Home | About | Donate

Why Did Trump Release a Report Confirming Climate Change Is Real?


Why Did Trump Release a Report Confirming Climate Change Is Real?

Lorraine Chow

The 477-page National Climate Assessment, which was mandated by Congress and reviewed by 13 federal agencies, conflicted with President Trump's notorious stance on global warming as a "hoax."


Because he has wood (albeit soft) for Venus…


I wondered the same question. Perhaps grandpa Trump is exhausted.


Government is a lot harder than he thought, who knew? Once in awhile something slips through I guess.


All part of the new plan to deal with climate change from the far right. They know that even stupid Americans (and there are plenty) know that the world is warming at an alarming rate. The plan will be as follows, quietly admit that the earth is indeed warming. That humans are responsible for most of, if not all of it. And that of course it’s too late to do anything about it. So what to do?
Why drill, baby drill! Because it doesn’t matter anymore. if we’re going down it might as well be in a blaze of glory. A blaze of course started with fossil fuels.


Make that a “Blaze of Gory”.


"Don’t you worry about that!’

The US will simply bomb the climate back to where ever it wants it. We do rule the world, don’t you know?


President Trump does a great work to our planet. Concepts of physics and chemistry heat our atmosphere. We need a new discipline in science to tackle climate change.


It seems that allowing the release of this report is nothing compared to cutting funding for climate change research and mitigation, forbidding scientists from speaking about it, and lobbying and further subsidizing coal, oil, and gas at the expense of solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. In other words, the report really ends up meaning nothing more than the paper it is written on (for now!) when this maladministration is doing all it can to destroy the climate. But one day soon when the epitaph of this twisted administration is written, the report will mean something more.


Insanity rules.


Insanity rules but it doesn’t have to. It appears Virginia elected a Democratic Governor. That is the first step to bringing sanity back. Why? The legislature will need a Democratic Governor to approve congressional and legislative reapportionment. That means more competitive districts rather than uncompetitive ones. When legislators only fear being primaried from the right, that only increases the power of the right.

Oh, and might I add, it’s nice to see a decent guy win instead of a race-baiting former GOP lobbyist. He may not be as progressive as us, but it matters that a Trumpian racial campaign got beat.


Nice clickbait title. The answer is Trump did no such thing. The report was commissioned by congress, which Trump does not control as congress is a separate body of the US government. Furthermore as written in the article, the report has been in the making long before Trump took office.


I find it interesting that so many Americans and news organizations focus on the EPA, as if it is the only agency that collects data on emissions. The Energy Information Administration collects data on GHGs on a regular basis and submits both monthly and annual reports. Granted the EPA is in charge with enforcing environmental protection and does better analysis on the topic, but it illustrates what little appreciation is given to the US Department of Energy.



" further subsidizing coal, oil, and gas at the expense of solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources." This is a rather fallacious statement.

  1. Fossil fuel subsidies are very different from renewable subsidies, so it is not like a given to fossil fuels takes away a to renewables. When providing subsidies, you have to do completely separate evaluations for the different types of energy.

  2. Comparing subsides between fossil fuels and renewables is extremely misleading. As already mentioned the types of subsidies given to fossil fuels are different to that of renewables. Furthermore, fossil fuels receive subsidies for production of fuels that are completely unrelated to renewables. This includes subsidies given towards production of cement, hydrogen, nitrogen, and other petrochemicals.

  3. Due to the above concerns it is irrational to compare net subsidies of fossil fuels to net subsidies of renewables. A far better evaluation is to compare subsidies by electrical generation as this removes subsidies given to fossil fuels for the production of goods that renewables do not produce. An even better analysis is subsidies per KWh of production as this illustrates the amount of money given per KWh of electricity generated.

As such, instead of looking at net subsidies for comparison attached is a full analysis of federal subsidies given to all energy sources and a comparative look at subsidies provided for electrical generation by the Energy Information Administration as part of the US Department of Energy.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf (p. xviii)

What’s interesting is that when you actually compare energy sources by electrical generation, you find that solar and wind actually receive FAR MORE subsidies than coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, biomass and geothermal.


You forget that oil and gas are highly subsidized when you consider the amount of money spent on the US military and oil-related wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Oil and gas also get subsidized by not including the true environmental costs of externalities like CO2 and methane pollution of the atmosphere, oil spills, habitat loss, and so on. But, I imagine you will believe your own statistics so there it is.


First of all, did you even read my comment at all?

Secondly my source is the Energy Information Administration, which is a federal agency in the US Department of Energy. Their report is on federal subsidies and it is literally their job to collect information on federal subsidies. You are unbelievable if you think there is bias in this report or that I am for some reason being biased towards certain types of energy…


What is your source?


I read your comment. I get your point. Subsidies to oil and gas are different than those for solar and wind. The point I was making was that those EIA stats do not include the cost of oil wars in the Middle East or maintaining a huge military to defend the US’s oil interests throughout the world. Or, do you believe that the wars the US fights are all about freedom and have nothing to do with securing US control and access to oil and gas and other non-renewable energy sources? I didn’t even mention the environmental costs from using oil and gas (not too mention coal) versus solar and wind. While you may not be biased towards certain energy forms (which is hard to believe based on your comments), I am biased against oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy as these have proven to be highly destructive overall to the environment and human civilization. But you don’t have to buy into all that environmental green crap if you don’t want to please don’t cite US government EIA stats as if they were gospel.


" Subsidies to oil and gas are different than those for solar and wind." This is not my major point. My point was that it is misleading and wrong to compare net subsidies of oil and gas with solar and wind. The argument of different subsidies was just one point of evidence to prove my overall point. Just as the evidence that solar and wind are used for electrical generation whereas oil and gas is used for electrical generation, heating, and chemical refining.

“oil war cost” is not an actual cost for the lifecycle production of energy. That’s like saying we should count the value of vehicular accident loss of life as a cost against gasoline. That’s not related to any part of the lifecycle of the energy, but rather a part of cost against the transportation industry.

“I am biased against oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy as these have proven to be highly destructive overall to the environment and human civilization”

At least my bias is based on evidence and facts. Explain how nuclear power production has been highly destructive to the overall environment and human civilization? That is completely wrong when you look at data.

You’ re right I am biased, but its not for fossil fuels. I support nuclear energy, because nuclear energy offers the greatest release of energy per mol of material in the entire universe. Yes it produces waste, but it produces the least amount of waste per mol of material. Yes the waste is radioactive, but we can separate it for industry purposes, fuel or burn it to change the isotope into something with a faster decay rate. Yes there have been level 7 nuclear disasters, but they killed less people than coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydropower and solar. Yes these accidents were dangerous, but we have had solutions to them for literally 50+ years (in fact we invented technology that would’ve made what occurred impossible, before 3 mile island even happened).

You can go on ranting about the oil wars in the middle east, which I do not really support, but don’t for second lump nuclear with oil and gas. That really doesn’t make any sense.


“Explain how nuclear power production has been highly destructive to the overall environment and human civilization?”

3-huge volume of global nuclear waste stored at a large number of locations throughout the world (or dumped in the ocean prior to being banned) that will pose as environmental time-bombs for 250,000 years

Please don’t ask me to write a thesis to explain how oil wars and climate change are externalities (a kind of subsidy) that are not included in the true internal cost of oil and gas. The economist, Herman Daly, has written extensively on this topic. I highly recommend his articles and books.

Some sources

See Daly’s Ecological Economics text

Herman Daly: Towards A Steady-State Economy