Rex Tillerson, our next Secretary of State
-
Ok well its obvious you just didnt pay attention to oil spulls otherwisebyou'd have read how each time there was some preventable accident and/or a quick fix that couldnt happen becausevthey didnt have the equipment on standby that they werecrequired to have and flat out assured regulators they had ala the bp gulf spill. Im not in the habit of educating grown men like wmthey're 1st graders getting one of their first lessons on cause and effect. No interest. Educate yourself on what the rest of us already know
-
Ok well its obvious you just didnt pay attention to oil spulls otherwisebyou'd have read how each time there was some preventable accident and/or a quick fix that couldnt happen becausevthey didnt have the equipment on standby that they werecrequired to have and flat out assured regulators they had ala the bp gulf spill. Im not in the habit of educating grown men like wmthey're 1st graders getting one of their first lessons on cause and effect. No interest. Educate yourself on what the rest of us already know
Ok well its obvious you just didnt pay attention to oil spulls otherwisebyou'd have read how each time there was some preventable accident and/or a quick fix that couldnt happen becausevthey didnt have the equipment on standby that they werecrequired to have and flat out assured regulators they had ala the bp gulf spill. Im not in the habit of educating grown men like wmthey're 1st graders getting one of their first lessons on cause and effect. No interest. Educate yourself on what the rest of us already know
I don't hyperventilate over oil spills and don't think there are any glaring omissions only the fact that s*** happens. Any accident that occurs in this world from falling off a stepladder in your kitchen to driving your car in front of an 18-wheeler has some sort of safety precaution that would have prevented it.
The Exxon Valdez was blamed on what? You can look it up if you want. Then tell me if that's what caused the spill.
WSS
-
http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/%3FFA=facts.QA
Thats just one incident, the valdez, providing that easily obtainable link is as far as im willing to go to div st you of ur profound state if ignorance. You are uneducated and profoundly ignorant on almost every subject you speak for f. I could provide a link for each incident detailing the institutional failings that led to the accident. But t as i said this is as far as im willing to go, i come here assume ng the basics out of people. Im not in a childrens forum
-
actually, no, i wanted John Bolton. It does't mean, though, that we won't pizz russia off.
It just means, I believe, that we will know they will be, ahead of time. something like that.
what was that old saying, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.." ?
-
Rand paul made a good case against bolton over the weekend. Any sec of state nominee that has bolton on staff will have a small coalition of republicans defect. Enough to cancel the republican majority. Bolton is a non starter and a deal breaker not just to democrats. Paul went over some of boltons statements and policy beleifs and pauls right, bolton has no business anywhere near the state dept
-
if Rand is against it, it's a good thing that everybody else shouldn't be against it, all too often.
-
Will Bolton does fit better into the neocon interventionist category. That hasn't been Donald Trump's Focus so far.
WSS
-
As someone who works at an energy firm, I don't hate this.
-
As someone who works at an energy firm, I don't hate this.
As someone who works at an energy firm, I don't hate this.
You think he'll have the backs of energy firms because he's head of an energy company? I can see that.
Meanwhile, how's that swamp-draining, no-special-interests government coming along?
-
Here's something that surprises me - Rex Tillerson is in favour of the Paris climate deal:
“At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action. Addressing these risks requires broad-based, practical solutions around the world.”
“Importantly, as a result of the Paris agreement, both developed and developing countries are now working together to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, while recognizing differing national responsibilities, capacities and circumstances. The best hope for the future is to enable and encourage long-term investments in both proven and new technologies, while supporting effective policies.”
-
Because large corporations like exxon can skirt and or buy their way out of potential regulations that would cripple the smaller players. Just guessing i dont really know for sure, but thats how it works everywhere else. The oligarchs are usually unperturbed
-
As someone who works at an energy firm, I don't hate this.
You think he'll have the backs of energy firms because he's head of an energy company? I can see that.
Meanwhile, how's that swamp-draining, no-special-interests government coming along?
-
Because large corporations like exxon can skirt and or buy their way out of potential regulations that would cripple the smaller players. Just guessing i dont really know for sure, but thats how it works everywhere else. The oligarchs are usually unperturbed
Because large corporations like exxon can skirt and or buy their way out of potential regulations that would cripple the smaller players. Just guessing i dont really know for sure, but thats how it works everywhere else. The oligarchs are usually unperturbed
Bingo! Large energy firms will sometimes play with the idea that they back climate change regulations....because they are the only ones financially capable of staying financially sound after complying with the regulations. Government assisted monopolies.
-
Because large corporations like exxon can skirt and or buy their way out of potential regulations that would cripple the smaller players. Just guessing i dont really know for sure, but thats how it works everywhere else. The oligarchs are usually unperturbed
Bingo! Large energy firms will sometimes play with the idea that they back climate change regulations....because they are the only ones financially capable of staying financially sound after complying with the regulations. Government assisted monopolies.
Bingo! Large energy firms will sometimes play with the idea that they back climate change regulations....because they are the only ones financially capable of staying financially sound after complying with the regulations. Government assisted monopolies.
Sigh. Well at least someone gets it
-
Because large corporations like exxon can skirt and or buy their way out of potential regulations that would cripple the smaller players. Just guessing i dont really know for sure, but thats how it works everywhere else. The oligarchs are usually unperturbed
Bingo! Large energy firms will sometimes play with the idea that they back climate change regulations....because they are the only ones financially capable of staying financially sound after complying with the regulations. Government assisted monopolies.
Bingo! Large energy firms will sometimes play with the idea that they back climate change regulations....because they are the only ones financially capable of staying financially sound after complying with the regulations. Government assisted monopolies.
I would also add that they know they have the right contacts to just avoid compliance altogether
-
Because large corporations like exxon can skirt and or buy their way out of potential regulations that would cripple the smaller players. Just guessing i dont really know for sure, but thats how it works everywhere else. The oligarchs are usually unperturbed
Bingo! Large energy firms will sometimes play with the idea that they back climate change regulations....because they are the only ones financially capable of staying financially sound after complying with the regulations. Government assisted monopolies.
Bingo! Large energy firms will sometimes play with the idea that they back climate change regulations....because they are the only ones financially capable of staying financially sound after complying with the regulations. Government assisted monopolies.
To be honest, if the regulations are sound themselves, not being able to comply with them should be a problem. If the only way you can make money is by disregarding environmental consequences, then we don't really want that energy.
-
Bingo! Large energy firms will sometimes play with the idea that they back climate change regulations....because they are the only ones financially capable of staying financially sound after complying with the regulations. Government assisted monopolies.
To be honest, if the regulations are sound themselves, not being able to comply with them should be a problem. If the only way you can make money is by disregarding environmental consequences, then we don't really want that energy.
-
To be honest, when all is said and done, energy is energy. Choosing between different 'brands' is meaningless because you just use electricity. Petrol Gas can be a different story of course, better quality is a thing.
-
Bingo! Large energy firms will sometimes play with the idea that they back climate change regulations....because they are the only ones financially capable of staying financially sound after complying with the regulations. Government assisted monopolies.
To be honest, if the regulations are sound themselves, not being able to comply with them should be a problem. If the only way you can make money is by disregarding environmental consequences, then we don't really want that energy.
To be honest, if the regulations are sound themselves, not being able to comply with them should be a problem. If the only way you can make money is by disregarding environmental consequences, then we don't really want that energy.
The smaller companies complied with the old regs. If you create new regs that are extremely costly for a company, the bigger guys can soak it up. As for the regs being sound, they are normally a total joke but very expensive jokes.
Example: If you are rich enough, you can just buy carbon credits and keep on doing what you were doing before.
-
That reminds me of something quite dangerous that Trump has said that hasn't been gaining basically any attention anywhere, far as I can see - that for every new regulation, two old regulations must be removed. Which two? Who decides? It's basically just a fuck you to anyone trying to impose new regulations, and that shit plays well with the 'less government is better' folks but sometimes, regulations are needed. Like seatbelts in cars. That's a good thing. But if you had to remove two regulations to impose it?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login