
Myron Ebell Takes On the E.P.A. - finid
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/science/myron-ebell-trump-epa.html
======
matwood
I'm not sure why everyone thinks Obama killed coal. Cratering natural gas
prices are what killed coal. So short of artificially raising the price of nat
gas, coal is not coming back regardless of who is in charge.

[http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/natural-gas-ambush-
killed-...](http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/natural-gas-ambush-killed-off-
coal-minin)

[http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cheap-Natural-
Gas-...](http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cheap-Natural-Gas-To-Spark-
Another-Wave-Of-Coal-Plant-Retirements.html)

~~~
pmorici
It's not like Obama did nothing that effected coal. The industry lost over 83k
coal mining jobs during the last 8 years. Hillary lost Pennsylvania, a big
coal mining state, by 68,236 votes.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/coal-o...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/coal-
obama-federal-land/424422/)

[http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/05/obama-kept-his-
promise-830...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/05/obama-kept-his-
promise-83000-coal-jobs-lost-and-400-mines-shuttered/)

~~~
matwood
Obama did some things, but the main driver was the market. In politics it
makes sense to take credit/blame depending on side. Trump can remove whatever
Obama did and the jobs are not coming back for market reasons.

It's the same thing with factory jobs. The US produces more than it ever has
(at least the last time I checked), but many of those jobs were automated
away.

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-
outpu...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has-
doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28)

~~~
jdavis703
Same thing for gas. Obama did nothing to lower gas prices. But imagine if for
whatever reason (say a hurricane came through and knocked out US refining
capacity two months before the election), he would've got the blame for high
gas prices. And not just Obama, the same situation kind of happened to Bush
when Katrina knocked oil infrastructure offline.

------
rayiner
The coal alignment is a bigger deal than climate change. We are SOL on climate
change anyway (barring a scientific miracle)--there is no point worrying about
whether one administration will or will not engage in token gestures.

But coal is _bad._ The coal industry costs about half a trillion in
externalized damage to health and the environment annually in the US alone:
[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/831755](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/831755).

And ironically, the voters in Appalachia being courted are bearing the brunt
of it so people in surrounding urban areas can have cheap power:
[http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/blasting-appalachian-economy](http://www.coal-
is-dirty.com/blasting-appalachian-economy).

~~~
martin-adams
For those that don't know what SOL means (I had to look it up)... "S--t Outta
Luck"

~~~
sametmax
The urban dictionary is your best friend.

Duck duck go even have a bang command for it (!ud).

~~~
imjustsaying
!u works too

------
Pxtl
Maybe it's my white straight male privilege talking, but this scares me 100x
more than his racism and sexual predation, and I wish it had gotten more
coverage in the debates and election.

If this happens, history will remember Trump as the Neville Chamberlain of the
climate catastrophe. He won't just be screwing America's plans, this is one of
those areas where "leader of the free world" isnt hyperbole - America's
decisions will have massive domino-effects on related economies.

~~~
saalweachter
While a lot of people were never able to move beyond Trump as a laughable
buffoon and despicable human being, a lot of the harm is going to come from
him advancing the mainstream, everyday Republican agenda.

Repealing Obamacare, dismantling the EPA and CFPB, appointing judges to the
Federal and Supreme Courts who are friendly to rolling back gay and
reproductive rights, privatizing Medicare -- these are all mainstream
positions.

~~~
nikomen
While I agree that most of the issues you mentioned are definitely things to
be concerned about, would a Supreme Court with Trump nominee's really roll
back gay and reproductive rights? Who would have standing to bring a case
before the supreme court that could roll back gay rights? Also, the supreme
court has been more conservative for a while and nothing has really happened
with reproductive rights. I don't see Roe v Wade being overturned anytime in
the near future.

~~~
saalweachter
The fear stems from the replacement after Scalia -- if Ginsberg is replaced
and Kennedy is no longer the median vote, the Court will take a sharp turn on
a lot of social issues.

~~~
nikomen
I agree that the Court will take a sharp turn on social issues. The question
still that remains will be what cases could be brought before the Court that
would actually give them the chance the overturn the previous rulings?

~~~
saalweachter
Typically the consequences of a Supreme Court ruling is that lower Courts
resolve the cases in the direction of the Supreme Court's ruling and if you
are foolish enough to appeal up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court simply
declines to hear it.

There is nothing preventing the Supreme Court from deciding to hear an appeal
(eg, of a Clerk who doesn't want to issue marriage licenses) and then issuing
an sweeping decision completely to the opposite of the new status quo.

That is the risk of relying on the Supreme Court to recognize unenumerated
rights; the recognition will only last as long as the Court remains favorable
to the right.

------
ThePhysicist
If the US withdraws from the Paris accord, other countries like China will
follow, as they will not want to be the ones that try to reduce emissions at
the price of being less competitive (in the short run) when one of the largest
economies in the world won't do it as well. And if the climate science
projections are accurate, we will miss the last window of opportunity to
reduce the heating and avoid the whole climate system tipping over. And with
the current power that the Republicans have and Trump's attitude towards
science it's highly unlikely that someone can stop them from going through
with this.

Seems it really was too good to be true.

~~~
pmyjavec
The US is not the only country that matters anymore, I don't think China will
pull out no matter what US does, they are smart enough to be making money from
building renewable tech for the world and onselling it. It's really in Chinese
interest to encourage the shift.

This is just another race the US is losing.

~~~
barney54
China is building 200 GW of coal by 2020 alone
[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-coal-
idUSKCN0Z...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-coal-
idUSKCN0ZT09B)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Since that article in July they've cancelled 60 coal plants, including many
that had already started construction. The capacity they've cancelled is equal
to the total coal capacity of the UK and Spain combined.

They've still got a long way to go, but the signs that they are turning the
ship are clear.

[http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-
crack...](http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crackdown-
cancel-new-power-plants/)

------
alexc05
> very strongly influenced by the “question authority” ethos of 1960s and ’70s
> counterculture

Sounds like he's really a shining example of those hippie ideals. Strike back
at "the man" and his regulations on behalf of those poor oppressed oil, gas
and, coal corporations.

Pardon my language here, since I think of hacker news as a place for
intelligent and respectful discussion, but, _fuck_

~~~
KirinDave
The way they sell this is by appealing directly to the people losing what
amounted to very high paying but relatively unskilled jobs. Coal mining,
working on an oil platform, working in a refinery, etc.

That's why people believe this rhetoric even though it seems absurd on its
face. They see the faces of people who have lost jobs that is largely obscured
from other parts of America because it's of the geographic distribution of
signed paychecks to the American middle and lower class.

To defeat that rhetoric over the next 2 years, liberals and socialists need to
find a story for how they're going to solve that problem and preserve a
livelihood for folks suffering.

And to be honest, that's a wee bit frustrating because as a whole millennials
are already tackling these economic challenges without the safety net of a
massive lobby, while being told they're lazy and valueless, and often with
crippling student debt for a poorly conducted degree. But a vote is a vote,
and not every citizen can or will vote against direct self-interest on moral
grounds.

~~~
diyorgasms
Frankly, we had the candidate to address this. Taxpayer-funded education would
have allowed these otherwise useless people to gain useful skills.

I fear from now until the world becomes uninhabitable through climate change
that these useless people will remain useless and keep voting in fascists and
ultranationalists that will quite literally destroy the planet out of spite
for the "elite" who were lucky and skilled enough to be useful to society.

~~~
KirinDave
Quite frankly, neither party has truly addressed public reeducation in a way
that is economically viable for adults losing their jobs. We aren't even
providing it to young people who ostensibly need it.

Until we have a way to offer adult education in a way that is financially
viable to individuals AND preserves their dignity and aligns with American
distaste for pure subsidy, this issue will be nothing but a token talking
point for both parties.

------
WheelsAtLarge
This is the stuff we should all be protesting. This is the type of appointment
that can be changed in no time if enough people make their thoughts known.
Come on all let the powers that be know that you don't like the choice.

~~~
jrheard
How should we go about doing this? Do we call a congressperson, or do
something else?

