Trump would allow Keystone XL pipeline and end Paris climate deal

Donald Trump would allow Keystone XL pipeline and end Paris climate deal

Republican nominee took veiled shots at those who are concerned about global warming and endorsed drilling off the Atlantic coast in a speech on energy policy

Ben Jacobs in Bismarck, North Dakota
@Bencjacobs
Thursday 26 May 2016 17.48 EDTLast modified on Thursday 26 May 201618.00 EDT

Donald Trump pledged to cancel the Paris climate agreement, endorsed drilling off the Atlantic coast and said he would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built in return for “a big piece of the profits” for the American people.

At an oil and natural gas conference in North Dakota on Thursday, just minutes after he had celebrated hitting the 1,237 delegate mark needed to formally clinch the party’s nomination, Trump gave a speech on energy policy that was largely shaped by advice from Kevin Cramer, a US representative from the state.

In a press conference before the event, Trump praised the advice of oil tycoon Harold Hamm. Hamm and Cramer then introduced him onstage.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club environmentalist group, was taken aback by Trump’s address.

“I have never heard more contradiction in one hour than I heard in the speech,” he told the Guardian.

“There are pools of oil industry waste water that are deeper than Trump’s grasp of energy.”

Trump gave the speech – which Brune also called “a jumbled collection of oil industry talking points that are devoid from reality in the market place” – in a packed arena that generated an atmosphere more like that of a campaign rally than a staid industry conference.

As he hit a number of familiar talking points, a crowd filled with his supporters raised chants of “build the wall”.

He did not directly address manmade climate change, which he has in the past called a hoax invented by the Chinese, but he took veiled shots at those who are concerned about global warming.

In addition to his pledge to pull out of the Paris climate deal, Trump promised to only work with “environmentalists whose only agenda is protecting nature” and to “focus on real environmental challenges, not the phony ones”.

There are pools of oil industry waste water that are deeper than Trump’s grasp of energy

Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director

He contrasted this approach with that of Hillary Clinton, whose plan to combat climate change he called “a poverty expansion agenda”. Trump also attacked renewable energy sources, claiming that solar energy was too expensive and attacking wind turbines for “killing eagles”.

Without outlining any policy specifics, Trump argued for a focus on clean water and clean air. In January, asked by the Guardian about the Flint water contamination crisis, he said: “A thing like that shouldn’t happen but, again, I don’t want to comment on that.”

On Thursday, Trump also made a unique argument about the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would pump shale oil from Canada into the US.

Republicans have long supported the pipeline, which was opposed by environmentalists and cancelled by the Obama administration. In exchange for his approval of the pipeline, Trump said, the US would need a “significant piece” of its profits.

Shortly after that statement, though, Trump said: “The government should not pick winners and losers.”

Trump also seemed unsure whether high oil prices were good or bad. Although at one point in his speech he took credit for oil hitting $50 a barrel, he later enthused about the need for cheap energy.

The crowd in Bismarck did not seem confused,
though. Cheering wildly, they gave Trump a spontaneous standing ovation.

“I will give you everything,” he promised them, adding: “I am the only one who will deliver.”

They seemed to believe it.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ge-keystone-xl

Trump Denies Climate Change Is Real, But Wants to Build Wall to Protect Golf Resort From Rising Seas

Published:
May 24 2016 03:30 PM EDT
By Eric Chaney

Rising Waters Threaten Trump Golf Course

Trump wants 2-mile wall to protect against erosion at Irish golf course.

Donald Trump wants to build a sea wall to protect a golf course he owns in Ireland from erosion caused by global warming.

It may be a sound business decision, but it’s a 180-degree swing for the Republican presidential candidate, who has repeatedly called talk of global warming and climate change a hoax.

In an application filed this month in County Clare, Ireland, the Trump International Golf Links and Hotel cites the threat of global warming in seeking a permit to build a nearly two-mile-long stone wall between it and the Atlantic Ocean. The beach in front of the 18th green is disappearing at a rate of about a yard each year.

"Donald Trump clearly cares more about the fate of his golf courses than the health of the millions of families already affected by the climate crisis," said Adam Beitman, a spokesman for the Sierra Club.

Trump's application, first reported Monday by Politico, cites local regulations pertaining to "rising sea levels and increased storm frequency and wave energy associated with global warming." An attached environmental impact statement says that almost all the dunes in western Ireland are retreating "due to sea level rise and increased Atlantic storminess."

“It's diabolical," former South Carolina Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, an advocate of conservative solutions to climate change, told Politico. “Donald Trump is working to ensure his at-risk properties and his company is trying to figure out how to deal with sea level rise. Meanwhile, he’s saying things to audiences that he must know are not true. … You have a soft place in your heart for people who are honestly ignorant, but people who are deceitful, that’s a different thing.”
Trump’s sea wall application calls out an Irish government study for failing to account for the effects of climate change on coastal erosion, Politico reports.

“In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. … As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”

Trump’s company is also using the threat of climate change to increase support for the sea wall among local residents, Politico reports. An appendix to the application includes a scan of a brochure that the company has distributed to residents. One of included bullet points states: "Predicted sea level rise and more frequent storm events will increase the rate of erosion throughout the 21st century."

Trump has repeatedly taken to Twitter to express skepticism that human activity is causing the world to warm, raising sea levels as the polar ice caps melt. He has also said he would seek to "renegotiate" the global accord to cut climate-warming carbon emissions agreed to by President Barack Obama in December.
“Any and all weather events are used by the GLOBAL WARMING HOAXSTERS to justify higher taxes to save our planet! They don't believe it $$$$!” Trump tweeted in 2014."The entire country is FREEZING - we desperately need a heavy dose of global warming, and fast! Ice caps size reaches all-time high," Trump he said that same year.

In an interview with Reuters earlier this month, Trump said he would renegotiate America’s role in the U.N. global climate accord reached last year in Paris.

(MORE: Catastrophic Climate Change Makes List of Mankind's Most Serious Threats)

"I will be looking at that very, very seriously, and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else," he told Reuters. “But those agreements are one-sided agreements and they are bad for the United States."

Trump campaign spokesman Alan Garten did not respond Monday to messages from The Associated Press seeking comment.

https://weather.com/news/climate/new...is-golf-course

I also was& listen to what he said . he care about our country &yes he like golf also
he also said other thing also

Trump will have a problem now - environmentalists do not want Keystone pipeline nor oil drilling along the east coast. He could lose the election.

http://www.alipac.us/f19/another-oil...o-gulf-332965/

I liked what Trump said today about how he wants the U.S. to be energy independent, and no longer reliant on other countries. I think if he keeps talking about that on the campaign trail and in future debates, hopefully he'll be able to beat Hillary.

January 16, 2015, 09:00 amKeystone pipeline: Foreign profits, American risk


By Katherine McFate

Media coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline is coalescing around a single narrative. It goes like this: environmentalists oppose the pipeline because of climate change concerns, and U.S. construction companies support the pipeline because it creates jobs. Environmentalists warn that tar sands crude oil has three times the global warming potential of conventional crude. Oil industry interests shrug and say Canadian companies will continue to extract tar sands, with or without the pipeline. Pipeline opponents then counter: fewer than 50 permanent jobs will be needed to staff the pipeline, a few thousand temporary construction jobs to build it. But this rendering of the debate misses the larger picture.

Americans have been told for the past several years by the petroleum industry and members of Congress that Keystone is “key to America’s energy independence” and will help ensure America has the energy it needs in the future. This is hogwash.

TransCanada wants to build a pipeline through the farmland and ranches of the United States in order to send its oil to refineries in the Gulf Coastfor the export market. This crude is not meant to supply the U.S. market. We have a glut of oil and gas in the U.S. because of largely unregulated fracking going on in 31 states. Between our growing natural gas supply and OPEC's effort to quash the U.S. energy boom, gas prices are so low that American producers may slow their drilling. The Keystone pipeline will not reduce the cost of gasoline or home heating oil for American consumers.What a TransCanada pipeline will do is put a major underground water supply at risk. Keystone XL would be built directly above the Ogallala Aquifer, located beneath most of Nebraska and extending to seven other states. The Ogallala is a shallow aquifer, meaning a pipeline spill could easily pollute this drinking water source for two million Americans.

The pipeline would cross thousands of acres of farmland in the Great Plains; a spill could make this land unusable for years. In 2013, an oil pipeline spilled 840,000 gallons of crude near Tioga, North Dakota, and crews are still working to clean it up. Keystone I, which runs from Canada through Illinois, had 14 reported leaks during its first year of operation.
TransCanada has been criticized for failing to comply with Canadian safety regulations, and the company does not intend to use the latest safety technology to detect spills along the Keystone XL route. With the pipeline travelling through miles of grassland, leaks could go undetected and unaddressed until water and soil are irreparably damaged. In Texas, where pipeline construction has already begun, landowners have reported issues to the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and been told that there are not enough inspectors to investigate their claims.

An additional concern is the impact on the Gulf. The pipeline would carry Canadian crude to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, to communities like Port Arthur, Texas where residents are already burdened with disproportionally high levels of pollution. These communities would bear the brunt of increased emissions from refining dirty tar sands crude and the Gulf Coast – still not recovered from the 2010 BP oil spill – would take on the risk of further spills from increased export traffic.

The Keystone decision is being reviewed by the State Department because it is a critical issue for the nation. This project asks American farmers, ranchers, and residents in the path of the pipeline and those in port communities along the Gulf Coast to put crucial parts of our nation’s water supply, grasslands, and habitats at risk so that Canadian oil producers – and some U.S. oil refineries – can benefit. This is a bad deal.

We can find alternative energy sources, but American water supplies are precious and under pressure. Just ask agriculturalists and consumers in the West. Instead of responding to the narrow interests of a few oil companies, we need our elected officials to steward the natural resources that have allowed our country to prosper and feed the world.
McFate is the president and CEO of the Center for Effective Government in Washington,D.C..

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...-american-risk

We don't need Canada's stinking oil running across our country!

kathernie Mc fate
Obama is the one that did not want the pipe line at all ( we need job's ,im with trump on this pip line our guy's & girl need job .)why don't you all grown up you all are kids (let trump do his job that more then OBama did for us
you all fight like kid's in a school yard . . ) why you all see what our country in a mess & you will not stand up for trump why he is the best thing we have to fight for us . (what are all afraid of
you are all afraid of something)
I know why . you are all Dishonest & that why you don;t want trump in he don't lie
well good luck trump

The clean energy economy is growing fast -- latest reports show that the sector supports 2.5 million jobs in America. And these lifesaving standards represent an opportunity for energy companies and our country to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy.

1$ invested in clean energy creates 3x as many jobs as 1$ in fossil fuels
10's of thousands of jobs added by 2040
Health benefits - $54b in public health and climate benefits
90k childhood asthma attacks prevented
up to 3600 premature deaths avoided in 2030 due to cleaner air

This transition will create even more jobs, reduce electricity bills and improve the well-being of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Let's get the toxicity, cancer, asthma, cardiovascular damages OUT of OUR ENERGY PLANS. (unless you do not mind being duped continuously by greedy profiteers)

It is the 21st century - why continue to expand dangerous 19-20th century methods? Because big gas, oil, coal DO NOT WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR PROFITS & do everything they can to stop new methods. They don't like to PAY EITHER FOR DAMAGES, DEATHS. They will appeal a verdict for 20 yrs & more till their fines are minor; e.g. Exxon Valdez spill, Amazon River spill - still plenty of oil causing cancers there too, never cleaned up properly. They should not continue to receive taxpayer subsidies & should pay taxes rather than write offs as they are some of the highest profit corporations around..

If the pipeline breaks, as they are breaking now & spoils your drinking water, house, land, you will curse the day it was allowed. If a fire bomb train from ND shale oil rolls thru your neighborhood and explodes, hope that somehow lives are spared.

Clean air, clean water, and open spaces are bedrock American values.
“When a man must be afraid to drink freely from his country's river and streams that country is no longer fit to live in. ”― Edward Abbey

Drill baby drill caused Republicans to lose and can again - many people feel very strongly about that & will pull the Democrat lever again if the issue is w/o with a balanced direction.

Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone

Zero emission milestone reached as country is powered by just wind, solar and hydro-generated electricity for 107 hours

As recently as 2013, renewables provided only about 23% of Portugal’s electricity. By 2015 that figure had risen to 48%.

Arthur Neslen Wednesday 18 May 2016 09.59 EDT modified 20 May 2016

Portugal kept its lights on with renewable energy alone for four consecutive days last week in a clean energy milestone revealed by data analysis of national energy network figures.

Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says.

News of the zero emissions landmark comes just days after Germany announced that clean energy had powered almost all its electricity needs on Sunday 15 May, with power prices turning negative at several times in the day – effectively paying consumers to use it.

Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand

Oliver Joy, a spokesman for the Wind Europe trade association said: “We are seeing trends like this spread across Europe - last year with Denmark and now in Portugal. The Iberian peninsula is a great resource for renewables and wind energy, not just for the region but for the whole of Europe.”

James Watson, the CEO of SolarPower Europe said: “This is a significant achievement for a European country, but what seems extraordinary today will be commonplace in Europe in just a few years. The energy transition process is gathering momentum and records such as this will continue to be set and broken across Europe.”

Last year, wind provided 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together provided 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association.

While Portugal’s clean energy surge has been spurred by the EU’s renewable targets for 2020, support schemes for new wind capacity were reduced in 2012.

Despite this, Portugal added 550MW of wind capacity between 2013 and 2016, and industry groups now have their sights firmly set on the green energy’s export potential, within Europe and without.


http://beacon.guim.co.uk/count/pv.gif
Solar power sets new British record by beating coal for a day

An increased build-out of interconnectors, a reformed electricity market and political will are all essential,” Joy said. “But with the right policies in place, wind could meet a quarter of Europe’s power needs in the next 15 years.”

In 2015, wind power alone met 42% of electricity demand in Denmark, 20% in Spain, 13% in Germany and 11% in the UK.

In a move hailed as a “historic turning point” by clean energy supporters, UK citizens last week enjoyed their first ever week of coal-free electricity generation.

Watson said: “The age of inflexible and polluting technologies is drawing to an end and power will increasingly be provided from clean, renewable sources.”

• This article was amended on 19 May 2016. An earlier version said that in 2013 Portugal generated 27% of its electricity from nuclear, 13% from hydro, 7.5% from wind and 3% from solar, according to Eurostat figures. In fact those figures are for the whole of the EU; Portugal does not have any nuclear power plants.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...580&CMP=ema-60