brenthutch

Getting back to the topic of the OP, Rex Tillerson's Senate hearing is scheduled on the same day as Trump's news conference. Democrats go glug glug glug as Trump sucks up all of the oxygen and dominates the news cycle.

I'm sure you can fine an exemption, but that IS largely how it works.

I have no problem with companies allocating capital as they seem fit. If it works they will be rewarded if it fails they will be punished, by the market; that is how capitalism works. I take issue with bureaucrats in Washington DC picking winners and losers.

Rainbows and unicorn farts are best left to academia, as they fall far short in the real world. "hy·per·bo·le noun exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. " That was mockery, not hyperbole. Obviously you were not an English professor.

And you again admit it's simply a preference on your part. That's no basis for setting national policy. I would say that reality is a pretty good starting place for setting national policy.

I did. Making more money still doesn't justify poisoning the population and desecrating the planet. hy·per·bo·le noun exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

They work "just fine" may be good enough for you, I prefer what works best. Rainbows and unicorn farts are best left to academia, as they fall far short in the real world.

Oh you tricky little devil, you got me! Guilty as charged! I like things that work more than I like things that don't.

The Obama administration was. Just not the flavor of you liked. I liked the flavor that works, Obama favored the flavor that didn't. Just compare the increase in solar and wind vs natural gas and shale oil.

From the above article, "The White House has displayed "hostility" towards the energy industry and made it harder to drill by adding regulations "at an alarming rate." "The increased production is despite President Obama, not due to President Obama," Eberhart told CNNMoney." Just think what we could do if we had an administration that was not hostile to American energy independence.

Read the post right above yours.

Which benefits few (the people who own the extraction companies) and a cost to all (since all of the citizens own the land). Seems like a shitty deal for the US. Lower energy prices benefit all of us. Lower gas and oil prices (brought about as a result of booming domestic production) have done more to increase the standard of living of each and every American, than anything Obama has done. It is worth noting that lower energy prices disproportionately benefit the poor, as a higher percentage of their income goes to gas and utilities than the more affluent among us.

Are you really that ignorant of what has happened to the energy sector in the US over the last two years? Thousands of fracking wells have been

I'll deal with it when it happens in thirty years.

Exactly! And not just Russia, if we take advantage of our ample energy reserves we will drive down the cost of energy, and put pressure on Iran, Venezuela and other nefarious actors as well. As a side benefit it will help our economy, balance of trade and create thousands of good paying jobs.

I don't think anyone has said that. You are really grasping at straws now.

Not the case with natural gas. It's a win win. Now we just have to open federal lands to fracking, ensuring clean cheap energy well into the next century.

And yet somehow you're just fine with coal-fired power plants pumping mercury into the environment. Don Yes that is just what power plants do, pump mercury into the environment, affordable electricity is just a byproduct. If mercury is such a devastating problem, why didn't Obama address it in his first term? Look, I have no problem with coal being phased out and being replaced with cleaner, cheaper natural gas, that is what markets do. I do take issue with government placing undue regulatory burdens on a particular industry, raising energy prices for everyone with no discernible benefit. I know this may bruise your world view, but coal is real, it produces most of the quality of life boosting electricity in the world, and it will for the next quarter of a century+. Deal with it.

A few more MPGs for the price of people's lives is not a right minded trade, in my book.

It might not kill businesses, it does kill people. "According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year. The National Academy of Sciences found that smaller, lighter vehicles "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993." The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration study demonstrated that reducing a vehicle's weight by only one hundred pounds increased the fatality rate by as much as 5.63% for light cars, 4.70% for heavier cars, and 3.06% for light trucks. These rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars, and 14,705 for light trucks between 1996 and 1999."

Yes subsidies are no less pernicious than over regulation.

Wow that changes everything and completely invalidates my larger point. While you are being overly pedantic, why don't you correct my figure of $100 billion in Obama's regulatory cost, when the actual number is $108 billion?

I'm not suggesting that we get rid of environmental protection or all regulation. Let us just remove the hundred billion dollars of Obama's regulations. Just the prospect of less onerous governmental interference has led to booming stock markets. Ford just announced a billion dollar investment here in the US (instead of Mexico) citing the business friendly attitude of the incoming administration.

Near as I can tell rivers weren't burning and smog was not killing people in the US during the Bush administration. "The Obama Administration is responsible for an unparalleled expansion of the regulatory state, with the imposition of 229 major regulations since 2009 at a cost of $108 billion annually (using the regulatory agencies’ own numbers). The actual costs are far greater, both because costs have not been fully quantified for a significant number of rules, and because many of the worst effects—the loss of freedom and opportunity, for example—are incalculable. The need for reform is urgent. The White House, Congress, and federal agencies routinely breach legislative and even constitutional boundaries, and increasingly dictate lifestyle choices rather than focusing on public health and safety." http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/red-tape-rising-2016-obama-regs-top-100-billion-annually

Clean Power Plan and the expansion of what is defined as wetlands to name a few.