- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
U.S. Sec of Energy: Clean energy tax credits a ‘big mistake’
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:36 am
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:36 am
quote:
Energy Secretary Chris Wright railed against clean energy tax credits Tuesday, defending the Trump administration’s efforts to increase manufacturing powered by coal, natural gas and oil.
His criticism of financial incentives for citizens’ use of renewable energy came during a morning appearance on Fox Business’s “Varney & Co” and coincided with Earth Day — which is typically hailed as a time to champion environmental protections.
“I think it’s a big mistake,” Wright told host Stuart Varney, referring to energy tax credits.
“That term ‘clean energy’ is just a marketing term. There’s no clean energy. All energy sources involve trade-offs,” he continued. “Solar and wind take over 100 times more land, 10 times more steel and cement and heavy materials to produce. There’s no clean energy; there’s just different trade-offs.”
quote:
Wright pegged the credit as an effort to make politicians “feel good” with few accomplishments.
“These variable weather-dependent energy sources are heavily subsidized, which means there’s jobs to build those things in certain communities and politicians think that feels good,” he said. “But at the end of the day, the result of them has been more expensive electricity in the United States, less reliable grid and the continual outsourcing of energy-intensive jobs out of our country.”
“Like this is absolutely the wrong direction, and President Trump got elected to stop that nonsense. Bring back common sense. People want affordable products,” Wright continued. “They want reliable electricity. They want manufacturing jobs in the United States.”
quote:
Later in the segment, Wright also suggested global warming could be a positive factor for humans on Earth.
“Ten times more people die of the cold every year than die of the warm. So a little bit warmer planet means a little less risky for human beings,” the Energy chief said. “Of course, there’s positives to global warming and there’s negatives too.”
LINK /
9
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:41 am to ragincajun03
The whole wind & solar thing is a giant boondoggle, especially wind. Solar can be a useful supplement in certain circumstances. But to think it can supplant traditional energy sources is laughable. As for wind, it takes more energy to produce and maintain wind turbines than the turbines themselves can produce.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:43 am to ragincajun03
quote:
There’s no clean energy. All energy sources involve trade-offs
THIS!
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:44 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The whole wind & solar thing is a giant boondoggle, especially wind. Solar can be a useful supplement in certain circumstances. But to think it can supplant traditional energy sources is laughable. As for wind, it takes more energy to produce and maintain wind turbines than the turbines themselves can produce.
Doesn't matter, money printer goes "brrrrrrr"
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:45 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
wind & solar thing is a giant boondoggle
And yet, we will waste hundreds of billions on "carbon capture"
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:46 am to ragincajun03
quote:
There’s no clean energy. All energy sources involve trade-offs,
I'm glad he said that out loud. People don't seem to understand simple things like this when it comes to that shite.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:47 am to ragincajun03
"Clean energy" is meant to appeal to vapid white women.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:48 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Solar
Leftist: "We need more solar absorption panels to combat the rising in temperatures"
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:50 am to jrobic4
quote:
hundreds of billions on "carbon capture"
It will be moments before someone chimes in with, "but it means investment for Louisiana." Retards.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:07 am to ragincajun03
It is basically paying to pollute like the catholic church indulgence payments for sin.
And green energy is burying its no- renewable pieces and parts in the ground to sit for thousands of years.
And green energy is burying its no- renewable pieces and parts in the ground to sit for thousands of years.
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:11 am to jrobic4
quote:
There’s no clean energy. All energy sources involve trade-offs
Truer words have never been spoken. This is the reality that most people cannot grasp.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:22 am to ragincajun03
quote:
There’s no clean energy. All energy sources involve trade-offs,” he continued. “Solar and wind take over 100 times more land, 10 times more steel and cement and heavy materials to produce.
I’m guessing Trumpists don’t believe in the concept of greenhouse gases? Yet they’ll complain when their homeowners premium is higher due to more hurricanes, sea levels rising, and erosion
A warming planet is bad for Louisiana
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 8:26 am
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:27 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
I’m guessing Trumpists don’t believe in the concept of greenhouse gases?
You believe a man can get pregnant
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:31 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
I’m guessing Trumpists don’t believe in the concept of greenhouse gases? Yet they’ll complain when their homeowners premium is higher due to more hurricanes, sea levels rising, and erosion
A warming planet is bad for Louisiana
More hurricanes? Like we were supposed to have another Katrina every year? Um, yeah, didn't check that box.
Sea levels rising? Yet somehow the global elites, from Obama to Kerry, Gore and the WEF krewe still keep buying their beachfront properties. I thought they were supposed to be the smart ones? Missed checking that box too.......
Erosion? Prove it's not a localized issue, and that it hasn't been going on for centuries. You can't.........
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:41 am to Darth_Vader
I don't mind companies cleaning up their exhaust/pollution. I don't think taxpayers should pay for it. I also don't mind the government giving grants to help spur innovation and new forms of energy. With that being said, this whole carbon capture and sequestration crap is a complete corporate money grab.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:50 am to ragincajun03
quote:
“Ten times more people die of the cold every year than die of the warm. So a little bit warmer planet means a little less risky for human beings,” the Energy chief said. “Of course, there’s positives to global warming and there’s negatives too.”
Ehhhhhh.....maybe that's a bridge too far?
I 100% agree with everything else. When Billy Bob said it during Landman, I wanted to give him a standing ovation. I said out loud 'SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!!!'
I'm not a Global Warming alarmist, but I think saying we're doing people a favor if we're causing global warming might have crossed the line.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:20 am to ragincajun03
should have said clean energy tax credits are a giant looting scam
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:30 am to ragincajun03
This one of those, “well no shite!!!!” Moments
Posted on 4/23/25 at 1:56 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
I’m guessing Trumpists don’t believe in the concept of greenhouse gases?
Because the concept is silly. The glass panels of greenhouses are what keep the warmth in, not the CO2. Nor does CO2 act as glass panels in our atmosphere.
While CO2 does have heat-trapping capability, it's one of diminishing returns (google "radiative forcing"). Let's set 200ppm as our base for average temperature.
Going from 200ppm to 400ppm would increase temperatures by ~3.0 °C.
Going from 400ppm to 600ppm would increase temperatures by ~1.77 °C.
Going from 600ppm to 800ppm would increase temperatures by ~1.24 °C.
When looking back over the eons, atmospheric CO2 increases happen after global warming trends just as often as they precede them. Were the "concept of greenhouse gases" more than just a concept, there wouldn't be such a wide differentiation in those cycles. Instead, we would see the predictable pattern of CO2 rise, followed by temperature rise, followed by CO2 crash (as plants outgrew the environment's ability to produce CO2 at levels which sustain that much plant growth), followed by temperature drops, then a CO2 rise as the cycle began again.
Along with this, CO2 is what plants breathe and being below 200ppm is starvation levels. Growers using greenhouses usually keep CO2 levels anywhere from 800ppm-1200ppm to maximize fruit growth. While the atmosphere currently sits around 424ppm, well-ventilated homes and offices typically range 600ppm-1000ppm. This means as CO2 increases, so too do plant growth rates.
Speaking of greater plant growth, plants also help reduce heat through CO2 trapping, albedo, shading and evapotranspiration.
Distilling the climate down to "MUH CO2 GREENHOUSE GAS!11" is either sophomoric ignorance or a money-grab through preying on sophomoric ignorance.
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 2:00 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News