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

101–110 of 412 posts

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

#101

Post by Mendenhall »

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…

And things like this

http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/01/california-gov-jerry-brown...

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

#102

Post by jjawssd »

toisanji wrote: post #90

I would read the full speech from Trump, he makes some good points, although im sure some of it is false and not sure how it compares to other factors. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-agreement... "For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years -- 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation…

Aside from the environmental effects, Paris accord is an excellent vehicle for guaranteed ROI on third world "green" and "renewable" investments. What better plan than to take taxpayer money involuntarily and forward it to third world renewable investments. If everyone chips in just a little bit in the name of doing something good why would anybody try and stop it? A brilliant plan grinding to a halt all because of Trump.

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

#103

Post by erik-g »

olewhalehunter wrote: post #72
erik-g wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because states can't leave the Union.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among..."

I mean, I really want us as a country to follow the agreement, but not so badly that I want to dissolve the entirety of the United States and legally unravel our entire country over it. This, IMO, is not Civil War-worthy.

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

#104

Post by trendia »

zaksoup wrote: post #50
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.

Red states have lower GDP, higher poverty, lower education, and are largely subsidized by blue states through federal grants. I am not implying causation and there are other interesting facts (lower cost of living relative to wages in red states) but as it stands now if blue and red split it doesn't seem like it's all that controversial to imply red would suffer. A little bit of googling turns up many interesting art…

Of course, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, but it's always funny when someone posts an article they didn't read. It directly contradicts what you're claiming:

> The red states aren't in fact poorer than the blue states. They're richer: that's why they vote more conservative and more right wing.

The article argues that people who make less move to areas with lower costs of living, because they have more purchasing power in those areas:

> Because those lower income places have even lower prices, making consumption standards higher.

That is, red states aren't poor because of red policies, they're poor because they're cheaper to live in.

Further, the article claims that blue policies hurt the poor!

> What we now need to go on and explain is why those nominally left policies, those blue ones, are so to the disadvantage of the poor they're supposedly helping....

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

#105

Post by [deleted] »

aanm1988 wrote: post #30
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…

I doubt it gets that far, but it really does seem like something needs to change. The country doesn't necessarily need to shift as far left as california, but right not a set of old laws working with the modern shift towards cities is really reducing the power of a vote in CA/NY. That's a pretty big problem.

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by michaelchisari »

panic wrote: post #89
larsiusprime wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are not 'blue' and 'red' states -- this is an artifact of the electoral college. There are huge 'red' zones mixed throughout 'blue' california. Usa on the whole is purple. EDIT: Yes, I'm aware of distortions in the electoral college. My point is that some people seem to think that California is this massive blue block and that rural population you know, doesn't matter. The divide is not "red state" vs "blue sta…

States also have governments which make decisions (like the one being discussed here). That said, the grandparent comment is a massive oversimplification. California itself had tax revenue problems not too long ago.

California itself had tax revenue problems not too long ago.

In 2011, they had state-wide tax revenue of $282 billion. That was the year Jerry Brown followed Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor, and a series of tax hikes were put into policy.

In 2015, tax revenue was $405 billion.

So what you're seeing is a shift in policy from Schwarzenegger to Brown, and a closing of the revenue gaps because of it.

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

#107

Post by xienze »

One thing I never see addressed with all the talk about climate change:

Let's say we managed to cease our CO2 production, even reverse the current man-made warming trend (save me the "impossible hypothetical scenario" talk, substitute in whatever values of "cease" we would have accomplished with the Paris Agreement, whatever).

Eventually, the earth is going to warm significantly without the aid of mankind. What are we supposed to do about that? Global warming is an eventuality, and no amount of carbon taxes that apply to a certain set of countries and not to others is going to change that. So someone enlighten me, what's the long, long-term view plan for global warming?

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

#108

Post by jacquesm »

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.

It's not really their 'own self-destruction' in so much as that the world over coastal regions tend to be a lot richer than inland areas. If you took a 300 Km swath of all the land bordering the oceans world wide you'd have captured a very large portion of the wealth.

Of course there are some exception (Switzerland comes to mind) and large inland cities tend to be at least a lot wealthier than the surrounding country side but as a rule it is a pretty good one.

Yes, it is sad. But people in the developed countries are relatively free to move around and it can be a conscious choice to live in a place that is a bit slower paced and has a different landscape.

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

#109

Post by kafkaesq »

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…

The blue states go on to prosper and the red states languish.

The inverse of Atlas Shrugged, as it were.

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

#110

Post by muninn_ »

zaksoup wrote: post #50
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.

Red states have lower GDP, higher poverty, lower education, and are largely subsidized by blue states through federal grants. I am not implying causation and there are other interesting facts (lower cost of living relative to wages in red states) but as it stands now if blue and red split it doesn't seem like it's all that controversial to imply red would suffer. A little bit of googling turns up many interesting art…

You missed his/her point. We go on and on about this difference between the coast and, as those on the coast have dubbed them, the "flyover states" and then people act all smug about how they are leading to their own destruction and what not instead of being responsible and trying to educate and help. It's, frankly, pretty pathetic that this attitude is so pervasive. I'm not sure what you (not you specifically) are thinking, but if you think that these impoverished areas are somehow just going to go away or that (and seriously lol at this) somehow California is going to merge with Canada, you're (not you specifically) incredibly naive.
Post reply on HN