Why Is Oil Prices Skyrocketing Under Donald Trump?

Jump to Last Post 1-32 of 32 discussions (188 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 9 months ago

    After oil prices came down to record lows after the Great 2008 Recession during the Obama administration, they have skyrocketed since Trump took office.  Around the beginning of 2016, Brent Oil prices were around $30/bbl.  Today, they are north of $80/bbl.

    Why?

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
      JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      In short, the primary reason why we are getting pounded by skyrocketing oil and gas prices at the pump is due to Bozo Trump's big reckless dumb mouth, his insane ideas and just the fact that he brings an unprecedented unsustainable degree of uncertainty, incompetence, chaos and instability to not only the USA, but the world:

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, that about covers it. :-)

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Hi My Esoteric, knowing your penchant for, and expertise with numbers, I am treading tentatively here, but ... My Google searches couldn't find support for what I took to be your contention - increased prices are due to Pres. Trump. (was that not you inference?)

      I found your Jan. 2016 $30 bbl mark, but I also found an Oct. 2016 $50, (+/-), mark, and a Dec. 2016 $54, (+/-), mark.

      My point being your $50 gap increase could just as realistically be looked at as a $26 gap increase, (from the end of Pres. Obama's term), almost 50% less than your point.

      I considered that you might also be including Trump's candidacy as a factor in the increase, but I don't think anyone seriously thought he could win prior to Oct. 2016, and as noted, the price then was still $50 bbl. - a $30 gap, 40% less than your $50.

      Also, from most stuff I could find about what affects crude prices - beyond supply and disasters that shut-down production, I don't see any Pres. Trump policies that would have that type of major impact on crude pricing.

      What am I missing? Did I misinterpret your inference that the increase is due to Pres. Trump's actions?

      GA

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        No, GA, you are correct with your numbers.  The point I used was the low point.  If you look, however, at the chart in my Hub on the subject, you should understand my use of the word "skyrocket".

        No, Trump's candidacy didn't have much to do with oil prices.  The instability he was causing at that point had more to do with nuclear war with North Korea.  If fact, oil prices fell for the first few months after he took office.  After that, just about everything he has done on the international stage puts upward pressure on the price of oil.

        https://hubpages.com/business/The-Battl … -Oil-Shale  (That was the original name of the hub; it has changed many times since then.)

    3. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this
      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        OK, Sharlee, I got your links to work and it seems they all tell the same story:

        2006 - 2008 ~ $70/bbl
        2008 - Huge spike leading up to the recession and then an even bigger crash right after the recession began.
        2009 - Recovery
        2010 - mid 2011 - Levels out at around $82/bbl
        mid2011 - 2014 - Increases to around $90 - 95/bbl, trending up
        2014 - 2016 - Major decrease in prices leveling out to around $35/bbl to ~$45/bbl
        End Obama era.

        Begin Trump era

        2017 - today - Steady increase (after a short drop) from ~ $45/bbl to ~ $75/bbl (using the WTI figures)

        So my question is, what was it in world affairs that took oil prices from a steady price range of $35/bbl to $45/bbl for the last 2 years to what it is today?

        We know why they fell in 2015; because America started producing lots of oil and usage decreased in China and other large users.  While supply and demand stabilized near the end of Obama's term, the only other thing that changed in a big way is Trump's very corrosive and dangerous statements, his rejection of our allies and his embracing of murderous dictators.

    4. peterstreep profile image77
      peterstreepposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      There is an oil war going on. This is for quite some time now and has nothing to do with what kind of president is at office.
      There is a big prize to be won and it's the goal of this war. To privatize the oil company that's now in the hands of the Saudi "government".
      This company, Saudi Aramco is worth trillions.
      The US wants it to be on the market so others can buy it up and have a say in it. If this would happen the company will even dwarf Apple.

      An interesting article to read is :
      https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 … oil-sector

      it's an article from 2016, and the privitization of Saudi Aramco has not happened yet. But this is the main goal of the oil war that's going on.

    5. MizBejabbers profile image90
      MizBejabbersposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      After seeing a story on TV the other day, I believe that this may be a last hurrah for the oil and gas industry. In a few years we will all be driving around in hydrogen fusion vehicles (or riding horses and mules, whichever we choose) because gasoline vehicles will be phased out. California is already putting them on the highways.

    6. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Has anyone commented that Oil prices are plummeting?  Despite the fact that Iran oil sanctions are now in place, from what I read the reasons for this are two: 1) OPEC increasing production and 2) a general feeling that rocky economic times are ahead reducing demand.  (In America, that would be the result of Trump Tariffs.)

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Haven't checked oil, but gasoline prices are "plummeting".  Lowest in quite some time.  The news commentator I was watching said the consensus was that it was because there is a glut on the market, and not to think it would last as oil producers are considering cutting back.

        Not sure how a "general feeling that rocky economic times are ahead" would reduce demand (gasoline, not crude) - if the economy is using the gas then it can be produced and sold.  It's not like it is stored for a year, then sold.

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
          JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Gasoline Prices are NOT plummeting in places where people actually drive vehicles:

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, yes.  I know you're still beating the "Gas prices are skyrocketing!" drum, but that drum is not just ragged and torn by now - it is completely destroyed.  Gas prices are falling nationwide and have been for some time - people that actually drive see it every time they pull into the station, and all your caterwauling will not change that.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 8 months agoin reply to this

            They are very low in Michigan? You know the state that is known as Motor City... We enjoyed pretty low prices for much of the summer, which is unusual.

            1. MizBejabbers profile image90
              MizBejabbersposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Gas prices have gone down about 15 to 25 cents per gallon in my area (Central Årkansas) in the last couple of weeks. I wouldn't call that plummeting, but they are lower.

        2. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Oil and gas prices go hand in hand.  There are more factors that impact gas prices at a local lever which is why I use oil prices, they are more stable.

          The "glut" is a thing of the past, at the moment.  That is not to say it won't return which is the current fear driving down prices.

          The link is this:

          - In a bad economy reduces demand for gasoline
          - Therefore less gas needs to be refined
          - Therefore less oil is needed which reduces the demand for oil
          - Therefore the price for oil falls.

          The flip side takes two forms:

          - The price of oil falls means less revenue for oil producers
          - Therefore they either
          -- Produce more oil to make up the shortfall OR
          -- Reduce production to drive up the price
          - If production is increased with no increase in demand, that drives prices down OR
          - If production is cut in order to drive up prices, then less gas is bought because of the higher prices.

          Sort of a Catch-22 until the economy recovers. 

          Now to your point about a "general feeling".  If the futures market THINKS the economy is going south, then they are predicting that the supply of oil WILL exceed demand producing a glut.  Well, they don't want to buy a delivery of oil a year out at today's prices only to find a REAL glut a year from now and are forced to take a loss on their purchase.

          Consequently, based on their feeling today, they offer to buy a year's future at a price low enough such that they think they can make a profit when they do sell what they bought a year from now.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I get that, right up to the "general feeling" part.  I'm not sure that you can combine the two: if the feeling produces a low futures price, then reducing the supply changes nothing as the price is already set a year in advance.  Sounds like you're trying your cake and eat it too, if that makes sense.

  2. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 9 months ago

    From so much battles in the middle East for cheap oil, makes cost high. Plus other countries dumping the US dallor and petro dollar to barter and trade oil themselves.   Trump has turn to America for producing their fracking oil and gas. Since American labor is not as nearly as cheap and start up cost are high. Then plans to be number one in the world for oil and gas exporter at the cost of Americans health. Alot is modeled from the oil sand projects, the greaterst environment disaster in Canadan history. Taxpayers will never be able clean up the messes left behind.

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      What the taxpayer and consumer will not be able to pay for is the price increases and damage caused by man-made global warming.  The clock is ticking, 13 years and counting down.

      1. MizBejabbers profile image90
        MizBejabbersposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Fraking is being, or has been, stopped in my state. A lot of red-staters thought they were going to get rich from fraking on their farms. Some did make as much as $200,000 before earthquakes by the hundreds, even thousands started shaking up the land. Now those gas wells sit empty. Too close to the New Madrid Fault, for one thing.

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 9 months ago

    Perhaps the answer lies within the halls of Saudi Arabia?  Perhaps behind the doors in Canada and Mexico?

    Maybe you should ask the people raising prices rather than asking for unsupported opinions of people on an internet forum?  Or are you just asking for another rant about how terrible a person our president is (nice, the way you've insinuated that correlation is causation without ever actually saying it - leaving it to the reader to infer and build into their rant was a stroke of genius!)