~~~
WheelsAtLarge
This is a presidential appointment and the senate needs to approve it. Let
your senator know how you feel about it. Also, let president Elect Trump know
about your feelings and he might even back down on the selection. If anything
is important this is. What the US does in this area influences what the rest
of the world does. Also we, as a nation, are a chief producer of green house
gasses.

We are suppose to be the smart ones, the doers, the dreamers. Prove it! DO
SOMETHING to change the world.

~~~
jrheard
Thank you, I'll call my senator!

------
StreamBright
I don't think that climate change is something that you can believe in. You
can acknowledge or deny its existence but certainly cannot believe in it.

The problem with the coal and fossil fuels is that we use a technology to
produce energy that is literally 400,000 years old. We have the new technology
ready (nuclear power) yet we stick to this old, polluting tech. This is
insane.

~~~
joggery
Yes, we need to expand nuclear, develop new nuclear technologies and agree
upon a target global temperature. Sooner rather than later.

~~~
sverige
The problem with nukes is the required long-term storage of the byproducts.
Ask the people who live near the salt mines in New Mexico.

~~~
giardini
Yep.

I once believed that salt mines were a perfect storage place for
environmental/nuclear crap. That is, until I read

"Salt: A World History" by Mark Kurlansky

[https://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-History-Mark-
Kurlansky/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-History-Mark-
Kurlansky/dp/0142001619)

British towns in the 19th century collapsed when salt miners removed
subterranean salt by pumping water in and brine out:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+mining+in+19th+century+...](https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+mining+in+19th+century+collapse&tbm=isch&sa=G&hl=en&gbv=1&sei=nEAnWNqpB8TUmwGDiIS4Bg)

Here's a nice picture(scroll down to see the leaning houses):

[http://nbgecko.blogspot.com/2012/10/wadihs-weekend-
part-2.ht...](http://nbgecko.blogspot.com/2012/10/wadihs-weekend-part-2.html)

Turns out that if you pour water into a salt deposit, dissolve the salt and
pump out the brine, the terrain above may collapse (salt columns were
supporting it). Any remaining brine not pumped to the surface may travel who-
knows-where underground to dissolve other salt deposits.

England went through decades of lawsuits and legislation wherein landowners
cried for recompense of their collapsed lands from salt producers. The salt
producers claimed it wasn't their mining that caused the collapses and the
landowners usually lost.

Fast forward to oil/gas fracking in Texas, Oklahoma and other states:

most gas/oil deposits are under salt domes. Fracking injects water (and other
chemicals) into the subterranean structures, the salt dissolves and the
oil/gas is freed to rise. As in England, the brine that is not removed is free
to travel miles underground, removing structure that has lain dormant for eons
and collapsing the land above. But fracking also uses chemicals, not merely
brine, and so the chance of pollution (esp. of water wells) is increased. The
frackers say it does no harm. But funny sounds are coming from below and
fracking chemicals are showing up in places (e.g., water wells) where they are
not wanted:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+chemicals+migrate&b...](https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+chemicals+migrate&btnG=Search&hl=en)

~~~
selimthegrim
One famous most recent case:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayou_Corne_sinkhole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayou_Corne_sinkhole)

------
struct
We are so screwed.

Edit: we've known about the greenhouse effect since Victorian times, why is
this still so controversial?

~~~
dboreham
Because: money

~~~
avisser
Because: externalized costs

------
shoefly
Defeat ignorance with cleverness. Create a solution that is far superior to
what coal and oil have to offer. Make it so affordable that you cut the coal
industry off at the knees without relying on politicians to get the job done.

This site is full of very smart people. Get this shit done!

~~~
kristjansson
Enter fracked natural gas, stage left.

------
jostylr
The climate change cheat sheet embedded in that article was rather
interesting. In addition to stating what we know, it also suggests some
personal actions, actions which have been routinely ignored by the population
for many years. A couple of quick examples: reduce flights and reduce eating
beef.

Instead of having a paternalistic government claim to solve our problems, we
can do so. This election might just be a sufficient catalyst to make things
happen.

Also don't forget the power to not purchase from companies based on what they
are doing and who they are working with.

It is easy to get outraged and for some it is even easy to take dangerous
actions, but to deprive oneself of what we want in the hope that others will
do the same, that, that is hard.

~~~
tree_of_item
Yeah right, like a couple of private citizens not eating beef anymore is going
to put a dent in climate change. We _need_ governments to solve this, because
they are the only entities big enough to actually affect this sort of large
scale problem.

~~~
everfree
If hypothetically half of the US stopped eating beef today, that would make a
huge positive impact on the US climate footprint. It wouldn't matter if the
change were instigated by the government or by the people.

~~~
Luc
If my grandma had wheels...

There's some small, temporary reductions in meat consumption in some
countries, leveraging religious traditions, and appealing to health reasons.

Maybe, possibly, over many generations, it could work to significantly reduce
overall meat consumption. Maybe.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Use CRISPR, devise a gene driver using a virus to sterilize cattle, distribute
widely. No more cows. It violates no law.

This is already in the field for mosquito control.

------
0xcafecafe
Meanwhile in India renewables are outpacing coal...

[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables-
Are-...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables-Are-
Outpacing-Coal-in-India)

~~~
SCdF
Man I hope so. ~30% of Indians are without power[1], and I hear they have a
lot of coal naturally, so if they're not careful they could be a large growing
source of problems in the future as they grid up. It's good to hear that both
India and China seem to be taking climate change seriously.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-
without-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-without-
power/)

(edited to add link to power fact)

~~~
landhar
Why is this comment being downvoted? Is it because the facts are wrong or
because he didn't provide references?

------
jrheard
What can citizens do about this? Trump hates women, so I'll donate to PP.
Trump hates minorities, so I'll donate to the ACLU. Trump hates the actual
physical earth - so what do I do about that?

~~~
0xcafecafe
You can donate to people who can take you to Mars

~~~
yoz-y
How screwed up would the Earth need to be for this to be remotely an option
though?

~~~
finid
At the rate we're messing up this planet, we'll need to find another planet
real fast - relatively speaking, off course.

But have no bother, it won't be in your lifetime. Not this lifetime anyway.

~~~
tlrobinson
The thing that puzzles me about this argument is any planet we find is likely
to have a worse atmosphere than even a polluted Earth. If we're able to
terraform Mars or whatever then we can likely also reverse the effects of
global warming on Earth.

------
Pxtl
"Climate contrarian?". That article was far too diplomatic about a man who
stands against scientific consensus and _for_ a global catastrophe.

------
pragone
It's worth pointing out that coal is not coming back. Far too much of industry
has moved on and converted to natural gas based supply. Not to mention the
costs of starting up coal mines and processing again. In the current energy
market, it's rather unfathomable.

------
colmvp
Is there a difference in being the leader of an agency and leading the
transition at an agency? Because the latter is what he is labeled as which
makes it seems like it's a fairly temporary role.

~~~
justin66
Cabinet positions are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
Right now, he's just some guy.

------
jhallenworld
This reminds me of James G. Watt- Regan's secretary of interior. He believed
it was pointless to worry about the environment since the Lord's second coming
was nigh.

------
ww520
Trump is a businessman by training. Business pivots a lot. He will probably
try different things and pivot as needed in his administration. I'm sure
nothing is cast in stone. With enough opposition, he will change his
appointment.

He fired his campaign manager for poor result in the primary and brought on a
new one who brought success to his campaign. I'm sure he will fire a number of
people in the coming days.

~~~
yolesaber
He fired that campaign manager (Corey Lewandowski) so that he could work for
CNN and essentially be the Trump talking head.

Also Trump is probably going to rehire him -
[http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/12/corey-lewandowski-donald-
trum...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/12/corey-lewandowski-donald-trumps-
former-campaign-manager-leaves-cnn.html)

~~~
ww520
Corey is much more effective as a campaign manager than a token guy in CNN. He
got fired because of the loss of Colorado delegates without voting in the
primary. Conway proved to be a better campaign manager anyway, leading to a
successful presidential bid.

