Live data from Hacker News

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

governor.wa.gov

281–290 of 412 posts

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

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Mostly because no cost would be seen as too high for maintaining access to the Pacific. Also, the Pacific Coast and Sierra Nevada range are crucial elements of US defense strategy. The US also has some substantial military bases and accompanying sympathetic populations in CA, especially in the San Diego area.

Seems like these problems are solvable. Give the USA some corridors to the Pacific, going through low density areas. Keep the military bases and a unified defense strategy; California can pay USA for defense. US has military bases in lots of countries; why not in California?

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

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

#282
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, poorer countries are going to be able to do almost nothing to help the global situation. The understanding is that richer countries (who, to be fair, have done the majority of polluting historically) will have to grant enormous subsidies to effect change in developing countries if we're going to meet international climate goals. I guess that's a difficult pill to swallow if you espouse nationalist econ…

We're calling China and India poor countries now? In relation to the US every country is poor. But as you stated, it's a global problem. It needs a global solution. Pollute less! Hold everyone to the same standard.

What would you call them? Yes, they're poor [0].

United States $57,436

China $8,113

India $1,723

It's easy to say that everyone should be held to the same standard when you're already the richest. The US uses 7032 kg of oil equivalent/capita, China 2029 kg/capita, India 614 kg/capita [1]. If you really want to hold everyone to the same standard you could cut your energy use by an order of magnitude and still use more than India. It's ridiculous to hear an american president try to paint developing countries as energy thirsty when the three most sold vehicles in the US are pickup trucks while most people in China and India can't afford any kind of car [2].

Like you said, it's a global problem. It won't be solved by whining about "unfair" economic terms and bragging about opening more coal mines.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co...

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehi...

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

#283
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is that you solution would require telling developing nations that they're not allowed to reach the living standard you and I enjoy - how is that fair?

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

#284

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…

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…

With regards to 1), that isn't about global warming caring; that's about people caring. The current international system will not back a plan that prolongs the very low living standards that around half the world lives in. For example, ain't no way that India would sign a treaty agreeing to remain pre-industrial indefinitely.

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

#285
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment was reasonable until you called him "commander in shit-the-bed". I'd suggest holding back on that kind of rhetoric if you want people to consider your opinion.

It's unfortunate that you're downvoted. Civility is of the utmost importance, especially when the command in chief has so little of it, publicly. It's a way to build bridges, and when we're talking about states separating, that's especially important.

Civility is very important, but it is not of the utmost importance. I'm being pedantic, but not in the linguistic sense; when you're faced with existential threats or severe attacks upon one's moral principles, then it's appropriate and sometimes even necessary to express anger.

Suppose, for examples, that the allegations swirling around DC these days are well-founded and the administration has been lured or willingly entered into being co-opted by a hostile foreign foreign power. For all the jokes over glowing orbs and handshakes, there's a strong argument that the post WW2 international political consensus is under deliberate attack designed to create strategic instability.

If you're a student of history, this is deeply worrying, and there's a small but realistic chance of the US sliding into autocracy and a similar chance of a third world war breaking out in the coming years. Not every conflict can be solved by polite engagement and mutual understanding. If you are dealing with a bad actor who does not subscribe to your moral calculus, then putting civility above all else can mean putting yourself at a significant strategic disadvantage.

surely you are aware of the increase in racially and politically motivated violence across the country. I can readily direct you to prominent political figures with significant public followings who are openly advocating ethnic genocide within the US; nazis, to put it bluntly. IT is facile and dangerous to sugarcoat things for the sake of preserving a superficial tranquility.

I'm not defending the crude comment above, but asking you to take a little time out to evaluate your political norms and mores while you have the space in which to do so, lest you find yourself taken by surprise by future events.

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

#286

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…

If you're a U.S. citizen who doesn't work in coal, why would you ever want more coal plants to be built here? Even besides global warming, there are some very real externalities to coal - acid rain, smog, increased asthma & respiratory illnesses. I live in California and have been to China, and I know which air I'd rather breathe, even despite California's terrain & wind patterns being very conducive to catching air…

You might not want to build more, but you might not want to shutter them pre-end of life to avoid paying higher electricity costs.

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

#287
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…

I mean, there are some predictions like this [0], but I don't know how credible they are. It is true though, that a transient spike or dip in temperature could cause famine, and the like. The Little Ice Age and other similar natural oddities are evidence of that.

Not sure how well we'll deal with that.

[0] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots

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

#288

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…

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

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

#289

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.

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.

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

#290

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…

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 able to compete for business fairly simply because on average their citizens have more money then another country.
Post reply on HN