George Bush promised, "No new Taxes" - broke that promise and the Democrats hammered him on it for the rest of his term.

Donald Trump said, "We're going to cancel the Paris climate agreement."

When you make that kind of bold statement / promise.... you darn well better keep it!

The following is expected from larger corporations, gaming the system for fun & profit, no doubt at our expense.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/26/possible-reasons-big-corporations-eager-trump-break-promise-paris-climate-deal/

QuoteGenerally, larger energy companies have an advantage under the climate deal, said Fred Palmer, senior fellow for energy and climate at the Heartland Institute.

"Follow the money," Palmer told The Daily Signal. "There are companies that want to game the system of using [carbon dioxide] as a currency to make money."

After meetings at the Vatican earlier this week, Tillerson said, "The president indicated we're still thinking about that, that he hasn't made a final decision."

Ahead of the G7 meeting, Trump chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, the director of the White House National Economic Council, told a pool reporter Friday that the president is weighing both sides.

What....?   scroll back and read the beginning of the article, it says:

QuoteExxon Mobil Corp., once run by Trump's secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP are urging the administration to remain in the agreement. Meanwhile, coal mining company Cloud Peak Energy urged the administration to remain.

"BP and Shell are European companies and it's impossible to do business in Europe without towing the political line," Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Signal. He added that for oil and gas companies, "the only way to get the price of gas back up is to kill coal. The Paris Agreement kills fossil fuels, but it kills coal first."

Getting angry yet?    This decision to drop out of the Paris agreement is a NO-BRAINER.   Either keep your promise, or face the anger of the electorate and ridicule of the Democrats.

Quote from: Hoofer on May 27, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Signal. He added that for oil and gas companies, "the only way to get the price of gas back up is to kill coal. The Paris Agreement kills fossil fuels, but it kills coal first."

Okay, that explains why petroleum companies would be for the Paris accord,
but it still puzzles me why that coal company, Cloud Peak Energy,
would go along with it.

Quote from: je_freedom on May 27, 2017, 06:53:57 PM
Okay, that explains why petroleum companies would be for the Paris accord,
but it still puzzles me why that coal company, Cloud Peak Energy,
would go along with it.

Govt subsidies, tax dollars, leeching off those that work for a living.
If you can't beat em, buy em with tax dollars.

Quote from: je_freedom on May 27, 2017, 06:53:57 PM
Okay, that explains why petroleum companies would be for the Paris accord,
but it still puzzles me why that coal company, Cloud Peak Energy,
would go along with it.

Yeah, that really has me wondering too!!!   

Bottom line... is the bottom line, energy prices are LOW right now.   Everyone in the energy sector wants prices UP again.

Sort of lends credence to the 300mpg carburetor whacko conspiracy theory - Big Oil is suppressing it for the sake of profits!!! 

Follow the money, again, the REAL culprits are the Global Warming fanatics, blackmailing Oil Producers - socialism in it's purest form, You can own the company, but Government is telling you HOW to run your business.

Quote from: je_freedom on May 27, 2017, 06:53:57 PM
Okay, that explains why petroleum companies would be for the Paris accord,
but it still puzzles me why that coal company, Cloud Peak Energy,
would go along with it.

Hey, here's an idea:
Maybe Cloud Peak Energy supports the "climate change" agenda
to drive down the price of coal mines
so Cloud Peak can buy them up for a cheap price.

I wonder who owns Cloud Peak, and who finances it.
Maybe it's not even a mining company at all!
Maybe it's a completely fake energy company, like Enron!

Quote from: je_freedom on May 28, 2017, 10:06:23 PM
Hey, here's an idea:
Maybe Cloud Peak Energy supports the "climate change" agenda
to drive down the price of coal mines
so Cloud Peak can buy them up for a cheap price.

I wonder who owns Cloud Peak, and who finances it.
Maybe it's not even a mining company at all!
Maybe it's a completely fake energy company, like Enron!

Like I said above, it's all abouit govt subsidies, leaching off the taxpayer.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/06/major-us-coal-company-urges-trump-to-back-the-paris-climate-agreement/

The Obama administration handed out hundreds of millions of dollars for CCS projects that largely ran behind schedule and incurred huge cost overruns. So far, only one CCS plant in Texas, Petra Nova, is online after the Department of Energy paid for 19 percent of the $1 billion project's budget.

"The idiotic reasons being advanced by Cloud Peak to stay in the Paris Climate Treaty provide further proof, if any were needed, for why President Trump should keep his campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty," Ebell said.

Here's what mosy people don't understand about CCS, if implemented, coal will only stay a fuel source if govt subsidizes it.

"Carbon capture and storage technology uses a significant percentage of the energy produced by a coal-fired power plant and thereby makes the price of the electricity produced uncompetitive with other sources,"

"The idiotic reasons being advanced by Cloud Peak to stay in the Paris Climate Treaty provide further proof, if any were needed, for why President Trump should keep his campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty," Ebell said.

The difference between everyone 55 and older and the rest... We remember OPEC and the energy crisis brought on by short-sighted energy policies and Presidents like Jimmy Carter.

For a second there, I forgot Jared & Ivanka were not even alive to wait in a gas line on an even or odd calendar day to fill up.  They make lousy advisors on Global Warming, there weren't here to read the headlines blazed across national magazines, of the coming Ice Age.

Neither was Barak & Michelle Obama.   They grew up in the prosperity of Ronald Reagan, just like Chelsa Clinton, Ivanka, Jared...

