Axios: Trump Tells Confidants U.S. is Pulling Out of Paris Climate Change Agreement.....

Axios is reporting that President Trump has "told multiple people, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt" that the U.S. will pull out of the Paris climate change agreement, based on conversations with "three sources with direct knowledge."

During the campaign Trump repeatedly promised that the US would withdraw from the agreement if he was elected, but tweeted Saturday that he will make a decision on the matter this week. When questioned by Axios, Director of Strategic Communications Hope Hicks reiterated the President's words.

According to experts who spoke to Axios, if Trump decides to pull out of the agreement, there are three ways that can take place, but the most likely is that he would declare it a legal treaty subject to Senate approval, knowing that a Senate vote to ratify it as a treaty would fail.....snip~

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jenni...ut-of-paris-climate-change-agreement-n2332519


Its looking like Trump will pull out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Doing so Trump will end up keeping another campaign promise. Thus dooming another one of BO peeps agreements.

Trump has already said no to a Global Cap and trade plan. With the Chinese questioning him on it. His answers have been Short and simple over the matter. What do you think.....good move or not?

 

My wife graduated with a PhD with a focus in biofuels but thanks to Trump preferring 20th century energy sources like oil to 21st century energy she is going to have to find a job outside biofuels because there is a lack of federal funds. They are describing it as a "winter" for bio-fuels. In the meantime China and Europe are ramping up their funding for alternative energy, and Canada is trying to draw in those lost US jobs to boost its energy output.

 

Oh crap, you mean she's going to have to make a living on her own and stay out of our pockets ?

 

Trump is rolling back regulations on Bio fuels. So he isn't against them.


Donald Trump on Energy & Oil........

What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers? A: The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, is killing these energy companies. And foreign companies are now coming in buying our--buying so many of our different plants and then re-jiggering the plant so that they can take care of their oil. I'm all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, etc. But we need much more than wind and solar.

There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country. Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology.

Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels.

The most popular source of green energy is solar as several decades after installing solar panels to get your money back. That's not exactly what I would call a good investment. Even if that number is only half right, what kind of investment do you want to make that takes 20 years before you break even.

We need nuclear energy, and we need a lot of it fast.....snip~

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Energy_+_Oil.htm


Trump Expresses Support for RFS, Biofuel Industry.....

If elected president, he declared that he would make sure the EPA ensured biofuel blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress in the RFS. After the 2022 cutoff, however, Trump said the RFS would be a part of “a comprehensive energy program that benefits all Americans and ensures that we are energy independent.”....snip~

http://www.agriculture.com/news/business/trump-expresses-suppt-f-rfs-biofuel_5-ar51987

 

You are so ignorant. You don't want to invest any money in alternative energy but our rivals are more than willing to do so. China has just announced they are going to spend 360 billion on alternative energy by 2020 and are aiming to over-take the US's lead. What is sad is that Trump is literally letting it happen. European countries are also going big on renewable energy with a significant percent coming from it and future plans to go almost all renewable.

And this is at a time when costs for biofuels are really coming down with a lot of fuels now in the 2-3 dollars per gallon range. The next big challenge is bringing down the cost even more and get production levels up. Similar advances in wind, solar, and hydrogen power was made during the Obama era with cost coming down significantly partially thinks to significant government investment.

Scientists aren't stealing your money, they are using it to create alternative energy that will reduce your fuel costs in the future and mean that we won't have to depend on a fuel source that is mostly foreign and will one day be depleted.

 

There are also biofuels, hydo dam power, and hydrogen fuel.

The only problem is that these sources emit CO2 and given that temperatures have risen by 2 F already with a lot of that being from CO2 if we use 1,000 years of coal and natural gas we can experience a lot more heating. In addition we have only begun to tap our oil reserves and we can heat our plant a lot more. the planet doesn't just heat or cool proportional to the original source, and the original heating if significant often starts a chain reaction that leads to a lot more heating.

Your information on solar energy is out of date. Tesla is now announcing solar roofs that look a lot like conventional roofs at only a somewhat larger cost. They are so cheap they are getting a lot of demand. Solar is doing so well it may not even need government support in the future.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-s-solar-roof-is-finally-ready-for-you-to-buy

I believe that an alternative energy portfolio requires a whole host of sources not just one and we do need to get our Nuclear program expanding again.

I am sure Trump made a lot of campaign promises. Didn't he promise to prosecute Hillary at some point? Never happened. The reality is that the biofuel industry is experiencing a lot less support from the federal government and jobs here are becoming more scarce.

 

Which Trump isn't against biofuels. Nor Hydrogen. Nor Hydro Dams. Rolling back regulations on the biofuels shows that he isn't, and kept a campaign promise.

Plants emit CO2 and they capture it.

Well less Support from Congress doesn't mean its Trump's fault.

The Point was.....Trump isn't against Solar.

 

Thats interesting because Trump just proposed 3.1 billion dollars in cuts to alternative energy research which is an 18% reduction. Some programs like in solar energy, carbon trapping, and nuclear research face a 30-60% cut.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/climate/trump-budget-energy.html

 

China and Europe are almost forced into finding alternate forms of energy. We have the resources to be energy independent but I do believe we have a need for alternate energy. Nuclear is the answer. Unfortunately it is also the hardest to get people on board with.

 

If biofuel was commercially viable there would be plenty of private funding. The government does not exist to pay for ineffective half measures.

 

Yes, but we still import a lot of our energy and energy demands keep increasing. What we need is a diverse portfolio and good federally funded research into each one including big tax breaks for non-CO2 ones. The answer isn't just nuclear its a diverse portfolio because each one has its drawback and you never know which one will be the least expensive in the future.

Nuclear has some drawbacks because its waste is radioactive and has to be stored properly, and currently it is. Also there is that risk of rare accidents. Nuclear energy also isn't renewable. These plants also use fossil fuels which burn CO2 and aren't sustainable. In addition it takes a high initial cost and nuclear plants cost 10 billion each. The water used to cool plants when put back into rivers can cause eutrophication because it is very warm and can cause oxygen deficiency.

I am not saying that Nuclear power is bad and every energy source has its rap sheet of disadvantages which is why we should be investing in a diverse portfolio.

 

You don't seem to understand how technology is developed. What you are missing is that just because they aren't commercially viable now doesn't mean it will remain so in the future. Technologies are often like this. Promising technologies often are barely understood and if it is possible they will work it will be decades in the future. Because of this they don't get that much attention from private industry, but thankfully they get some federal funding that slowly pushes them along. Many of them eventually don't work out but some of them eventually start becoming practical and get more and more federal and private funding and start taking off. But in their early stages they still need support from the government and tax breaks to stay afloat before they can become advanced enough to make it on their own. Without government help they may still make it but it would take a lot longer without that initial research funding and support for early businesses.

 

The problem is that biofuels aren't all that new and cutting edge. Other problems with biofuels is that they were politicized as an alternative, which they never were, a potential augment perhaps, but never a viable alternative. If you really want someone to blame go after those voodoo science goofs, like the ones who study the masturbation habits of gay recess monkey or whatnot...

 

You - Numan Beans - are so bloody tiresome
Unable to curtail in even the least sort of way,
........your unsustainable ravenous appetite for
...........the very environment that sustains you

 

Are you saying that 2 or more decades into their development, they still dont show enough promise to find some venture capitalist to fund its development? How many more decades does it take?

So crony capitalism where the govt decides the winners and losers. I guess you got what you wanted, unfortunately this particular project ended up in the losers bracket.

 

You seem well-intentioned but its pretty obvious your knowledge of biofuels mostly comes from the news. We don't fund technologies by how new and shiny they are but by their possible potential in the future. Technologies can take decades to research and computers were being researched since 1950 and it wasn't really until the 80s that they showed any real potential at all and the 90s when they actually took off.

It doesn't really matter if they currently or never were an alternative, what matters is if they can be a viable part of our energy portfolio in the future. New technologies will of course under-perform now because they aren't well developed. Thats the whole point of funding their research, and new companies in these areas. You don't just give up on new technology because it takes a long time to be viable. The problem with biofuels right now isn't that they aren't profitable but that they aren't as profitable as all the cheap oil we have.

And keep in mind that corn isn't the only bio-fuel, there is also grasses, softwood, and algea. In addition they not only can be a fuel for cars but for jets too, and jet fuel is completely different.

 

So far, bio-fuels cost more to produce and are not available to the consumer...even after decades of government paid-for research. If bio-fuels were cheaper than oil and easier to transport, you can bet that the energy fuel industry would already have them available.

 

Computers, while continuously advancing for 40 years, did not take off until the private sector got involved. Biofuels are nowhere near as versatile as computers and there are numerous alternatives that can do the same job, often for less. Its the politics of 'alternative' energies that created the problem and false demand. Couple that with the realities that there is virtually no solid infrastructure to support an increase in the use and production of biofuels. If someone can show biofuels to be profitable, it will get all the funding they want, just not from the government.

I know corn isn't the only biofuel, but this country will never grow its fuel source at a level that would justify additional government spending...

 

Actually biofuels have been getting private funding too. Technology can take decades to develop, computers took 30 years. Solar has been researched since the 1860s and has been seriously researched since

This "crony capitalism" is a big reason why the US has maintained its technological advantage. Federally fund research that would otherwise get next to nothing, and when it starts becoming viable a few decades later start funding small businesses and giving them tax breaks, and watch as it eventually is able it take care of itself. Its like taking care of a child and teaching it until it can take care of itself. Lets say I am glad you aren't in charge of scientific research.

Without this funding many of these promising technologies wouldn't have a start at all which to you seems to be better than "government picking winners and losers?" And by the way many biofuels are becoming profitable and more and more of these companies are starting up. A new bio-jet fuel now exists that is selling fuel to Alaska Airlines.

 

So the biofuels that work are getting the private funding and contracts they need. Why do they still need the govt to fund the ones that dont work?

 

You sound like someone who gets his information from just the news and doesn't really understand that technologies often requires decades of research before they become viable and abandoning technologies because of impatience will result in numerous lost opportunities.

I am a software developer and you are misrepresenting how computer developed. The reason they took off was all that research that was done before. Government funding helps give us enough knowledge for private industry to give it real attention and make it practical. I think I explained how this all works before so I don't understand why you keep making the same claims over and over.

Computers are the most versatile technology ever created and just because most technologies do one or two things doesn't mean they aren't worth it. And biofuels are more versitile than many other alternatives because it requires the least changes to our energy infrastructure since it is actually a fuel that you can pump into engines while electric requires a totally different way providing energy and totally different cars. Bioenergy can also be used for airplanes and who knows what other products it can be used for in the future once it starts being produced in enough quantities.

How can you possibly know this if we haven't completely researched it and are just going to give up because its not moving fast enough for you? Also every energy source has its problems which is why we want is a diverse portfolio instead of a few options especially if some hit a wall. In addition this will make fuel sources compete with each other which will drive down prices.

You can argue whether the government pushed ethanol too much on us but that doesn't mean they won't be viable in the future and we should cut funding.

Again, just because there is no infrastructure now doesn't mean it won't exist in the future if it was given more time to develop. New technologies start out with weak infrastructure to start with.

They already are profitable which is great because before they couldn't break even without government support. Their problem now is that they aren't as profitable as the cheap oil we have and can't compete yet with prices. But if oil prices go up again thats going to change very quickly.

How can you possibly know that? This planet is full of wood, plants, and algea and the potential is endless. Already 5-10% of gas is ethanol and biofuels are in their infancy. While you talk about abandoning biofuels China is investing big money into it in its 12-year plan to get 12% of its economy on alternative energy.

 

Here we go again. Because federal funding means more research and better progress. Technological research requires a combination of both federal and private funding and this has been our nation's strategy for the past 70 years.

 

If I remember correctly, almost all of the govt funding for computers went into govt or military applications. The super computer was developed for code breaking and generating by the NSA. Miniaturization was needed for computers to be used on ships at sea. Radar, GPS, cellular technology. All of these are military technologies that have been incorporated into civilian use.

 

Sounds to me like the ones that work are getting the funding they need though. Why throw funding at lesser versions of the same technologies?

 

Thats the problem, the Republicans want to significantly reduce it. In the meantime China and Europe are boosting funding as this research becomes more and more viable. We need to maintain our international leadership in biofuels and other alternative energy. If we can get a large part of our energy from alternatives then we can start exporting oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear and other energy sources rather than being an importer. Being an exporter has some great advantages as Russia already knows and gives you better bargaining power internationally.