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I finally join a political group called the green party. If you heard my green party group rant all about Trump. You would think I am a passive guy.

      Have been called a genius for my artwork. Would not want to be called a genius for knowledge of Religion or Politicans. How can anyone be a genius about unrealistic fairytales?

    2. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      No, Wilderness, in this case it lies in the halls of the West Wing.  Oil prices are influenced by three major things: 1) supply and demand, 2) speculation, and 3) instability in the world market.  It is the latter that Trump is influencing with his rhetoric and actions.  While supply has decreased somewhat, driving up prices, it is the turmoil Trump is stirring up in the world order that is primarily responsible for the recent increases.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Please read this link it will educate you to what the Trump administration has done and is doing to promote America energy independence. It is disturbing to see such rhetoric spread due to lack of information. We are actually the largest producer of crude oil, and produce roughly 11 million barrels a day. This is something it is apparent something you are unaware of? We have become energy independent in the past two years. It's sad many are not aware of this fact?  None the less this is a fact.

        "The American energy renaissance is pressing forward with stunning speed.  The United States is becoming both energy independent and energy dominant because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people and the application of innovative technologies to energy production, transmission, distribution, and use.  Recently, United States crude oil production rose to roughly 11 million barrels a day, making our Nation the largest global producer.  Additionally, the United States is the world’s largest producer of natural gas, and, in 2017, our coal exports rose by roughly 60 percent over the previous year.  American energy dominance means the end of our crippling dependence on foreign energy, and that our industries have access to reliable, affordable, and diverse energy supplies that enable them to compete in the global marketplace.  Increasing energy security is also ushering in a new era of American leadership around the world as we export more of our energy bounty to friends and allies abroad, freeing them from hostile dependence."




        https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … onth-2018/

  4. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 9 months ago

    Does anyone else notice when someone likes the person in office, nothing is their fault and then when they don't, everything is? Oil prices have been a lot higher than now. Under Obama, under Bush.  Take into account inflation and they were a lot higher, at times.

    The US government doesn't own oil fields and refineries. They don't set the price of a barrel of oil.

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Yup...it's pathological with Trump at this point. I voted for Obama twice and could name at least a few things I was unhappy with and blamed the problems on him. I felt he could have been better on the environment, etc.  Oh, that's not likely what you meant. Apologies.

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        I can name quite a few things I don't like about Trump. Quite a few I liked about Obama. That's not the point. The point is a president isn't a king or a despot. No matter how that president might like to be. (Goes for the 2 mentioned)

        They don't control oil prices, among other things. Why blame them?

        1. Glenis Rix profile image99
          Glenis Rixposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Here in the UK motor fuel is heavily taxed, and so although the government doesn’t control the cost of a barrel of oil it controls how much the consumer pays at the petrol pump. Around 50% of the cost of a litre of fuel is duty, used to raise government revenue and, to a lesser extent, in an attempt to control the number of vehicles on the roads.

      2. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Same here.  Three major decisions (or personality quirks) that I think did America a disservice.

        1. Refusing to engage with Congress, even Democrats
        2. Letting the DNC degrade (he is agreeing with that now)
        3. Too timid on the foreign policy front.

        I think his domestic agenda was spot-on however.

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          I mostly agree with your three points and will add a couple.

          -The expansion of southern portions of the Keystone Pipeline
          -Not pushing the inclusion of environmental protections in the TPP
          -I wish he could have done more on healthcare, like not have to compromise into Romneycare. But, hey, he finally got something done.

          I agree his domestic economic agenda was pretty much spot on.

          1. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Well on Keystone, I am on his side.

            I thought TPP did have protections, but then again, I didn't read it carefully.

            I am surprised he got as much as he did with ACA?

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              I worked on a campaign writer letters in favor of TPP and never ran across any environmental protections and certainly not ones environmental groups were asking for.

              I'm being a bit nit picky with the ACA as I do respect that he was able to do anything. I do wish it could have been better with middle class.

    2. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      True, in most cases, but policies can impact oil prices.  And in Trump's case, his policies have destabilized the world which guarantees higher oil prices.

  5. Glenis Rix profile image99
    Glenis Rixposted 9 months ago

    Oil is much cheaper in the US than here in the UK, so I don't think you have much to complain about, to be honest.  And, given the recent report about the human impact on climate change I think that fossil fuels will, and should, become much more expensive in the future. But I don't expect that will happen any time soon in the USA, where President Trump has buried his head firmly in the sand.

    Capitalist investors ought to be looking to develop sustainable sources of energy rather than digging more oil wells and fracking (which is just about to start here in England.  (I speak altruistically, as someone who has a son whose livelihood involves working in oil and gas extraction from the North Sea).

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
      JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Gas prices have skyrocketed to nearly double under Bozo Trump than President Obama and that's a simple irrefutable fact, the drastic price increase is due to Bozo Trump's reckless big mouth and insane middle eastern ideas and yes, his ridiculous notion and crazy commitment to deadly fossil fuels which will be the end of civilization if he and his Russian republican pals in congress are NOT REMOVED ASAP:

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Gas prices have not doubled. Why, oh why would you make a statement everyone knows is false? This undermines credibility, if any exists.

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
          JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Unlike some right wing crazies around here I don't make false statements  and everyone knows it: I payed about $2.00 per gallon on average or less under President Obama and now I pay almost $4.00 per gallon under Bozo Trump and prices appear to be going even higher which is insane:

          By my calculations, and I'm not a mathematician by the way, that's nearly a gargantuan 100% increase in fuel cost or 'double' in price:

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            The highest gas prices I ever paid were during Obama's years. It wasn't his fault, by my calculation. But, either way, you are wrong.

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
              JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              I'm not a Trump sheep, I live here in the real world so I'm not going to believe you just because you say I'm wrong: My gas prices have nearly doubled under Bozo Trump and that's a simple fact:

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                No Jake. It is an easily exposed lie. Unless, you don't look at the historical fluctuation of prices. If you find a microcosm to make a point, perhaps. But, that would make a bigger point. Not one in support of a claim of credibility.

                1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
                  RJ Schwartzposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Attached is a chart showing the average price of gasoline at the pump

                  https://hubstatic.com/14253274_f1024.jpg

                  1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
                    JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    First of all your chart NOT depicts the 'average' price per gallon of gas NOT by state which I'd assume combines states such as New York where people actually drive vehicles, with Wyoming where they still drive horse and buggy so the average is faulty:

                    Secondly, where' stats from 2018 ??

            2. My Esoteric profile image89
              My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Actually, LtL, it was Bush's fault.  His recession drove gas prices way up (and then down from reduced demand).  Obama was just the beneficiary of Bush's bad economic policies.

          2. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Jake, nothing I could find supports your statement. If you look at national yearly averages, gas has only increased about 25% from Pres. Obama's Jan. 2017 price to Pres. Trump's  August 2018 prices. That average includes price comparisons of both the cheapest and most expensive states.

            Of course if you lived in  a cheap gas state during Obama's years - with an average price of $2.32 p/gal. to a highest-price state - with an average price of $3.73, (Hawaii), when Trump was elected, then you could claim your increase was around 61%. But... I don't think you could claim your move to a high gas price state was Trump's fault.

            Since you don't make false statements, how do you support your claim, when all credible sources, like AAA, etc., contradict it?

            Note: If you didn't move from a cheap to expensive gas state, the data suggests the most increase you could claim would be around 30% - max.

            Note: I am not a mathematician either. I just used Google's calculator on the recorded data. If you wanted to name a specific state, (yours), then we could judge your statement against specific numbers instead of averages. Hopefully you won't lay these discrepancies in truth to your use of "about" and "nearly."

            GA

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
              JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              You're obviously looking in the wrong place GA

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                If I am looking in the wrong place Jake, it is an easy fix - where do you think I should look? Could we look at your state specifically? That would seem to be the logical 'right' place to find support for your claim.

                Is revealing your state too much information to divulge on the 'Net? It seems like such an easy way to validate your claim. What's up?

                GA

      2. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Jake, while I agree with your second clause about Trump's big, uncontrollable mouth, your first clause isn't factually correct - yet.

        Prices may have more than doubled from Obama's low point (I think GA said this in another response) they are still lower than prices when Obama began his presidency.  Of course, those prices resulted from the great 2008 Conservative Recession.

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
          JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, without researching My Esoteric I'll assume you are correct: President Obama inherited the worst financial crisis perhaps in history along with high gas prices caused by republican president Bush, but those prices came down as President Obama worked a miracle by resuscitating the republican's catastrophic economy:

          Bottom line, gas prices essentially trended DOWN under president Obama and are trending UP under Bozo Trump:

    2. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      There are economic and policy reasons behind that disparity, Glenis.  I was curious about it years ago and so did some research.  Taxes are, of course, one reason; we tax gas at much lower rates.  But more fundamentally, England and Europe (smartly in my opinion) chose rapid transit and rail as major way for people to get from one place to another on land.  America, on the other hand, chose highways and automobiles.

      Because of this dynamic, the respective governments passed laws to support their chosen mode of transportation and, in some cases, to make the other mode more expensive (gas, in England and Europe's case).

  6. hard sun profile image84
    hard sunposted 9 months ago

    All I know, is one of the first things I said when Trump was President is, "Get ready to pay more at the pump." I think there's just too much temptation for a buck to be made on oil by Trump and his cronies.

    I think US companies want to invest more in sustainable sources but Trump and the Republican lead federal government are making that very difficult.

  7. hard sun profile image84
    hard sunposted 9 months ago

    I don't think 25 to 30% rise in oil costs in less than two years is good..and this is from May 2018. Look at the gas data from May back to the beginning of Trump's reality TV Presidency and not so good...just saying ya know.  That's it...just saying...but Obama, lol.


    Data for this Date Range    
    Oct. 8, 2018    2.984
    Oct. 1, 2018    2.947
    Sept. 24, 2018    2.923
    Sept. 17, 2018    2.921
    Sept. 10, 2018    2.912
    Sept. 3, 2018    2.903
    Aug. 27, 2018    2.906
    Aug. 20, 2018    2.90
    Aug. 13, 2018    2.921
    Aug. 6, 2018    2.93
    July 30, 2018    2.924
    July 23, 2018    2.911
    July 16, 2018    2.943
    July 9, 2018    2.937
    July 2, 2018    2.924
    June 25, 2018    2.913
    June 18, 2018    2.958
    June 11, 2018    2.989
    June 4, 2018    3.018
    May 28, 2018    3.039
    May 21, 2018    2.999
    May 14, 2018    2.949
    May 7, 2018    2.96
    April 30, 2018    2.961
    April 23, 2018    2.914
    April 16, 2018    2.863
    April 9, 2018    2.811
    April 2, 2018    2.817
    March 26, 2018    2.764
    March 19, 2018    2.716
    March 12, 2018    2.677
    March 5, 2018    2.679
    Feb. 26, 2018    2.666
    Feb. 19, 2018    2.676
    Feb. 12, 2018    2.724
    Feb. 5, 2018    2.753
    Jan. 29, 2018    2.723
    Jan. 22, 2018    2.684
    Jan. 15, 2018    2.673
    Jan. 8, 2018    2.639
    Jan. 1, 2018    2.637
    Dec. 25, 2017    2.589
    Dec. 18, 2017    2.568
    Dec. 11, 2017    2.601
    Dec. 4, 2017    2.617

  8. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 9 months ago

    Is it safe to agree with you about the increase hard sun? I don't think a 25% - 30% rise in 2 years is a good thing either, but the point being discussed was a claim that prices had "nearly doubled."

    GA

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Well, yeah...maybe nearly doubled from the lowest point in the Obama administration, in certain areas compared to those same areas now...but as far as averages, I don't think the national average has nearly doubled...My point is that I would say gas prices are "skyrocketing" as the title of the discussion states..

      On a wider economic front, I fear the economy is not as in good a shape as Trump tells us (or even knows) and we are soon going to see the clear effects of that..we already are in Indiana.

      Conservative economists are not likely the indicators and the job losses and are blaming it on tariffs..another discussion I guess.

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Oh well, it was just a tentative feeler. I think a more appropriate "skyrocketing" would be something like 2009 - 2011, (54% increase), as compared to 2017 - 2018, (25% increase).

        To be fair, and clinging to that mantle of impartiality,  I would also offer these two notes:

        1. 2015 - 2016 had a 57% plummet!

        2. This opinion from a Quara thread, but also found at many other 'sensible' discussions on the topic;

        "If you’re trying to prove that the price of gasoline is strongly influenced by the US President, you’ve been sniffing gasoline fumes too long.

        The Prez has almost nothing to do with the price at the pump. Research objective financial analytics like Fisher Investments or MarketWatch: Stock Market News - Financial News and search on ‘price of gasoline’ or something like that.

        It’s the supply versus demand, exacerbated by some international issues like destruction of refineries by military actions or hurricanes (like in Texas) and sometimes just downtime for repair or change from winter to summer blends that have the most influence."


        Also, if you want to find the 'real' doubling of gas prices - without having to search for cheapest vs. highest priced areas, look to the low of $1.84 in Jan. 2009, (but only for about a month, 2009 ended averaging $2.35), and the documented high of $3.62 in 2013.

        But if "skyrocketing" works for you, so be it. That wasn't my original point.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Gas prices topped at a little over 1500% increase since my days of gas station attendant before falling to current levels or less.

          Not sure of the relevance any more than carefully choosing minimums/maximums of a specific administration, though.  As a great deal of gasoline prices comes straight from oil prices of foreign markets it doesn't make much sense to blame OR congratulate a president.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Sounds like what that Quara thread said Wilderness, although there are major actions a president could do that would affect prices, like; bombing a major producing country, (except for Iraq or Afghanistan of course), or restricting foreign oil  imports, or shutting down refineries, or ...

            But yeah, realistically speaking, I think you are right. Still, as you can see, it does make a good soapbox for both sides. And it offers the bonus of a 'Net full of statistics to throw around. ;-)

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Makes a great soapbox, yes.  As long as one doesn't question the underlying assumptions, anyway.

              Makes me think of the ads for "prop2" here in Idaho - an expansion of medicaid.  One of the "pros" is that we'll get back some of all that tax money we send to the feds.  Unfortunately, Idaho is a "take" state, already receiving more than they pay!

        2. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          I just put out the facts and applied a term "skyrocketing" that you didn't like. I made no conclusions as to fault.

          Why go out of your way to combat the skyrocketing statement and then go into why it doesn't have anything to do with the President anyway? If the prices aren't skyrocketing than it shouldn't matter...better cover all those Trump-defending bases.

          It is all putting the statistics where you want...and defending Trump at all costs even when people simply put out facts. I see a 46.79% difference between Obama low and Trump high.

          I leave all the Trump defending to you guys.

          http://www.pharostribune.com/opinion/co … 52f04.html

          Effects of Growing Trade War

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Nothing irritates me more than the seemingly bizarre nature of how the price of a barrel of oil can fluctuate. Big changes affect us, the little people. But, no one has ever explained how they think a president of the United States is responsible for the price of a barrel of oil. I would really like to hear that.

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              I know there are many factors in oil prices. I think this is kind of what this post is all about...why? I'm guessing that Presidents do have some affect on this legally, and could likely manipulate things behind the scenes in an illegal manner as well.

              It is frustrating for sure.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                A president can fill or empty the strategic reserve and that will affect market price to some degree.  It is obviously a very short term thing and cannot continue for long or have a large effect.

                A president could instill a tariff on oil, but that isn't going to reduce prices.  He could even cancel trade, at least for a while, but that, too, will increase prices.  I suppose he could cut a trade deal - lower prices in return for a dozen fighter jets kind of thing - that that won't affect the price Americans are paying for oil even though pump prices might fall and make it seem like the price went down.

                Can't think of much else, offhand.

                But it IS hard to think that you thought this thread, titled "why-is-oil-prices-skyrocketing-under-donald-trump?" is about the vagaries of oil pricing rather than another slap at the president.

            2. My Esoteric profile image89
              My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              From about the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2017, oil prices stayed within an nice tight range of $40/bbl to $62/bbl.  It has been rising ever since.  If fact, oil prices have been rising steadily since about June 2017.

          2. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Hard sun, Why do you call challenging inaccurate, or spun statements "Trump defending?"

            I did note that Pres. Obama had a 57% price plummet. I didn't note that prices "skyrocketed" from that one month low of $1.84 to an average around $3 for 3 or 4 years. Is that "Trump defending" too?

            Is it because I noted an 'actual' nearly doubling in price to a 'spun' nearly doubling statement that you call it "Trump defending?"

            As others have also noted, the facts don't support the comment that originally prompted this exchange, so why do you call noting those facts "Trump defending?"

            Your link didn't work for me, was it a point about the effects of a growing trade war influencing gas prices?

            GA

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              I posted the facts GA. You immediately went into defense mode even though I didn't blame anything on Trump.

              The link is now not active. Like I said, it's likely another conversation. But, conservative Midwestern economists are seeing the job losses begin, as are we in Indiana. I hope I'm wrong, but things could get real bad real quick. I know the same piece is linked elsewhere. Perhaps I'll start another post with that info.

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                The sequence of comments doesn't agree with you hard sun.

                When you posted the facts - your list of monthly gas prices, along with the comment that a 25% - 30% increase wasn't a good thing ... I  didn't immediately  go into "defense mode" - I agreed with you. Hell, I even asked if it was safe to agree with you.

                As for not blaming anything on Trump, would this count?
                "Look at the gas data from May back to the beginning of Trump's reality TV Presidency and not so good..."

                "All I know, is one of the first things I said when Trump was President is, "Get ready to pay more at the pump." 


                GA

                1. hard sun profile image84
                  hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Well, we can disagree on defense mode, gonna have to I guess cause I think my statement very accurately reflects the sequence.
                  ----
                  "If you’re trying to prove that the price of gasoline is strongly influenced by the US President, you’ve been sniffing gasoline fumes too long.

                  The Prez has almost nothing to do with the price at the pump. Research objective financial analytics like Fisher Investments or MarketWatch: Stock Market News - Financial News and search on ‘price of gasoline’ or something like that."

                  Trump defense mode in response to my fact post.

                  "All I know, is one of the first things I said when Trump was President is, "Get ready to pay more at the pump." 

                  This was a previous post and notice I just state I said this. It just seemed like something likely to happen. I have no proof of anything and thus just put the facts..to which you responded. My "gut feeling" had nothing to do with the fact you responded to...but it was right, lol.

                  1. hard sun profile image84
                    hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, we can disagree on defense mode, gonna have to I guess cause I think my statement very accurately reflects the sequence.
                    ----
                    "If you’re trying to prove that the price of gasoline is strongly influenced by the US President, you’ve been sniffing gasoline fumes too long.

                    The Prez has almost nothing to do with the price at the pump. Research objective financial analytics like Fisher Investments or MarketWatch: Stock Market News - Financial News and search on ‘price of gasoline’ or something like that."

                    Also, you had to pick out skyrocketed in order to minimize the rise in price increase in the same post you stated the President has nothing to do with the rise.


                    Trump defense mode in response to my fact post.

                    "All I know, is one of the first things I said when Trump was President is, "Get ready to pay more at the pump." 

                    This was a previous post and notice I just state I said this. It just seemed like something likely to happen. I have no proof of anything and thus just put the facts..to which you responded. My "gut feeling" had nothing to do with the fact you responded to...but it was right, lol.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    No worries hard sun. That's the great thing about opinions - we all get to have them.

                    GA

                  3. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Everybody but conservatives and Trump supporters know that, in most, but not all circumstances, the president doesn't effect oil prices.  But, that didn't stop conservatives and Trump lambasting Obama has being the cause of high oil prices at the beginning of the conservative recession (yes, it is conservative economic policies that was the catalyst for the big recession.)

                    Nevertheless, Presidents CAN increase or decrease oil prices if they want and Trump has done so by completely destabilizing the world order.  By turning allies into enemies and enemies into allies (and even "loving" one of the mass murderers).

                    Before Trump is done screwing things up, I suspect oil to top $100/bbl

  9. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 9 months ago

    RJ. "There you go again ",  ......throwing a fact into a debate .

    What's with that ?

  10. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
    JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months ago

    UNREAL and Unacceptable: MORE Incompetent, Catastrophic Failure form Bozo Trump: What else could we have possibly expected from an ignorant dummy who actually bankrupted casinos in new Jersey? Well, just like ALL legitimate economic experts predicted, Vladimir Putin's little stooge is doing his level best to turn the entire USA into smoking embers:

    "Trump's sanctions on Iran could push oil prices above $100 per barrel"

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/11/trump-i … nergy.html

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      In Europe many places are finding green energy is cheaper.

      Trump out of control oil prices can go sky high, as far as I care.

      Trump has very little time to do anything right the first time. Yet, he will have all kinds of time to fix it with green energy, against his will.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        "In Europe many places are finding green energy is cheaper."

        Why?  Perhaps because the government tacks on an enormous surtax to make it that way?  Or simply outlaws cheaper forms of energy (coal, for instance)?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image75
          Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          When adverage life expectancy 0f a US coal miner is age 50.

          What would you trade off, 30 years of your life working in darkness and filling your rivers with tar. Just to have a stinking job. Or live a full whole happy life and have the rest of us pay little bit more for green energy?

          Already gas is cheaper energy than coal in the US. At least less global warming.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Uhh...what does that to do with the price of energy?  If coal is cheaper, it is cheaper and discussing the lifespan of a coal miner does not change that.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Oh forgot, wealthy profits before human lives. Not in my world.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Are you trying to equate profits with costs now?  If coal is cheaper, it is cheaper and discussing profits won't change that.  Whether you put profits in before human lives or not.

        2. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Have you researched that Wilderness?  Europe always taxes things high, so the question is, did they increase their taxes on, say, coal generated electricity?  Let me know what you find out.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Have I researched what?  High taxes in Europe?  UK ban on coal? 

            Neither - I asked the question, not provided the answer.  But I HAVE discussed energy with a Brit, specifically the use of coal.  And I've see what the US does to make solar somewhat (but only somewhat) competitive; they offer money from your neighbors to get you to install it.  While that cuts YOUR price for solar, the actual price is what it always was; way more than other methods.

            1. My Esoteric profile image89
              My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US $26 billion. And the best I can tell, they are still being subsidized.

              What were you saying about subsidizing??  How much would coal, oil, and nuclear cost without their subsidy?

              1. hard sun profile image84
                hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Bobby Kennedy Jr came to the local university several years back and destroyed someone speaking of renewable subsidies this way. The guy who brought up the disproved point was crestfallen. I took notes.

                I was well-prepared to answer such inquires and arguments when I was teaching college freshman in an intro Environmental Science course. Their parents were feeding them them the whole renewables are only vialbe with subsidies, without addressing the other side of the story.

                It's sad that the same false arguments are still used years later.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                How much did renewable get in the last 15 years?  The "rest of the story" again - somehow you always seem to lose it.

                1. My Esoteric profile image89
                  My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't know, how much did polluting energy sources receive in the last 15 years. The "rest of the story" again - somehow you always seem to lose it.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, you produced figures from the early days of solar, before it was even possible to actually use.  How about the days when the world is gung ho to promote it?  Think it might make a tiny bit of difference in the amount of subsidies?  Or is it your considered, thoughtful opinion that green subsidies in 1973 were very likely more than they were in 2017?

                    (Have to ask, too, if your "subsidies" are more like tax breaks - such things are commonly mislabeled, don't you know?)

                    Eso, you have a rather bad habit of searching and promoting only that part of the tale that supports your liberal views.  Something your really need to work on.  When you compare solar subsidies in 1973 to those of nuclear power it is pretty clear that you are trying, hard, to spin something to indicate that current nuclear and oil subsidies are greater than solar ones.  Nobody in their right mind would find that tidbit of any value at all when comparing current subsidy levels...except a liberal with an agenda and the gullible that doesn't care.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I will let the facts speak Please check links for Obama's stats in regards to the price of oil..... We appear to be doing very well with oil prices under Trump? Now under Obama, not so much. Facts are just so hard for some to accept. Oh not sure your heard Stormy lost her case against Trump and now has to pay his legal fees occurred due to her frivolous lawsuit.... Jake, you really need to consider facts and use common sense...

      .https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/historical-prices/oil-price/usd/22.9.2014_22.10.2014?type=wti

      https://markets.businessinsider.com/com … 3?type=wti

      https://markets.businessinsider.com/com … 2?type=wti

      https://markets.businessinsider.com/com … 1?type=wti

      https://markets.businessinsider.com/com … 0?type=wti

      https://markets.businessinsider.com/com … 0?type=wti

      https://markets.businessinsider.com/com … 9?type=wti

      https://markets.businessinsider.com/com … 8?type=wti

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Sorry Sharlee, your links didn't work.   But, what I know is that for Obama, the price of Brent averaged around $50/bbl for the last two years of his presidency and the trend was Flat.

        Trump, on the other hand, looks to be averaging $65/bbl with a decidedly upward trend in his first year and 3/4.  I think that is about a 30% increase and growing.

        So please show me how you come up with "We appear to be doing very well with oil prices under Trump?"  I do agree facts are just so hard for some to accept.

