Donald Trump

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

...more bemusement from here in the shires.

I honestly don't get why some many seem so desperate to appear distraught if Trump/America wants to ban travel to/from 7 countries for 90 days. When one considers all the things in the world to get vexed about, this doesn't get on my list or anywhere near it.

We have entertained China and Russia on royal visits and they were, and still very much are, on the naughty step.

Is holding the USA to a higher standard than we insist from other foreign countries like China, UAE, Saudi etc a little bit racist?

I think it is the USA itself that aspired to a higher standard.

Apparently not any more.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Also is Coopster writing about me, Trump or neither?

He basically says you have no business living here.

Rest assured he's in a minority of 1, on these boards. An absolutely disgusting thing to say.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Can't quite understand the furore over the 7 country, 90 day ban and the subsequent petition to stop Trump's state visit to the UK.
First off over the last couple of years our royal family have met with some heads of state from countries with atrocious human rights and animal rights records.
Secondly where are the petitions and demonstrations about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Muslim majority countries banning Israeli citizens from entering their countries. And I also believe that if ones' passport has an Israeli visa stamp in it one is still not permitted to gain entry (I'd like clarification on this, but it was discussed on Radio 5 today).

Trump is a berk. But where is the balanced view?

The USA aspires (aspired?) to a higher standard than some of the other countries you mention. It also has significantly more power in the world than Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

This is already affecting UK citizens with dual nationality. Trump is testing the checks and balances of the US system to see what he can get away with, which should concern all of us.

Are people absolutely consistent in who or what they protest against? Of course not, but that doesn't invalidate their concerns over Trump.

Doesn't every new leader check how far they can push things? Some have been in power along time and really push their luck.

I would just just like to have seen people demonstrating outside the Saudi and Qatari embassies about 'their' xenophobic policies. But alas nobody seems to come to the defence of Jewish people in the modern age. Seems to me that society thinks it did their bit in WW2 and subsequent creation of Israel and have moved on trying to defend the rights of another religion. That's where I want to see balanced argument.

I'm not sure that is really fair. Israel has enormous and continuing support from the West, and the US in particular, to the extent that when it withdrew that support on one specific point for the first time in years, everyone commented on how significant this must be. If you mean at a more local level, no we haven't been able to rid the UK of antisemitism, and the recent increase in such incidents is indeed very concerning.

pinno

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I

...getting off Earth would be a major step...

You have some sense in your few posts but then you say that.

What an improbable idea. We have a perfectly good orb to live on but we are hell bent on destroying it.
We can't get a probe to Mars without crashing it.
How far away is the nearest perfect orb like Earth that we could possibly inhabit?
How much resources would we consume in the process of trying to shift people en masse to another planet? Well enough people that would make a difference to the remaining inhabitants - Who goes? Those who can afford it?
if this planet is under environmental and climate pressure, it's our doing and the far flung idea of shifting people to another planet only to repeat the failings of mankind doesn't cure the underlying problem.
Why isn't the scientific community consumed with the preservation of our earth?
How many billions have we spent on rockets, ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads, war, armaments and ordinance? I ask the question as it could have been much better spent on other things such as preservation of species and the very thing we rely on to survive..
Anyway, there is an abundance of resources on earth, the problem lies in the distribution of those resources.
Long gone is the symbioses of man and the environment. Intelligent parasites do no destroy the host. Therefore, we are collectively stupid. Why subject another orb to man?

bendertherobot

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Can't quite understand the furore over the 7 country, 90 day ban and the subsequent petition to stop Trump's state visit to the UK.
First off over the last couple of years our royal family have met with some heads of state from countries with atrocious human rights and animal rights records.
Secondly where are the petitions and demonstrations about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Muslim majority countries banning Israeli citizens from entering their countries. And I also believe that if ones' passport has an Israeli visa stamp in it one is still not permitted to gain entry (I'd like clarification on this, but it was discussed on Radio 5 today).

Trump is a berk. But where is the balanced view?

The USA aspires (aspired?) to a higher standard than some of the other countries you mention. It also has significantly more power in the world than Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

This is already affecting UK citizens with dual nationality. Trump is testing the checks and balances of the US system to see what he can get away with, which should concern all of us.

Are people absolutely consistent in who or what they protest against? Of course not, but that doesn't invalidate their concerns over Trump.

Doesn't every new leader check how far they can push things? Some have been in power along time and really push their luck.

I would just just like to have seen people demonstrating outside the Saudi and Qatari embassies about 'their' xenophobic policies. But alas nobody seems to come to the defence of Jewish people in the modern age. Seems to me that society thinks it did their bit in WW2 and subsequent creation of Israel and have moved on trying to defend the rights of another religion. That's where I want to see balanced argument.

Did you miss last week's everyone's suffering in the holocaust comments?

finchy

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick ranted about Trump's ridiculous Executive Orders and you told him he has "out of touch leftie views" off the back of the post containing the rant. In all honesty I, and most reading the thread I guess, took it that the "out of touch leftie views" comment was based on Rick's disdain for Trump's travel ban etc.

The bit I have highlighted in bold is both inaccurate and out of order.

It's also pretty funny that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, has the lowest approval ratings of any president upon entering office, and they've gone down even further now he's actually got a few things done, yet according to the genius that is Coopster, it's Rick (and presumably everyone else on here) who has the "out of touch leftie views".

benws1

Pinno wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I

...getting off Earth would be a major step...

You have some sense in your few posts but then you say that.

What an improbable idea. We have a perfectly good orb to live on but we are hell bent on destroying it.
We can't get a probe to Mars without crashing it.
How far away is the nearest perfect orb like Earth that we could possibly inhabit?
How much resources would we consume in the process of trying to shift people en masse to another planet? Well enough people that would make a difference to the remaining inhabitants - Who goes? Those who can afford it?
if this planet is under environmental and climate pressure, it's our doing and the far flung idea of shifting people to another planet only to repeat the failings of mankind doesn't cure the underlying problem.
Why isn't the scientific community consumed with the preservation of our earth?
How many billions have we spent on rockets, ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads, war, armaments and ordinance? I ask the question as it could have been much better spent on other things such as preservation of species and the very thing we rely on to survive..
Anyway, there is an abundance of resources on earth, the problem lies in the distribution of those resources.
Long gone is the symbioses of man and the environment. Intelligent parasites do no destroy the host. Therefore, we are collectively stupid. Why subject another orb to man?

I disagree. Yes, this has gone off topic.

Some of us are hell bent on destroying our planet. We aren't all out to kill the world we live in. Humans by their very nature are destructive. I don't think there is anything we can do about that.

We get lots of things to Mars. Do you know that we managed to land a 1 tonne rover there a few years ago? Yes, we have failures, but pioneering doesn't come without risk.

The nearest habitable planet is Mars. The moon could be used as a colony, but Mars is better for habitation. The first step is to get things into space. We can build a lot more in orbit than we can via trying to build it on Earth and getting it into space.

Getting into space uses resource. However, companies like Space X are pioneering re-usability. A lot of things done in the name of 'green' are also resource heavy. Do you know that building a 'green' vehicle utilising things like batteries is more resource heavy than building an internal combustion engine?

A lot has been spent on space travel. However, a hell of a lot of investment now is done by private companies. Things like NASA have always battled for funding. Private companies take this pressure away as nobody can really tell them how to spend their money. War drives technology that is ultimately used in things like space travel. However, spending on war cannot really be compared to spending on space travel.

The preservation of earth is a funny thing. It's another science that has been overcome by human greed and agendas. As mentioned above, a lot of things done in the name of 'green' actually do more damage. Want to grow some biofuel? Sure, cut down a large swathe of rain forest to make room for the crops. Want to build an electric car with complex batteries? Sure, mine even more precious metals to make the components. Want to harness wind power? Sure, disrupt and even destroy animal colonies and habitats to make way for wind turbines. Let's also tax people in the name of 'green' agendas.

I have no quibbles with anything done in the name of the environment when done properly. Unfortunately, things are done with power and money in mind.

If we are to survive as a species, we can't stay on Earth. You say that we have a perfectly good place to live. However, Earth isn't entirely safe. Have you see the craters in parts of the Earth? Have you seen the Moon? The surface of the moon isn't active like Earth and doesn't hide its history.

I agree that the human race itself isn't very nice. There are some though who aren't hell-bent on power and greed.

kingstongraham

Wouldn't it be easier to not mess up this one?

benws1

KingstonGraham wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to not mess up this one?

It's not about messing this one up. As a species, we will never survive if we are in one place. Look at the history of this planet. Extinction events happen.

kingstongraham

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to not mess up this one?

It's not about messing this one up. As a species, we will never survive if we are in one place. Look at the history of this planet. Extinction events happen.

Ah well.

Ben6899

finchy wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick ranted about Trump's ridiculous Executive Orders and you told him he has "out of touch leftie views" off the back of the post containing the rant. In all honesty I, and most reading the thread I guess, took it that the "out of touch leftie views" comment was based on Rick's disdain for Trump's travel ban etc.

The bit I have highlighted in bold is both inaccurate and out of order.

It's also pretty funny that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, has the lowest approval ratings of any president upon entering office, and they've gone down even further now he's actually got a few things done, yet according to the genius that is Coopster, it's Rick (and presumably everyone else on here) who has the "out of touch leftie views".

I have made no secret of my distaste for Coopster - not because we disagree hugely on Brexit/Remain - but because of his smug, often inflammatory and offensive posting style.

The last few posts are the final nail in the coffin. First, we have "Remoaners", which is childish at worst. Then "mong", which is deeply inappropriate in any social circle apart from dinner at the Trumps'. And now having an issue with ethnic screening is having "out of touch leftie views" suffixed with Rick having no business living here (the UK).

No doubt I have the wrong end of the stick, I'm cherry picking posts and words and I'm a bitter "Remoaner", but I know the truth and I think the more enlightened of this parish also know it.

Stevo would do well to disassociate himself.

rjsterry

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I must admit that I'm finding this whole thing rather amusing. There are a lot of angry people around.

It could be worse. Clinton could have won. :shock:

People need to stay angry - part of the plan will be to wear people down so they just shrug their shoulders at subsequent outrages. Though if you don't think targeting people for the religion of a country they were born in is outrageous, and is just amusing...

It's all quite amusing. It's so silly, it has to be.

Personally, I don't see the point in raising my blood pressure over something I cannot control. Do you honestly think that all these angry people will change anything?

Let's not even get into the detail of how pathetic everything is based on religion too (that's for another thread). If people want to worship a book, so be it. However, killing each other because your god is 'the right one' is such a bizarre idea.

That's reminded me. One thing I do find odd at presidential inaugurations is the swearing of an oath on a bible. Right, so sticking one hand on a book and saying you will do this and that guarantees you will do right? Yeah, sure.

Amusing if you live on a trailer park in Tennessee... less amusing if you have business/ life in the USA and you have links to those seven countries or you perceive your country of origin to be on the next list.

That's your opinion. I have mine.

Any country that makes you swear an oath on a book has the potential to be just as backwards as anywhere else.

You are right - what tipped Trump over the edge was the presence of the bible at his inauguration

Can you see my point though? We call extremists mad because they are willing to blow themselves up or kill others in the name of the 'correct' god. Yet, when a new president is sworn in, he has to swear to their god that he will do right.

History is littered with terrible actions undertaken in the name of religion. Here we are in 2017 as a much more advanced (in some cases) civilisation, still swearing on a book. There are a lot of people in the world who believe this stuff. That's their decision. However, I personally think our energy is better channelled into science and understanding the universe (getting off Earth would be a major step).

A lot of people are pi**ed that Trump was elected. Trouble is, he was elected. The system that was used to select the next president worked and a candidate won. To many he isn't what they wanted. However, he won. He has policies that many find extreme. There are many that agree with him though.

There are places in the world that have far more extreme policies, but some flock to them and say how great they are. Look at China, Dubai, India for example. These are quite oppressive, restrictive places. We buy lots from China because it's cheap. I have heard that it is cheap for a reason, but people keep buying things like iPhones. I know of people who love going to Dubai. Yet the country has a dim view on certain items of pain relief and public shows of affection. India can be brutal in terms of acts against women and the way some people live in true poverty. Yet the last company I worked with fell over themselves to do business with them and buy their vegetables. They get foreign aid too.

The world seems to be in outrage against Trump, but his policies in the grand scheme of things aren't that terrible. It's not like he has ordered the execution of some men because they are homosexual, for instance.

What really makes me laugh though is the protests that have happened recently. Some people used it as an excuse to smash up parts of a city; that achieved a lot didn't it. Some people are doing it because they don't like his 'oppressive' travel ban. How many people who have flocked to social media to share their disdain have probably done so via an iPhone? An iPhone assembled in China who we know to have questionable human rights records.

*In relation to the iPhone, Trump has actually said that he wants Apple to assemble more stuff in the US.

Ok I get why you don't like religion but I don't get how you get from there to finding religious persecution amusing

Persecution? He's put up a temporary travel ban.

I find the outcry with Trump amusing, not your so called persecution. When considered with what else happens in the world, it isn't the worst thing that can happen.

I imagine that if you have IS or Syrian troops breathing down your neck for, say, treating the 'wrong' people in a hospital then it's of slightly more concern than a cancelled business meeting.

benws1

KingstonGraham wrote:

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to not mess up this one?

It's not about messing this one up. As a species, we will never survive if we are in one place. Look at the history of this planet. Extinction events happen.

Ah well.

We aren't a brilliant species, but I don't think we are doing the amount of damage we are told we are doing. We haven't been around long enough to say for sure that we are causing things like man made global warming. The Earth has been here a long time and has changed without any meddling by us.

pinno

benws1 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I

...getting off Earth would be a major step...

You...man?

I disagree. Yes, this has gone off topic.

benws1 wrote:

Some of us are hell bent on destroying our planet. We aren't all out to kill the world we live in. Humans by their very nature are destructive. I don't think there is anything we can do about that.

Greed is the basis of unwarranted destruction.

benws1 wrote:

We get lots of things to Mars. Do you know that we managed to land a 1 tonne rover there a few years ago? Yes, we have failures, but pioneering doesn't come without risk.

It's a long, long way from habitation.

benws1 wrote:

Getting into space uses resource. However, companies like Space X are pioneering re-usability. A lot of things done in the name of 'green' are also resource heavy. Do you know that building a 'green' vehicle utilising things like batteries is more resource heavy than building an internal combustion engine?

I have spent the last 11 years running a recycling organisation. I am aware of contradictions in green technology. It's not the production of energy that is the problem, it's the over consumption of energy that is the problem.

Technological progress has been largely down to war and profit. What makes you think that man is going to suddenly change his ways and the exploration/habitation of other planets is going to be anything but?

The whole concept is mad, stupid and arrogant. I couldn't give a flying f*ck if man doesn't survive as a species but we shouldn't impose our destructive tendencies on another planet.
The current need is far more pressing: by the time we are in a position of being able to shift millions of people or even procure resources, we as a species will be in too much peril. We need to point our attention to the preservation of the very thing that can keep and has kept us alive.

It's almost like religion: we are looking towards something inter stellar, other worldly for solutions to man made problems when the solution isn't some flawed romantic conception, it's right here and far easier to achieve given the collective will.

haydenm

benws1 wrote:

The preservation of earth is a funny thing. It's another science that has been overcome by human greed and agendas. As mentioned above, a lot of things done in the name of 'green' actually do more damage. Want to grow some biofuel? Sure, cut down a large swathe of rain forest to make room for the crops. Want to build an electric car with complex batteries? Sure, mine even more precious metals to make the components. Want to harness wind power? Sure, disrupt and even destroy animal colonies and habitats to make way for wind turbines. Let's also tax people in the name of 'green' agendas.

I have no quibbles with anything done in the name of the environment when done properly. Unfortunately, things are done with power and money in mind.

Those things are the way they are because of the inevitable hole in government thinking and the way subsidies, incentives and taxes are applied. I'd agree with all of them apart from your wind power point though.

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to not mess up this one?

It's not about messing this one up. As a species, we will never survive if we are in one place. Look at the history of this planet. Extinction events happen.

Ah well.

We aren't a brilliant species, but I don't think we are doing the amount of damage we are told we are doing. We haven't been around long enough to say for sure that we are causing things like man made global warming. The Earth has been here a long time and has changed without any meddling by us.

There are thousands of scientists who have looked at the data and have come to the same conclusion. I just don't think that you and I are in a position to disagree unless you have a lot more data, in which case we all need to see it.

benws1

Pinno wrote:

I have spent the last 11 years running a recycling organisation.

That explains your viewpoint perfectly.

Is your organisation one of the ones that keeps catching fire?

benws1

HaydenM wrote:

Those things are the way they are because of the inevitable hole in government thinking and the way subsidies, incentives and taxes are applied. I'd agree with all of them apart from your wind power point though.

Wail link, but I can't find the page I read last year on this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -rush.html

surrey_commuter

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to not mess up this one?

It's not about messing this one up. As a species, we will never survive if we are in one place. Look at the history of this planet. Extinction events happen.

Ah well.

We aren't a brilliant species, but I don't think we are doing the amount of damage we are told we are doing. We haven't been around long enough to say for sure that we are causing things like man made global warming. The Earth has been here a long time and has changed without any meddling by us.

So if we have not caused man made global warming....

benws1

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to not mess up this one?

It's not about messing this one up. As a species, we will never survive if we are in one place. Look at the history of this planet. Extinction events happen.

Ah well.

We aren't a brilliant species, but I don't think we are doing the amount of damage we are told we are doing. We haven't been around long enough to say for sure that we are causing things like man made global warming. The Earth has been here a long time and has changed without any meddling by us.

So if we have not caused man made global warming....

I used that term because it seems to be one of the current buzz words.

haydenm

benws1 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Those things are the way they are because of the inevitable hole in government thinking and the way subsidies, incentives and taxes are applied. I'd agree with all of them apart from your wind power point though.

Wail link, but I can't find the page I read last year on this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -rush.html

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1434319.pdf

All windfarms in the UK are built with a planned generation timescale and a habitat management plan which covers decommissioning. They don't really destroy habitats or animal colonies as you suggest.

fenix

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to not mess up this one?

It's not about messing this one up. As a species, we will never survive if we are in one place. Look at the history of this planet. Extinction events happen.

Ah well.

We aren't a brilliant species, but I don't think we are doing the amount of damage we are told we are doing. We haven't been around long enough to say for sure that we are causing things like man made global warming. The Earth has been here a long time and has changed without any meddling by us.

Aah well if Ben reckons we aren't causing it - who needs the experts ? It's not like it's anything important or anything is it ? Lets just 'reckon' everything. What could possibly go wrong ?

benws1

HaydenM wrote:

benws1 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Those things are the way they are because of the inevitable hole in government thinking and the way subsidies, incentives and taxes are applied. I'd agree with all of them apart from your wind power point though.

Wail link, but I can't find the page I read last year on this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -rush.html

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1434319.pdf

All windfarms in the UK are built with a planned generation timescale and a habitat management plan which covers decommissioning. They don't really destroy habitats or animal colonies as you suggest.

This reports states the habitat management isn't up to spec:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tudy-finds

benws1

Fenix wrote:

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

benws1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to not mess up this one?

It's not about messing this one up. As a species, we will never survive if we are in one place. Look at the history of this planet. Extinction events happen.

Ah well.

We aren't a brilliant species, but I don't think we are doing the amount of damage we are told we are doing. We haven't been around long enough to say for sure that we are causing things like man made global warming. The Earth has been here a long time and has changed without any meddling by us.

Aah well if Ben reckons we aren't causing it - who needs the experts ? It's not like it's anything important or anything is it ? Lets just 'reckon' everything. What could possibly go wrong ?

It's my opinion, nothing more.

The experts haven't been around longer than anyone else. In terms of proper temperature recordings, they only began in England in 1659.

We can't predict the weather accurately much beyond a couple of days. Stating something based on models (which can have their flaws) covering thousands and thousands of years is dangerous.

One thing always puzzles me. Trees are supposed to be important to the earth. Yet, we seem to be felling them like mad to make way for biofuels. Yes, this article is old, but it emphasises my point:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blo ... ainforests

TheBigBean

It's much better to build a solar park and than grow biofuel, but what does that have to do with Trump?

mr_goo

bendertherobot wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Can't quite understand the furore over the 7 country, 90 day ban and the subsequent petition to stop Trump's state visit to the UK.
First off over the last couple of years our royal family have met with some heads of state from countries with atrocious human rights and animal rights records.
Secondly where are the petitions and demonstrations about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Muslim majority countries banning Israeli citizens from entering their countries. And I also believe that if ones' passport has an Israeli visa stamp in it one is still not permitted to gain entry (I'd like clarification on this, but it was discussed on Radio 5 today).

Trump is a berk. But where is the balanced view?

The USA aspires (aspired?) to a higher standard than some of the other countries you mention. It also has significantly more power in the world than Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

This is already affecting UK citizens with dual nationality. Trump is testing the checks and balances of the US system to see what he can get away with, which should concern all of us.

Are people absolutely consistent in who or what they protest against? Of course not, but that doesn't invalidate their concerns over Trump.

Doesn't every new leader check how far they can push things? Some have been in power along time and really push their luck.

I would just just like to have seen people demonstrating outside the Saudi and Qatari embassies about 'their' xenophobic policies. But alas nobody seems to come to the defence of Jewish people in the modern age. Seems to me that society thinks it did their bit in WW2 and subsequent creation of Israel and have moved on trying to defend the rights of another religion. That's where I want to see balanced argument.

Did you miss last week's everyone's suffering in the holocaust comments?

No. Clearly it wasn't that important to get demonstrations outside some embassies of countries that don't like Israel.

Just want to see balanced argument and balanced just cause. The world isn't owned by anyone. Trump shouldn't be stopping his 7 country targets anymore than Saudi, Qatar et all are in targeting Israel or people who have visited Israel. Balance. Balance and more balance please.

benws1

TheBigBean wrote:

It's much better to build a solar park and than grow biofuel, but what does that have to do with Trump?

To get this back on topic ...

Looks like Trump is going to make changes to America's climate policies. He wants to further utilise shale oil and gas and revive their coal industry too.

mr_goo

benws1 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

It's much better to build a solar park and than grow biofuel, but what does that have to do with Trump?

To get this back on topic ...

Looks like Trump is going to make changes to America's climate policies. He wants to further utilise shale oil and gas and revive their coal industry too.

I just wonder whether this is to reduce reliance on middle eastern and south american resources. Fairplay if it is.

benws1

Mr Goo wrote:

benws1 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

It's much better to build a solar park and than grow biofuel, but what does that have to do with Trump?

To get this back on topic ...

Looks like Trump is going to make changes to America's climate policies. He wants to further utilise shale oil and gas and revive their coal industry too.

I just wonder whether this is to reduce reliance on middle eastern and south american resources. Fairplay if it is.

Yes. I think that is exactly his reasoning behind it. He wants America to be self sufficient.

mr_goo

benws1 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

benws1 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

It's much better to build a solar park and than grow biofuel, but what does that have to do with Trump?

To get this back on topic ...

Looks like Trump is going to make changes to America's climate policies. He wants to further utilise shale oil and gas and revive their coal industry too.

I just wonder whether this is to reduce reliance on middle eastern and south american resources. Fairplay if it is.

Yes. I think that is exactly his reasoning behind it. He wants America to be self sufficient.

This will be interesting. It will het the OPEC members pi55ing out straight.
Cheaper fuel prices perhaps as their biggest client stops buying.

benws1

Mr Goo wrote:

This will be interesting. It will het the OPEC members pi55ing out straight.
Cheaper fuel prices perhaps as their biggest client stops buying.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-trump-big ... imate.html