Donald Trump

ugo.santalucia

LakesLuddite wrote:

Well its a disaster for the environment if nothing else. Good luck riding your bikes through 2 metres of flood water folks!

Unless he take the quick route and destroys the planet with nukes!

What has Obama done for the environment? Sign an agreement that nobody will implement?

bianchimoon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

LakesLuddite wrote:

Well its a disaster for the environment if nothing else. Good luck riding your bikes through 2 metres of flood water folks!

Unless he take the quick route and destroys the planet with nukes!

What has Obama done for the environment? Sign an agreement that nobody will implement?

If you don't control the houses, there's only so much you can do with executive orders, at least he believes in global warming and campaigns against, and unlike Trump who says it's a chinese conspiracy to stop the US manufacturing

bompington

ugo.santalucia wrote:

LakesLuddite wrote:

Well its a disaster for the environment if nothing else. Good luck riding your bikes through 2 metres of flood water folks!

Unless he take the quick route and destroys the planet with nukes!

What has Obama done for the environment? Sign an agreement that nobody will implement?

If Trump actually does half of what he says he will, the massive recession that follows will reduce CO2 output plenty enough to make a difference ;-)

RideOnTime

6 hours ago the dollar was falling, markets didn't like being trumped, trumped on etc etc, now the dollar is rising...

ugo.santalucia

bianchimoon wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

LakesLuddite wrote:

Well its a disaster for the environment if nothing else. Good luck riding your bikes through 2 metres of flood water folks!

Unless he take the quick route and destroys the planet with nukes!

What has Obama done for the environment? Sign an agreement that nobody will implement?

If you don't control the houses, there's only so much you can do with executive orders, at least he believes in global warming and campaigns against, and unlike Trump who says it's a chinese conspiracy to stop the US manufacturing

Global warming is not something we can stop by cutting emission... our emission cuts are dwarfed by further emissions. We can learn to live with the effects of climate change, which is a sensible challenge... after all the Dutch have lived below sea level for centuries.
Anyone who think cutting emissions is the solution is delusional

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Now we're going to have to wait and see whether (a) he moderates his politics (b) he ends up completely isolated in office or (c) he presses on with all his insane proposals and somehow manages to push them through.

Please don't let it be (c), please don't let it be (c), please don't let it be (c).

Hate to worry you finchy but the Republicans have control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I'm no expert but that tells me that he will be able to get through quite a few of his proposals, although presumably part of the House and Senate's functions is to scrutinise and moderate what the President wants to do?

bianchimoon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

LakesLuddite wrote:

Well its a disaster for the environment if nothing else. Good luck riding your bikes through 2 metres of flood water folks!

Unless he take the quick route and destroys the planet with nukes!

What has Obama done for the environment? Sign an agreement that nobody will implement?

If you don't control the houses, there's only so much you can do with executive orders, at least he believes in global warming and campaigns against, and unlike Trump who says it's a chinese conspiracy to stop the US manufacturing

Global warming is not something we can stop by cutting emission... our emission cuts are dwarfed by further emissions. We can learn to live with the effects of climate change, which is a sensible challenge... after all the Dutch have lived below sea level for centuries.
Anyone who think cutting emissions is the solution is delusional

I'm clearly delusional then :roll:

bobmcstuff

I guess that's goodbye to Roe v Wade too.

ugo.santalucia

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm clearly delusional then :roll:

You are. Cutting emissions is a good exercise in sustainable living, which we all need, given resources are limited, but in terms of climate change, the pace of cutting that would make a significant difference is simply unsustainable. It's a bit like trying to repay a loan at 1000% interest in small monthly instalments.

The age of fossil fuels will finish when they will become non competitive against wind, PV or else. More money needs to be pumped in research and development... currently we spend more in pet grooming

bianchimoon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm clearly delusional then :roll:

You are. Cutting emissions is a good exercise in sustainable living, which we all need, given resources are limited, but in terms of climate change, the pace of cutting that would make a significant difference is simply unsustainable. It's a bit like trying to repay a loan at 1000% interest in small monthly instalments.

The age of fossil fuels will finish when they will become non competitive against wind, PV or else. More money needs to be pumped in research and development... currently we spend more in pet grooming

and if you don't pay even a little off, the compound interest on that loan makes sustaining life for lots of species in future even more precarious

joe2008

£5 on Leicester City, Brexit and Trump = £12,000,000

bobmcstuff

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm clearly delusional then :roll:

You are. Cutting emissions is a good exercise in sustainable living, which we all need, given resources are limited, but in terms of climate change, the pace of cutting that would make a significant difference is simply unsustainable. It's a bit like trying to repay a loan at 1000% interest in small monthly instalments.

The age of fossil fuels will finish when they will become non competitive against wind, PV or else. More money needs to be pumped in research and development... currently we spend more in pet grooming

No reason not to do both. As per GDP or interest, a reduction in emissions growth by 1% pa will put is in a much better position 10, 20, 100 years down the line.

There have been some big leaps forwards in sustainable technology recently and in many places renewable electricity is very competitive with other generation methods. For example in large swathes of the world solar is the cheapest way to get electricity (it's dropped vastly in the last 10 years), and the pace of development has been such that it'll probably be competitive without subsidy in northern Europe before long. Onshore wind is cheap in the UK but unfortunately a lot of planning resistance (and still the storage issue). There definitely does need to be lots more investment though - especially into storage technologies.

Unfortunately Trump is pro-coal so that's going to be a big step backwards from the world's largest emitter.

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

LakesLuddite wrote:

Well its a disaster for the environment if nothing else. Good luck riding your bikes through 2 metres of flood water folks!

Unless he take the quick route and destroys the planet with nukes!

What has Obama done for the environment? Sign an agreement that nobody will implement?

Surely you believe that a neutral impact is preferable to a negative one?

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Now we're going to have to wait and see whether (a) he moderates his politics (b) he ends up completely isolated in office or (c) he presses on with all his insane proposals and somehow manages to push them through.

Please don't let it be (c), please don't let it be (c), please don't let it be (c).

Hate to worry you finchy but the Republicans have control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I'm no expert but that tells me that he will be able to get through quite a few of his proposals, although presumably part of the House and Senate's functions is to scrutinise and moderate what the President wants to do?

The Democrats will surely block just about all of his proposals, so it would only need a small number of Republicans to side with them (and this happens a lot more in American politics than British politics) to sink his plans. They're not exactly keen on raising taxes, so when Donald Trump gets into power and starts talking about sending Mexicans back, or whatever else pops into his head that day, Congress is going to ask how much it will cost. That's what I'm pinning my hopes on anyway.

mr_goo

Whilst I was cleaning the executive loos at Goldman Sachs, I got thinking.
What is Trump's motivation for taking on the presidency? He's 70 years old. An age when most have retired or looking to retire. His health will deteriorate quicker due to the pressures of office. He doesn't need the cash. He doesn't need to change policies to benefit his family after he departs this mortal coil as they'd be well sorted. Is he truly taking this on because he considers himself a true patriot? ...I don't buy that. Just mystified as to Why?

rolf_f

Mr Goo wrote:

Whilst I was cleaning the executive loos at Goldman Sachs, I got thinking.
What is Trump's motivation for taking on the presidency? He's 70 years old. An age when most have retired or looking to retire. His health will deteriorate quicker due to the pressures of office. He doesn't need the cash. He doesn't need to change policies to benefit his family after he departs this mortal coil as they'd be well sorted. Is he truly taking this on because he considers himself a true patriot? ...I don't buy that. Just mystified as to Why?

Rich egomaniac.

dinyull

Mr Goo wrote:

Whilst I was cleaning the executive loos at Goldman Sachs, I got thinking.
What is Trump's motivation for taking on the presidency? He's 70 years old. An age when most have retired or looking to retire. His health will deteriorate quicker due to the pressures of office. He doesn't need the cash. He doesn't need to change policies to benefit his family after he departs this mortal coil as they'd be well sorted. Is he truly taking this on because he considers himself a true patriot? ...I don't buy that. Just mystified as to Why?

E-G-O

dinyull

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Now we're going to have to wait and see whether (a) he moderates his politics (b) he ends up completely isolated in office or (c) he presses on with all his insane proposals and somehow manages to push them through.

Please don't let it be (c), please don't let it be (c), please don't let it be (c).

Hate to worry you finchy but the Republicans have control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I'm no expert but that tells me that he will be able to get through quite a few of his proposals, although presumably part of the House and Senate's functions is to scrutinise and moderate what the President wants to do?

The Democrats will surely block just about all of his proposals, so it would only need a small number of Republicans to side with them (and this happens a lot more in American politics than British politics) to sink his plans. They're not exactly keen on raising taxes, so when Donald Trump gets into power and starts talking about sending Mexicans back, or whatever else pops into his head that day, Congress is going to ask how much it will cost. That's what I'm pinning my hopes on anyway.

The republican party seems quite split too, so you have to hope there'd be plenty of dissenting voices against him from his own party.

ugo.santalucia

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

LakesLuddite wrote:

Well its a disaster for the environment if nothing else. Good luck riding your bikes through 2 metres of flood water folks!

Unless he take the quick route and destroys the planet with nukes!

What has Obama done for the environment? Sign an agreement that nobody will implement?

Surely you believe that a neutral impact is preferable to a negative one?

At this point in time it makes no difference anymore... 20 years ago with a gargantuan effort maybe, now it's too late, it's pretty much irreversible... however, we can learn to live with it... costly in infrastructure, but entirely possible

mr_goo

Rolf F wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Whilst I was cleaning the executive loos at Goldman Sachs, I got thinking.
What is Trump's motivation for taking on the presidency? He's 70 years old. An age when most have retired or looking to retire. His health will deteriorate quicker due to the pressures of office. He doesn't need the cash. He doesn't need to change policies to benefit his family after he departs this mortal coil as they'd be well sorted. Is he truly taking this on because he considers himself a true patriot? ...I don't buy that. Just mystified as to Why?

Rich egomaniac.

That's all it can be. A glorious epitaph and grave in Arlington.

bompington

Mr Goo wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Whilst I was cleaning the executive loos at Goldman Sachs, I got thinking.
What is Trump's motivation for taking on the presidency? He's 70 years old. An age when most have retired or looking to retire. His health will deteriorate quicker due to the pressures of office. He doesn't need the cash. He doesn't need to change policies to benefit his family after he departs this mortal coil as they'd be well sorted. Is he truly taking this on because he considers himself a true patriot? ...I don't buy that. Just mystified as to Why?

Rich egomaniac.

That's all it can be. A glorious epitaph and grave in Arlington.

I very much doubt he thinks that far ahead.

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

LakesLuddite wrote:

Well its a disaster for the environment if nothing else. Good luck riding your bikes through 2 metres of flood water folks!

Unless he take the quick route and destroys the planet with nukes!

What has Obama done for the environment? Sign an agreement that nobody will implement?

Surely you believe that a neutral impact is preferable to a negative one?

At this point in time it makes no difference anymore... 20 years ago with a gargantuan effort maybe, now it's too late, it's pretty much irreversible... however, we can learn to live with it... costly in infrastructure, but entirely possible

So I may as well give up with my environmental job now because none of it matters? I think that once your attitude becomes one of quitting the outcome is inevitable and likely far worse than you think it is. Of course, from an environmental perspective Trump could be a good thing - if we can manage to annihilate the human race but not the rest of life on earth then we can regard it as the best possible outcome.

FocusZing

Hang on a minute! How many thousand millions of computers are running in millions of data centres in air con rooms arounds the world 24/7 propping up the Internet so you can write this drivel.

You're as bad as Prince Charles banging on about the bloody environment while flying around in a private helicopter, jets, v8 Astons guzzling fuel.

STOP TYPING NOW!


AND TURN OFF YOUR HEATER!

ugo.santalucia

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

LakesLuddite wrote:

Well its a disaster for the environment if nothing else. Good luck riding your bikes through 2 metres of flood water folks!

Unless he take the quick route and destroys the planet with nukes!

What has Obama done for the environment? Sign an agreement that nobody will implement?

Surely you believe that a neutral impact is preferable to a negative one?

At this point in time it makes no difference anymore... 20 years ago with a gargantuan effort maybe, now it's too late, it's pretty much irreversible... however, we can learn to live with it... costly in infrastructure, but entirely possible

So I may as well give up with my environmental job now because none of it matters? I think that once your attitude becomes one of quitting the outcome is inevitable and likely far worse than you think it is. Of course, from an environmental perspective Trump could be a good thing - if we can manage to annihilate the human race but not the rest of life on earth then we can regard it as the best possible outcome.

I think investment has to go in two direction

1) alternative energy, because resources are limited and renewables make sense
2) Engineering and infrastructure aimed at dealing with climate change

Reduction of emission per se is only viable if it saves resources... for instance it is a bit late for things like carbon capture technology, but it still makes sense to invest in photovoltaic

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I think investment has to go in two direction

1) alternative energy, because resources are limited and renewables make sense
2) Engineering and infrastructure aimed at dealing with climate change

Reduction of emission per se is only viable if it saves resources... for instance it is a bit late for things like carbon capture technology, but it still makes sense to invest in photovoltaic

Reasonable points but not IMO a convincing argument that Trump is no worse news for the environment than Obama. To be fair, under Obama fracking has become far more of a controversial activity here than it rationally should have been but even that arguably has resulted in the real reason why fracking may be a bad thing being buried under misguided arguments which are ultimately doomed to fail.

RideOnTime

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37923538/not-just-trump-how-america-voted-on-drugs-porn-guns-pay-and-the-death-penalty

ugo.santalucia

Rolf F wrote:

Reasonable points but not IMO a convincing argument that Trump is no worse news for the environment than Obama. To be fair, under Obama ******* has become far more of a controversial activity here than it rationally should have been but even that arguably has resulted in the real reason why ******* may be a bad thing being buried under misguided arguments which are ultimately doomed to fail.

It might never happen, just like drilling under the arctic has been deemed uneconomical by Shell.

Bear in mind there are environmental issues that trascend climate change. Oil spills are to be avoided, global warming or not

RideOnTime

What are you ******* about? :shock:

ugo.santalucia

RideOnTime wrote:

What are you ******* about? :shock:

I think he refers to f-r-a-c-k-i-n-g.. the silly forum can't distinguish from the other word with no r and a u

FocusZing

Thats a fucking big hole in the system.