Project 2025 and Conservation

[SAJ-99]

It would be fine produce the power with natural gas generation prices would likely drop.

Spin it how ever you want the fact is higher income households are more likely to have solar on their roofs then lower income

I'm not "spinning" anything. Higher income households have a lot more stuff than lower income households- boats, socks, vacations, etc. and much more likely to have a roof to put the solar on. Having more income is always better. The argument made in the article that only the "rich" can benefit from the tax credit because they have income to offset is about as stupid a thing as I have ever heard. All income tax credits benefit people with income. That's the point.

I have no problem with nat gas electricity generation, but I think we might want reduce carbon and methane emissions before we all cook like a fried egg.

 

[Straight Arrow]

before we all cook like a fried egg.

Some would argue, "It's too late!"
Check out record high temps and longevity lately for many areas.

 

[SAJ-99]

Some would argue, "It's too late!"
Check out record high temps and longevity lately for many areas.

Maybe, but I hope not. I will probably think that tomorrow when it is 105. But giving up trying just to make sure we fill up someone’s pocket or save everyone a few dollars is a terrible way to think. I simply ask everyone that complains about the amount of debt we are leaving our children to also complain about the extra couple of degrees we heated the planet and how it screws up the natural balance we depend on and obviously take for granted.

 

[Archer86]

I'm not "spinning" anything. Higher income households have a lot more stuff than lower income households- boats, socks, vacations, etc. and much more likely to have a roof to put the solar on. Having more income is always better. The argument made in the article that only the "rich" can benefit from the tax credit because they have income to offset is about as stupid a thing as I have ever heard. All income tax credits benefit people with income. That's the point.

I have no problem with nat gas electricity generation, but I think we might want reduce carbon and methane emissions before we all cook like a fried egg.

haha higher income households holds always have more is the argument now....so the middle class should pay for the taxes rebates. so the rich can feel good about helping the environment with the solar panels that are made from petrol products how about they just pay for there solar system with no rebates. They don't get a rebate on that boat they have that's contributing to the global warming

 

[SAJ-99]

haha higher income households holds always have more is the argument now....so the middle class should pay for the taxes rebates. so the rich can feel good about helping the environment with the solar panels that are made from petrol products how about they just pay for there solar system with no rebates. They don't get a rebate on that boat they have that's contributing to the global warming

The working American pays for everything in this country. You will need to take up alternatives to taxing income with someone else. It just seems petty to complain about the incentives created to diversify sources for an aging and overextended electrical grid.

 

[BigHornRam]

It would be fine produce the power with natural gas generation prices would likely drop.

Spin it how ever you want the fact is higher income households are more likely to have solar on their roofs then lower income

100% correct. The subsidie on the purchaser side is in the form of a tax credit. You have to pay taxes to use the credit. The bottom 50% pay very little in income tax so they would not benefit from the tax credit.

Additionally panels on the roof are now costing the home owner substantial increase in home owner insurance due to hail and wind damage, theft, and potential electrical fire hazard risks.

 

[longbow51]

I agree with Tester when he is speaking factually, and disagree with him when he is not.

Big difference between him and Sheldon Whitehouse for sure.

Interestingly, the only time I met Sheldon was at the end of Rattlesnake Bend Rapids on the Smith. We were the ones with the throw ropes. He was wearing a cap that said, "I'm Their Leader, Which Way Did They Go?". Seemed like a nice guy.

Although, they may (or may not have) been part of the group whose guides didn't appreciate my buddy and my's rendition of the key dialogues of Dr. Strangelove, which, amazingly, some of our group hadn't seen. "One Colt .45 Automatic, 2 boxes ammunition... 100 dollars in gold...one miniature Russian phrase book and Bible." Some people, I guess, just don't appreciate classic cinema.

We should require the Montana legislature to meet in Wilderness Camps, on Rivers, or on Mountains.

Or at the boat launch on the Madison during caddis/stone fly season.

Or, on Rock Creek during the SOTAR Hatch.

Gain a little perspective.

 

[ForkieShooter]

Although, they may (or may not have) been part of the group whose guides didn't appreciate my buddy and I's rendition of the key dialogues of Dr. Strangelove, which, amazingly, some of our group hadn't seen. "One Colt .45 Automatic, 2 boxes ammunition... 100 dollars in gold...one miniature Russian phrase book and Bible." Some people, I guess, just don't appreciate classic cinema.

