"Science be damned!" Let's have Oil rule our lives!

[Nostra]

They're conditioned to attack science, not realizing what it has given us, and not bothering to know what is happening right now in terms of energy creation and storage. Science bad, dirty energy good.

While they communicate on a computer and watch satellite TV. Too funny.

I gave up trying to communicate with them on economics/markets, my profession for over two decades, for this kind of thing. They don't know what's going on, but they sure THINK they do. Dunning-Kruger all day.

What a clown.

 

[Kruska]

They're conditioned to attack science, not realizing what it has given us, and not bothering to know what is happening right now in terms of energy creation and storage. Science bad, dirty energy good.

While they communicate on a computer, talk on a smartphone and watch satellite TV. Too funny.

I gave up trying to communicate with them on economics/markets, my profession for over two decades, for this kind of thing. They don't know what's going on, but they sure THINK they do. Dunning-Kruger all day.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 26th United States Secretary of Health and Human Services

Needless to comment - right?

 

[Kruska]

When science is used to limit prosperity, it becomes dogma.

Yeah sure - only birds and angels can fly - right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Oddball]

Where is the technology that can replace oil 1:1 to run the US Economy? China, Russia, India, Africa, Latin America - none of them have given up Oil. Why should US?

I don’t give a shit if the US Economy runs on air, sun, water, leaves, etc. But, none of the other nations have abandoned oil, why should we?

 

[Bitterhook]

Do you even realize that,

Trees aka plants emit carbon dioxide primarily at night through a process called (respiration), as they burn stored energy, and continuously in smaller amounts during the day, though this is offset by oxygen production during daylight. (photosynthesize). They also release CO2 when they die, decompose, burn or are burned, and under stress during a drought ???

Yes, I know how photosynthesis works, and I know that trees are renewable resources.
You can pretend the trees are killing the planet and should be replaced with solar panels if you want to be a complete loon.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Very true. Blindly reducing/removing regulations based on political ideology can cause far more harm than good. The 2008 Meltdown should have taught us that, but it didn't.

Adding regulations based on political ideology can cause far more harm than good.

 

[martybegan]

The AI buildout is providing a HUGE opportunity for a wide variety of companies to improve power generation and capacity. Improvements are constant now. It's already being applied to car/truck technology, and ultimately that will bring prices down and choices up.

Regardless of the climate issue, clean and renewable energy is definitely on its way. It's a shame that so many hate the idea simply because their simplistic, hyperpartisan ideology makes them do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with clean, intelligent and cheap. For a change.

If it is "the way" it will happen via the market, not via forced government mandates.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Very true. Blindly reducing/removing regulations based on political ideology can cause far more harm than good. The 2008 Meltdown should have taught us that, but it didn't.

That was caused by regulations

 

[Soupnazi630]

That plant provides energy for 18,000 households! - obviously farming doesn't pay off - and or the land simply isn't suitable for crops or farming. Nest generation Solar panels (tandem tech) would increase the provided energy by 30% at around 20% lower investment. Imagine the future MW output of such a plant due to constant development improvements in e.g. 15 years.

They are already and will be even far cheaper then a modern nuke plant e.g. an EPR reactor.

Cost for a 800 MW EPR 2 (newest generation) reactor is around US$ 7 Billion - it's huge operating and maintenance costs not included.
The investment presently for a 800 MW Solar-plant is around US$ 800 million - with negligible op. and maintenance costs.

By then the ROI would be 3 fold of the initial investment !! and for modern plants 4-4,5 fold.

Older Solar panels are 90-95% recyclable. present new generation (FLAXRES) 98-99% whereby all high grade Glass, Copper and Aluminum is regained, How many % of heavily contaminated Oil&Gas installations can be recycled during & after 30 years? and at what costs? not to mention the heavily contaminated sites alone.

You obviously know very little about the topic,

That recycling costs massive amounts of oil.

Panels are only half the equation. The batteries are not so recyclable especially the lithium.

Clearly you dont know shit about the topic

 

[SweetTea]

Trump set to gut US climate change policy and environmental regulations: White House official​

WASHINGTON February 10, 2026 (AP) — The Trump administration is expected this week to revoke a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, according to a White House official.

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final rule rescinding a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding. That Obama-era policy determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Here is the percentage of scientists that say that climate change is caused by humans

Between 97% and 99.9% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. Multiple studies confirm this overwhelming consensus, with research analyzing scientific literature indicating that more than 99% of peer-reviewed papers support human-caused climate change.

The Causes of Climate Change​

Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This increase happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2.

Who benefits from cutting these regulations:

• Key beneficiaries of removing carbon emission regulations include:
  • Fossil Fuel Industry: Oil, gas, and coal companies benefit from lower compliance expenditures, such as the elimination of reporting requirements (e.g., the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program) and reduced costs for upgrading equipment to meet emissions standards.
  • Manufacturing Sector: Industries with high energy consumption, such as steel and cement manufacturers, may face lower operating costs, allowing them to compete more effectively with foreign, higher-carbon products.
  • Transportation and Automobile Industry: Automakers, particularly those focusing on internal combustion engines, may see lower manufacturing costs and fewer fines, while the trucking industry expects reduced logistical costs, according to the American Trucking Association.
  • Small Businesses: Supporters argue that removing "burdensome" regulations will save small businesses billions in compliance costs.
  • Consumers (Short-Term): Proponents argue that reducing energy regulations will lead to cheaper, more reliable, and more affordable energy for heating and transportation.
  
  While there are some short-term economic benefits to Americans and American companies by taking down these regulations, such as tangible cost reductions, the removal of these regulations is heavily criticized by environmental and health advocates. As such, this is more about short-term political goals of Trump than it is about helping the future of our world.
• View attachment 1217533
• View attachment 1217535

There is a cost vs benefit of mitigation strategies to consider. You guys never do that. Adapting may make more sense than trying to slow down any climate change that we may be causing. The accuracy of climate models is in question and we don't really know how sensitive the earth's climate is to changes in CO2. We are guessing. Also, the rate of the climate change is very much debatable as is the percentage caused by humans vs natural variability.

Face it, we can't reverse changes in the climate. It isn't possible and even if it was, we have to rely on the entire world to go along with it. They aren't and they won't because many less affluent countries have more pressing, immediate concerns that require fossil fuels.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Trump set to gut US climate change policy and environmental regulations: White House official​

WASHINGTON February 10, 2026 (AP) — The Trump administration is expected this week to revoke a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, according to a White House official.

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final rule rescinding a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding. That Obama-era policy determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Here is the percentage of scientists that say that climate change is caused by humans

Between 97% and 99.9% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. Multiple studies confirm this overwhelming consensus, with research analyzing scientific literature indicating that more than 99% of peer-reviewed papers support human-caused climate change.

The Causes of Climate Change​

Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This increase happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2.

Who benefits from cutting these regulations:

• Key beneficiaries of removing carbon emission regulations include:
  • Fossil Fuel Industry: Oil, gas, and coal companies benefit from lower compliance expenditures, such as the elimination of reporting requirements (e.g., the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program) and reduced costs for upgrading equipment to meet emissions standards.
  • Manufacturing Sector: Industries with high energy consumption, such as steel and cement manufacturers, may face lower operating costs, allowing them to compete more effectively with foreign, higher-carbon products.
  • Transportation and Automobile Industry: Automakers, particularly those focusing on internal combustion engines, may see lower manufacturing costs and fewer fines, while the trucking industry expects reduced logistical costs, according to the American Trucking Association.
  • Small Businesses: Supporters argue that removing "burdensome" regulations will save small businesses billions in compliance costs.
  • Consumers (Short-Term): Proponents argue that reducing energy regulations will lead to cheaper, more reliable, and more affordable energy for heating and transportation.
  
  While there are some short-term economic benefits to Americans and American companies by taking down these regulations, such as tangible cost reductions, the removal of these regulations is heavily criticized by environmental and health advocates. As such, this is more about short-term political goals of Trump than it is about helping the future of our world.
• View attachment 1217533
• View attachment 1217535

Wrong

It is true that most scientists agree that man contributes to climatye change but that is the end of the truth in your op.

The endangerment part is NOT a scientific consensus or conclusion. It is a worst and least likely case scenario and used politically to promote regulations which profit some at the expense of most.

Just because climate change is happening and man contributes to it does not mean it is going to cause massive problems as the endangerment crowd believes.

 

[Bitterhook]

That recycling costs massive amounts of oil.

Panels are only half the equation. The batteries are not so recyclable especially the lithium.

Clearly you dont know shit about the topic

The poster is probably just young, knows how to argue but has no idea of how to connect dots, and is unwilling to see how their arguments just fall part. Too busy trying to prove nonsense is sustainable and the better choice, because they have bought the con.

 

[berg80]

So you admit it's economically sensible to reduce restrictions and let the market decide?

Let the market decide? Let the corporate actors who will increase profits by not having the follow anti-pollution rules, thus contributing to the unfolding climate change disaster, let them decide? What a great idea.

 

[Luckyone]

Wrong

It is true that most scientists agree that man contributes to climatye change but that is the end of the truth in your op.

The endangerment part is NOT a scientific consensus or conclusion. It is a worst and least likely case scenario and used politically to promote regulations which profit some at the expense of most.

Just because climate change is happening and man contributes to it does not mean it is going to cause massive problems as the endangerment crowd believes.

In other words, YOU do not agree that it can damage the environment as much as the scientists say, right. Where do your studies that contradict that come from?

Oh, and by the way, already Climate change has had a negative impact on our world, with RECORD high temperatures, bigger

Climate change has significantly altered the world, with global temperatures rising and extreme weather conditions.............

1.5∘C1.5 raised to the composed with power C
above pre-industrial levels (1850-1900) by 2024, making the past decade the warmest on record. This has driven faster sea-level rises, accelerated ice sheet melting, and increased the frequency of extreme weather, severely impacting ecosystems, agriculture, and human safety worldwide.

 

[Soupnazi630]

In other words, YOU do not agree that it can damage the environment as much as the scientists say, right. Where do your studies that contradict that come from?

Oh, and by the way, already Climate change has had a negative impact on our world, with RECORD high temperatures, bigger

Climate change has significantly altered the world, with global temperatures rising and extreme weather conditions.............View attachment 1217824

1.5∘C1.5 raised to the composed with power C
above pre-industrial levels (1850-1900) by 2024, making the past decade the warmest on record. This has driven faster sea-level rises, accelerated ice sheet melting, and increased the frequency of extreme weather, severely impacting ecosystems, agriculture, and human safety worldwide.

In other words damaging the environment and doom and gloom predictions are not the same thing.

Weather and climate are not the same thing and you are conflating the two

The science is not on your side in this.

 

[Luckyone]

There is a cost vs benefit of mitigation strategies to consider. You guys never do that. Adapting may make more sense than trying to slow down any climate change that we may be causing. The accuracy of climate models is in question and we don't really know how sensitive the earth's climate is to changes in CO2. We are guessing. Also, the rate of the climate change is very much debatable as is the percentage caused by humans vs natural variability.

Face it, we can't reverse changes in the climate. It isn't possible and even if it was, we have to rely on the entire world to go along with it. They aren't and they won't because many less affluent countries have more pressing, immediate concerns that require fossil fuels.

Meaning that having a "preventive" attitude is wrong. We should actually wait until something really bad happens before doing anything about it, richt. For example, we should all be eating sugar to the nth degree until we actually become diabetics before eating right, correct?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Meaning that having a "preventive" attitude is wrong. We should actually wait until something really bad happens before doing anything about it, richt. For example, we should all be eating sugar to the nth degree until we actually become diabetics before eating right, correct?

You are proving massive ignorance about science with that post

WE cannlot get diabetes. WE cannot eat right or eat massive sugar. Only an individual can,.

You are proposing restrictive and draconian regulations on us to profit some at the expense of others. And that is based on dubious scientific claims.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Let the market decide? Let the corporate actors who will increase profits by not having the follow anti-pollution rules, thus contributing to the unfolding climate change disaster, let them decide? What a great idea.

Yes exactly.

The corporate actors do not pollute any where close to the levels government does and they are th ones writing regulations which allow themselves to profit.

 

[Bitterhook]

Meaning that having a "preventive" attitude is wrong. We should actually wait until something really bad happens before doing anything about it, richt. For example, we should all be eating sugar to the nth degree until we actually become diabetics before eating right, correct?

Preventative Measures In Order To Avoid Suspected Damage.
They can amount to some not very effective and wasteful things at times but are still popular with some folks.