We Get Poisoned Air, Water So Big Oil Can Profit
Welcome to Flint, and poisonous drinking water.
As we abandon the Paris Climate Accord and dismantle the EPA Big Oil and Big Coal make more money.
But the rest of us suffer.
- Kids can’t play outside
- We may have to wear a mask
- Drinking water isn’t drinkable
- Local lakes and rivers catch fire
- Some die from damaged lungs
- And more…
And as we face climate change average Americans will have to spend a lot of money to rebuild after more — and harsher — hurricanes and tornadoes, coastal flooding, cold winters, hot summers, drought in the West… meaning the need for more dams, desalination, trucking water west…
Worst case scenario: The ocean raises 160 feet, and possibly very quickly, wiping out many coastal communities.
Most Americans — 7 out of 10 had wanted to remain in the Paris agreement says a national poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents had all favored the agreement.
A Gallup poll also found that 81% of us care about polluted rivers, lakes and reservoirs, 88% care about polluted drinking water, 77% care about soil contaminated by toxic waste and 74% care about air pollution.
In fact, Republican President Richard Nixon created the E.P.A. because rivers were spontaneously combusting and because people were being hospitalized due to bad air.
Yet Donald Trump is working to dismantle the EPA.
And Congressional Republicans introduced H. R. 861:
The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.
That’s not the title, that’s the whole bill.
Why must the middle class suffer just to boost Big Oil and Coal profits?
Related Posts
- Big Money Drowns Out Citizen Speech
- Wealth of 1/2 US population = 20 richest people
- Must We Subsidize Walmart?
Share this:
Posted on June 2, 2017, in politics/class inequality and tagged Big Coal, Big Oil, EPA, Flint Michigan, H. R. 861, Poisonous air, poisonous water, Scott Pruitt, Trump. Bookmark the permalink. 55 Comments.
BroadBlogs 
Since this brings up the environment, it’s the closest related to what I was going to talk about. I know you aren’t happy and I am not either with trump and the GOP’s interest in cutting funds to the EPA. So I know you care as anybody should, about our environment and mother earth. So obviously the eco system is important and animals that inhabit it. And since that has to do with animals. I thought of something that made me think of animals. It’s not related to the GOP here, but wondered what your thoughts are. I know you’re a feminist so you’re focus is usually on women and men in regards to patriarchy and equality and that can include racism. But I believe feminists or people that care about many issues, they are humanitarians. But you can spread this to just fair treatment of people but also living beings too. I’m sure you have pets probably, so I’m sure you care about animals too like many do care and I do. Like something came to my mind, things you just go with the flow with and don;t notice until you step back and think. I know about leather and the cruel things done to animals to get the hides and such. I do eat meat and I’m aware of PETA. Ironically for an animal rights organization, they don’t have a problem sexualizing women’s bodies to get attention or using women’s sexuality to get attention.But I went last year to see a circus as he asked, and I thought why not.
He gfs sister who has two young kids likes to go and they wanted me to go. This company didn’t have a bad reputation like others. But it got me thinking when watching the circus. The last time I went was when I was little kid as well as the zoo. But I started feeling bad for the animals. I thoought of the whips and trainging they do with the tigers, elephants, bears to do the tricks they don;t want to do, but have to, to entertain us all important humans. These animals are in small compartments and travel everywhere and in small confined space once the show is over and having to bend and do stunts they probably aren’t comfortable doing. Same for zoos. They are confined in the same space where lions want to roam and big animals and same thing. Some people arrogantly think animals are stupid or something, but people don’t realize the broad spectrum or emotions animals have, especially mammals. And don’t tell me they aren;t away of this and I’m sure aren’t happy. Gorillas though huge are usually the more docile primate compared to other monkeys and I remember one time it punched, luckily an ultra thick bullet proof glass because it was tired of being stared at by tons of people. I’m conflicted though because I remember the joy I had as a child going to a zoo and the joy my nephew and niece have had too and like want them taken away and don’t. But don’t you think they are kind of inhumane to animals too? When you think about it…it’s like “animal slavery” to me the way the animals are confined and treated even if they aren’t literally abused.
