rss
54

Trump’s Day 1 plan to fire up US shale gas and “clean coal” industries

Print Friendly

US president-elect Donald Trump has confirmed that among his first actions as president will be to “free up” and “fire up” the shale gas and “clean coal”, promising “millions” of jobs by beginning his assault on Barack Obama Clean Power Plan.

In a video update on the Presidential Transition, Trump outlined some policy plans for his first 100 days in office, and his day one executive actions when he takes over the reins on January 20 2017.

Screen Shot 2016-11-22 at 2.26.53 PM

It was part of a package in which he promised to quit the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, bump up security, and cut down on visa “abuses”, and crackdowns on government officials becoming lobbyists, although not lobbyists becoming government officials.

On energy, he said he would “cancel job-killing restrictions” on the production of American fossil fuel resources, including unconventional shale energy and the yet-to-move-beyond-conceptual clean coal. He said this would create “many millions” of jobs.

It came on the same day that Canada, north of the border, flagged it would quit coal generation by 2030, and as international investors raised questions about the wisdom of investing in fossil fuels.

Andrew Logan, Director of the Oil & Gas Program at Ceres and the Investor Network on Climate Risk (North America) said,

“No matter the outcome of the US election, global policy momentum and rapid technological change are combining to create significant risks for the oil and gas sector,” said Andrew Logan, director of the Oil & Gas program at Ceres and the Investor Network on Climate Risk (North America).

“Investors are increasingly concerned that the current business strategies of many companies may not be financially sustainable given these ongoing trends.”

One of those job-killing restrictions Trump is referring to is likely the US EPA-based policy President Obama committed to in March of this year, alongside Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The joint US-Canada pact aims to reduce methane emissions by 40-45 per cent below 2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector, as well as explore opportunities for additional methane reductions.

The agreement, said Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp a the time, “…addresses one of the most serious aspects of our climate crisis: methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.

“Methane is responsible for about a quarter of today’s warming, and the US and Canada are the second- and fourth-largest emitters of oil and gas methane, respectively,” he said.

Needless to say, the move – which targeted new and established CSG projects – was not popular with America’s oil and gas industry, with an American Petroleum Industry representative describing it as “catering to environmental extremists at the expense of American consumers.”

Trump, however, appears hell bent on doing the opposite – catering to America’s fossil fuel lobby at the expense of the environment, global climate change efforts and the nation’s renewable energy industry – a plan he believes will create “many millions of high-paying jobs.”

Meanwhile, north of the US border in Canada, federal environment minister Catherine McKenna has rolled out a new plan to phase out the country’s coal-burning electricity plants by 2030.

“Taking traditional coal power out of our energy mix and replacing it with cleaner technologies will significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, improve the health of Canadians, and benefit generations for years to come,” McKenna told reporters on Monday.

And here in Australia, the Victorian government’s legislation to completely ban all unconventional gas ”fracking” in the state is set to be tabled.

The ban, a policy first in Australia, is being introduced to parliament this week, and is expected to be passed with the support of all major parties.

A moratorium on all coal seam gas mining in the state has been in place in the state since the legislation was first proposed in August.

Update: The Guardian reported that Australia’s environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, welcomed Trump’s commitment to lift restrictions on fossil fuel exploration within his first 100 days in the White House, saying the move will be a boon for consumers.  

RenewEconomy Free Daily Newsletter

Share this:

  • Brad Sherman

    How ironic. I’d hazard a guess that there are more jobs to be gained in renewables than in O&G prospecting.

    And Trump can remove all the ‘impediments’ he wants – market economics will start to bite regardless of regulatory posture. However, incentivising through subsidising fossil fuels remains a risk – and should be anathema to the kind of economics he presumes to stand for (rational rather than pork barrel). CCS will never come within a bull’s roar of cost competitiveness with CSP and other alternatives (assuming the grid exists to get the power to where you need it).

    I suspect (hope) the time will come when he will have to confer with domain experts as President and it should be interesting to see how he reconciles the real world he has to work in with the distortion field provided by Breitbart and co.

    • Chris Fraser

      I suspect a problem to come would be Trump arranging corporate tax reductions for his favourite industries and making the level playing field decidedly unequal.

  • Ken Dyer

    Stupidity! Trump is an idiot. Renewable energy employs more people than coal in the US and it is climbing
    http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/solar-jobs-report-2014/

  • Coley

    The patients have taken control of the mental hospital

  • Chris Drongers

    Trump is noisy and scary. But he has been elected president for the next 4 years. The Democrats can hope to be the next President and possibly one or both houses in Congress in four/two years respectively.
    These are short periods compared to industrial planning lines. Very unlikely any major coal burning facility could be contracted let alone built by then.
    All the Democrats have to do is loudly and continuously yell that they will introduce taxes on CO2 when they get back in. In addition the Democrats can commit to quickly introducing incentives to flood the market with non-Carbon energy when they get back in.
    No self-respecting board of directors would do more than make noises about increasing coal or oil consumption until the next couple of elections show which way the wind is going to blow.

  • Brunel

    He should move towards having taxpayer funded elections.

    So should AUS.

    • CharlesRAnderson

      Why? For the purpose of suppressing freedom of speech?

      • Brunel

        Free speech is enshrined in the constitution.

        • CharlesRAnderson

          Which is why the Supreme Court correctly defended the free speech of groups to contribute money to candidates of their choosing so those candidates can get their viewpoints distributed to the voters. Free speech also implies the freedom not to be forced to aid those whose viewpoints are at odds with your own to promulgate their contrary views. Yes, one cannot stop them from making their viewpoint known, but one should not be forced to rent the use of an auditorium so that they can get up and make a speech there while proposing to hurt your interests and your freedoms.

          • Brunel

            in that case, the proposed ban on Ferraris is the curbing of free speech.

            For many the sound coming out of a Ferrari is speech/music/opera.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            I am not proposing a ban on Ferraris. And Ferraris are not individuals who are the possessors of individual rights. Those individuals who do want to listen to the sounds of Ferraris are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned.

  • CharlesRAnderson

    The temperature effects of CO2 and methane are negligible. They cannot be measured to date for a very good reason. The so-called consensus viewpoint puts forth two different theories for a warming effect by these gases, which means that they are actually not on agreement on the science. Theory 1 is a high infra-red emission theory from the surface demanding a high back radiation from the atmosphere. This theory violates energy conservation and electric field theory. Theory 2 is a shift of infra-red radiating molecules to cooler, higher altitudes which is said to cause a decrease in radiation to space and therefore a warming in the atmosphere, without paying attention to increased number of radiators which actually causes an increase in radiation to space. So both theories are wrong and the models based on either make predictions which observations of reality stubbornly refuse to duplicate. But what can you expect when you get the physics wrong?

    • Jo

      You appear to speak from a wealth of physical knowledge.
      Can you provide sources for these two theories?
      Your description/interpretation is something I have never heard before.

      • CharlesRAnderson

        I will refer you to this post on my blog: https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-wrong.html
        I am working on a newer edition of this post and hope to have it out in the next couple of months. You might see my reply to Kensho above.

        • Kenshō

          I’ve had a quick look at your site, values and worldview and we see your a rugged individualist and looking for arguments to support your position. I get it. I was in the Army. I too know how to fire weapons and protect myself. However I had to retrain and balance my character, seeing that life on the planet is interdependent. Human beings are interdependent with each other, including trade, and human beings are interdependent with nature, including needs for fresh water, air, shelter etc.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            Actually, I am an individualist who wants the freedom to form associations of my own choice with others. I wish to live in a harmonious society in which I am allowed to cooperate freely with others so that we may each and every one pursue our self-chosen values. I recognize that individuals are complex and highly differentiated, yet we are each sovereign. Each of us should be allowed to choose our own values and manage our own lives in accordance with those values. I want a society in which the use of force is minimized and government is legitimately limited to its function of protecting the equal rights of everyone to life; liberty; property; the ownership of one’s own body, mind, and labor; and the pursuit of one’s own happiness. A rich and diverse private sector, where we are all free from the use of force, is the harmonious way to do this with myriad acts of cooperation by choice. This need not be rugged at all. It is rugged to be subjected constantly to the demands of others backed by force however.

