“Climate Change” Purged From White House Website
From an Article by Andy Rowell, Oil Change International, January 22, 2017
Women & Families are speaking out!
As the Trump Administration Sunday descended into a farce of “alternative facts” to try and argue that there had been historic numbers at the new President’s inauguration, it is quite clear “alternative” and blatantly bogus facts, will be used on energy and climate too.
Within minutes of the president being inaugurated on Friday, the White House’s webpage got a make-over, reflecting Trump’s post-truth, pro-oil agenda.
The White House removed pretty much all references to climate change.
Out went Obama’s message on climate change, where you could see the ex-president saying “our children, and our children’s children, will look at us in the eye and they’ll ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safe [sic], more stable world?”
That box has now been deleted and replaced by Trump’s “America First Energy Plan” which is an oilman’s Drill-baby-drill dream come true.
The page states:
“Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own.”
This pro-oil agenda is reflected in Trump’s proposed cabinet. Even the ever-impartial Financial Times noted that: “As Donald Trump moves into the White House, it would be hard to dream up a cabinet friendlier to fossil fuels.”
Such is the optimism about Trump from fossil fuel investors that since his election, investors have pumped nearly $4 billion into the U.S. energy sector.
But whilst the President might be able to ignore climate change on paper and by the people he picks for his cabinet, he will not be able to ignore climate change in the real world.
Trump’s energy plan concludes with the concept of “a brighter future depends on policies that stimulate our economy, ensure our security and protect our health.”
As Newsweek points out:
“The missing piece is a plan to address climate change. The future will not be brighter if the coasts are inundated by rising sea levels. Florida could be hit hard, as could Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach. Separated from the mainland by the Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach is only seven feet above sea level. If Trump wants a brighter future, perhaps he should move to higher ground.”
Likewise, Trump may want to drill every last drop of oil and gas from under U.S. lands, but this may not be as easy as he thinks.
For a Billionaire businessman it seems Trump does not understand simple supply and demand economics.
Once again the Financial Times is skeptical: “The idea that expanding where companies can drill, easing the process of getting a permit and scrapping efforts to curb carbon emissions ‘will unleash an energy revolution,’ as the Trump transition website put it, is untested. If more supplies do flow, they could depress energy prices and punish investors.”
The more shale that is produced, the more it will undermine coal. If Trump subsidies coal, it will undermine shale. The majority of shale is on private land and not on federal land. That is subject to jurisdiction from the states, rather than the Federal Government.
Trump may want to try and undo Obama’s legacy on climate, but the Financial Times argues this could take “years to undo.” Trump’s rhetoric maybe simple, but life is more complicated in the real world.
And Trump will face huge pressure from the international community on climate too. Xie Zhenhua, the veteran Chinese climate negotiator said last week: “The international community and U.S. citizens will pressure the Trump Administration to continue clean energy policies.”
The person they would lobby is the U.S. Secretary of State. Later today, Rex Tillerson, the ex-Exxon boss could be approved for that post.
Yes, we face the most pro-fossil fuel cabinet in generations. But every day the resistance to this extreme Trump agenda grows stronger. Just witness the amazing scenes from the women’s marches last Saturday from around the world. Look at those pictures and draw hope.
See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net
Point Your RSS Reader to FrackCheckWV.net/feed/
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
The Math Doesn’t Add Up
Commentary by Emma Merchant, The Grist News, January 20, 2017
Trump’s new energy plan doesn’t add up. Minutes after the 45th president was sworn in today, mentions of climate change were scrubbed from the White House website (Obama’s pages were archived) and an “America First Energy Plan” surfaced.
According to Trump’s ominously named plan, axing Obama-era climate regulations would return $30 billion in wages to U.S. workers. But that plan ignores a significant factor in determining the cost of cutting those regulations.
Here, we need to explain a little thing called the social cost of carbon. It’s used to calculate the damage that climate change does to society through things like natural disasters and higher health care costs. Earlier this month, the National Academies of Science recommended a recalculation of that cost. It currently stands around $36 per ton. Some scientists argue it should be as high as $220.
The Obama administration used this metric as a central part of crafting new regulations. But Trump could disregard the social cost of carbon — potentially suspending it while it’s recalculated under conservative rubrics, as Bloomberg reports.
One way to lower the cost would be to ignore the impacts of climate change outside of the United States, even though we’re talking about global warming. Welcome to the America First age.
>>> Emma Foehringer Merchant is a Reporter-Researcher for the New Republic. She works on fact-checking and writing and is especially interested in environmental and social justice issues.