Comments 1 to 14:

1. DrivingBy at 07:48 AM on 14 November, 2016

   Mr. Trump's expressed views on global warming are opposite mine and probably everyone reading here.  They're also not the end of the world, and the hysterics detract from our credibility. 

   The US is only 15% of world C02 output and falling, and President Trump's actual actions regarding it will be much milder than expressed on the campaign trail.  The wall is becoming a fence, the Obamacare repeal will retain it's most expensive element, there will be no particular effort for mass deportation of illegals (meaning it won't happen).  Not a few seem to have forgotten that he is a New York Democrat who contributed to the Clintons three times and whose kids are friends with Clinton/CGI's sole heir.   One thing is certain: He'll be great for ratings.

   Coal is not coming back, because natural gas is cheaper and easier to handle. Once a power plant is fully converted to gas, going back to coal means lower efficiency and re-installing huge, maintenance-heavy exhaust scrubbers. 

   Yes, we should have started dealing with this in the 1960s, when Johnson was originally told about it. But Lyndon Johnson's first, middle and last concerns were ramming through his progressive agenda and having the country "voting Democrat for 200 years".  

   A small but critical course correction 50 years ago could have made us the world leader on this issue at a small cost, even a $$ gain if we instead of China had become the solar and wind tech manufacturer. (It would help even more if we'd started with solar for hot water preheating, rather than expensive, low-yeild solar electric panels).   The course was set then, and can only be adjusted in increments now. 

   0 0
2. nigelj at 10:13 AM on 14 November, 2016

   Driving by, ok nobody knows exactly what Trump will push for, but we can be 99% certain of one thing: Trump and the Republicans have enormous opposition to climate science and reductions in emissions, and will have the power to decimate existing legislation. Are you seriously saying its likely or even possible that they are going to keep what Obama put in place?  Even as Trump has already put several climate sceptics in his cabinet? I dont think so.

   You are right, gas is cheaper, but these Republicans will promote coal out of sheer hatred of liberals. They have obstructed Obama for 8 years on virtually everything so why would they change their ideology now?

   And what has 1960 got to do with climate? Climate change was not really a proven threat back then. The science at that time suggested warming was possible, but there was no evidence of warming happening back then. It was only the warming trend from about 1980 - 1990 that strongly suggested the science was correct. 

   And take Obamacare. Its not as simple as keeping the "good bits". Obamacare is an integrated package, and cant be fragmented up. I dont have time to explain but a google search might help you.

   Yes the wall may become a fence. Who knows. But every Trump policy has huge problems, and softened versions will still be problems.

   Obviously I hope I'm wrong, sanity prevails, and Trump changes tack, because if he doesn't this beautiful planet is in genuine danger in so many ways.

   0 0
3. John Hartz at 14:50 PM on 14 November, 2016

   DrivingBy: I suspect that just about everyone attending the ongoing Cop 22 Conference in Marakesh, Morocco considers Trump's promise to withdraw from the Paris Accord to be a "Blow to the gut".

   Here's an example of how diplomats are reacting:

   The United States would become "a kind of rogue country" if it pulls out of an international agreement to combat global warming, leaving the world more vulnerable to droughts and other climate extremes, warned Mary Robinson, a former Irish president and human rights advocate.

   "It would be a tragedy for the United States and the people of the United States if the U.S. becomes a kind of rogue country, the only country in the world that is somehow not going to go ahead with the Paris Agreement," Robinson said in an interview with the Thomson Reuters Foundation on Sunday.

   INTERVIEW-U.S. will be 'rogue' state if it ditches climate accord - UN envoy by Laurie Goering, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Reuters, Nov 13, 2016

   0 0
4. michael sweet at 21:07 PM on 14 November, 2016

   Nigelj,

   I think that the time for coal is past, even if the Trump presidency tries to revive it.

   The biggest coal compaies in the USA have recently declared bankruptcy.  If regulations are eased for emissions (which I expect), they will not be able to raise the capitol to reopen closed mines.  Who will finance new coal burning generators with the writing on the wall for 4-8 years from now?  There may be less coal shutdown for 4 years but the economics of coal argue for no more than a stalling in the shutting down of current facilities.

   If the Saudi's keep pumping, fracking is not econnomic.  It appears that the Sauds do not want to compete with fracking.  Even if the pipelines are built, Trump cannot raise the price of oil enough to make those wells economic.  Oil sands also require high prices to be profitable.  The Saudi's might want to pump as much as they can before oil is no longer used.  They make money at current prices.

   WInd and solar have gotten much bigger under Obama.  Will Trump really ignore the jobs created by WWS?  Those jobs already exceed the old jobs under coal.  Trump can hold back expansion but since wind and solar are cheaper they cannot be shut down once they are built.  Perhaps Trump will waste a lot of money on nuclear, but that will lower CO2 in the end also.

   0 0
5. Jonbo69 at 01:49 AM on 15 November, 2016

   We outside America need to act now, before Trump opens a single coal mine, drills a single well. or withdraws a single cent from renewable development projects.

   It doesn't matter that the economics lean towards renewables and away from fossil fules. Trump & co are tools of the fossil fuel indistry and that it what they will pronote, regardless

   
   350 degrees, Greenpeace and FOE have their hands tied because they operate inside the US and so it would be pretty hard for them to call for a boycott of US corporations; therefore there needs to be a new campaign group set up in countries outside the US promoting such a boycott. It doesn't have to be all encompassing; just a handful of the big names - Coca Cola, Starbucks, McDonalds etc, will do to start with. 

   
   But it needs to be done quickly, ideally before Trump has even taken office. We need to deliver the first blow, or at least make the threat clear to Trump and the Republicans. To wait until Trump takes charge is to give the advantage, and we can’t afford to allow that. We need him on the defensive and on the back foot.

   The sooner people realise that there is absolutely zero chance of the UN or our governments doing anything that will get Trump and co to change course, the quicker we can get together and do something ourselves. The wait and see approach is the dumb ass approach and we’ll take a severe beating.

   The only way Trump and the Republicans can be brought to see reason is to hit them in their wallet; our governments won’t do it; we can. We need to be the ones shaping events and controlling them, not the other way around. Action needs to be swift and uncompromising.

   .

   2 0
6. chriskoz at 05:58 AM on 15 November, 2016

   Jonbo69,

   Chinese are already doing it:

   China Threatens to Cut iPhone Sales Over Trump Rhetoric

   Maybe not in response to climate ravaging by the irresponsible con man, as you suggest, rather to his ravaging of trade agrements; but still along the lines you suggest.

   0 0
7. nigelj at 06:15 AM on 15 November, 2016

   Michael Sweet @4.

   I agree. I'm aware of some of those things, and thanks for the ones I wasn't aware of. And I hope you are right in your interpretation. It's just the election of Trump put my in such a foul mood that I just didn't care to try to find any positives!

   At heart the Republicans believe in free markets (at least within America) So with renewable energy and gas having fallen in price it makes sense on this alone, and will hopefully prevail.

   But watch the more vindictive people in Congress try to put a spanner in the works somehow. Unfortunately emotion and settling scores as they see it against The Green Movement counts with some people.

   0 0
8. Wol at 07:17 AM on 15 November, 2016

   Part of any boom in the US economy under Trump would be the use of much "cheap" coal, gas and oil. The rest of the world would be somewhat shackled to increasing use of renewables, which are still presently more expensive partly because the hidden public costs of fossil fuels isn't adequately taken into account.

   Having just had yet another online "discussion" with several deniers, who in the usual manner brought up all the oft-rebutted arguments, slipping from one to another at will, I see no chance that the Trump machine is in any way amenable to logical and scientific debate.

   1 0
9. DrivingBy at 09:41 AM on 15 November, 2016

   @nigelJ

   - In the mid-60s, a presentation by a noted scientist (someone here recall the name?) to LBJ included the advisory that over the next century, the increase in atmospheric C02 would change the world's climate, with destabilizing effects, and that it would not be a temporary, reversible problem like smog.  C02's greenhouse effect was discovered in the 19th century and confirmed (by Arhennious) around 1900.  There's even a reference to it in the old educational film "Our Mr Sun", a suprisingly well-produced piece from our grandparent's day. 

   My point about the other items, wall-fence, ACA-ACA-lite is that DT really has few fixed positions; he's a combo real estate developer/reality show host. Someone called him Quantum Trump, as he seems to simultaneously hold multiple, opposing positions on a subject.  That is not always a bad thing, because in politics there's often no right answer. 

   @JohnH:

   We can hope that trade implications will enter the new Administration's calculus. If abandoning Paris turns out to be bad for business, Trump will probably change his tune.  Democrats should have been helping those coal miners get jobs in the oil & gas fields or whatever emergent industry arises (wind turbine contstruction & upkeep). If Trump's administration is smart, they will offer new jobs that exist instead of old ones that aren't coming back.  Trump couldn't care less about coal itself, he's looking at the communities which were formerly sustained by it, they are part of his support base.  While he also couldn't care less about climate change, if ignoring CC turns out to be a drag on the economy I suspect he'll adjust. 

   0 0
10. michael sweet at 11:27 AM on 15 November, 2016

    Wol,

    In many locations, including Texas, WWS are the cheapest form of energy.  In that case if Trump delays the buildout of WWS it will hurt international competitiveness.  If WWS continue to go down in price they will be built out more and more.  

    Unfortunately, even a few years delay in installing more WWS will result in a lot more carbon in the atmosphere.

    0 0
11. nigelj at 17:23 PM on 15 November, 2016

    Driving by @9, yes a couple of scientists in the 1960s predicted global warming but there was no consensus in  the science community. Maybe there should have been.

    Trump is possibly a pragmatist. So am I, but his changeability is so large it's not normal

    0 0
12. michael sweet at 20:46 PM on 15 November, 2016

    Nigelj,

    The report was from the National Academy of Science not "a couple of scientists".  They warned strongly that AGW would be a big problem in the future.  It reported the consensus of scientists at the time.

    It has been over 50 years since that reort was delivered to the President.  Unfortunately, we are making the same argument now.

    0 0
13. nigelj at 07:19 AM on 16 November, 2016

    Michael Sweet @ 12, I didn't realise there was such a strong consensus on global warming in the 1960s, but I accept your evidence.

    I was really just reacting to Driving By. He made an initial claim that warnings about warming made in the 1960s were ignored by the Democrats, as they were more interested in their progressive agenda. This annoyed me.

    But it shows an important point. Both Republicans and Democrats have been in denial about climate change at various times. The elite become tied up in their own narrow agendas, whatever they may be.

    0 0
14. One Planet Only Forever at 04:29 AM on 17 November, 2016

    Trump's plans for coal is likely to stop any transition of existing coal burners in the US and motivate utilities to maximize their use by ending laws and enforcement that make coal burning less profitable. However, his main plan would likely be to maximize exports of coal and us US influence to keep buyers of US coal from reducing their burning-blaming them and excusing the US.

    Bottom line is Trump is bottom line popularity and profit guy who has a history of not caring how popularity gets drummed up or how unsustainable or damaging a pursuit of profit is understood to be. He has proven that popularity for nationalism can override any better understanding that what is being promoted will not advance humanity to a lasting better future. Tragically in Germany White Nationalists were twice proven to respond even more as the damaging absurdity of the Weimar and Nazi Regimes claims were ramped up.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.