A man of good taste. That’s still one of my most favorite and oft-quoted movies.

 

[BigHornRam]

Interestingly, the only time I met Sheldon was at the end of Rattlesnake Bend Rapids on the Smith. We were the ones with the throw ropes. He was wearing a cap that said, "I'm Their Leader, Which Way Did They Go?". Seemed like a nice guy.

Although, they may (or may not have) been part of the group whose guides didn't appreciate my buddy and I's rendition of the key dialogues of Dr. Strangelove, which, amazingly, some of our group hadn't seen. "One Colt .45 Automatic, 2 boxes ammunition... 100 dollars in gold...one miniature Russian phrase book and Bible." Some people, I guess, just don't appreciate classic cinema.

We should require the Montana legislature to meet in Wilderness Camps, on Rivers, or on Mountains.

Or at the boat launch on the Madison during caddis/stone fly season.

Or, on Rock Creek during the SOTAR Hatch.

Gain a little perspective.

Never watched the movie. Have to check it out. Montana River trip beats the hell out of Rhode Island or the swamp. Hope he enjoyed himself. I'll even give him a pass on his jet flight out here.

 

[stevejfarms]

In my state, the Trump administration stepped in and buried research into the potential harm that could be done if copper mining were allowed right outside--and connected to via water--the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness. They also renewed leases for mining that had previously been put on hold pending that review.

No copper mine has ever been conducted anywhere in the world without creating--and leaving behind--an environmental mess to clean up.

Yet pro mining forces say the process should be left alone to work, that mining shouldn't be automatically denied until thorough review of the site and available science has occurred. They believe--despite no evidence anywhere in the world--that such mining can occur without environmental harm.

But then they go out and bury the science and open up leasing.

Project 2025 proposes a takeover of federal agencies and getting rid of professional non-partisan employees.

This type of thing out to scare everyone interested in hunting, angling, conservation, and outdoors based recreation.

You lost me at non-partisan employees.

 

[Rie Bread]

49 days until archery opener

 

[Elktrack]

Or, on Rock Creek during the SOTAR Hatch

Truth!

 

[antlerradar]

You lost me at non-partisan employees.

Sadly, the first thing that came to mind when he posted the letter from the professionals, was 51 former intelligence officials.

 

[BigHornRam]

In my state, the Trump administration stepped in and buried research into the potential harm that could be done if copper mining were allowed right outside--and connected to via water--the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness. They also renewed leases for mining that had previously been put on hold pending that review.

No copper mine has ever been conducted anywhere in the world without creating--and leaving behind--an environmental mess to clean up.

Yet pro mining forces say the process should be left alone to work, that mining shouldn't be automatically denied until thorough review of the site and available science has occurred. They believe--despite no evidence anywhere in the world--that such mining can occur without environmental harm.

But then they go out and bury the science and open up leasing.

Project 2025 proposes a takeover of federal agencies and getting rid of professional non-partisan employees.

This type of thing out to scare everyone interested in hunting, angling, conservation, and outdoors based recreation.

How do you propose to build this exciting new technology when you are opposed to mining?

"The International Energy Agency estimated that electric cars use 173kg more minerals such as lithium, nickel and copper than petrol cars (when ignoring steel …Dec 1, 2023

https://www.theguardian.com › dec
How problematic is mineral mining for electric cars? - The Guardian"

"Copper: Thanks to high conductivity and durability, copper is essential in solar manufacturing to increase the efficiency and performance of solar panels. Silicon: Silicon is the primary mineral that solar panels use to generate electricity.Jun 15, 2022
https://palmetto.com › solar › min...
The Minerals in Solar Panels and Solar Batteries"

 

[Bonasababy]

haha higher income households holds always have more is the argument now....so the middle class should pay for the taxes rebates. so the rich can feel good about helping the environment with the solar panels that are made from petrol products how about they just pay for there solar system with no rebates. They don't get a rebate on that boat they have that's contributing to the global warming

You realize how much your argument clashes with reality and makes no sense?

