Republican lawmakers propose drilling for oil on protected lands, offering tax cuts to gas companies, and funding nuclear reactors while slashing tax credits for wind and solar companies
They’re coming for liberals next.
If you consider the GOP’s and their corporate twins in the Democratic Party’s love of the military and endless war this priority makes sense because military hardware runs on fossil fuel and nuclear. The point of renewables is to preserve and conserve life and they will not be able to power such machines of death.
Wait a second, I thought that progressives were against corruption? The apparent cause of concern for renewables is the threat of removing a business process in which renewable companies can increase investments by taking advantage of taxes and funds outside of the USA. As I recall, progressives were very adamant against all private companies that did this.
So what, now because renewable companies do this corrupt business practice its ok? How hypocritical of you!
Also fyi that link that is supposed to be about the Georgia Vogtle PWR nuclear reactors has literally nothing to do with nuclear at all. It is an article about artic drilling in Alaska?!!! Who on earth was the editor for this article?
How much is Trump going to get in donations from these exact same corporations for his predictable run for re-election in 2020? Will there be any doubt that he bought the loyalty of these companies in exchange for re-election donations? Would it surprise anyone to find out that Trump himself is invested in nuclear and fossil fuels?
Republicans was supposed to be the party of the people, by the people and for the people and now we have of the Trump, by the Trump and for the Trump. Also of,. by and for his corporate donors.
I would astounded if Trump even knew how a nuclear reactor worked.
He, or more likely someone in his orbit, does know about uranium mining:
Thank god the FOX rubes have the phony Uranium One scandal to blur the lines with, right?
You may be right, but based on the current geography of existing uranium reserves and economics of the resource such a move makes very little sense. You make a good point, but if this is the case it more likely seems to be lobbying of specific companies as opposed to a investment in the industry overall.
- The major extraction mines for uranium exist outside the monuments
- The areas in question for potential extraction exhibit limited reserves
- In terms of energy reserves uranium overall is not that rare nor is very expensive
- It seems like such a venture over protected lands would cost the company more than the value of extracted materials.
In some ways I really wish that republicans didn’t support nuclear, or at least didn’t dirty the industry with corruption and denial of energy the way they do with coal. Congressionally speaking the majority of them support nuclear, yet you will hardly ever hear them discuss the specifics of nuclear physics and engineering better reactors. I guess the street goes both ways though as you also have company lobbyists who would rather make their company cheaper by lobbying instead of developing better technology. If these guys put half as much effort into subsidies and extraction as they did for commissioning regulation standards on Gen IV technology we could develop much more effective reactors that in the long term would cost less money than the reactors they currently operate.
I suspect folks in the Trump organization do not give a shit about any highfalutin technology argument–they know their boss doesn’t. Trump’s been a conman for so long that kickback schemes and bad sales are all he knows. Someone probably just told him he would make a bunch of money if he opened the monument, so he did.
Then again, he had half the CD commentary thinking he cared about big banks and healthcare so . . .