back to article Elon to dump Trump over climate bump

Elon Musk says he will cut ties with President Trump, should the US walk away from the Paris Climate Accord. The billionaire tech investor said Wednesday that if things go as rumored and the White House pulls out of the Paris Agreement, he will recuse himself from the President's Business Advisory Council. Musk broke the news …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Technological welfare queen

    We'll see if Trump has the chutzpah to let him walk or if he'll bend the office of the President to the bratty Silicon Valley welfare queen.

    1. jamesb2147

      Re: Technological welfare queen

      @AC - Yes, he's much more closely aligned to the entrenched interests of the major telecom companies and airlines, those bastions of capitalism!

      You're an idiot.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Technological welfare queen

      I was thinking more "drama queen" but yeah. Leave the Paris Accord, tell Elon "buh-bye, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"

      It's time these silver-spoon silly-valley liberals learn they're not THAT important

      1. sorry, what?
        Stop

        D'oh!

        The point is less about Musk and more about trying to prevent a climate catastrophe...

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: D'oh!

          @ sorry, what?

          "The point is less about Musk and more about trying to prevent a climate catastrophe..."

          The wisdom of the day was to sacrifice animals/people to do this. This was based on belief and not reality which brings us to the MMCC co2 religion and its amusing belief set. I hear often how renewable's are cheaper than fossil fuel and if that is true then surely people will be happy that Trump has left the unnecessary Paris accord as we dont need to force people into making the change-

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/05/29/if-this-is-true-professor-krugman-then-we-dont-need-the-paris-accord-do-we/#45de62b19274

          However this is where the reality tends to kick the belief until it dies a painful death. What we are doing instead is building the over expensive renewable's which ramps up energy costs for no actual gain and then crying about how the poor and old cant afford to eat and heat. I guess we havnt moved very far from the 'good old days'

          1. sorry, what?

            Re: D'oh!

            @codejunky,

            I certainly haven't heard that it's cheaper. I expect it to be more expensive in the short/medium term just like with any other change. Look at the introduction of CDs or DVDs - these were more expensive but better for what they did compared with the previous generation tech. Now they are cheaper because they are widely used and the production technology is robust, efficient etc.

            I expect to pay more, either directly or via taxes, depending on how the funding is managed, whilst the alternatives are made available, refined and improved. This can happen. Look at how solar panels have dropped in price compared with when they were first developed now that their adoption has become more wide-spread.

            The status quo is pointless; the existing fuel sources will "dry up" over the next few decades. That makes me think we should invest now so we have a way to avoid a crash at that point, even if we don't care about the environment. Of course, we should care about the environment too.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: D'oh!

              @ sorry, what?

              "these were more expensive but better for what they did compared with the previous generation tech"

              Unfortunately that doesnt seem to be the arguments I tend to hear. For example solar is a good idea in places where it works efficiently but we had the wonderful mis-selling problem in the UK where this great tech was deployed in places and even at angles that wouldnt work very well. Unfortunately for places like the UK it has caused a significant shortage or energy production and extremely higher prices for no benefit.

              "The status quo is pointless; the existing fuel sources will "dry up" over the next few decades"

              No. Just no. Dry up my arse who is telling you that rubbish?

              1. Bloodbeastterror

                Re: D'oh!

                "for no benefit"

                In a hundred years, when regrettably you won't be around to see it, your great-great-grandchildren will, because of people like you and The Neon Buffoon, be living in a badly degraded environment. The fact that your uninformed beliefs prevent you from seeing this doesn't entitle you to badmouth the people who actually know what they're talking about.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: D'oh!

                  @ Bloodbeastterror

                  "The fact that your uninformed beliefs prevent you from seeing this doesn't entitle you to badmouth the people who actually know what they're talking about."

                  You talk of facts and belief but that sounds like a belief. Care to drop in some facts of these benefits of poor performing energy generation which increase prices for less power? The winter fuel allowance was brought in to help the old cope with the devastating 'green' policies which were nothing of the kind.

                  1. strum

                    Re: D'oh!

                    >The winter fuel allowance was brought in to help the old cope with the devastating 'green' policies which were nothing of the kind.

                    Was it bollocks.

                    You really are an arse at both ends.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: D'oh!

                      @ strum

                      "Was it bollocks."

                      go on then what was the winter fuel allowance brought in for?

                      "Fracking is proof of the arrival of peak oil"

                      Is it? I thought it was proof of technological improvement giving us a capability we didnt have before in an affordable means that we can use to access the same fuel but significantly cheaper.

                      "You really are an arse at both ends."

                      Only in your fantasies. And I dont need to know about those thanks.

                  2. Bloodbeastterror

                    Re: D'oh!

                    "Care to drop in some facts of these benefits"

                    No. I do not engage in discussion with people unable or unwilling to listen or understand.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: D'oh!

                      @ Bloodbeastterror

                      "No. I do not engage in discussion with people unable or unwilling to listen or understand."

                      On one hand I smile knowing that that attitude. If you are not willing to discuss with anyone who does not blindly and unquestioningly agree with you then your beliefs will die out as no self respecting person would just accept your statements as fact.

                      On the other hand I wonder if it is your loss or the loss of people who have the will to discuss ideas and perspectives. If is plausible you might have something factual to add to the discussion but your lack of will or ability to express it ensures it will remain out of the discussion. And if you are not willing to discuss with people who do not unquestioningly agree with you then how can you improve your understanding?

                      Of course if what you mean is you have no facts you could have simply replied 'No'.

                    2. Kiwi
                      FAIL

                      Re: D'oh!

                      "Care to drop in some facts of these benefits"

                      No. I do not engage in discussion with people unable or unwilling to listen or understand.

                      IOW you can't.

              2. sorry, what?
                Facepalm

                Re: D'oh!

                @codejunky,

                Are you telling me that we have endless supplies of petroleum and natural gas? The fact that we are looking at the (potentially dirty) fracking approach to access shale gas, or how companies are doing deep-sea drilling (BP anyone) are both clear indicators that we are exhausting the easy-access fuel sources.

                Please get your head out of the sand and start giving a damn about what comes next instead of ignoring the scary prospect of a world plunged into bigger and more wide-spread fuel wars.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: D'oh!

                  @ sorry, what?

                  "Are you telling me that we have endless supplies of petroleum and natural gas?"

                  No. I am telling you your claim that it will dry up in the next few decades is total utter twaddle.

                  "The fact that we are looking at the (potentially dirty) fracking approach to access shale gas, or how companies are doing deep-sea drilling (BP anyone) are both clear indicators that we are exhausting the easy-access fuel sources."

                  That is a massively different statement. Easy to access is an interesting metric of technological progress. You will find it is quicker and cheaper to set up and run a fracking drilling system than the old style ones which is why OPEC is now struggling to push up prices. Potentially dirty covers most things we do. It depends on how we choose to do it.

                  "Please get your head out of the sand and start giving a damn about what comes next instead of ignoring the scary prospect of a world plunged into bigger and more wide-spread fuel wars."

                  Interestingly this is not the case. Fuel wars are pointless as shale fracking has provided a much more abundant supply around the globe. Combine that with say solar for the countries where it is efficient and the energy problems start becoming government imposed. If we are determined for a low co2 option (push up the prices) then nuclear is a valid option. I do think of what comes next. And a self imposed poverty situation sounds reckless and stupid just to appease the gods or whatever religion.

                  1. strum

                    Re: D'oh!

                    > shale fracking

                    Fracking is proof of the arrival of peak oil* - predicted 40-odd years ago (when I was studying this stuff). The industry scrambles towards unconventional sources, as the easy ones dry up.

                    *Note that 'peak oil' doesn't mean 'the oil is running out'. It means that production has reached a peak (while demand continues to rise).

                    1. Kiwi

                      Re: D'oh!

                      *Note that 'peak oil' doesn't mean 'the oil is running out'. It means that production has reached a peak (while demand continues to rise).

                      Hmm.. Interesting this "peak oil" thingy. Didn't we first reach "peak oil" around 1998 or so? Hasn't oil demand risen by quite a large amount since then? Are there oil shortages? No?

                      Then what is this "peak oil production" we keep hearing of if oil companies can currently match demand and even, as was the case last year (or 2015?) where they had to cut back production to keep the prices high because there was an over-supply issue (ie the oil producers were producing too much and this meant prices would fall).

                      I don't doubt that oil is a finite resource, or if it is actually a mineral resource as opposed to fossil, then it is a resource where demand will outstrip production/renewal at some stage. But every time someone uses the claim "we're at peak production now and cannot possibly increase production" and then production increases significantly over time, well, that makes them out to be either liars or un-informed. Either way, their argument, and other arguments they make, become rather doubtful. Of course, if you have some proof of current oil shortages that maybe "big oil" is somehow paying people to keep from reporting it or someshit? Maybe the reporters who know about these supposed shortages are being "disappeared" by "big oil" to "silence them"? Because you cannot have peak production, increased demand, and no shortage.

                      Some day we will actually hit "peak oil". We may even get surprised by a sudden drying up of a significant number of wells, but for now - well, it's been shown we're not yet at "peak production". I hope to see oil get overtaken by much better in my lifetime, even if it's a Thorium or other currently-plentiful finite resource. I long to see the filthy stuff pass from memory into history books. Sadly the current follies and refusal to go with some decent nuke stuff will see us even more dependent on oil (and far far worse, coal).

              3. Anonymous Coward
                WTF?

                Re: D'oh!

                "Unfortunately for places like the UK it has caused a significant shortage or energy production and extremely higher prices for no benefit."

                I'll leave this here.

                http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40058074

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: D'oh!

                  @ Lost all faith...

                  I am not sure if your backing up my point with that article or if you think it refutes it.

                  1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Kiwi
              Boffin

              Re: D'oh!

              The status quo is pointless; the existing fuel sources will "dry up" over the next few decades. That makes me think we should invest now so we have a way to avoid a crash at that point, even if we don't care about the environment. Of course, we should care about the environment too.

              Since my birth in the 70's I've been hearing just about yearly about how our oil reserves are "about to dry up" and run out.

              I do believe it is a finite resource, and logically it must run out at some stage, but the stuff about "it is about to run out" is a problem in how it gets stated so often yet we're always a "few decades" away. At least, I hope we are still far enough away from that to see better stuff come along.

              However, I do agree that we should be putting much effort into building systems and vehicles that will use much much less "fossil" resources and much more renewables. True renewable tech that doesn't waste resources and further damage the planet in the process.

              I'm what some would call a "climate change denier" though I don't deny that climates change. I do disagree with the few "settled scientists" on it, sticking by the silent majority who know there's a lot more to the story. The big key thing though is that I am anti-waste and anti-pollution.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: D'oh!

          Preventing a catastrophe has to be a good thing.The question is do we know there is going to be a catastrophe and do we understand enough to prevent it?

          The climate is changing. No one can sensibly deny that as the scientific evidence shows that the climate has always been changing and by inference it will continue to do so. Is human activity changing the climate? It probably is as we are releasing C02 that was trapped by life millions of years ago and changing vegetation patterns around the globe. Are we changing it significantly or minimally? I don't know, as the climate is very very complex and no one knows how it would be changing without the human impact.

          I would like to think that climate scientists who are paid to study these things know the answer to these questions. They claim to know the answers (well that is their job) but I have yet to see any evidence that they really understand how climate works. If they truly understood it they would be able to make models that predict the future climate. Currently their models use hindcasting and are very good at predicting the climate in the past but fail to predict what is coming. Their knowledge is incomplete.

          Until we can predict climate we are guessing. Guessing that a catastrophe is coming and guessing that proposed actions will avert it, with no way of assessing if the actions were effective. This is not science.

          1. strum

            Re: D'oh!

            >I have yet to see any evidence that they really understand how climate works.

            Which tells me that you haven't really looked. There have been five IPCC reports (which a plethora of citations in each). Go look.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: D'oh!

              @strum

              I have looked many times and yes they have produced reports and models in abundance. They have ideas and theorys which are all very convincing but when they model them to test the theory the model fails. In science if you test a hypothesis and it fails that is incotrovertible evidence that the theory you believed in is false and your understanding is incomplete.

              What we don't know is if they are almost right and just need a tweak or hoplessly wrong missing key climate drivers, or indeed that the system is inherrantly cahotic and imposible to model.

              What we do know is that all the reports and citations in the world mean little if the climate stubbornly fails to behave as they believe it should.

            2. Kiwi
              FAIL

              Re: D'oh!

              There have been five IPCC reports

              IPCC.. An organisation found to have repeatedly falsified reports.

              Why exactly should they be trusted?

        3. Kiwi

          Re: D'oh!

          The point is less about Musk and more about trying to prevent a climate catastrophe...

          Isn't Musk behind Tesla, who make "performance cars"? Not exactly a bastion of "clean and green" there!

          Oh, I hear they're doing electric cars now.

          Well, if electric cars used perhaps some home-based generation or were only charged in places away from homes they might be cleaner to some extent (if they're more efficient c/w diesel) they might be better, but here's the thing they don't tell you. Electric cars require electricity. That electricity is generally made in very dirty coal power plants. More electric cars means more power plants. Given the greeny fear-mongering about Nuclear power plants, new plants will still be coal or other stuff (or even worse, wind - requiring both wind and even more coal plants).

          But it gets worse.

          People will want to re-charge their cars when they get home each night. This will be somewhere in the range of a new oven per car per house, except it'll be running for a few more hours (per car) than your average oven, and probably needing a higher amperage for the charging port as well. That will mean the transmission lines will need to be upgraded. Streets like mine and so many others around the world have them underground, so not just the resources in making the wires but HUGE resources in digging up the old wires and burying the new ones. All the transformers will need to be replaced. Small substations will take on the dimensions of larger ones, while large substations could become much much larger (though there will probably be some in-fill of new kit before they need more room).

          An influx of electric cars will require a significant upgrade of our generating and transmission systems, otherwise they will lead to a lot of blackouts, which will lead to people having to use alternatives while their electric cars sit idle. New suburbs might be OK as they can be built from the ground-up with the appropriate hardware in place.

          Here's a free tip though that Mr Musk could be doing with his cars if he really was interested in cutting pollution - cover every surface of his cars with solar panels. True, they would not be able to charge the car up inside a day and would largely be useless in parking buildings (though lit buildings would give a little energy), but they would provide an extra boost to those cars that can get sunlight, and that would require less charging at the end of the day (though I have yet to see the math on a) whether the panels could pay for themselves or b) the resource cost of manufacture/added weight would wipe out their energy gain).

          Hybrids on the other hand, they have a few things going for them from what I know.

          I would love for electric cars to succeed. I'd love for something to replace the oil we burn by the tonne every second on this planet, and the non-carbon1 pollutants that get pumped into the air. But electric cars as things are now? No. Not till we can recharge them without the massive resource sink that would be needed with today's technology.

          1 Carbon of course is not the big baddie that it is often made out to be. There's a lot more to worry about coming out of tail pipes. But either way, reducing our oil use (and other resources that pollute heavily either when extracted or burnt) would take care of the supposed carbon problem. Don't use bullshit that only adds to the pollution (eg wind farms), use stuff that can actually help our planet by reducing pollution and mining, and de-forestation. I'm sure if Mr Musk was really keen on it, he could dump a bit more of his money into appropriate research? If he matched me on a % of income donated basis, well... Course like so many wealthy people there'll be excuses as to why he cannot actually do that.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Technological welfare queen

        PRSIDENT TRUMO (portus) has no need of PARIS becUse HE Has the flagrant LADY MELLENCAMP right next to him. And beside he owns HIS OWN HOTELS so doesn't MEED FABLURS FROM THE HILTONS. that's what makes him A GRATE PRESIDENTT.

    3. spacecadet66

      Re: Technological welfare queen

      Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of several hundred billion-with-a-b dollars in the US alone every year, but OK, it's Musk who's the welfare queen.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Technological welfare queen

        Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of several hundred billion-

        Wrong, you are confusing reduction of tax with payment for nothing. This straw-man gets used every time someone points out just how expensive the unreliable renewable energy con is.

        1. spacecadet66

          Re: Technological welfare queen

          "Wrong, you are confusing reduction of tax..." Well, a subsidy by any other name, etc.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Technological welfare queen

            @ spacecadet66

            "Well, a subsidy by any other name, etc."

            Not stealing and gift are 2 entirely different actions. Not taking someone elses earnings is not the same as giving someone someone elses money.

            1. spacecadet66

              Re: Technological welfare queen

              "Not stealing." Careful how you slant the language, you might fall off.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Technological welfare queen

                @ spacecadet66

                ""Not stealing." Careful how you slant the language, you might fall off."

                What do you call taking/confiscating from someone through threat of force? But even if you prefer a different word the action is still different. The point still stands. And I am still upright.

                1. spacecadet66

                  Re: Technological welfare queen

                  Feel free to continue thinking that if it helps you get through your day.

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: Technological welfare queen

                    @ spacecadet66

                    "Feel free to continue thinking that if it helps you get through your day."

                    I am guessing you dont have the capability to explain? I am fairly sure you should be able to understand the difference between taking from someone vs gifting to someone. So if you have a different view that is supportable beyond ideology/belief then feel free to share it.

                  2. Kiwi
                    FAIL

                    Re: Technological welfare queen

                    Feel free to continue thinking that if it helps you get through your day.

                    At least he is thinking, unlike this wind-loving "science-is-settled" even-though-it-isn't twits.

      2. Nial

        Re: Technological welfare queen

        "Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of several hundred billion..."

        Ah yes, the old fossil fuel subsidy bollocks.

        Fully destroyed here...

        http://euanmearns.com/the-appalling-truth-about-energy-subsidies/

        "We are comparing apples with oranges but normalising for energy production, the renewables subsidies are 8.4 times larger and amount to 94% of the value of the energy produced. This latter statistic is hard to believe, but if it is close to true, it suggests that new renewables are contributing virtually nothing to society."

  2. inmypjs Silver badge

    Surprised?

    Not like Musk doesn't have a huge vested interest with Climate change to thank for millions of tax payer $.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Surprised?

      yeah, "follow the money". The elitists get their profits while the rest of us suffer with higher energy costs, fewer jobs, lower wages as a result.

      Why must _EVERY_ lefty/liberal solution *ALWAYS* do this? Answer: because they're NOT SOLUTIONS. They're TAKEOVERS.

      CO2 doesn't warm the planet. It can't. It doesn't absorb infrared frequencies for normal temperatures. Maybe if you're above 60C or below -48C you might see some absorption. But it's INSIGNIFICANT in between. In other words, it doesn't do SQUAT to world temperatures in "the normal range". And yet, everybody jumps on the propoganda bandwagon of "it's CO2" and "carbon footprint" yotta yotta DESPITE the REAL SCIENCE saying that WATER is "the greenhouse gas" that makes the weather change and nobody's DARING to try and control THAT, not with a planet 3/4 covered with it...

      It's JUST! NOT! POSSIBLE! for all of this carbon-credit-crap to even CHANGE anything, let alone STOP natural cycles from occurring.

      But don't worry. The planet is cooling back down. It's a 70 year cycle after all. You know, in 1900 it was cold. In 1935 it was warm. In 1970 it was cold. In 2005 it was warm. And now we're on the downward slope of the curve, and picking up speed. You know it's pretty DAMN COLD out there right now, and it's almost JUNE, and I still have bags on the wind driven fans in the roof [which I do to limit their spinning during the winter, saves on heating]. NOrmally they'd be off in the spring and the air conditioner would be BLASTING. but it's freaking COLD out there right now. Go fig, "globl warming"... unless I'm *RIGHT* about the COOLING part of the cycle!!!

      1. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: Surprised?

        "It's JUST! NOT! POSSIBLE!"

        Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

        As I've said before, maybe about this very (aptly-named) person, random and pointless use of capitals is the sure sign that you can discount and dismiss the post (and the poster) as moronic.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Surprised?

          I GET capitals BEczuse THE IMTRNET DOES IT TO me when I TYPE ON MY IPOD. Blema The IMTRNET. HOW DO you get all small LETTERS..? Are you a warlock T. .? Preview SUBMIT.

      2. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

        Re: Surprised?

        "It's JUST! NOT! POSSIBLE!!

        I think you need to go read some Svante Arrhenius papers. You'll only then have 111 years of further climate science to catch up on.

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Surprised?

          I think you need to go read some Svante Arrhenius papers.

          Which can be simply dismissed, Arrhenius being some ancient furriner doing science.

          I also doubt that Bombastic Bob would be able to make it past the introductory paragraph.

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: Surprised?

            I like this one better

            http://www.greatians.com/globalwarming/greenhouse%20gas.htm

            simple. obvious. has references that can be checked.

            see conclusion at the end. It pretty much matches what I said.

      3. Triggerfish

        Re: Surprised?

        Looks like you got that CAPSLOCK problem again mate.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Surprised?

          Looks like you got that CAPSLOCK problem again mate.

          Judging by the post, caps lock issue are the very least of his problems..

      4. naive

        Re: Surprised?

        You are so right, the down votes from the climate change sheeples are funny. I hope they never start telling them that climate change is caused by witches, then we are back in the dark age.

        1. TVU

          "You are so right, the down votes from the climate change sheeples are funny. I hope they never start telling them that climate change is caused by witches, then we are back in the dark age."

          The only ones living in the medieval dark ages are those who reject science and technology and the wise advice of all the national science academies on the planet.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Kiwi
          Coat

          Re: Surprised?

          I hope they never start telling them that climate change is caused by witches

          But it is caused by witches!1

          1 Well witches are people, and "climate change" is supposedly caused by people, so.....

      5. Naselus

        Re: Surprised?

        Bob, you should trying reading through your posts and ask yourself 'does this read like something AManFromMars would write?'.

        If the answer is yes, then don't hit publish.

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: Surprised?

          Fascinating how people can post on a tech site, using tech that comes from things like the scientific process and consensus, and then can so blatantly ignore anything like that when it impinges on their own world view.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Surprised?

            @ Triggerfish

            "Fascinating how people can post on a tech site, using tech that comes from things like the scientific process and consensus, and then can so blatantly ignore anything like that when it impinges on their own world view."

            People still defend windfarms, especially on shore! Some people still defend the Eurozone. Unfortunately the consensus of like minds seems to be enough for some without the need for facts or reality.

            1. Triggerfish

              Re: Surprised?

              People still defend windfarms, especially on shore! Some people still defend the Eurozone.

              Windfarms

              Are they not controversial? There seems to be no consensus on them yet.

              Although worth noting a lot of the rabid supporters tend to ignore the science and engineering side because it doesn't fit into their world view.

              Eurozone

              What the heck has that got to do with scientific consensus?

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Surprised?

                @ Triggerfish

                "Although worth noting a lot of the rabid supporters tend to ignore the science and engineering side because it doesn't fit into their world view."

                I responded to your message of- "Fascinating how people can post on a tech site, using tech that comes from things like the scientific process and consensus, and then can so blatantly ignore anything like that when it impinges on their own world view."

                That would seem to come under people (as you call them "rabid supporters") ignoring anything impinging on their world view.

                "Eurozone

                What the heck has that got to do with scientific consensus?"

                And repeat.

                1. Triggerfish

                  Re: Surprised?

                  Fair enough, thought you were using it to justify the position that scientific consensus could be ignored because people do those. Apologies. :)

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: Surprised?

                    @ Triggerfish

                    No probs, I could have probably worded it better.

                    1. Triggerfish

                      Re: Surprised?

                      No worries, meant to reply with a similar apologies to your Venezuela comment, but forgot, was busy. :)

            2. Tom Paine
              Mushroom

              Re: Surprised?

              People still defend windfarms

              Do they? Do they really? How completely bizarre, people liking a cheap carbon-free source of power, Whatever has got into them to make them start behaving rationally?

              http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wind-power-now-the-cheapest-source-of-electricity-but-the-government-continues-to-resist-onshore-a6685326.html

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Surprised?

                @ Tom Paine

                "Do they? Do they really? How completely bizarre, people liking a cheap carbon-free source of power, Whatever has got into them to make them start behaving rationally?"

                Thank you for demonstrating the existence of such people. But in no way is wind power cheap, it is more expensive than nuclear in some estimates but certainly much higher than fossil fuel consistently. Certainly requiring both subsidy through tax and increased energy prices.

                Also with the severe problem of requiring a fossil fuel gas power plant to support the irregularity of power generation it is a high polluter with high energy manufacturing required to make the generally non-recyclable technology. Unfortunately insanely high quotes for power generation were used to sell wind power while providing far less.

                There is little rational about wind farm power.

              2. Kiwi
                WTF?

                Re: Surprised?

                How completely bizarre, people liking a cheap carbon-free source of power

                Carbon free? How stupid can you get?

                Tell me - what are they made from? Are there any metals or oils used in their manufacture? Any steel? Any plastics? Well there's a few tons of carbon there.

                Tell me - do they just magically appear on site, or is there a very large amount of heavy machinery to transport them the thousands of miles from where they are made to where they are installed? A hell of a lot of carbon there.

                Tell me - do the cables and switchgear that link them to the national grid use any metals, any rubbers, any plastics or other mined/refined materials? Much more carbon.

                Tell me - do the sites the windfarms magically appear on magically appear by themselves, or is a lot of heavy machinery used in building the necessary roading to said sites, getting the cables to the sites, and doing the groundwork (lots of carbon in concrete!)? A few metric tonnes of carbon involved there, thousands of litres of oil burned per site etc. (well, given the roading needed for some of the sites I've seen I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least 2,000l/diesel per site)

                Tell me - when the windfarm's gearbox fails after a very short time, is there a lot of carbon used in the production of a new gearbox, transporting it to site, replacing the old, transporting the old away?

                Tell me - when your wind turbines stop spinning a second generator must already be up to speed before the wind turbine stops producing power - is there a lot of carbon involved in the manufacture, transport, installation, cabling etc of that generator? And there's a good chance that said backup generator would be coal, gas, oil, or "biomass" (ie wood chips shipped in from another country1 - no there's no carbon involved in that really!)

                Tell me - when a wind turbine in the country has one of those spectacular fieiry failures you see on youtube, what's the black smoke? No carbon in that? What about when they fail somewhere where there's no fire appliances nearby and a lot of ground gets burnt as a result - any carbon released there? No?

                Wind is probably the worst polluter of any, and has a very high carbon footprint. People promoting it are either misled, totally stupid, or in it for the money. Saying it's "carbon-free" suggests you may be in the 2nd camp, though hopefully the first and hopefully you'll sit down and do the math yourself and figure this out. That's why I am now very much against wind when I used to be someone who promoted it! Oh, and if you're in the 3rd camp, well what I have to say to those people is probably illegal so I won't say it here.

                1 Maybe instead of shipping wood pellets or whatever, they could a ) site the power station near the coast and b) build wooden ships and sail them right into the power plant... Sails could be made of wood fibres (something closer to sail canvas than paper though) and could be burnt as well (if this would be a net saving of course)

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Surprised?

              People still defend windfarms, especially on shore!

              Yes, that is astonishing since some have been fighting them since the early 1600s..

              :)

              1. inmypjs Silver badge

                Re: Surprised?

                "Yes, that is astonishing since some have been fighting them since the early 1600s.."

                Times change, nowadays it is windmills doing the tilting at imaginary foe.

            4. Florida1920

              Re: Surprised?

              People still defend windfarms

              I've been touring the American West for 4-1/2 months. Out here there are wind farms that stretch from horizon to horizon. Their locations make them hazardous to migrating birds, to which I object. But I find it hard to believe corporations would invest the billions of dollars these farms cost if they weren't efficient. Even states like Wyoming and North Dakota, major coal suppliers, have massive wind farms. Seems to me that energy companies know the coal isn't going to last forever. Oh, and I've seen huge solar installations, too. Tree huggers clearly aren't the only ones defending alternative energy sources.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Surprised?

                @ Florida1920

                "But I find it hard to believe corporations would invest the billions of dollars these farms cost if they weren't efficient"

                The corporations dont do it for the efficiency, they do it for the money. If efficiency was to increase their profits then they will do it for efficiency. Except that only works in market conditions. If the gov is dishing out money to people to make and run these things with no regard for them working efficiently or with any good reason then the company will still build them.

                This is an amusing problem for Germany who now not only gives subsidy to 'Green energy' but also pays subsidy to fossil fuel plants to keep them open or the lights would certainly go out. Unfortunately the monuments to the sky dont work on a large scale. That is why it is reportable news when for an hour of its existence it produces some electricity. Maybe because of a storm (here in the UK).

                "Oh, and I've seen huge solar installations, too"

                Solar is different. In the right places and built correctly it works. Yet again governments have subsidised it and here in the UK we had a massive mis-selling problem because the installer got paid by the customer and gov for something that was pointless and in some cases not even installed correctly. Then the huge outcry when the subsidies were to be removed because then installation companies would fall. They required the gov money to stay in business, not because they sold a good product.

              2. Kiwi

                Re: Surprised?

                But I find it hard to believe corporations would invest the billions of dollars these farms cost if they weren't efficient.

                [cough]massive subsidies[cough]

                Why make something beneficial and efficient when you can make utter crap for 1,000 times the profit? And since when do these people care more about the environment than their back pocket?

          2. inmypjs Silver badge

            Re: Surprised?

            "from things like the scientific process and consensus"

            Yes we all need to be as convinced as the guy questioned here

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

            Look at religions, people will believe any old shit without a shred of evidence as long as they think enough other people believe the same thing. That is why the 97% fabrication is so often stated and so important to this religion.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Surprised?

            from things like the scientific process and consensus,

            Real science never advances by consensus, it takes real work and understanding.

            1. strum

              Re: Surprised?

              Real science never advances by consensus, it takes real work and understanding.

              Understanding which is built upon consensus.

              I'm getting rather tired of anti-science warriors pretending they're Galileo.

              1. spacecadet66

                Re: Surprised?

                "They laughed at Galileo and they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --source unknown (to me)

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Surprised?

        @bombastic bob

        I'll just leave this here:

        https://xkcd.com/1732/

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Surprised?

          Only problem with the xkcd 'graph' is that it is based on junk science data that tries to cool the past, medieval warm period went missing, data and un-validated computer models that are biased to warm the future.

      7. spacecadet66

        Re: Surprised?

        It takes all of two seconds to google "how does co2 trap heat," and come up with results, like this from some left-wing rag called the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2968987/Scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air.html

        But of course you don't care if this happens to be true or not: somehow (*) global warming got mixed up into the overall culture war, so your post is merely virtue signalling to other useful idiots.

        (*) Money.

        1. inmypjs Silver badge

          Re: Surprised?

          "It takes all of two seconds to google "how does co2 trap heat,""

          But the important question is not how but how much. CO2 is responsible for a tiny proportion of the greenhouse effect. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is narrow, once you have absorbed all the heat in that narrow part of the spectrum higher CO2 proportions will make no difference.

          All the predictions of catastrophic temperature increases assume small rises from CO2 force much larger rises from increased water vapour which is all guesswork and frankly bollocks. The global climate system can not possibly have an overall +ve feedback effect. If it did a single dinosaur fart would have us burnt to a crisp by now.

      8. strum

        Re: Surprised?

        >CO2 doesn't warm the planet.

        And, with that lie, you lose all credibility.

      9. Alistair
        Windows

        Re: Surprised?

        Umm

        Bombast

        CO2 levels and heat absorption.

        Although your may have *one* element of *physics* on your side in that rant, you're missing about 10 other elements to the equation. Take off your blinders and understand about thermal envelopes. Oh, and you might want to ask someone about the *cough* Carboniferous Period. While you're asking about that, ask how long the thermal cycles took in the past.

        I'll agree the carbon tax credit scheme is bullshit. it makes money. For *someone*. Might want to check out *who* it makes the most money for.

      10. Kiwi
        Thumb Up

        Re: Surprised?

        You know it's pretty DAMN COLD out there right now

        Now now BB. You know that even if every country on earth was several degrees colder for several years ina row it'd still be "conclusive proof of global warming" or "that's just weather, not climate" or "well, when we adjust the figures properly you'll find that when those thermometers said last decade was warmer than this one it was because no one knew how to read thermometers back then" or some other bullshit like that.

        Oh hang on, it's "climate change" now, not "global warming" because they realised they could only lie to people for so long (except the terminally stupid who actually do believe this shit!) before it would be noticed that we're not drowning under hundreds of metres of sea-level rises. Oh hang on that's explained by "isostatic rebound which just happens to coincidentally magically exactly match sea level rises".

    2. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

      Re: Surprised?

      Everything in the US government is just following money and power around. Trump would burn the world to ashes if it game him a moment of fame and fortune. Musk's money and power happens to be more in line with what's good for the US - materials R&D, advanced manufacturing, working solar power, and maybe even modernizing transportation.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Whack-a do lobby

    Trump will probably be swayed by the crazy religious groups who think trashing the planet is OK.

    Because: Jesus!

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Whack-a do lobby

      "swayed by the crazy religious groups who think trashing the planet is OK"

      yes, everyone who does not agree with the doom/gloom climate change FASCISM is OBVIOUSLY wanting to just *WRECK* the planet, irresponsibly throw trash everywhere, pollute deliberately whenever possible, dump toxic waste into fishing and swimming areas, throw trash all over the beaches (especially glass and hypodermic needles) yotta yotta yotta.

      (I can't believe some people might actually think I wasn't being facetious)

      /me facepalming

      1. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: Whack-a do lobby

        Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

        I refer my readers to my comment a few posts above.

      2. FlatSpot
        Facepalm

        Re: Whack-a do lobby

        Careful now, el reg seems to have turned into the tech wing of the Guardian. Mass extinctions aren't going to happen due to temperature rises, all the world's creatures have been through worse and date back millions of years considerably longer than humans, when the world was a lot hotter. Worse case they drink a bit more water.... but they aren't all going to keel over because its a bit hot, we have 20+ deg swings already it's called the four seasons

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: Whack-a do lobby

          all the world's creatures

          All the worlds creatures, are you sure on that? are you saying there have been no extinctions since year dot?

          What about the Permian extinction?

          Also some creature will definitely die if the temperature changes that much, we have a advantage being quite an adaptable mammal, and also being able to shed clothing or put it on as necessary. Not all animals handle temperature ranges so well.

          Also the equatorial regions you don't get four seasons, you get hot, and wet and its damn hot then as well.

          Also have you heard of drought? How are they going to drink more water? An elephant drinks something like 30 gallons a day.

          What about deserts?

          Do you think evaporation might be a concern?

          1. Kiwi

            Re: Whack-a do lobby

            all the world's creatures

            All the worlds creatures, are you sure on that? are you saying there have been no extinctions since year dot?

            I think the OP was referring to the fact that every species around today has been around for a long time, in some cases for millions of years (if you believe that stuff) or since Creation (if you believe that stuff). We have species here in NZ that were around when the dinosaurs were around, they've obviously gone through all those extremes. Without the benefits of clothing etc.

            Also some creature will definitely die if the temperature changes that much, we have a advantage being quite an adaptable mammal, and also being able to shed clothing or put it on as necessary. Not all animals handle temperature ranges so well.

            It is true that a significant change in climate could lead to the loss of some species or variants. But then we've had much colder periods not so long ago, and much warmer ones as well.

            What about deserts?

            Do you think evaporation might be a concern?

            Maybe. But just maybe.. Higher amounts of carbon in the atmosphere mean one of the key components of plant material is increased, more readily available. Of course plants need other nutrients to grow but an increase of carbon should help them. And higher temperatures are supposed to mean increased rainfall and certainly will mean increased humidity - you simply cannot possibly increase the amount of heat in the atmosphere without increasing the amount of water vapour, and that will spread (not evenly but it will spread) even to the dryer regions.

            If "global warming" does actually somehow happen to follow the often-falsified climate models (or some close facsimile), it is possible that initially we'll see some increase to desertification, but later see deserts reduce and crops increase.1 Maybe more flooding, maybe not.

            Increased evaporation also means increased cloud. Increased cloud means more heat radiated out into space before it reaches the lower atmosphere or the earth. Increased heat radiating out into space means things start cooling down.

            1 NOT an excuse to waste resources or increase your "carbon footprint". Believe in AGW/MMCC/WTCIT2 or not as you wish, but look after the damned planet anyway!

            2 Whatever They're Calling It Today

        2. Bloodbeastterror

          Re: Whack-a do lobby

          "it's called the four seasons"

          Another moron who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. All he's missing is the caps lock key.

          1. Triggerfish

            Re: Whack-a do lobby

            I'm not sure he even understands weather.

          2. Kiwi
            FAIL

            Re: Whack-a do lobby

            Another moron who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. All he's missing is the caps lock key.

            Said by someone who seems to be lacking the intelligence to notice the point made that most of the world's lifeforms go through considerable temperature changes on a regular basis, and survive.

        3. Ucalegon
          Alert

          Re: Whack-a do lobby

          "Careful now, el reg seems to have turned into the tech wing of the Guardian"

          - opinion, we all have them

          "Mass extinctions aren't going to happen due to temperature rises"

          - poorly informed opinion, we all have them but some of us don't shout out our ignorance so much.

          "all the world's creatures have been through worse and date back millions of years considerably longer than humans, when the world was a lot hotter"

          - irrelevant to topic but you might want to see how adaptation might work in a very short period of time.

          "Worse case they drink a bit more water.... but they aren't all going to keel over because its a bit hot,"

          - More mass oversimplification than extinction this one.

          "we have 20+ deg swings already it's called the four seasons"

          - you do understand it's about the climate not just the heat? My son, according to his school, can now name and describe the four seasons. I thought to myself, "Wow! I can't tell where they start and end anymore. Son, you're a genius".

        4. Mike Richards

          Re: Whack-a do lobby

          'Mass extinctions aren't going to happen due to temperature rises'

          Your reading for tonight is to learn about the cause and effects of the carbon isotope excursion during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. If you have time, the Permo-Triassic Mass Extinction is also available.

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: Whack-a do lobby

            why focus on carbon? I have a reasonable suspiction that during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that atmospheric humidity was very VERY high. Earth swampy much?

            And if "all that CO2" only changed temperatures by "that much", we're gonna be JUST! FINE!!!

            besides, I'd like some warmer weather than we're seeing right now. You know, being at cos(60) of the estimated maximum temperature swing. That would be about 50% off of maximum for those who believe in global warming.

            * I came up with that number based on a peak in 2005 with a 35 year half-cycle and 12 years, about 1/3 of that, being 1/3 of the 180 degrees of the cycle, or about 60 degrees. The current value relative to the peak would then be about cos(60) or 0.5 . If the peak is +/- about 2.5 degrees C, that would be an average worldwide temperature drop of a bit over 1 deg C, or as much as 3F. The difference between a 67F day and a 70F day is enough to make me feel cold. Funny how facts like that all line up so well...

            ** don't forget, "consensus" among "scientists" forced Gallileo to recant his non-geo-centric model of the universe. Just sayin'

            *** As far as I'm concerned, "consensus" means "peer pressure". Not a good way to do SCIENCE.

        5. Tom Paine

          Re: Whack-a do lobby

          You appear to be completely ignorant of the topic. Some introductory texts that might save you from embarrassment in future, unless you're too stupid to be able to cope with Teh Sienciss:

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/our-books/

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Whack-a do lobby

            @Tom Paine

            I see your very biased

            www.realclimate.org/

            and raise you

            http://www.bishop-hill.net/

            http://joannenova.com.au/

          2. Kiwi

            Re: Whack-a do lobby

            You appear to be completely ignorant of the topic. Some introductory texts that might save you from embarrassment in future,

            From the site you linked :

            "and well-funded science deniers"

            Shouldn't you be embarrassed linking your name to those who make comments such as this? Hell. they even promote the very much debunked "hockey stick"! Talk about stuff that should be embarrasing!

            And you claim these clowns are somehow a reliable source of information on climate change?

            For shame!

        6. strum

          Re: Whack-a do lobby

          >we have 20+ deg swings already it's called the four seasons

          Good god! How did someone as ignorant as you manage to switch on a computer?

          We're looking at 2degC average (best case). That's not just 2degC warmer weather. That's a huge input of energy into an already chaotic system. Your local 'seasons' could easily move to a 40degC swing.

          And that 2degC rise depends on us doing something pretty drastic about CO2 - now. There's no reason we couldn't proceed to 4degC or beyond.

    2. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: Whack-a do lobby

      "crazy religious groups who think trashing the planet is OK"

      Fortunately, actually reading the bible is not necessary to be a christian in the US, so the irony of this one is lost.

      1. Tom Paine
        Devil

        Re: Whack-a do lobby

        Just as well!

        https://leviticusbans.tumblr.com/post/23730370413/76-things-banned-in-leviticus

    3. Florida1920

      Re: Whack-a do lobby

      Trump will probably be swayed by the crazy religious groups who think trashing the planet is OK.

      One in seven Americans think it is definitely (7%) or probably (9%) true that “God controls the climate, therefore people can’t be causing global warming.”

      http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warming-god-end-times/

      Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told constituents last week that he believes if climate change is a real problem, God can fix it.

      “I believe there’s climate change,” Walberg said at a town hall last Friday in Coldwater, Mich., according to the Huffington Post, which obtained video of the exchange.

      “I believe there’s been climate change since the beginning of time. I think there are cycles. Do I think that man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No.

      “Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”

      http://thehill.com/homenews/house/335886-gop-rep-on-climate-change-god-will-take-care-of-it

      Scott Pruitt, Trump's pick for head of the Environmental Protection Agency: “There are scientists that agree, there are scientists that don’t agree, to the extent of man’s contribution and whether it is even harmful that this point. We do not know if the trajectory is on an unsustainable course. Nor do we know the extent by which the burning of fossil fuels, and man’s contribution to that, is making it far worse than it is.”

      Scientists do not disagree whether climate change is happening, nor do they disagree about the main cause. An overwhelming majority of currently publishing climate scientists — 97 percent — say climate change is real and is primarily driven by human activities, the most salient being the burning of fossil fuels. That’s about the same level of consensus that the medical community has about the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.

      https://thinkprogress.org/scott-pruitt-epa-radio-show-comments-c88820974ce7?gi=a9bf2f263b40

    4. Richard Plinston

      Re: Whack-a do lobby

      > Trump will probably be swayed by the crazy religious groups

      Trump and the Republicans _are_ "the crazy religious groups".

      Trump's religion is 'eliminate everything that Obama did'. Obama signed the Paris Agreement so Trump has to get rid of that. In announcing that he also said he will renegotiate to get back into it. This is just so it will be 'Trump Saving The World' rather than Obama's legacy.

      The same with health care. He only cares that it is no longer Obama's but has the Trump name stamped on it. Cutting 800 billion to give to the rich is just a bonus.

      The Republicans don't want the Paris Agreement and claim that "God will fix the problems":

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1sEbUdl5r0

      1. Kiwi

        Re: Whack-a do lobby

        The Republicans don't want the Paris Agreement and claim that "God will fix the problems":

        God can fix the problems, no doubt about that. He's plenty able to.

        But.

        When so many who claim to worship Him go out of their way to deliberately mess up this planet to satisfy their greed, the question must become "Why should God save us from ourselves?".

        God can easily replenish oil fields, inspire someone on how to turn water into energy ala "Chain Reaction", inspire someone else on how to have "cold fusion" working by the end of the month. Or He could change our physiology so we have our own portable source of solar energy, residing in our backsides, if He wanted to.

        But so many of us spit in His face and go out of our way to ruin the things He gives us.

        So why should He step in?

        Oh, and if the republicans et al were to get to know their Bibles a bit, they might have to change their tune. And their lives. "I don't think those words mean what they think they mean".

    5. Kiwi
      Flame

      Re: Whack-a do lobby

      Trump will probably be swayed by the crazy religious groups who think trashing the planet is OK.

      Because: Jesus!

      Sadly true.

      If you claim to be Christian then LISTEN UP! We were given this planet as a gift lovingly crafted by our Father. He gave us a place of incredible beauty to live in. He also gave that we care for it, tend it as a gardener would tend their land. To cultivate it and look after it. He gave us dominion over the animals not so we can hunt them for sport but so we can look after them, sure we can use some as needed and to some degree as desired, but overall we are to look after this world and its inhabitants.

      Some Christians feel that since this world "will soon pass away" that they have a right to abuse it and it's resources. But that is so very far from the truth. For a start, "no one knows the hour or the day" that our Lord will return, yet God's children still have to live on this planet. You may die long before that time comes, but other children of our Father will have to live in the earth you leave behind. Do you think that is showing them love? Do you think it is compassionate to abuse the resources our Father has given us on this world, and leave those who follow with nothing but a polluted rock?

      Jesus said 'I can guarantee this truth: Whatever you failed to do for one of my brothers or sisters, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do for me.' (Matt 25:45) - in other words (or as Glenn Kaiser puts it) "however you treat the person you love the least is how you love Jesus the most". Mal on Firefly also kinda quotes this in the episode where Jayne attempts to sell out Simon and River : "You turn on any of my crew, you turn on me. You did it to me, Jayne. And that's a fact." (episode "Ariel"). So when you abuse the resources our Father crafted for you to enjoy, you show your love for Him first in messing up the gift He gave you (how would you feel if you put time and effort into a gift for your children and they treated it with disdain?), and second you show your love for Him in that you're leaving a mess for the next generation of His children to deal with.

      You have been plainly warned that we will have to account for every thing that we do. Think on that. I've said some pretty nasty stuff in my life, I've done plenty of things I shouldn't have, and even knowing that I am cleansed by the sacrifice Jesus made for me I still tremble at the thought of facing Him, knowing what I have done. But you, you abuse His gifts and claim it as a right. You mistreat His children and claim "might as well since this planet will be destroyed anyway". What do you think He will have to say to you when your turn comes? "Well done, good and faithful servant"? You're dreaming.

      If you claim to be Christian, then make an effort to live as one. I fail, but I don't claim my failures in His name. I don't claim my mistakes as a God-given right. Get over yourselves, realise that everything you have is a gift and a privilege, and start living as if you actually believe the faith you claim and love the God you claim to serve! Or just stop living a lie, live as you want to, but don't make any claim to Christ at all. Because while you live like this, Christ has no place in you.

      (Sorry to the non-Christians reading this - I really do get upset when we Christians make a mess of things, myself included (and yes, I know probably before this day is out I'll mess up yet again, say or do something I shouldn't (or not say/do something I should).

  4. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    What we need now is

    A few major employers to up sticks and move (lock stock and smoking gun) their US operations out of the USA and cite the moves by the President as the reason. These companies would already have operations outside the US.

    De-listing on Wall St is not enough. Closed and levelled industrial plants would be a clear sign that the USA is heading for 4th world status under their current Administration (The VP will be worse but won't fluff his lines as often).

    IMHO, that is the only sort of message that Trump/Pence will understand.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What we need now is

      Companies aren't going to make moves like that based on a four year occupant of the white house. If they feel that strongly about it, they'll just help fund someone to take him down in 2020.

      1. Naselus

        Re: What we need now is

        "Companies aren't going to make moves like that based on a four year occupant of the white house."

        That's weird, because every time someone on the left says 'lets raise corporation tax by 1%' we're informed that every corporation and business in the entire country will drop everything and flee to Panama.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Naselus - raising corporate tax rate is different

          Since such changes can't be made via executive order, they tend to be longer-lasting than the guy who occupies the white house and signs it. Maybe once a decade you get a couple years where one party has the house, senate and presidency, but there are no guarantees (it was 30 years for the republicans after Nixon)

          A 1% increase isn't going to matter, but a large enough increase or other very anti-business laws would cause some companies to at least consider relocating. As with any other business decision, they'd do a financial analysis of the two cases and compare, and see what the expected payback is (though obviously there'd be a lot of guesswork involved, especially if there was a backlash against their products in the US as a result) If they thought it could pay back in five years, they'd strongly consider it. If they thought it would take 20, it is not worth it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What we need now is

        Companies aren't going to make moves like that based on a four year occupant of the white house. If they feel that strongly about it, they'll just help fund someone to take him down in 2020.

        Ah, so THAT happened to Kennedy. No, wait ..

  5. Bloodbeastterror

    I have been much cheered by the sheer number of Youtube videos and newspaper articles analysing this presidency in personal and political terms. Trump is an insecure child despite his years, trying to fill the gaping void in his self-esteem. As his personal ghost writer said, he has no concept of right and wrong, only winning and losing. It is therefore extremely unlikely that he will allow Musk to "beat" him by leaving the council - after all, if climate change doesn't exist, then Musk is adding no value to a valueless council.

    The sooner this appalling buffoon is impeached the better. The idea of the podgy unstable finger hovering over the red button takes me back the the fear I had when I was a teenager.

    Americans, be ashamed. Be very ashamed. Though, alas, I doubt that anyone with the intelligence to be reading The Reg voted for the neon fool.

    1. Mystic Megabyte
      Unhappy

      @bloodbeastterror

      According to this article Trump may be losing his mind. The sooner he is removed the better.

      https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: @bloodbeastterror

        "According to this article Trump may be losing his mind. The sooner he is removed the better."

        He looks a bit tired.

        1. Mystereed

          Re: @bloodbeastterror

          Love the Dr Who quote.

          Unfortunately, I don't think it will work :-(

    2. Stoneshop Silver badge

      The idea of the podgy unstable finger hovering over the red button takes me back the the fear I had when I was a teenager.

      "he best way to keep Mr. Trump off Twitter, advisers said, is to keep him busy. During his foreign trip, he was occupied 12 to 15 hours a day, seldom left alone to fulminate over the Russian investigation and given less unstructured time to watch television — although he did tune in to CNN International and fumed privately that it was even more hostile to him than the domestic network."

      I'm not sure if that's a better tactic than just having him on Twitter all his waking hours, finishing with a satisfying covfefe while he zones out on the couch, exhausted, Unfortunately, there are no adults in the White House that can take up the slack in actually making policy, but keeping the Orange Baboon from anything more dangerous than a blunt spoon may still be a good thing.

      Hmm, even a phone with rounded corners may well be rather dangerous in his tiny hands.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The idea of the podgy unstable finger hovering over the red button takes me back the the fear I had when I was a teenager.

      I suspect that's why they gave him one that just orders a can of coke instead. The problem with that is that it trains him in thinking that pressing red buttons doesn't do any harm. IMHO it should serve a severe electric shock instead.

    4. Richard Plinston

      > The sooner this appalling buffoon is impeached the better.

      Pense will be worse because his God directs all his thoughts and actions.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Even more worrying is who gets to play the voice of god in the wee small hours of the night. Do we have directional projection speakers yet?

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "I hope that anyone with the intelligence to be reading The Reg did not vote for the neon fool".

      FTFY

  6. Olivier2553

    Continue to make America worse than the worst cliché

    I was biased and had not a very positive image of America, but what it is becoming is way worse than all i could imagine.

    And that next move would only make the image worse.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Coal stocks fell today

    There are rumors of a global backlash against the coal industry that is seen as behind Trump's views. It would be great to see US coal output drop due to no country being willing to import our coal, I wonder what excuse he'd give for that? Probably blame it on the media/democrats, like everything else.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Pirate

      Re: Coal stocks fell today

      " It would be great to see US coal output drop due to no country being willing to import our coal"

      I shall bill you for the living expenses of the miners and others that lose their jobs as a result of it. what, not ready to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for what you want to happen?

      I'd rather see these people have JOBS. Let's build some modern CLEAN coal-fired plants along the California/Nevada border and sell cheap coal-power to California. How about THAT ???

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        Yet you wouldn't say the same about MS sysadmins finding themselves out of work thanks to UNIX and the cloud...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Coal stocks fell today

          Yet you wouldn't say the same about MS sysadmins finding themselves out of work thanks to UNIX and the cloud...

          I don't know. Depends if you find state sponsored masochism acceptable.

          :)

        2. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Coal stocks fell today

          "Yet you wouldn't say the same about MS sysadmins finding themselves out of work thanks to UNIX and the cloud..."

          they're not being forced out of their jobs because of GUMMINT INTERVENTION, or POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, either. However, Microshaft _SHOULD_ take responsibility for releasing CRAP operating systems... (and eventually they'll have to turn it around or give up).

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: Coal stocks fell today

            And here was me thinking they closed because they weren't economically viable any more.

      2. H in The Hague Silver badge

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        "I shall bill you for the living expenses of the miners and others that lose their jobs as a result of it."

        Hmm, sounds like socialism, didn't think that was popular in the US.

        Yes, I'm sorry for the coal miners who lose their jobs. But if you protect their jobs that will be at the expense of other jobs, in other industries (gas, nuclear, renewables). Yes, the rise of the motor car with rubber tyres put wheelwrights out of their jobs, but gave jobs to garage mechanics. As Mrs Thatcher said "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge

          Re: Coal stocks fell today

          Hmm, sounds like socialism, didn't think that was popular in the US.

          That would be if the guvmint was to be paying unemployment benefits. Instead, Bombastic Bob is claiming he'll dump the bill on a private person he dislikes, and probably will go on to sue[0] him if he refuses to pay.

          [0] increasing employment for landsharks in the process.

      3. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        "I shall bill you for the living expenses"

        Ha ha etc.

        What COLOUR is the SKY in your WORLD?

      4. Hollerithevo

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        Coal mining is becoming more and more done by robots (gigantic ones). Once the industry is cleared to strip-mine (in, for instance, West Virginia), the need for skilled miners drops even further.

        I have huge respect for miners. My dad started his career as a nickel miner in Sudbury, Ontario, and I have seen the coal-mining in Alberta, but guys going underground and hauling stuff out is old-fashioned. We have huge machines that can chew tunnels and cart out their own cuttings. And mines, especially coal mines, devastate the local environment. Look at the health problems of miners' families. Look at the way the bosses do them out and destroy their lives. Help them find other better ways to make a living.

      5. Stoneshop Silver badge
        Holmes

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        I shall bill you for the living expenses of the miners and others that lose their jobs as a result of it. what, not ready to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for what you want to happen?

        80200 jobs in mining, 60460 jobs in coal-fired power plants, and a little over 4000 in construction of new plants. With only a small part actually involved in mining, and possibly unemployable elsewhere if all coal-related activities were to cease.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        " It would be great to see US coal output drop due to no country being willing to import our coal"

        I shall bill you for the living expenses of the miners and others that lose their jobs as a result of it. what, not ready to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for what you want to happen?

        LOL. You're a tad late with wanting to assign responsibility for coal miners losing their jobs. Coal is not exactly a wanted commodity these days and was in decline years before anyone thought to think of the miners (and then only in terms of jobs, Obamacare was about the first time someone in power actually thought about helping them deal with the consequential health problems - I expect they won't be very happy when it finally dawns on them where the +$800billion savings of Trumpcare come from).

        I'd rather see these people have JOBS. Let's build some modern CLEAN coal-fired plants along the California/Nevada border and sell cheap coal-power to California. How about THAT ???

        Clean coal is as much a myth as secure Windows, peddled by people with a matching approach to honesty:

        Coal pollution mitigation, often referred to by the public relations term clean coal, is a series of systems and technologies that seek to mitigate the pollution and other environmental effects normally associated with the burning (though not the mining or processing) of coal, which is widely regarded as the dirtiest of the common fuels for industrial processes and power generation. The preferred industry term "clean coal" has been described as "Orwellian", an oxymoron, and a myth.

        I am absolutely with you that there is a need to find a new occupation for these people, but mining itself isn't a feasible answer, certainly not if you want to give the super rich an extra $800 billion to hide offshore or to co-invest in real estate projects for laundering Russian money..

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Florida1920

          Re: Coal stocks fell today

          Coal is not exactly a wanted commodity these days

          I'm not taking the side of coal, but in my travels in the American West, I have seen huge train after huge train, with up to four locomotives, hauling coal east from Wyoming. As an Easterner, I've never seen trains that long. I've seen several big coal mines out here, too. It's been a real eye-opener for this "East Coast Liberal." The mines, however, are all open pits, not underground tunnels. You need a few people to drive heavy equipment and set off explosives, not anywhere near the number of miners you'd need to extract half as much coal from underground. The idea that expanding coal extraction will significantly increase employment in the long term is a pipe dream in my opinion. By withdrawing from the Paris accord, Trump is only playing to his base and his rich pals.

      7. strum

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        >I'd rather see these people have JOBS.

        There are no US jobs in coal. It's a dead industry.

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Coal stocks fell today

          "There are no US jobs in coal. It's a dead industry."

          Q: what is the recipe for steel?

          A: iron + coal (and a few other things thrown in)

          by definition steel is an iron+carbon alloy. how ELSE do you make it? Carbon gotta come from SOMEPLACE, and coal is a convenient source.

          also don't forget 'clean coal' tech and power plants. just gotta build 'em.

          1. Triggerfish

            Re: Coal stocks fell today

            "There are no US jobs in coal. It's a dead industry."

            Q: what is the recipe for steel?

            A: iron + coal (and a few other things thrown in)

            You realise you can get carbon in other sources yes?

            You also realise this is more a talk about the use of coal for power which would use a lot more quantities of coal up daily than steel production does?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Coal stocks fell today

              In theory, a steel plant could use the carbon captured from firing its furnaces with natural gas. I don't know how difficult it would be to do that, but if this technology was developed it would have multiple benefits: it would not only eliminate the CO2 emissions that are captured, but eliminate the need for coal to be mined and shipped to the steel plant in the first place (natural gas transport is much cheaper, since it is done via pipelines)

              Obviously capturing the CO2 isn't free, but it only needs to be cheaper than the cost of mining and shipping coal. If you charge in some form for CO2 emissions (cap & trade or whatever) it increases the chances the numbers work out in favor of doing this.

              As a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder reducing the need for those mile long trains carrying coal cross country might cost me a little (for those who don't know, one of Buffett's major holdings is rail transport) but that's fine - that's why you diversify.

      8. strum

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        I meant to add - there are more jobs in solar, than in fossils.

      9. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @bombastic bob

        So I take you would like to make it illegal for US companies to outsource work to other countries, to prevent the loss of American jobs? And you are prepared to personally compensate companies against the savings you would be denying them?

        That's no different than your proposal I pay for the coal miners who lose their jobs as the result of a global backlash against Trump's coal buddies.

        I expect some tortured logic where you claim that banning outsourcing is wrong because it interferes with business, but other countries deciding not to import coal from the US and costing jobs in a dying industry is something we can't stand for - maybe you'll want to threaten them with America's military might to force them to keep buying our coal?

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: @bombastic bob

          strange how people imply things that I don't say. whatever...

          here, I offer you some light reading on some actual science regarding the CO2 thing:

          http://www.greatians.com/globalwarming/greenhouse%20gas.htm

          enjoy

      10. Richard Plinston

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        > Let's build some modern CLEAN coal-fired plants

        There is no such thing, especially since Trump revoked the requirements to filter the smoke output and allowed plants to pollute the water.

        Just because Trump said 'clean coal' a couple of times does not make it a thing.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Re: Coal stocks fell today

      The real tragedy of what Trump is doing is that he's not just trying to cause an environmental catastrophe, but that he's also, apparently intentionally, trying to ensure the US ends up as some backwater. On the one hand developed countries were pretty good at mining coal and making steel in bulk more than a hundred years ago. Both of these are just solved problems that involve a lot of more-or-less deeply unpleasant and more-or-less dangerous manual labour. On the other hand we have people like Musk who are trying to solve hard problems like getting people into space cheaply and making better batteries. Just think about the battery thing: whoever makes a battery which is really practical for electric cars is basically going to rule the world: not because electric cars are more environmentally-friendly but because they are *better*: better acceleration, less wear, better: all they need is good batteries. There is *so much money* sitting in that technology when it works.

      But no, coal was good enough for the Victorians and it's good enough for us: let's leave the Chines or the Europeans to invent a really good battery while we slowly fade from relevance.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        The real tragedy of what Trump is doing is that he's not just trying to cause an environmental catastrophe, but that he's also, apparently intentionally, trying to ensure the US ends up as some backwater.

        As far as I can tell, that's actually what Putin pays him and his family for. Sorry, that should be ".. loaned him money from a Russian bank under embargo for'", my bad.

      2. Triggerfish

        Re: Coal stocks fell today

        But no, coal was good enough for the Victorians and it's good enough for us

        You hear some sort of shit like that about a lot of stuff, funny when you ask them if they would like a quick dose of polio or cholera for old times sake they don't seem to eager for that.

  8. Gordon Pryra

    Trump has a point

    The weather in Paris is lovely right now

  9. Elmer Phud

    Hmm,

    It's almost as if the Donald has got his deniers out already.

    1. Gordon Pryra

      Re: Hmm,

      na, hes just spent a weekend in Paris, he cant understand what all the fuss is about....

  10. Naselus

    So basically

    Musk isn't concerned by the attacks on the free press, the assault on the constitution, the continued involvement with the Russians, the cozy attitude to dictatorships and human rights violators, the budget which cuts literally everything apart from the military, and the appeals to nazis and white nationalists, but this one is a step too far. Righto.

    1. Solarflare

      Re: So basically

      He is more concerned with something that threatens the planet and the future of our species than he is with the things which only affect one country. Seems quite reasonable to me.

      1. fissuria
        Coat

        Re: So basically

        "He is more concerned with something that threatens the planet and the future of our species than he is with the things which only affect one country his company's bottom line. Seems quite reasonable to me."

        There, fixed that for you

  11. Fading
    Holmes

    Dumping Paris is a good thing

    I'll leave this here (http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises)

    and from what I can tell there is little wrong with Bjorn Lomborg's analysis. The Paris accord will do nothing for climate change.

    1. Solarflare

      Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

      I wouldn't say dumping it is a good thing. It is a good baseline. We need to go a lot further, sure, but having a baseline of "reducing emissions" is better than a baseline of "release all the carbon!"

      1. Fading

        Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

        It gives China a free pass until 2030. So no it is not a good baseline - merely expensive virtue signalling without any plans for adaptation.

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge

          Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

          It gives China a free pass until 2030.

          Which, even now, they appear to be using only sparingly and reluctantly. Witness them boosting renewables like hell.

          China is finding it hard to attract the highly skilled people from other countries it still needs noting that those are rather turned off by the prospect of not being able to see across the street, and requiring breathing gear when venturing outside

          1. Fading
            Facepalm

            Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

            China's renewables are not the success story they are being touted as. There is already over production in the energy sector in China (with more non-renewable generation on the way) so the entire "renewable" building plan is not a replacement of traditional energy production but an addition. So you can laud China's renewable boost if you want but it is doing f-all good for the planet.

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

            "the prospect of not being able to see across the street, and requiring breathing gear when venturing outside"

            Are you describing what China is trying to cure or what US cities will be like in 10 years time?

            Considering Trumps age, he ought to remember images of places like Pittsburgh from the 50's and 60's. It's not as if US cities full of pollution and death rates directly attributed to said pollution isn't historical fact.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

              Considering Trumps age, he ought to remember images of places like Pittsburgh from the 50's and 60's

              And why, pray, would he have paid any attention to them? The benefit of coming from a rich family is that in his life he'd never had to sully himself with reality. Even on his campaign the man remained inside his safe bubble - he was never interested in going near normal people unless it was for profit, a photo op or the sort of slimy praise he seems to crave. I'm not surprised they got upset by the term 'deplorables' - that cut a bit too close to the bone..

    2. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

      A flawed, partial, solution is better than no solution at all. AKA "it's a start".

      1. Fading

        Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

        No. An expensive partial solution that reduces the economies of the participants so that they are less able to provide assistance when the modeled disasters occur is not a solution - it is an additional problem.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

      The Paris accord will do nothing for climate change.

      I disagree. Maybe it will not do something directly, but it has already driven cleaner policies in various countries. You are dealing with something of global scale, that's not going to happen overnight.

      That said, if the US pulls out I think we can safely consider the country to have a carbon deficit, and that will be running up as much as the national debt. Every time the US wants to sell ANYTHING to the rest of the world, that carbon deficit will generate extra costs as importing US goods (and, say, coal powered services if that myth ever came to be) will reduce a nation's available carbon credit.

      Their withdrawal from climate agreements will thus result in higher costs of export. Even services will be subject to that. Data centre in the US? Terribly sorry, you're welcome to offer it for free but here's our carbon exhaustion bill, ta very much.

      - a sort of tax on climate change denial, so to speak, which will not exactly help

    4. strum

      Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

      >there is little wrong with Bjorn Lomborg's analysis

      Except that he's an economist, who knows fuck all about science.

      1. Fading

        Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

        Peer reviewed and published (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full) what more do you want?

        1. Kiwi
          Unhappy

          Re: Dumping Paris is a good thing

          Peer reviewed and published (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full) what more do you want?

          Drooling idiots who don't have the brains to challenge stuff promoted as "science" that doesn't fit any known scientific method, fails whenever it's predictions are put to the test (looks outside door, still not beach-front property, still waiting for those massive sea-level rises we were told we'd have "within 15 years at most" in 1995 or so) - that's what they want.

          I'm guessing that intelligent people who observe what is going on around them, remember the "scientific predictions", see that they're NOT happening like predicted, and those who remember further back to warmer and colder times (oh sorry that's not climate that's just weather") and so on are exactly NOT what these people want.

          The more mindless fools they can get to follow their rubbish, the more they can rape the planet for their profits while keeping people under their thumb. Just look at the emotive language they use, the way they mock people who question their constant failures (no one can question their successes - they haven't had any yet!), and the biggest tell - their desire to actually criminalise people questioning their rubbish. They don't want intelligent people questioning their stuff, they want drooling idiots to mindlessly take whatever rubbish they spew.

          These people and their policies are doing massive damage to the planet (just look at the pollution and destruction of the environment that "wind farms" cause), and the sad thing is many generally intelligent and caring people have been sucked in and are promoting the destruction of the very thing they want to protect!

  12. iOS6 user

    That is good change. He will have more time for SpaceX.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I still read that as SpaceSex. I need to get out more :).

  13. Elfo74

    Climate explained (by americans, for americans)

    Even you guys should grasp this, as you read a tech site like El Reg... it has pictures in it...

    https://xkcd.com/1732/

    1. Fading
      Trollface

      Re: Climate explained (by americans, for americans)

      I'll see your xkcd and raise you a Douglas Adams'

      http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14

      1. hplasm
        Headmaster

        Re: Climate explained (by americans, for americans)

        "I'll see your xkcd and raise you a Douglas Adams'"

        Eek! Scott Adams has stolen his towel!

        1. Fading
          Facepalm

          Re: Climate explained (by americans, for americans)

          Too many Adamses not enough time to edit :)

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In a Nut Shell

    If Trump withdraws the US from the Paris Agreement, Musk will withdraw from Trump.

    If Musk withdraws from Trump, Trump will go on Twitter and call Musk names.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: In a Nut Shell

      "If Musk withdraws from Trump, Trump will go on Twitter and call Musk names."

      heh. I hope so!

  15. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    Trump's secret Plan B, just in case global warming isn't just a hoax after all:

    Build the wall at the Mexican border. Make it really tall. Build another wall like it at the Canadian border. Build two more really tall walls on the east coast and on the west coast. Put a huge roof on the walls. Have some big-ass ACs installed. Problem solved!

    1. Mike 125

      The British Official Monster Raving Loony party is already fully across the AC issue. Manifesto proposal number 1. Cool on the outside:

      To combat global warming and climate change all buildings should be fitted with air conditioning units on the outside.

  16. Mike 125

    Lest we forget. (Ta Graun.)

