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

321–330 of 412 posts

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

#321

Post by dkhenry »

_jal wrote: post #314
dkhenry wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are looking at this from a macro level and completely ignoring the actual repercussions these policy's have. These other countries who you are saying need to "Develop" are not behind the "Developed" countries in any metric other then quality of life statistics. However the policy gives them an advantage in a globally equivalent marketplace. So no it isn't a reasonable outcome to ask a sovereign people to not be a…

> These other countries who you are saying need to "Develop" are not behind the "Developed" countries in any metric other then quality of life statistics That little figure happens to be kinda important. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and state that most people consider their quality of life to be somewhat more important than abstract ideas about global economic policy. "Fairness" had nothing to do with how we got he…

So is this a policy to redistribute wealth or to deal with climate change? Because it is advertised as something to deal with climate change, but all I see in it is a way to redistribute wealth. If we are serious about climate change then write a policy that deals with it. Everyone makes steps to reduce pollution, not half of us makes steps to reduce pollution and give lots of money to countries who do nothing so they can build up their green energy capabilities and use them to undercut a major source of domestic economic growth

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

#322

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#323

Post by burkaman »

throwaway-1209 wrote: post #316
burkaman wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO is a great example. The US funded about 22% of the NATO budget last year, which seems about consistent with its size relative to the other members: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/stock...

That's some weird set of numbers you got there. But I got a better one: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-c... .

This is a graph of what members spend on their own military, not what they contribute to NATO. It's still relevant, because we have an obligation to defend other members and how well they defend themselves affects our behavior, but it's not a zero-sum game. Greece decreasing its defense budget does not mean we need to increase ours, and Poland increasing theirs doesn't mean we can decrease ours.

NATO members absolutely should spend what they agreed to spend, but we aren't forced to spend 3.6% of our budget on defense because they don't. That's something we choose to do, and we could stop if we wanted to.

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

#324

Post by prawn »

yongjik wrote: post #26
jacquesm wrote: post #3

Now that's a thing to be happy about. Funny how every time Trump feels that he's about to grab the brass ring it is snatched away from him one way or another. Governing without consensus building is harder than it seems apparently.

I wonder if Trump is secretly happy with the development. In addition to all the European liberals, he now gets to point his fingers at treasonous liberal states. Great for energizing your support base.

Beyond that, puts the burden of cost on some areas rather than his base.

When the political right in Australia cut climate research funding, and private industry and the community stepped up to try to fund it instead, those politicians pointed to this as an ideal response.

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

#325

Post by muninn_ »

anigbrowl wrote: post #292
muninn_ wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I responded to individual points that needed to be refuted. The rest was just filler.

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

#326

Post by tropo »

azernik wrote: post #289
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.

That's where you and I disagree. The different requirements laid on developing vs. developed countries are in my opinion a feature, not a bug. Demanding from India and and Sub-Saharan Africa to remain pre-industrial nations while we get to keep polluting at a much higher per-capita rate is not in any sense a "level playing field" - it's grandfathering in the advantage we currently gain by polluting more.

Yes, it would be "grandfathering in the advantage we currently gain". You don't want that advantage? Are you tired of winning?

Trump said: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. president, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!"

Look, it was a joke. You're expected to like winning.

I suppose you could move elsewhere on the non-level playing field if you actually don't like winning. You'd have to make some major lifestyle changes. I bet you do like winning.

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

#327

Post by Domenic_S »

tmh79 wrote: post #264
Domenic_S wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from SV/CA. I think your points apply here: > 1) Brain drain as young ambitious people leave Tons of smart folks I know are leaving CA for TX or east coast. > 2) Public services (education, roads, etc) decrease in quality, increase in expense omg, this is CA. Have you driven a freeway lately? > 3) Older folks increasingly capture all of the economic gains allowed in small towns through consolidation of local pol…

> Tons of smart folks I know are leaving CA for TX or east coast. That is very true, but CA also has a large in migration of smart folks, leaving the number of smart folks here at a slowly increasing number. Small towns in red states for the most part don't see in migration from smart folks, the best people they have are the children of those residing there, and in my experience the ambitious ones chose to leave. > o…

> [small town in a red state] that stayed either inherited a family business, got hooked on drugs, or settled into the life of mid/low paying government work.

