View Full Version : Warning: Mattis: Trump Cabinet’s lone green hope?
Peter1469
12-20-2016, 07:45 PM
Mattis: Trump Cabinet’s lone green hope? (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/james-mattis-climate-change-trump-defense-232833)
Gen. Mattis was one of the people pushing green energy for the DoD. Not sure if Trump will go along with that.
In an incoming administration loaded with high-ranking fossil-fuel promoters and climate-change skeptics, Mattis stands out as one of the military’s most vocal advocates for weaning the armed services off traditional energy — including his George W. Bush-era plea for researchers to "unleash us from the tether of fuel." The retired Marine Corps general has also joined other military planners in identifying the potential upheaval around the world from climate change as one of the biggest security threats facing the U.S. in the coming decades.
Mattis has not said whether he would continue that agenda as the Pentagon’s top civilian leader — especially given the president-elect’s dismissal of manmade climate change as a Chinese-inspired “hoax.” But people who have followed Mattis’ career say he can be counted on to speak his mind, both inside the administration and to the Republican lawmakers planning to dismantle President Barack Obama's clean-energy agenda.
“I don’t think Congress is going to get in the way of someone as respected as Jim Mattis [trying] to help move America to back away from fossil fuels,“ said Paul Eaton, a former Army general who served in Iraq and serves on the board of advisers of the liberal group VoteVets. For greens, Mattis may be a rare ray of hope that the coming administration won't completely walk away from clean-energy initiatives.
“The military has led the way on the transition to clean energy, not just because it is a solution to the national security threat that is the climate crisis, but because clean energy helps solve mission-related problems for our armed forces," said John Coequyt, the Sierra Club’s director of federal and international climate campaigns. “Our military makes decisions based on what it takes to succeed, so as clean energy has gotten more affordable and more accessible, we aren’t worried that there will be any regression.”
i've read in more than one place that mattis is taking one for the team by agreeing to serve.
Well, that alternative fuel for the Navy didn't work out so well.
Peter1469
12-20-2016, 08:05 PM
Well, that alternative fuel for the Navy didn't work out so well.
Blackhawks didn't work too well for the first few years we flew them.
Peter1469
12-20-2016, 08:06 PM
i've read in more than one place that mattis is taking one for the team by agreeing to serve.
How so?
How so?
he's not particularly impressed by mr trump.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51199/mattis-trump/
Tahuyaman
12-20-2016, 08:57 PM
Mattis: Trump Cabinet’s lone green hope? (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/james-mattis-climate-change-trump-defense-232833)
Gen. Mattis was one of the people pushing green energy for the DoD. Not sure if Trump will go along with that.
One person here thinks that Mattis is itching to initiate a nuclear strike against ISIS. Thats not a strong greenie position.
Tahuyaman
12-20-2016, 09:02 PM
he's not particularly impressed by mr trump.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51199/mattis-trump/
That's just one man's opinion based on nothing factual.
MisterVeritis
12-20-2016, 10:12 PM
As an engineer leading innovation efforts my team evaluated a variety of alternative energy sources for remote forward operating bases. A delivered gallon of fuel cost around $250. We came up with three (or was it four) ideas. But the military had no interest in funding the research and development for a proof of concept demonstration.
Peter1469
12-20-2016, 10:16 PM
he's not particularly impressed by mr trump.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51199/mattis-trump/
Interesting article.
Peter1469
12-20-2016, 10:20 PM
As an engineer leading innovation efforts my team evaluated a variety of alternative energy sources for remote forward operating bases. A delivered gallon of fuel cost around $250. We came up with three (or was it four) ideas. But the military had no interest in funding the research and development for a proof of concept demonstration.
When I was in the Sinai someone before us on our check point rigged the water pipes over head with a glass shielding on the top side of the hot water line. We got free hot water.
That's just one man's opinion based on nothing factual.
you should trade names with obvious.
Interesting article.
bateman is an interesting guy
Tahuyaman
12-20-2016, 10:24 PM
you should trade names with obvious.
The article you linked was his opinion. He makes that perfctly clear.
The article you linked was his opinion. He makes that perfctly clear.
no shit, stupid.
Captain Obvious
12-20-2016, 10:26 PM
you should trade names with obvious.
http://gifsoup.com/view6/4378893/condom-out-window-o.gif
Grizz
12-20-2016, 10:32 PM
It's an opinion piece.
Release us from the tether of fuel.... That sounds like a call for development of propulsion systems other than diesel or gasoline engines. The "space race" got a lot of its public support because of national security. Having military vehicles rely on fuel does cause a huge problem of logistics. Patton got held back many times because of lack of fuel. Ships can't go beyond a certain point without refueling tankers nearby. If the government were to do like JFK did and call for a race to develop alternative propulsion systems it would not only help national security it would end up helping us all. If its ideas on putting windmills on movable platforms or solar panels on tanks or hybrid engines that trade one thing for another then forget it. If green means military equipment will cost 2 or 3 times more then no.
Tahuyaman
12-20-2016, 10:45 PM
It's an opinion piece.
And it was represented as something other than that by someone who shouldn't ever be taken seriously by anyone.
It's an opinion piece.
go sit in the corner with the other rocket surgeon.
And it was represented as something other than that by someone who shouldn't ever be taken seriously by anyone.
when did you represent it as something other than an opinion piece?
Tahuyaman
12-20-2016, 10:52 PM
when did you represent it as something other than an opinion piece?
You claimed that Mattis took one for the team because he doesn't think highly of Donald Trump. The article you posted provided no facts to support that.
You claimed that Mattis took one for the team because he doesn't think highly of Donald Trump. The article you posted provided no facts to support that.
that would be my opinion.
you really are dumber than a bag of resisters.
Tahuyaman
12-20-2016, 11:14 PM
You didn't state it's a an opinion. You said that Mattis doesn't think highly of Trump as if that was a fact. You posted a link which was supposed to validate that. It did not.
Tahuyaman
12-20-2016, 11:16 PM
when did you represent it as something other than an opinion piece?
I called it can opinion piece. That's accurate.
Chris
12-21-2016, 08:20 AM
that would be my opinion.
you really are dumber than a bag of resisters.
Stop insulting members.
resister
12-21-2016, 08:23 AM
Stop insulting members.It's ok, I am glad I can help people feel better about themselves
Archer0915
12-21-2016, 08:26 AM
Well... Allow me to jump in here!
Green is the wave of the future! Green means lower cost through reduced impact on own environment. Green can lead to reduced corporate expenditures on regulation and for the military it could lead to lower costs and increased inefficiencies! Tanks with 1.5x range increases. Planes that can loiter for longer periods of time (some with solar power would be indefinite)...
For the manufacturing sector it would be uhuege!
birddog
12-21-2016, 01:33 PM
It's ok, I am glad I can help people feel better about themselves
Ah Oh, that post will get you in trouble! :grin:
Archer0915
12-21-2016, 01:44 PM
Well... Allow me to jump in here!
Green is the wave of the future! Green means lower cost through reduced impact on own environment. Green can lead to reduced corporate expenditures on regulation and for the military it could lead to lower costs and increased inefficiencies! Tanks with 1.5x range increases. Planes that can loiter for longer periods of time (some with solar power would be indefinite)...
For the manufacturing sector it would be uhuege!
Efficiencies' not inefficiencies'
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.