Here's a "radical" idea - get rid of the Federal gas tax and then get rid of all the commensurate highway building projects, aka pork barrel projects, that are approved by Congress and administered by a bloated Federal bureaucracy. Then let each State set their gas tax as needed and then have funding go to the most worthy projects. If that were to happen, here in NYS and NYC we might finally get adequate funding for mass transit.
4
Great idea - pure Federalism!
Transportation doesn't show up in my copy of the Constitution's roles for the federal gov't.
Transportation doesn't show up in my copy of the Constitution's roles for the federal gov't.
1
United States. It's happening. We're uniting around something other than war. Oh Green Train sounding louder. Glide on the Green Train.
1
Climate change is real but maybe Trump is correct in moving slowly. It's easy to make mistakes, as Obama found out when he blew over $500million making loan guarantees to the failed Solyndra company.
2
Yes. Do we need to sue Obama to get the money returned?
1
Coal country and the Great Trumpkin just don't get it: North Carolina and Michigan are planning to close down coal-fired power plants. That will bring back those coal mining jobs big time!
Wake up, Kentucky! Wake up, West Virginia! Coal is dead and those jobs are never coming back. You voted for the wrong candidate and you are living in the wrong century: the 19th.
Wake up, Kentucky! Wake up, West Virginia! Coal is dead and those jobs are never coming back. You voted for the wrong candidate and you are living in the wrong century: the 19th.
6
I’m a new subscriber. For a minute or two I thought the editorial board of the New York Times was a group of professional journalists that “represent the voice of the board, its editor and the publisher”. I guess I was partially right: the editorial board is the voice for the NY Times, but professionalism seems to be taking a day off.
I enjoy reading intelligent articles and opinions that I don’t fully agree with, but the recent editorial headline “States and Cities Compensate for Mr. Trump’s Climate Stupidity” is not just disrespectful to a duly elected sitting US president, it is demeaning to the reader. And perhaps just as damning, it’s unimaginative. There are too many clever writers out there to get away with passing off 6th grade name-calling as professional. I thought the Times had a higher standard.
I enjoy reading intelligent articles and opinions that I don’t fully agree with, but the recent editorial headline “States and Cities Compensate for Mr. Trump’s Climate Stupidity” is not just disrespectful to a duly elected sitting US president, it is demeaning to the reader. And perhaps just as damning, it’s unimaginative. There are too many clever writers out there to get away with passing off 6th grade name-calling as professional. I thought the Times had a higher standard.
Even if States and Cities do have more push for clean energy, its not enough to off set the damage that continues to be done by the coal and natural gas energy productions. We have already PERMANENTLY passed 400 carbon dioxide parts per million. This is especially frightening because even if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, whats in the atmosphere right now will effect us for decades to come. Its at a point now that we need to project "when" we will pass the tipping point, not "if". We need to start preparing for when the droughts, floods, wildfires, etc start happening. We might not be able to stop the coal and oil lobbying money but at least we can prepare ourselves for the destruction they will cause the country.
2
When media reports began to circulate about the signing of the Paris Climate Treaty, it seemed that the nations of the world had pledged to fight climate change. But we now learn that was not so. National performance is voluntary. Actually no nation has to do anything and there is no penalty for nonperformance. The U.S. promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent from 2005 levels. China said it would begin reducing emissions by about 2030. India said it would only reduce carbon use in its economy without pledging to reduce emissions. No wonder the Chinese and the Indians like the Treaty so much. Trump is simply correct.
1
We see the results of GOP obstructionism here.
Mr. Obama tried to get congress to make legislation supporting clean energy, and ameliorating climate change. The GOP controlled congress would not pass any legislation for him. We have our suspicions as to why, none of them actually verifiable, but having some evidence of the personalities involved, odds are that most of the views are correct.
In essence this is a collection of despicable people,voted into office by a core of people who believe the Democrats are the enemy. Our politics have become a win lose contest, not a do what is best for the country, but a contest to prove one ideology is better than another.
Win lose is a concept of war, not of civilized societies, it is what the Europeans have made a pact to give up. One country is not better than another, they all have their differences, and they all need to cooperate for peace and prosperity.
Trump and his aids do not see it that way. His followers believe their jobs have been stolen from them, and that others do not have a right to them. So, in essence they are willing to go to war, an economic war to get them back. There are no winners or losers in war, all sides suffer no matter who prevails. Both sides pay, both lose lives and money. The so called winner end up having to restore the losers, or governing them.
The Trump mentality has been refuted many times over the centuries, but human proclivities have not evolved to more modern standards.
Mr. Obama tried to get congress to make legislation supporting clean energy, and ameliorating climate change. The GOP controlled congress would not pass any legislation for him. We have our suspicions as to why, none of them actually verifiable, but having some evidence of the personalities involved, odds are that most of the views are correct.
In essence this is a collection of despicable people,voted into office by a core of people who believe the Democrats are the enemy. Our politics have become a win lose contest, not a do what is best for the country, but a contest to prove one ideology is better than another.
Win lose is a concept of war, not of civilized societies, it is what the Europeans have made a pact to give up. One country is not better than another, they all have their differences, and they all need to cooperate for peace and prosperity.
Trump and his aids do not see it that way. His followers believe their jobs have been stolen from them, and that others do not have a right to them. So, in essence they are willing to go to war, an economic war to get them back. There are no winners or losers in war, all sides suffer no matter who prevails. Both sides pay, both lose lives and money. The so called winner end up having to restore the losers, or governing them.
The Trump mentality has been refuted many times over the centuries, but human proclivities have not evolved to more modern standards.
1
This is a test, my ISP has a server that blocks any email headers with an apostrophe in it so I am using an alternate email address to see if I can verify this
We see the results of GOP obstructionism here.
Mr. Obama tried to get congress to make legislation supporting clean energy, and ameliorating climate change. The GOP controlled congress would not pass any legislation for him.
In essence this is a collection of despicable people,voted into office by a core of people who believe the Democrats are the enemy. Our politics have become a win lose contest, not a do what is best for the country, but a contest to prove one ideology is better than another.
Win lose is a concept of war, not of civilized societies, it is what the Europeans have made a pact to give up. One country is not better than another, they all have their differences, and they all need to cooperate for peace and prosperity.
Trump and his aids do not see it that way. His followers believe their jobs have been stolen from them, and that others do not have a right to them. So, in essence they are willing to go to war, an economic war to get them back. There are no winners or losers in war, all sides suffer no matter who prevails. Both sides pay, both lose lives and money. The so called winner end up having to restore the losers, or governing them.
The Trump mentality has been refuted many times over the centuries, but human proclivities have not evolved to more modern standards.
We see the results of GOP obstructionism here.
Mr. Obama tried to get congress to make legislation supporting clean energy, and ameliorating climate change. The GOP controlled congress would not pass any legislation for him.
In essence this is a collection of despicable people,voted into office by a core of people who believe the Democrats are the enemy. Our politics have become a win lose contest, not a do what is best for the country, but a contest to prove one ideology is better than another.
Win lose is a concept of war, not of civilized societies, it is what the Europeans have made a pact to give up. One country is not better than another, they all have their differences, and they all need to cooperate for peace and prosperity.
Trump and his aids do not see it that way. His followers believe their jobs have been stolen from them, and that others do not have a right to them. So, in essence they are willing to go to war, an economic war to get them back. There are no winners or losers in war, all sides suffer no matter who prevails. Both sides pay, both lose lives and money. The so called winner end up having to restore the losers, or governing them.
The Trump mentality has been refuted many times over the centuries, but human proclivities have not evolved to more modern standards.
2
This is actually better, while climate change is a problem that knows no boarders its effects can vary quite a bit depending on your location. Florida may need to worry about flooding (if there's any justice in the world Mara Logo will be under water), but other areas will need to prepare for different changes.
2
How about a binding agreement that actually accomplishes something that can have the force of a treaty after submission and approval by the senate?
Defending the Paris accords is a fools errand. They are completely voluntary and without any method of enforcement and thus deflates the overheated apoplexy exhibited by the accord's proponents.
Defending the Paris accords is a fools errand. They are completely voluntary and without any method of enforcement and thus deflates the overheated apoplexy exhibited by the accord's proponents.
2
I would much rather have the States believe Trump is stupid and take on that which he does not desire. It was never Trump's job to keep in force laws and regulations he believes the Federal government has no duty to enforce. Less government from Trump means states are freer to assert their own laws.
2
Ultimately, the far-right republican party, like Trump himself, will be left behind in the dustbin of history as a result of their Medieval so-called "policies" on virtually everything.
Just like the old comment: "All politics is local!", the same goes for Climate Change being local. Michael Bloomberg and Carl Coal, reported in their book, "Climate of Hope", that there are some 7.000 local cities and counties--at last count--working together to solve what nations cannot, or will not!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
Ah, the republic. States, cities, businessnes realize the progress of a nation is direcly proportionate to its practical commonsense, and so are ignoring Trump's climate stupidity. More please.
5
Trump is the mindless mouthpiece for the rightwing extremist agenda of Steve Bannon and Steve Miller who control his administration. Expect increasing chaos and crazy-making decisions from that toxic mix.
3
Climate Stupidity means claiming cities like Pittsburgh and Paris, France need more US Tax Dollars to fight global warming, and completely ignoring air pollution in Beijing. Now THATS stupid.
1
"Air pollution" per se in Beijing does not materially affect the global climate, Total emissions of CO2 and methane do.
2
Can any of the incredibly intelligent NYT readers explain why Pittsburgh's air quality has risen so high during exactly the same period of time that Global Warming has become a problem?
Also explain why goods manufactured in China a still price competitive in the USA, even after they have been transported across a giant ocean, and even after exploiting incredibly cheap slave labor?? Be sure to observe that Beijing's air qualiity is abysmal.....
Also explain why goods manufactured in China a still price competitive in the USA, even after they have been transported across a giant ocean, and even after exploiting incredibly cheap slave labor?? Be sure to observe that Beijing's air qualiity is abysmal.....
"It would be unwise, however, to give in to pessimism." No truer words were ever spoken. I have personally witnessed the incredible accomplishments of the American people when they unite in common cause to do something important.
You have the ability to do great things again. Don't weaken!
Respectfully, a Canadian friend.
You have the ability to do great things again. Don't weaken!
Respectfully, a Canadian friend.
9
Mr. Trump is out to prove exactly what the republicans are claiming. Federal Gov. is excess baggage. What they all fail to see is that the 'less educated' states with the old plantation leaders, are unaware or uncaring about the larger world. The states that will prove the repubs claims are all the ones that already vote Democratic, and believe in science and care about the world. The rest of the contrarian states will just go along for the ride, as usual, continuing to collect their outsize share of the 'leveling-off money' from the Feds and not saying thank you, but assuming it is their right.
6
Market forces have been largely responsible for the improvements noted regarding U.S. emissions. Those forces, including new technologies and emphasis on natural gas,have been very effective. Perhaps we should encourage this by eliminating subsidies to already out-of-date technologies and uneconomic fads du jour (bio fuels,etc.).
The paragraph regarding the Paris Agreement is artfully drafted. It must be understood that there are no commitments and there are no enforceable pledges. Mr. Obama did not have the authority to join the agreement or to fund it, and it is now properly being unwound.
It is fine to have localities and states experiment and to establish goals according to their local conditions and capabilities. What works in Arizona probably doesn't work in Alaska.
Bjorn Lonborg of the Copenhagen Consensus is a far more informed expert than all of the governors, mayors and whomevers on this issue. It is worthwhile to Google him. Also, as Daniel Webster wisely said, "truth is not a matter of majority vote."
The paragraph regarding the Paris Agreement is artfully drafted. It must be understood that there are no commitments and there are no enforceable pledges. Mr. Obama did not have the authority to join the agreement or to fund it, and it is now properly being unwound.
It is fine to have localities and states experiment and to establish goals according to their local conditions and capabilities. What works in Arizona probably doesn't work in Alaska.
Bjorn Lonborg of the Copenhagen Consensus is a far more informed expert than all of the governors, mayors and whomevers on this issue. It is worthwhile to Google him. Also, as Daniel Webster wisely said, "truth is not a matter of majority vote."
3
If states and municipalities can fill the void, sounds like federalism at work. As it should be
1
All those critical of the NYT or the positive steps being taken by states, cities and institutions should reslize how alone in the world they are. There are no other nations where Ttump's actions are considered reasonsble or even sane. It is clear that this topic brings out more than the usual number of trolls parroting the science denier mantra and contrasting sharply with Americans' views on climate and Paris. Might they be getting compensated by the fossil fuel industry?
6
WE have one president at a time and Bloomberg ain't it
4
Thank God we are Americans and have the freedom to act independently of the president that we do have.
6
This article (and most others) miss one point.
It is to acknowledge that governmental and industrial commitments only address the supply side. It is only one side of the equation. There is a demand side of equation which involves educating the citizens and making them change their behaviors and consumption preferences geared around throw away products.
Without grassroots campaign to educate all people about impact of every paper napkin they
It is to acknowledge that governmental and industrial commitments only address the supply side. It is only one side of the equation. There is a demand side of equation which involves educating the citizens and making them change their behaviors and consumption preferences geared around throw away products.
Without grassroots campaign to educate all people about impact of every paper napkin they
3
It is appalling.
Never has an elected President of the United States ever been treated with such disrespect.
Such deplorable gutter language calling the president's decisions "Climate Stupidity."
Shame on the Editorial Board and management at the NY Times, the liberal media in general and readers comments that disparage our newly elected president.
He has been vilified in the NY Times from the start of his run for presidency for his uncouth verbal reference to some women—yet there was no comment or condemnation by the liberal media of man who went beyond just words, Bill Clinton—a serial rapist—beginning with his run for Governor of Alabama.
One woman, Paula Jones, won her case in court to the tune of $850,000. A number of other women settled for somewhat less.
Within the first month of his presidency NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff's wrote his article, "How Can We Get Rid of Trump."
Usually it takes six to eight months for any new president to get their act together–Barack Hussein Obama never did and he had eight years!
It is appalling and most shameful treatment of the President of the United States.
For shame!
For shame!
I can only leave the media with this quote from the Army-McCarthy hearings when Senator Joseph McCarthy continued to hound army lawyer Fred Fischer as a communist sympathizer.
Joseph Welsch said,
“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?”
5
Mr Trump has no decency. More correctly you should ask that question of him. It's 2017 and the 1990s are a whole lot of water under the bridge. Mr Trump continues to rate and berate women on their looks. Not a hallmark of a true leader.
We can discuss Bill Clinton and his wife as long as you wish, but the person in the office of the president today is not a leader for our times - not just for me, but for many people in this country. Don't let you agreement with his policies blind you to his abject unfitness to hold this office.
We can discuss Bill Clinton and his wife as long as you wish, but the person in the office of the president today is not a leader for our times - not just for me, but for many people in this country. Don't let you agreement with his policies blind you to his abject unfitness to hold this office.
Trump has earned every ounce of opprobrium he receives. If he wants respect he should conduct himself respectably. He cares for no one but himself and no one has any obligation to regard him with any sort of favor.
4
Never? You seem to forget the overt racism was a regular feature of the Obama years, but that apparently doesn't set off your outrage scale.
As to the disparagement of Trump, his own cackhandedness calls for it. Trump has more than failed to get his together; he has shown himself to be mercurial and intemperate while failing to get the job done (you will note his failure to even make the appointments needed to staff many of his positions). Ultimately, the coverage and criticism of Trump is based on what comes out of his own mouth.
Your take on Clinton has a serial rapists is pure bilgewater and puts the lie to your claim to be against gratuitous disparagement of a President. I'll take the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton years over anything Trump is likely to offer.
This is a person who had no problem making fun of a disabled person; no problem implying that a judge who ruled against him did so because said judge was of Mexican ancestry. It's clear his supporters have neither a sense of shame or of decency.
As to the disparagement of Trump, his own cackhandedness calls for it. Trump has more than failed to get his together; he has shown himself to be mercurial and intemperate while failing to get the job done (you will note his failure to even make the appointments needed to staff many of his positions). Ultimately, the coverage and criticism of Trump is based on what comes out of his own mouth.
Your take on Clinton has a serial rapists is pure bilgewater and puts the lie to your claim to be against gratuitous disparagement of a President. I'll take the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton years over anything Trump is likely to offer.
This is a person who had no problem making fun of a disabled person; no problem implying that a judge who ruled against him did so because said judge was of Mexican ancestry. It's clear his supporters have neither a sense of shame or of decency.
4
Fun Fact: Texas has 3x more renewable energy generation than California. While California leads the nation in overall solar generation at about 2,500MW, Texas has over 20,000MW of wind generation, compared to California's 5,600MW.
I work in the energy industry, and with or without the Clean Power Plan, energy companies are pursuing renewable energy generation, as well as natural gas. Coal is pretty much dead at this point. The primary hurdle facing renewables right now is their ramp up ability. With fossil fuels, if you need additional generation to meet load demands, you just turn on a generator. With solar and wind though, it's not that easy. Without sophisticated batteries (that don't exist yet), you can't store energy to ramp up on demand.
Right now wind and solar generators are used in a supplementary capacity. When the wind is blowing and the sun is shining they pump energy into the grid. When it isn't, additional conventional generators are turned on to pick up the slack. Whoever solves the battery problem will be the next Rockefeller.
I work in the energy industry, and with or without the Clean Power Plan, energy companies are pursuing renewable energy generation, as well as natural gas. Coal is pretty much dead at this point. The primary hurdle facing renewables right now is their ramp up ability. With fossil fuels, if you need additional generation to meet load demands, you just turn on a generator. With solar and wind though, it's not that easy. Without sophisticated batteries (that don't exist yet), you can't store energy to ramp up on demand.
Right now wind and solar generators are used in a supplementary capacity. When the wind is blowing and the sun is shining they pump energy into the grid. When it isn't, additional conventional generators are turned on to pick up the slack. Whoever solves the battery problem will be the next Rockefeller.
9
The greatest jobs program ever created would be the shift from a carbon fuel based economy to one based largely on renewables. And the way is clear on how it can be done. The irony is that the primary appeal of Trump to the people who voted for him was the promise of jobs ... that American would be overflowing with well-paying jobs. The solution for Trump to meet his promises of providing "good jobs" would be for him to embrace renewables, yet he embraces futureless coal. Nothing could be more ironic.
7
I have a very expensive solar system for my house. I also use it to charge my electric car. This resulted in no grid electricity used last month. So, did I help the environment? Unfortunately the money I saved will go toward a vacation that will most likely result in burning fossil fuel. Think about it- unless we all decrease our economic activity- produce less and consume less, I don't think we will solve this problem. Unfortunately this leads to a deflationary spiral, as our system needs growth to survive.
6
There is no reason your vacation need produce more carbon -- that is your choice.
"Consumption" or "economic activity" does not necessitate burning carbon.
"Growth" does not equal burning carbon.
"Consumption" or "economic activity" does not necessitate burning carbon.
"Growth" does not equal burning carbon.
2
Have you considered carbon offsets for your plane flight?
1
One way to send a message would be to stop playing golf -- worldwide, at least for a day, if not a weekend.
5
I've never played a game of golf in my life. I drive across the Whitestone bridge frequently -- see the Trump course that looks barren and obviously built atop an old garbage dump. It's said to be a "luxury" course. What an odd concept of luxury. Has Trump ever played his own course in New York City? Bet not?
Hey Donald, why not come home rather than going to Mar-a-loco?
Hey Donald, why not come home rather than going to Mar-a-loco?
1
Although the NYT represents all deviations from the Global Warming Paradigm as "stupid", young readers can look forward to the decades to come when this mania will look like what it is: a historical curiosity...
4
Or perhaps your opinion will be viewed thus.
So, let's see: 98% chance of catastrophe if we do nothing and GW is real, vs. a 2% chance (generously estimated) of mild, unnecessary inconvenience if GW is not real but we do what we can.
I dunno Burroughs - how would YOU decide it?
I dunno Burroughs - how would YOU decide it?
3
I'm willing to take that chance, for the young readers of the future.
1
Talk is cheap, we will see how they do in the future!
Hahvud Biz Review had a blurb this AM to the effect that Blue States CAN lead the way here because they are where population and innovation come from; and they SHOULD lead the way because they are less dependent on fossilized industries than their RED brethren and sisteren.
To which I would only add: so, what's new?
6
Mr. Trump is clearly the winner of the "Bull in the China Shop" award. Whether it is international relations, appointing a Cabinet, dealing with the FBI, calling out the judiciary, appointing ambassadors, or even having a married life, he is the crockery crumbling champ of all time. Please Mr. Trump resign before you get impeached!
4
The Paris treaty was one of Vandal-in-Chief Barack Obama's best attacks on American workers and middle class. It would bleed our economy of cash even as it shut down jobs like a cancer on our people and culture.
Of course, the first adult to come to the Presidency after that immediately sees what a complete war this thing was on our people and ditches it in a heartbeat.
We may never know the true depths of Mr. Obama's hatred for the American middle class that is the world's best hope for truly democratic gov't.
Of course, the first adult to come to the Presidency after that immediately sees what a complete war this thing was on our people and ditches it in a heartbeat.
We may never know the true depths of Mr. Obama's hatred for the American middle class that is the world's best hope for truly democratic gov't.
9
Based on what? A solid recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression? 75+ straight months of positive jobs growth? Unemployment at levels that most economists agree should be considered "full" employment and less than half of what it was at the depths of the recession?
Your complete partisan blindness to science and reality are easy to spot. You fail to recognize that there are far more jobs in renewable energy and sustainable technologies than there are in coal, oil or gas. You fail to see that renewable energy generation is not more than price competitive with conventional forms of energy generation, both here and abroad. And you fail to credit the last sane adult to occupy the WH (and not some personal business hangout thousands of miles away) with doing everything he could, against luddite opposition from the GOP, to bring us squarely into the 21st century and in the mainstream of the global community of nations.
The only hatred here is yours for the POTUS. Sad.
Your complete partisan blindness to science and reality are easy to spot. You fail to recognize that there are far more jobs in renewable energy and sustainable technologies than there are in coal, oil or gas. You fail to see that renewable energy generation is not more than price competitive with conventional forms of energy generation, both here and abroad. And you fail to credit the last sane adult to occupy the WH (and not some personal business hangout thousands of miles away) with doing everything he could, against luddite opposition from the GOP, to bring us squarely into the 21st century and in the mainstream of the global community of nations.
The only hatred here is yours for the POTUS. Sad.
3
No amount of referring to Trump as an adult will turn him into one. Anyone who has raised a child can see that. Anyone who has grown up can see it.
1
Little bit of hyperbole, I think. 'Hatred of the middle class', really? After the mess that the Bush administration did to the economy Obama save the country from another depression. He save the middle class and yes he could have done more. Blame Bush better yet blame the biggest phony Reagan, he started us on the road to tearing down the middle class. The Republican cause is to dismantle everything from the New Deal that help the middle class.
There are more jobs in clean energy now than the ones from the past.
There are more jobs in clean energy now than the ones from the past.
1
Trump has shown us pretty much everything we should not do--which in a perverse way, has motivated us to learn and to do what we should. His isolationism is causing us to join with other nations: we certainly don't want to be stuck on an island with him and his old-man, deny-the-future policies.
6
For your readers who have objected to the choice of the word "stupidity" in this editorial's caption, I would strongly suggest that they read the inspiring, uplifting opinion piece, also in today's Times, co-authored by the mayors of Paris and Pittsburgh. If they have read it, they should do so again and this time fully contemplate its message.
I think the Editorial Board was acting with great restraint in using "stupidity" in the caption. There are at least a half dozen more forceful words that could have been employed by it to accurately describe the mental state of our national embarrassment.
I think the Editorial Board was acting with great restraint in using "stupidity" in the caption. There are at least a half dozen more forceful words that could have been employed by it to accurately describe the mental state of our national embarrassment.
8
States and cities can and should set targets / controls. Trump's out of the Paris Accord does not preclude that.
In his recent and expected announcement, Trump did not question the science behind climate change but rather the wisdom of the accord, and the wisdom of the US transferring $30 billion (and the developed countries transferring $100 billion total) to countries such as India and China, countries who have received our outsourced US jobs, which partly or mostly caused these increased emissions in the first place! Not only have we lost jobs to these countries, we were required to pay them to control the pollution that these transferred jobs created!
Trump is correct that in this aspect, it is a bad deal for the US. Had the accord not included the tremendously large payment from first to third world countries, the Accord may have survived. But you only selectively refer to stupidity in reference to Trump and but not in reference to the original authors of the accord.
In his recent and expected announcement, Trump did not question the science behind climate change but rather the wisdom of the accord, and the wisdom of the US transferring $30 billion (and the developed countries transferring $100 billion total) to countries such as India and China, countries who have received our outsourced US jobs, which partly or mostly caused these increased emissions in the first place! Not only have we lost jobs to these countries, we were required to pay them to control the pollution that these transferred jobs created!
Trump is correct that in this aspect, it is a bad deal for the US. Had the accord not included the tremendously large payment from first to third world countries, the Accord may have survived. But you only selectively refer to stupidity in reference to Trump and but not in reference to the original authors of the accord.
3
I like to say I installed solar to reduce my carbon footprint, but the reality is that it's going to save me a ton of money - I will have a $0 electric bill for decades to come. Pay back for my system will take less than 7 yrs. from installation And it provides all the "fuel" I need for my Tesla, so you can throw in $0 for gasoline too. Whatever your political stripe, this is nothing but common sense.
8
If Trump had an ounce of political savvy he would have opted to submit the Paris Accords to the Senate for advice and consent where it should have gone in the first place. (Ditto the Iran Treaty. President Obama was a bit too fast and loose with the constitutional constraints on the executive and the Senate was remiss in not reminding him of this fact, in my very humble opinion.) Doing this would have taken the "monkey' off his back, so to speak, and forced senators from both blue and red states to take a stand and, even more importantly, allow the American people to candidly hear the pros and cons of the Accord, the facts of which seem to be severely lacking in the reporting by the mainstream press as well as in the rhetoric of supposedly informed statesmen like Secretary Kerry (his assertion that Trump's action would take America back to the days of suffocating smog and flammable rivers is nothing short of shrill partisan mendacity). Our founders managed to cobble together a document that has served us well for over two hundred years, despite heated differences and even a bloody civil war, and we ignore it at our peril. The other nations of the world can make their own decisions in their own way, but in the United States we have our own constitutionally mandated system and it does not include an all powerful potentate and a rubber-stamp legislature.
2
Everyone should at least agree that cleaning our air will result in human health benefits, locally and immediately. Indeed, published studies have shown that the economic valuation of the human health benefits from lowered ozone and particle pollution in the air that would result from most climate mitigation steps (e.g., better vehicle mileage, less fossil fuel burning)greatly exceed the costs. So, irrespective of the climate impact, taking the proposed mitigation steps makes both health and economic sense for the communities that do so. It's a win-win!
3
In the 1940's, before air conditioning, my father painted our black town house roof with a silver white paint in Brooklyn to reflect heat and keep the house cooler.
People in NYC, and in the U.S., could improve roofing color today to be cooler and save energy emissions.
People in NYC, and in the U.S., could improve roofing color today to be cooler and save energy emissions.
4
Even when being constantly shocked by the news about the new president and his actions, this article amongst others shows how great the american spirit actually is. In reaction and revolution in a way - provoced by Trump - citizens, mayors and business people act responsible where government responsibilities are failing. Power to the people does actually mean exactly this: when they go crazy, it's up to yourself to do it. Goals are clear, no doubt about that. Happy here in Europe seeing the Americans are stepping in and go get themselves their next revolution. Thank you Donald to be as you are to squeeze out the people's force to overcome you and make the take over from you.
6
"States and Cities Compensate for Mr. Trump’s Climate Stupidity."
That's all well and good.
However, The depth of Mr. Trump's stupidity does not end with "Climate Stupidity."
There are other kinds of stupidity including: Education, healthcare, defense, taxes, trade, border walls, international relationship, treaties, human rights, civil rights, voter rights, women's and minority rights, etc. etc. and all of these classes of stupidity are owned by Mr. Trump.
We must, absolutely must, marshal the good forces of the nation, our states, cities and citizens everywhere to compensate for the stupidity and ignorance of man that is doing his best to lead us to ruin.
Where are the leaders of the Democratic Party and yes, even Republicans who can end this nightmare? How long must we endure stupidity in the White House?
That's all well and good.
However, The depth of Mr. Trump's stupidity does not end with "Climate Stupidity."
There are other kinds of stupidity including: Education, healthcare, defense, taxes, trade, border walls, international relationship, treaties, human rights, civil rights, voter rights, women's and minority rights, etc. etc. and all of these classes of stupidity are owned by Mr. Trump.
We must, absolutely must, marshal the good forces of the nation, our states, cities and citizens everywhere to compensate for the stupidity and ignorance of man that is doing his best to lead us to ruin.
Where are the leaders of the Democratic Party and yes, even Republicans who can end this nightmare? How long must we endure stupidity in the White House?
4
I would say that the 'stupidity' is by the alarmist leftists who have fallen for the biggest hoax of the last 50 years.
7
Agree -- the question is -- how did the hoax get started? The question in my mind is -- are the climate "scientists" the stupid ones, or are they perpetrating an ongoing fraud? Or is it simply the academic zeitgeist.
There are lots of motives for the climate scientists to push the ACGW theory -- it creates tenure, funds research, leads to book deals, and other goodies. They are encouraged by the lefties who love all the solutions proposed by the scientists as they fit the progressive playbook to a T. And of course the media,in addition to being progressive and generally illiterate re science and math, also love an earth is coming to an end story. And then there are the environmentalists who latch on to ACGW because it helps fund their groups.
And of course, for all these players there is the ecstasy of helping to drive global policy. And getting to hang with Al Gore and Leo. And other celebs who, despite their lack of scientific training, are convinced the world is coming to an end.
Or maybe it is the evangelical streak in all these players who must believe at some deep level that the good Lord promised next time he'd destroy the world by fire.
There are lots of motives for the climate scientists to push the ACGW theory -- it creates tenure, funds research, leads to book deals, and other goodies. They are encouraged by the lefties who love all the solutions proposed by the scientists as they fit the progressive playbook to a T. And of course the media,in addition to being progressive and generally illiterate re science and math, also love an earth is coming to an end story. And then there are the environmentalists who latch on to ACGW because it helps fund their groups.
And of course, for all these players there is the ecstasy of helping to drive global policy. And getting to hang with Al Gore and Leo. And other celebs who, despite their lack of scientific training, are convinced the world is coming to an end.
Or maybe it is the evangelical streak in all these players who must believe at some deep level that the good Lord promised next time he'd destroy the world by fire.
1
There is logical wisdom, and then there is progressive political talk. We have no greater examples of a stark difference in our language or culture.
I often compare this manic Leftism to a religious exercise, but Christians and Jews in the West are more willing to ask hard questions about matters of their faiths than the knee-jerk brigades marching to the mind-meld drums. It seems you have to jettison logic and thought to pursue this public form of dementia.
Recently, we had the hunt for the Russia connection - THEN the imagined Kushner hunt FOR just such a connection. Was there ANYONE on the Left logical enough that say that Kushner's phone call just destroyed the Russia connection campaign?
I often compare this manic Leftism to a religious exercise, but Christians and Jews in the West are more willing to ask hard questions about matters of their faiths than the knee-jerk brigades marching to the mind-meld drums. It seems you have to jettison logic and thought to pursue this public form of dementia.
Recently, we had the hunt for the Russia connection - THEN the imagined Kushner hunt FOR just such a connection. Was there ANYONE on the Left logical enough that say that Kushner's phone call just destroyed the Russia connection campaign?
5
Unfortunately the backward leaning governor of New Hampshire refused these important efforts.
3
Some of these mayors can't run their cities effectively. How many mayors were dems? How many are mayors of cities that are having financial probs?
And did Rom Emmanuel join this august group. I mean, the guy can't control the murder rate in his city so how is going to stop climate change?
And did Rom Emmanuel join this august group. I mean, the guy can't control the murder rate in his city so how is going to stop climate change?
8
Nobody is going to stop climate change; we want to mitigate the damage.
2
The Paris agreement was a bad deal for the US and despite the raw deal failed to realize the objectives necessary. European leaders have said the deal cannot be renegotiated of course it can, it was non binding in the first instance. What the Europeans and chinese are saying is we got a good deal and don't want to renegotiate .
7
Short sighted self-interest apparently makes the Paris agreement a "bad deal" for Mr. Schwab. Does he think his private interests are those of every American?
1
So much can be done by citizens, too. I have solar panels on my home in Arizona, and they provide our home with inexpensive, reliable energy for all appliances, including air conditioning, computers, and pool filters. In addition to solar powered vehicles, solar powered roads are also feasible. Reclaimed water is used for landscape gardening. Too bad the failing jackal disgracing the White House cannot read the signs of the times.
3
Trump is a pernicious nuisance. There are lots of good efforts to reduce climate change. Trump though and the EPA have made their views clear to turn back the clock to before Rachel Carson's ground breaking work on the dangers of environmental pollution.
4
June 7, 2017
Revolt as a collective embrace by the Trump enablers and how much oppositions could be seen as practice rounds in the war in America to gain authority over the authority to lead with omniscience - all in the guise of General George S. Patton
"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more."
George S. Patton
brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_s_patton.html
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
Revolt as a collective embrace by the Trump enablers and how much oppositions could be seen as practice rounds in the war in America to gain authority over the authority to lead with omniscience - all in the guise of General George S. Patton
"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more."
George S. Patton
brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_s_patton.html
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
1
I'm sorry to see the NYT descending to the level of using the word "stupidity" in a headline, particularly regarding the president. I could not be more anti-Trump, and I agree that the decision to pull out of the PA was stupid, but we should be able to expect a higher standard of language and at least some respect for the office of president, regardless of who holds it. What happened to "When they go low, we go high"?
6
Uhm Hillary tried that, look where's at. The only problem there is with the title is that it has the word Climate.
What's happened is that going high has no effect in the minds of the densely stupid and I think you're nitpicking , it is a newspaper after all not the bible and not akin to cursing, perhaps you want politically correct , further , the current occupier of the office shows no respect to the office he holds nor for the citizens of this country. Thank God though that we are still free to express our opinions whether high or low and I applaud the NYT for giving voice to all.
2
Let it go on record that Trump was considered "stupid" by a great many Americans.
1
The earth vs. Trump. I'm joining the earth team.
5
Yes, when the official leadership goes full stupid and adopts disastrous policies and rewards and empowers the very worst actors, others can work like crazy to try and mitigate the damage.
The crew of the Titanic could have prepared the lifeboats for deployment when they knew the captain was demanding a speed certain to risk destruction. The band leader could have rehearsed "Nearer My God to Thee" so it would sound better as the ship sank. Passengers could have been brought up to the boat decks in preparation. None of these actions would have prevented hitting the iceberg--or all loss of life. Only the captain slowing the ship and/or altering course was able to do this.
Trump is unlikely to wipe out all of humanity, or utterly destroy the United States. However, he is entirely capable of making the lives of our children and grandchildren far worse, and vastly worse for those who follow. He is also entirely capable of weakening the institutions that allow growth and opportunity to most citizens.
The most important thing to do now is get rid of Trump. Allowing Trump and the Republicans to make America into a far bigger failure than Kansas is now has consequences we will live with for generations. Sure, cities, states, citizens can mitigate the approaching disaster to some extent, but mitigation is not avoidance, nor is it a path to better lives.
The crew of the Titanic could have prepared the lifeboats for deployment when they knew the captain was demanding a speed certain to risk destruction. The band leader could have rehearsed "Nearer My God to Thee" so it would sound better as the ship sank. Passengers could have been brought up to the boat decks in preparation. None of these actions would have prevented hitting the iceberg--or all loss of life. Only the captain slowing the ship and/or altering course was able to do this.
Trump is unlikely to wipe out all of humanity, or utterly destroy the United States. However, he is entirely capable of making the lives of our children and grandchildren far worse, and vastly worse for those who follow. He is also entirely capable of weakening the institutions that allow growth and opportunity to most citizens.
The most important thing to do now is get rid of Trump. Allowing Trump and the Republicans to make America into a far bigger failure than Kansas is now has consequences we will live with for generations. Sure, cities, states, citizens can mitigate the approaching disaster to some extent, but mitigation is not avoidance, nor is it a path to better lives.
3
Even though our manufacturing wages are 4-5 times higher than Mexico, China and the imbalance worse in other places, we think if we ignore cleaner energy, this cost disadvantage will somehow be erased. In our minds, we are not a part of a global humanity, a citizenry, we do things our way. And if we happen to disagree in ways we don't like, we have a strong military that can bully with the best of them.
What's more, most of us don't comprehend that industry, manufacturing, agriculture and engineering are science, that has perfected to the point of nearly infinite growth in productivity at much smaller the cost. This is a science easily transmittal to lower cost labor nations.
But we have Mr. Simplistic in the White House, vocalizing the desperation of the equally ignorant. Relative ignorance among cultures and nations don't end well.
What's more, most of us don't comprehend that industry, manufacturing, agriculture and engineering are science, that has perfected to the point of nearly infinite growth in productivity at much smaller the cost. This is a science easily transmittal to lower cost labor nations.
But we have Mr. Simplistic in the White House, vocalizing the desperation of the equally ignorant. Relative ignorance among cultures and nations don't end well.
1
I would be a lot more confident in the pronouncements of those governors, mayors, and businesses if they were more effective getting their residents to buy fuel efficient cars. Car fuel consumption and buying patterns directly oppose these goals. Any person that that accepts climate change and supported US participation in the Paris Accord should be driving a vehicle that gets at least 50 mpg. There are plenty to choose from. Not fast enough? Can't carry all that air you need? Not enough of a status symbol?
Did you think saving the environment was going to be a stroll in the park?
Did you think saving the environment was going to be a stroll in the park?
1
Those who say cities, states and institutions can't make up for federal involvement are correct, just as those who say that the US can't make up for the rest of the world in the financial and carbon investments needed under the Paris Accord, or that the entire global community's efforts will not reach the Accord's targets. The problem with all these arguments is that every molecule of CO2 and methane creates a debt that must be repaid with more drastic compensating actions in the future. Parts of the US are vulnerable to what is reliably projected to befall us under even the most moderate climate change scenarios. As the climate debt is taken on, what is changing is how poorly-positioned American business and international relationships will become due to the Trump's short-sighted and irrational narcissism.
