WINNING: Trump removes global warming from Obama-era executive order

BY TIMOTHY CAMA

President Trump late Thursday replaced an executive order signed by former President Obama that sought to reduce federal agencies’ energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

The revocation came as part of a late-night executive order that instructs agencies to set their own goals for efficiency and “prioritize actions that reduce waste, cut costs, enhance the resilience of Federal infrastructure and operations, and enable more effective accomplishment of its mission.”

Obama signed the original order in 2015, with a goal of reducing the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent in a decade. It asked agencies to reduce buildings’ energy use by 2.5 percent per year, use clean energy for 25 percent of their energy needs and shrink water use by 36 percent.

Obama saw the measure as a key part of his pledge to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2030.

But Trump has dismantled Obama’s environmental and climate agenda piece by piece, including major regulations and the emissions-cut pledge.

Trump’s new order, signed Thursday, only asks agencies to set their own goals, and to track their progress toward them, replacing the prescriptive targets in the Obama order.

It also directs the heads of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget, both White House offices, to work to streamline the various energy and environmental requirements agencies must follow, in an attempt to make compliance more efficient.

Full story: 

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388293-trump-repeals-obama-policy-asking-federal-agencies-to-reduce

140 thoughts on “WINNING: Trump removes global warming from Obama-era executive order

  1. Instilling trust in your subordinates is the hallmark of good management.

    Brave move Donald.

    Bravo!

    • Plus, a focus on the actual bottom line:

      … prioritize actions that reduce waste, cut costs, enhance the resilience of Federal infrastructure and operations, and enable more effective accomplishment of its mission.

      Three cheers for common sense.

    • Yes, but heads are exploding in WDC, because he isn’t monitoring everything – every little thing – that they do! He’s letting the kids take some responsibility for what they do! Never HEARD of such a thing!!

    • This is a big mistake. What Trump needs to do is put money on the table for scientists to show CO2 is not dangerous.

      Trumps tenure will last 8 years at the most. Published science lasts for ever…

      As soon as Trump is gone the next left wing president will just bring back all the old GW crap.

      • There already is lots of science showing that CO2 isn’t dangerous.
        What makes you think twice as much won’t still be ignored?

      • Matt’s

        If Trump continues the way he’s going, there won’t be another democrat at the Whitehouse for a generation.

        And that’s an outsiders perception, from the UK.

        Can we borrow him for just a year, please?

    • Now get rid of the Endangerment Clause! CO2 is PLANT FOOD already! After that, get rid of ethanol!

      • There is nothing wrong with ethanol imo. Except on small engines. The industry is not subsidized and would stand on its own economic feet without the mandate. Granted that the mandate allows some older plants to keep operating when they should be replaced with new tech.
        And why not spread energy wealth around to rural areas.

        [Please stick with a single username per site policy. (i.e. “Winnipeg boy”) -Mod]

      • The mandate is the only reason why anyone buys that trash.
        More expensive and less energy content.

  2. Trump’s “executive order ….instructs agencies to set their own goals for efficiency and “prioritize actions that reduce waste, cut costs….”

    —————————————
    Government agencies spend as much as they can. If they don’t spend their whole budget they might not get as much next year. So Trump’s executive order is a joke and he knows it.

      • It’s rather sad that this site seems to celebrate what amounts to an encouragement to waste energy resources by a man whose main drive seems to be an obsession with negating anything Obama did.

      • “Trebla May 21, 2018 at 6:00 pm
        It’s rather sad that this site seems to celebrate what amounts to an encouragement to waste energy resources by a man whose main drive seems to be an obsession with negating anything Obama did”

        Multiple false strawman logical fallacies without merit, references or proof.

        “instructs agencies to set their own goals for efficiency and “prioritize actions that reduce waste, cut costs, enhance the resilience of Federal infrastructure and operations, and enable more effective accomplishment of its mission”

        1) Yup, no references to wasting energy.
        2) What amounts to direct orders for agencies to cut costs, reduce waste and enhance infrastructure and operations.
        3) refocus on agency/department missions, not spurious diversionary claims.

        Establish merit reviews that reward greater efficiency and for reducing waste and costs will counter the pre-existing government fiefdoms development, enlargement and waste.

        Exactly the opposite of claims by albert and trebla.

      • Trebla and fellow anti Trump folks. I see it possible to meet Obama’s targets but by a way that will cause more kiy yiying than we’ve ever seen before. Cut the gov workforce by 50%, contract out and have them deal with real issues. Get rid of the enormous redundancy that has been racked up by profligate governments over the past 50yrs and more. With the silly onerous regulations that have been piled on citizenry, trim these by about 50-60 %, they’ll even knock down their drinking water by a comensurate amount.

        That’s exactly what Trump is doing. See anything wrong with that? In Canada, a building contractors organization claims they could trim 25% off the cost of a new house simply by eliminating ridiculous regulations. They would still build a quality home without these time -wasting, unnecessary bureaucratic permitting processes and requirements.

      • “negating anything Obama did”

        Has Obama done anything good? (except delivery of HEU to Belgium)

      • The “person” who started with a personal attack whining about personal attacks.
        How precious.

      • If the only thing Trump did in 8 years was to negate everything Obama did, that would be enough to rank him as one of the best presidents ever.

      • The only unequivocally good thing Obama did was block the Clintons from getting back in the White House. Twice.

      • More false strawmen.

        Trump operates a very large international empire. That empire has never gone bankrupt.

        Trump’s various business dealings are classic business ventures.
        Whereas, Trump listens, accepts, and funds someone else’s idea for a business opportunity.

        That business operation is given a few years to make good.
        Run the business right into the ground and the executives get sent to unemployment while Trump recovers whatever costs possible.
        Fail to solidify and expand business profitability, and that portion of the business may get thrown into the bankruptcy process.

        In all the business failure cases, the failed chief executive gets fired.

        It is normal business where managers, executives and their ideas and efforts must prove themselves.

        Yet anti-Trumpers pathetically harp about a very few bankrupted and dismantled branches of a large diverse empire.

      • ROTFLMFAO @ ATheoK
        ..
        “very large international empire.”

        The large international empire is so big, vast and profitable that Trump will not release his tax returns.

        A wealthy patriotic person would be PROUD to release his/her tax returns to show the people how much they contribute to their country.

        Now, if that wealthy person would be embarrassed by how small a percentage of their income they pay as tax, maybe they’d refuse to release them. The poor working stiff that pays 20% would get mad.

      • “Trump’s various business dealings are classic business ventures.”

        Is it a classic business venture to pay a pornographic star lots of money to keep his/her mouth shut?

      • “that Trump will not release his tax returns.”

        And why would he? Where is the benefit for him?

      • HotScot, I am pretty sure that a man can pay to have her c*** open and her mouth shut.

      • Doubling the deficit via spending is OK.
        Increasing the deficit by taxing less if evil beyond measure.

      • Trunp chose to campaign in states that would make a difference. He could have got many more votes than he did in California if those potential voters thought they would make a difference. Of course it works both ways, but California is the largest state (by population) and so the effect is likely greatest there.

        Hiliary simply didn’t care to be seen much in the marginal rust belt states. Worse, along with Obama, she went out of her way to insult many potential voters there. Truly a Homer Simpson moment.

        It wasn’t the Russians or Comey that did it. It wasn’t small furry creatures from Alpha Centauiri that did it. She did it. To herself.

      • “Now, if that wealthy person would be embarrassed by how small a percentage of their income they pay as tax, maybe they’d refuse to release them. The poor working stiff that pays 20% would get mad”

        Not at all, Trump would be exceedingly proud of paying as little tax as legally allowed. That would be good business. Now if he payed enormously large sums of taxes, I could see him being embarrassed that he failed to take every legal tax advantage he could to reduce that. But the idea he’d be embarrasses about paying little in taxes is too funny. to quote the Donald on paying taxes:

        “I fight like hell to pay as little as possible for two reasons. Number one, I’m a businessman. And that’s the way you’re supposed to do it,” Trump said in an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “The other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes. I hate the way they waste our money. Trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse. And I hate it.”

      • paqyfelyc, I think you are missing the implication of what a porn star typically uses her open mouth for.

      • There are no working class stiff’s paying 20%. Somebody here doesn’t know the difference between tax rates and total tax bill.
        Regardless, the bottom 50% of the population pays about 1% of all income taxes paid. Yet the whiners feel that is too much.
        The top 5% pays about 50% of all income taxes paid, yet the whiners want it to be more.

        Liberalism is the belief that you are entitled to anything you want/need and that it’s someone else’s responsibility to pay for it.

      • That’s their tax bracket, it’s not what they are paying.

        They pay 10% on the first 9,524, then 12% on $9,525 to $38,699 and then 22% $38,700 to $82,499 (double those numbers for the married filing jointly). But then you also have to subtract the standard deduction and any other tax credit they may be eligible for.

        So someone making 50K would not have a tax bill of 11k (22% of 50k) as you assert by claiming they pay 22%. before considering deductions and credits, it’s a little less than 7k (14% of 50k) much less than that once the standard deduction and any applicable tax credits are factored in.

        I don’t blame you for not understanding that tax bracket does not equal what one pays in taxes since you are likely a non-taxpaying burden to society and thus never had to deal with paying taxes.

      • Endicott: “But then you also have to subtract the standard deduction and any other tax credit they may be eligible for.”

        Go back, and reread the link I provided. Note the column headings say “Taxable Income” That’s what you get taxed on, and is what is left over after exemptions, deductions and credits.

      • Go back and reread my post, you clearly didn’t understand it (just like you don’t understand how taxes work – obviously you are not a tax payer). I broke down for you how the tax rates compare to what one actually pays.

        and BTW you can’t even read the chart correctly as you claimed the 22% rate was (from $38,700 to $77,400) the 38,700 Is where it applies to single filers, the 77,400 is where it applies to married filers

        let me break my post down for you, I said “someone making 50K” IE that’s their salary *before* taxes. I then went to discuss how the rate in that table would apply to them ignoring anything else (like SD and credits). If we take the SD of 12K off before doing the calculations then they are tax rated on 38K (less than the 22% rate bracket of 38,700, so a 50K salary would be at the 12% bracket, not the 22% as you imply with your erroneous “from $38,700 to $77,400” comment). Tax credits get applied either before or after the calculation depending on what type of credit we are discussing so a bit more complicated to get into than a simple forum post so we can ignore those for now.

        But lets assume for the sake of argument 50K is the effective income after all deductions and credits rather than the total salary as my initial posting assumed. That person, as I previously pointed out, is not paying 22% (11K) they are actually paying approximately 14% (7K) because the tax brackets only apply to a portion of their income as follows:

        10% on 0$ to 9,524, (so max of $952.4 here)
        12% on $9,525 to $38,699 (so max of 3500.88 here)
        22% $38,700 to $82,499 (max here is 9635.77 on someone making 82,499, for our 50k person it’s 2486)

        952.4 + 3500.88 + 2486 = 6939.28 a little under 7K which is 14% of 50K.

        I’d ask if you understand it now, but since there are none so blind as those who refuse to see, I very much doubt you ever will.

      • and let us not forget that while “6939.28 a little under 7K which is 14% of 50K” is on a salary that is greater than 50k (atleast 12K greater) so really we are talking 7k of a 62K salary (ignoring all credits other than the SD) which would be about 11% – half of your claimed 22%.

      • LOL @ Endicott: “So someone making 50K” …. keep moving the goal posts…….

        You don’t understand what “taxable income means”

        Keep trying

      • The RATE for the bracket from $38,700 to $77,400 is 22%……..
        ….
        And guess what….the “poor working stiff” still has payroll taxes, state taxes, and on and on and on…

        Right? (if you want to play moving the goal posts)

      • CPP reads, but he doesn’t comprehend.
        The tax rate is 22%, but the amount they pay is much, much less. Usually closer to nothing.

      • CPP, you were the one who claimed that working class people are paying 20% of what they earn in income taxes.
        Even you have admitted that this is a lie. Rather than admit that you messed up, you keep moving the goal posts by trying to claim that the tax rate is the only thing that matters.
        Really pathetic.

      • “Hiliary simply didn’t care to be seen much in the marginal rust belt states.”

        Don’t make it all about the person running, even when that person appears remarkably inept in all her attempts at gaining votes: the person channels idea floating in its clique. That clique is quite open and transparent about its ideas.

        These people don’t just despise those parents who don’t want to let children choose their gender (or make up a new gender). They despise the working class of industrial region because these people value the “old” industries, and these industries don’t represent “progress”. They believe that the people who value the coal industry, the steel industry, the big industries moving around thousands of tons of material, are backward-thinking. It isn’t futuristic. It isn’t Elon Muskesque.

        As French journalist Stéphane Soumier said on the globalist “pro-business” (Macron worshiping) news channel “BFM Business”, these people value “les usines qui fument” = “smoke producing factories”. Stéphane Soumier ostensibly despise the defense of these industries. (Actually all news channels in France treat Macron like a god, as almost all the printed press, often in a comically soviet-like way.)

        Macron was almost as inept in his campaign as Hillary, but:
        – there is nobody pushing even remotely Trump-like ideas in French politics
        – there is nobody pushing against PC remotely Trump-like energy in French politics
        – there is no TV channel with remotely Fox News-like anti-PC stance in France

      • ” LOL @ Endicott: “So someone making 50K” …. keep moving the goal posts”

        The only one moving goal posts is you. You picked the 22% bracket. I merely was showing you how the tax math actually works. Not my fault that you are incapable of understanding simple mathematics.

        “The RATE for the bracket from $38,700 to $77,400 is 22”

        Again you show you can’t read the very chart that you linked to. the 22% bracket is *NOT* from $38,700 to $77,400 . the first number you cite is for single the second number you cite is for married. The 22% bracket, according to the chart:
        for single people: it starts at $38,700 ends just below $82,500 (ie the start of the next higher bracket)
        for married: it starts at $77,400 ends just below 165,000 (ie the start of the next higher bracket)

        When you can’t read a chart, you can’t do basic math, and you can’t tell the difference between tax rates and taxes paid, it really behooves you to realize that you are making a total fool of yourself trying to lecture others on a subject that you clearly have no clue about.

      • “And guess what….the “poor working stiff” still has payroll taxes, state taxes, and on and on and on…”

        By all means lets discuss those too. Since we were discussing Trumps federal tax returns, state taxes really don’t factor into it except as a deduction from the federal return. Even adding in the payroll tax, you aren’t getting that 14% back up to 22% but I’d love to see the faulty math you come up with in your attempt to try. LOL. And don’t forget, we put aside the other credits so if we are bring in payroll and other taxes that increase the tax bill we shouldn’t forget the other credits that reduce taxes as well. Again, once you do all the math, you’ll find that someone in the 22% tax bracket is actually paying less than 22% a fact that you should know considering that Trump’s income puts him in the highest tax bracket (IE higher than the 22% bracket) yet you suggested that he’s be embarrassed that his tax returns would show him paying less than someone paying 20% (which you later amended to mean the 22% tax bracket) but keep moving those goal posts son, it’s all you seem to know how to due since you clearly don’t know how to read charts or do math.

    • Government agencies spend as much as they can.

      Yes they do. Now, perhaps they’ll spend it on achieving a the goals of their organization and providing a benefit to the tax payers that fund them instead of lining the pockets of crony capitalists.

      BTW, its a trick. The managers who continue to spend money on virtue signalling instead of doing what they are supposed to will stick out like the swamp critters they are, making them easy to identify for draining purposes.

      • David, 21 trillion in debt says the swamp is only getting bigger. Lots of you guys just play the red team – blue team thing, they are just the the left and right arms of the same team.

      • “they are just the the left and right arms of the same team.”

        Which is precisely why Americans elected Trump, rather than one of the candidates the Deep State put forward for them.

      • Mr. Pierette, perhaps more than half of the COUNTED votes were against Trump; however, I’m quite sure that more than half of the votes BY U.S. CITIZENS were for Trump. Don’t forget the 2 or 3 million illegal-alien votes in CA alone, to say nothing of those in Illinois and other “sanctuary” locations.

      • @Pierett

        more than half of the people that voted in the presidential election did not vote for Trump.

        Yes, that is correct, what is your point?

      • ROTFLMFAO @ John M. Ware
        ..
        “2 or 3 million illegal-alien votes in CA alone,”

        There is no evidence of any illegal alien votes.

        If you have evidence of illegal voting in CA, could you please bring it to the attention of the authorities. because they will gladly prosecute anyone breaking voting laws.

      • There are a million and a half more registered voters in California than voting-age adults. it is not only los illegales “voting” in Californiastan.

      • Duuh! Elections are conducted according to the Constitution, so the Hildebeest lost, just like algore (and Cleveland).

      • @Pierett

        Should be no need to remind you that the results of the Electoral College as defined in the Constitution are valid and thereby agreed to by every US citizen.
        Are we on the same planet?
        If not, then please present your boarding pass.

      • “Yirgach, MarkG stated: “Americans elected Trump”

        They did not.”

        The vast majority of Americans voted for Trump. Most of the votes for Clinton came from foreigners.

        And, out here in the real world, everyone is aware that there was massive vote fraud by the Democrats. Why do you think they continually oppose voter ID laws that are the norm in the rest of the world?

      • ‘C. Paul Pierett May 21, 2018 at 7:08 pm
        MarkG, more than half of the people that voted in the presidential election did not vote for Trump.”

        Another whiny “It’s a prom queen” election proponent.

        MAjority votes in a pure democracy are known as “tyranny of the majority”.

        Which is why America’s election is rooted on an electoral college; which minimizes dense population clusters skewing results.

        That a miniscule number of densely populous urban centers voted heavily for one candidate is neither representative of their states, counties or voting districts.

        When viewed through the electoral college results, Trump’s election was a landslide; with the vast majority of counties across America voting for Trump.

        America is not a pure democracy; it is a Republic.

      • Tom Halla says: “There are a million and a half more registered voters in California than voting-age adults”

        That is true. When someone moves out of California, they often forget to inform the voting registrar. Ditto for those Californians that die.

      • Oh yeah, Even though I left the People’s Republic some 13 years ago, I am probably still “voting” in that state (especially in close elections).

      • ATheoK says, “America is not a pure democracy” which is true. It is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy. The problem is that the election of the president is not representative.

      • The problem is that the election of the president is not representative.
        The solution was that the election of the president be representative of ALL of the states, not mob-rule democracy by the illegal aliens and large cities in only 3 states..

      • “C. Paul Pierett May 21, 2018 at 7:35 pm
        Yirgach. the Electoral college elected Trump, not Americans.”

        C.PP proves their own total ignorance of what, exactly, is an electoral college.

        The electoral college is a direct special for one election purpose elected representation of American voters and charged to fulfill that responsibility. It is not a bureaucratic group.

        * American voters vote within voting districts for their candidate of choice.
        * Voting districts collectively charge a delegate to represent their vote in the electoral college.
        * Delegates are expected to represent faithfully represent their voting district and state.
        * Those failing to fulfill that obligation can be challenged, disciplined and banned; with alternative delegates fulfilling the vote.

        America should expand electoral college voting to state level elections; to minimize urban center effects on statewide elections.

      • ATheoK, The electoral college is a left over artifact of 200 year old farmers. Obviously the recent election of the president did not REPRESENT the will of the people.

      • It’s funny watching people that can’t except that in a close elections can’t accept the fact the seats don’t exactly match the raw vote. We have the same in Australia you can have a government with 49% of the vote win more seats than the opposition and thus form government.

        It is almost always the case that these type of Delusional disorder morons would however be silent and quite happy so long as there party was the winning one. I give you C. Paul Pierett
        as a perfect example .

      • “Yirgach. the Electoral college elected Trump, not Americans.”

        So, just like Obama and all other US Presidents?

        Or it is different this one time just because Trump won?

      • s-t

        “Or it is different this one time just because Trump won?”

        As an outsider, it certainly seems that way. Even in the UK there is an anti Trump movement, WTF it has to do with them I’ll never understand.

        I have maintained for many years that countries ought to be run by businessmen/women. A country is a business with a big balance sheet. Politicians have no idea how to interpret a balance sheet.

      • Funny thing, when less than half those who voted, vote for Trump, that invalidates Trump’s election.
        However when less than half of those who voted, voted for Obama, he still has a mandate.

        If the left didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

      • Prior to the election, when it looked like Bush might get more votes while Gore would win the popular vote, Gore’s campaign manager declared that had the election rules be a popular vote election, both candidates would have run drastically different campaigns.

        Whining that your candidate got more votes is just a desire to change the rules after the game is over.
        It is the tactics of a sore looser.

      • Every time a county or state tries to remove those who have died or moved from the voter roles, the left has a hissy fit.

      • “Obviously the recent election of the president did not REPRESENT the will of the people.”

        Sorry but just Look at the map ATheoK, it most certainly does REPRESENT the will of the people in the majority of the country. What it doesn’t represent is the will of the people in a small handful of blue counties (mostly large cities on the edges of the two coasts). NY and LA don’t get to dictate to all the rest of the country, thank goodness.

      • That should have read ” just Look at the map ATheoK posted

        I hate when my fingers skip words when typing.

