Hacker News Reader

Comment by tlack | Hacker News Reader

He doesn't seem totally opposed to renewable energy sources:

"It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption."

From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-president-ele...

View on HN

if you have been paying attention to what he says, then you would have heard that he is incredibly against renewable energy sources, especially wind (he has a major grudge against wind farms ever since his battle with them in Scotland)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop-wind-...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/22/trump-re...

it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him. but his pronouncements against renewables and his penchant for "clean" coal, opening up drilling on public lands, fracking, etc. is crystal clear

> it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him.

I think it's more that he knows his audience. He isn't going to talk up renewable in coal mining areas for instance. He isn't talking to the media, he's talking around them.

Agreed. I don't think he has any discernible political position. That would be too constraining. He's a salesmen and a deal maker. He's going to say what he needs to get support, then make hay while the sun shines. He and Musk will get along fine. They're peers. If there's a way to make money, increase economic growth, or otherwise trade the currency of Musk's brand, Trump will totally use it imo. Then he'll explain why it's the right thing to do to his followers and they'll be all in.

His positions were pretty clear. He's for all forms of energy, including coal. Wind too, but just not around his golf courses.

he doesn't know or care about any policy. just took every republican policy and took it to its farrest extent to get votes.

> I think it's more that he knows his audience. He isn't going to talk up renewable in coal mining areas for instance.

That's what makes this so interesting, his audience is now the whole country and now he actually has to do something.

I recall earlier this year Musk on stage asked about the Presidential election. He was extremely careful about picking his words and at no time bashed or even mentioned Trump. There shouldn't be any bad blood there.

> he only truly cares about himself

that's one hell of a claim

He exhibits all the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. These people, by definition, only care about themselves.

One of the criteria for a mental illness is that it's negatively affecting your ability to work, have social relationships, etc.

Trump just got elected President of the United States; it is not negatively affecting him. And people who work around him seem to like him.

The people who are left around him, perhaps - there's been pretty high attrition over the course of the campaign. And (sample size of 1) the only person I know personally who has worked with Trump did not like the experience.

>it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for...

>he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him... and his penchant for "clean" coal is crystal clear

Which is it? It's hard to pin down what he stands for, or is it crystal clear?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. One can be notoriously difficult to pin down in general and yet clear on a few things.

You should put the "..." in brackets or even replace it with the original text, because you edited out the word "but".

Stands for: ambitious. Against: crystal clear.

doesn't seem like you actually read what I wrote but here's a relevant article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/19/do...

It will be very interesting to watch the country for next few years.

The biggest difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama was just working for some law firm and happened to be a senator from Illinois when his movement took off. He didn't have any strong grudges against people or companies more than me or you. Trump is different. He once purchased a property next to airport for the whole purpose of suing that airport for the noise levels. After he lost 2 times, he sold the property. This is someone that will go after you time and time just because he can shell out sometimes not his money to use court system against you. When he settles, he call it "winning", when others settle he call them "losing".

I don't see this administration having large scandals like Obama did where clearly his buddies are making billions of dollars either in solar or healthcare, etc. I think Trump will make some progress for USA with his business experience, but unless he can change 180 overnight (doubt), I'm sure we will see a few scandals where he uses his presidential position and/or government apparatus such as IRS/DEA/FBI to go after those selected few individuals/companies who he couldn't digest over the years... that I can bet on!

>...it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for...

He was pretty clear about it. He's for wind energy, just not on his golf course.

“The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that.”

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wi...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/19/do...

Trump also said Wind farms are bad because it kills birds.

> He doesn't seem totally opposed to renewable energy sources:

He has a professional climate change denier[1] being trial-ballooned to run the EPA.

I think of all the question marks about Trumps seriousness and commitment to specific policy areas (and there are lots -- the guy is a blank slate), environmental issues are the least uncertain. The guy is a straight up head-in-the-sand opponent of anything that looks or smells like it might be one of those hippie "clean" things.

[1] Literally! Myron Ebell's day job is to write papers for a conservative think tank "debunking" climate science.

Trump is bad for the environment (then again, all Presidents have been bad for the environment--nobody has the balls to do what needs to be done), but there are some bright sides. If you look at environmental harms in dollar terms, climate change isn't actually the most harmful thing: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/External_costs_of_coal.

Per kilowatt hour of coal-powered electricity, air pollution generates about three times more environmental externalities than the climate change effect. The effects of mining in Appalachia is significantly more harmful too.

Climate change is a sexy issue, but health damage from air pollutants tends to cause more actual health damage. Water pollution is a bigger issue too: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-editorials/very.... Ideally we'd address all three, but as a practical matter no U.S. President will take more than symbolic steps towards fixing climate change anyway.

It's not just presidents that don't have the balls, it's also consumers and other policy makers.

You do what you can.

Left my reusable plastic shopping bags at home again, so I took some out of the plastic bag recycling bin in the shopping centre. So then one of the staff from rhe supermarket told me I can take bags out of the plastic bag recycling bin because they belong to the company who recycles them.

What?

So, the situation we find ourselves in here is going to take some leadership.

> Climate change is a sexy issue, but health damage from air pollutants tends to cause more actual health damage.

Except that climate change will ultimately lead to absolute health damage for planet and all of its occupants.

That makes it way more important than health damage in the here and now, even though that's obviously easier to see and relate to.

You can grow new people (and voters). Takes about 18 years. However, making a new planet, or dropping the ocean levels, takes orders of magnitude longer.

Yes, he has said things that are very pro-renewable. Even his pro-coal stance is pro "clean" coal. A "clean" requirement for coal-based energy sources will effectively make it less economically viable relative to other energy sources.

Of course, he has also said some stupid things that are very anti-renewable when he has been in front of audiences that wanted to hear that (some parts of his base).

Which Donald Trump is real Donald Trump? We will find out in time.

Forgive me for my skepticism, but "clean" coal is now the preferred nomenclature by most coal proponents, including those who have no intention of incurring a 30% efficiency tax on coal consumers. It is as meaningful as "natural" is on a food label.

>Which Donald Trump is real Donald Trump?

The one that wants all forms of energy? Because that would make the most economic sense. Let the market compete.

The market only cares about profit, they don't care about the environment or the future beyond seeing growth in the next quarter.

Letting market compete means dialing back the net metering, discounts, cashbacks and preferential treatment for renewables, which in turn means huge decrease of their allure, which in turn means less of renewables

Not like I'm particularly sad, watching Germany fuck itself up so bad with renewables :/ (Price of electricy at least doubled), grid requires massive investments all the time (also, Germany had to decouple from Austria because they caused massive strain on countries in between due to volatility in Germany), the per year energy produced is still barely worth mentioning and the best part is, they effectively increased the emissions, since any energy intensive industry is long gone and relocated to China where it runs on coal PP with way lower emission standards

> Yes, he has said things that are very pro-renewable. Even his pro-coal stance is pro "clean" coal. A "clean" requirement for coal-based energy sources will effectively make it less economically viable relative to other energy sources.

How is removing regulations from the EPA going to focus on "clean" coal? Trump is going to remove regulations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com