Again you describe CA. Outside the coastline (sometimes inside the coastline, especially past Marin to the OR border), this is very much the case in CA. The central valley is home to some of the most impoverished rural towns in America. Louis Theroux has a fantastic documentary that hits this point: https://documentarystorm.com/the-city-addicted-to-crystal-me...

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

#328

Post by InclinedPlane »

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…

These are different categories of problems.

The problem with climate change is that it might overwhelm our ability to solve it in the "short term" where "short term" is defined as on the scale of a few generations to a century.

In the long term humanity will, if trends continue, be so incredibly wealthy and technologically advanced that we'll be able to tackle problems like CO2 in the atmosphere a lot easier. We'll be able to seriously consider remediation efforts (deciding what the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere we want is and then making that happen). We'll be more able to respond to climate change by moving our cities, changing our food production strategies, and so forth. That's pretty much guaranteed as long as humanity continues advancing technologically.

But we're not there yet. Much of the world is still impoverished and developing. And there's a great potential for vast human misery. The point of these efforts is to give ourselves enough time to not get completely screwed by climate change before we have the power to deal with it more easily.

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

#329

Post by velodrome »

michaelchisari wrote: post #230
velodrome wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Texas' situation is too unique. They're effectively a petrostate right now. Conveniently ignoring the fact that California is ALSO a petrostate. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/03/the...

Yes, California is third on a list where Texas is 1st. I don't think that disproves my point. Texas produces 35% of the country's crude oil. In March of 2017, California produced 14,907,000 barrels of crude oil. Texas produced 102,443,000. That's 7x more. Play that against the fact that Texas' GDP is 2/3rd of California's. Oil has a massive impact in Texas that it simply doesn't have in California.

Texas and California are diversified economies. Texas is more exposed to the oil & gas industry. However, it is still not a petrostate. Which state is the closest to being a petrostate? Alaska (25% exposure).

It is very easy to validate this. Look at the price of oil. It has taken a massive beating over the last years.

Oil Price History: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DCOILWTICO/

If the state is truly a petrostate, it will clearly be reflected in its GDP.

California: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CARGSP

Texas: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TXNGSP

North Dakota: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NDNGSP

Alaska: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AKNGSP

Note the massive drop in oil prices after 2014. Alaska's GDP drops around roughly the same period.

Now let's compare this to ACTUAL petrostates.

Saudi Arabia: https://tradingeconomics.com/saudi-arabia/gdp

Columbia: https://tradingeconomics.com/colombia/gdp

Brazil: https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gdp

Norway: https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/gdp

Mexico: https://tradingeconomics.com/mexico/gdp

Kuwait: https://tradingeconomics.com/kuwait/gdp

Russia [1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp

Iran [1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp

[1] Sanctions

See the shortfall in GDP, that is a PETROSTATE.

In March of 2017, California produced 14,907,000 barrels of crude oil. Texas produced 102,443,000. That's 7x more. Play that against the fact that Texas' GDP is 2/3rd of California's. Oil has a massive impact in Texas that it simply doesn't have in California.

This is not a good measurement to determine the exposure of the industry to overall economy. It just shows the amount the barrels that can produce. The reason why there is a massive increase in production is due to shale (fracking). The cost of producing oil through fracking is a lot higher than pumping it out of the ground. Because they still have to sell it at market prices, the margin is a lot less for these producers. To compensate for this, these producers have to frack more out of the ground to stay afloat.

Shale Exposed

Texas Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

North Dakota Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

Non-Shale Exposed

Alaska Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

California Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

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

#330

Post by tropo »

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…

The "family budget" and "credit card debt" analogies aren't too terrible. They are a decent start. They don't crash and burn until you have to account for inflation.
Post reply on HN