      • “Every time a county or state tries to remove those who have died or moved from the voter roles, the left has a hissy fit”

        Yeah, the dead vote tends to favor the left, so that would be purging from their base.

      • “X is a left over artifact of 200 year old farmers. Obviously the recent Y …”

        For any X in the Constitution (adjust the “200 years” for relatively “recent” amendments).

        Imply that even Y is the result of an outdated silly idea (like freedom of speech…).

      • “The electoral college is a left over artifact of 200 year old farmers”

        230 years old. The Constitution (which established the electoral college) was ratified in 1788. The following year (1789) George Washington won the electoral vote to become the first president of the United States.

    • If an agency can cut its cost in one area, the money can be used for something else.
      If solar panels on a remote National Park building reduces the cost of a long diesel transport and reduces emissions — that’s a good thing. Use the savings to fix a bridge on a road or trail.
      If an agency in an urban setting is required to buy expensive green energy rather than use available gas powered electricity, why pay a premium. Save the money, do something else.
      The other guy said do it my way.
      Trump says do it the best way.
      What’s not to like?

      • I’m curious if Americans didn’t vote for Trump how did he beat Shillary and if you don’t have to be an American citizen to vote I want to vote Trump in next time as do a lot of Aussies who think he is doing a great job looking after his own country first .
        Either that or can we borrow him please .

    • “Government agencies spend as much as they can. If they don’t spend their whole budget they might not get as much next year. So Trump’s executive order is a joke and he knows it.”

      ……that explains all those lavish parties, plane trips, redecorating, etc

    • You know that Hillary Clinton had a 97% chance of winning, at least that was the consensus.

      • Hillary had a 97% chance of winning and Trump had no chance, according to the elite MSM talking head. Thank goodness they didn’t have an f-ing clue.

      • One host on French TV news channel LCI before the election: (paraphrased but with the exact meaning)

        “It’s done; Hillary Clinton won already, Donald Trump, the joke candidate, has no way what so ever to make up his disadvantage.”

        After the election: “Sorry we were wrong.”

        (LCI is owned by French construction giant Bouygues)

    • “Government agencies spend as much as they can. If they don’t spend their whole budget they might not get as much next year.”

      This certainly was true when I worked in the UK Civil Service. If you didn’t spend your budget it would be cut next year. An incredibly stupid arrangement which led to departments throwing away perfectly serviceable equipment just to avoid having their budget cut.

      The equipment had to be destroyed too, it could not be repurposed. They were paranoid about the possibility of staff appropriating equipment for their own use, hence the destruction rule. However, they couldn’t see the elephant in the room when it came to public money being wasted.

    • Government agencies spend as much as they can. If they don’t spend their whole budget they might not get as much next year. So Trump’s executive order is a joke and he knows it.

      You have a point about government agencies and budgets but what Trump did was remove the real joker from Obama’s executive order.

  3. I have been screaming about this corruption for years. Obama issued the first EO in 2009.

    Click to access Req-EO13514envtlleader.pdf


    80 Billion allocated to 16 firms who supported his presidential efforts. This was to upgrade GSA properties, WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY!!!!!

  4. Also tell the FBI to initiate an investigation for treason against NASA and NOAA officials for faking temperature and sea level data.

  5. Nothing really happens until the money gets cut-off. All of it, Scientists are getting paid to produce ever more disastrous studies about global warming. They just get fired for producing evidence on the other side. So, just cut-off all the money until the science gets re-blanced by itself.

  6. “use clean energy for 25 percent of their energy needs”

    I’am OK with clean. Who isn’t? Who doesn’t want to live in a clean neighborhood?

    But then, what is “unclean”? Trace amount of CO2 in the air? A trivial amount of tritium in the ocean?

    But then, why stop at 25% clean supply? Why not 100% clean supply of energy?

      • So if the EPA changes those standards, you are perfectly ok as long as those new standards are respected? (some how I doubt that is the case) or do you have some set in stone standards beyond the ones set at the whims of whichever party is in charge at the time? please elaborate on which standards you want respected and why those standards should be respected but other standards not.

    • But then, what is “unclean”?

      The politicians and the scientist promoting the political-science behind “Climate Change”, formerly known as “Global Warming”, “Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming”, “Weather Wierding”, etc. etc.
      (Trace back enough “etc”‘s and you’ll get back to “Global Cooling” and “The New Ice Age”!)