1
We need more people. If we all try, we can triple our population in a third the time so that we'll have more hands to battle the scourges of global warming. There should be plenty of work in rebuilding beaches and buildings, so jobs won't be an issue when there are 3 times as many of us.
If there are 10 billion of us and we all hold our breaths, won't that be enough to reduce the CO2 levels?
If there are 10 billion of us and we all hold our breaths, won't that be enough to reduce the CO2 levels?
1
Not long ago Republicans were chanting "Drill baby drill!!" They insisted renewable energy would NEVER be competitive with fossil fuels. All this electric car, wind mill, solar panel stuff was for big city liberal elites to waste their money on. 'You see', they would condescendingly explain, 'the sun does not shine all the time, the wind does not blow all the time, and besides, climate change science is unsettled.' They endlessly cited the failure of government-subsidized Solyndra as indicative of an industry that itself was doomed to failure and a big waste of tax-payer money. They never mentioned any of the renewable energy companies that were successful because of government subsidized loans.
When it came to the Paris Accord, they refused support because they believed it placed a greater burden on the US than China -- and, of course, because it was supported by President Obama.
Meanwhile, the Chinese had a vision. They intensively subsidized their own solar industry leading to improvements in product performance and manufacturing. This put them in position to capture a huge share of the developing market. That is where we are now. Renewable energy development is growing like crazy and due to Republican stupidity that started long before Trump, the US is on the sideline watching. In ten years, when China's air pollution has been greatly improved and its carbon emissions greatly reduced, Republicans will be out of arguments. By then, we will have been left way behind.
When it came to the Paris Accord, they refused support because they believed it placed a greater burden on the US than China -- and, of course, because it was supported by President Obama.
Meanwhile, the Chinese had a vision. They intensively subsidized their own solar industry leading to improvements in product performance and manufacturing. This put them in position to capture a huge share of the developing market. That is where we are now. Renewable energy development is growing like crazy and due to Republican stupidity that started long before Trump, the US is on the sideline watching. In ten years, when China's air pollution has been greatly improved and its carbon emissions greatly reduced, Republicans will be out of arguments. By then, we will have been left way behind.
4
Excellent exposition and affirmation that the Paris Accords (should have been a treaty) were totally unnecessary, redundant and yet another abuse of American largesse. America will continue to do the right thing despite the efforts of its parasitic detractors. There was absolutely no reason to waste money on irresponsible countries who, as history clearly validates, will divert the funds to graft, corruption and avaricious alternative interests. While climate change merits fastidious, unrelenting concern, attention and action, it is by no means the impending cataclysmic disaster that zealous, self-interested advocates espouse. We know very, very little about our 4.6 billion year old planet and the dire projections of the extremist doomsayers, while worthy of consideration, are tantamount to Chicken Little's claim that "The Sky is Falling". Educate yourselves as to the scientific, economic and political aspects of this very real, highly complex problem so that you may fully understand and appreciate its scope, depth and impact. Doing so fairly, open-mindedly and responsibly will enable you to participate in forming policies and pursuing initiatives that will save the planet while universally improving the quality of life of all of its inhabitants.
2
Yeah let's not pay any attention to climate scientists who unanimously agree that the situation is dire. But it's the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry we should listen to. And by the way, China is the nation that is investing in renewable sustainable clean energy -- China will be followed, USA will be left behind.
2
It’s a good argument against our need for the Paris agreement. America will do its part—we always do. The question is whether other countries will.
1
In addition to unified efforts by governments and business, a unified effort by academic institutions is very important, because research and education are essential for stopping climate change. We are working to stimulate a unified academic effort:
http://academiaunited.org
http://academiaunited.org
This page should be ashamed of itself calling a sitting President stupid. Climate change is a hoax. That was on the ballot. Trump won. Elections have consequences. Get over it.
4
Steve,
Get over yourself!
Just because the presidential election allowed an unqualified neophyte get enough electoral votes to grab the election while losing the popular vote by close to 3 million votes, doesn't mean he earned the right to make poor choices for the people of the United States.
The first amendment gives all of us the right to voice our opinions & beliefs, free from persecution for what we say.
As far as consequences go, the actions by our elected leaders have many. This includes how those actions affect the American people & what will happen at the next election cycle & in the halls of Congress.
States have the right to go against the decisions of presidents where the division of power warrants it.
Furthermore, you claim climate change is a hoax but fail to support your argument with evidence. Are you really willing to risk your health & life & those of your family on your beliefs? Would it not be a more reasoned position to take that new industries & resulting jobs are already emerging from switching to renewal energy sources? Wouldn't you rather have the research & development be done primarily here in the US than having to to buy this technology from oversea places such as China, India & Brazil. Don't you want to make America Great Again?
Get over yourself!
Just because the presidential election allowed an unqualified neophyte get enough electoral votes to grab the election while losing the popular vote by close to 3 million votes, doesn't mean he earned the right to make poor choices for the people of the United States.
The first amendment gives all of us the right to voice our opinions & beliefs, free from persecution for what we say.
As far as consequences go, the actions by our elected leaders have many. This includes how those actions affect the American people & what will happen at the next election cycle & in the halls of Congress.
States have the right to go against the decisions of presidents where the division of power warrants it.
Furthermore, you claim climate change is a hoax but fail to support your argument with evidence. Are you really willing to risk your health & life & those of your family on your beliefs? Would it not be a more reasoned position to take that new industries & resulting jobs are already emerging from switching to renewal energy sources? Wouldn't you rather have the research & development be done primarily here in the US than having to to buy this technology from oversea places such as China, India & Brazil. Don't you want to make America Great Again?
4
We vote on facts now? Evidence points to Trump being stupid and climate change being real. Get over it.
4
Uh, I read this as satire ... perhaps it is not?
1
I think we should not point fingers since we all have a part to play in this climate of utter stupidity.
3
Using the word "stupidity" shows clear bias. I may agree with staying with the Paris agreement but I don't agree with bias and disrespect of our government. the NYT loses credibility with this type of writing.
4
A Carbon tax is needed with all revenues going to subsidize the purchase of renewables, on a highest non-polluting/lowest cost to install or purchase basis. This would make it profitable for homes and businesses to switch on an immediate basis. For oil the tax would probably be free--less use would keep the price low. There should be a buy out of coal workers similar to tobacco, only here it would be guaranteed investment in renewable industries in coal states. A Carbon tax law could also stipulate that products be USA made, but within reason, say no more than a 15% difference for solar panels over foreign made. Give tax holidays and encourage U.S. joint ventures for lithium batteries. This might be a 50-50 ownership of a battery plant in Bolivia; encourage trade in solar/wind in Latin America across the board. An immediate new trade pact might be the reinstatement of the TPP, but just for renewables and intellectual property. We shouldn't be buying pollution rights from developing countries, but instead encouraging them to make all their development free of CO2 emissions, i.e. skip the high pollution phase of their development. From a stand point of Protecting The Environment and the health of their citizens, this is desirable. This has been lacking in China--the CCP doesn't care and punishes those who speak out (and China is no longer a developing country).
Spend the Paris Acc. $5 billion pledge through the Corp of Engineers to make TVA pollution free as a model.
Spend the Paris Acc. $5 billion pledge through the Corp of Engineers to make TVA pollution free as a model.
2
I can't control anyone but myself (and my husband). Lights are off, unless I need them. In Ohio windows are open at night cooling off the house, minimizing the need for air conditioning. Thermostats,depending on the season, are adjusted up or down. Just like Mom,clothes are hung outside. In more temperate San Francisco, blinds are open allowing the sun to heat our condo. Sweaters are good too. The car sits in the garage in favor of walking or taking the bus. And if course, reuse and recycle. More and more, even in conservative areas there are people like me. I hope we help make a difference. And I am saving money.
6
Don't forget, former Mayor Mike Bloomberg will contribute $15 million to the effort. A coalition needs to be formed that includes industry so that can be represented at the next Paris Accords. We will become a nation of states without a federal government.
4
There are two significant reasons not to be so optimistic. For one, it is unlikely that the states will contribute to the funds needed by the developing countries to keep apace. Second, the current progress figures are significantly misleading. They are always measured from 2005. Statistics show that 2005 was the worst year for emissions, so measuring progress from that year is deceptive. We began aggressive efforts to limit emissions , around 2012. Our success since thenhas been much more moderate. Predictions beginning in 2005 are therefore unduly optimistic.
1
Governors and mayors should of course focus attention where needed; rank order of sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
* Electricity production-29% - 67% of electricity is from coal and natural gas.
* Transportation-27% - 90% of fuels are petroleum.
* Industry-21% - Fuels and chemical reactions necessary to produce goods.
* Commercial & Residential-12% - Heating, products, and waste.
* Agriculture-9% - Methane & CO2 from livestock, soils, and products.
Reasons to carefully plan cutting trees and forests:
* As of 2015 Land Use Management and Forestry have provided a net offset of 11.8% since land areas and forests can act as a "sink", that is, they absorb carbon dioxide and store other gases. Since 1990, managed forests and other lands absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emitted.
* Electricity production-29% - 67% of electricity is from coal and natural gas.
* Transportation-27% - 90% of fuels are petroleum.
* Industry-21% - Fuels and chemical reactions necessary to produce goods.
* Commercial & Residential-12% - Heating, products, and waste.
* Agriculture-9% - Methane & CO2 from livestock, soils, and products.
Reasons to carefully plan cutting trees and forests:
* As of 2015 Land Use Management and Forestry have provided a net offset of 11.8% since land areas and forests can act as a "sink", that is, they absorb carbon dioxide and store other gases. Since 1990, managed forests and other lands absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emitted.
1
One hundred years from now, everybody who is now on earth will be dead. They will be dead because people don't live that long. Humans would do well to educate themselves to deal about climate issues now - not when it's too late.
