The Bakken Shale: Fracking in North Dakota

Lately, we have been hearing a lot about the Dakota Access Pipeline, mostly about the negative affect it will have on the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, but most people don’t know anything about its relationship to the Bakken oil field in North Dakota.

The Bakken Shale: Fracking in North Dakota

We have heard a lot about the Dakota Access Pipeline, mostly about the over the effect it will have on the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, but most people don’t know anything about its relationship to the Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota.  It is important to understand the relationship between the two.

For the past several years, there has been an oil boom happening in the state of North Dakota.  This oil boom is because of oil that was discovered in what is called the Bakken Shale, or the Bakken Shale formation.  The Bakken Shale formation is a large deposit of shale containing oil that is in eastern Shale Montana, Western North Dakota, and part of Saskatchewan, in Canada.

Even though the so-called Bakken oil boom has the potential to create jobs and puts more revenue into the economy of North Dakota, it also poses a significant threat to the environment of that region.  To mention that the oil produced in the Bakken Shale formation will create a necessity to lay a pipeline to help transportation of this oil to where it can be refined into different products.  The Dakota Access Pipeline is being built to carriers oil from the Bakken Shale Formation.

As we know, this pipeline threatens the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and other people living in that particular region because it will be necessary to build this pipeline under the Missouri River, upon which many depend on for their water supply.  Also, this pipeline will also pose a threat to the underground aquifer that is also the supply of a significant amount of water to this region.

To produce oil from the Bakken Shale, it will be necessary for the oil companies to use the controversial and environmentally dangerous technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or just known as fracking.

There has been a huge controversy over fracking, to the point where it has been banned in a couple of states and is the source of large-scale protest across the nation.

Fracking has proven itself to be harmful because it requires the consumption of massive quantities of water and the use of many toxic chemicals, which are pumped underground to force oil from the Bakken Shale.  The use of fracking is a major reason that environmentalists are opposed to further development of the Bakken oil field.

At a time when our nation is trying to end its dependency on fossil fuels, such as petroleum and coal, further developing the Bakken oil field flies in the face of our need to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels.

 

THE DEATH OF THE BAKKEN FIELD HAS BEGUN: Big Trouble For …

Sep 17, 2016 Rune Likvern of Fractional Flow has done a wonderful job providing data on the Bakken Shale Oil Field. Here is his excellent chart showing the …
Bakken Shale News, Wells, Formation, Markets and Resources: Oil …

Bakken Shale Image The Bakken shale is primarily an oil play. It straddles the US border with Canada and runs through two states – North Dakota and Montana …

 

Veterans Stand in Solidarity With Dakota Access Pipeline Protest

Most of the A group of U.S. military veterans has vowed to block the completion of the hotly disputed Dakota Access pipeline.

Source: Standing Rock: Dakota Access battle brews as US veterans, Sioux dig in

Veterans Stand in Solidarity With Dakota Access Pipeline Protest

A group of military veterans, named Veterans Stand,  is standing in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux, in their fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline.  The organization, known as Veterans Stand, is vowing to help the Standing Rock Sioux defend their tribal lands against the incursion of Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the builders of the very controversial pipeline which threatens the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux.

A couple of days ago, The Secretary of the Army granted the necessary easement to ETP so that they could continue building the Dakota Access Pipeline.  As if no one would notice, the secretary of the Army does not have the power or authority to order the US Army Corps of Engineers to do anything.  Previously, the US Army Corps of Engineers suggested that the route of the Dakota Access Pipeline could easily be rerouted to avoid going near the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux.

Before, when President Obama was still in power, ETP was denied the easement the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  At first, people thought that they had won their struggle against the pipeline.  However, all of that changed when Donald Trump became president. President Trump has reopened this entire mess.

Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, saying that the Dakota Access Pipeline will continue to be built.  President Trump is guilty of a direct conflict of interest because it has been shown that Donald Trump owns a financial investment in ETP. This is one detail that the media has unfortunately failed to mention. If he had anything resembling a set of ethics, he would recuse himself from being involved. Even though spokespeople for the Trump administration say that he has divested himself of any interest in the pipeline, there is no proof of any divestment on the part of the POTUS.

I wish Veterans Stand all the best in their efforts to save the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux.  Veterans Stand has established a GoFundMe page at the following link.  Please contribute!

 

Understanding the Controversy Behind the Dakota Access Pipeline …

Sep 14, 2016 The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline continues to make headlines. Yesterday, Energy Transfer Partners, the developer behind the $3.8 …

Dakota Access Pipeline : NPR

Army Says It Is Expediting Review Of Dakota Access Pipeline Route. Protesters rally … Dakota Access Pipeline Foes: We Aren’t Done Fighting Yet. Hundreds of …

 

 

Scott Pruitt Has Flip-Flopped About Climate Change

Scott Pruitt, president Donald Trump’s nominee for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has flip-flopped about the issue of climate change.

Scott Pruitt Has Flip-Flopped About Climate Change

 Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s nominee for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has flip-flopped about the issue of climate change. He has clearly demonstrated over the years and throughout his confirmation hearing that he is not the person who should be the head of the EPA.

Scott Pruitt is allegedly closely tied to the oil and gas industry. In 2014, Scott Pruitt was caught in a secret alliance with members of the oil and gas industry in trying to tear down air pollution standards, even to the point of helping them file lawsuits against federal regulators. Scott Pruitt himself has personally filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency to undermine President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. How can the citizens of the United States entrust the protection of our environment to someone who has sued the agency responsible for protecting it? The answer is, they cannot.

Scott Pruitt has even defended the practice of fracking, the extremely dangerous practice used by the oil and gas industry to extract oil and gas from the earth, despite that this method has been shown to increase the number of greenhouse gasses released into the environment. Greenhouse gasses are the reason behind global warming and climate change.

Scott Pruitt seems to have changed his tune about climate change during his confirmation hearing.  During his hearing, Scott Pruitt now admits that climate change is real, but refused to acknowledge that human activity causes it, to which Senator Bernie Sanders called him out and tried to get him to answer the question about what causes global warming. Scott Pruitt then tried to engage Senator Sanders in an argument about to what degree human activity has on climate change, even though 97% of the scientific community agrees that human activity causes climate change. All he did was make himself look stupid and less qualified to be the administrator of the EPA.

In Scott Pruitt’s 2013 reelection campaign for Attorney General of Oklahoma, his campaign manager just happened to be a man named Harold Hamm, who happened to be the CEO of one of the largest fracking companies in Oklahoma. Recently, Mr. Hamm became one of the biggest proponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline because his business will be doing most of the fracking in North Dakota. If this is the type of person that Scott Pruitt chooses to be his campaign manager, is he as big of a believer in climate change as he says? I doubt it!

 

What is Climate Change? What Causes Global Warming?

Climate change, also called global warming, refers to the rise in average surface temperatures on Earth. An overwhelming scientific consensus maintains that …
Clean Energy: The United States Missing Out On a Golden Opportunity

As the Paris climate talks begin, the die is already cast: The world is going to move toward cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy. The question for U.S. policymakers is whether the world’s biggest economy gets left behind. Source: Clean Energy Gathers Steam | Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines Clean Energy: United …

 

 

Scott Pruitt: Ties to Oil Industry Make Him Unfit For EPA

Scott Pruitt: Ties to Oil Industry Make Him Unfit For EPA

Scott Pruitt’s ties to oil industry make him an unfit candidate to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency. We cannot have someone who has been in the pockets of the oil industry for years. Scott Pruitt is unfit to be the head of EPA. He cannot be entrusted with protecting the environment.

Over the years, Scott Pruitt has received many campaign contributions from various oil and gas producers, such as Exxon and Devon Energy. Even more disturbing is that Scott Pruitt has received over $175,000 from the Rule of Law Defense Fund, a front group for the Koch Brothers. It is a well-known fact that the Koch brothers, owners of the Valero and Tesoro chain at gas stations have tried to undermine air pollution standards for years. They are both heads of one of the largest toxic pollution companies in the United States. How can anyone like Scott Pruitt be entrusted to protect our environment while being in the pockets of some of the largest polluters in the United States? The entire idea is ludicrous!

Scott Pruitt has also bragged on many occasions about his many lawsuits against the EPA; the agency hopes to be in charge of. How can anyone be allowed to be head of the EPA when they have an extensive history of litigation against that agency and its regulations? The fact that he was even nominated for this position is an insult to everyone who cares about our environment.

He has worked tirelessly on behalf of Devon Energy, Oklahoma’s largest energy producer by writing letters in the name of that corporation, claiming that the EPA was guilty of “federal overreach,” and the accusation that means that the federal government has overstepped its boundaries in trying to regulate the oil and gas industry. Regulating these industries is a primary reason that the EPA was created in the first place. How can someone who is so anti-regulation be in charge of an agency that is supposed to set up and enforce regulations?

If Scott Pruitt is confirmed to be the head of the EPA, our environment will suffer as well as the people who live in it.

 

Scott Pruitt Testifies Against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan

Scott Pruitt Testifies Against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan

In this video, Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testifies against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.  It’s very ironic that the person who is designated as the person who will take over control of the EPA is arguing against one of the most progressive plans, for protecting the environment from global warming, has proposed in years.

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan calls for carbon dioxide emissions to be reduced by 32% within 25 years, down to same levels as 2005.  It is designed to reduce emissions from coal-burning power plants.  It is also focused towards increasing the use of renewable energy, such as, solar power, wind power, and other renewable, nonpolluting forms of energy.

As you can imagine, the fossil fuel industry (coal and oil) are fighting hammer and tongs against this new rule from the EPA.  They are just trying to protect their own profits than protect the environment because they are afraid that the EPA’s Clean Power Plan will adversely affect their profit margin.  They could care less about protecting our planet and people against global warming, caused by the type of unsafe and obsolete energy production that they want to support.  This mindset is just another example of how detrimental capitalism is to our society.

These industries are too shortsighted to see that alternative energy like solar power, wind power, and other forms of renewable energy production holds huge potential for job creation.  Increased job creation will not only benefit our economy and workers, but advance profit-making potential for the investors in this burgeoning industry.  It seems that the current power producers never heard of something called “diversification”, where they could transform their polluting industries into nonpolluting investments.  Of course, this would mean that they would have to stop sitting on their money and actually invest it in something worthwhile; something American industries have never been prone to do.  They should know by now that it takes money to make money.  Even a socialist like myself can see this fact.

In this video, the primary argument that Scott Pruitt presents is the claim that the States should be the ones to decide the emission standards and enforce them, with no interference from the federal government, in this case, the EPA. Several times he falls back on the “states rights” argument to reinforce his position that the EPA has no authority to impose regulations on energy producing industries like the coal or oil industries. He also makes the standard argument, always made by corporations, that federal regulations cause harm by driving up the cost of whatever is being produced. Scott Pruitt shows himself to be just another shill for the status quo production of coal and oil. It’s very obvious that he is in their pockets.

Scott Pruitt also tries to undermine the EPA’s Clean Power Plan by claiming that it is unconstitutional because the EPA over steps the authority given to it by Congress. He’s tries to imply that the EPA is trying to undermine Congress instead of protecting the environment, which is totally ludicrous. People like Scott Pruitt on the ones who are damaging our environment with their antiquated mindset that regulations are harmful. In reality, regulations are designed to protect the citizens of this country from harm. People like him never seem to realize that if industries behave in a socially responsible way, and really showed any type of caring for the well-being of citizens, regulations would not be necessary.

It’s outrageous that Donald Trump has selected someone like Scott Pruitt for head of the EPA.  There is no way that the can share it. This last week be fair when making a ruling dealing with the issue of global warming, alternative energy, or against the oil and coal industries.  There are many occasions when he will be faced with a glaring conflict of interest on whatever decisions he makes.  However, as we have seen, conflict of interest is the last thing that the Trump administration cares about.  If Scott Pruitt is approved to be head of the EPA, our environment will suffer right along with the people living in it.

 

What is the Clean Power Plan? A Climate Game Changer | Union of …

Learn how the EPA’s Clean Power Plan will reduce global warming emissions from power plants, the single largest source of U.S. carbon emissions. Analysis …

Trump has vowed to kill the Clean Power Plan. Here’s how he might …

Nov 11, 2016 This story has been updated. Donald Trump is preparing to take office with a broad plan to dismantle many of the environmental policies and …

 

Senator Bernie Sanders Grills Scott Pruitt About Climate Change

Senator Bernie Sanders Grills Scott Pruitt About Climate Change

Senator Bernie Sanders grills Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), about his position on climate change. Senator Sanders gets Scott Pruitt to admit that President-elect Donald Trump was wrong when he made the statement that climate change/global warming was a hoax. Scott Pruitt readily admits that he believes otherwise.

