Leading German climate activist/alarmist site Klimaretter (climate rescuers) here has an opinion piece telling readers that there is in fact little difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton when it comes the energy policy. “Eco-green or coal-black? It really isn’t that simple.”
Klimaretter writes that while it may appear Trump wishes to save the American coal industry and Clinton promises to promote “clean energies”, the two candidates have many more similarities’ than what meets the eye:
In fact there are more common points between the two than what their rhetoric would have us believe. Both Clinton and Trump wish to hold on to the controversial fracking technology for natural gas and crude oil. The same is true for nuclear power.
Trump has long since added on to his pro-coal course by coming out in favor of ‘all types of energy’. Also solar and wind energy would also play a role under his administration. It’s a balancing act for the billionaire: Of course he wishes to gain the votes from the many unemployed coal workers, however he has in fact understood that renewable energies has become a good economic engine, and in the meantime offers more jobs than the coal industry.
Trump even appears to be worried that there might indeed be something behind climate change: One of his companies wants to build a protective wall around his golf course on the Irish coast. Rising sea level and increasing erosion necessitate it…”
Klimaretter’s opinion could be the case of a climate alarmist trying to see a silver lining in a Trump presidency. Let’s recall that Trump said he would stop payments to the UN climate programs, not sign the climate treaty, and rev up the American economic engines (hence more CO2 emissions).
Clinton would do the opposite.
Hillary Clinton would also very likely shackle the economy with massive environmental regulation and possibly even impose a carbon tax. These are points that Klimaretter would surely welcome.