            I cannot help but believe that a little bit of training in psychotherapy has created a monster who dismisses science if it has not been expounded by a Progressive Elitist. This is just as epistemologically sound as the Evangelical Christian who would dismiss science put forth by anyone who is not an Evangelical Christian.

          • Kenshō

            There’s a whole lot of basic premises about who you are, your nature as a human being and your relationship to others. These are merely ideas. Your alive. The question about who you are is addressed in a very modest way. Why not continue your exploration of these questions, as you appear interested in human nature.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            Generally, the word merely is not a good modifier for the concept of ideas.

            As for my personal relationships with others, those are not much the topic of my blog. They are personal to me to those with whom I have the relationships. Yet, especially in the early posts you will find much more discussion of such ideas as benevolence, tolerance, friendship, love, loyalty, and sexuality. These are all important to this individualist. Yes, believe it or not, an individualist is not the same as a loner or someone estranged from others. An individualist is simply someone with an independent mind and whose own life is his highest, but far from only, value. It is hardly rational to live among others and not be able to recognize that many other people are of value to you in living your own life.

          • Kenshō

            Yes, I’ve listened to many people such as yourself on the phones for lifeline. Think they have it all sorted then something disturbs the balance floating their piece of reality as they understand it.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            They are not really such as myself. You do not know me.

          • Kenshō

            I can tell by your worldview. Being individualistic is only a style so that in itself isn’t the issue. Your current identity and thoughts are a transitory phenomena which can fall into ruin at any time.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            I have managed as an individualist very well since I was a child and I will do so until I die, despite your weak claims to the contrary.

    • Kenshō

      Trained in psychotherapy, your analysis smacks of personal bias. You propose a conflict in theories and these may well be your perceptions, your conflicts. You then move on to assert the theories are wrong without providing a theory which is more representative of the data.

      • CharlesRAnderson

        In science a theory is known to be wrong when it makes incorrect predictions. To date, the predictions of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypotheses have proven a poor match for observations in numerous ways. The primary issues have been that there has been no further increase in temperatures since 1998, except the momentary increase recently due to a El Nino which is already rapidly coming down. The hot spot predicted in the upper troposphere that was predicted has never been found either.

        As for my own theory, I suppose you want to know why the troposphere has the temperature gradient that it has. That being the 33K difference at the surface compared to the Earth’s radiative temperature as seen from space. The main reason has been known by many scientists for decades, namely the relationship between an air molecule’s kinetic energy and its altitude determined potential energy. Most of the 33K difference is not due to greenhouse gases, but due to gravity. If you attribute all of this energy difference to greenhouse gases, you greatly exaggerate their warming effect.

        • Kenshō

          “In science a theory is known to be wrong when it makes incorrect predictions.”

          No this is incorrect. Despite any small anomalies in data, if a theory accounts for the majority of data or the most important data, that theory stands as the best approximation until a better theory arrives e.g. physics from Einstein while quantum physics is explicated.
          In terms of your theory, how would gravity be correlated with changes in temperature when gravity isn’t changing?

          • CharlesRAnderson

            Would you agree that a theory may be ignoring other important effects if it is nowhere near able to predict observed reality and that it may be entirely wrong when it has not done so?

            Gravity is not changing, so most of the temperature gradient in the troposphere has no reason to change. There are many other natural effects upon the climate however, such as those that caused the Little Ice Age or the Roman Warming. There are variations in the sun’s radiation output, the distance of the Earth from the sun, the Earth’s magnetic field and its effects on the solar wind and cosmic rays incident on the Earth, and there are variations in trickle of energy from the Earth’s interior to the surface, and variations in volcanic activity and forest fires.

          • Kenshō

            I’m not qualified to discuss the factors you’ve raised however with this article, Trump is elected in the context of a country with the biggest inequality in the world, people are annoyed and it needs addressing otherwise the American economy is likely spiralling down further, and spending upon the police and military will need to dramatically increase.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            The U.S. does not have the biggest inequality in the world by any of the measures that are usually discussed as such. Usually these measures are of income, housing, health care, and the like in various weightings, but I have never seen one that puts the U.S. among the lowest nations of the world. Usually the worst are dictatorships where an entire nation’s wealth virtually is in the hands of the dictator and a few of his friends.

            The U.S. could very much improve the income of the poorest Americans by allowing the economy to grow at much better rates than it has over the last 8 years. We could allow real competition in education so that the inner city schools would greatly improve. We could make it easier for the under-educated to get and hold jobs by eliminating the minimum wage so they could prove their worth to employers. We could allow small companies to invest more of their earnings in new equipment and facilities so they could hire more employees. These measures will not necessarily reduce income inequality, but they can allow everyone to greatly improve their standard of living. The power of compounded economic growth is much less appreciated than the equivalent power of compounded interest is, but the mathematics is the same.

          • Kenshō

            This is an ideology based upon individualism, competition and trickle down economics. Hasn’t worked.
            Wealth is not measured primarily by money going in and out. Wealth is accumulated over generations and policy often leverages wealth by leveraging capital. In other words, those without capital are disadvantaged compared to those who have capital and the gap widens as the data shows for America and Australia. Here’s the latest data for Australia:
            http://evatt.org.au/papers/wealth-nation.html

          • CharlesRAnderson

            Why care if wealth diverges as long as almost everyone has a rising standard of living? It is mere jealousy, a low and dark emotion, that causes one to be upset that someone else has more wealth than oneself. One does want to have a chance to make the most of oneself and that occurs in a free market, not in one dominated by crony mercantilism, such as one usually has under the big government model.

            The freedom to compete comes with the freedom to cooperate. In business, I spend more time finding ways to cooperate with people than I do competing with people. Yet, if you shut off the freedom to compete, you also shut off the freedom to cooperate. If government makes me subsidize expensive and unreliable solar power, it keeps me from using income for other purposes. If it puts heavy taxes on my business, it keeps me from buying a spectrometer, the possession of which would allow me to cooperate with a scientist I might hire and prevent me from solving materials problems in cooperation with customers who need my laboratory’s scientific expertise and the kind of information my new spectrometer can provide. A rising standard of living for everyone comes exactly from allowing people to cooperate freely, especially when they are allowed to cooperate in productive ways. But even outside of trade and commerce, we make our lives better in many voluntary forms of cooperation.

            America’s fastest growth in wealth, general income, opportunity, and standard of living has been when government has most respected individual rights. The stagnation of the last 8 years is characteristic of a society with less freedom in the private sector. Most people will live 40 years. Consider a real per capita growth rate for an economy of the late 1% compared to say a freedom growth rate of 3%. In 40 years, the big government 1% real per capita economy is 1.49 times its present size, while the freer economy will be 3.26 times the present size. There is no big government benefit to compare with the increased standard of living that people will have in the economy 3.26 times bigger than now.

          • Kenshō

            You have a form of unenlightened self interest which is a lack of ability for a deeper empathy with other human beings and nature’s ecosystem. You can attempt to make a business happen with your philosophy however you will fail, due to your lack of understanding of humanity’s real needs, and evolution is currently rolling over your level of self interested rationalism which doesn’t fit with reality. Look at the data in the link I provided. You will see the top wealthy elite are stretching away from the poor and middle classes with your ideology, attempting to further leverage the very people who will bring about your demise. When the cracks first appear, people such as yourself go into denial and attempt to rejig reality, though it doesn’t work and eventually you reach the crisis you need to make the call.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            You are the one who insists that humans are materialistic and their needs can be defined in terms of income, property, and investments. Actually, many who have less income, property, and investments have it because they have chosen other values. It is their right to do that. I may work 70 hours a week, but others want to work 30 or 40 hours and spend time watching TV or fishing or barbecuing. This is fine. This may maximize their own well-being. It is their choice. But this does not give them the right to use force to take income, property, or other wealth from those who chose to work more or to put more into their work. After all, do the wealthy turn around and steal any of the value the TV watcher thinks he earned from that activity? Does he gain any of the pleasure of the fisherman? Does he also get a part of the pleasure of the barbecued meats and the company of the fellow barbecuers? No. There is a very great need to be fair here and that fairness is not achieved as so many blithely claim by heavily taxing the rich. This is especially wrong when so many receive great benefits from those who work hard, such as new developments in health care, new materials or less expensive materials, and products that do much more for less.

          • Kenshō

            Your materialism:
            # you work to satisfy base appetites and superficial ambitions nothing more. If you disclosed what you do, I would find it unrelated to people or nature in any meaningful way,
            # in contrast to watching the TV I don’t have an idiot box as I don’t need to satisfy the boredom you feel in your rational state and inform myself with more meaningful forms of media,
            # I evolved myself out of gaining pleasure from eating excessive meats decades ago you pig, it makes the mind dull,
            # your need for sex is merely another form of self seeking, seeking the love you so desperately need because you as yet cannot feel genuine love,
            # your ideology is an excuse for leveraging wealth of those who have wealth, at the expense of those who don’t,
            # don’t call me weak you fool. I ran a marathon a few years ago in 3 hours 50 minutes. You couldn’t fight your way out of a wet paper bag. Take your conservative pathetic ideology elsewhere.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            Wow!! I said nothing about you having a TV. I thought maybe you wanted to tax the rich in order to give their hard-earned money to others who chose to do other things than to earn money, including those who watched TV for hours, fished, played bridge, and barbecued for hours a week. Your response makes it seem that you did not so much want to tax the rich for others, but for yourself. In any case, you are amazing at leaping from facts straight into a fantasy world.

            The wealth of the rich does not come at the expense of the poor, except when the rich made their money based on their pull in government, which used its monopoly on the use of force to direct the People’s money to the politicians cronies. But most people in the business make money legitimately by offering people goods and services they freely want.

          • Kenshō

            Your worldview is an old school science of materialism and making a god of the free market. Your musings about philosophy of life offer no value. You should never attempt to speak of culture on your website. You have no qualifications.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            You are over specifying. What I like is the freedom to make my own choices, which I can do in the private sector to the extent that the government does not interfere. I do not need fools such as Obama or Hillary or Trump dictating to me what my values will be or micromanaging my life. I do not even trust the average American voter to do that either. None of them know me. None of them care about me. Almost none of them have my intelligence. Now, despite having my intelligence, I recognize the absurdity of thinking that I should choose other people’s values for them. I do not think I am competent to micromanage the lives of those I do not know or even those I do know. The width of my sovereignty is that of my own life and your sovereignty does not intersect with mine.

            I believe in freedom and the free market is a critical part of the realm of freedom, but it is very far from all of it.

          • Kenshō

            You seem to value science. I value the science of human awareness and I don’t reduce it away to be an epiphenomenon of matter. I’m aware life, my life, that essence in me, cannot be reduced away. If you quieten your mind, you will find realms of awareness hitherto untouched before. It’s not the mind is a problem, unless it’s carried around constantly. The mind becomes sharper, if it is picked up and down like a tool when needed.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            Interesting. What does the picking up and the putting down of the mind?

          • Kenshō

            That’s an extremely intelligent question. This question is the essence of the practice some eastern philosophies call the “who am I” question. I shouldn’t describe the answer because describing the answer with the mind is pointless. However, the answer is you do. It’s just that one can’t feel what it is a human being is, until the machinery of the mind is brought under control. There are lots of reasons to bring the mind under control. Most people’s minds wander and ruminate on old information, nothing fresh and insightful, just historical patterns. There’s a bit of trust involved, that there is something there under the volley of thoughts and the mind can function better in a new way. Though the basic cross-cultural core method is:
            Notice as above how futile many thoughts are, especially when the mind is tired, stressed, over worked etc,
            Take breaks in the thought stream by focusing the mind on anything in the present moment – the body walking, breathing, feelings, listening to nature, fishing, washing dishes, anything,
            Only use the mind when it’s really needed, e.g. if needing to write a report, a list, a speech, use the mind consciously in a concentrated way only for that timeframe. These practices are generally called “concentration practices”.
            “insight practices are slightly different and harder, because they require some of the observing concentration of the first practices to be built up first. In these practices, the observer notices patterns in the mind, gains insight into what is driving it, hidden emotions often surface, like sadness and anger, and are released, enabling the mind to further relax and thus be more powerful and directed when needed.
            Even in contemporary cognitive behavioural psychology, the majority have now moved to adopt “mindfulness practice” as a tool in their kit to make the mind sharper and deal with a range of problems. “mindfulness” fits under concentration practices.
            At first, concentration practices are best because it turns the mind into a directed beam of attention. Basically, when the mind wanders and is possessed by its historical patterns, it is diffuse. Fortunately Charles, with your character, you will find disciplining your mind easier than most people. You already have a strong mind and can focus it, although the spectrum of where that ongoing process leads is enormous. If you need to trust, please do, I am competent, have three degrees, my cross cultural work was said to be on par with the worlds best in a notable university. I’ve condensed down complex processes, you’ll find in many styles of psychology, psychotherapy, eastern philosophy, yogas etc. Some of these things have a religion which can be discarded. It’s the experiential process that is important. Transpersonal psychology is a cross cultural framework. Eckhart Tolle is a contemporary western writer on youtube for a peek into it. It’s just practice like learning anything.

          • Kenshō

            That’s an extremely intelligent question. This question is the essence of the practice some eastern philosophies call the “who am I” question. I shouldn’t describe the answer because describing the answer with the mind is pointless. However, the answer is you do. It’s just that one can’t feel what it is a human being is, until the machinery of the mind is brought under control. There are lots of reasons to bring the mind under control. Most people’s minds wander and ruminate on old information, nothing fresh and insightful, just historical patterns. There’s a bit of trust involved, that there is something there under the volley of thoughts and the mind can function better in a new way. Though the basic cross-cultural core method is:
            Notice as above how futile many thoughts are, especially when the mind is tired, stressed, over worked etc,
            Take breaks in the thought stream by focusing the mind on anything in the present moment – the body walking, breathing, feelings, listening to nature, fishing, washing dishes, anything,
            Only use the mind when it’s really needed, e.g. if needing to write a report, a list, a speech, use the mind consciously in a concentrated way only for that timeframe. These practices are generally called “concentration practices”.
            “insight practices are slightly different and harder, because they require some of the observing concentration of the first practices to be built up first. In these practices, the observer notices patterns in the mind, gains insight into what is driving it, hidden emotions often surface, like sadness and anger, and are released, enabling the mind to further relax and thus be more powerful and directed when needed.
            Even in contemporary cognitive behavioural psychology, the majority have now moved to adopt “mindfulness practice” as a tool in their kit to make the mind sharper and deal with a range of problems. “mindfulness” fits under concentration practices.
            At first, concentration practices are best because it turns the mind into a directed beam of attention. Basically, when the mind wanders and is possessed by its historical patterns, it is diffuse. Fortunately Charles, with your character, you will find disciplining your mind easier than most people. You already have a strong mind and can focus it, although the spectrum of where that ongoing process leads is enormous. If you need to trust, please do, I am competent, have three degrees, my cross cultural work was said to be on par with the worlds best in a notable university. I’ve condensed down complex processes, you’ll find in many styles of psychology, psychotherapy, eastern philosophy, yogas etc. Some of these things have a religion which can be discarded. It’s the experiential process that is important. Transpersonal psychology is a cross cultural framework. Eckhart Tolle is a contemporary western writer on youtube for a peek into it. It’s just practice like learning anything.

