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

121–130 of 412 posts

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

#121

Post by alexbeloi »

IChangedCareers wrote: post #8

Noting that all three are (D). Statement of fact, and not opinion attempt. The actionable items on renewables are also huge with deregulation of energy sectors in these three states which is huge impact. Also noting, the lobbyst are all renewable folks - et al Tesla. :) SolarCity ... wonder who was pushing this? ya. Again .... not a political statement. Just pointing out the obvious.

ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and BP are all in favor of America staying in the Paris climate agreement, and if you look at those company's websites, they all accept the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change.

The coal industry is the last holdout of the climate change skeptics. Everyone in oil and gas has seen the future and have started to push research and investments into renewables to limit their risk exposure.

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

#122

Post by angrydev »

xienze wrote: post #107

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 w…

Your strawman is showing

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

#123

Post by jandrewrogers »

michaelchisari wrote: post #76
pat2man wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Texas?

I had a caveat in there about Texas that I decided to remove, should have kept it, but I'll respond here instead. I think Texas' situation is too unique. They're effectively a petrostate right now. Now, they seem to be doing the right thing with things like the PSF and PUF, so I'd say that their approach, like their politics, is deeply purple, and it's not a terrible approach. But it's very specific, and not necessar…

Oil is only about 15% of the Texas economy, I would hardly classify it as a "petrostate". Real estate is a larger percentage of California's economy.

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

#124

Post by glitcher »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #13
vyrotek wrote: post #6

Maybe we can get Phoenix in on this too? http://www.azfamily.com/story/35561955/phoenix-mayor-vows-to...

Global warming might be a bad deal for Arizona. But most big city governments are going to be run by liberal Democrats because...they are big cities. Not that they are wrong, just pointing that out.

> Global warming might be a bad deal for Arizona.

Global warming might be a bad deal for the globe.

> But most big city governments are going to be run by liberal Democrats because...they are big cities. Not that they are wrong, just pointing that out.

You are pointing this out why? Obviously the lead in to "just pointing that out" was circular logic that means nothing, and I feel there is a deeper message you wanted to convey but then it's just so easy to type dot dot dot... instead.

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

#125

Post by mattmcknight »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #65
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.

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…

It's not surprising that the poorest states would both pay the least taxes and receive the most welfare, that's just the way the math works, regardless of anything else about them.

That Business Insider link directly contradicts the Tax Foundation numbers. Business Insider puts North Dakota and Virginia near the top, but the Tax Foundation puts them at the bottom.

Don't forget that we are all subsidising the states with high state and local taxes via the federal tax deduction. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-deduct...

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

#126

Post by pikzen »

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…

"If I can't have it then noone can" is truly the most unproductive position you can take when it comes to such as important thing as the environment.

First off, we're talking about still developing countries. China is on the final parts of it, and started with coal. It's a shame, but they are also the biggest investor when it comes to solar. The US doesn't have this need to grow so fast, and it won't.

Secondly, should we compare the total emissions of the US to China's, they could emit for a while before catching up.

Thirdly, but I hate this argument, the per capita emissions of the US are over ten times greater than China's.

No, fuck you Donald. You're condemning us all because you were elected on a fucking "clean coal" promise. Clean. Fucking. Coal. This agreement is not about you. It's not about us. It's about our children, our grandchildren, and leaving them something that is how we enjoyed it. That is better.

Mark my words. He will pull out. He will never renegotiate those terms.

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

#127

Post by Mendenhall »

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…

I notice most articles and news coverage dont get too much into the details. Its nice to hear some counterpoints.

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

#128

Post by ebfe »

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…

Doesn't the south have far greater numbers of black people?

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

#129

Post by xienze »

yks wrote: post #119
xienze wrote: post #107

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 w…

Postpone immediate danger until we're sufficiently technologically advanced to deal with other issues? Or, in other words, build MVP first instead of starting the heavy project which ultimately cannot be finished by the deadline.

Well I mean give me a taste here, what technology are we talking about that will keep the earth's climate stable in the face of natural warming and cooling periods that have occurred throughout its existence?

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

#130

Post by [deleted] »

njarboe wrote: post #113
michaelchisari wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You might have cause and effect backwards (hard to know when you can't do experiments) but having a strong economy and wealth due to say Silicon Valley, Hollywood, or Wall Street (however those were created and sustained) might allow people to choose to have "(high taxes, high minimum wage, strong environmental standards, strong labor protections, etc)".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN