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

341–350 of 412 posts

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

#341

Post by throwaway-1209 »

burkaman wrote: post #323
throwaway-1209 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 absolute…

NATO mandates that members of NATO spend at least 2% of their GDP on their own militaries. The vast majority of them do not, they just count on the US stepping in for free if shit hits the fan. The point of NATO is that countries keep up their militaries to the acceptable standard so as to lend a helping hand if the need arises, not that they contribute equally to the NATO's doughnuts budget.

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

#342

Post by azernik »

tropo wrote: post #326
azernik wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 act…

You work so hard on "winning" that you push much more poor and desperate people to the breaking point, you're going to have problems.

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

#343

Post by tropo »

mac01021 wrote: post #263
yostrovs wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And what fraction of those emissions are directly driven by the manufacture of goods produced for us in the developed western world?

Now you are on to something.

Perhaps those goods shouldn't be made in China, an ocean or two away from where they are needed, under lax emissions laws. If we held China to the same standard as the US and EU, some of that problem would go away. It wouldn't just make fly-over country happy. Huge container ships do not run on solar power. They burn huge amounts of heavy fuel oil, which is nearly tar and not too far from being coal.

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

#344

Post by foota »

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.

True, but the oil will run out. Ask the former coal mine towns what happens then.

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

#345

Post by tropo »

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.

People who don't feel a need for personal space and privacy will move to cities. People who value those things move out. There is a difference in the voting behavior of those different kinds of people.

If you find crowds of strangers exciting in a good way, you move to the city. If they excite you in a bad way, you move away from the city.

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

#346

Post by handedness »

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…

> What to do about this? Well, honestly, outlawing Fox News would probably be a good start.

So your final analysis is to tear up the Bill of Rights?

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

#347

Post by MarkMc »

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…

Interesting that Trump estimates the cost of the Paris Agreement in terms of the economy - 3.5 trillion in lost GDP by 2040 - but quotes the benefits in Celcius - two-tenths of one degree by 2100.

What exactly is Trump's estimate for the economic cost of climate change by 2100 if the Paris Agreement is not implemented?

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

#348

Post by xienze »

swampthing wrote: post #303
xienze wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you exclude the half of the Chinese population that's basically living a medieval lifestyle and recalculate those per-capita numbers, hmm?

What would be the rationale for doing so? Should we also exclude the half of the US population that uses the least carbon emissions? I'm not saying that we shouldn't exclude them - these aren't rhetorical questions. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

> I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

They completely drag down the per capita numbers. You're basically lumping people producing near-US levels of emissions with half the population producing basically nothing.

> Should we also exclude the half of the US population that uses the least carbon emissions?

Not anywhere close in terms of magnitude.

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

#349

Post by digitalzombie »

dkhenry wrote: post #295
ryanobjc wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America

What countries are you talking about? What mythical poor countries have tools and expertise and what not? And to compete with us against what?

We've moved to a global economy and basically doing what wealth of nation stated, we have specialize in things we do best while other countries specialize on their own thing. If Swiss and Japan wants to make awesome watch go for it. If labor is cheaper in China then okay. But they can't and have not taken higher end skill set. You just can't export those.

And you just side step the world being screw to concentrate on our country. But at the same time OP addresses that with saving our coastal property.

The mega cities that make a boat load of GDP is Los Angeles and NY which will be screwed with the rising sea water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

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

#350

Post by digitalzombie »

dkhenry wrote: post #229
devindotcom wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> Turns out there are lots of Americans in fly over country who disagree.

I could throw out statistic too.

> Seven out of 10 Americans support remaining in the agreement, according to a national poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-ame...

Post reply on HN