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

171–180 of 412 posts

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

#171

Post by peteretep »

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'm sure there are problems with the bill. However, I'm not really interested in after-the-event arguments from a party who've been so anti-science and such deniers for so long.

It's a bit like the Muslim ban that "wasn't" a Muslim ban. If you've been calling it a Muslim ban for a year, retroactively coming back and saying "nah, nah, it's a not a Muslim ban" isn't convincing to the courts. In much the same way, the President cherry-picking bits he doesn't like about the bill sounds hollow.

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

#172

Post by [deleted] »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #123
michaelchisari wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by vonmoltke »

mattmcknight wrote: post #125
Pyxl101 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> 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.

That is because the Tax Foundation is (rightly) looking at Federal aid that hits state budgets while Business Insider us making the mistake so many others do of totalling Federal spending. It is not accurate to claim a state where the government chose to site a national lab or a bunch of military bases (or where the actual organs of government I are spilling into, like Virginia and Maryland) is receiving "welfare" from the Federal government.

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

#174

Post by hathawsh »

tmh79 wrote: post #62
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.

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 sma…

I think it's more reasonable to apply your thinking to counties rather than states. I'm in a deep red state, but the county I'm in is slowly turning blue as tech companies move in and startups grow.

Also, red counties are where most of the food comes from. The farmers who have made it this far (through extreme competition in the food market) are quite innovative, clever, and ambitious. I wouldn't count them out. They don't want big business in their towns, but they also depend on basic services like filtered water, police, a fire department, and hospitals, and they'll make sure those continue to survive.

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

#175

Post by brianpgordon »

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…

Eventually, maybe. But the Earth's temperature doesn't fluctuate that much naturally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Vari...

By the time global warming is unstoppable hopefully we'll have the technology to mitigate its effects on humans.

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

#176

Post by Mendenhall »

jorblumesea wrote: post #140
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…

Most of that is either incorrect, or completely missing the point. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/... China and India need to industrialize and modernize in order for them to transition to cleaner energy sources. Per capita, they produce only a fraction of what we do. It's unrealistic to expect developing nations to shoulder the same burden as developed ones. The deal is weighted to put m…

Please post what he said is incorrect. I read the article and found he is mostly correct depending on models etc. Perhaps I missed something but there were no blatent lies etc from my reading.

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

#177

Post by alpha_squared »

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…

A few counter-points:

- US, per capita, has the highest CO2 emissions of any developed country [0]

- It's a little unfair (depending on your idea of fairness) for developed countries to have benefitted from industrialization and polluting the environment only to close the gate behind them and blame other countries for trying to do the same and catch up in development.

- It's expensive to force nations barely entering industrialization to forego the easy route of using coal/oil/whatever pollutant and jump straight to what can, sometimes, be a more expensive energy source.

- Climate change is a global problem that doesn't mesh well with purely isolationist ideologies. This, primarily, is the biggest gripe with the current administration. It doesn't want to lift a single finger without seeing itself as the primary benefactor. This last part is purely opinion.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

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

#178

Post by xienze »

stevenleeg wrote: post #131
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…

> Eventually, the earth is going to warm significantly without the aid of mankind What exactly are you referring to here? The sun expanding and becoming hotter as it ages? If so we're talking about the timeline of a few billion years. Climate change is something that has already begun to affect us and will continue to worsen over the course of the next few decades, which makes this issue far more pressing than whatev…

No, the fact that the earth goes in and out of ice ages. That is not something that occurs on the order of billions of years.

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

#179

Post by paulddraper »

xienze wrote: post #157
s0uthPaw88 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a fact check for many of these quotes: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/...

I think you might want to take a look at that, it supports what he's saying but as is typical of these fact checking sites, couches it in lots of "well yes but" or "broadly correct, but 'needs context'". I mean look at his statement on India: > Trump: "India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it. India can double their coal production. We're supposed to get rid of ours." > India does have…

Amen. Every "fact-checking" site seems to go out of its way to editorialize the facts with what I should think about them, instead of limiting their purview to, you know, the facts in question.

What was Trump supposed to say? "The Paris Agreement doesn't have the word 'coal'"?

---

Don't forget: Being technically correct is the best kind of correct.

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

#180

Post by ahh »

azernik wrote: post #161
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…

1. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries. They will not sign on. 2. We're paying poor countries to mitigate these effects, by subsidizing their use of cleaner energy to industrialize. And to compensate them, since th…

You are just echoing the politician's syllogism: we must do something, this is something, we must do this.

Your point that we could not get anything better is not an excuse for doing something bad.

Post reply on HN