          • Brunel

            What about taxing the minerals in the ground.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            OK, what about it? I cannot respond to an incompletely formulated question without making assumptions about your intent which may be wrong. It is better that you careful pose your question.

          • Brunel

            You said “taxing the rich”.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            It is still not clear what you were asking.

          • Brunel

            Taxing minerals in the ground.

          • CharlesRAnderson

            I see no reason to tax minerals in the ground. Doing so discourages the discovery of minerals and the determination of their quantity. Once that information is known, though often poorly known, it often forces an acceleration of their removal without due regard to the present market value. That accelerated removal may also be in a wasteful manner.

            I also do not believe that the means of production should generally be taxed. In other words, manufacturing equipment, business computers, farm or ranch land, R&D and testing equipment, and business facilities should not be taxed. Businesses might be taxed for the cost of their protection by police, fire departments, court systems, and national defense and for their use of roads, but not for welfare purposes, unemployment, or medical or retirement funding. But that taxation should be tied to use of these services, not to property value owned.

            It is a pretense that unemployment taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes are paid by companies. 100% of these taxes are removed from the employees compensation and it is government fraud that makes them think otherwise.

          • Threnody

            Great insight.

    • Mike Shackleton

      Nice word salad

  • Kenshō

    Promising “many millions of high paying-jobs” is a big commitment. If radical actions are taken and these jobs fail to materialise, the wheels might fall off.

  • Mike Shackleton

    All Trump’s promises are for nothing, if the investment money cannot be found and the economics don’t stack up. He can claim to have cleared the way and made it easy, knowing he can say he did all he could to get investment into these contentious projects.

    • Kenshō

      I presently accept Trump means his promises and is deluded in his efforts to achieve them. As the data rolls in, this will bring personal and collective crisis, and crisis is the best teacher. You appear to be giving up on Trump. Character is only ever tested in adversity and Trump is up against it as much as anyone. It’s all about timing and response when these challenges happen. It’s all just beginning.

      • Mike Shackleton

        I’m not giving up on him, I would have had to have faith in him in the first place to be doing that.

        These promises re removing the barriers to fossil fuel investment remind me of the current situation in Australia with the Adani coal mine in the Galilee Basin. Banks are publicly stating they won’t fund it, the coal price doesn’t justify it and there are plenty of mothballed mines out there going cheap. However the state and federal governments continue to push it as much as they can because it sits well with their constituents, even though it’s looking increasingly unlikely to happen.

        • Kenshō

          Dropping the faith in him wording, what if we say he wants to win? We seem to agree, based upon his present approach, crisis is inevitable.
          BTW I regard all human beings as learning and moving forward in the best way they can.

  • Miles Harding

    Is Don TRump is being misquoted?
    … will create “many millions of high-paying jobs.”
    may have actually been
    … will create “jobs paying many high millions.”?

    The irony is that the shale oil boom is effectively over. The best plays have already been drilled, leaving increasingly marginal territory with steeper decline rates to be drilled under the TRump “oil, we love you” programme. The best they can hope for is to maintain the current production levels for a few extra years.

    The success of gas fracking has already had the effect of nearly murdering coal. I can imagine a greatly expanded fracking programme will finish it off with the added benefit of methane becoming the new miracle aerating agent in US mineral water.