Trump v Green Energy, Climate Change Science Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 6
  • Views: 82
  • Politics 

nycfan

Curator/Moderator
ZZL Supporter
Messages
15,353
Couldn’t figure out where to put this and we will likely have more anti-green energy and climate change policy stories over time …

Trump to shut down all 8,000 EV charging ports at federal govt buildings​


IMG_5166.jpeg

——
Seems like Musk might object but maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Couldn’t figure out where to put this and we will likely have more anti-green energy stories over time …

Trump to shut down all 8,000 EV charging ports at federal govt buildings​


IMG_5166.jpeg

——
Seems like Musk might object but maybe not.
Of all the dumb and petty bullshit these cancerous tumors have manifested, this might be the pettiest.
 
Couldn’t figure out where to put this and we will likely have more anti-green energy stories over time …

Trump to shut down all 8,000 EV charging ports at federal govt buildings​


IMG_5166.jpeg

——
Seems like Musk might object but maybe not.
Probably not. He may have had a hissy fit and demanded it.


The State Department said Thursday it is abandoning plans of purchasing $400 million worth of armored Tesla vehicles after a public document detailing federal contracts for fiscal year 2025 gained wide attention.

That expected purchase of Teslas, which was slated for September of this year, is now on hold, according to the State Department, which now says it has no plans of fulfilling the contract.
 
Of all the dumb and petty bullshit these cancerous tumors have manifested, this might be the pettiest.
Maybe? Honestly this is the kind of performative petty I expected at the beginning of Trump47 — not unlike a more expensive version of Reagan pulling Carter’s solar panels off the White House in 1981.

But Trump’s animus to green energy runs deep and I am concerned they are going to set back the continued development of green energy generation for a lot longer than Trump’s term. Which is bizarrely counterproductive when his TechBro handlers are screaming for more energy to feed their AI and crypto farms.

hungry feed me GIF


IMG_5167.gif
 
Last edited:
Maybe? Honestly this is the kind of performative petty I expected at the beginning of Trump47 — not unlike a more expensive version of Reagan pulling Carter’s solar panels off the White House in 1981.

But Trump’s animus to green energy runs deep and I am concerned they are going to set back the continued development of green energy generation for a lot longer than Trump’s term. Which is bizarrely counterproductive when his TechBro handlers are screaming for more energy to feed their AI and crypto farms.

hungry feed me GIF


IMG_5167.gif
Indeed, lying in the pettiness are the seeds of schism that give me meager hope. This populist, reactionary, performative (but dangerously real) destruction towards progress eventually comes to a head with the apartheid techies.
 


Trump Order Shifts the Financial Burden of Climate Change Onto Individuals​


[RE: Inauguration Day executive order focused on “Unleashing American Energy.”]

“… Half way through the lengthy documentis a directive that would obliterate an obscure but critically important calculation the government uses to gauge the real-world costs that climate change is imposing on the U.S. economy.

Getting rid of the measure, called the “social cost of carbon,” would upend energy and environmental regulations meant to address climate change and could have the long-term effect of shifting costs from polluting industries directly onto Americans as the expenses of climate change rise.

The measure essentially establishes a price for each ton of carbon emitted, based on the long-term damages it is expected to cause in the future. It has become the government’s primary tool to weigh the economic costs of climate change — such as disaster cleanup or health impacts from warming — against the burden of regulations.

The executive order disbanded the working group, which included the treasury secretary, energy secretary and director of national economic policy, that set the social cost of carbon and advised how it should be implemented. It revoked that group’s previous decisions. And it directed the Environmental Protection Agency, which calculates the figure and bases regulatory proposals on it, to reconsider using the social cost of carbon altogether with the goal of eradicating “abuse” that stands in the way of affordable energy production. …”
 


Trump Order Shifts the Financial Burden of Climate Change Onto Individuals​


[RE: Inauguration Day executive order focused on “Unleashing American Energy.”]

“… Half way through the lengthy documentis a directive that would obliterate an obscure but critically important calculation the government uses to gauge the real-world costs that climate change is imposing on the U.S. economy.

Getting rid of the measure, called the “social cost of carbon,” would upend energy and environmental regulations meant to address climate change and could have the long-term effect of shifting costs from polluting industries directly onto Americans as the expenses of climate change rise.

The measure essentially establishes a price for each ton of carbon emitted, based on the long-term damages it is expected to cause in the future. It has become the government’s primary tool to weigh the economic costs of climate change — such as disaster cleanup or health impacts from warming — against the burden of regulations.

The executive order disbanded the working group, which included the treasury secretary, energy secretary and director of national economic policy, that set the social cost of carbon and advised how it should be implemented. It revoked that group’s previous decisions. And it directed the Environmental Protection Agency, which calculates the figure and bases regulatory proposals on it, to reconsider using the social cost of carbon altogether with the goal of eradicating “abuse” that stands in the way of affordable energy production. …”

“… The order stems directly from language in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy playbook and is based on work by the conservative think tank, which has consistently opposed climate policy and worked to defend the businesses of fossil fuel industries. …”
 
Back
Top