Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

governor.wa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 412 posts

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#61

Post by michaelchisari »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #37
artpop wrote: post #20

This is starting to sound like the “Rim States” from the science fiction novel Black Man (Thirteen) by Richard K. Morgan. Basically the blue and red states separate in the future because they couldn’t resolve their differences. The blue states go on to prosper and the red states languish. It struck me how plausible it sounded when I read it. Now with the commander in shit-the-bed Donald Trump and the rising tide self…

While I'm happy that the states are picking up the slack, are you really insinuating that the Red states are leading to their own self-destruction, going on to "languish"? I'm saddened that people have this viewpoint over such a large swath of the country.

Except that there is overwhelming truth to it. There are now, effectively, two economic models for states to follow, and they're very partisan models. There is the California model (high taxes, high minimum wage, strong environmental standards, strong labor protections, etc) and the Kansas model (cut taxes, privatization, gutting protections). California's growth rate compared to Kansas' growth rate is a matter of night and day.

California is by no means a utopia, but if you're using the standard metrics of a healthy economy, blue states like it are doing things right, and red states like Kansas simply are not.

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#62

Post by tmh79 »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #37
artpop wrote: post #20

This is starting to sound like the “Rim States” from the science fiction novel Black Man (Thirteen) by Richard K. Morgan. Basically the blue and red states separate in the future because they couldn’t resolve their differences. The blue states go on to prosper and the red states languish. It struck me how plausible it sounded when I read it. Now with the commander in shit-the-bed Donald Trump and the rising tide self…

While I'm happy that the states are picking up the slack, are you really insinuating that the Red states are leading to their own self-destruction, going on to "languish"? I'm saddened that people have this viewpoint over such a large swath of the country.

Background: I am a [former] republican, grew up in flyover country, from a family full of trump supporters, now I live in California.

I believe that the red states are going to languish for the following reasons:

1) Brain drain as young ambitious people leave

2) Public services (education, roads, etc) decrease in quality, increase in expense

3) Older folks increasingly capture all of the economic gains allowed in small towns through consolidation of local political power

It was once possible to be young and ambitious and moderately wealthy in middle America by starting and expanding a small business like a franchise or a car dealership, but if you try to do that now, you'll get crushed in city hall pretty much every step of the way.

I am very open to discussion/debate on this topic if anyone has differing views or questions.

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#63

Post by AJRF »

abalashov wrote: post #18
fireismyflag wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, these 3 states currently represent 24.7% of the US GDP, with TX they would get to 33.5% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gross_S...

Yeah, but it's more than just % of GDP. Think about the outsized influence Texas has on school textbooks nationwide. Same idea with CA/NY/WA/TX in other areas.

Could you explain this for a non-American? Is there a committee that sets national curriculum that is heavily influcenced by Texans?

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#64

Post by thesmallestcat »

saosebastiao wrote: post #54
thesmallestcat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Californians have about as much in common with Alabamians as they do with Australians. Californians in Redding have about as much in common with Californians in San Francisco as Californians in Crescent City have in common with Californians in San Diego as... oh wait. I suggest you spend a little more time traveling around CA before you form such an absurd opinion about these mythical "Californians."

I grew up in Stockton, I know precisely how diverse California is.

Now I'm just plain confused -- how could somebody who grew up in the Central Valley and regularly saw trucks with confederate flags feel that Californians are some bloc that are so dissimilar from Alabamans? I'd argue that San Franciscans are way, way closer to Sydneysiders than Alabamans, but that's besides the point and misunderstands what sets the US apart from other commonwealth nations culturally. While in some ways there are huge differences, there is a common vein.