        I am going to try again to get your links to open.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          AS the chart shows crude oil prices were very high during Obama's years in office. Not sure your original question holds true?  The facts show differently.  It seems so unfair to make such a  statement without researching the actual stats?

          Year    Average
          Closing Price    Year Open    Year High    Year Low    Year Close    Annual
          % Change
          2018    $67.22    $60.37    $76.41    $59.19    $69.22    14.56%
          2017    $50.84    $52.33    $60.42    $42.53    $60.42    12.47%
          2016    $43.58    $36.76    $54.06    $26.21    $53.72    45.03%
          2015    $48.72    $52.72    $61.43    $34.73    $37.04    -30.70%
          2014    $93.17    $95.14    $107.95    $53.45    $53.45    -45.55%
          2013    $97.98    $93.14    $110.62    $86.65    $98.17    6.90%
          2012    $94.05    $102.96    $109.39    $77.72    $91.83    -7.08%
          2011    $94.88    $91.59    $113.39    $75.40    $98.83    8.15%
          2010    $79.48    $81.52    $91.48    $64.78    $91.38    15.10%
          2009    $61.95    $46.17    $81.03    $34.03    $79.39    78.00%

          https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude- … tory-chart

  11. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 9 months ago

    Must be why everybody is leaving America and going to Europe ?

  12. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 9 months ago

    When you start your plug in electric car tomorrow , watch the lights dim across town , almost half of electricity is coal fired in America . You leave your rubber tires in the same pile as everyone else does . You tear up the same pot holes ,  use the same amount of paint shops ,  dig  in the same mines for lithium, silver and oil as we do , the same diesel trucks bring them to the dealer , ........

    Got to love that " I am green attitude ".................
    Enjoy the hypocrisy .

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Total - US sources of electricity
         
      Fossil fuels  2,516      62.7%
      Natural gas 1,273              31.7%
      Coal 1,208                      30.1%
      Nuclear     805                      20.0%
      Renewable687                    17.1%
      Hydropower    300                 7.5%
      Wind   254                          6.3%
      Biomass   64                          1.6%

      Won't go into smaller source's

  13. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 9 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14260269.png

    Interesting , America greener than Canada ?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      It's illegal to have an eco village off grid in Canada. It's  the biggest reason I am leaving Canada.

    2. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I didn't realize Ontario was all of Canada.  You learn something new every day.

  14. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 9 months ago

    NO ONE , burns even the "dirtiest " of natural resources cleaner than is done in the USA because of our incredible EPA regulations , Nowhere , Yet,  liberals would rather we pay China , India , Russia to pollute in unlimited, unregulated , uncontrolled and unmonitored  extremes of even pre 1900 America or the U.K. ?

    Sure ! Go back to the Paris Accords ?

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      And what facts are behind that incredible statement?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        A 193 countries, don't agree.

        1. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          And thousands more scientists. (Of course the Right doesn't believe in science; just religion)

        2. profile image0
          Ed Fisherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          So you guys want to believe that The EPA isn't "standing on the heads" of corporate America watching the dust in the clean air filters everywhere with a ticket book but that they are in say Beijing ,  Istanbul , Moscow  ? 

          So ,   I have some swamp land  I'd like to sell .......interested?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image75
            Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I don't want that corrupted, oily, tarred and feathered swamp guarded by buero crocks

          2. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Those weren't facts Ed.  Where are your facts?

            1. profile image0
              Ed Fisherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              You and I both know that the US has the best pollution monitoring and enforcing  in our EPA standards in the world , ....If you don't know that , YOU need facts , not me.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Country    Fossil fuel CO2 emissions Emissions per capita in 2015

                World 36,061,710    —  per capita℅
                China  10,641,789                    7.7
                US         5,172,336                    16.1
                European Union 3,469,671     6.9

                Canada was 10th place.

              2. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                No we don't, at least not anymore.  Why is America the #1 polluter today?

                Where are your facts, Ed, all you do is make unsubstantiated false statements.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  "Why is America the #1 polluter today?"

                  Because we are the largest producer and user of energy in the world?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    AND because we polluted when we didn't have to in order to make extra profits.

                    AND because we invested in HIGHLY polluting fossil fuels instead in CLEAN renewable energy sources in order to make short-term profits while setting America up to pay a HUGE price later cleaning up their mess

  15. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 9 months ago

    And leave it to the most advanced and forward thinking nation , the USA  , because of it's incredible industrial age  to have the most advanced EPA standards ,  enforcement , monitoring and fining system here and IN the world .  Where do you think the actual R&D of pollution monitoring and originated ,Canada , China ?

    Think again.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      It's not just we breathe air more than anything else in life. My personal studies being a green  self substainable house builder. American's spend most of their time indoors in thier largest buildings in the world. Where the air quality is 9times more toxic than outside. If life sucks because of quality of health and then you die early, you can have it. Why do many Americans care so much for the Wealthy is beyond me. When the wealthy don't care if you live or die.

    2. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks to Trump's deregulation, not anymore.  The EPA fired most scientists and hired right-wing politicians who don't believe global warming is real or fossil fuel lobbyists who simply don't care.

  16. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 9 months ago

    The wealthy have very little to do with the quality of life as we know it ,    You think pollution is only a bi-product of wealth ?   Bought tires lately ,   change the oil in your car ,  had your septic tank pumped ,  walked your garbage can out to the curb , where do you think your building products come from Wall Street Lumber co ?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      We already have the green energy answers, just not the control over the greedy and political will.

      We must over come or ¶I can't buy me lunch.~

  17. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 8 months ago

    Today I spent $2.58  for gasoline ,     California , NYC , Baltimore , Chicago , ....................?

    What were YOU paying today ?

    What did you pay In 2008 ?

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      $4 - $5/gal

  18. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 8 months ago

    So NOW just because Trump eased up on the coal mining , We are now the worst polluters in the world and not the least ?

    Sure we believe that .....sure !

  19. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago

    The vast majority of people in the world are on board to changing to clean green energy. Because it is a no brainer. Personal and environmental health comes first, above dead Presidents printed on paper or digital.

    Why in hell acre's Trump wants to do opposite with everything toxic or fossil energy. Then to jack up the prices sky high, not counting the extra cost for set up to come that will jack it up way more.
    The man needs a straight jacket not flamming a*shole for a mouth.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The valley I live in has a condition called an "inversion" every winter.  The sky closes in, gray for weeks at a time, and whatever pollutants are produced are trapped in the valley to the point that breathing can be difficult and air quality warnings go out.

      But people continue to burn wood to heat their homes.  It's a "no brainer" for them; they cannot afford clean, green energy, so will use dirty.  Those dead presidents are more useful to obtain food than clean energy.

      Those same people drive old, polluting cars rather than buy a new, electric one.  They can't afford a "clean" car.  They can't afford a modern, well insulated home to cut heating costs. 

      It is indeed a no brainer.  When you haven't the resources for the latest fad, you use what you have.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        lived in Creston for 3 years, boarder town with Idaho. Those burnings from farmer really turn us into a smoky town at times. Air pollution blown in from US is even worst with 90℅ of Canadain population within 100 miles of the American boarder.  Much worst than that is oil and gas cities and towns in Alberta an Saskatchewan. Air pollution worst than all the vehicles combined in Canada. Trump new oil, gas and coal production will be far beyond that again.

        All countries south of the equator only carry 5℅ of the worlds pollution.  I love my health more than imaginary money. Here in the South America, I can have both.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Reasonable, as those countries south of the equator don't generally have much population and what population they DO have doesn't generally require much energy.

          1. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Hmmm, South of the equator:

            Australia: 24 million
            New Zealand; 5 million
            Brazil: 208 million
            Argentina: 44 million
            Chile: 18 million
            Indonesia: 261 million
            South Africa: 56 million
            Peru: 32 million
                Total: 648 million (~8%)

            These represent relatively developed countries where the vast majority of the population lives in or around modern cities.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              You forgot to include average electricity use per capita.  That WAS a large part of the point.  And just to keep perspective, you might want to mention that a single country North of the equator has more than double the population of all those you mention.

              http://en.presidentpost.id/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Poverty.jpg

              Your "relatively developed" Indonesia.  I guess it's true, though: all is relative.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                You picked about the most crowed spot south of the Equator like Jakarta. Part of Indonesia runs north of the equator.  Having traveled most countries south of the Equator. Always found many 110 electrical outlets and many run on hydro.
                Most often they had from warm to hot water shower's and a 110 outlet old washing machine. Clothes dry fast on the line. Most everywhere has internet. Natural food is healthier for you. What else do you need?, Do you need things like argueing about the news, bills, cops, wars pollution and politics.  In the South the Politicans fear the people, not like us.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  My home is typical, with a 200 amp main breaker.  Do you see that as typical in Indonesia?  Or do the large majority of homes get by with 60 amp usage?  Do they scream loudly when they lose power for a day or two, or is accepted and they do fine without it?

                  I don't think you can convince me that Indonesia uses even 1/10th of the energy, per capita, that the US does.  If you try, don't forget to include energy used directly from such things as gasoline, natural gas, propane, etc.  Not all energy is delivered in the form of electricity.

              2. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Since I have been to Jakarta, I know what it looks like and while yes there are decrepit places like that there (and ones almost as bad in the U.S.), it, and the surrounding area is modern ... as is the airplane factory I visited and other production facilities, as are many other parts of Indonesia.

                And to Castle, I do know that Jakarta is slightly North of the equator, but most of the country isn't; further, what real difference does it make?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Not sure what the argument is about.  So far no one has denied that America has the highest energy usage per capita of anywhere in the world, OR that "south of the equator" is lower than the nothern hemisphere.  That's all I said, after all, and here we are debating how much of Indonesia is developed and how much is north of the equator!

                2. Castlepaloma profile image75
                  Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  No biggie, just Indonesia has 34 provinces a few in the north of the Equator. With 18,000 islands.  It spans almost 2 million square kilometers between Asia and Australia. Some parts very crowded, other parts not. About 85% of electricity consumed in Indonesia is generated by thermal power plants. love Bali and Sumatra, really exotic cultural and landscape..

                  It is a race between US and China for polluting the earth most. US is working on being Number one.

      2. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        "It's a "no brainer" for them; they cannot afford clean, green energy, so will use dirty. "

        So your (their) answer is "do nothing" and let the world self-destruct with man-made global warming.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          What would you suggest?  Steal resources from those that have them in order to reduce their pollution rates?  I've been in the position of heating by burning wood - I didn't like it, but did it because I couldn't afford the electric bill.  Would you suggest I sneak into the neighbors and rob them each month so I would have the money?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image75
            Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            There is not many cold areas for heating south of the Equator. 

            All I need to do is dig a 15' well inside the Adobe house and have air conditioning and for free. Solar heat water with tin and black rubber hose, free. 110wt old washing machine works as fast as 220wt machine. All that extra highpower machine is a little faster overall, yet high cost not worth it.

            Community works and shares better down here, to cut many unnecessary costs. Making it feel more spiritual and social.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              And that means you don't use as much energy, or produce the pollution as a result, as the northern hemisphere.  Which is what I said, right?

              Nor sure that people in Peru or southern Africa would agree that they don't need heat, though...

            2. MizBejabbers profile image90
              MizBejabbersposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              I live in the South U.S.A in an UNDERGROUND HOUSE. We turned our heat on just before Thanksgiving because the house was about 58 degrees, and I demanded some heat because my health won't take anything under 65 degrees for very long.

              You said that there "is" not many cold areas south of the equator. Our South American hemisphere has places like the Andes Mountains that are cold, and it is like the Northern hemisphere. The closer the area is to the pole (North or South) the colder it gets. Just because an area is south of the equator doesn't mean that they don't have winter.

  20. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 8 months ago

    Thanksgiving day 2018 Oil new low , $60 a barrel ?

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Yep, the main reason, they say, is they are expecting the world, including American, economy to slow way down reducing demand.

      Thanks for reminding me, thought, to update my hub on the subject with a new chart.

  21. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 8 months ago

    Everybody say     "Thank You US Oil Drillers "...........

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      And thank you Obama for being the catalyst of returning American to energy independence.

      1. profile image0
        Ed Fisherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Sure ,  Like shutting down coal companies , stopping drilling everywhere  , fighting against pipelines ,  No, not much need to "......thank Obama..... " for much of anything but reigniting racism , expanding upon cop killings , igniting the constitution with wooden matches ,
        'Al Sharptoning' the entire news media .........

        1. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          What few coal mines Obama shut down were HIGHLY POLLUTING ones.  The rest failed because there are cheaper alternatives.

          Obama produced MORE oil in his eight years than Bush did in his. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 … 26b76c10fd

          The ONLY pipeline Obama fought against was an unneeded Keystone pipeline not wanted by a couple of states and Native America tribes whose land it invaded.

          Are you blind?  It is Trump has reignited racism.  Hell, he campaigned on it and you probably voted from him because you believe most Mexicans are rapists and murderers as well.  There have been more hate crimes and domestic terrorism in Trump's two years than in Obama's eight!

          Trump doesn't even know, or care, what the Constitution is, let alone what it means - most wanna be dictators don't.

          Trump is without a doubt dangerously mentally ill and we are all suffering because of it.

          1. profile image0
            Ed Fisherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Well  there's a very informed opinion ............not.

            1. My Esoteric profile image89
              My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Prove me wrong, Ed.  I won't be waiting on pins and needles for an answer because 1) unlike Trump, what I wrote is the truth (not opinion) and 2) since I know you are incapable or real research.

          2. lobobrandon profile image89
            lobobrandonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Well said. Not just you guys, it's having international consequences.

            1. profile image0
              Ed Fisherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              "International consequences " , As near as we can tell that involves subsidizing your foreign countries in positive ways , we subsidize you defense , your energy costs , your political  misfortunes , your neighbors , your health care ............all by being the last successful economy  in the world !     That's why people are dying to cross our borders , creating dual citizenships , in fact even so much as  participation in our forums ..........instead of foruming in political forums in your own dictatorships , here you are ..................

              1. lobobrandon profile image89
                lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                This reply is just to Ed and not any sane American out there. I personally do not believe in these stupid Nationalist rhetorics. But sometimes you need to talk to people at their own level for them to understand stuff.

                Your forums? It's people like you that we the younger generation do not like. Borders mean the world to you.

                Also, you give us nothing in terms of defense, sorry. The country of my passport buys weapons from you sometimes and the brains from our county that have immigrated to yours have strongly shaped your country. . The head of Pepsi, the head of Google all come from this country that I belong to. But no, I do not see the world as you do, I see it as one and I don't care where a person is born.

                The last successful economy HAHAHAHA. You sure are blinded. That horse pic needs to change to one that has blinders.

                Look at the field of science: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … americans/ we contribute a lot more. But science is not something you would understand. Business? Here's a list of the CEOs taking your companies forward https://www.gadgetsnow.com/slideshows/m … 708174.cms

                You do not subsidize anything for us just so you know. You do count on us to stand up to China though, what do you mean when you say your neighbors? Unless you meant you want us to stand up to our neighbors as they are becoming a larger threat? Our health care. Please... you contribute nothing to make it better. Also, India imports more than exports from the US, so there's no negative trade deficit there.

                Oh, and when people are flocking to your country, they are flocking there because they are coming to be a part of the great country your forefathers set it out to be. Most of them will be rolling in their graves right now, the way a minority of you behave. Your founding fathers were not nationalists.

                The migrating flock are not coming to the apparently great country someone thinks they are making it. This is why the rest of the world laughed at his UN speech because no one sees it as a great country under the current leadership. I know you don't care, but since we spoke about international stuff, this needed to be included.

                You think the rest of the world has dictators when you are the one who's being dictated to. The country is not being led by a dictator, but a select few who accept every single word rather than look at every situation separetly. You're one funny man.

                1. profile image0
                  Ed Fisherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  "........any sane people out there ......."?

                  Say the word again-- NATIONALISM--  like it is a dirty word . in fact scream it like all liberals do and don't forget to include the other four or so accusations , you have learned well from the left " racist , bigot , misogynist , conservative " ..................

                  Doesn't that feel great ? Get it out of your system ............now however I will point out your  liberal hypocrisies ,   You probably come from India a nation who's greatest export seems to be it's people , it's greatest import the money that it's exported people send back to India so their families can what , eat ?
                  And why ?    Because your home country is in such fine shape ideologically ? 

                  The rest of the world can "laugh " at America's choice of president all they want ,  Americans have reached a point where we are tired of supporting  other nations and their problems like abject poverty for one .We're fatigued of being exploited for our  economic success' for the gains of people who neither appreciate that nor respect our laws and cultures when they come here .

                  The UN , mostly paid for by Americans for your benefit at great expense .   Do not feel alone however there are many nations of people benefitting from our economic and military subsidizations .   While only about half of Americans feel the need to keep that up,  a growing number wishes to end UN support.

                  So you don't like our President ?    tell the immigration people that when you arrive for an education visa and see if we will change leaders to suit you .   If for no other reason  other nations will learn to appreciate the freedoms America offers to its citizens and visitors , it's recipients of economic  aid and the UN and perhaps we will then gain some  respect in return .

                  Presidents here come and go and with them often the policies and individual plans with them ,  America will however learn that controlling it's borders is a necessary requirement in the future and no longer be exploited by illegal immigration and other nations refugees.

                  1. lobobrandon profile image89
                    lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Another dumb reply with no facts to back up your statement. I heard evening colleges in the US are not that bad, you should enroll and study a little something about how the world functions outside your little bubble.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Historically Ed, "nationalism" is a dirty word given that other than religion, nationalism is behind almost every other war.  You must love war.  Why do you want America to go to war?

                    Oh right, we are already in one - a trade war which will destroy America economically as, if you were a student of history, EVERY OTHER trade war instigated by America has done.

                  3. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Sorry Ed, it is the Right that screams racism, bigotry, hate, etc.  (Unless you consider the Left screaming against Nazism aka White Supremacists as being bigoted and racist.)

                    Why haven't you sent ICE after Melania??

              2. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Your, and Trump's, ignorance knows no bounds Ed. 

                The ONLY reason America spends money on other country's defense is to keep war away from US soil!!  There is no altruism on America's part. Instead, it is pure American SELFISHNESS to ensure that if war breaks out, it is Europe or Korea or Japan or Israel that is devastated and not America.

                Why is it you want war to happen here rather than there?  What have you got against America that you want to have war happen here??

      2. MizBejabbers profile image90
        MizBejabbersposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, several car manufacturers are putting electric and/or hydrogen fusion autos on the market for 2019. I drive a hybrid now, but I'm waiting to see how these work out before I trade for one. The gas fusion looks interesting to me.

  22. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    Trade war ?  Ummm ......with whom ?  China is the only one so far not apparently willing to" come to the table " , that's not exactly a trade war except to over-reactionists .

    And China will come around too.

    What you and so many others cannot seem to grasp is that there actually is a big difference between 'nationalism 'and 'patriotism '; Yes,  we realized that the left seldom feels either one but give it some thought will you , you'll see things clearer if you try individual thought and not group thought ?

  23. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    Lobobrandon's  doing a fine job of parroting the liberal ideology , .......

    ".....he doesn't realize the world works as one unit ........."
    This is not one world order .
    "....it tells a lot of one's education level ....."
    Education is relative to life experience too.
    ".....He got out of the climate deal ......."
    Thank God !

    The reason Trump got out of the climate deal for instance ? Because why should the US close the environmentally cleanest coal mining , burning and mfg . process' in the world and then pay cash for countries like India , Turkey , Russia to produce the MOST polluted air in the world in non- environmental friendly ways AND care absolutely nothing about that polluting ?

    How's New Delhi's air , THE most polluted city on earth ?

    1. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      New Delhi is still better than what America was a few years ago if those are the books you want to play by: https://www.epa.gov/air-research/history-air-pollution and https://www.businessinsider.de/photos-a … 17-10?op=1 There were so many dumb people in Delhi busting fire crackers this Diwali wearing masks to protect themselves from the pollution. These are the kind of people your arguments remind me of.

      Their logic was this: it is our freedom that we get to burst firecrackers and it is not fair that the rest of the world gets to use them for new years and other occasions and we cannot anymore. The supreme court had ruled that Indians were not allowed to have fireworks of any kind other than for 2 hours in the day, the exact time of which is to be decided by each state. And India has loads of people with your mentality, and what did they do? Yup, you guessed it right. They burst a lot more crackers this year than they usually do, just because they think it is their right and freedom to do so.

      I can go on and on about the problems in India if you want me to, I am not sitting up on my high horse condemning the US. I can see the issues on all sides because I look at things from a long-term perspective and the benefit to society as a whole. Now there will be some of you who would say that I think I'm better than the rest because of this statement. Not at all. All I've been trying to say through all my comments here and on other threads is that EVERYONE should be able to judge EVERY DECISION on ITS OWN MERIT. Emotion does not mix with rationality. Comparisons to something that is equally bad to justify your reason for doing something goes against rational thought as well.

      Some countries are still developing, India, China, and Brazil. South Africa falls in this category too. Does this warrant the situation the cities are in today? Nope, but that's a different story and they need to deal with it and they are by being a big part of the Paris climate deal and working as a global consortium. China is the country the world is looking up to after the US has left. Trump sees this, but he does not care because one of his short term goals is to prevent China from matching and outperforming the Chinese economy, no matter the cost to her (the citizens of the US) people: https://www.popularmechanics.com/techno … coal-work/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … 0c4d102d8e 

      I wanted to add that the US per capita emission is 20 times higher than India, and 4 times higher than China with jut a few countires having it worse: https://www.theguardian.com/environment … son-capita Considering the population of the US and the per capita emissions it is important that the US be a part of this deal. So yeah, if you say Thank God, you better pray that God intervenes and blesses us all with massive air purifiers.

      Also, you're one of those people, like the typical Indian politician, who says: If they can do it, so should we. If they haven't done it, why do you expect us to? Nice! This is the very reason India is one of the best countries to live in. It's what the political system is based on. Ain't America better than that? Some good things: India has banned plastic in most states, unlike the US. India is investing heavily in renewables, they are working on developing entire cities to be green cities, there's the smart city project with over 100 top cities being transformed. The city I grew up is one of them. Massive efforts to move towards electrification and the spread of solar and wind power.

      The Earth does not care whether Russia is producing pollution or whether the US is or if India has the most polluted city, or a majority of the top 40 most polluted cities. The same air goes around. This is what I mean by thinking outside your bubble and your borders. Those imaginary lines (or walls) do not hold out the bad stuff. The pollution in Delhi is not from within the city alone, a majority of it comes from outside the cities borders and from the neighbouring states. Alas! If only border lines were accepted. Cyclones don't need Visas either, they don't see your borders and stop dead.  They go wherever they please, with a lot more energy today than what they had 100 or 200 years ago, due to the higher energy lurking in our atmosphere.

      The very fact that you have to compare with another country to prove that you are doing the right thing shows that you know you are wrong at some level. But most people with this logic do not understand this, so I won't be surprised if you don't see it this way.

      The world does not have to be a "one world order" for it to work as one body. If every country was isolaed from the rest of the world, a lot of the things we consider necessary would not be available. Take a look at what the US imports from the rest of the world for instance: http://www.worldstopexports.com/united- … 0-imports/

      Look around your own house, you're going to find a lot of stuff that is manufactured in China. Global trade is not new. Luckily this is not what Trump wants. Trump is pushing for free trade and that in my opinion is a good thing.

      If you've not traveled the world and experienced different cultures and ways of life it's hard to say you've got experience. If you have, you wouldn't be talking the way you have. There are war veterans from the US on this thread that have the experience you claim to have, sadly you do not. You seem to be living in a bubble. By moving around the world and interacting with people from different countries you gain wisdom. This is not the only way to gain insight into how the world functions, it's just one of the main ways. However, experience without wisdom is worthless.

      This is the definition of wisdom: the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise. Good judgment being the most important of the lot. Good judgment: the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action. Are you capable of all this? Or do you collect all knowledge and facts that go against what you expect and dump it into a box? The liberal box?

      You cannot just throw stuff into boxes and label things as liberal ideology. I do not put myself into categories, because my opinion goes with the facts I am presented by. If like you, I am trapped in a box, I would have to fight for my box no matter what. That's not something I want to end up doing. I see a lot of boxes, but I do not hop in and sit in them (I'm no cat), I create my own box and it's called lobobrandon and this box is open to all kinds of knowledge and facts.

      For the sake of this conversation, I am a liberal if it makes me open to new behavior or opinions because I learn from history and I learn from experience and facts. Do you?

  24. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    Lobo , One Fact , of the top twenty worst polluted cities of the world , 13 of them are in India ,  China , Pakistan ,  the middle east ..............If  exporting the most talented minds from India is the causation of need for things like the "Paris Accords" perhaps keeping some brainpower in India would be a better Idea .    See THIS is how we produce fact . Not by parroting a liberal mindset without studying facts first .

    "A decision on it's own merit "  Try this one , Why should US  tax dollars [mine] pay for countries like yours to continue polluting with no ramifications  while our industries adhere to the strongest air  particle regulations in the world ?

    1. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      What facts have you provided us? I already said we have many of the most polluted cities. But you produce 20 times more per capita and also more in total than India. Stop comparing and grow up and get off that high horse with blinders.

