A good start with EO's.

You commented on Keystone - your comment was rubbish in that it did not address the central issue - and now you want to close eyes - put blinders on - and cry no no no .. like a fundamentalist who has just been informed that the earth is round rather than flat.

and Yeah - nothing will change mind of such a person.

 

The congress can do that when it is in gridlock. Then only bipartisan bills can pass. If both sides can't figure out what is best for America a bill should never become law. Imagine how unhappy you would be if the republicans owned the House and Senate so they could have passed all their bills easily over the past four years. Gridlock is good.

So we turn to executive orders with judicial review. It has been the only way to get partisan issues handled if only temporarily. It isn't the way our government was intended by the founders to work but it is better than a partisan congress.

Congress is not going to unify without easy legislation and easy legislation is the worst kind.

 

No, it isn't. The question we are addressing is what measures are we willing to take to eliminate the need for extracting and burning highly environmentally destructive carbon based fuel like tar sands oil.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-is-growing-but-indigenous-people-fight-back/

 

And the consequences be damned.

 

Your comment turns the matter on its head. Because we know what the consequences of not taking action are. It is those consequences that needs to guide every decision made regarding the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Will there be negative economic consequences for some? Yes. That's unfortunate. But the greater good, the survival of the planet, must prevail.

 

Correct, I subsequently did but I never had any intention of discussing the issue in the first place as it has zero to do with the discussion I was actually having. It was YOUR intent to sidetrack the discussion I was having by introducing a wholly unrelated topic.

Your intent to sidetrack the discussion was rubbish as is your asinine characterization of my position as "rubbish" because I vehemently disagree with you. Oil pipelines and oil itself are toxic to the environment in multiple ways, always was and always will be. That IS the "central issue" for me. I stand by that and always will.

You're having a childish tantrum because you failed to convince me to adopt your mindset? Ask me if I give a flying ****.

This will be my final comment on this subject as I never had any intention of discussing it in the first place and especially in this context about Trump's lunacy.

 

First, one has to believe that the survival of the planet is at stake. I find that ridiculous. Perhaps the survival of humanity is at stake but the planet won't disappear at the hands of mankind. I'm sick of the politics of hyperbole.

 

You're right. My comment was inarticulate. The survival of humanity is at stake. The point of the rest of my post remains scientifically unchallenged.

 

Killing 700,000 jobs on day one, damn he's great....

 

What's your source?

 

My bad, 70K
He's awesome. I'm sure you read about the Keystone pipeline.....Yes, I know "clean energy" will save the world....Lithium is strip mined, solar panels contain many toxins, wind turbine disposal is a huge issue.

 

dems do not control the Senate, they are just the majority, they can't pass whatever they want, they need republican votes

 

Exactly and that is good thing. We still have gridlock but it is a bit more tenuous than it has been.

 

Trump had more control his first 2 years

 

News to me.

 

really? dems only have 50 votes in the Senate

 

Which is the case for blowing up the filibuster.

 

What was news to me was the Trump had more control of congress in his first two years. You need to read the posts to which you respond.

 

You are ignoring reality - hoping it will go away - but - dreaming of a fossil fuel free future will not change the fact that we will use 20 million barrels a day of crude next year.

Twirling around crying " we need to stop using fossil fuels" will not change the fact that we will use 20 million barrels a day next year - and getting it from Nigeria rather than Canada will cause more CO2 pollution - and way more Pollution.

Ignoring the problem - as you are doing- will not solve the problem.

 

I gave you the facts .. Your response is the "Childish Tantrum" and exercise in avoidance of reality.

I you don't give a flying *** about the environment - that is fine - then you should not have started spouting nonsense about the environment as if you know what you are talking about - when this is not the case.

 

What a load of horsecaca.

Sounds a lot like Trumpism on steroids.

 

First you say you don't want to talk on this topic - that you don't give a flying #### about the environment - now you are crying "Horsecrap" while making two false accusations.

Of course oil is toxic to the environment in multiple ways - So why do you prefer getting crude from sources that dump oil and other associated toxins into the environment - than one who does not.

This makes no sense - and thus "Sounds like Trumpism on Steroids" - and you thus guilty of Projecting your flaws onto others.

I personally can't stand Trump - but, each to her own - if you want to act like a Trump sycophant on steroids - that is your choice.

 

What's your source?

 

sounds like you need to read the posts you respond too

 

You have founded your assertion on a false premise.
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline