Horrible analogy, but a lot of the people in positions of importance/decision look at the data and say, "Nothing will be noticeable for 80 years? Fuck it! I'll be dead!" And so they either deny it or straight up ignore it. There's a video of one of the commenters on CNN freaking out over the Paris withdrawal and the guy next to him mentions sea level rise and physically scoffs. I'm sorry that the Earth is so big that it takes time to notice, fuckwad, but it doesn't discount the fact that what we're doing now is going to have ramifications for future generations.
It's the same thing I'm dealing with as a government worker in [unnamed DoD agency]. No one wanted to buy new equipment because "WAR!" so now we have bombers that are literally over 60 years old and we have a Strategic Defense infrastructure literally as old as the atomic bomb. And now when people are like, "we should [finally] buy new planes," they scoff at the price.
Bitch, if you would have cared even 20 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess.
This is pretty much everywhere. Buy expensive new equipment (often with a one time grant, long term loan, or other hard to reproduce funding source). Fail to budget properly for maintanance/replacement. Neglectful budget becomed 'normal', twenty years later equpment starts failing, oops no one planned for any of this and we can't get a new grant/etc so we have to make do.
I've been in the situation of explaining to a higher up that yes, you spent 150,000 on xray equipment just 15 years ago, yes they do have about a 10 year service life, yes they are starting to fail, no we can't make do with one working unit for the entire clinic, and yes you should have budgeted 10 or 15 thousand a year for replacement costs but now you're just going to have to find money for it somewhere.
Edit: It's especially bad when the original person who made the crappy decisions and failed to properly plan things out is long since retired and the person who has it dropped in their lap is someone who was just hired 2 years before and has no clue, but oh well.
The deputy is usually the most important person in the place, though, because they're the careerist while the ambassador is at best a qualified political appointee taking a victory lap at the end of their career, at worst a donor getting an award.
We humans are very shitty at looking ahead, and incredibly myopic, is what it comes down to.
I think in this case its more than the boomers just don't give a shit about the future of the planet, they're either going to be dead or jesus will come back
We humans are very shitty at looking ahead, and incredibly myopic, is what it comes down to.
I think in this case its more than the boomers just don't give a shit about the future of the planet, they're either going to be dead or jesus will come back
I really wish they would ask the question "do I really want to be the reason Jesus comes back?"
With President Donald Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, China and California signed an agreement Tuesday to work together on reducing emissions, as the state's governor warned that "disaster still looms" without urgent action.
Gov. Jerry Brown told The Associated Press at an international clean energy conference in Beijing that Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement will ultimately prove only a temporary setback.
For now, he said, China, European countries and individual U.S. states will fill the gap left by the federal government's move to abdicate leadership on the issue.
"Nobody can stay on the sidelines. We can't afford any dropouts in the tremendous human challenge to make the transition to a sustainable future," Brown said. "Disaster still looms and we've got to make the turn."
This actually makes me really nervous. The precedent this would set for other states to follow if California prevails when the feds tell them to stop could lead to some really terrible situations.
We humans are very shitty at looking ahead, and incredibly myopic, is what it comes down to.
I think in this case its more than the boomers just don't give a shit about the future of the planet, they're either going to be dead or jesus will come back
I really wish they would ask the question "do I really want to be the reason Jesus comes back?"
18Woe to you who long
for the day of the LORD!
Why do you long for the day of the LORD?
That day will be darkness, not light. 19It will be as though a man fled from a lion
only to meet a bear,
as though he entered his house
and rested his hand on the wall
only to have a snake bite him
Haven't found a direct New Testament reference though.
Still, this passage is a condemnation of those who are religious but are not just or righteous, and that was prolific in the New Testament as well.
And wishing destruction on everyone else or the world so you can get raptured is rather that.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
We humans are very shitty at looking ahead, and incredibly myopic, is what it comes down to.
Compared to other animals, we do pretty ok. Just we destroy our environment way better than we plan to preserve it.
I'm sure that there have been plenty of animals that devastated their own environments even worse than we have. We don't see any of them now because they have a tendency to not stick around for long.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
SCOTUS ruled that it only applied if the compact increased state power over federal.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
SCOTUS ruled that it only applied if the compact increased state power over federal.
And this SCOTUS would say fuck that burn baby burn.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
SCOTUS ruled that it only applied if the compact increased state power over federal.
And this SCOTUS would say fuck that burn baby burn.
I mean, arguably SCOTUS neutered the compact clause when it merged it with the supremacy clause, so who knows? I can see a fair argument here.
But this is a state making a compact with a foreign power, not an interstate compact, and the only time I can remember a state working with a foreign power in defiance of the federal government in US history was during the Civil War. California's actions, should they be defiant to the federal government and courts when they shut them down (because they will), could easily lead to some very not good places.
We went to war against each over slavery. I do not put it past us to do the same over trying to save the world.
It's not really a compact with a foreign powers, it's a declaration of the reasoning for the state taking certain actions it's already entitled to do, and those reasons relate to an international treaty.
+13
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Might they try to take it to the Supreme Court and get them to rule that climate change is an imminent danger?
step farther and are asking an unprecedented question: if the U.S. pulls out of the international climate treaty, as Trump has said he wants to, could California sign on to it?
“The short answer is no,” said Michael Wara of Stanford Law School.
The central reason is that the authors of the Constitution didn’t leave a lot of wiggle room.
“They were very careful to ensure that the federal government and the president in particular would have sole authority to conduct foreign affairs,” he said.
California has tested this before. In 1999, the state passed a law requiring European insurance companies disclose the names of people who signed up for policies before World War II. Families of Holocaust survivors were having trouble collecting insurance because the paperwork had been lost or destroyed in the war.
The California law revoked the licenses of foreign insurance companies that didn’t comply. At the same time, the federal government was holding its own negotiations on the matter.
In the end, the Supreme Court struck down California’s law, finding that “there shouldn’t be two foreign policies,” Wara said.
The other reason California probably couldn’t sign on to the treaty comes from international law, according to Wara.
“Only nation-states can be parties to international agreements and only members to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change can be members of the Paris agreement,” he says. “And California is not a member.”
Still, Wara says signing the treaty may not matter, because California has adopted it in practice.
“California has set objectives for itself that are far more aggressive than the U.S. commitments under the Paris agreement,” he said.
Tl;Dr - this compact is unconstitutional, but ultimately meaningless because CA already has targets above those for the Paris Accords, so signing this is a public "fuck you" to Trump, but one which will ultimately allow him to get a win when it's "struck down" (but changes nothing).
Yeah states don't have a right to like independently enter into a treaty with foreign powers, but the Paris Accord wasn't really a treaty. It was more just a statement of intention.
State officials make agreements with foreign government officials all the time. That's how international economies work.
I mean hell, the Governor of Iowa being picked as Ambassador to China is one of the few (the only?) smart appointments by the Trump administration, because he has a decades-long friendly working relationship with Chinese officials up to and including Xi Jinping based on the import/export trade between Iowa and China.
Yeah, I think once you get into statement of intention territory, there really isn't any legal room for the offended party to score a win in court in most cases. Seeing how this doesn't advocate policies that infringe on people's rights, I suspect the courts would tell Trump to get fucked. He'll have to wait for Congress to pass something that would cause California to try to override it and it would have to be something that could stand up in court.
State officials make agreements with foreign government officials all the time. That's how international economies work.
I mean hell, the Governor of Iowa being picked as Ambassador to China is one of the few (the only?) smart appointments by the Trump administration, because he has a decades-long friendly working relationship with Chinese officials up to and including Xi Jinping based on the import/export trade between Iowa and China.
And with California being the 6th largest economy on the planet, they do a shit ton of business with China already.
State officials make agreements with foreign government officials all the time. That's how international economies work.
I mean hell, the Governor of Iowa being picked as Ambassador to China is one of the few (the only?) smart appointments by the Trump administration, because he has a decades-long friendly working relationship with Chinese officials up to and including Xi Jinping based on the import/export trade between Iowa and China.
And those State officials have the implied consent of the Federal government to do those deals until they are told otherwise. The Feds can step in at any moment and say those deals are no longer valid, just as easily as a State government can step in and say a city's ordinances are no longer valid. The Feds don't step in and stop these deals because allowing the States to make the deals is just plain smart foreign policy for a multitude of reasons that should be readily apparent.
Which means if California pushes this I'm positive Trump would push back and kill this policy.
Edit: Actually, because the constitution is pretty clear that this is the purview of Congress and not the President, Trump would need to convince congress to go along with it. Some "Fuck the liberals in California" bill to make these deals require active consent or something.
I have a feeling even this Congress will probably have a difficult time selling legislation placing a ceiling, rather than a floor, on the environmental standards states or cities can adopt, especially in the context of agreements which aren't binding anyway.
That said, the USCA and the Climate Mayors organizations are both growing nicely, with about half the states and almost 300 cities on board with continuing to abide by (at a minimum) Paris Agreement standards so far, plus some similarly-large coalitions with similar goals in mind.
The state of Virginia is officially on the fence and awaiting to see how elections go this fall. Governor McAuliffe has instructed the Department of Environmental Quality to look into making a rule capping greenhouse gases from power plants. Essentially, it looks like the rule envisioned would try to base those caps on what the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative puts in place for it's members, without actually joining the group. Since it is unlikely that we'll see a democratic led State Senate until 2019 at the earliest, barring a republican getting removed and their chosen successor losing the special election, there is no way for Virginia to actually join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and take part in the auctions.
