If we don't kill us, the earth will.

Meanwhile, in his never-ending quest to undo anything good [i]ever,[/i]… The Trump administration is expected today to announce its final rule to relax Obama-era automobile fuel efficiency standards, virtually undoing the government’s biggest effort to combat climate change.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

The notion that everything Obama touched was golden is exhausting.

The idea that if the current President undid something that Obama did automagically adds to his legacy of stupid is disingenuous at best.

Very little of what gets discussed on SW is based in actually science or economic realities.

The previous administration wasted billions of dollars on solar energy pork, but it sounded nice. The current administration is removing legislation to make government less heavy. Also sounds nice.

Both are bad.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@JoeyFoxx Renewables spending was a good idea, Solyandra debacle excluded.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@QuixoticSoul Propping up a filthy polluting and dying industry and giving people false hope in the process is much worse. Even China's abandoning coal but Trump and the nutters in Australia seem hellbent on flushing money into a 17th century technology that nobody wants.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Australia is sitting on a ton of it, and I can understand wanting to sell as much of it as they can while the selling is good. For us, it's pure politics, of the most retarded sort.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@QuixoticSoul So is England but they figured out ages ago it makes about as much sense as investing in Asbestos.

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@QuixoticSoul Obama pushed for LED’s across the nation, at least in the most densely populated areas. To me, this was one of the most underrated things he did.

I have no issue with investing in renewable energy and government incentives to do that.

But, there are a lot of grey areas and I’m just tired of the broad brush assessments

The Paris Climate Accord is a joke and everyone continues to talk about it as if it’s making a difference.

It isn’t.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@JoeyFoxx Paris was pretty anemic but at least it was moving in the right direction.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@JoeyFoxx So laws should be made based on the likelihood of compliance?

Graylight · 51-55, F

@JoeyFoxx None of your arguments here address the original issue, which was [i]this[/i] regulation and fuel economy standards. No one's commenting on legacies or other actions. On this point, the administration is making a transparent move propelled by greed and insecurity,

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@Graylight He didn't get everything he wanted. There will still be incremental expectations of improved fuel economy in each of the next 5 years.

We need to ask ourselves though: how did we let someone like this get elected?

And where TF is Congress in all this? How is it possible that we've given this much authority to the President?

That's NOT how it's written in the Constitution.

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow LAW? It's not a law.

What are you talking about?

Bernie and Biden keep talking about re-joining it as if is means anything. It doesn't.

Honestly, I rather like Inslee's idea of completely changing the economy and make it about investing in climate change.

Everyone will have jobs, the economy will thrive.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@JoeyFoxx Last I checked treaties carried the force of law. And are arguably the only laws originating from the executive.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@JoeyFoxx I do agree a complete economic overhaul is required though.

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow It's literally not a treaty. It's an "agreement"

It's entirely for show.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@JoeyFoxx NAFTA is an agreement too. Not sure the verbiage is that significant.

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow There's a simple write-up on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

All treaties are agreements, but not all agreements are treaties.

It is quite literally a political agreement. It was set up this way because there was no way to get all those countries to agree on a unified approach.

It's a great way to allow politicians to make them feel good about themselves. but it's not worth the paper it's written on.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@JoeyFoxx Which explains why they blew up Kyoto which actually required someone to do something useful.