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#65

Post by Pyxl101 »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #37
artpop wrote: post #20

This is starting to sound like the “Rim States” from the science fiction novel Black Man (Thirteen) by Richard K. Morgan. Basically the blue and red states separate in the future because they couldn’t resolve their differences. The blue states go on to prosper and the red states languish. It struck me how plausible it sounded when I read it. Now with the commander in shit-the-bed Donald Trump and the rising tide self…

While I'm happy that the states are picking up the slack, are you really insinuating that the Red states are leading to their own self-destruction, going on to "languish"? I'm saddened that people have this viewpoint over such a large swath of the country.

There was an interesting analysis a while back that showed US states and presented which ones contributed the most federal taxes, and which received the most federal aid -- and then showed that breakdown according to political affiliation.

From what I recall, many of the "red" (majority Republican) states receive significantly more federal aid than they contribute in taxes, and many "blue" (majority Democrat) states contribute much more than they receive. I can't find the exact analysis I'm thinking of, but here are some articles with similar data:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...

> The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year [...]

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens...

> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes.

> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. [...] Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#66

Post by pat2man »

michaelchisari wrote: post #61
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm happy that the states are picking up the slack, are you really insinuating that the Red states are leading to their own self-destruction, going on to "languish"? I'm saddened that people have this viewpoint over such a large swath of the country.

Except that there is overwhelming truth to it. There are now, effectively, two economic models for states to follow, and they're very partisan models. There is the California model (high taxes, high minimum wage, strong environmental standards, strong labor protections, etc) and the Kansas model (cut taxes, privatization, gutting protections). California's growth rate compared to Kansas' growth rate is a matter of ni…

What about Texas?

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#67

Post by gumby »

Bud wrote: post #22
IChangedCareers wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas runs its own power grid. Not the same interest as NY and CA in particular. They are probably actually cleaner than both combined?

Why would you just plain guess at TX being cleaner than CA, the clear leader among all US states on climate issues, without bothering to look it up? Careless and lazy.

Because Texas has a lot of wind power (so much that the price sometimes goes negative at night) and because, although California gets a lot of its power from renewable energy, most of that is imported (WA hydro) while in-state production remains dirtier.

Don't get me wrong: I live in CA and would be happy never to set foot in Texas again, but this responds to your specific statement.

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#68

Post by xienze »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #29
Bud wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case nobody noticed, former TX gov. Rick Perry did speak out on this, and he was in favor of the Paris accord, also. Shocking that Trump would go against the current head of Exxon, the ex-head of Exxon who is also his Sec. of State, and another very conservative oil-state politician in Rick Perry. http://time.com/4754578/rick-perry-paris-agreement-trum-clim...

I've read some informed speculation that this was done in a fit of pique because of criticism from Angela Merkel: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/paris-and-the-battle-of-...

There is absolutely nothing in that opinion piece to back up the author's claim.

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#69

Post by vmarsy »

michaelchisari wrote: post #61
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm happy that the states are picking up the slack, are you really insinuating that the Red states are leading to their own self-destruction, going on to "languish"? I'm saddened that people have this viewpoint over such a large swath of the country.

Except that there is overwhelming truth to it. There are now, effectively, two economic models for states to follow, and they're very partisan models. There is the California model (high taxes, high minimum wage, strong environmental standards, strong labor protections, etc) and the Kansas model (cut taxes, privatization, gutting protections). California's growth rate compared to Kansas' growth rate is a matter of ni…

WA state has strong protections and environmental standards, but I wouldn't consider it high tax (no income tax for instance). Is it an outlier?

Re: WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

#70

Post by chc »

saosebastiao wrote: post #19
IChangedCareers wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas runs its own power grid. Not the same interest as NY and CA in particular. They are probably actually cleaner than both combined?

From a pure electricity standpoint, they're doing pretty good. It's almost all zero carbon or low carbon (NG) generation. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX#tabs-4 Of course the real problem is their oil industry. They export a shit ton of oil, and they are extremely well connected to every aspect of state politics.

Texas gets about a quarter of its power from coal. That's a lot lower than some states, but "almost all zero carbon or low carbon" is a bit generous. That's also way, way higher than California.
Post reply on HN