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

191–200 of 412 posts

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

#191

Post by alexbeloi »

jjawssd wrote: post #112
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that many larger cities are controlled by Democrats is a very interesting phenomenon that I do not fully understand.

From the point of view of role of government in people's lives

My guess has always been that the difference comes about because smaller communities can organize to solve problems without government help, so they lean towards 'limited government'. Larger communities have a naturally harder time organizing, and so they lean towards government programs.

If your community is 1,000 people and 1% of your population is homeless, you probably know the names of all 10 people and figure out a solution case by case. If your community is 10,000,000... that's 100,000 homeless people, which is a wholly different problem.

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

#192

Post by glitcher »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #153
glitcher wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Global warming might be a bad deal for the globe. Canada and Russia might benefit from it in a perverse way, but I otherwise agree. > 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. Most big city executives are not going to like…

Good points, thanks for sharing.

I have a feeling the OP on this comment thread is probably from Phoenix, and was most likely promoting local action as opposed to what may happen in big cities across the country. But it will be very interesting to see how this plays out over time.

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

#193

Post by pvnick »

1) Good - states' actions are how the constitution was framed

2) Weird - the governors appear to be taking action unilaterally by executive decree, which is how the Paris accord was originally agreed to (Obama) and reversed (Trump)

This might be the best of all worlds. Blue states can join the alliance, and red states can stay out. Everyone's happy and the economic effects can play out as they will.

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

#194

Post by jacquesm »

lacampbell wrote: post #151
jacquesm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think a lot of left-wingers have difficulty reconciling the fact that poor people often don't vote left - and in the case of their two largest recent defeats, Trump and Brexit - they overwhelmingly did not. The barely concealed contempt against those ignorant working class people who didn't vote the right way is fascinating - especially since the left consistently takes the moral high ground on the working class.

Needlessly polarizing comment.

Trump managed to lie his way into power, no politician in recorded history has said so many things that were patently un-true in order to get to where he is today.

Those 'left-wingers' you refer to are also right wing, the United States doesn't currently have a left wing, all it has is right wing and elitist (or maybe slightly more right wing).

A functioning left would probably take more votes away from the Republicans than from the Democrats. Good luck getting that off the ground with the electoral college and the influence of money the way things are today.

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

#195

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

FYI, I'm not into politics

Not meant as an attack on you, but but choosing not to be into politics basically means you occupy a secure enough position in society not to have to deal with personal anxiety about how political developments might impact you personally. Put more simply, you can afford to ignore politics but others cannot.

It's worth trying to imagine yourself yourself in the position of others on a regular basis so as to get a better understanding of why or how political issues might seem more urgent to them, not least people whose outlook you disagree with. I can readily see why economically disadvantaged coal miners in West virginia would support Trump, for example, since they don't see how the shift to carbon-free technology is going to benefit them economically. Of course I also think they're going to be severely disappointed, but I don't regret the effort invested in trying to understand their political alignment.

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

#196

Post by adrr »

enknamel wrote: post #133

There is a massive difference between caring about the environment and following the Paris Climate Agreement. We as a country can do a ton to reduce our damage to the environment. However it is going to be a drop in the bucket to what some third world and massively developing countries will contribute. Follow Amdahl's Law. The biggest emitters should get the biggest spanking. This is why Paris Agreement is almost com…

On per capita basis, we're more than double china. Getting US to china levels on per capita basis would make a huge difference in preventing climate change.

Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

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

#197

Post by throwaway-1209 »

zachwood wrote: post #164
throwaway-1209 wrote: post #81

As a taxpayer in one of those states, I'm more worried about whether they plan to pony up the $100B/yr that the US was obliged to under the agreement. If they do, I'd like to know where it'll come from. And if they don't, then what exactly will this alliance do?

The US was not obligated to pay $100B/yr in the agreement. Obama pledged $3B by 2020. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/why-trump-seeing...

You guys need to pick which figure to quote. Here's a number from 2015, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/12/459502597/....

Quote: "To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year". And further: "Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years," Chris explains, "so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time."

Or straight from the agreement: "Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries"

While that's $100B/yr from the "developed world" as a whole, we all know by the example of NATO what that _really_ means.

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

#198

Post by arkis22 »

>Under the auspices of the Paris agreement, the Obama administration pledged to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by between 26% and 28% below the 2005 level by 2025. Much of that change already is well under way, though, as a result of factors outside of any president’s control: slower economic growth following the financial crisis, the shale gas revolution that has replaced a third of coal use and shifting driving habits.

>The Rhodium Group calculates that the U.S. still will come close to a 17% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as soon as 2020, though it predicts no more significant progress in the remaining five years. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projected shortly before Mr. Obama took office that greenhouse gas emissions would rise by about 1% a year in the next several years, but they fell sharply. Very little of that had to do with Mr. Obama’s decisions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-paris-matters-less-than-it-...

Progress is and will continue to be made regardless of backing out.

It will be interesting to see if the other countries back out. If people are attaching a lot of importance to this agreement, and other countries back out since the US did, the other countries will look awfully hypocritical.

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

#199

Post by devindotcom »

ahh wrote: post #180
azernik wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Why is the Paris Accord "bad"?

A major economic and ecological policy agreed on by nearly the entire planet is no small task. It took years to create and is a compromise - we can do better and that was the plan, to iterate on it.

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

#200

Post by alando46 »

alpha_squared wrote: post #189
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If these are the best replies to Trump's remarks, I very sadly must agree with Trump. Extremely disappointing.

What makes these points disappointing?

Ya they seem pretty sound to me.
Post reply on HN