The point is Trump fires people for poor performance, and he is not afraid to
pivot.

~~~
yolesaber
He is also not afraid to let the KKK march in his name either.

For the record Trump has denounced the protests against him, but not the many
white supremacy marches across the country

------
madaxe_again
I'm sure he _does_ believe in it - as I'm sure many who are "climate deniers"
in positions of power do, but the profit motive to get _others_ to not believe
in it is simply too strong for a man of wretched morals.

I mean, one can make the rational (with a rather callous set of precepts)
argument that if it happens after you're dead it doesn't matter - I had this
argument made to me by a hedge fund owner/manager last year who I queried over
his heavy investment in fossils - he is essentially looking to make a fortune
and isn't concerned about the "far future".

Where things will get interesting is when these figures realise that it isn't
far future, it's going to impact _their_ quality of life - but by then it'll
likely be too late.

~~~
TorKlingberg
Or they assume that they and their families will be rich enough to avoid the
consequences of climate change. Which is probably true.

~~~
madaxe_again
I'm not sure any amount of wealth will be enough, ultimately. You can't eat
gold, and if we end up with mass displacement of people, we either go
totalitarian or anarchy as the ship sinks.

I don't think _any_ of us will get out.

------
dylandrop
If this scares you, consider donating.

[http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/](http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/)

(I posted this as a reply to one of the comments but I want to make sure it's
seen, given the gravity of the situation.)

------
joantune
I just watched Before the Flood, and then right after I see this trending
here.. god help us..

------
danielnaab
Trump won't listen to traditional environmental groups. I think what is needed
is for a right-wing organization to offer a conservative non-denier as an
alternative, and mount a large public campaign to pressure Trump to change
course.

Perhaps the scariest part of Trump is that he is such an unknown blank slate,
but that also offers an opportunity if we recognize it.

I'm contacting my Republican Senator and making an, admittedly, futile attempt
to appeal to his reason. Please consider doing the same:
[http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/](http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/)

------
roryisok
This kind of thing is what scares me most about a trump presidency (that and
wondering what kind of over the top candidates are going to appear in three
years to try and imitate his success) but I'm trying really hard to be
positive and see a way out for the climate, and I only see two options

1\. Green energy becomes so much more competitive than fossil that trump and
his cronies have to do a 180

2\. Millions more people worldwide are inspired to go green and start
generating their own green power, through wind and solar technology like musks
roof tiles.

Preferably both, otherwise it's goodbye civilisation in the next 50-100 years.

I have to try and be an optimist

~~~
lucaspiller
#2 isn't going to happen anytime soon. Governments worldwide are cutting
funding and subsidies for micro generation, and even though it could lead to a
small profit over time, nobody wants to pay say $20k upfront[0] to have a
solar system fitted.

Its kind of funny, because if we paid more in the short term we could do a lot
to limit climate change, and even reduce energy costs in the future - but
everyone just wants everything as cheap as possible now.

[0] Although I have seen companies offering to install panels on your
property, which they own, then they pay you a % of the profits from energy
generated.

------
sn9
> “I really think that people should be suspicious of authority,” he told an
> interviewer last year. “The more you’re told that you have to believe
> something, the more you should question it.”

This amounts to a sort of intellectual homeopathy when it comes to dismissing
the scientific consensus on an issue without commensurate evidence.

------
patrickg_zill
Why is it that I can't download all the relevant climate data, and all the
mathematical models of climate, and run the scenario myself?

It's all government funded, so why isn't it open and available?

------
kapauldo
The inmates have taken over the asylum.

------
trashtoss
Back in the cold war days it was something of a banal truism that only an
objective, external threat--e.g. alien invaders--could ever get us squabbling
apes to set our differences aside and work together towards some common goal.

It is very likely that within a decade the effects of climate change will go
from "scientists arguing" to "transparent to everyone".

Although this will not exactly be "alien invaders"\--"real life godzilla"
seems closer to the mark--civilization as we know it will be faced with an
external threat that cares not for what we think--indeed, that cannot be
bargained with--but only for how we act (and indeed, if we act).

If nothing else that thought experiment will become a real experiment soon; I
hope we make it through.

One thing to consider is how much uglier our national discourse will likely
become. For example, the narrative around our recent election seems to be
settling around a rejection of urban and coastal elites and experts: middle
america is tired of being ignored, insulted, condescended-to, looked down upon
as ignorant yokels, and so on and so forth..."show us and our opinions some
respect", they say, electing the man who's now appointing the man who's going
to (literally) slam the pedal to the metal while (figuratively) rolling coal
all the way.

I wonder how these people will wind up being thought-of once climate change
goes from _deniable_ \--as it is now, at least domestically--to _undeniable_
(as it certainly will, and likely soon).

I mean, seriously: if for forty years you've been warned by experts that
continuing to do X will eventually lead to Y, you continue to do X, and it
eventually leads to Y...how can you reasonably expect anyone to respect you?
To consider your opinions worth the time and energy even to listen to, let
alone take into consideration? Why should you _not_ expect to be seen as
anything other than an _idiot_ in the classical sense ("incapable of useful
reasoning; danger to self and others")?

I do not expect this to end well--culturally and socially--and expect it will
play out far uglier than the dust bowl...

I also think readers on this site vastly underestimate how radically the world
will shift once change becomes undeniable; the default assumption seems to be
that things will generally continue as they always have right up until it gets
so bad it's game over for everyone.

In reality, as soon as it climate change begins having undeniable impacts
expect a radical changes in financial behavior...which will likely have
direct, pervasive impact upon daily life well in advance of the _direct_
impacts of climate change proper.

Will the 30-year mortgage remain typical for home purchases? Will 5-year
commercial leases remain typical? Will it remain possible to price weather
derivatives accurately enough to be viable? Will SV angels continue hobby-
investing in high-risk, high-reward gambles, or turn their attention to second
homes in northern latitudes?

I can only see a move to shorter time horizons and more risk aversion from the
private sector.

------
dec0dedab0de
jrcii was not downvoted. it is a banned account, and you are seeing it because
you have "show dead" enabled.

~~~
giardini
Thank you.

I looked at jrcii's account and see what you describe: jrcii was feeling his
oats after the elections and took a Trumpic victory lap by posting a pretty
snarky comment on YC. In that comment jrcii disses:

climate warning, "Silicon Valley people, LA people, NYC people, city people,
liv[ing] in a bubble formed by the urban politics around you and reinforced by
liberal college professors, the liberal students they create, and the liberal
mass media. This is simply not reality for vast swaths of the country."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12917083](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12917083)

OK, so he does this once, just once. There's no pattern of misbehavior. He
didn't threaten anyone (no "Second Amendment People" comin'!). For all we know
he's the last conservative in SF and needs to blow off steam.

YC is a great forum. I think it harsh for a techie to be banned for a single
scattergun comment especially after a heated election. I would think a caution
would be better at this juncture, or even some ribbing: "OK, we hear you
celebrating! Your guy won this time. But soon we'll find out whether he can
ride the horse!" or such.

~~~
sctb
I'm not sure why you think that account was banned for a single comment. When
we ban accounts we almost always do so after repeated warnings, and then we
post about why we've done it:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12703655](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12703655).

~~~
giardini
My bad and I apologize for the oversight. When I reviewed jrcii's comments I
failed to notice the "More" link at bottom of the first page and there is
indeed a bit "More" to read!8-O

I appreciate your thoroughness.

jrcii is indeed a bit sensitive. From the nature of his last post, I suspect
he regrets being banned from YC, where he was active for almost two years. Too
bad.

------
marcoperaza
I don't care what they do or don't believe in.

Will they build out nuclear power? If yes, then good.

Will they engage in feel-good unilateral emissions cuts that hurt our economy
and don't do anything about climate change? If no, then good.

~~~
alexc05
Actually, it sounds like he might be moving towards a situation where "we"
burn a lot more coal, do a lot more fracking and, do a lot more of the things
that generally release carbon into the atmosphere.

That actually is a very bad thing.

Potentially increasing emissions during a time when _not cutting them deep
enough_ represents a catostrophic risk, is a really bad thing.