This looks interesting. Could you please give me the bullet points or shorten this?
I’ll sum it up. I know you don’t just care about people’s rights as it seems like you’re a humanitarian it seems, which is good. But you care about the environment, which everybody should. What are we as people if we don’t have a “home” or one that is nice to live in especially one that should be for our future generations to follow. To go with environment is the animals of course that are important. Something came to me recently when I went to a circus with my best friend and his girlfriend and his gf’s sister who has kids which is why they went to one. Last time I went was when I was a kid and it made me think of that and the zoo which I was a kid the last time I went.
The joy I had as a kid so it’s conflicting as you don’t want kids to miss that but I started thinking of the animals at circus’s. The one we saw was better than others, but still. You think about how the animals are doing uncomfortable tricks, the whips, how they are transferred back into small compartments and probably caged in and travel through the US like that, and same for zoos. Like it seems like “animal slavery” when I think of it. Just wondering what your thoughts were as far as stuff like circus and zoos. Like it’s conflicting, because I don’t like future kids missing out on it, but I don’t like the animals going through that, when you really think of it. Seems like partriarchy doesn’t just work with humans, but us humans feeling our desire for “entertainment” is more important than animals or the expense of animals treatment.
I have had the exact same experience as you. With circuses and zoos.
I’m even beginning to have problems with eating meat if the animals aren’t raised and butchered humanely. So I’m tending toward things like wild caught Fish — which isn’t necessarily expensive, most canned tuna and salmon are. California has a law that eggs have to come from hens that were raised humanely. And I buy “smart chicken” which is raised and butchered humanely — it costs a bit more but it makes me feel good to help a chicken.
That said, if I go out to eat I don’t know where the meat came from and that makes me feel bad when I think about it. And unfortunately most of the time I don’t think about it.
Wild caught fish or animals might be humane but is utterly unsustainable for a world population of 7 billion plus. Factory farming might be less humane but at least limits somewhat the destruction of nature. Watch Cowspiracy on Netflix for more information.
Luckily it’s healthiest for ourselves and our planet to eat lower on the food chain — mostly plants and vegetables. But we do need some sort of meat, even vegetarians need — I think it’s B12 — which must be derived from animals.
So people could eat less meat. We should also encourage contraception — not make it more difficult. And we can treat the animals that are farm raised humanely.
In this political climate it is unfortunate that we have so many people opposing each other rather than coming together to help. I went to the March for Science in Washington D.C. with a scholarship from Foothill College and it was an incredible experience. I was able to be surrounded by like-minded individuals. We were all able to put our differences and political beliefs aside and fight the good fight. We all fought for change because there is no “Planet B. By being surrounded by fellow students and advocates for change, we represented Foothill as a school that stands for positive change. By being part of the March for Science, not only have felt the change first hand but it has inspired me to be the voice for those who do not believe in the Paris Climate Change Conference.
Thanks for doing this! I was there too!
When reading this article it made me really scared. It just makes me think back to when the Dust Bowl happened and this was because we didn’t have strong environmental policy at the time. The EPA was made stronger because it a purpose in stopping environmental disasters. Since they will be using more coal and oil, they will most likely make more power plants. Power plants are a danger to their surrounding environment. They alter the environment, the vegetation, and the people who are surround the power plant. As a person who researched environmental racism, I know that their fist targets will be low-income families when choosing a place to put these power plants. I just hope that a lot of regulations are put in place when these new power plants do go up. They need to realize that renewable energy is better for the environment. However, the environment is only second priority when it comes to making a profit. I worry that the government will repeat similar actions where the motive is to make profit rather than the good of our country. I also hope that when they construct these new power plants that they consult with an archaeologist first. They need to make sure that no Native American burial remains will be disturbed as well. The Native American community has gone through a lot already, and a environment altering power plant is the last thing they would need for their ceremonial burials.
Scares me too.
Our environmental policy doesn’t benefit many people except for a few wealthy and powerful interests that put a bunch of money behind legislators, Causing them to fear going against these powerful interests.
