Food for thought(?) from Pierre Gosselin at No Tricks Zone
Rising conservative media star Breitbart here writes that “A Donald Trump presidency would be way more beneficial to the environment than a Hillary Clinton presidency“.
Much of the Breitbart article, written by James Delingpole, focuses on Trump’s loathing of windfarms, which blight the landscape, kill birds, bats, and insects, require old school energy for when the wind is not perfect, take up vast tracks of land, need giant concrete foundations, etc. While Gosselin also goes this way, he has a few more reasons
- Number one manufacturing would relocate from dirty third world conditions (China, India) back to more modern and cleaner conditions in the USA. Making and buying locally are almost always better for the environment.
- Number 2, prosperity also means more money for environmental clean ups.
- Number 3: Money would finally pour into massively upgrading the USA’s crumbling and inefficient transportation system, which is plagued by traffic jams, inefficient networks and road conditions that lead to wasteful energy consumption.
- Number 4, prosperous nations by far tend to have lower population growth.
He also mentions the “huge social consequences of exorbitantly costly and unstable energy for the poor.” Are they correct? Hillary really doesn’t talk much about the environment, mostly about ‘climate change’, and she seems rather halfhearted about caring, except for the part about increasing government control, spending, taxes.
Trump’s website has no specific policy on the environment. There are a few things about doing away with the Clean Power Plan, the Waters Of the USA plan, not putting coal out of business, etc, buried in his economic policy. Basically killing lots of regulation that costs jobs.
So, who would be better? Consider that Hillary loves taking lots of money from countries with horrible environmental standards, and those whose main product is oil.
What do you think?
