brenthutch

Yep. And with them will go the jobs and the money. Why would that happen? If wind and solar are as awesome as you claim, I see no reason they cannot flourish along with gas, oil and coal. Remember the Obama energy policy? All of the above! The more free-market options we have the cheaper our energy will be and that helps everyone.

Right. By that time, renewables will make up about 15% of our total energy mix (up from about 6% today.) Heading in the right direction, but slowly. And the emissions that result from the burning of those fossil fuels will increase CO2 concentrations, which will also increase warming. (That's science.) Man that's depressing. I knew it was challenging, but I thought it was going better than that. In the US, yes. In many other countries it's going much MUCH better. Yes, and many more countries will demand more and more fossil fuel to power their developing economies. The result is that world demand will be inline with US demand for the next several decades (80% fossil fuels).

Right. By that time, renewables will make up about 15% of our total energy mix (up from about 6% today.) Heading in the right direction, but slowly. And the emissions that result from the burning of those fossil fuels will increase CO2 concentrations, which will also increase warming. (That's science.) Man that's depressing. I knew it was challenging, but I thought it was going better than that. You didn't think, you guessed and you guessed wrong. Don't worry about it, you have lots of company.

Sorry Bill. Maybe when you're a bit older you'll begin to see a pattern... In 1970 these were the predictions; 1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. 3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” 4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” 5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” 6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” 7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness. 8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” 9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate. 12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles. 13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. 14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” 15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. 16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” 17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.” 18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” So...BTDT. Well those guys were scientists, so they had to be right. It is science after all.

Seems unlikely. Where did that tidbit come from? Ernest Muniz, Obama's DoE Secretary.

No Bill, a little thing called reality won't let me do that. fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040. The growth of renewables cannot keep pace with the growth of demand for energy necessitating the continued use of coal, gas and oil. I know this hurts your feelings, sorry.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/lies-damned-lies-and-the-epas-clean-power-plan/ Regulations based on manipulated data, and falsehoods do not make for good policy regardless of the Party in power.

Good thing you made that clarification. Only folks on the right hand side of the political spectrum can be called names in this forum.

With ZERO Republican amendments, O-care is owned by the Ds, lock, stock and barrel.

I could not agree more. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EXq1G_GuG8Q&autoplay=1

More on Trumps regulatory overreact correction. http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/27/14922516/trump-executive-order-climate

I know you guys on the left think it is the job of Republicans to implement the socialist policies passed by the Democrats, AKA "fix Obamacare", but I don't think that dog will hunt this time around. The Rs just need to sit on their hands until the Ds come to the table for repeal and replace.

They don't need to take active measures. If the Trump administration doesn't take up the Obama administration's defense of the cost sharing measures in O-care, the lower court ruling will remain, starving insurance companies of much needed federal dollars. O-care is firmly back in the Dems lap.

Clueless much? NPR is left leaning, are you recommending FOX?

So...2020?

Thank goodness he has only been virtually deleted. If he were actually deleted we would have a scandal on our hands.

It looks as if The EPA is deliberating to reclassify CO2 as a non-pollutant. I guess chevron deference cuts both ways.

I believe the ACA is in trouble. Two days after the repeal and replace effort failed the news coverage turned back to the problems with O-care. Dems were tripping over themselves to get in front of microphones and say how much they wanted to work with the administration to fix O-care. NPR had a piece on the ACA last night and concluded while the program is not in imminent peril, it has real problems and if the Trump administration does not actively support it it may indeed fail.

It's both. "Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit. Plants lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter. Higher CO2 levels mean they do not need to open these pores as much, reducing water loss."

I did conflate the two I guess we will find out, in the next year or two, if the Clinton Foundation is a charity, or a pay-to-play shush fund selling government access. If is still doing God's work in 2018 I will apologize

Reading Trump is worse than listening to him. Thanks Bill, my eyes are bleeding now. I concede the point, Trump hates renewables. That said, many wind turbines ARE expensive, foreign built, eagle slaughtering, eye sores.

No shit. Not a word of that is true. From the NYT "For the moment, hiring appears muted: Most of the job postings on the foundation’s website are for food service and catering jobs at the Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Ark." I guess the foundation is going to keep people who visit the Clinton Presidential Center from starving, not exactly what I would call a life saving charity.

I don't get it. The CGI is a critical, lifesaving charity, providing assistance and aid to millions around the globe. Clinton aid James Carville stated: "if the CGI is forced to close...PEOPLE WILL DIE!" Why then would they CHOOSE to close? Why does the Clinton Global Initiative want to let people die?

Source?