4 ms·

Donald Trump is a problem, yes, although arguably for bigger reasons than just his stance on climate change. Ted Cruz is from Texas, so... :). I'm not sure whe

Donald Trump is a problem, yes, although arguably for bigger reasons than just his stance on climate change. Ted Cruz is from Texas, so... :). I'm not sure where you get the impression that Hillary Clinton thinks climate change is "not a problem". Her website certainly states otherwise: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

cryptoz 10y ago
Hillary Clinton profits directly from oil companies. She can say what she likes on her website, but her entire presidential campaign seems bent on doing the exact opposite. She is in favor of creating new technologies and building new infrastructure that will increase our greenhouse gas output. She is in favor of investing our time and money into creating new oil and gas energy systems. Her campaign finances are a good indicator of how she will act if she is elected - much better than what her website says right now, or at any time. If she wants to really stand behind what that page says, she should stand up and say: "Oil companies are destroying our planet's life and our health here in the USA. I will no longer take money from them. I will no longer vouch for new oil technologies." And then she should do those things. Until then, her website is probably full of lies and I do not trust her word at all.
- yuzi 10y ago
  I'm not a fan of the clintons, reading about the whitewater scandal was enough for me to determine there's corruption abound with them; and I also support reducing oil consumption and further taxing of oil companies, but I have to say the arguments you outlined are not that good. 1. New technology leads to greater efficiency therefore reduces carbon output - So what's wrong with that? And Obama proved blocking pipelines does not stop the oil from flowing - right? 2. Taking money from oil companies doesn't mean much other than she's not anti-oil, which as a leader who understands the current dilemma, is probably not all that bad. Obama came out of his first election pumping money into coal which was just a waste of money. Obama blocked keystone yes, but that just pushed it through via train cars and trucking (which adds more pollution). Also, Oilsands production only dropped by 0.1 percent during the whole price plummet, so not much happened there- did it? So was Obama a good investment on that front? If you want to change the world for the better we, the people of the world, have to stop choosing to consume so much of it, but no one wants to discuss that, not even in politics.

cryptoz 10y ago

Hillary Clinton profits directly from oil companies. She can say what she likes on her website, but her entire presidential campaign seems bent on doing the exact opposite. She is in favor of creating new technologies and building new infrastructure that will increase our greenhouse gas output. She is in favor of investing our time and money into creating new oil and gas energy systems. Her campaign finances are a good indicator of how she will act if she is elected - much better than what her website says right now, or at any time. If she wants to really stand behind what that page says, she should stand up and say: "Oil companies are destroying our planet's life and our health here in the USA. I will no longer take money from them. I will no longer vouch for new oil technologies." And then she should do those things. Until then, her website is probably full of lies and I do not trust her word at all.

yuzi 10y ago
I'm not a fan of the clintons, reading about the whitewater scandal was enough for me to determine there's corruption abound with them; and I also support reducing oil consumption and further taxing of oil companies, but I have to say the arguments you outlined are not that good. 1. New technology leads to greater efficiency therefore reduces carbon output - So what's wrong with that? And Obama proved blocking pipelines does not stop the oil from flowing - right? 2. Taking money from oil companies doesn't mean much other than she's not anti-oil, which as a leader who understands the current dilemma, is probably not all that bad. Obama came out of his first election pumping money into coal which was just a waste of money. Obama blocked keystone yes, but that just pushed it through via train cars and trucking (which adds more pollution). Also, Oilsands production only dropped by 0.1 percent during the whole price plummet, so not much happened there- did it? So was Obama a good investment on that front? If you want to change the world for the better we, the people of the world, have to stop choosing to consume so much of it, but no one wants to discuss that, not even in politics.