“Injurious to the American People” — Republicans to Receive a Well-Deserved Drubbing Over Decades of Climate Change Denial in 2016 Election

robertscribbler

Back in 2013, Donald Trump had a bit of a hissy fit. The problem? In his mind, the planned construction of majestic wind turbines off the coast of Scotland would mess up the view from his newly built golf course. So Trump, in typical bellicose Trump fashion, went to war against an elegant and beneficial energy source:

Donald Trump isn’t happy. So, as usual, he’s making a big fuss.

The trouble this time? Not Barack Obama’s birth certificate. No. It’s windmills. In this case eleven wind turbine generators slated to be built in the ocean near a new golf course Trump constructed in Scotland.

The wind mills will provide power for a much as half of local residents and cost only about 400 million dollars. Trump’s golf course will cost 1.2 billion and suck up a goodly portion of its own energy while giving nothing back. One project…

View original post 1,484 more words

4 thoughts on ““Injurious to the American People” — Republicans to Receive a Well-Deserved Drubbing Over Decades of Climate Change Denial in 2016 Election

  1. I don’t like either alternative. Wind turbines need not to be sited in environmentally sensitive areas. I don’t care about people’s energy needs; they need to reduce their usage of energy for the future. I have. And I am not going to support their wastefulness with a mega windfarm that threatens marine life and people’s livelihoods.

    • oops, that should read ‘mega windfarms that threaten avian and marine life’. It’s not just people like Donald Trump; ordinary people trying to earn a living stand to lose too. These things are not the magic cure-all for our voracious energy appetities. We need to face the facts that we need to make major lifestyle changes if we want a decent world in the future.

  2. If they are sited well, with consideration of wildlife and birds, then they are much better than the alternative. But as of now, wildlife and birds are not the main consideration. No way will I support an industry that wants exemption from responsibility for eagle kills for 30 years!!!! There must be a happy medium somewhere between 5 years and 30 – but going for the maximum is human nature. You’d think the Obama Administration would at least try to protect wildlife and birds. There’s no guarantee that alternative energy will help wildlife in the future, despite all the claims. It will just add to the current losses; any fool can see bird deaths are cumulative and not in isolation. Give me a guarantee first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s