    "Twenty-two senators wrote a letter to the president when he was said to be on the fence about backing out. They received more than $10m from oil, gas and coal companies the past three election cycles"

    James Inhofe, Oklahoma

    Oil & gas: $465,950

    Coal: $63,600

    Total: $529,550

    John Barrasso, Wyoming

    Oil & gas: $458,466

    Coal: $127,356

    Total: $585,822

    Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

    Oil & gas: $1,180,384

    Coal: $361,700

    Total: $1,542,084

    John Cornyn, Texas

    Oil & gas: $1,101,456

    Coal: $33,050

    Total: $1,134,506

    Roy Blunt, Missouri

    Oil & gas: $353,864

    Coal: $96,000

    Total: $449,864

    Roger Wicker, Mississippi

    Oil & gas: $198,816

    Coal: $25,376

    Total: $224,192

    Michael Enzi, Wyoming

    Oil & gas: $211,083

    Coal: $63,300

    Total: $274,383

    Mike Crapo, Idaho

    Oil & gas: $110,250

    Coal: $26,756

    Total: $137,006

    Jim Risch, Idaho

    Oil & gas: $123,850

    Coal: $25,680

    Total: $149,530

    Thad Cochran, Mississippi

    Oil & gas: $276,905

    Coal: $15,000

    Total: $291,905

    Mike Rounds, South Dakota

    Oil & gas: $201,900

    Coal: none

    Total: $201,900

    Rand Paul, Kentucky

    Oil & gas: $170,215

    Coal: $82,571

    Total: $252,786

    John Boozman, Arkansas

    Oil & gas: $147,930

    Coal: $2,000

    Total: $149,930

    Richard Shelby, Alabama

    Oil & gas: $60,150

    Coal: $2,500

    Total: $62,650

    Luther Strange, Alabama

    (Appointed in 2017, running in 2017 special election)

    Total: NA

    Orrin Hatch, Utah

    Oil & gas: $446,250

    Coal: $25,000

    Total: $471,250

    Mike Lee, Utah

    Oil & gas: $231,520

    Coal: $21,895

    Total: $253,415

    Ted Cruz, Texas

    Oil & gas: $2,465,910

    Coal: $103,900

    Total: $2,569,810

    David Perdue, Georgia

    Oil & gas: $184,250

    Coal: $0

    Total: $184,250

    Thom Tillis, North Carolina

    Oil & gas: $263,400

    Coal: $0

    Total: $263,400

    Tim Scott, South Carolina

    Oil & gas: $490,076

    Coal: $58,200

    Total: $548,276

    Pat Roberts, Kansas

    Oil & gas: $388,950

    Coal: $28,825

    Total: $417,775

    Sum total for all 22 Republican signatories: $10,694,284

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Lest we forget. (Ta Graun.)

      "Luther Strange"

      Hopefully related to Doctor rather than Lex!

      On a slightly more serious note, are they not all coal and oil states anyway, so no real surprise that each of them got contributions from the big, rich industries in their home states.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    so what?

    Elon's money is in clean energy so who really cares if he quits? Just shows he's a quitter. As for Trump. He's a half baked scumbag who lied to the people who supported him. Democrats lie, steal freedoms and make people scared to voice their opinions lest they be labelled politically incorrect. Republicans lie, steal freedoms and fill the prisons with struggling parents who don't fit their ideals. Makes a person feel empathy towards North Korea.

  18. iRadiate

    Curious

    How much impact on the environment does each of Musks rocket launches have?

    Genuine question. Not trying to make a point, just curious.

    1. spacecadet66

      Re: Curious

      This professor at U Washington did some back-of-the-envelope numbers and came up with a figure of 640 metric tons CO2e per launch, of which about 5/6 is actual emissions and the bulk of the rest is the electricity needed to produce LOX.

      http://faculty.washington.edu/dwhm/2016/03/18/how-many-teslas-does-it-take-to-make-up-for-a-spacex-launch/

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A lot of fuss over nothing

    If it gets a bit warmer here's my plan:

    1. Water the garden more regularly. Fill the pond at night. Perhaps fit a permanent irrigation system.

    2. Wear less in bed, leave the windows open at night.

    3. Open the sunroof on my cars. Or put the top down. Or drive fast to get the breeze.

    4. Short-sleeved shirts. Shorts. Sandals.

    5. Buy a bigger fridge to hold my bottled water.

    6. Put more things in standby when I go to bed (I normally just leave the music playing all over the house).

    7. Turn the aga down a bit (as long as the dogs aren't sleeping in front of it).

    8. Fly somewhere cooler for the weekends.

    See? Not that difficult. I don't need a symposium to come up with some very concrete actions.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: A lot of fuss over nothing

      "I don't need a symposium to come up with some very concrete actions."

      But if you had held a symposium, someone would have pointed out the vast amounts of CO2 generated while taking all those concrete actions!

      (Coat, even though I don't really need one today)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A lot of fuss over nothing

        someone would have pointed out the vast amounts of CO2 - seriously, my friend, I generate more CO2 from pouring my lunchtime G&T at work.

      2. Kiwi

        Re: A lot of fuss over nothing

        But if you had held a symposium, someone would have pointed out the vast amounts of CO2 generated while taking all those concrete actions!

        Conveniently failing to point out the CO2 involved in taking all those people from their homelands to the meeting place when they could, if they really cared about the environment, leave the private jets (sometimes 2 or 3 used per "leader" travelling, with all their security staff etc, when they could actually make use of available videoconferencing technology and not even leave the comforts of their own home

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: A lot of fuss over nothing

      Yes, but you need the symposium to require that the US pay it.

  20. smartypants

    "By trying to elevate his own TV ratings through 'America First' ideology, he is breaking our alliances and global leadership"

    That sounds familiar. Oh yes! "Red, White and Blue Brexit!"

  21. Phukov Andigh Bronze badge

    simple economics

    1) he can then be totally allied with the Party he has the most financial support for.

    2) he makes more money as government forces subsidies for products that are not in demand, both thru direct funding like CARB's own internal carbon credit scheme, and indirectly thru products that get purchased because the buyers are getting kickbacks.

    Products like silly "solar tiles" won't compete without a government paying the difference. It's easier to justify that wealth transfer by claiming it's due to "international pressure".

    Way I see it, there are a number of nations who signed Kyoto and Paris but not only failed to reach their promised goals, but had no intention of ever doing so. the accord has no power or enforcement arm, and having nations signing on and sticking around who are simply giving lip service, weakens what value the whole accord held in the first place.

    Pretty much, now, the Paris accord is international "greenwashing" with but a minority of excellent examples of both intent AND action.

    Hell, future accords should be like an Exclusive Club. No membership unless you *already* meet the goals. Otherwise, out you go. Drop below a threshold, out you go. Want a piece of the worldwide renewables market? Better watch your emissions!

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: simple economics

      I'm still trying how to connect a government's promise to adhere to one of these green fests and what people in the country are just going to continue doing like they always have. All it really means for the hoi polloi is higher prices. There doesn't ever seem to be an option to do something a different way for the same old price.

      Ditch your 5 year old car and purchase a new eco-shoebox at 3x the price? Fit a new, more efficient furnace in place of one that works perfectly fine? You know the new one's going to take 10 years to make up the difference except it's a raging hunk of poo that isn't going to last that long. The same advertising was used to get people to upgrade their fridge even if their old one kept things cold just fine. If you don't open the door every 15 minutes, it doesn't take all that much power and even if a new model only used 50% as much power, the pennies it saves doesn't soften the purchase cost at all.

  22. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Musk should stay...

    There should always be at least one voice of dissent so that the advisors aren't all "yes-men".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Musk should stay...

      There should always be at least one voice of dissent so that the advisors aren't all "yes-men".

      That's exactly why he is leaving. Being the lone voice of reason in a room full of yes-men gets frustrating really quickly because you will (a) always be outvoted and (b) be abused as the token environmentalist to point at when people complain the game is rigged and biased.

      Musk has at least tried, but he's too smart to be used as a patsy. Hence him bailing now.

  23. A_Melbourne

    Good. Musk is one of those trying to profit from the AGW scam. His companies are bleeding cash on a massive scale and received $5bn in direct subsidies from Obama. More in indirect subsidies from the certificates that he sells to other ICE car makers. This guy is terribly overrated by those under 30 - and with no hard science qualifications.

    30 New (2017) Scientific Papers Crush The Hockey Stick Graph And ‘Global’-Scale Warming Claims

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      This guy is terribly overrated by those under 30 - and with no hard science qualifications.

      Might be, but he did pretty much restart the electric car revolution after it had almost died thanks to the Prius which only appealed to the socks and sandals brigade. Ditto for the space industry - he's the first to arrive at reliable recyclable first stages.

      I thus have to cut him quite a bit of slack. The man's not perfect but he does create things, as opposed to that orange disaster in Washington whose only mo is chaos and destruction and who will allow the Russians to cause more harm to the US in the next few years than they managed over the last decade if he isn't stopped.

  24. herman Silver badge

    Exit will Save 3 billion dollars

    I think Donald is right though. He will save 3 billion, which could be much better spent than with lining the pockets of some UN officials in the so called green fund. Of course all the pigs at the trough are crying a river, but be fooled that the Paris thing had anything to do with climate. It is all about lining pockets with US and other idiot gov money.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Exit will Save 3 billion dollars

      I think Donald is right though. He will save 3 billion, which could be much better spent than with lining the pockets of some UN officials in the so called green fund

      If your argument is that it's better not to do something than run a potential risk that someone sticks money in their pockets, I assume you're not paying taxes either? After all, there are many feeding from that trough who really shouldn't be allowed near tax revenue.

  25. MachDiamond Silver badge

    taking my ball and going home, so there.

    The Paris Accord is something of a raw deal for the US and President Trump leaving the table may be in the best interest of the US. I often fall fast asleep trying to read through crap like that.

    If Elon wants to exclude himself from being in a position to possibly influence the President, well…. that's up to him, but it's better to be in on the meetings at the top rather than holding up a sign and marching around outside yelling out pithy slogans.

    In just the last couple of years it has become financially advantageous for many to install solar on a home and purchase an electric car that will suffice for 95%+ of ones transportation needs and it keeps getting better. The air quality in many metropolitan areas is much better than it was in the 1970's (China excluded). In another 10 years it could be possible to see most homes able to generate a bulk of their own electricity from the roof in areas where it isn't against a city ordinance. Don't frown. The city I live in REQUIRES that every home is connected to the grid. Some regions it's illegal to collect rainwater for domestic use as it officially belongs to somebody else. Go ahead and cry.

    Elon talks a lot but he doesn't operate any company that earns a profit. The Tesla Model 3 better earn the company loads of cash or he may lose access to other people's money to keep the doors open and will have to resort once again to asking friends for some dosh to pay his electric bill and feed the kiddies. Elon's wealth is mostly on "paper" and that paper is nearly all with Tesla and SpaceX. If either company fails, the financial lash up between them may drag the other down.

  26. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Pardon me while a have a nice "black" day. I'm going to spend a few hours in the back seat of a fighter jet flying around. The owner asked me if I wanted a ride….. F*&K yea and damn the hippies.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022