WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by usaar333 » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 12:54 AM UTC

jorblumesea wrote: post #249

In some ways, it doesn't really matter. Regardless of how hard people try to fight against alternative energies, the market forces will seek out inefficiencies. Consumers are driving demand for electric cars, cheaper energy and states are turning away from coal more and more every year. States that adopt alternative energies will see long term advantages and those that don't will eventually be forced to confront it.…

The agreement doesn't per say matter all that much (Trump wasn't going to obey it anyway).

But it's hard for me to see how failing to tax externalities of fossil fuels are not making it that much harder for renewables and nuclear to win. I actually find you a bit optimistic; natural gas is extremely cheap these days (in part because the externalities aren't taxed); while it is much better than coal (in many dimensions), switching all fossil fuels to a "less bad" fossil fuel aren't enough to hit necessary emissions targets.

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

#292

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 12:56 AM UTC

muninn_ wrote: post #260

anigbrowl wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that many coastal liberals are often smug, the notion that people in other areas are groaning in the throes of oppression is not really founded in fact. Large parts of the country have great contempt for the more liberal enclaves on the coast and pour scorn on the people and civic societies established there. Try spending some time reading a conservative forum like freerepublic.com, though you might nee…

>the notion that people in other areas are groaning in the throes of oppression is not really founded in fact Sure, that's not something I would believe so I don't disagree. >Large parts of the country have great contempt for the more liberal enclaves on the coast Wonder why that is? >who don't want their economies exploited or their dignity insulted Yet here we are. With their economies being exploited and their dig…

You don't seem to be responding to my comment so much as random phrases from it, without making any substantive argument of your own.

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

#293

Post by warent » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 12:56 AM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #7

Are they open to more states joining, I hope? I'd like to petition my own state government to get on board. If the federal government's going to keep shitting the bed, this is the last hope I have left.

Your wording for what the federal government is doing gave me a very good and much needed laugh, thank you. The answer is presumably yes; Governor Jay Inslee has expressed confidence that "States have been and will continue to step up."

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

#294

Post by hangonhn » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 12:57 AM UTC

babyrainbow wrote: post #270

hangonhn wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where they can't afford the more efficient methods of industrialization and must resort to the dirtier methods? Powering a country by coal is one such example. China has huge reserves of coal but little oil and natural gas. So what are they suppose to do? Renewables are expensive, although it is dropping in price, but they are also not useful at all hours and their production varies on conditions. Not all of China ha…

>China has huge reserves of coal but little oil and natural gas. So the real reason is not that china is a developing nation, but it has little oil and natural gas? That is not going to change, right? So you are saying that China can burn coal forever? And what happens when a country run out of oil and gas. Can it start burning coal if it is available? Doesn't this mean that the source of pollution will keep shifting…

> Why not help these countries with setting up renewables, as much as it is possible.

That's precisely what's in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Sorry, I think we may be talking past each other and misunderstanding our views. Yes, agreed that industrialized nations should help and developing countries should cut back on dirtier methods of production. I was trying to inject the viewpoint of developing nations and underline why developing nations are getting aid and some leeway in the Paris agreement.

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

#295

Post by dkhenry » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 12:58 AM UTC

ryanobjc wrote: post #259

dkhenry wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I don't think global warming cares who emits the carbon. If climate change is really as big and life changing an issue as everyone knows it is they will sign on, there is no reason to sign away the livelihoods of Americans to benefit China, what happens when you do that is those people whose jobs you have just ended do in fact have opinions and votes. 2. We are subsidizing them with no benefit to us at all, and in…

2. I'm pretty sure not having oceanic level rise, and drowning out the most expensive real state in the world is a benefit to us! The notion that somehow the developed world gives $100b (over what time frame? That matters a lot) and gets nothing in return is ridiculous. Manufacturing clean energy stuff is not within grasp of most developing countries. So they have to import tools, expertise and goods... from where? 3…

2. They are not importing tools and expertise, they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America. If you want to see some a benefit then write the mandate that American companies must be used to provide the clean energy capabilities to the developing countries. Not only would that be rejected it would be a bad idea for many reasons, but the opposite is deemed to be OK.

3. Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad especially when you consider that as that number gets bigger the return you get on it diminishes.

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

#296

Post by azernik » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 12:58 AM UTC

koolba wrote: post #288

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…

What country gives more foreign aid, either in total or per capita, than the USA?

In total terms, none - the US is much bigger than other developed countries (unless you count the EU as a bloc, in which case, yes, the EU, by almost three times).

In per-economic-output terms, MANY. The EU average is 0.47% of GNI [1], while the US gives 0.17% of GNI, and Sweden (the outstanding example) gives a whopping 1.4% of GNI. Outside of the EU, Japan gives "only" 30-ish% more than the US, at 0.22%.

Another interesting stand-out is Turkey, which despite being MUCH poorer than the developed world gives 0.54% of GNI.

The United Nations and OECD long-term target is 0.7% of GNI.

[1] GNI is a modified version of GDP which adds income earned abroad by residents and subtracts income earned locally by non-residents.

[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr...

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

#297

Post by sanderjd » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 12:58 AM UTC

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #181

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…

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

While they seem like decent replies to me, there is no reason to think that you'd get the best replies to a complicated policy question from a random commenter in a forum for technology entrepreneurs.

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

#298

Post by usaar333 » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 12:59 AM UTC

ryanobjc wrote: post #267

dkhenry wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its bad because its not a level playing field. Its tips the global economy away from Americans because they are too "Developed". Turns out there are lots of Americans in fly over country who disagree.

The fact is the US polluted the living fuck out of the world to get to it's developed status, and then turns around and says "no you cant do that". So a level playing field already makes no sense. The point of this is to achieve reasonable outcomes, while also allowing developing countries to grow reasonably (and live another billion out of poverty) while helping them with it. If the developed worlds can't afford ano…

dkhenry, alternatively it is far more unfair to have allowed developed countries to have developed all of their infrastructure while generating 80+% of excess carbon emissions , while banning developing countries from exercising this same path.

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

#299

Post by azernik » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 1:00 AM UTC

hyperdunc wrote: post #256

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…

China and India each have over four times the population of the United States. They have to take some collective responsibility for that so their emissions per person should be lower.

I'm sorry, what? They should take collective responsibility for not being divided into a dozen smaller states like Europe is?

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

#300

Post by usaar333 » Fri, Jun 02, 2017, 1:01 AM UTC

dkhenry wrote: post #277

lelandbatey wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that they disagree. It is not true that they're lives are definitely harder. For every person in the US, there are four in China. Even imagining that China had the same wealth distribution as the US, which it does not, that still means there are vastly, vastly (at least 4x) more people with lives that are empirically more painful, with less medicine, less availability of electricity, and less food. This is…

You are correct that there are many more people in China and that being poor in China is worse then being poor in America, but the solution is not to export global competitiveness to other countries until their quality of living is on par with Americans. Once that ability goes away it will not come back, and as you can tell no one really cares about the plight of rural Americans who stand to be the biggest losers fro…

No one is talking about giving developing countries a pass until their GDP per capitas are on par with developed nations..

Even with business as usual emissions, China's per capita GDP will maybe be half of what the US's will be in 35 years. I doubt climate mitigation policies would chip away at much of that difference.