  7. Obama was a terrible legislator, and ended up presiding through executive order.

    And now we see why that’s not the best way to do it. One flick of the presidential pen and an executive order is rescinded. Little is left of Obama’s “legacy.”

    • If I remember correctly, he never managed to get his name on a single piece of legislation that actually passed.
      In Illinois and DC.

    • As president, it’s not up to him to be a legislator, terrible or otherwise. That’s a job for the legislature (ie Congress) to do.

      Now, before he was president (back when he was a legislator), he wasn’t much of a legislator (having been infamous for frequently voting “present”) but that has little to do with his job as president.

      Now, what you probably meant is that he was terrible at working with the congress to get his agenda into bills that he could then sign so thus resorted to presiding through executive order. And I agree. The problem with “presiding through executive order” is that it is a lot easier for the next guy/gal to come along and undo your EOs with EOs of their own.

      • Unless you have a liberal 9th circuit court that has decided that using EO’s to cancel EO’s is unconstitutional.

  8. This decision is right. But can government agencies be trusted? Are they efficient? What about Obummer’s plants sabotaging and disagreeing with everything DJT says and does?
    Do the agerncies have enough common sense to decide for themselves what is really adequate or is this a “carte blanche” for squandering? I think they should have their chance but they must know that they are under supervision and citizens won’t let them get away with gross negligence and ignoring presidential executive orders.

  9. Profligate government spending can only be tackled by headcount reduction targets.

    “Costs walk in on two feet” Henry Ford
    “The only real cost is labour” Karl Marx

    As a former corporate hatchet man, when I said I needed a 20% cost reduction it always started with head count – everything else follows.

  10. Ironically ‘clean-burning’ fuel used to mean producing less soot and hence more CO2. Now what does ‘clean energy’ mean? CO2 is by no means dirty!

    • I am a simple man. “Clean” means it meets the anti-pollution standards. No less, no more. And when you have standard that turn you exhaust cleaner than the influx, which more and more happens (for instance, it is safer to drink water dumped out of the sewage treatment plant into a river, that to drink the river waters), it is clean enough.

      • “I am a simple man. “Clean” means it meets the anti-pollution standards”

        And as those standards are set by bureaucrats and politicians, when the standards change, and you sill OK with the standards? if not, why not?

      • Anyone who does not question who sets the standards, why, and what science they are based on, is indeed simple.

      • By that right, cars have, since the early 90’s, been reversing pollution: depending on the air quality, many emit cleaner air than ambient.

  11. Does that mean halting rooftop solar jobs at the VA while cheating on veteran wait list reporting inside those buildings? Does it mean honest bid processes for real savings? Does it mean national defense instead of national agenda spin at bases? Does it mean an end to the round robin of federal agency press releases on climate krap statements? I think winning is underway in many areas and agencies that were infected in the previous administration.

  12. The left still hasn’t accepted the result of the election. I love watching them squirm.

    • Yet they love Germany’s Merkel, whose party could not even garner 40% of the vote. If fact, they seem to have no issue with Germany, Canada, or the UK, none of whom allow a popular vote for the actual leader of the country.

      • And also seem to have no issue with how in those parliamentary systems, super-minority parties with a handful of seats can wield disproportionate influence when part of the governing coalition. Tail-Wags-Dog, Push-Our-Platform-to-Play politics.

      • They love the “EU” better. An unelected President of the European Commission, unelected Commissars for this, that andincessant rigmaroles plus representatives without the right to introduce a bill. That’s the world to their liking.

      • But only as long as the unelected Commissars are in alignment with their agenda. If the unelected Commissars were to somehow go against the leftie agenda, it would be an entirely different story

  13. Here is a great piece of news from today. Trump signed multiple orders regarding government workers, the main piece being one that makes it easier to fire poor performers.

    Excerpts of the 3 rule changes “…The first executive order aims to strengthen accountability for federal employees and makes it easier to fire poor performers in the federal government.

    The second executive order creates a federal labor relations working group to analyze union contracts with the federal government. It also makes it harder to pay federal unions to appeal firings and to lobby Congress.

    The third executive order, focused on federal unions, is aimed at reducing waste and expenditures and requires federal employees to spend at least 75 percent of their time working on the job they were hired to do, as opposed to working on federal union work. It will also allow the federal government to start charging unions for office space in federal buildings. …”. …http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/25/trump-makes-it-easier-to-fire-poor-performing-federal-workers.html

Comments are closed.