In short, McAuliffe has made climate change a campaign issue. We'll see if things have progressed to a point where it has serious weight as such or not this fall. Predictably, the republican candidates in the state's primary are coming out against this with the typical rehash bullshit lines. Both democratic candidates in the primary are in favor. The Department of Environmental Quality won't have the rule ready until after McAuliffe has left office, so it's ultimate fate will rest with the winner of the state's Governor race this fall. Though if a republican wins, expect them to try and pass a law forbidding a future governor from implementing such a rule, which will get challenged in court.
That said, the USCA and the Climate Mayors organizations are both growing nicely, with about half the states and almost 300 cities on board with continuing to abide by (at a minimum) Paris Agreement standards so far, plus some similarly-large coalitions with similar goals in mind.
That link isn't working.
Anyway, in Iowa, the new governor (now that Branstad has fucked off to China, and they can keep him) apparently is starting a push to make Iowa coal-free, since coal comes from out of state. Reynolds wanting to push biomass fuel generation apparently, since miscanthus grass is perennial, could potentially be efficiently converted to biofuel (far better than corn), and can grow abundantly on marginal land. We'll see if anything comes of this since the GOP line right now is to burn coal to make Jesus happy or something.
I'd have to look at what they are saying about fuels derived from biomass. I'd argue for most things, it can fuck off. I mainly see it as potentially being a better source of fuel for vehicles than gasoline. At the very least, it would keep us from having to extract oil from underground to run vehicles and I think the oil we'd still need to extract would be better used for other purposes. On the other hand, if our society could get off it's us and push for better infrastructure, a non-fossil fuel based energy grid and better battery technology, biomass fuels just end up being a terrible option. I guess the best use for them might be for high machinery that doesn't have easy access to another source of fuel and will be operating long enough, for it's purposes, outside of an easy charging point.
Though, I still would applaud Iowa if they got off of coal and if that led to them using cleaner sources of energy.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel had actually thought that Canada's young, charismatic prime minister, Justin Trudeau, could be counted among her reliable partners. Particularly when it came to climate policy. Just two weeks ago, at the G-7 summit in Sicily, he had thrown his support behind Germany. When Merkel took a confrontational approach to U.S. President Donald Trump, Trudeau was at her side.
But by Tuesday evening, things had changed. At 8 p.m., Merkel called Trudeau to talk about how to proceed following Trump's announced withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. To her surprise, the Canadian prime minister was no longer on the attack. He had switched to appeasement instead.
What would be wrong with simply striking all mentions of the Paris Agreement from the planned G-20 statement on climate, Trudeau asked. He suggested simply limiting the statement to energy issues, something that Trump would likely support as well. Trudeau had apparently changed his approach to Trump and seemed concerned about further provoking his powerful neighbor to the south.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel had actually thought that Canada's young, charismatic prime minister, Justin Trudeau, could be counted among her reliable partners. Particularly when it came to climate policy. Just two weeks ago, at the G-7 summit in Sicily, he had thrown his support behind Germany. When Merkel took a confrontational approach to U.S. President Donald Trump, Trudeau was at her side.
But by Tuesday evening, things had changed. At 8 p.m., Merkel called Trudeau to talk about how to proceed following Trump's announced withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. To her surprise, the Canadian prime minister was no longer on the attack. He had switched to appeasement instead.
What would be wrong with simply striking all mentions of the Paris Agreement from the planned G-20 statement on climate, Trudeau asked. He suggested simply limiting the statement to energy issues, something that Trump would likely support as well. Trudeau had apparently changed his approach to Trump and seemed concerned about further provoking his powerful neighbor to the south.
Trudeau wants the Keystone pipeline and doesn't care what has to happen in order to get it. Which is the problem with enviromental discussions, every time that it comes to jobs vs. the enviroment, jobs have a tendency to win. Can't worry about the future if you starve now.
Posts
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/nikki-haley-donald-trump-climate-change-cnntv/index.html
I am shocked, shocked i say.
/sarcasm
Compared to other animals, we do pretty ok. Just we destroy our environment way better than we plan to preserve it.
This is pretty much everywhere. Buy expensive new equipment (often with a one time grant, long term loan, or other hard to reproduce funding source). Fail to budget properly for maintanance/replacement. Neglectful budget becomed 'normal', twenty years later equpment starts failing, oops no one planned for any of this and we can't get a new grant/etc so we have to make do.
I've been in the situation of explaining to a higher up that yes, you spent 150,000 on xray equipment just 15 years ago, yes they do have about a 10 year service life, yes they are starting to fail, no we can't make do with one working unit for the entire clinic, and yes you should have budgeted 10 or 15 thousand a year for replacement costs but now you're just going to have to find money for it somewhere.
Edit: It's especially bad when the original person who made the crappy decisions and failed to properly plan things out is long since retired and the person who has it dropped in their lap is someone who was just hired 2 years before and has no clue, but oh well.
https://washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senior-diplomat-in-beijing-embassy-resigns-over-trumps-climate-change-decision/2017/06/05/3537ff8c-4a2e-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html?utm_term=.c03c14b5887a
I think in this case its more than the boomers just don't give a shit about the future of the planet, they're either going to be dead or jesus will come back
I really wish they would ask the question "do I really want to be the reason Jesus comes back?"
This actually makes me really nervous. The precedent this would set for other states to follow if California prevails when the feds tell them to stop could lead to some really terrible situations.
Or, perhaps, read their book:
Haven't found a direct New Testament reference though.
Still, this passage is a condemnation of those who are religious but are not just or righteous, and that was prolific in the New Testament as well.
And wishing destruction on everyone else or the world so you can get raptured is rather that.
I'm sure that there have been plenty of animals that devastated their own environments even worse than we have. We don't see any of them now because they have a tendency to not stick around for long.
SCOTUS ruled that it only applied if the compact increased state power over federal.
And this SCOTUS would say fuck that burn baby burn.
I mean, arguably SCOTUS neutered the compact clause when it merged it with the supremacy clause, so who knows? I can see a fair argument here.
We went to war against each over slavery. I do not put it past us to do the same over trying to save the world.
Might they try to take it to the Supreme Court and get them to rule that climate change is an imminent danger?
https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/12/12/if-trump-wont-can-california-sign-the-international-climate-treaty/
Tl;Dr - this compact is unconstitutional, but ultimately meaningless because CA already has targets above those for the Paris Accords, so signing this is a public "fuck you" to Trump, but one which will ultimately allow him to get a win when it's "struck down" (but changes nothing).
I mean hell, the Governor of Iowa being picked as Ambassador to China is one of the few (the only?) smart appointments by the Trump administration, because he has a decades-long friendly working relationship with Chinese officials up to and including Xi Jinping based on the import/export trade between Iowa and China.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And with California being the 6th largest economy on the planet, they do a shit ton of business with China already.
And those State officials have the implied consent of the Federal government to do those deals until they are told otherwise. The Feds can step in at any moment and say those deals are no longer valid, just as easily as a State government can step in and say a city's ordinances are no longer valid. The Feds don't step in and stop these deals because allowing the States to make the deals is just plain smart foreign policy for a multitude of reasons that should be readily apparent.
Which means if California pushes this I'm positive Trump would push back and kill this policy.
Edit: Actually, because the constitution is pretty clear that this is the purview of Congress and not the President, Trump would need to convince congress to go along with it. Some "Fuck the liberals in California" bill to make these deals require active consent or something.
http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/battery-storage-the-next-disruptive-technology-in-the-power-sector?curator=MediaREDEF
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
That said, the USCA and the Climate Mayors organizations are both growing nicely, with about half the states and almost 300 cities on board with continuing to abide by (at a minimum) Paris Agreement standards so far, plus some similarly-large coalitions with similar goals in mind.
In short, McAuliffe has made climate change a campaign issue. We'll see if things have progressed to a point where it has serious weight as such or not this fall. Predictably, the republican candidates in the state's primary are coming out against this with the typical rehash bullshit lines. Both democratic candidates in the primary are in favor. The Department of Environmental Quality won't have the rule ready until after McAuliffe has left office, so it's ultimate fate will rest with the winner of the state's Governor race this fall. Though if a republican wins, expect them to try and pass a law forbidding a future governor from implementing such a rule, which will get challenged in court.
That link isn't working.
Anyway, in Iowa, the new governor (now that Branstad has fucked off to China, and they can keep him) apparently is starting a push to make Iowa coal-free, since coal comes from out of state. Reynolds wanting to push biomass fuel generation apparently, since miscanthus grass is perennial, could potentially be efficiently converted to biofuel (far better than corn), and can grow abundantly on marginal land. We'll see if anything comes of this since the GOP line right now is to burn coal to make Jesus happy or something.
Though, I still would applaud Iowa if they got off of coal and if that led to them using cleaner sources of energy.
They even test them here!
Spiegel.de: Merkel's G-20 Climate Alliance Is Crumbling
Trudeau wants the Keystone pipeline and doesn't care what has to happen in order to get it. Which is the problem with enviromental discussions, every time that it comes to jobs vs. the enviroment, jobs have a tendency to win. Can't worry about the future if you starve now.
Appeasement is always gonna be the main part of the game with Trump because the US is too big and powerful.
You very much can. Generally something crazy and powerful is the thing you need to be the most careful to appease.