However, when Senator Sanders tries to ask Pruitt his opinion about why the climate is changing, Pruitt tries to evade the Senators question by saying that his opinion is, “immaterial”. Senator Sanders disagrees about Pruitt’s opinion being “immaterial”, especially since he will be in charge of the agency that is supposed to protect the environment. Scott Pruitt then says that he will do what ever the law requires to enforce environmental regulations.

Senator Sanders points out that 97% of the scientific community says that climate change is caused by human activity. Scott Pruitt then gets into a debate about semantics, saying that the climate is,” impacted” by human activity. Preferring to take the little interpretation of what the scientific community actually said, Senator Sanders argues with Pruitt over the difference between “impact” and “causes”, because Pruitt tries to make light of a very important topic that will confront him as head of the EPA.

Senator Sanders then goes on to make a point about Scott Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma having a record number of earthquakes and the relationship between these earthquakes and fracking (a.k.a. hydraulic fracturing). Senator Sanders asks Pruitt about what he has personally done in his home state to hold the fracking companies accountable. Again, Scott Pruitt becomes evasive and tries very hard to escape from Senator Sanders relentless questioning. Senator Sanders tries to get Scott Pruitt to be more specific about what actions he has taken in Oklahoma, and Pruitt tells about how he has expressed his concern about the problem of increased earthquakes in Oklahoma. He tries very hard to dodge the issue, but Senator Sanders displays his usual tendency to be relentless when questioning someone at a hearing. You can almost see Scott Pruitt squirming in his seat under the pressure that Senator Bernie Sanders puts on him.

At the end, Senator Sanders said that Scott Pruitt will not get his vote. Right on, Bernie!

 

Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A. …

Dec 7, 2016 Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Wednesday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.
Who is Scott Pruitt, Trump’s anti-EPA choice to lead the EPA …

Dec 14, 2016 Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has led lawsuits against the EPA. He has written the scientific debate over climate change is “far from …

 

The Dakota Access Pipeline: Trump’s First Conflict of Interest?

Trump’s financial disclosure forms show he invested in Energy Transfer Partners, operators of the controversial pipeline, and its CEO donated to his campaign

Source: Dakota Access pipeline company and Donald Trump have close financial ties | US news | The Guardian

 

The Dakota Access Pipeline: Trump’s First Conflict of Interest?

The Dakota Access Pipeline is still endangering the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux, despite that the Obama administration has stopped it.  Conflict of interest should prevent Donald Trump, as president, from being involved in the ongoing dispute.  In this situation, he shows a great conflict of interest because he has a financial interest in this entire matter.

It could be the new president’s first conflict of interest because Donald Trump owns stock in Energy Transfer Partners, the builders of the pipeline. He and has received campaign contributions from that company’s CEO, Kelcy Warren.  The conflict of interest runs two ways.

Donald Trump’s financial disclosure statements show that he has invested between $500,000-$1 million in ETP stock.  In addition to this Investment in ETP, Trump’s financial disclosure statement indicates that he has also spent between $500,000-$1 million in Phillips 66.  That company has a 25% interest in ETP and stands to make a larger return on their investment if ETP is allowed to build the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Kelcy Warren, CEO of ETP has also invested a considerable amount of money to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.  On June 29, Warren made a $3000 campaign contribution to Trump, even though the legal limit for individual campaign contributions is $2700.  No one seems to know whether Donald Trump returned $3000 to Warren as required by law.  This irregularity in itself could be a scandal for the incoming president.

Also, Warren also made a $100,000 donation to the Trump Victory Fund, the Republican National Committee (RNC), and eleven state Republican parties. The day before that ETP made two donations to the RNC totaling $66,800. The reason why they chose to split the gifts into two parts is unknown, but it looks suspicious.

The big question is, how can Donald Trump ethically make any decision about the Dakota Access Pipeline? The answer is, he can’t! This conflict of interest by Donald Trump is so blatant it’s unbelievable.

