Don't assume he is being honest when he says anything. Lying is practically the guys calling card.
That said, he is unlikely to push climate change one way or another globally. With how cheap wand and solar has gotten coal is on the way out and would take significant subsides to become competitive.
he is unlikely to push climate change one way or another
He has appointed a number of climate-change deniers to the cabinet [1], including positions such as the EPA Administrator. I wouldn't be surprised to see action against mitigating climate change, such as removing protections, or reducing funding for agencies involved in environmental protection.
Has he gone back on his plan to end the Paris treaty? If not that seems like a big push one way or the other - though of course he might go back on it.
For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy
industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary
policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages
by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.
You'd think, but he's decided to take the weekend off (not kidding). This, after it came out that he wanted tanks and rocket launchers at the inauguration. Our Dear Leader had to be told that it would look bad, and that the weight of the tanks would turn the streets to rubble.
So I think it would be a mistake to dismiss it as pure conjecture considering that it has been partly validated by events. It would be quite easy to file a FOIA request to find out whether there were requests for ground-based hardware. Trump is already on record expressing a desire for military parades: http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/trump-to-hold-military...
Whether or not Trump is sincere, it is a commonly held belief among the American right that climate change is a fraud or a hoax perpetrated by "leftists" or, as Trump seems to claim, the Chinese.
To me, the problem is less that Trump claims to believe climate change is a Chinese hoax, and more that such insane claims are what got him elected, because they seem refreshingly honest to so many Americans.
We don't need to DO anything to achieve Doomsday, we need to fail to do enough, in time to prevent the point of no return. I'd say we're right on track.
I am not a fan of how people try to downplay the situation and 'play fair' but giving someone the benefit of doubt who openly denies climate change and has appointed key members in the cabinet who have a lot of reasons to deny climate change even if they know its true. The Secretary of State is the former CEO of Exxon.
There is no wisdom in trying to be neutral. There is no smartness and tolerance in trying to protect and tolerate things that are by themselves intolerant and harmful.
> That said, he is unlikely to push climate change one way or another globally.
He's likely to push climate change one way -- that is, in the direction of reinforcing the current trend. He's may be unlikely to push substantive policy responses to climate change, but that's a different issue.
He has an opportunity to go down in history as the president who saved the planet. He has not shown to lean this direction but I find it interesting that someone who wants worldly recognition would ignore a glaring opportunity.
Agreed but the guy seems to like recognition and as a "billionare" I would assume the only thing left is to cement your legacy. How better to do it than be recognized by the world as the US president who changed stance on global warming and made a difference.
Perhaps I am still dreaming that he will do an about face and actually be a good president. Regardless of who is president we can still dream, can't we?
This is an odd request. Everything is undercutting coal. Coal has always been a rather expensive and dangerous technology, it's just that it's plentiful and in the land rights of Western powers.
Other forms of energy have been undercutting it since thermal steam rigs started working in North African farms. Probably longer when you consider the history of wind power.
If Natural Gas wasn't so arduous to obtain, a carbon liberator, and damaging to the water table to obtain, I suspect we'd be more excited about it.
If Methane Hydrates work out, then natural gas will be less arduous to obtain - port cities will have pipes coming up from the seafloor into the harbor, delivering it to their millions of residents.
It's true, but it'd be nice if we were using oceanic floor pressure to sequester carbon rather than liberate more, even if on the long balance it's carbon neutral.
We really need to work out practices where we actively remove carbon from the air.
Yes, but the problem with him is that he's a mentally unsophisticated sociopath who is being led by the nose by anyone who will say nice things about him. This is a guy who will subsidize coal over wind and solar because "I don't wanna lose jobs."
That said, he is unlikely to push climate change one way or another globally. With how cheap wand and solar has gotten coal is on the way out and would take significant subsides to become competitive.