Well, at the time she was negotiating and promoting the TPP, she was working for someone else, who is a big proponent of it. When you are Secretary of State and the President tells you to negotiate a treaty, that’s what you do.
Maybe she loved it and only changed positions out of expediency, or maybe she was lukewarm, or even hated it. There is no way of knowing that based on her actions while she was SoS.
Honestly I have no idea how what you are saying relates to what I said. You think Trump has a bad energy policy. Great. I didn’t say he had a good one. I said Clinton supported an insane policy. It is absolutely crazy to think we could shut down fossil fuel production on federal lands. Do I think she really meant it. No, I think it was bullshit campaign stuff that she would obviously need to walk back.
So what’s your thought here, that we can’t judge her based on any of her actions or statements as Secretary of State since she might have secretly wanted to do something totally different?
She isn’t even saying she made a mistake supporting it or saying she had to be a good soldier and support it. She’s making some crazy statement that after she left it completely changed and went from being the Gold Standard to completely unacceptable.
It seems to me that she has a history of going back and forth on Free Trade. She supports it when it counts and decries it when trying to get votes. When it really gets down to it, Democrats in general have that history. Obama bashed NAFTA during the campaign only to now essentially support a bigger version of it. As a person in favor of Free Trade, I’m glad. I believe she will find a way to support it and save face by making some minor tweak. She’ll be a far better President in terms of Free Trade than Trump. She just needs to pretend now while running.
Sure, I’m not saying either position is crazy, although I am personally strongly in favor of free trade. I’m saying the shift itself is crazy. She wasn’t some innocent bystander making an observation. She was one of the chief architects and head cheerleaders only to completely reverse course once the campaign started since her opponent was out-lefting her.
I don’t think it’s crazy now, because the market is not currently wanting for oil or gas. We can think of opening them up later when oil and gas are expensive. I don’t know enough about how much we currently rely on coal to know if the coal portion of the plan would be crazy.
While I personally think that one is usually best off refraining from making Hitler comparisons, no that does not follow at all.
Comparing (and contrasting) does not mean “is the exact same as.” And even when meant as such it can mean “exact same as” at a point other than when we went to war, and may point to a lesson to be learned from history.
As far as Putin goes we have a fascist/totalitarian leader of a society in economic decline, who is promising to make Russia great again, who is investing in his country’s established military power even as its economy is in decline to fuel expansionist ambitions, and who is testing the use of that power in various expansionistic ways.
It is very reasonable to look at what has worked, and not worked, historically when there have been other similar circumstances. What early actions other than what were done could have prevented bolder military expansionism in the case of other similar circumstances, such as the case of Hitler?
This thread is probably not the best venue to have that discussion, but asking that question, recognizing that as a meaningful compare and contrast, trying to figure out what exactly we do learn from the past, is extremely valid. Ignoring history, being willfully ignorant of it, would be stupid.
There was no Nuland coup, yes NATO should expand, and Putin should stay out of US elections.
Uh, we get 1/3rd of our electricity from coal and this represents 40% of our coal production. We get 1/3rd of our electricity from natural gas and this represents 14% of our natural gas production. On the oil side, we produce a little more than 2 million barrels per day of oil from Federal Lands. That’s enough of a swing to go from a surplus globally to a deficit. As a commodity, it prices based on the marginal unit of production and prices would soar.
You would also be talking about eliminating billions of annual revenue received in royalties and lease payments.
Also, let’s not forget that companies have valid leases that they’ve paid a lot of money for.
It’s an absolutely insane statement on par with some of Trump’s worst.
The evidence from the studies and what would it mean to allow that means that the real craziness is to continue. The reality is that a lot will continue to come form private lands but even that will have to be limited eventually.
Again, this statement completely ignores that the economy will suffer even more if we continue to do the real crazy thing.
This isn’t the thread to discuss climate change, so I will leave out that discussion and stipulate for these purposes that she believes an immediate action like halting all fossil fuel production from federal lands is necessary.
I assume at the very least you would agree that there would be some major economic and societal pain in the short term with such a proposal, right? You may believe that the short term pain is necessary in order to avoid or mitigate far more pain in the long term, but please tell me you at least would agree that we would be dealing with things like major power outages, rolling blackouts, and entering into a major depression. You would also have to agree that it would require at the very least buying out these leases for many billions of dollars.
If you agree with that, then don’t you think she would need to massively re-frame her statement. Talking about doing something like this without describing the massive hardship we would face would seem to be incredibly irresponsible. In fact, she would have to transform her entire candidacy as that type of proposal would overwhelm every single other item she is proposing.
It is necessary to see who has indeed the craziest policy proposal.
Not overall, as the studies that were linked show. In specific areas it will, but that will depend on how stubborn the Republicans are about improving the safety nets that are needed to help the people that will be affected.
And here are the talking points of the polluters, really, look it up. That is not what the ones that propose the changes are going for.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/03/distributed-solar-helps-lower-peak-demand-electricity-prices/
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article59845756.html
And I don’t agree as the doomsday scenarios of the polluters are happening less when more independent power is available. (most recent news of blackouts in the west are due to a lack of independent sources of power that would had limited the possibility for the blackouts to take place) the most likely result of improving our electrical grid to let solar power and other alternatives (yes, even nuclear) to be present in larger numbers, leads to limit and to also prevent the more numerous rolling blackouts of the past.
If you can’t accept that shutting in 40% of coal production, 14% of gas production, and 18% of oil production would even have a short term negative impact then there is no point in discussing this.
If in 2008 Obama promised to cut overall coal production by 50%, would you say that was an insane policy position?
Because coal production has in fact been reduced by 50% over the last eight years, and I’m not sure the apocalypse is upon us. Link.
If Hillary Clinton says she has a goal of reducing coal production by something like 25% to 50% in the next 5 to 10 years, then I would not consider that completely crazy. Coal is going to keep declining. If she sets some aggressive CO2 emissions goal or fuel efficiency standard that must be met, that’s not crazy even if it is unrealistically aggressive. Calling the shutting in of all fossil fuel production on federal lands a done deal is absolutely ludicrous. Suspending new leases or setting new regulations is not.
I think you’re reading an awful lot into an off-the-cuff sentence from Clinton, a candidate known for having lots of white papers and whose energy policy clearly contemplates further fossil fuel extraction on public lands. I would read “moratorium on fossil fuel leases” as suspending new leases, not shutting down all current fossil fuel production–and even that she seems to have walked back (unfortunately).
Point of order, you were totally wrong about the blackouts, and so it was with a lot of what you were declaring.
In the case of coal, a lot is going away with no new regulations up as per the last action of Scalia in the supreme court.
You are the one acting as if the impacts that you are talking about were not replied already in the previous post.
So, no, what Clinton said was not the craziest thing.
In what way am I wrong? Take away 20% of our electricity production and we’re going to experience problems.
Well, you’re wrong on the no new regulation front. Coal is declining due to a combination of cheap, abundant natural gas and increased costs caused by new regulations. Not sure what your point is.
What? They weren’t. At all.
Nope, totally insane to the point that there was no way she was remotely serious. She’s pandering to idiots.
Not what was seen in California, and I cited that already.
:rolleyes:
That is what I was talking about, what I was referring to is how the one sin favor of the fossil fuel companies for get about that and just blame regulations. Regulations that once again are not here yet. And still the coal companies are going down.
Yes, again you were wrong about the rolling blackouts and cited also.
As it is clear one of those “idiots” is me, you should take that back.
And it is still not insane: