Wednesday, December 07, 2016 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Scott Pruitt named the chief of Trump EPA

A day ago or so, Ivanka Trump as well as Donald Trump met Al Gore. Al Gore claimed that they had an extremely interesting conversation. Well, I was worried about it. Why would Donald Trump accept such a meeting? What could come out of it?

Al Gore has never accepted any request for a debate – and he has received very, very many. Now, when his era in the U.S. environmental policymaking seems to be really ending, he seems more willing to meet the people from the other side. Why? Doesn't he have some secret weapons to blackmail the U.S. president elect?

Moreover, Ivanka is an amazing young woman but she's arguably left-leaning and perhaps a climate alarmist of a sort. This fact may be said to be paradoxical – given her dad's being Donald Trump and her mother's being Czech, one of the most skeptical nations on Earth. ;-)

But right now, I reduced by worries by 90% or so.

Al Gore has talked about his plan to increase the activism by several orders of magnitude. That's great. Maybe all these new Al Gore's disciples – who don't wash their hands for a year because they shook Al Gore's hand, and they're bringing the gospel to billions of excited Americans ;-) – could be turned into bricks to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. Maybe, Trump and Gore were discussing the date when Al Gore is going to be arrested and/or deported to Qatar.

I am less worried after Donald Trump named Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma's attorney general, the new chief of the Environmental Protection Agency. Check some Scott Pruitt climate videos on YouTube. Note that Myron Ebell was the head of the transitional team for a while. Ebell isn't a real researcher but given his think tank credentials, he was closer to science than to everyday politics.

Well, Pruitt is a different kind of a man. He's a top lawyer, basically a politician. Pruitt has rightfully pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency has overstepped its authority when it decided to regulate carbon dioxide according to the "Clean Power Plan". There is nothing unclean about carbon dioxide and the environment doesn't need to be "protected" against it. Some legally inaccessible and scientifically indefensible steps were already made by the "Clean Air Act", I guess.

There have been lots of historical technicalities that will hopefully become irrelevant soon. Pruitt, a friend of the fossil fuels, the cheapest yet accessible source of energy, has raised some appropriate legal arguments at appropriate places and he should be able to clean the mess caused by the Obama administration's contamination of the environmental laws in the U.S., remove the harmful regulations, and stop the financial flows of the U.S. taxpayer money towards assorted fraudulent "renewable" special business interests.

Fracking is likely to accelerate and the U.S. could see some resuscitation of the good old King Coal, too. For obvious reasons, these changes could be great for the U.S. economy. They are perhaps additional reasons why the frantic rise of Dow Jones – which is at 19,550 now (it was below 16,000 in mid January) – may be more rational than many people think. If those things will materialize in the U.S., what about the EU and other countries in the West? Will our assorted Merkels and Junckers remain Cuba- or North-Korea-style warriors for their sickly ecoterrorist and Bolshevik ideals?

P.S.: I was just told that Juncker has picked an Islamic hygienist as the head of our Environmental Protection Agency. ;-)

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');