If Donald Trump cares anything about ethics, which he probably doesn’t, he will step back away from this entire situation. To avoid this glaring conflict of interest, he has little choice other than to support the stance of the outgoing president, Barack Obama.

That decision, as we know, is to force ETP to take a different route for the Dakota Access Pipeline; something that they are trying very hard not to do.

 

Dakota Access Pipeline Facts

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is the safest and most environmentally sensitive way to transport crude oil from domestic wells to American consumers.
Could the Dakota Access Pipeline Still Happen Under Trump?

President Barack Obama’s administration is expected to push through long-delayed safety measures for the nation’s sprawling network of oil pipelines in its final days, despite resistanc… Source: Obama oil pipeline rules face uncertain future under Trump   Could The Dakota Access Pipeline Still Happen Under Trump? During the last days of his presidency, President …

 

The Hype For Natural Gas

At time when there is huge controversy over fracking for natural gas, I have noticed a disturbing trend in advertising where they are trying to sell us on the use of natural gas.

The Hype For Natural Gas

At a time when there is a huge controversy over fracking for natural gas, I have noticed a disturbing trend in advertising where they are to sell us on the use of natural gas.   In this publicity,  they are even stooping so low as to say that fracking is safe technology.  There is absolutely no truth in this advertising.  It badly misleads the public into thinking that using natural gas will save our environment and protect us from global warming; something that it certainly will not do.

For anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to widely publicized scientific findings and paid attention to environmentalists,  they should know that fracking is hardly safe.   In fact,  fracking for natural gas has been proven to be one of the most dangerous and polluting techniques ever devised.  It has only come under heavy public scrutiny within the last several years.

In my opinion, President Obama should have advocated more strongly for the use of the wind and solar power.  To his credit, he has supported the utilization of these things but just not strongly enough.  By now, the “green technology” industry, which holds enormous potential for economic development, should have progressed much farther than it has.  President Obama should have been more proactive in putting green technology into practice.  If he had, there would be no dispute about its value.

The president has also been one of the strongest advocates for reducing greenhouse gasses, which cause global warming. If he is sincere about his desire to reduce greenhouse gasses, he certainly should not have advocated for increased use of natural gas, if no other reason than it uses fracking.

Even though natural gas is the least polluting of the fossil fuels, using it doesn’t come without a price. When natural gas burns, it releases carbon dioxide, another harmful greenhouse gas. Since CO2 emissions have increased over the last several years, the last thing we need is, even more, use of natural gas

Even though it sounds like I’m putting down President Obama, in truth, I applaud his efforts at giving us a cleaner environment. I hope the Democratic Party continues his against greenhouse gasses after he leaves office later this month.  We all know that his successor, Donald Trump certainly won’t.  Trump has shown himself to be not lonely at and for fossil fuels, but a “climate change denier,” just like most other members of the GOP.

 

In my opinion, President Obama should have been stronger in encouraging the use of solar and wind power.  Donald Trump thinks windmills and other such “green technology” is ridiculous and unworthy of consideration.  No environmental good will come from the Trump presidency.  The only interest he shows in the environment is exploitation of it.

 

More Dangers of Fracking: Two More Carcinogens

More Dangers of Fracking: Two More Carcinogens Two more chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking) have been discovered to be carcinogenic, or causing cancer.  It is becoming increasingly obvious the dangers of fracking far outweigh its benefits.  Recently, two more chemicals used in fracking and been linked to cancer.  These …
Natural Gas (Fracking) – The New York Times

News about natural gas. Commentary and archival information about natural gas as fuel from The New York Times.

 

 

….

Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Interrupt Vikings Game

Click cancel Three people who were arrested after Dakota Access pipeline protesters rappelled from the roof of the Minnesota Vikings ‘ stadium to unfurl a banner were released from jail Monday with four charges pending.

Source: 3 released in Dakota Access pipeline protest during Bears game

Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters as a kid doesn’t  Interrupt Vikings Game

Police arrested three protesters after they repelled into Vikings stadium to unfurl a banner calling for US Bank to divest financial interests in the Dakota Access Pipeline.  The protesters, two men, and one woman were charged with trespassing and may be even accused of burglary, although I think the latter charge is utterly ludicrous.  However, if the cops want to be pains in the ass, as they are sometimes prone to do, they may choose to make an “example” out of these three.