      Also if you see it that way, you are merely paying for all the pollution you put in through the years. India and China will pay soon too. Your delusion is comical but not funny.

      P.S: Most of Europe has stronger air control than the US. Get your facts right. The one fact you provide is wrong.

  25. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    Welcome to the ability to promote "Facts " propagated by all liberals ,  your party here is well represented by the leftist ideology ! Lies .

    Now , Try finding REAL facts like I did in googling for all of fourteen seconds .

    1. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Compare the two images, you love comparisons right? India is not on the "bad" one, neither is China, but it's on the "good" one, so is China. Now talking about air regulations comparing the EU with the US: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 4215302592

      https://hubstatic.com/14302799_f1024.jpg

      https://hubstatic.com/14302801_f1024.jpg

      Please learn to Google better, all of fourteen seconds is not good enough if you don't know how to search.

  26. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    It's very easy and I'm sure , Ideologically rewarding to pick and chose "statistics" in today's primarily liberal media and then think you've won the pollution debate.    Why do you suppose that India has the most intelligent contributions to medicine , research and development , science , etc... .........and all outside of India ? 

    Stop playing with truth because there is only one of those !

    1. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      India has some of the best doctors in the world. It's one of the best countries for IT and it's got a thriving space program among other things. What are you on about?

      Why don't you pick and choose and show me some facts instead? There's only one truth. For once you've said something that makes sense.

    2. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      One of the main reasons for people to move outside India is the reason that you do not get into higher education 100% based on merit but on caste. So if you do not belong to the lower caste, you're losing out. It has nothing to do with the pollution. You definitely need to learn more about the world. You keep talking about this liberal media, but you seem to believe everything they say about the Eastern countries - hypocrite, just like the big T.

      And the ScienceDirect link I provided you with, that's not published by any news outlet. It's a research paper. Probably funded by the liberals and the research and laws looked into were of course all set up by liberal governments. It's only today that you have a government that isn't a leftist liberal, right?

  27. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    Lobobrandon  , You cannot have it both ways , denial of India's major environmental / political / cultural issues and then NOT being able use some form of media to expose them .

    "Paris Accords " it is not the responsibility of US taxpayers to assume the responsibility of paying to clean up YOUR pollution at OUR expense , As your industry continues the SAME standards of polluting our environment.   This is not just directed at India but Turkey , Russia , Eastern Europe ,Africa and the middle east countries .    ALL THE WHILE closing down our cleaner mining and manufacturing systems to promote yours.

    Its kind of funny for liberals to always condemn the rich as the enemy to progress at the same time they ignore things like the Caste system in India ,  There is an old saying in America that speaks volumes in this debate "Clean up your own house first " before condemning another .

    "There is only one truth " True .  Too bad the liberal News Media and academia producing "environmental studies "conveniently forgot that as they swayed all "truths " to only the liking of the liberal ideology .

    1. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      No the caste system thing is not ignored. And the old saying goes: do not point at the splinterin the others eye when you have a log in yours. I know about the log in mine, just highlighting the redwood in yours before you go blind. Alas, it's too late for some.

      Also, I'm still waiting for your right winged reports and facts. Or do you guys not know how to write or does it just not get published because it's all gibberish?

      1. profile image0
        Ed Fisherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I just started a thread about the latest 2017 US Government report on climate change you may find interesting ,   Do you mean in "...right wing reports and facts ........" of environmental change ?

        1. lobobrandon profile image89
          lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          About pollution stats and about the US having the best air quality standards in the world.

          1. profile image0
            Ed Fisherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            No , about how a science institute of 17 scientists finds the leftist inspired US government report almost totally bogus , "phony science ".

            1. lobobrandon profile image89
              lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              I was referring to the previous comment where I posted images of the pollution here, you said you had some stats and facts that you found with 14 seconds of searching.

              Also, I have not read the US climate report so I can't comment on that. But not all scientists are good, just like not all teachers are good. If it's 17 out of 30 or even 100 that's a big deal. But if only 17 scientists from the country disagree, it's irrelevant. Just because they are scientists does not make them right all the time. I deal with fluid dynamics and climate and flow phenomena in my PhD. Doesn't mean I'm always right in every argument I make. I hope these 17 pointed out exactly what is wrong and pointed it out with facts backing them up. Again, I have not read it so don't pounce on me saying they already did this and 14 seconds of googling will reveal everything.

  28. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    Well here are some facts that Paris Agreement would have cost the US ........

    -26 to 28 % pollution reduction by 2025,all but impossible
    -US family energy costs 13 -20% more annually
    -Minimum 400, 000 US jobs lost by 2035 1/2 in Mfg. sector alone
    -20 % in lost family income by 2035 because of + energy costs
    -Energy costs skyrocket
    -Higher consumer goods
    -Unnoticeable global warming reduction
    -Stifled economic growth
    -Untold US Aid to other countries for their irresponsible economic growth
    -All to increase the ability and continuum of environmentally polluting  countries not caring the least for air quality or to end alleged global warming ? Like China , India , Turkey , Russia , Japan ,Canada ,  the many Middle Eastern nations.

    And all for what ?  The phone IMAGE that the US could be a leader in environmental health , while we already have the better government regulatory controls and oversight over Mfg , energy , mining and transportation pollution?

    Global Responsibility ; It''s time for the rest of the world to "step up to the plate " and assume their own governing faults and polluting problems .

    1. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      What about the many new jobs renewable energy brings in?

      Those countries are stepping up their game, every single one you mentioned. Also, none are as close to global pollution as the US. So if you got amazing regulations why are you the biggest contributor to world pollution when you are not the manufacturing hub of the world nor the waste center of the world (both of these belong to China, though they have stopped importing plastic unless it is 90% clean).

      It's not a matter of saying they should do it, it must be all of us need to do it. Every country has accepted their faults, the US did too under Obama, but Trump renounced it because he's a man who does not read facts nor understand science other than the science of making the rich richer.

  29. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    Where are your facts ?  Renewable energy jobs in the US are just like the expansion of renewable energy itself , subsidised by tax dollars to make it LOOK renewable and still unusable at peak hours  , ...........Oh here we go , the usual war against those damned RICH people?    Well, at least you haven't resorted to the usual  accusations against conservatism and common sense debate , ".......racism , nationalism and bigotry , etc......"


    There is a big difference between having 13 of 20 of the world's worst polluting cities  and the US being a polluter  because of the size and scope of America's share of the worlds economy , corporatism , mfg , energy and transportation .   Why aren't US cities on that list ?   

    According to Wikipedia  the US doesn't even fall into the top 500 particulate air polluted cities in the world , look it up , and yet as you state " .......none are as close to global pollution as the US ............?"
    Once again  ,you want to debate then bring facts to the table not personal opinion .

    1. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I did present facts no opinion. You are the only guy with an opinion here. Anything against what you believe in is liberalism.

    2. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I just found another liberal report for you. An elaborate list of all the subsidies on the oil and natural gas industry: https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural … overview1/

      Give renewables less than a tenth of that and it would work wonders all around. It would also take away from the lobbyists, but that's not what should be happening. Darn, back to the drawing board.

  30. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    You and many liberals see all things "renewable energy " as all encompassing and all saving ,  not true at all !   Wind ;  what happens when the wind doesn't blow at peak hour usage ? And around here it doesn't quite often , Solar ;  What happens in New England USA where there are no more than 60 to 100 days of full sun a year ?  What happens at night ?  When there's often no wind?..............All alternative energy is being used in America ,  in different areas some of it works , in some areas not so much .
    Guess what , it's all subsidized in one way , form or another here, fact from solar panels to wind.    All you're doing is offering up liberal parroting , again bring some facts to the table .

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Duh, when the wind doesn't blow or sun doesn't shine, then one can use the excess energy credits earned when the sun and wind were in evidence. Also, ever heard of batteries?  tongue

    2. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Batteries and offshore wind is used to separate hydrogen from sea water to produce hydrogen fuel cells. No new pipelines are needed as old oil rigs and their infrastructure would be used. Major oil companies are already in partnerships with wind companies to get this done. Learn don't be close minded. If you see a problem with something there are smart people who have or who are working on a solution.

  31. hard sun profile image84
    hard sunposted 7 months ago

    https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents … 0Final.pdf

    United States ‒ Progress Report on Fossil Fuel Subsidies

  32. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 7 months ago

    Well that's a cute little dodge and divert ...........

    1. lobobrandon profile image89
      lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Nah I never found any of those cute. Just funny that you keep doing it.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)