I'm not sure why everyone thinks Obama killed coal. Cratering natural gas prices are what killed coal. So short of artificially raising the price of nat gas, coal is not coming back regardless of who is in charge.<p><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/natural-gas-ambush-killed-off-coal-minin" rel="nofollow">http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/natural-gas-ambush-killed-...</a><p><a href="http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cheap-Natural-Gas-To-Spark-Another-Wave-Of-Coal-Plant-Retirements.html" rel="nofollow">http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cheap-Natural-Gas-...</a>
The coal alignment is a bigger deal than climate change. We are SOL on climate change anyway (barring a scientific miracle)--there is no point worrying about whether one administration will or will not engage in token gestures.<p>But coal is <i>bad.</i> The coal industry costs about half a trillion in externalized damage to health and the environment annually in the US alone: <a href="http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/831755" rel="nofollow">http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/831755</a>.<p>And ironically, the voters in Appalachia being courted are bearing the brunt of it so people in surrounding urban areas can have cheap power: <a href="http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/blasting-appalachian-economy" rel="nofollow">http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/blasting-appalachian-economy</a>.
Maybe it's my white straight male privilege talking, but this scares me 100x more than his racism and sexual predation, and I wish it had gotten more coverage in the debates and election.<p>If this happens, history will remember Trump as the Neville Chamberlain of the climate catastrophe. He won't just be screwing America's plans, this is one of those areas where "leader of the free world" isnt hyperbole - America's decisions will have massive domino-effects on related economies.
If the US withdraws from the Paris accord, other countries like China will follow, as they will not want to be the ones that try to reduce emissions at the price of being less competitive (in the short run) when one of the largest economies in the world won't do it as well. And if the climate science projections are accurate, we will miss the last window of opportunity to reduce the heating and avoid the whole climate system tipping over. And with the current power that the Republicans have and Trump's attitude towards science it's highly unlikely that someone can stop them from going through with this.<p>Seems it really was too good to be true.
> very strongly influenced by the “question authority” ethos of 1960s and ’70s counterculture<p>Sounds like he's really a shining example of those hippie ideals. Strike back at "the man" and his regulations on behalf of those poor oppressed oil, gas and, coal corporations.<p>Pardon my language here, since I think of hacker news as a place for intelligent and respectful discussion, but, <i>fuck</i>
This is the stuff we should all be protesting. This is the type of appointment that can be changed in no time if enough people make their thoughts known. Come on all let the powers that be know that you don't like the choice.
I don't think that climate change is something that you can believe in. You can acknowledge or deny its existence but certainly cannot believe in it.<p>The problem with the coal and fossil fuels is that we use a technology to produce energy that is literally 400,000 years old. We have the new technology ready (nuclear power) yet we stick to this old, polluting tech. This is insane.
Defeat ignorance with cleverness. Create a solution that is far superior to what coal and oil have to offer. Make it so affordable that you cut the coal industry off at the knees without relying on politicians to get the job done.<p>This site is full of very smart people. Get this shit done!
The climate change cheat sheet embedded in that article was rather interesting. In addition to stating what we know, it also suggests some personal actions, actions which have been routinely ignored by the population for many years. A couple of quick examples: reduce flights and reduce eating beef.<p>Instead of having a paternalistic government claim to solve our problems, we can do so. This election might just be a sufficient catalyst to make things happen.<p>Also don't forget the power to not purchase from companies based on what they are doing and who they are working with.<p>It is easy to get outraged and for some it is even easy to take dangerous actions, but to deprive oneself of what we want in the hope that others will do the same, that, that is hard.
Meanwhile in India renewables are outpacing coal...<p><a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables-Are-Outpacing-Coal-in-India" rel="nofollow">https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables-Are-...</a>
What can citizens do about this? Trump hates women, so I'll donate to PP. Trump hates minorities, so I'll donate to the ACLU. Trump hates the actual physical earth - so what do I do about that?
"Climate contrarian?". That article was far too diplomatic about a man who stands against scientific consensus and <i>for</i> a global catastrophe.
It's worth pointing out that coal is not coming back. Far too much of industry has moved on and converted to natural gas based supply. Not to mention the costs of starting up coal mines and processing again. In the current energy market, it's rather unfathomable.
Is there a difference in being the leader of an agency and leading the transition at an agency? Because the latter is what he is labeled as which makes it seems like it's a fairly temporary role.
This reminds me of James G. Watt- Regan's secretary of interior. He believed it was pointless to worry about the environment since the Lord's second coming was nigh.
Trump is a businessman by training. Business pivots a lot. He will probably try different things and pivot as needed in his administration. I'm sure nothing is cast in stone. With enough opposition, he will change his appointment.<p>He fired his campaign manager for poor result in the primary and brought on a new one who brought success to his campaign. I'm sure he will fire a number of people in the coming days.
I'm sure he <i>does</i> believe in it - as I'm sure many who are "climate deniers" in positions of power do, but the profit motive to get <i>others</i> to not believe in it is simply too strong for a man of wretched morals.<p>I mean, one can make the rational (with a rather callous set of precepts) argument that if it happens after you're dead it doesn't matter - I had this argument made to me by a hedge fund owner/manager last year who I queried over his heavy investment in fossils - he is essentially looking to make a fortune and isn't concerned about the "far future".<p>Where things will get interesting is when these figures realise that it isn't far future, it's going to impact <i>their</i> quality of life - but by then it'll likely be too late.
If this scares you, consider donating.<p><a href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/" rel="nofollow">http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/</a><p>(I posted this as a reply to one of the comments but I want to make sure it's seen, given the gravity of the situation.)
Trump won't listen to traditional environmental groups. I think what is needed is for a right-wing organization to offer a conservative non-denier as an alternative, and mount a large public campaign to pressure Trump to change course.<p>Perhaps the scariest part of Trump is that he is such an unknown blank slate, but that also offers an opportunity if we recognize it.<p>I'm contacting my Republican Senator and making an, admittedly, futile attempt to appeal to his reason. Please consider doing the same: <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/" rel="nofollow">http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/</a>
This kind of thing is what scares me most about a trump presidency (that and wondering what kind of over the top candidates are going to appear in three years to try and imitate his success) but I'm trying really hard to be positive and see a way out for the climate, and I only see two options<p>1. Green energy becomes so much more competitive than fossil that trump and his cronies have to do a 180<p>2. Millions more people worldwide are inspired to go green and start generating their own green power, through wind and solar technology like musks roof tiles.<p>Preferably both, otherwise it's goodbye civilisation in the next 50-100 years.<p>I have to try and be an optimist
> “I really think that people should be suspicious of authority,” he told an interviewer last year. “The more you’re told that you have to believe something, the more you should question it.”<p>This amounts to a sort of intellectual homeopathy when it comes to dismissing the scientific consensus on an issue without commensurate evidence.
Why is it that I can't download all the relevant climate data, and all the mathematical models of climate, and run the scenario myself?<p>It's all government funded, so why isn't it open and available?
Back in the cold war days it was something of a banal truism that only an objective, external threat--e.g. alien invaders--could ever get us squabbling apes to set our differences aside and work together towards some common goal.<p>It is very likely that within a decade the effects of climate change will go from "scientists arguing" to "transparent to everyone".<p>Although this will not exactly be "alien invaders"--"real life godzilla" seems closer to the mark--civilization as we know it will be faced with an external threat that cares not for what we think--indeed, that cannot be bargained with--but only for how we act (and indeed, if we act).<p>If nothing else that thought experiment will become a real experiment soon; I hope we make it through.<p>One thing to consider is how much uglier our national discourse will likely become. For example, the narrative around our recent election seems to be settling around a rejection of urban and coastal elites and experts: middle america is tired of being ignored, insulted, condescended-to, looked down upon as ignorant yokels, and so on and so forth..."show us and our opinions some respect", they say, electing the man who's now appointing the man who's going to (literally) slam the pedal to the metal while (figuratively) rolling coal all the way.<p>I wonder how these people will wind up being thought-of once climate change goes from <i>deniable</i>--as it is now, at least domestically--to <i>undeniable</i> (as it certainly will, and likely soon).<p>I mean, seriously: if for forty years you've been warned by experts that continuing to do X will eventually lead to Y, you continue to do X, and it eventually leads to Y...how can you reasonably expect anyone to respect you? To consider your opinions worth the time and energy even to listen to, let alone take into consideration? Why should you <i>not</i> expect to be seen as anything other than an <i>idiot</i> in the classical sense ("incapable of useful reasoning; danger to self and others")?<p>I do not expect this to end well--culturally and socially--and expect it will play out far uglier than the dust bowl...<p>I also think readers on this site vastly underestimate how radically the world will shift once change becomes undeniable; the default assumption seems to be that things will generally continue as they always have right up until it gets so bad it's game over for everyone.<p>In reality, as soon as it climate change begins having undeniable impacts expect a radical changes in financial behavior...which will likely have direct, pervasive impact upon daily life well in advance of the <i>direct</i> impacts of climate change proper.<p>Will the 30-year mortgage remain typical for home purchases? Will 5-year commercial leases remain typical? Will it remain possible to price weather derivatives accurately enough to be viable? Will SV angels continue hobby-investing in high-risk, high-reward gambles, or turn their attention to second homes in northern latitudes?<p>I can only see a move to shorter time horizons and more risk aversion from the private sector.
I don't care what they do or don't believe in.<p>Will they build out nuclear power? If yes, then good.<p>Will they engage in feel-good unilateral emissions cuts that hurt our economy and don't do anything about climate change? If no, then good.