Clevfan4life Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 then we don't really want that energy. Commie bastard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted December 15, 2016 Report Share Posted December 15, 2016 At least Tillerson is not a fan of Bolton... Trying to reserve judgement on this nomination, but as CEO he led Exxon in directions at odds with US interests. Here's something that surprises me - Rex Tillerson is in favour of the Paris climate deal: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/news-and-updates/speeches/the-value-of-partnerships-in-delivering-energy-for-the-future Exxon has positioned itself well to thrive no matter which direction the world moves on warming. And arguably their energy sources are more secure if warming is combated. A few years ago when oil was $100/barrel and fracking was ramping up, they made a huge move to dramatically increase their natural gas holdings. Most are domestic. Stockholders went from delighted to mad when oil and Nat gas prices both subsequently fell dramatically. But as a result they are poised to shift business to Nat Gas for reduced CO2 power generation and diesel engine conversion. Obviously they already have the retail distribution to support the conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.