climate denier in charge of EPA transition

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 04:43 PM)Benton Wrote: But my issue issue: why not change because it makes sense?

Fossil fuels are the main offender. They're also a finite source. With energy needs growing every day as the planet's population gets bigger and bigger, we're needing more and more fossil fuels (some of which are needed in things outside just powering your air conditioner or wife's minivan). The more we need, the fewer we've got, the higher the price goes.

So why not develop alternate energy sources, not because a really REALLY small slice of data (because, really, the recorded temperatures we have are too small to extrapolate much from, other than the fact that we don't have much historical data) points to average temperature increases. Do it because the future of not having gas for you car or electricity for your house is getting closer and closer. Of course, before we get there, it's going to be a cost issue, where you can still get a gallon of gas, but it's going to be at prices too high for many to afford.

Batteries, solar, wind, whatever. We should've been pumping money into researching it 10-20 years ago instead of just saying "hey, look, gas is $1.50!"

73 trillion dollars worth of hydrocarbons still in the ground just begging extraction and you want to develop alternative sources? 

I don't think we are going to be pumping money into alternative energy for the next couple years, if "we" means the federal government or Big Oil.
The Chinese cannot hoax our president elect and his appointees