Fossil fuels win. The rest of us lose.
O Lynn when there are no more trees, o more rivers, no more animals, o more clean resources will we realize that we cannot eat money. It’s going to take a very short amount of time. Thanks trump. How can we live in this planet and not care? It’s not like we have another planet to fly over and live on because we got it like that as the human race. I’m very scared for the future because it seems we’re only becoming more and more divided. Divided amongst gender, race, sexuality, social class, economically, and spiritually. It’ll take the earth to split in half for,us to get it together.
He was elected out the worst possible time with the planet on the edge.
A lot of people think that 2° or 3° increase in temperature is no big deal. But it’s like a person. If you go from 98 to 102 it can become deadly.
I agree 100%. Removing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord was a big mistake. The two main reasons I have heard for this decision are we need to save jobs and climate change is not real. Lets take the first reason – jobs. The decline in coal and other jobs that harness natural resources has been occurring for years. Coal mining does hurt the environment. Our country has made great progress in battling climate change and using renewable energy. The regulations put in place by the Obama Administration help push our country in the right direction. Pulling us from the Paris Accord completely sends us in the opposite direction. We should not have to choose between the environment and our economy should. The coal mining and fracking industries should have adjusted to more renewable sources. The second reason they use is that climate change is a hoax. There have been study after study and scientist after scientist to debunk this myth. For our government to remove us from the Paris Accord and attempt to dismantle the EPA boggles my mind. It seems as though the people will have to mount grassroots effort to let our government know that this is important to us.
Yeah the report that the Paris climate accord would result in job loss was commissioned by the Koch brothers (who provide infrastructure for fossil fuels) and was one-sided. It only looked at fossil fuel job losses. It didn’t include gains from renewables. And renewables employ more people then fossil fuels.
The Koch brothers also fund think tanks and pay talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to get the working class to vote against their own interests and in the interests of the the Koch brothers.
The Paris Climate agreement was a huge stepping stone and was the first time in history to have that many leaders unite and come together for a specific cause under one roof.
As much as I find it disrespectful for Trump to pull out of this accord after all the effort and thought that was put into this for the wellbeing of the human race, animals, plants, you name it. I find it quite interesting that the national poll conducted produced those percentages. Even if half of those people that said they cared, actually made a “green change” we would not be knees deep in this climate change we are facing. We are talking more than half of people “caring” so why is it that we are still making backward steps right after we make forward steps towards this cause. We need to come together and fight this with or without the government’s help.
Our dollar is our vote and one “president” is nothing compared to our numbers. If we stop supporting these oil and coal companies we can make a difference. We complain about Trumps decisions yet we back him up with every purchase we make.
If we really want to be a part of this agreement, we need to start in our own homes, not let a bigot decide for us.
Yeah, you’re right.
I think people sometimes just need to know what to do.
Eating lower on the food chain is one of the most important things you can do. It takes a lot of machinery and fossil fuel to Farm all the extra land needed to raise beef, pork and lamb. Plus gas emissions from cattle.
And then people can choose electric cars which are quite affordable when you Factor and incentives. A Chevy volt costs about the same as other midsize cars.
Plus you can get solar panels and run your Electric car on those!
(While most people care about the environment it’s not the primary thing they vote on, That’s how Trump and GOP get away with it.)
From the mayors of Pittsburgh in Paris:
As late as the 1940s, the air hung heavy with pollution from steel mills. Streetlights were needed 24 hours a day to see through the smog.
Today, 13,000 Pittsburghers are employed in the renewable energy industry. The city’s Phipps Conservatory is recognized as one of the world’s greenest buildings, generating all of its own energy and treating and reusing all water captured on site. Investments in smart infrastructure, bike sharing programs, new mass transit options and building efficiency means Pittsburgh is on track to meet our goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2023. While the majority of electricity in the state of Pennsylvania is still generated from fossil fuels, Pittsburgh will be 100 percent powered by renewable energy by 2035.
When Trump promoted his anti-environment policies, I thought he was just pretending in order to gain support from those who don’t care about the environment, actually a large group of people as is turned out. I didn’t expect him to actually put this into effect considering his eminent academic background. However, he’s now decreasing money spent on environment science and protection, which will cause a lot of damage to the earth we live on. Rich people like him can always fly to their private “castle” near the beach with perfectly fresh air but the majority of us will suffer from the bad environment. I wonder whether it is because of androcentrism or ethnocentrism that rich and powerful people only care about their group and intentionally ignore the others. Anyway, now that he’s abandoned the Paris Climate Accord, the future of our earth is worrying.
I’m worried.
My one hope is that I have heard that many businesses who are seeking predictability intend to implement emissions limitations on themselves. One can only hope.
Trump’s decision to remove ourselves from the Paris Climate Accord was one of the worst things he could have done in my opinion. Oil companies not having as much regulation is something which will harm our environment enormously. Also relating to you talking about air and water quality I have actually witnessed places in Europe and Mexico with horrible water and air quality which you could see affected their societies daily lives. It is scary to think about what could happen to our environment as a repercussion to Trump’s decision to terminate the EPA.
Some people think the free market works for everything. It doesn’t.
I think it’s crazy how Trump would rather profit from oil/coal than take our ecosystem into consideration and try to save the planet. One day business or money won’t matter because the air won’t be breathable, the last tree will be cut down, the last river will be polluted and only then will we realize that our planet is more important than how much you can profit off of oil and coal.
That’s what’s happening in some parts of China right now. The people are better off economically but they can’t go outside. And if they do, they can’t see the sun.
Do you know air quality has improved by over 60% since 1950?
This silly treaty was bad for America. While “voluntary”, we (America), was on the hook to pay nations like China and India. BS!!!!
All of this talk about kids coming down with asthma and dying is just grand standing. You are driven by emotion. You cannot see things clearly through tainted lens..
America will be just fine!!!!
Air quality has improved over 60% because of the EPA. People wanted the EPA because people actually were suffering more from asthma and were dying.
Which is more important – paying more in China and India or having more and stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, more coastal flooding, more drought — all of which create huge costs to truck water in, a ton of property damage from the flooding and hurricanes (and the US is the biggest polluter and we can’t afford it more – to clean up is the biggest polluter and we can’t afford it more – to clean up)
In the end the US will lose win china becomes the energy leader with renewables.
“We’re getting out” were President Donald Trump’s exact words when he decided to pull the Unites States out of the Paris Climate Accord on Thursday June 1st. There can be many differing opinions about his decision to do so. In the same sentence he also said that he wanted to renegotiate the deal. Many people on the pro Paris Accord side would say that President Trump is doing a disservice to the world’s problems as it pertains to pollution. However, on the other side, people that feel that the United States is sacrificing jobs and money while countries like China and India don’t have to do anything in relation to restrictions on pollution output for another 12. As it stands right now, it is yet to be determined if President Trump has made a big mistake or if he is just starting the negotiations to improve a better deal for the United States as well as for the rest f the world.
Since average Americans will have to spend a lot of money to rebuild after more — and harsher — hurricanes and tornadoes, coastal flooding, cold winters, hot summers, drought in the West… meaning the need for more dams, desalination, trucking water west…
And we risk oceans rising 160 feet…
The only better deal would be for the rest of the world to be as strict as us.
Clean energy even produces more jobs. Solar employs more people than all fossil fuels combined (since the work is largely automated in the fossil fuel industry).
If we don’t stop climate change oil and coal win and the rest of us lose.
This is all hype and speculation…
First, it’s not all hype and speculation. Some of these things are already happening in China. And some of these things already happened in the United States before the EPA.
Second, monied interests like The Koch bros, Who make money from oil pipelines and refineries, fund think tanks like Cato and Heritage that were created to get ordinary Americans to vote in the interest of the wealthy.
So the think tanks came up with research “Showing” that jobs will be lost if we turn to renewables. But that’s only because they don’t include the increase in jobs for renewable energy. Solar alone employs more people than all of the fossil fuels combined. That’s because fossil fuel technology is mostly automated.
