By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KLAMarine said:
EricHiggin said:

It's not Trump directly but you would think Trump would've been against it. It's possible he was and let it go. He can be controlling but is also a businessman and realizes you can't win them all, and to let them go, especially if it's small pea's. He also has been using lefty tactics and politics against their implementor's, so it's possible it was done on purpose. Hard to say.

I'm saying just because they haven't said or hinted that it has to do with climate change as well, doesn't mean it wasn't taken into account, and in time, it's probably likely we will find out if that was the case. The name change is fairly recent so time would be necessary to find out if there is more to it or not. Maybe it isn't and is a wasted opportunity for the fuel interests. Hard to say.

"The name change is fairly recent so time would be necessary to find out if there is more to it or not."

>Well so far, the Department of Energy still refers to fossil energy as fossil energy.

https://www.energy.gov/fe/about-fossil-energy

Eagle367 said:

Even with the context, still pretty stupid and it sounds like it should belong in an onion article.

Also sounds like the DoE has a bit of a sense of humor.

It's hard to sense humour on paper. It's best for government agencies to leave it to the onion articles



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also