Kenneth said:

This isn't a conservative vs liberal issue, this is a human issue. This is about the survival of our planet. How can you honestly prioritize the coal industry as more important than that? It doesn't even have to be the way you portray it, a massive loss of jobs and a hit to the economy. The key is to transfer the power to clean energy, not eradicate it. I myself find it frustrating that the argument against progress is always jobs. If we would transfer our political context to the past, people would be against evolved communication techniques as "it takes away the jobs of the post men". Not to mention that I even find it ironic, I believe its Trumps pick for labor that I'm talking about. You know, the wealthy businessman who spoke about how automated machinery are much better than human workers in an interview. Can you fill me in on how cutting carbon emissions to fight global warming is"an insult to intelligent people"? Just my two cents but I just get the vibe that you fall victim to cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, it doesn't have to be that way.

---

Kenneth said:

I assumed that it was implied. For one, it is not completely just outlawing fossil fuels as you seem to put it. Instead, it is simply inhibiting it to a certain extent. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that fossil fuels are the only way which is false. Even if you discount such things as hydro power, solar power, wind power, and so on, you still have things such as bio fuels which cause less destruction. A great example of this would be hemp. Yes, it will still release carbon into the atmosphere but it is offset by hemp's efficiency at absorbing carbon not to mention the other benefits such as its ability for Phytoremediation. You say "clean coal", could you elaborate on that? It is not as if we just have magical coal that doesn't release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I find it unfortunate that you would call it a "hoax" considering the evidence there is for it. Surely you can explain why you think that through objective evidence and reasoning?

---

Morel Guy said:

Biochar absorbs carbon.  Sadly it's a fad and not cheap for mass application in commercial farming.

Cow farts also contribute to global warming.  There are simply too many people living on very specific desires.

---

Morel Guy said:

I think it's the gas they shit out.

---

Quote:

  Interestingly enough there are huge bladders that can ferment cow waste and turn it into fuel gas.  Not sure about cooking or hating the house with fermented cow waste?  I am not either but perhaps a generator could be utilized.  Grow some dope or something

---

hostileuniverse said:

A lot of these agencies have been running roughshod over presidents for decades, it's good to see some change and push back against unelected bureaucrats.

---

+ 1

Also, as for OP description title "terrifying." Pepper your angus. You are in for a ride.

finalexplosion said:

hostileuniverse said:

A lot of these agencies have been running roughshod over presidents for decades, it's good to see some change and push back against unelected bureaucrats.

---

+ 1

Also, as for OP description title "terrifying." Pepper your angus. You are in for a ride.

---

Kenneth said:

Again, you say "hoax" yet you can't explain that. And as I stated, it is more about moving jobs rather than removing them as you claim. Develop my alternatives? How do you propose so? What exactly do you believe they need?

---

HU actually is being accurate in this thread, and contributing information for once -- i think i need a drink. 

ballsalsa said:

Morel Guy said:

Biochar absorbs carbon.  Sadly it's a fad and not cheap for mass application in commercial farming.

Cow farts also contribute to global warming.  There are simply too many people living on very specific desires.

---

this is misinformation fed to the public by the fossil fuel industry.

Cows do release methane, which is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, but all in all, cattle are carbon neutral (maybe even a carbon sink) as long as we don't cut down forests to make grazing land for them.  Every blade of grass is "built" from atmospheric carbon.  One way or another, that grass will release it's carbon again.  When a cow eats the grass, some of it becomes cow, some of it becomes shit, and some becomes gasses.  New grass will grow, and remove more carbon from the atmosphere, but the lion's share of the eaten grass has now become meat, bones, and shit, which will break down relatively slowly, trapping carbon in the meantime.  By contrast, burning coal releases fossil carbon that had been previously removed from the carbon cycle.

---

Bloto said:

I approach this from a slightly different angle. He's announced, I dunno, 15-20 cabinet-ish picks so far. Here's a sampling of how they break down.

1. Republican Hacks. Chief of Staff - Reince Priebus, head of the Republican National Committee. Attorney Gen. - Jeff Sessions, AL Congressman. Energy - Rick Perry, TX Gov. HHS - Tom Price, GA Congressman. Transportation - Elaine Chao, Mrs. Mitch McConnell. U.N. - Nikki Haley, S.C. Gov. Education - Betsy DeVos, Mich. Republican Party. CIA - Mike Pompeo, KS Congressman. EPA - Scott Pruitt, OK Attorney General.

2. Military Dudes. Homeland Security - Gen. John Kelly. Defense - Gen. James Mattis. Interior - Ryan Zinke, former SEAL. NSA - Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

3. Big Business Assholes. State - Rex Tillerson, CEO Exxon-Mobile. Treasury - Steve Mnuchin - Goldman Sachs executive. Commerce - Wilbur Ross, billionaire poppin bottles, yo.

You'll note the Republican Hacks are well represented. Trump has been co-opted by the Republican Party. They may suck (they do) but this makes nonsense of the argument he's appointing political novices. It's heavily weighted towards people deeply entrenched in government - they just don't favor the policies the losing side prefers.

The game was fixed before we bought our tickets.

---