The thanks tanks even pay Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity like $2 million a year to promote ideas that help the Koch brothers but Hurt the rest of us.
Finally, not only are science and history behind the statistics in this post, but if you guess wrong and it turns out we don’t have to worry about climate change we will at least have a cleaner healthier environment. If we guessed wrong we will have environmental catastrophe.
The earth warming 3° is like us warming 3°. 3° doesn’t sound so bad until you go from 98 to 102.
But then, American voters have voted for a part time President who means business !!
Sounds about right.
“I’m tired of Hillary being a sore loser and DJT being a sore winner.”
Finally, something we can both agree.
Cheers!
🙂
Yes, we voted for a President who means business!!! Who is unafraid of taking the road less traveled.
Contrast that with Hillary Clinton. Pathetic. Even people on the Left are getting sick and tired of her winning. But like so many women in America today, she takes ZERO responsibility for her actions and behavior. It’s always someone else fault! The Russians, the DNC, hackers in Macedonia, James Comey, the media, fake news,…..
So, I would much rather have a Trump than someone like HRC.
I’m tired of Hillary being a sore loser and DJT being a sore winner.
The acerbic comments here is reflective of popular opinion and the reality of Trump becoming a butt of ridicule in public discourse around the world. And US backing out from Paris Accord only serves to reinforce the general perception of a country increasingly losing relevance on the global stage and slipping into ignominy and ruination. As Trump continues to busy himself with making ‘America great again’, EU, ably supported by China, India and other countries, is moving ahead with conservation measures contemplated in the Paris Accord.
The only explanations I can think of for “winner” Trump to move away from global leadership is that he is in the pocket of Big Oil/Coal, Russia or both.
“…….the general perception of a country increasingly losing relevance on the global stage and slipping into ignominy and ruination. ”
I scoff at the notion. We are reasserting our leadership ON OUR TERMS! I am tired of my country (America) being the world’s little bitch.
This NATO thing is a prime example. So long as we are footing the bill, the Europeans are happy. Never mind the fact that 1) it is their asses who fear Russia and 2) it is not 1950. So, if showing leadership means we have to continue to pay for THEIR protection, then I say screw them.
Well the Paris Accord is non-binding. Just goals.
But ordinary Americans will be harmed as Big Oil and Coal profit.
Average Americans will have to spend a lot of money to rebuild after more — and harsher — hurricanes and tornadoes, coastal flooding, cold winters, hot summers, drought in the West… meaning the need for more dams, desalination, trucking water west…
Big oil and coal have a great propaganda machine to convince ordinary Americans to vote against their interests. Some wealthy interests create think tanks that pay Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity $2 million a year to do their bidding — convince ordinary Americans to help Oil and Coal over themselves.
Oops, I missed an at the end of the quote. Wish I could edit.
I read it twice and didn’t notice what the problem was or I would’ve edited myself.
There ya go again, Georgia, pullin’ my chain. 😀
I chaff daily at the news, especially from so-called “liberal” pundits and politicians, and it’s become difficult to the extreme to even listen to conservatives of any station defend the indecent, insensitive, ignorant and indefensible rhetoric and actions of the president, et al.
One of the most scary and immediately important actions President Nincompoop is doing besides cutting funds from the EPA, is cutting funds to the FDA, making it more difficult to keep tabs on the safety of your food and drugs. But, says President Nincompoop at his speech to a joint session of Congress:
So much is explained by the Trump/Russia connection. Including this.
Otherwise it’s hard to figure out why Trump does a lot of things, including Breaking our alliance with our democratic European allies, insulting all of our allies but always aligning with Putin — who never does anything wrong, removing sanctions against him, And lying about meetings with Russians. Even though they don’t lie about meetings with anyone else.
Four years of this is terrifying.
There’s also a possibility that warming could help Russian farmland, too. Although in another scenario all of Europe to become frozen — which would hurt Russia too. (All scientists except those hired by the oil industry accept that we have global warming caused by carbon, but they aren’t all clear on all of the exact effects, like this or sea levels rising 160 feet.)