Funny, with age comes wisdom, because it's often learned the HARD WAY.

It appears, based on this:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/27/report-trump-tells-allies-he-plans-to-remove-u-s-from-paris-climate-agreement/

that Trump has decided on the Paris Climate Agreement.

QuoteU.S. President Donald Trump has informed multiple individuals, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he intends to remove the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, according several sources.

On Saturday night, Axios reported the news based on "three sources with direct knowledge."

Breitbart News has independently confirmed this reporting and that Trump has told others the same thing: that he plans to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement.

We can certainly put the funds that would have been spent to better use. Any idea how much we've spent relative to this agreement in the past? I looked a little while and found that the US was on-track (via Obama's dealings) to pay about $100B a year through 2025 as I interpret this article (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434412/paris-climate-agreement-americans-foot-bill-no-effect-climate). I feel this reference is weak and there's probably better information available, but I thought the question to be a good one so took a stab at finding an estimate.

Funny thing is IF man-made climate change was real AND we spent all these funds we would only move the temperature by 0.3 degrees ... and have very little effect. So, first, I don't believe that climate change is man made. And even if it was, we can't move it by spending all these funds. So what are the libs / climate change folks / MSM fighting for?

I do think we should care for our environment though ... should look for ways to reduce our impact where it's obvious over time with tech advances. Also to encourage other nations to do the same ... through ways that we don't pay for. Example: smog is still terrible in LA  and Denver so what about cleaning those areas up via local initiatives that might be funded federally if a very good case is made. Can we renew coal economically and are emissions low compared to competing fuels? Let's not kill coal but lets see what our tech can do to make it work better for us. So many options worth considering. Certainly no energies should be subsidized by the government ... maybe some tech development funding if it seems potentially fruitful, but what happened with wind was insane.

Quote from: topside on May 29, 2017, 10:07:41 AM
It appears, based on this:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/27/report-trump-tells-allies-he-plans-to-remove-u-s-from-paris-climate-agreement/

that Trump has decided on the Paris Climate Agreement.

We can certainly put the funds that would have been spent to better use. Any idea how much we've spent relative to this agreement in the past? I looked a little while and found that the US was on-track (via Obama's dealings) to pay about $100B a year through 2025 as I interpret this article (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434412/paris-climate-agreement-americans-foot-bill-no-effect-climate). I feel this reference is weak and there's probably better information available, but I thought the question to be a good one so took a stab at finding an estimate.

Funny thing is IF man-made climate change was real AND we spent all these funds we would only move the temperature by 0.3 degrees ... and have very little effect. So, first, I don't believe that climate change is man made. And even if it was, we can't move it by spending all these funds. So what are the libs / climate change folks / MSM fighting for?

I do think we should care for our environment though ... should look for ways to reduce our impact where it's obvious over time with tech advances. Also to encourage other nations to do the same ... through ways that we don't pay for. Example: smog is still terrible in LA  and Denver so what about cleaning those areas up via local initiatives that might be funded federally if a very good case is made. Can we renew coal economically and are emissions low compared to competing fuels? Let's not kill coal but lets see what our tech can do to make it work better for us. So many options worth considering. Certainly no energies should be subsidized by the government ... maybe some tech development funding if it seems potentially fruitful, but what happened with wind was insane.

Yep, it's never once been about climate or the environment, it's always been about Marxist control and crony capitalists making a buck in the process.
I say, crony, because watch for the Establishment gop to push Trump into the agreement, which I doubt he'll allow them to do. In fact, his border compromise may have been part of allowing him out of signing onto the Paris Commie fraud.
But I still wouldn't be surprised to hear grumblings from the party wanting some concessions from Trump over it.

Quote from: topside on May 29, 2017, 10:07:41 AM
I do think we should care for our environment though ... should look for ways to reduce our impact where it's obvious over time with tech advances. Also to encourage other nations to do the same ... through ways that we don't pay for. Example: smog is still terrible in LA  and Denver so what about cleaning those areas up via local initiatives that might be funded federally if a very good case is made. Can we renew coal economically and are emissions low compared to competing fuels? Let's not kill coal but lets see what our tech can do to make it work better for us. So many options worth considering. Certainly no energies should be subsidized by the government ... maybe some tech development funding if it seems potentially fruitful, but what happened with wind was insane.

Let those localities pay their own way, if they *think* it's because of something they are doing.

As for mankind harming the earth, it's a pretty darn big planet, and eventually even those Liberals get "recycled", back to the dirt they came from.  If they were really serious about contributing something meaningful to the "health of the planet" - skip the burial plot altogether, become fertilizer - sooner the better.

A single volcano eruption pollutes more than these gas guzzling, fume belching, wreck-mobiles in the inner-cities.   If Liberals really believe "WE", mankind can alter the climate one way or another - go ahead, try their luck at taking on a semi-dormant one in Hawaii.

I'm looking out my window, watching pollen drift around...  which makes me sneeze.   Wonder if Big Pharma is paying off some "Greenie" to plant those darn trees...


Nope, I firmly believe the Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change movements have just one goal.  Transfer wealth from the USA to themselves.  If they *really* thought it was such a great idea, going renewable - they wouldn't be waiting for the USA to get onboard.
It's just like Socialism / Communism, if everyone doesn't suffer equally under oppression - it's not working!

There is one sure-fire way to get all nations onboard with the agenda - Prove to the rest of the world, it is profitable & self-sustaining.  As long as it takes money from the public trough to prop it up, I want absolutely no part of it.