The reason this football game was targeted by protesters is because the stadium is named U.S. Bank Stadium, and the Minnesota Vikings were clipped sentences image playing their last game of the season.  Apparently, U.S. Bank is a financial entity that has money invested in the Dakota Access Pipeline or Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the builders of this controversial pipeline.

This game was the last game for the Minnesota Vikings, as they played the Chicago Bears.  This fact is meaningless because it is relevant to the question at hand, the Dakota Access Pipeline.  However, as one can probably imagine, the football fans were not very pleased.  To this, I say too damn bad!  Life doesn’t revolve around football or any other sport.
This protest is the type proactive, in-your-face, protest that I like, because for the majority of people just don’t get the point, there is always a small minority that steps back and gives the matter some thought.  Even though some people get pissed-off at this type of protest, especially when their entertainment is interrupted, more people understand how significant a demonstration of this kind can be and are interested in the overall message.  I hope this protest points out and causes people to question the necessity, or lack thereof, of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

This controversial pipeline threatens the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, in North Dakota.  It is also another potential environmental disaster waiting to happen.

 

Understanding the Controversy Behind the Dakota Access Pipeline …

Sep 14, 2016 The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline continues to make headlines. Yesterday, Energy Transfer Partners, the developer behind the $3.8 …
Dakota Access Pipeline: A Blatant Abuse Of Force

Dakota Access Pipeline: A Blatant Abuse Of Force The Dakota Access Pipeline is the most blatant abuse of force since the demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri.  It is probably the most blatant misuse of force used against Native Americans since the siege of Wounded Knee in the 70s. This demonstration resembles the protests …

 

 

 

 

Is Donald Trump Smarter Than The Scientists About Global Warming?

The main reason that Donald Trump denies that global warming and climate change are a reality is because he thinks he’s smarter than most scientists.

Is Donald Trump Smarter Than The Scientists About Global Warming?

The main reason that Donald Trump denies that global warming and climate change are a reality is that he thinks he’s smarter than most scientists.  Despite that 97% of the scientific community says that global warming and climate change are a reality that needs to be dealt with, Donald Trump insists on denying that global warming is a reality.  He considers global warming to be a hoax, as he has said on many occasions.

Donald Trump also denies, despite what scientists say about it, that climate change and global warming are caused by human activity.  During his campaign, he made stupid jokes about global warming and climate change every opportunity.  Of course, considering the caliber of most of his supporters, the stupid jokes playing well to the crowd, mostly because they are as ignorant about climate change as their candidate.

Even though climate change is one of the most crucial issues we are confronted with, Donald Trump refuses even to say what type of environmental policy his administration will have.  I strongly suspect that no one in the Trump Administration will even bother to give it the thought it deserves.  They have allowed themselves to become as handcuffed by capitalism as the President-elect.  Hopefully, enough people will get angry about his environmental policy to raise as much hell as possible.  Global warming is an issue that we can ill afford to ignore.

Since we all have on the same planet and breathe the same air, it has always baffled me how people like Donald Trump refused to realize that protecting our environment is crucial to our survival.  Does our President-elect think that somehow he and other capitalists are immune to global warming/climate change?  They are such fools!

The signs of global warming hard too plentiful to ignore any longer, and Donald Trump should be the first to see it because it is his duty to do everything to protect the American people, even if it means sacrificing profit for him and his rich friends.  Since Donald Trump has shown himself to be nothing more than your typical selfish rich bastard, I seriously doubt that we will see any environmental policy, especially something that proactively deals with global warming.

Donald Trump has shown himself to support the use of fossil fuels.  As we know, the use of fossil fuels is the primary contributor to global warming.  We need a leader who is strong and capable of protecting us from global warming.  Donald Trump isn’t that person.

 

Global Warming: 2017 Articles, Facts, Causes & Effects

The latest articles and facts about global warming and its causes, plus a look at the effects of climate change: rising sea level and severe weather.
Donald Trump Will Be A Disaster For the Environment

Donald Trump Will Be A Disaster For the Environment When it comes to the environment, or a policy designed to protect it, Donald Trump will be a disaster.  Donald Trump’s view on environmental issues is what one might expect from a typical businessman; if it stands in the way of profit, …