Oil and gas is heavily supported by subsidies and government assistance.

It takes money...that many who aren't wealthy don't have...but you claim subsidies for renewables designed to make them more affordable to get started into are wrong.

No one I know who has installed solar is wealthy, they are all middle class. Rate of return coming down coupled with subsidies HELPS those who aren't wealthy get started.

But if you actually want a means test to avoid giving subsidies to the wealthy...I am all for that...as long as you agree the same standard should apply to oil and gas, agriculture, and other ways the very wealthy get help they have less need for from government sources.

 

[SAJ-99]

Can someone outline exactly what went wrong 2016-2020 public lands wise?

I think this is a good question to ask, but the answer isn't as black and white regardless of your view.

This was in 2018. Within 18 months he was claiming wind turbines caused cancer.

Trump Administration Delivers Historic Progress on Offshore Wind | U.S. Department of the Interior

The three announcements included the much-anticipated wind auction offshore Massachusetts, the environmental review of a proposed wind project offshore Rhode Island, and a formal request for companies to indicate their interest in wind energy development for three areas offshore California.

www.doi.gov

If you don't like solar, or if you do like solar but not big fields of it on public land, this was done.

Interior Approves Plan for the Largest Solar Project in U.S. History | U.S. Department of the Interior

Projected 8th largest solar project in the world, estimated to power 260,000 homes

www.doi.gov

I think the larger issue is that there is no clear policy. He changes with the wind...or the little voice inside my head wonders if he changes with the cash. It is easy to criticize any politician for being wishy-washy on some things, or even "on the take". It is another thing to celebrate the sales pitch for it and put that person in a position of almost absolute power. Honestly, Biden has done similar things. The administration has approved more Fed O&G permits than the previous, but paused LNG exports and reduced offshore permitting. The criticism comes from anyone with a view on O&G or climate change. Kind of explains the guy's approval rating. Of course all this was done to lower gas prices. Mission accomplished on that.

 

[Bonasababy]

You lost me at non-partisan employees.

Hardly. But project 2025 will insure all those that replace them are partisan...or else!

And what would you prefer....our resource agency professionals be hired based on ability and education and allowed to work with minimal political interference?

Or that they should be hired based on extreme partisan allegiance, and can be fired at well if they aren't?

Because that's what Project 2025 is all about.

 

[Archer86]

You realize how much your argument clashes with reality and makes no sense?

oil and gas agriculture subsidies are not the greatest but they do actually help buy reducing the price of product everyone can afford food fuel being the biggest take that away and prices go up alot more will suffer vs taking away solar subsidies

Oil and gas is heavily supported by subsidies and government assistance.

It takes money...that many who aren't wealthy don't have...but you claim subsidies for renewables designed to make them more affordable to get started into are wrong.

20k solar system 3k tax credit how many middle class families can afford that in our current situation look at everyone complaining about nr tag prices then the solar just pays it self off and it's time for a replacement system

No one I know who has installed solar is wealthy, they are all middle class. Rate of return coming down coupled with subsidies HELPS those who aren't wealthy get started.

you have to be a fool to finance a solar system for your home and that's the only way a non wealthy person is installing solar system

 

[Archer86]

Honestly, Biden has done similar things. The administration has approved more Fed O&G permits than the previous, but paused LNG exports and reduced offshore permitting. The criticism comes from anyone with a view on O&G or climate change. Kind of explains the guy's approval rating. Of course all this was done to lower gas prices. Mission accomplished on that.

Lol lower gas prices

all politicians are wishy washy neither are better then the other they both are on the take for there wealthy donors

 

[BigHornRam]

oil and gas agriculture subsidies are not the greatest but they do actually help buy reducing the price of product everyone can afford food fuel being the biggest take that away and prices go up alot more will suffer vs taking away solar subsidies

20k solar system 3k tax credit how many middle class families can afford that in our current situation look at everyone complaining about nr tag prices then the solar just pays it self off and it's time for a replacement system

you have to be a fool to finance a solar system for your home and that's the only way a non wealthy person is installing solar system

You got to be fool to install solar in Minnesota. Anyone with 5th grade math skills can figure out it won't pay for itself by the time it needs to be replaced.

Google Image Result for https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-dni-2018-01.jpg