General Rick Perry talks American energy policy
- Thread starter IschKabibble
- Start date
-
- Tags
- policy
Within 90 seconds I could tell he doesn't have a clue what the fuck he's talking about.
You should have watched a little longer. I was honestly impressed. He's making a nice comeback for himself.
On climate change:
Lol at "job numbers come and go."
It was the context in which he said it. The reporter asked "you guys said the sector added 51,000 jobs, but in reality there were only 2400 new jobs and the entire sector only has 51,000 jobs and has for awhile. Don't you think that's misleading?"Do they not?
Perry responds "well, I know from being a governor that job numbers come and go."
I was more intrigued by the timestamped part. It's nice to hear unapologetic skepticism from someone in his position.It was the context in which he said it. The reporter asked "you guys said the sector added 51,000 jobs, but in reality there were only 2400 new jobs and the entire sector only has 51,000 jobs and has for awhile. Don't you think that's misleading?"
Perry responds "well, I know from being a governor that job numbers come and go."
It's not genuine. It's more like bought and paid for ignorance.
The scientists who are arguing against our impact on the climate are bought and paid for? He was only asking that we take the time to listen to both sides in regards to how we proceed.
No he's not. He's asking us to listen to the oil lobby who he's been connected to since his time as governor.
Perry has no interest in or understanding of skepticism or science and there is a laundry list of examples of that. His "hey, I just want to see what everyone is talking about" is a tried and true political communications schtick that he's used to some effect in the past. Scientists job is to attack and challenge ideas. When government sets policy based on science, ideally they are balancing political economic interests with scientific reality. What I appreciated about this video was Perry's candor about not wanting to limit coal production and pay for the Paris accords while simultaneously allowing developing nations to still ramp up coal production as they develop. Those are unfortunate (if overstated) realities. They obviously privilege a particular industry and once questioned, it was clear he had little to say in defense of their policy stance, but I appreciate him at least saying "why us?" But then his acting like he is open minded when he's literally parsing energy sector talking points is deeply disingenuous. We know who made him:
Rick Perry, with multiple ties to CEO of controversial pipeline project, tapped for Energy Dept.
It's obvious Trump wanted the pipeline to be completed. How is it controversial for there to be a connection like that?
If you click the link, it details all of Perry's connections to the energy sector.
I read it. Why do you think he was tapped as SoE? He's obviously connected and familiar with the industry. He's trying to open up the market, and I fail to see how that's controversial. Is the implied environmental impact of an oil pipeline that much of a problem?
You'll also recall Elon Musk is trying to put solar panels and whole-home batteries in every house in America. I'm just as excited for that future as anybody else, but let the market decide when.
I think the controversy of his appointment is he has no experience crafting energy policy, admitted on the campaign trail that he had no idea what the department did or whether it was useful, had no understanding of the nuclear arsenal under his purview and is now rehearsing talking points that essentially privilege particular subsectors of the energy industry. All this while operating under the guise of being reasonable and open minded. Again, his motivations and understanding are pretty well documented. When people talked about the insurance industry basically writing massive portions of the Affordable Healthcare Act, they were right. In this instance, the oil and coal sectors are essentially writing US energy policy, which we know has traditionally had foreign policy and environmental consequences among other things.
In fairness, it's the administration's prerogative to strike an industrial agenda. What troubles me is using distorted versions of populism and now skepticism as a cloak to do so.
Past policy maybe. And I'm sure you can take me on a ride in that regard. But you'd have to be more specific about the policy they're shaping now if I'm to be concerned.
What's wrong with the answer he gave? He agreed climate change is a current phenomenon that man is contributing to. The argument is to what extent and how to shift gears.
My issue is that the argument he gave is relying on a considerably small voice of skepticism to justify privileging certain interest groups. Perry doesn't believe the skeptics anymore than the President does. What they both believe is the industrial interests that say there will be a price to pay. In some cases in terms of jobs (and this administration is very much trying to rhetorically position itself as promoting job growth) and in others as increasing the obligations of government which of course is antithetical to their small government ethos. Perry's own inability to nail down what the job casualties might be and citation of a single scientist (rather than the various scientific institutions and consortia that have urged action) in his remarks is evidence that the department's energy policy is not premised on the grounds of caution he's presenting here. Perry just happens to be more articulate and has cool glasses (bias shout-out: mine are almost identical) so he seems more reasonable than the parade of spinsters we've seen from this administration.
But when you listen to the substance of what he's saying, he gives a bunch of non-answers. "What are we going to do about renewables?" "I expect we're going to do a lot." "What actions have you or the President taken to get a better deal than the Paris Accords if it's so bad?" "Well the President wakes up every morning trying to get a better deal." "What are you going to do about coal?" "Well I believe in innovation. Some guy said we were at peak oil once and we weren't, so because of that we have to look at rare earth minerals" (wtf?). "What steps are we taking to protect the power grid or nuclear plants?" "I think our staff is looking at all options. I have no information." "People are scared of nuclear power. Can you assure people nuclear plants are safe?" "I would say look at France. They have nuke-you-ler power even though they don't accept Texas beef."
He's saying mostly nothing while trying to appear sensible.
Who exactly should we be listening to?
Arctic sea ice reaches record low, Nasa says
Professor Peter Wadhams, from Cambridge University, told BBC News: "A number of scientists who have actually been working with sea ice measurement had predicted some years ago that the retreat would accelerate and that the summer Arctic would become ice-free by 2015 or 2016.
Arctic sea ice reaches record low, Nasa says - BBC News
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
- Science Editor, Steve Connor
- Thursday 26 June 2008 23:00 BST
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this
Exactly the point. Explore all options. Don't listen to the "experts" if they're constantly flubbing their own predictions. Remember how we were supposed to enter a new ice age in the 70s?
Weather guy still can't tell me if it's going to rain today or not, and I'm supposed to believe we've got this whole thing figured out??
Simple answer is we should read the actual studies and not the reporting on them.
More complex answer is that there's considerably less compelling evidence in economic and social policy that there will be significant harm to the US economy by taking the fairly modest steps that have at present been negotiated to curb human influence than there is that reducing emissions is a needed step. In fact, there is as much evidence that human activity is leading to climate change as there is that smoking causes cancer.
We've already established that was an agreed point. And you just said not to use an article, then posted a sensational article with more gloomy maybes.
Has it been determined that if we ceased all fossil fuel production the planet would start to cool? Or is the warming trend unstoppable?
I posted that article because it had a link to summary conclusions by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Here's the direct link:
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf
As for your question, if you're asking whether magically greenhouse gases would dissipate, probably not. But would incremental policies to curb human impact reduce the warming trend, probably so.
Incremental policy used to shut down an already dying industry seems like a waste of time and effort considering it's scheduled to be naturally supplanted by renewable resources as soon as the technology is improved.
