4 ms·

Why not target oil/coal/all energy sources to remove the obvious bias?

by 0wing 9y ago

wil421 9y ago
Because it’s easier to incentivize Renewable Energy than it would be to battle the oil giants. I see it as a win for both sides. Dems get to put on show that they care about the planet. Trump gets to put on a show he’s saving the planet and American manufacturing.
- oh-kumudo 9y ago
  Or because Trump and his campaign take huge money from the oil companies? It is a win-win for Trump, he can boast himself about protecting US jobs and interests of his money donors.
  - wil421 9y ago
    Acting as if it’s only Trump or even republicans taking oil money is short sighted. Obama could’ve done the same? Actually he decided to lift a ban on Crude Oil exports. The oil from shale and fracking that flooded the markets in the past years.
    - thephyber 9y ago
      > Actually he decided to lift a ban on Crude Oil exports. The oil from shale and fracking that flooded the markets in the past years. Obama's admin was more tempered when it came to oil+gas+petrol+coal. The admin increased exports, but it also restrained oil exploration in US waters (especially after Deepwater Horizon) and didn't open exploration to most of Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or just rubberstamp the Keystone XL pipeline (ironically the smaller Keystone pipeline had a fairly large spill the same week as the Trump admin approved the Keystone XL). That's not to say that the Obama Admin was nearly as "anti-oil" as it was portrayed in conservative-biased news. They were remarkably accommodating when the cost-benefit analysis was positive for the country.
  - didgeoridoo 9y ago
    The oil & gas industry gave almost exactly the same amount of money to Trump and Clinton: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U&mem=Y&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&re...
    - chc 9y ago
      I don't see how the fact that they gave money to both major candidates is supposed to dispel the idea that they get favorable treatment because they try to buy favor. If anything, it supports the idea (since otherwise you'd expect them only to give to the side they liked better).
  - seabird 9y ago
    If you think pittance bribes from oil companies is enough to sway Trump, you're likely mistaken. Realistic valuations put him at around $2-3 billion, and a large majority of his campaign was self-funded or from small individual donors. No petrol donor will be able to discreetly donate more than he can make just having a portion of his wealth track the market. There's a lot of things to be said about Trump and economic protectionism, but saying it's entirely fueled by donor pressure is oversimplifying the situation.
    - civilitty 9y ago
      > and a large majority of his campaign was self-funded or from small individual donors. Source, please? Given the absurd amount of corruption going on in the administration (i.e. the missing inaugural funds and Mar-a-lago vacations, to name just a tiny fraction) and Trump's own charities, I find the idea that he spent even a penny of his own money on his campaign laughable based on first principles. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, other than his own patently unreliable rhetoric.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        Maybe the idea is that the oil companies have to get in line behind all the other awful people paying exorbitant prices to have their entire delegations stay at Trump hotels and resorts? "I'm making so much money from this new classy phenomenal corruption that everyone is talking about, that I can't even be arsed to worry about that other corruption that the Washington insiders like!"
      - PKop 9y ago
        https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-shatters-gop-records-with-small-donors-228338 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-shatters-gop-re... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/13/kayleigh-mcenany/trump-raised-more-dollars-small-donations/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/... "Trump received about $239 million from donors who gave less than $200 in total. That amounts to 69 percent of the Trump campaign’s individual contributions; Hillary Clinton received about $137 million from $200-or-under donors. That made up 22 percent of the campaign’s individual contributions;" https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/08/donald-trumps-campaign-investment-hit-66-million/95178392/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016... "President-elect Donald Trump didn't need $100 million of his money to win the White House in the end. Trump contributed another $10 million to his presidential campaign in the closing days of the election, bringing his total investment in the race to $66.1 million, new filings confirm."
durkie 9y ago
Because Suniva went out of business and complained about low foreign solar panel prices to the International Trade Commission.
rayiner 9y ago
Is China dumping subsidized oil/coal into the global market?
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Yes. Everyone is subsidizing fossil fuel production. Most countries agreed a few years ago that they were doing so and promised to stop, but little progress has been made on that. The IMF has some numbers here: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew0... About 7% of global GDP in subsidies. China is the highest by dollar amount, Ukraine highest per capita.

Why not target oil/coal/all energy sources to remove the obvious bias?

by 0wing 9y ago

Why not target oil/coal/all energy sources to remove the obvious bias?

Because it’s easier to incentivize Renewable Energy than it would be to battle the oil giants. I see it as a win for both sides. Dems get to put on show that they care about the planet. Trump gets to put on a show he’s saving the planet and American manufacturing.

oh-kumudo 9y ago
Or because Trump and his campaign take huge money from the oil companies? It is a win-win for Trump, he can boast himself about protecting US jobs and interests of his money donors.
- wil421 9y ago
  Acting as if it’s only Trump or even republicans taking oil money is short sighted. Obama could’ve done the same? Actually he decided to lift a ban on Crude Oil exports. The oil from shale and fracking that flooded the markets in the past years.
  - thephyber 9y ago
    > Actually he decided to lift a ban on Crude Oil exports. The oil from shale and fracking that flooded the markets in the past years. Obama's admin was more tempered when it came to oil+gas+petrol+coal. The admin increased exports, but it also restrained oil exploration in US waters (especially after Deepwater Horizon) and didn't open exploration to most of Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or just rubberstamp the Keystone XL pipeline (ironically the smaller Keystone pipeline had a fairly large spill the same week as the Trump admin approved the Keystone XL). That's not to say that the Obama Admin was nearly as "anti-oil" as it was portrayed in conservative-biased news. They were remarkably accommodating when the cost-benefit analysis was positive for the country.
- didgeoridoo 9y ago
  The oil & gas industry gave almost exactly the same amount of money to Trump and Clinton: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U&mem=Y&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&re...
  - chc 9y ago
    I don't see how the fact that they gave money to both major candidates is supposed to dispel the idea that they get favorable treatment because they try to buy favor. If anything, it supports the idea (since otherwise you'd expect them only to give to the side they liked better).
- seabird 9y ago
  If you think pittance bribes from oil companies is enough to sway Trump, you're likely mistaken. Realistic valuations put him at around $2-3 billion, and a large majority of his campaign was self-funded or from small individual donors. No petrol donor will be able to discreetly donate more than he can make just having a portion of his wealth track the market. There's a lot of things to be said about Trump and economic protectionism, but saying it's entirely fueled by donor pressure is oversimplifying the situation.
  - civilitty 9y ago
    > and a large majority of his campaign was self-funded or from small individual donors. Source, please? Given the absurd amount of corruption going on in the administration (i.e. the missing inaugural funds and Mar-a-lago vacations, to name just a tiny fraction) and Trump's own charities, I find the idea that he spent even a penny of his own money on his campaign laughable based on first principles. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, other than his own patently unreliable rhetoric.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Maybe the idea is that the oil companies have to get in line behind all the other awful people paying exorbitant prices to have their entire delegations stay at Trump hotels and resorts? "I'm making so much money from this new classy phenomenal corruption that everyone is talking about, that I can't even be arsed to worry about that other corruption that the Washington insiders like!"
    - PKop 9y ago
      https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-shatters-gop-records-with-small-donors-228338 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-shatters-gop-re... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/13/kayleigh-mcenany/trump-raised-more-dollars-small-donations/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/... "Trump received about $239 million from donors who gave less than $200 in total. That amounts to 69 percent of the Trump campaign’s individual contributions; Hillary Clinton received about $137 million from $200-or-under donors. That made up 22 percent of the campaign’s individual contributions;" https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/08/donald-trumps-campaign-investment-hit-66-million/95178392/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016... "President-elect Donald Trump didn't need $100 million of his money to win the White House in the end. Trump contributed another $10 million to his presidential campaign in the closing days of the election, bringing his total investment in the race to $66.1 million, new filings confirm."

durkie 9y ago

Because Suniva went out of business and complained about low foreign solar panel prices to the International Trade Commission.

rayiner 9y ago

Is China dumping subsidized oil/coal into the global market?

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Yes. Everyone is subsidizing fossil fuel production. Most countries agreed a few years ago that they were doing so and promised to stop, but little progress has been made on that. The IMF has some numbers here: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew0... About 7% of global GDP in subsidies. China is the highest by dollar amount, Ukraine highest per capita.