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

201–210 of 412 posts

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

#201

Post by xienze »

kuschku wrote: post #150
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…

EDIT: I'll just quote this here: > The fact that the agreement only commits governments to keeping warming below an increase of 2 degrees, rather than a much safer firm target of 1.5 degrees, was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that the agreement left it to individual nations to determine how much they were willing to do to reach that temperature target, allowing them to come to Paris with commit…

> Their talking point is that the west gained its position of power through dirty tactics

What, generating pollution when its effects on the planet weren't understood? Now we know better, right?

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

#202

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#203

Post by jorblumesea »

Mendenhall wrote: post #176
jorblumesea wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct facts based on extreme models. Yay! It's not a lie if you fudge the numbers right?

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

#204

Post by wyldfire »

Spooky23 wrote: post #31
foota wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be so sure, if Rex Tillerson was in favor of staying in Paris, why wouldn't the governor of Texas?

Have you been to Texas? Given the amount of oil related industries there, it's not in the state's interest to regulate carbon, which is mostly a proxy for taxing oil and gas. Additionally, it is a state with a large hard conservative population. They hate climate change.

Like many populous states, Texas is filled with large cities with very liberal voters.

Also, white/anglos are predicted to lose the plurality in Texas in 2020.

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

#205

Post by aanm1988 »

larsiusprime wrote: post #56
jensenbox wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it sounds nuts, but why not merge into Canada? Just get Oregon on board and you are golden.

It's unconstitutional and would trigger a second civil war? The federal position on the secession question has been pretty affirmatively settled: "no."

A group leaving the country doesn't give 2 shits about the constitution. It comes down to how much you are willing to fight for it, and both sides would end up with nukes.

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

#206

Post by vidarh »

xienze wrote: post #162
joshualross wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple thoughts - what is equally? The US is the historically the largest contributor of greenhouse gases by a wide margin[1]. And last I checked, a vast majority of people support the agreement[2], including half of trump supporters. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countrie... [2] http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/paris_agre...

> The US is the historically the largest contributor of greenhouse gases by a wide margin Sure, but guess what: China is right behind us. History means squat. They're a major polluter _right now_. Why are they not held to the same standard we are?

They're not held to the same standard because if they were, they would rightfull refuse to sign on:

China's GDP was 10.87 trillion USD in 2015 vs 17.95 trillion USD for the US. GDP per capita was 7,926 in 2015 vs 55,836 in the US. China is still a poor country.

When China reaches a comparable GDP per capita, then we can expect comparable cuts to be on the table.

Until then expecting sharp cuts from developing countries will not be a viable alternative.

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

#207

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

Context matters a great deal. If you treat facts as binary variables then you're not going to develop a very sophisticated understanding of any issue.

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

#208

Post by enknamel »

adrr wrote: post #196
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

Well no it wouldn't. Per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions. Amdahl's Law. China contributes more than double the next country in terms of green house gasses, and they are contributing more per capita year over year. This is why China curbing their emissions would have a bigger effect than anyone. If they cut their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduced by 1/6th. If US cuts their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduce by 1/12th.

Which one of these alternatives is better for the environment?

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

#209

Post by babyrainbow »

conception wrote: post #146
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…

Thanks for posting this. If any of this gets a bit heated, totally not directed at you. There's a lot of false dichotomies in this. I haven't fact checked anything either but just addressing the points: 1) China: China is a developing nation, not on par in the US on any quality of life indicator. They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet.…

> They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences.

What is that specific thing or infrastructure that china and other developing countries are missing, that makes them unable to do this (stop polluting)?

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

#210

Post by [deleted] »

yostrovs wrote: post #185
kuschku wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I'll just quote this here: > The fact that the agreement only commits governments to keeping warming below an increase of 2 degrees, rather than a much safer firm target of 1.5 degrees, was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that the agreement left it to individual nations to determine how much they were willing to do to reach that temperature target, allowing them to come to Paris with commit…

The amount of CO2 produced by China in a year dwarfs the first 100 years of the industrial revolution's output.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN