It wasn't that long ago that a bunch of European countries tried to appease their crazy fascist neighbor
It didn't go well
I wouldn't go full Munich, Hitler just wanted to take over the world. That's a concrete goal you can deal with. With the USA, appeasement would mean agreeing with Trump no matter what he says, even if what he says changes from day to day. Giving in to Trump on policy is a sucker's play.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
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.
It's really not about jobs either. If jobs won out, then we'd be investing like crazy into green technology and into making the process of making solar panels more efficient.
Oil and coal are no longer the person intensive industries they once were, while green technology is still developing and there's going to be a boom in the international market.
This is about a handful of jobs compared to a growing international market that could employ many more people in the long and short run.
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.
It's really not about jobs either. If jobs won out, then we'd be investing like crazy into green technology and into making the process of making solar panels more efficient.
Oil and coal are no longer the person intensive industries they once were, while green technology is still developing and there's going to be a boom in the international market.
This is about a handful of jobs compared to a growing international market that could employ many more people in the long and short run.
No, in the case of Canada, keeping the US happy is about avoiding a total economic meltdown. If Trump decides to get out of NAFTA, our entire economy is fucked, even if SCOTUS eventually decides that the President cannot do that.
It wasn't that long ago that a bunch of European countries tried to appease their crazy fascist neighbor
It didn't go well
Yeah, but this is a stupid comparison since Trump isn't trying to conquer anyone. He's just a idiotic manchild. You just need to keep him from throwing a fit, not let him take Poland.
I wouldn't go full Munich, Hitler just wanted to take over the world. That's a concrete goal you can deal with. With the USA, appeasement would mean agreeing with Trump no matter what he says, even if what he says changes from day to day. Giving in to Trump on policy is a sucker's play.
Nah, appeasement with Trump is the opposite. Because he has no goals you don't actually have to give in on anything, you just have to manage him like a small child and keep him vaguely happy. Appeasement with Trump is actually kinda easy.
Corsa Coal Corp. will supply coal used in making steel and is expected to generate up to 100 fulltime jobs. The company said it decided in August to open the Acosta mine 60 miles south of Pittsburgh after a steel industry boom drove up prices for metallurgical coal.
The metallurgical coal being pulled from the new mine is a niche market that makes up only between 5 percent and 10 percent of coal production and operates independently of the market for power-generating coal. Analysts emphasize that the new mine doesn’t reflect a long-term revival in the coal industry as a whole, which continues to struggle...
...The price of metallurgical coal tripled to over $300 a ton over the past year after China slashed its coal production and the steel industry bounced back from a global downturn. Cyclones disrupted supplies in Australia, the world’s biggest exporter of metallurgical coal, pushing prices higher. Though prices have sagged since then, Dethlefsen said he is confident that the mine will be profitable for a while to come.
So, it didn't open because of anything Trump did or said.
It's coal isn't going to be used for generating power.
And was only seen as viable because China is slashing their coal production, contrary to claims from the President, and bad weather impacted the supply of it from Australia.
And best case scenario the mine will be profitable "...for a while to come."
Legislation introduced in the House on Monday would prevent President Trump from receiving federally subsidized flood insurance, amid warnings that the effects of climate change could cause parts of his Mar-a-Lago resort and other south Florida properties to be underwater in coming years.
The bill from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) — titled the Prohibiting Aid for Recipients Ignoring Science (PARIS) Act — would ensure properties owned by a president or a president's family members can’t have access to subsidized insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program.
An analysis by Coastal Risk Consulting found that the Mar-a-Lago grounds in Palm Beach, Fla., could be under at least a foot of water for 210 days a year because of tidal flooding.
Legislation introduced in the House on Monday would prevent President Trump from receiving federally subsidized flood insurance, amid warnings that the effects of climate change could cause parts of his Mar-a-Lago resort and other south Florida properties to be underwater in coming years.
The bill from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) — titled the Prohibiting Aid for Recipients Ignoring Science (PARIS) Act — would ensure properties owned by a president or a president's family members can’t have access to subsidized insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program.
An analysis by Coastal Risk Consulting found that the Mar-a-Lago grounds in Palm Beach, Fla., could be under at least a foot of water for 210 days a year because of tidal flooding.
I still don't find climate change alarmism at all compelling, but I'd be willing to hedge my bets and take action as long as that action doesn't hamper the economy.
Well when the opposing party controls the legislature and the executive and maybe the judicial, all the minority party in the legislature can really do is grandstand. Trolling Donald is rather effective since he's so incredibly easy to bait. One representative can do a troll and as a result everyone who pays attention to what the President says becomes aware of it.
I still don't find climate change alarmism at all compelling, but I'd be willing to hedge my bets and take action as long as that action doesn't hamper the economy.
"Harming the economy" is such a vague and nebulous term that anything that is ever done harms the economy. It's not a worthwhile metric by which to evaluate action.
Did you make yourself lunch today rather than go out and buy a burger? You just hampered the economy. You literally just reduced the national GDP by $5.
The macroeconomics are so complicated that it's basically nonsense for anyone to claim that climate change action will either boost or harm the economy. It'll hurt certain sectors; it'll help others, but the fundamentals of economic activity are well beyond such coarse, categorical manipulation.
I still don't find climate change alarmism at all compelling, but I'd be willing to hedge my bets and take action as long as that action doesn't hamper the economy.
Well heavens no, we wouldn't want to upset the apple cart for something so trivial as displacing tens if not hundreds of millions of people if it comes at the cost of putting humanity ahead of shareholders.
It would be nice if we could spend less time coming up with cute acronyms to troll Trump and spend that time on solving our collective problems.
I mean, given how clearly this kind of stuff gets under his skin, this might just be a solid play overall.
The Dem's lack majorities at all levels of government right now, by my understanding up here in the distant north. There are scandals brewing up other scandals, and Trump can be at his most self destructive when he perceives a slight.
Throwing obvious shade at him and his properties, mockery, and otherwise keeping him occupied might distract him from important things, and the public can only be outraged for so long before fatigue sets in. A little cathartic mockery might not be a bad thing in that case. If it buys a little time for some of these investigations and leaks to mature (and yes, the usual caveats of R's finding a reason to not walk in lockstep behind him, but I'm trying to keep moderately hopeful here), that'd be pretty great.
That's just my perspective, and can respect that it might be harder to share from within the US.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I still don't find climate change alarmism at all compelling, but I'd be willing to hedge my bets and take action as long as that action doesn't hamper the economy.
Economy more important than the planet. Okay.
Know what hampers the economy? Mass global flooding and uncertainty.
I still don't find climate change alarmism at all compelling, but I'd be willing to hedge my bets and take action as long as that action doesn't hamper the economy.
Economy more important than the planet. Okay.
Know what hampers the economy? Mass global flooding and uncertainty.
Pfft, that's an investment opportunity. Think of all the newly created beachfront property!
I still don't find climate change alarmism at all compelling, but I'd be willing to hedge my bets and take action as long as that action doesn't hamper the economy.
Economy more important than the planet. Okay.
Know what hampers the economy? Mass global flooding and uncertainty.
Pfft, that's an investment opportunity. Think of all the newly created beachfront property!
Is now a good time to invest in sump pump futures?
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.
Apparently there is a lawsuit attempting to hold the government accountable for climate change under the public trust doctrine.
More interestingly, it is moving to trial and the 3 (petrochem and manufacturing) industry groups who joined on the government side have recently filed motions to withdraw (they have not yet been granted).
Anyone have a sense of what kind of legal footing this thing has?
Apparently there is a lawsuit attempting to hold the government accountable for climate change under the public trust doctrine.
More interestingly, it is moving to trial and the 3 (petrochem and manufacturing) industry groups who joined on the government side have recently filed motions to withdraw (they have not yet been granted).
Anyone have a sense of what kind of legal footing this thing has?
Apparently there is a lawsuit attempting to hold the government accountable for climate change under the public trust doctrine.
More interestingly, it is moving to trial and the 3 (petrochem and manufacturing) industry groups who joined on the government side have recently filed motions to withdraw (they have not yet been granted).
Anyone have a sense of what kind of legal footing this thing has?
Wasn't there a supreme court decision that the EPA has a legal obligation to combat climate change and regulate carbon emissions?
Apparently there is a lawsuit attempting to hold the government accountable for climate change under the public trust doctrine.
More interestingly, it is moving to trial and the 3 (petrochem and manufacturing) industry groups who joined on the government side have recently filed motions to withdraw (they have not yet been granted).
Anyone have a sense of what kind of legal footing this thing has?
Wasn't there a supreme court decision that the EPA has a legal obligation to combat climate change and regulate carbon emissions?
The EPA must regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of that, yes.
Congress tells Pruitt they aren't letting him cut the EPA budget the way Trump wants.
"You are going to be the first EPA administrator who has come before this committee in many years who actually gets more than he asks for," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). That theme was echoed by several of his colleagues on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Like other committee members, Cole noted the need for the EPA's role in addressing the environmental issues that his own constituents face.
For Cole, the issue was large proposed cuts in state and tribal assistance and in water pollution control.
Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) balked at the idea of cutting the Great Lakes Initiative. To avoid forcing either Pruitt or Trump to bear the brunt of his criticism, he began to refer to the budget by the name of Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman. "Simply put, the Mulvaney budget appears to largely remove the federal government as a partner in all of our efforts to manage and to Great Lakes," Joyce said.
The subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), criticized the White House plan to reduce by 83 percent Diesel Emission Reduction grants, which he said are essential to improving his state's air quality.
"You have a tough job here today," Calvert said to Pruitt. He noted that the EPA, in the crosshairs of the Trump administration's plan to shift $54 billion from domestic to military spending, would see its budget cut $2.4 billion under the proposal. Calvert said that although he supported additional funding for the military, taking the entire amount out of non-defense spending in one fiscal year was "an untenable proposition."
"The budget proposes to significantly reduce, or terminate, programs that are vitally important to each member on this subcommittee," Calvert said.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) criticized the decision to exit the Paris accord, but true to the theme of the day, brought it back to her own constituents.
"Climate change to us is very real. It's not an environmental platitude," she said. Maine lobstermen, she said, "look at me with fear in their eyes because we are watching the migration of lobsters, as we've seen the disappearance of shrimping. This is important to their identity; it's important economically. I can't go home to people and say this isn't happening. I can't go home and say ocean acidification isn't happening."
There are some groups of conservative environmentalists, especially out West. Also notice they're complaining about cuts to programs that overwhelmingly assist their states/districts over the others.
It's almost like earmarks work for a reason :P
a5ehren on
+7
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
A massive meltwater sheet (larger than Texas) formed on top of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, aka the one that's most vulnerable to collapse. A disintegration would mean an almost instant 3.3 meter rise in sea level, which is more than the usual models (which are very conservative so as not to scare the crazies who claim everything is being exaggerated to steal their jerbs) right now are predicting for the entire next century. Also, it was warm enough that rain fell on the Ross Ice Shelf, meaning more melting there as well.
A massive meltwater sheet (larger than Texas) formed on top of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, aka the one that's most vulnerable to collapse. A disintegration would mean an almost instant 3.3 meter rise in sea level, which is more than the usual models (which are very conservative so as not to scare the crazies who claim everything is being exaggerated to steal their jerbs) right now are predicting for the entire next century. Also, it was warm enough that rain fell on the Ross Ice Shelf, meaning more melting there as well.
Whoa doggie. The meltwater was on the Ross Ice Shelf, which is floating, so no sea level change if anything happens to it. However it is one of those sheets protecting West Antartica, so if the shelf goes away, then the ice on the continent starts flowing and then things really go to hell.
It's still a slow-motion apocalypse.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
A massive meltwater sheet (larger than Texas) formed on top of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, aka the one that's most vulnerable to collapse. A disintegration would mean an almost instant 3.3 meter rise in sea level, which is more than the usual models (which are very conservative so as not to scare the crazies who claim everything is being exaggerated to steal their jerbs) right now are predicting for the entire next century. Also, it was warm enough that rain fell on the Ross Ice Shelf, meaning more melting there as well.
Whoa doggie. The meltwater was on the Ross Ice Shelf, which is floating, so no sea level change if anything happens to it. However it is one of those sheets protecting West Antartica, so if the shelf goes away, then the ice on the continent starts flowing and then things really go to hell.
It's still a slow-motion apocalypse.
If something is floating, it's only displacing the volume of it that is submerged. If it is entirely submerged, then it's displacing all of it.
(Which led to something that blew my mind in AP physics - if you have a rock in a boat, and you throw it out into the lake, the lake level falls, because it was displacing its weight in water before, and once in, it only displaces its volume in water)
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited June 2017
So not that it's much help for the long term, but the article isn't even that alarmist:
For now, the melt event didn’t have any big consequences — the ice shelf surface subsequently refroze, and that was that.
But it’s worrisome, Bromwich said, because of how it fits into a pattern predicted by a very influential study of Antarctica published last year, which used climate and ice sheet models to predict the possibility that there could be major ice loss in this century capable of driving as much as 4 feet of sea level rise from Antarctica alone.
It's bad, but that 3.3 meter number isn't happening immediatle in human times. Though still goddamn too soon.
Posts
It didn't go well
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
I wouldn't go full Munich, Hitler just wanted to take over the world. That's a concrete goal you can deal with. With the USA, appeasement would mean agreeing with Trump no matter what he says, even if what he says changes from day to day. Giving in to Trump on policy is a sucker's play.
It's really not about jobs either. If jobs won out, then we'd be investing like crazy into green technology and into making the process of making solar panels more efficient.
Oil and coal are no longer the person intensive industries they once were, while green technology is still developing and there's going to be a boom in the international market.
This is about a handful of jobs compared to a growing international market that could employ many more people in the long and short run.
Yeah, but this is a stupid comparison since Trump isn't trying to conquer anyone. He's just a idiotic manchild. You just need to keep him from throwing a fit, not let him take Poland.
Nah, appeasement with Trump is the opposite. Because he has no goals you don't actually have to give in on anything, you just have to manage him like a small child and keep him vaguely happy. Appeasement with Trump is actually kinda easy.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Every so often I have to pinch myself to remember that I'm not dreaming that I'm in a Verhoeven movie. I'm living it.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Yeah, I'm not sure I want to know more.
also congrats to the pres for taking credit for a project years (if not a decade) in the making
So, it didn't open because of anything Trump did or said.
It's coal isn't going to be used for generating power.
And was only seen as viable because China is slashing their coal production, contrary to claims from the President, and bad weather impacted the supply of it from Australia.
And best case scenario the mine will be profitable "...for a while to come."
Approaching maximum spite.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
"Harming the economy" is such a vague and nebulous term that anything that is ever done harms the economy. It's not a worthwhile metric by which to evaluate action.
Did you make yourself lunch today rather than go out and buy a burger? You just hampered the economy. You literally just reduced the national GDP by $5.
The macroeconomics are so complicated that it's basically nonsense for anyone to claim that climate change action will either boost or harm the economy. It'll hurt certain sectors; it'll help others, but the fundamentals of economic activity are well beyond such coarse, categorical manipulation.
Well heavens no, we wouldn't want to upset the apple cart for something so trivial as displacing tens if not hundreds of millions of people if it comes at the cost of putting humanity ahead of shareholders.
I mean, given how clearly this kind of stuff gets under his skin, this might just be a solid play overall.
The Dem's lack majorities at all levels of government right now, by my understanding up here in the distant north. There are scandals brewing up other scandals, and Trump can be at his most self destructive when he perceives a slight.
Throwing obvious shade at him and his properties, mockery, and otherwise keeping him occupied might distract him from important things, and the public can only be outraged for so long before fatigue sets in. A little cathartic mockery might not be a bad thing in that case. If it buys a little time for some of these investigations and leaks to mature (and yes, the usual caveats of R's finding a reason to not walk in lockstep behind him, but I'm trying to keep moderately hopeful here), that'd be pretty great.
That's just my perspective, and can respect that it might be harder to share from within the US.
Economy more important than the planet. Okay.
Know what hampers the economy? Mass global flooding and uncertainty.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Can't really do that until Democrats control at least one branch of the government.
Pfft, that's an investment opportunity. Think of all the newly created beachfront property!
Is now a good time to invest in sump pump futures?
Erk, sorry. Here's the full link.
Apparently there is a lawsuit attempting to hold the government accountable for climate change under the public trust doctrine.
More interestingly, it is moving to trial and the 3 (petrochem and manufacturing) industry groups who joined on the government side have recently filed motions to withdraw (they have not yet been granted).
Anyone have a sense of what kind of legal footing this thing has?
I
We had something like that in the Netherlands.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling
The government lost.
Wasn't there a supreme court decision that the EPA has a legal obligation to combat climate change and regulate carbon emissions?
The EPA must regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of that, yes.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html
Congress tells Pruitt they aren't letting him cut the EPA budget the way Trump wants.
There are some groups of conservative environmentalists, especially out West. Also notice they're complaining about cuts to programs that overwhelmingly assist their states/districts over the others.
It's almost like earmarks work for a reason :P
A 3.3m rise in sea level basically floods large portions of ... well Sydney, but also pretty much every coastal city on the planet.
Still doesn't put boston under.
All of cape cod would be gone though.
Whoa doggie. The meltwater was on the Ross Ice Shelf, which is floating, so no sea level change if anything happens to it. However it is one of those sheets protecting West Antartica, so if the shelf goes away, then the ice on the continent starts flowing and then things really go to hell.
It's still a slow-motion apocalypse.
If something is floating, it's only displacing the volume of it that is submerged. If it is entirely submerged, then it's displacing all of it.
(Which led to something that blew my mind in AP physics - if you have a rock in a boat, and you throw it out into the lake, the lake level falls, because it was displacing its weight in water before, and once in, it only displaces its volume in water)
It's bad, but that 3.3 meter number isn't happening immediatle in human times. Though still goddamn too soon.