power that is easily scaled, making it perfect for this.

If manufacturing energy were that easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

How is storing an increasing amount of nuclear waste not essentially kicking the can down the road? And how exactly is nuclear waste safe or the long list of stringent safety requirements for nuclear power plants cheap? I think cheap and nuclear power plant are the last two terms of english language you want right next to each other.

Well, scientists proved that turning run of the mill rocks into gold was possible. Was it economically feasible at all? No way, not even close. I can all but guarantee you, if this postulate way of manufacturing natural gas, it has been tried and tried and tried. The oil companies know their reserves are drying up, so if anyone would be at the forefront of doing this, it would be them. They are the corporations who ruthlessly buy and maintain patents on just about every alternate energy means known to man. I think if it were easy, or at all feasible, a country like Saudi Arabia would not be making a massive pivot towards renewable energy.

It is kicking the can down the road, dont think I have it twisted. This many humans on the planet cannot be sustained forever. It seems like all we can do is slow down the train from running off the cliff. If nuclear energy was not relatively safe, and cheap, I see no reason it would have been invested in within dozens of countries for over 50 years. Is it the best? I doubt it. Wind, tidal, geothermal, and solar power in combination seem to be the best way to reduce waste and increase efficiency. Whether or not we put that into practice, well I dont know.

I've heard this reply before, about everything from extremely-efficient gasoline engines to electric cars. I don't believe it for a second.

I welcome being proven wrong, you can bet your balls on that.

@hillelslovak

Can I bet someone else's balls instead? I have a list of people who deserve it... One runs North Korea...

In all seriousness, I've heard that about everything. Including the argument that if it were worth it, we would have done it by now when discussing alternative energy. Except, take a look at China, and notice they're going full-speed on implementing alternative energy. That nation is betting its entire, massive economy on alternative energy actually being worth it and not letting discussions about it not being effective get in the way. And by all evidence, they're proving everything said about alternative energy being efficient.

I don't know if that proves anything. But to me, that is evidence enough that we should try. I don't care if the oil companies tried it and failed unless they're willing to give up the data so we can learn from their mistakes.

Good. Time to concentrate on shit that's real and matters.

this is my issue with the deniers/counter-arguers.

Even if the science starts to lean the other way, or they say "oh the planet will correct the 'human problem' that we created" my question is...don't you want there to not be a human problem in the first place? Can't we make enough product (as opposed to too much) and spare the air?

Again, not a rabid hippie, and I am open to arguments on both sides, but I just don't get it when people don't want to err on the side of caution on this matter, while waiting for hard data to come out (a lot of which we already have); worse, they don't want to err in the worst way possible (i.e. lets keep dumping tons of shit instead of halving it).

*as for the website itself and taking it down, wtf?!

These are jokes, right? You two are liberals ironically posting as conservatives in disguise, yeah? I get it! Very funny!

With that said, more needs to be done to hasten the speed at which we adopt renewable energy, and lessen the costs. Like, for example, how about training all those coal minors to go around the country installing solar panels! Pretty easy work with a bit of training.

Capitalism! Deregulation! Truly the savior of the working class...

Pro alternative energy people seem too often to take the cheap, easy route of saying "Well, that's in China, though." I have heard many libertarian and slightly harder than Bernie Sanders types putting the failures of Communism, say, lie at the root for any and all economic failures within Chinese policy, whilst neglecting to even so much as notice their absurd hypocrisy in their own proposals a lot of the time. American implementation of clean energy proposals get loaded with riders, massive subsidy plans etc and get shot down all the time. When they have been deployed, government being as it is, fucks the dog. I haven't a clue.

@horgen: can't argue with having clean rain water and air to breathe.

They did explain this last week. The Trump administration did not deliberately remove these pages. They were just categorised as being part of the Obama administration's policies so were automatically archived as the transition occurred:

http://www.snopes.com/white-house-web-site-trump-changes/

Pretty good example of general media bias or selective reporting. I guarantee no-one reported on it when the exact same thing happened after the Bush presidency.

@mrbojangles25: Because the problem isn't critical right now. I guess that's why. There is still more money to be made ignoring it and invest in where the infrastructure is already made.

With that said. Go Tesla!!!

I'm quite excited. There are smarter ways to approach the issue, and I'm looking forward to any one of them.

The problem with solar panel energy farms is it takes up lots of space, which in many places means cutting trees down. Trees we could use to keep creating more oxygen and clean the air.

Is there a perfect energy source? No, there are trade-offs with each unfortunately.

So they did remove the pages. Why are you arguing against that when you obviously know they did?

For the reason I just said. It was done as an automatic process as part of the transition.

Various groups were claiming that the climate stuff as well as the LGBT stuff was deliberately removed by Trump (in an attempt to obviously paint a particular narrative).

That fact check explains why that wasn't true. Not particularly hard to understand really.

Nuclear Power.

And in 2016 solar power reached a milestone. Solar Power is now cheaper than coal in 20 countries. Including India.

Really? Cause it sounded like you had it twisted just a few posts earlier.

I fail to see how alternative energy would push the problem to the future generations.

Many countries lack their own natural resources to meet the energy need of their infrastructure, in which case nuclear is an good alternative. However it's not cheap (not even relatively depending on ones access to resources) and it can be dangerous as Fukushima disaster aptly demonstrated. Again battery technology and infrastructure are not at a point in which even combination of those alternative energy harvests can be sufficient to take over our country energy usage at least not to a point where we can reverse the environmental damages and not be affected negatively in GDP.

Understood, and I've seen all that. The thing is, it obviously is not a concern for the Trump administration or else it wouldn't have been taken down so abruptly. This is no "Fake media", it is just reporting what has happened. Not every president takes down all the pages the previous President put up. I know it was an Obama policy, and part of me was hoping Trump would adopt it, even though I know he doesn't believe in Global Warming.

Yes and no. They do take up some space. But relative to what?

A dam, it's reservoir, and various structures?

A nuclear power plant and it's waste disposal sites?

And the space needed might be much less than you think! Keep in mind these are estimates, with some caveats.

But to be perfectly honestly, if/when the economy hits the bottom, I think this would be an awesome Depression-era-style, Roosevelt-inspired, a-la-New-Deal project to do! I imagine unemployment reaching 15+%, millions of able-bodied men and women just wanting a job, food, and shelter and wanting to do some good. Trump (or whomever) will say "Come, my brothers and sisters, build us the farms of solar! Let us shed these black-blooded shackles of oil and coal!" OK maybe not that dramatic...

They could, I don't know, re-establish the Civilian Conservation Corps and build these solar farms for the next decade or so for dirt-cheap, providing young men and women with low-paying but sustainable employment around the state, giving them job skills. President at the time could get epic low unemployment stats lol.

Ok this is a point that needs to be clarified. Your concern is space? Considering that there is a vast, vast amount of available space on rooftops, that point seems a bit weak. And those rooftops are individual homes, businesses, retail centers, etc. etc.

It wouldn't suppress the middle class if we actually focused on investing in alternative energy. The amount of economic and job opportunity that would arise from a rich alternative energy investment would add jobs and cheapen our energy costs. Let's not forget what the economic cost will be because of rising sea levels and drought conditions. The oil industries feed us this lie that somehow energy regulation is suppressing us. It's suppressing them and they aren't happy with their profits. Actual clean energy investments would only be a good thing to the middle class.

Donald Trump doesn't even like Wind Power. He blatantly lied prior to the election claiming that thousands of eagles were being massacred by wind farms!

You know it's bad when China just invested 400 billion in their clean energy section, canceled their new coal power plants on the books, and are asking the US to own up to our end on the Paris agreement.

Which could have been avoided if environmentalists got their heads out of their asses and endorsed nuclear energy. The idiocy on both sides is staggering to issues like this.. On one end we have jackass republicans who deny all kinds of scientific findings inless its ones funded by fossil fuel industries.. On the other end we have jackass democrats claim to be pro environment but basically do backdoor deals and the like while completely banning things like nuclear power to this day.

I do think we should revisit our stance on Nuclear and build more plants, but the false equivalencies stop there.