In your second paragraph, aren’t you describing China and not the USA (other than possibly parts of California)? And when it comes to the average American spending money, I’m under the impression that China under the Paris Accords will pay little if anything compared to what the USA will have to pay, plus it is likely some of our USA money will go to a polluter like China. I also understand that many of the demands the Accords place on China do not kick-in until 5 years after major demands on the USA kick-in.
Unless I have it all wrong, dropping out of the Paris Accords isn’t about the environment, it is about getting out of a bad deal.
I think if liberals had more balance in their arguments or at least moved a little to the center, they would do better politically. Climate change can be a persuasive argument, but weak arguments to support a flawed agreement will just result in the loss of political power for extreme liberalism. The next Presidential election will decide if I am correct.
If you mean “kids can’t play outside, We may have to wear a mask…” That describes China today… And America in the future without environmental protections.
The other bullet points are America’s past, which is why we created the protections (Drinking water wasn’t drinkable, Local lakes and rivers caught fire, many died from damaged lungs, And more… and people in LA could have used masks — LA’s air is much cleaner today even though the population is much larger).
The United States is the biggest polluter in the world. And the wealthiest and most able to deal with the problem.
Fairness?
1) big oil and coal will profit while the rest of Americans suffer through higher costs for incredible property damage and water access, and harm to our health
2) if America sticks with old Energy technology China will become the leader of the new technology, Which will hurt us (but protect the oil and coal for a while). Whoever controls Energy technology wins
3) there are many more jobs in clean technology than in the old technology — because the old technology is mostly automated. California is making major gains in clean energy technology AND our economy is booming and becoming the engine of America.
But big oil and coal have a great propaganda machine to convince ordinary Americans to vote against their interests. Some wealthy think tanks pay Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity $2 million a year to do their bidding.
What’s the purpose of “middle class” in the final sentence?
It’s to say that ordinary people are suffering so that big oil and big coal can make more money.
(Almost all Americans see themselves as middle-class.)
I think “middle class” must have a very different meaning in the UK from the US…
I’m glad you brought that up because I have a lot of readers in the UK. Good to know.
You’re not paying attention to the details of what is going on. According to the US Chamber of Commerce, implementing these regulations would cost 2.7 million American jobs, and reduce U.S. GDP by $250 billion. Now you might say, well that’s the price we need to pay. But actually, what happens when you lose these industries and jobs is that it goes over to India where they have even less regulations and they run their industry on the dirtiest of dirty coal. And they are not reforming AT ALL. In fact Indian companies are building more and more Australian coal mines. So all this agreement really does is move industry from a country with at least some regulations, and more non-polluting energy to India which is building their future on coal.
https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/new-report-examines-costs-us-industrial-sector-obama-s-paris-pledge
http://reneweconomy.com.au/indias-dirty-coal-problem-and-why-its-bad-news-for-australia-85737/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-30/adani-coal-mine-back-on-track-after-royalties-agreement/8573558
California is making major gains in clean energy technology AND our economy is booming and becoming the engine of America.
Solar creates more jobs than than all fossil fuels combined (because those jobs are mostly automated).
If America sticks with old energy technology China will become the leader of the new technology, which will hurt us (but protect the oil and coal for a while). Whoever controls Energy technology wins.
Big oil and coal will profit while the rest of Americans suffer through higher costs for incredible property damage and water access, and harm to our health
Big oil and coal have a great propaganda machine to convince ordinary Americans to vote against their interests. Some wealthy think tanks pay Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity $2 million a year to do their bidding.
“Solar creates more jobs than than all fossil fuels combined (because those jobs are mostly automated).”
Solar and wind farms are also automated. There are jobs building them, but those are temporary jobs. However the jobs that are destroyed are permanently destroyed. Do you have any concept of how much energy it takes to run say an aluminium smelter? It’s vast amounts of energy. And if you destroy those jobs they’ll go over to India where they’ll use the dirtiest of dirty coal. So then everyone is poorer paying for solar energy that costs 5x as much, and furthermore tons of people are out of work and can’t afford that electricity, and the pollution is worse because it’s coming from India.
“California is making major gains in clean energy technology AND our economy is booming and becoming the engine of America.”
Because you have no heavy industry in California that is very price sensitive. It’s all very well to not care about other people’s jobs, just because your industry is not price sensitive to electricity. The cost of electricity in India is 8c per kWH, which is about what it is in the cheapest states in the US. But California is paying 15c, and you can pretty much expect that to double or triple as your ratchet up the renewable percentages. The first 30-50% of your power is not so hard to make renewable. That last 50% is astonishingly expensive because you have to figure out what to do when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. With no baseload. If your industry is very price sensitive to electricity cost, you have to immediately exit the US and go to India. And guess where India gets its electricity? Dirty coal, imported from Australia. Then the situation is worse.
“If America sticks with old energy technology China will become the leader of the new technology”
This is empty rhetoric. Firstly, these technologies are fairly basic and well understood. A windmill with a generator in it, there is no special knowledge needed. There’s literally dozens of companies around the world that can make them. Secondly California’s adventures into renewables are plenty of incentive all by themselves. California would be the 6th biggest country if it was a country, it doesn’t need the US to give its technology legitimacy.
“Big oil and coal will profit while the rest of Americans suffer through higher costs for incredible property damage and water access, and harm to our health”
You don’t actually win anything if the jobs go to India and they do the work with dirty coal. That doesn’t reduce the climate change. If you want real change, you should back Trump to negotiate a better deal – one that makes countries like India and China make real changes. Do you REALLY believe that India is making clean electricity at 8c per kWH? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
If China and stop with the major market for renewable energy it’s easier for them to dominate going forward.
Meanwhile ordinary Americans will see their costs rise as we face more and stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, more coastal flooding, more drought — all of which create huge costs to truck water in and a ton of property damage from the flooding and hurricanes.
And, monied interests like The Koch bros, who make money from oil pipelines and refineries, fund think tanks like Cato and Heritage that were created to get ordinary Americans to vote in the interest of the wealthy.
So the think tanks came up with research “Showing” that jobs will be lost if we turn to renewables. But that’s only because they don’t include the increase in jobs for renewable energy. Solar alone employs more people than all of the fossil fuels combined. That’s because fossil fuel technology is mostly automated.
The thanks tanks even pay Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity like $2 million a year to promote ideas that help the Koch brothers but Hurt the rest of us.
Billionaire Koch brothers win. We lose.
“If China and stop with the major market for renewable energy it’s easier for them to dominate going forward.”
There is no market for renewable energy. Unlike coal and oil you can’t put it in a ship and move it from here to there. The US will always have a monopoly over US renewable energy by definition.
“Meanwhile ordinary Americans will see their costs rise as we face more and stronger hurricanes and tornadoes”
If you care about that, then don’t let industry move to dirty coal powered India. Here’s the problem with the Paris agreement: It asks the US to reduce emissions in absolute terms, but it only requires China and India to reduce them relative to economic output. So imagine someone wants to set up an Aluminium smelter in the US – this can’t be allowed because it increases emissions. However if you setup the smelter in India, and export the Aluminium to the US, this is fine because the smelter has increased Indian economic output. Yet the total effect is more emissions because the Indian power network is higher polluting. And it’s also a massive wealth shift from the US to India by fiat. This is why Trump wants a better deal. No deal that forces industry out of the US, with the same net effect on world wide emissions can be considered a fair deal, that ought to be obvious to anyone. Since Australia started shifting to renewable energy, lots of businesses are going broke and moving offshore because energy has doubled and tripled.
“If America sticks with old energy technology China will become the leader of the new technology, which will hurt us (but protect the oil and coal for a while). Whoever controls Energy technology wins.”
Empty rhetoric. There is no interesting technology in windmills and solar farms. Even if there were, patents only last 20 years.
It’s more about the technology and who controls it.
Regardless, average Americans will have a higher health costs and have to spend a lot of money to rebuild after more — and harsher — hurricanes and tornadoes, coastal flooding, cold winters, hot summers, drought in the West… meaning the need for more dams, desalination, trucking water west…
The Koch brothers win. We lose.