It will be nice if people would start acting smart now, but there, obviously, are a lot of people who don't care about the future. We have to convince enough people now and in the near future to deal with climate issues that will exist
when we are all dead and gone. There are lots of people who will try to stop
progress but if people are trained to plan ahead, the future might be saved. The
majority of people who are denying science now aren't even going to be here
in a few years.
It will be nice if people would start acting smart now, but there, obviously, are a lot of people who don't care about the future. We have to convince enough people now and in the near future to deal with climate issues that will exist
when we are all dead and gone. There are lots of people who will try to stop
progress but if people are trained to plan ahead, the future might be saved. The
majority of people who are denying science now aren't even going to be here
in a few years.
2
"Thanks to market forces..." Follow the money. Perhaps that is the best way to exact change with this (mis)administration. One needs to openly and repeatedly identify the moneyed and political interests within and peripheral to this policy (make a pyramid diagram), consistently and clearly tag them with the deleterious effects their narrow interest causes the environment and humanity, and hit them in the pocketbook with boycotts of their products. One talks about peaceful resistance. One talks about change. Perhaps this is an effective way to make the point that we cannot afford supporting the fossil fuel status quo and the environmental and geopolitical dead end. Because Trump seems to really understand and be motivated only by one thing: money. Okay, maybe two...groping. Okay, maybe three...golf. Okay, maybe four...luxuriating on another's expense....
1
I've posted this before: What is needed is a private certification organization with a staff of climate scientists that adopt rigorous standards regarding climate change impact and practices that are applied to products, companies, energy suppliers, etc.
Similar to the "Non-GMO Project," or QAI. This way Americans can make informed choices and seek out such products, companies and use their purchasing power to influence productive change.
Similar to the "Non-GMO Project," or QAI. This way Americans can make informed choices and seek out such products, companies and use their purchasing power to influence productive change.
1
I haven't heard a peep from the Honorable Mr. "oops". What's going on on our own national energy front?
3
The adults must pick up the toys the Infant Terrible has scattered across the room. These toys are intended to trip up progress on many fronts. The repeated tantrums make the adults work much harder, but just as with raising a child, the adults must lead the way for the future of their own children & grandchildren. There is no Planet B!
1
It's astounding how pathetic the NYT can be with its Paris climate deal analysis. You unwittingly explain why the deal was meaningless in the first place--and just can't bear to admit that CO2 emissions are being reduced dramatically in the US thanks primarily to FRACKING. The NYT and their ignorant Trump-deranged minions prefer empty political gestures over real world progress because they are total ideologues, not serious people.
4
Nope. The accounting on fracking is incomplete and it's still a fossil fuel with significant greenhouse emissions and other toxic byproducts (earthquakes and water pollution, not to mention overuse of water in areas with limited water). As a boom and bust product with a relatively short cycle, it overuses local resources (schools, roads, sewers, police, things like that) and leaves behind a wasteland.
Fracking is typical short-term privatization of profit and socialization of risk.
Sure, it's better than the worst coal and OK as a bridge fuel, but not so very beneficial. You should check out some places that have suffered from the problems I described above.
Fracking is typical short-term privatization of profit and socialization of risk.
Sure, it's better than the worst coal and OK as a bridge fuel, but not so very beneficial. You should check out some places that have suffered from the problems I described above.
4
Facts, science and common sense will always trump ignorance, fake news and arrogance.
1
John, I agree 100%... And there's a lot of fact science and common sense that support the U.S. Pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord. Thanks for your support of that decision.
1
The right wing believers were all about "states rights", especially in the South since it tweaked their memories of the 'good old days' of the Civil War times. Now, the right wing perpetrators have to face the reality that states rights efforts are promoting alternative energy, which must seem like fingernails scratching a chalkboard to them. Will they ever see the irony of their own hypocrisy, what it costs them to either follow an ethical path, which goes against their selfish tendencies, or to follow an increasingly unbalanced trump?
Dear Editorial Board,
You might want to address the President's act as stupidity, but I challenge any of you to predict ho much warmer New York City is going to be next year, five years from now or at the end of this century. Neither you nor any of the "experts" have any real knowledge - they only have models. If you recall, Al Gore predicted that the Arctic ice cap would have disappeared years ago, and he based his claim on what was then "settled science".
What you fail to admit is that Paris was nothing more than a feel-good diplomatic stunt. There are no hard-and-fast targets for anyone because it was voluntary. We would be committed to sending billions of taxpayers dollars elsewhere - can you say "boondoggle"? And the accord in and of itself isn't going to miraculously save the planet; it definitely isn't going to reverse things. The fact that the United States pulled out of the accord doesn't mean we're doomed.
If cities and states want to voluntarily make things cleaner, then I say good for them. But quit acting like it's "game over" unless the federal government comes to the rescue.
You might want to address the President's act as stupidity, but I challenge any of you to predict ho much warmer New York City is going to be next year, five years from now or at the end of this century. Neither you nor any of the "experts" have any real knowledge - they only have models. If you recall, Al Gore predicted that the Arctic ice cap would have disappeared years ago, and he based his claim on what was then "settled science".
What you fail to admit is that Paris was nothing more than a feel-good diplomatic stunt. There are no hard-and-fast targets for anyone because it was voluntary. We would be committed to sending billions of taxpayers dollars elsewhere - can you say "boondoggle"? And the accord in and of itself isn't going to miraculously save the planet; it definitely isn't going to reverse things. The fact that the United States pulled out of the accord doesn't mean we're doomed.
If cities and states want to voluntarily make things cleaner, then I say good for them. But quit acting like it's "game over" unless the federal government comes to the rescue.
5
All the same blather from the deniers. It's like this: there are three guys standing at the top of a very steep road down an icy mountain: a physicist, an auto engineer, and the contractor who paved the road. They are all telling a whiney drunk driving a car with bad brakes that he shouldn't try to drive it.
That drunk starts yelling 'All you have is models! You can't prove anything! You can't tell me just exactly where I'll go off the road, so you know nothing!"
That drunk starts yelling 'All you have is models! You can't prove anything! You can't tell me just exactly where I'll go off the road, so you know nothing!"
2
@Lee Harrison: "All the same blather from the deniers."
That's right, Lee. Repeat the same old liberal mantra of labeling anyone who disagrees even slightly with your views on climate a "denier". Wow, that really sets things right, doesn't it?
And can't you really come up with a better argument than a bad analogy?
Here are some questions for you:
1. What is the average temperature of Albany supposed to be? Based on what metrics?
2. What is the average ice coverage of the world supposed to be? Again, based on what metrics?
3. Has the Earth gotten significantly warmer or cooler in the past without any human involvement whatsoever?
4. How much warmer or colder will Albany be in 100 years? How do you know?
5. Do you know anyone at all who can tell you with any degree (pun intended) of certainty the answer to question # 4 above?
That's right, Lee. Repeat the same old liberal mantra of labeling anyone who disagrees even slightly with your views on climate a "denier". Wow, that really sets things right, doesn't it?
And can't you really come up with a better argument than a bad analogy?
Here are some questions for you:
1. What is the average temperature of Albany supposed to be? Based on what metrics?
2. What is the average ice coverage of the world supposed to be? Again, based on what metrics?
3. Has the Earth gotten significantly warmer or cooler in the past without any human involvement whatsoever?
4. How much warmer or colder will Albany be in 100 years? How do you know?
5. Do you know anyone at all who can tell you with any degree (pun intended) of certainty the answer to question # 4 above?
1
hm1342 -- you are playing a game, why not state your claim honestly? It is "the climate has varied substantially over geological history, why should we care if mankind is perturbing it now?"
The answer is that mankind is forcing very rapid change, far more rapid than all or almost all of the geological changes. The exception may be the PETM, read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
That very rapid change has serious consequences for species and the carrying capacity of our planet, with serious consequences for mankind. You don't care about the prior extinctions in the geological history. Do you care that mankind is triggering one right now?
Albany will be warmer in 100 years -- exactly how much warmer depends on how much CO2 we continue to emit.
The certainty that Albany will be at least 2°C warmer on average than now in 100 years is very high, effectively 100%. But suppose it is 1.8 °C warmer in 100 years? The difference has no meaningful impact on conclusions about what policy should be.
You present no rational counter-argument on the science at all. You just don't like it. It is inconvenient to you, I am sure.
The answer is that mankind is forcing very rapid change, far more rapid than all or almost all of the geological changes. The exception may be the PETM, read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
That very rapid change has serious consequences for species and the carrying capacity of our planet, with serious consequences for mankind. You don't care about the prior extinctions in the geological history. Do you care that mankind is triggering one right now?
Albany will be warmer in 100 years -- exactly how much warmer depends on how much CO2 we continue to emit.
The certainty that Albany will be at least 2°C warmer on average than now in 100 years is very high, effectively 100%. But suppose it is 1.8 °C warmer in 100 years? The difference has no meaningful impact on conclusions about what policy should be.
You present no rational counter-argument on the science at all. You just don't like it. It is inconvenient to you, I am sure.
1
It may well be that the leaders of our city-states who will be the ones to stand up in these republican times to keep America great.
Trump showed his stripes throughout the primary debates and during his first half year, mostly wandering around the White House and his golf courses.
The Senate and the House leaders are no better. Republicans cannot legislate any better than they can debate.
So, come on, mayors and governors. Especially you whose states and metro areas rank as global leaders in domestic product and education.
Speak out! Act out!
Trump showed his stripes throughout the primary debates and during his first half year, mostly wandering around the White House and his golf courses.
The Senate and the House leaders are no better. Republicans cannot legislate any better than they can debate.
So, come on, mayors and governors. Especially you whose states and metro areas rank as global leaders in domestic product and education.
Speak out! Act out!
1
One would have thought that the cities and states would have understood that in the end, it is they that are going to have to shoulder the responsibilities for cleaning up their own messy cities.
They hide behind the mantra that it is a federal responsibility to avoid a) having to take any meaningful action that would garner local political opposition and b) having to bill their own taxpayers for the costs.
If cities and states want to clean up their acts, I would tell them to go for it. But don't try to pass YOUR costs of clean up on to those of us who insisted on the clean up of our areas years ago.
They hide behind the mantra that it is a federal responsibility to avoid a) having to take any meaningful action that would garner local political opposition and b) having to bill their own taxpayers for the costs.
If cities and states want to clean up their acts, I would tell them to go for it. But don't try to pass YOUR costs of clean up on to those of us who insisted on the clean up of our areas years ago.
3
Dear Donald:
Jerry Brown's highly publicized work in "Jina" this week is doing something previously thought impossible: turning a "President" into a fourth-class citizen in the eyes of the world.
A mere Governor does not sit at the table of President Xi with a thousand cameras pointed his way without blowback. But in this case, it is clear that the Neanderthal in Washington is getting precisely what he deserves for his latest set of stupid actions.
We Californians are smug and rightly so. But we care about the winds that blow toward other states east of us. We care about America.
Sir, it is very clear that you do not care about America nor the rest of the world. Resign.
Jerry Brown's highly publicized work in "Jina" this week is doing something previously thought impossible: turning a "President" into a fourth-class citizen in the eyes of the world.
A mere Governor does not sit at the table of President Xi with a thousand cameras pointed his way without blowback. But in this case, it is clear that the Neanderthal in Washington is getting precisely what he deserves for his latest set of stupid actions.
We Californians are smug and rightly so. But we care about the winds that blow toward other states east of us. We care about America.
Sir, it is very clear that you do not care about America nor the rest of the world. Resign.
4
Who's Brown president of? The Snowflake Society of California? Hobnobbing with the most dangerous enemy the US has and the #1 destroyer of clean air and water on Planet Earth? What an accomplishment! Maybe when China's hand picked puppet lobs a missile at LA, China will get Jerry boy an interview with the fearless leader to help mitigate the damage to China's new port city and he could become a minor official of the new province until they execute him. He'll be thankful until the last minute.
By far, the biggest greenhouse gases problem is the meat, dairy, eggs, and other animal products industries. Deny this and your head is in the sand. It doesn't take any action by Trump or anyone else to fix this issue: just stop buying and using animal products.
Businesses like stability and an absence of chaos (except of course arms and bomb makers) and they may find they like stability more than they like tax cuts as the chaos t rump and his brand of republicans keep boiling on high.
Maybe even the koch bothers will look back on the Obama years (when the net worth of the kochs doubled) as pretty nice while the buffoon in chief waves his arms around like a man trying hard not to fall off a cliff.
Maybe even the koch bothers will look back on the Obama years (when the net worth of the kochs doubled) as pretty nice while the buffoon in chief waves his arms around like a man trying hard not to fall off a cliff.
2
Really nice dreamlike narrative, kind of reminds me of the NYT..hey it is the NYT! Nowhere else like this for sure.
It's not Trumps stupidity, it is Trump AND THE REPUBLICANS stupidity!
4
Remember Bobby Jindal's "party of stupid?" That's what it is now.
1
As my grandmother used to say "there is no cure for stupid".
So connect the dots and this will lead to: There is no cure for Donald Trump. His supporters will not waiver...no matter what he does.
So best to tighten your seat belts for the next 3.7 years.
So connect the dots and this will lead to: There is no cure for Donald Trump. His supporters will not waiver...no matter what he does.
So best to tighten your seat belts for the next 3.7 years.
3
"Mr. Trump, as polls have shown, is out of touch with the American people."
Yeah but he's not out of touch with the industry flacks who have his ear, which they use to fill the empty vessel of his skull with his marching orders.
Yeah but he's not out of touch with the industry flacks who have his ear, which they use to fill the empty vessel of his skull with his marching orders.
2
There is good information about what states and cities are doing to reduce emissions. But I would like to see more discussion about each of us can do to help with the problem. For example, would not it help if each of us could plant a few trees in our backyards ? Does not that reduce the net CO2 released into the atmosphere?
1
Yes, while the tree grows. This is not a lot of carbon though -- a very small amount compared to driving a car, or heating a typical home through the winter. And if nothing else is done, in time the tree will fall and rot, and all that carbon will be released.
You can think about this balance rather easily if you understand what the old-time way of getting through the winter was for many living in the country: you cut and dried and stacked about 2 cords of wood. Best if you did this in the spring before leaf-out so the wood is reasonably dry by winter.
According to "Managing Small Woodlands For Firewood (A Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication - Information Bulletin 208),
"On an average site in New York State, about 5 (full) cords of wood will be removed from each acre every 10 years, an average of 1/2-cord/acre/year."
So you need to have 4 acres of trees to sustain the winter heating load on a typical north-east home, though you could reduce that SUBSTANTIALLY with better insulation, better windows, etc.
You can think about this balance rather easily if you understand what the old-time way of getting through the winter was for many living in the country: you cut and dried and stacked about 2 cords of wood. Best if you did this in the spring before leaf-out so the wood is reasonably dry by winter.
According to "Managing Small Woodlands For Firewood (A Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication - Information Bulletin 208),
"On an average site in New York State, about 5 (full) cords of wood will be removed from each acre every 10 years, an average of 1/2-cord/acre/year."
So you need to have 4 acres of trees to sustain the winter heating load on a typical north-east home, though you could reduce that SUBSTANTIALLY with better insulation, better windows, etc.
2
Having an idiot in the White House and a do-nothing Congress has an upside. The states and cities suddenly have no buck to pass. As long as fingers can point to DC states and cities can concentrate on mutual back-scratching instead of doing what needs to be done. Now they have to respond to activists, even if only in symbolic fashion.
Now if only that lesson could be applied everywhere in public affairs. For too long Washington DC has been the dumping ground for problems the states and cities didn't want to address, or for campaigns that activists were too lazy - or too cynical - to pursue at anything below a national level.
Now if only that lesson could be applied everywhere in public affairs. For too long Washington DC has been the dumping ground for problems the states and cities didn't want to address, or for campaigns that activists were too lazy - or too cynical - to pursue at anything below a national level.
18
There is a reason that cities and states count on the national government: it collects money from those cities and states ostensibly to do the will of the citizens of those same cities and states. When the tax structure falls too heavily on those with the least ability to pay, the returns to the ages are too meager for states and cities to achieve what the national government is expected to do.
In this case, we have a massive failure of national leadership which threatens not only our country, but also the planet. That is why cities and states are working outside the national structure.
In this case, we have a massive failure of national leadership which threatens not only our country, but also the planet. That is why cities and states are working outside the national structure.
A constitutional question: I've seen reports that the governor of Hawai'i signed the Paris Agreement yesterday. But according to Article I, Section 10, isn't this unconstitutional?: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
2
It is a voluntary agreement not a formal treaty.
What if America were in possession of a president who was out to lunch, so to speak, would our Country be able to function and move ahead? In an earlier exchange with a friend, we bid farewell and until we meet again.
Even when growing up in Europe, America has never felt so far away and out of reach until now. Our destiny does not depend on one man only. Let the politicians duke it out, while some of our States and Cities are moving ahead.
If we keep going on about the trials and tribulations of Trump, we are dragging our heels and making excuses for not rolling up our sleeves and getting to work to restore and rebuild our Nation after The Great Recession. We can feel sorry for him later.
We are always going to find something to gripe about, but it does not have to be about a president on the defensive, holed up in his comfort zone. True, I may even miss reading about the bloke in the daily news. Such are the little ironies of life. But thanking the Mayors of Pittsburg and Paris for galvanizing and bringing together our States and Cities.
Hope springs eternal, but with concrete action, it is sublime. Let's go and spread the word that America is in motion again and that credit should go to the President for Denying Us The Paris Accord.
A lighthouse is sitting on this desk, a $5 one from the Convenience Store, a symbol of solar energy, it is a beginning and reminder to keep navigating in the correct direction.
Even when growing up in Europe, America has never felt so far away and out of reach until now. Our destiny does not depend on one man only. Let the politicians duke it out, while some of our States and Cities are moving ahead.
If we keep going on about the trials and tribulations of Trump, we are dragging our heels and making excuses for not rolling up our sleeves and getting to work to restore and rebuild our Nation after The Great Recession. We can feel sorry for him later.
We are always going to find something to gripe about, but it does not have to be about a president on the defensive, holed up in his comfort zone. True, I may even miss reading about the bloke in the daily news. Such are the little ironies of life. But thanking the Mayors of Pittsburg and Paris for galvanizing and bringing together our States and Cities.
Hope springs eternal, but with concrete action, it is sublime. Let's go and spread the word that America is in motion again and that credit should go to the President for Denying Us The Paris Accord.
A lighthouse is sitting on this desk, a $5 one from the Convenience Store, a symbol of solar energy, it is a beginning and reminder to keep navigating in the correct direction.
1
First, I'm skeptical that climate scientists understand all the forcing mecahanisms in the environment to accurately model and predict degrees of future climate change and I'm skeptical that they are accurate in their assessment of the contribution of man made emmissions. But... I love this article.
1) it shows the typical silliness of liberals when they think they speak for "America" just because all their liberal friends agree with them. So 9/50 states (8 of which supported Hillary) and 150/19,000 mayors, most from liberal big cities and a bunch of liberal college heads and business owners agree with them... And that shows what average Americans believe???
2) this supports what the founders established in our Constitution. Numerous states and localities will do what is in their residents best interest and at their behest, but by not federalizing it other states are not required to participate. Great. Why shouldn't very large cities like L.A. Chicago and NY who produce MUCH more pollution that Cullman AL not do more to cut their emissions? And why should Cullman residents have to make every change that citizens of Manhattan choose to make?
3) between 2005-2015 the US emissions dropped 12% even without the Paris Accord due to the efforts of these signees. So it sounds like the current status is pretty effective and if the other 189 countries still in the Paris Accord will follow suit then we should meet the world goals anyway. So what's the big deal?
1) it shows the typical silliness of liberals when they think they speak for "America" just because all their liberal friends agree with them. So 9/50 states (8 of which supported Hillary) and 150/19,000 mayors, most from liberal big cities and a bunch of liberal college heads and business owners agree with them... And that shows what average Americans believe???
2) this supports what the founders established in our Constitution. Numerous states and localities will do what is in their residents best interest and at their behest, but by not federalizing it other states are not required to participate. Great. Why shouldn't very large cities like L.A. Chicago and NY who produce MUCH more pollution that Cullman AL not do more to cut their emissions? And why should Cullman residents have to make every change that citizens of Manhattan choose to make?
3) between 2005-2015 the US emissions dropped 12% even without the Paris Accord due to the efforts of these signees. So it sounds like the current status is pretty effective and if the other 189 countries still in the Paris Accord will follow suit then we should meet the world goals anyway. So what's the big deal?
6
Repnah:
Why are you skeptical? What has your research shown you that makes you skeptical? Just a feeling?
97% of the worlds climate scientists say otherwise, but you are skeptical.
Oh, it's just a hoax.
Talk about hubris.
Why are you skeptical? What has your research shown you that makes you skeptical? Just a feeling?
97% of the worlds climate scientists say otherwise, but you are skeptical.
Oh, it's just a hoax.
Talk about hubris.
1
Conservatives like yourself are always trying to divide, label and keep score. It makes me sad to see this when the stakes are so high.
1
It would be insensible to credit an originalist Constitutional theory from states which one day supported a Civil War against the Constitution and the next day a Civil War opposing cutting emissions based on a never-ending Southern Civil War against Yankees. Southerners scream war for approaching-two-centuries. Dangerous with no subtlety, no meditation, no reconsideration. Fess up, no one is asking Alabama’s towns, which do not have another world, for more than fair share.
While I agree Mr. Trump is "out of touch" I hope in the future the editorial board will be less generous and speak more directly to the root cause of the tragedy that is playing out daily: our president has a relentless drive for self-fulfillment. It’s not about NATO, the Paris Accord, the Intelligence Agencies, not even “his base”; it’s never really about those apparent targets. It’s always about his following an internal teleprompter, scripted by, for, and about one person. Sad.
31
I know from a personal standpoint I do everything I can in daily life to save energy and reduce waste (and struggle to get my stubborn, "God will fix everything" family on board). Use green light bulbs in every room, don't leave appliances plugged in, compost food at the end of every week, switched to more efficient meters etc. We can all raise our consciousness to live better, "greener" lives, rather than walking around like mindless zombies with our noses in our phones, waiting for salvation.
1
The question is now whether the Trump administration will actively sabotage State efforts to curb emissions, for example by revoking the California waiver.
More State rights is about the only way right now to defuse the growing conflict between coastal and rural America, Republican leadership had better think twice and tread lightly on this one.
More State rights is about the only way right now to defuse the growing conflict between coastal and rural America, Republican leadership had better think twice and tread lightly on this one.
2
"More State rights is about the only way right now to defuse the growing conflict between..."
It's amazing the reversal liberals have made on states' rights. It's just as amazing the reversal conservatives have made on federal power.
It's amazing the reversal liberals have made on states' rights. It's just as amazing the reversal conservatives have made on federal power.
1
It wouldn't be an issue if a moderate like Kasich had been elected, someone most liberals could at least agree with some of the time, instead of a Trump liberals never agree with 100% of the time.
The Trump presidency feels like oppression.
The Trump presidency feels like oppression.
1
@ Liz: "The Trump presidency feels like oppression."
I guarantee you a lot of conservatives felt the same way about Obama. I don't like Trump, either, and for a lot of reasons. But the Democrats put themselves into this position by having Hillary as their candidate.
I guarantee you a lot of conservatives felt the same way about Obama. I don't like Trump, either, and for a lot of reasons. But the Democrats put themselves into this position by having Hillary as their candidate.
The power to reduce greenhouse gasses is a power every person has... especially Americans. We Americans emit pollutants 10x the average person on earth. Surely, there is room for reduction. Find out your carbon footprint and see where your emissions come from. Then... REDUCE! If we Americans, who are the biggest emitters, would just reduce, it would slow down climate change while we wait for new technologies. Is it really necessary for 100 million people to drive a car alone every day to work? Is it really necessary for people to fly on jets for short pleasure jaunts for the weekend? Do we really have to consume animal products at every meal? So many people care about climate change but so few people want to change their destructive behaviours. We can all reduce. We can do this now. Won't you join me in finding out your carbon footprint and then reducing?
1
@ReReDuce,
Individual efforts to reduce carbon footprint shouldn't be discouraged, but Americans won't stop anthropogenic global warming that way. AGW is a Tragedy of the Commons: during the 300 years we've been using the energy in fossil carbon to fuel our economic growth, no one asked us to pay for the costs to the global climate commons of adding all that carbon to the climatically active pool, so we externalized (i.e. socialized) them.
Those who accept the consensus of working climate scientists may be willing to internalize the marginal climate-change costs of our own fossil fuel use, there will be many more who will go one socializing theirs, because it's economically rational to do so (the "free rider" problem). Only when the marginal climate-change cost of fossil fuels are internalized in their market price, will everyone accept their share of the responsibility for averting a global Tragedy of the Climate Commons.
Since, by definition, the "free" market for energy will externalize as much cost as it can get away with, collective action is required to avert a global tragedy. The recommended action is a carbon tax on fossil fuels at the source, so market forces can drive the crucial transition to a carbon-neutral global economy as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
In the US, there are recent, bipartisan proposals for revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment taxes on imported goods; see citizensclimatelobby.org for more info.
Individual efforts to reduce carbon footprint shouldn't be discouraged, but Americans won't stop anthropogenic global warming that way. AGW is a Tragedy of the Commons: during the 300 years we've been using the energy in fossil carbon to fuel our economic growth, no one asked us to pay for the costs to the global climate commons of adding all that carbon to the climatically active pool, so we externalized (i.e. socialized) them.
Those who accept the consensus of working climate scientists may be willing to internalize the marginal climate-change costs of our own fossil fuel use, there will be many more who will go one socializing theirs, because it's economically rational to do so (the "free rider" problem). Only when the marginal climate-change cost of fossil fuels are internalized in their market price, will everyone accept their share of the responsibility for averting a global Tragedy of the Climate Commons.
Since, by definition, the "free" market for energy will externalize as much cost as it can get away with, collective action is required to avert a global tragedy. The recommended action is a carbon tax on fossil fuels at the source, so market forces can drive the crucial transition to a carbon-neutral global economy as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
In the US, there are recent, bipartisan proposals for revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment taxes on imported goods; see citizensclimatelobby.org for more info.
1
I'm not suggesting that the ONLY way to combat climate change is via personal reduction. My position is: Everyone can reduce, especially Americans who emit the most of any country. Reduction is a strategy that can be very effective and can happen right NOW. Not in a decade when other solutions will be implemented. The most common refrain people say to me when I suggest reduction is: "I can't give up my car!" as if I am suggesting they STOP driving. I am saying, cut down driving one or two days a week. During WWII, the entire country pitched in and sacrificed for the good of all. It's in our DNA. We can do this. REDUCTION is the piece missing from all climate change strategies. We won't meet any goals of the Paris Accord or any other program unless reduction is a part of it.
Patient: Doctor, I smoke 2 packs a day and can barely breath and am wheezing all the time.
Doctor: If you reduce smoking and eventually quit, your symptoms will decrease and go away.
Patient: No thanks doc. I will just wait until they invent a less harmful cigarette in 10 years because I need to smoke to be happy.
Patient: Doctor, I smoke 2 packs a day and can barely breath and am wheezing all the time.
Doctor: If you reduce smoking and eventually quit, your symptoms will decrease and go away.
Patient: No thanks doc. I will just wait until they invent a less harmful cigarette in 10 years because I need to smoke to be happy.
Only the New York times would call those that differ from their theology stupid. THE NYT, repository of all truth. Please...!!!
4
Lawrence G can't tell the difference between science and "theology". He hasn't grasped that the need to collectively address anthropogenic climate change isn't the NYT's truth, but the overwhelming consensus of working climate scientists, who've put the time and trouble in to understand the evidence, and who are trained not to fool themselves.
Lawrence G seems sure he's right, even though he's almost certainly wrong. Climate scientists, as in other disciplines, are the genuine experts on their subject, and the NYT is right to treat their findings as true. Science doesn't deal in theological Truth; but within their confidence limits, its truths don't stop being true when you refuse to believe in them.
Lawrence G seems sure he's right, even though he's almost certainly wrong. Climate scientists, as in other disciplines, are the genuine experts on their subject, and the NYT is right to treat their findings as true. Science doesn't deal in theological Truth; but within their confidence limits, its truths don't stop being true when you refuse to believe in them.
1
We need a healthy curiosity and to encourage people to think and act for themselves. The facts are clear, and consequences are piling up, as demonstrated by the disconnect between the recent Missouri flood emergency and Trump's refusal of fact-based reality.
I'm glad states and cities, as well as the marketplace and industry, are acting on behalf of progress.
But in the end, when most of the people start noticing the big changes all around them, the change in seasons, increased extremes of weather, rising seas, migration of species (including pests and disease vectors), action will grow and grow. Knowledge will be power.
Despite the villains - the best PR money can buy, from the wealthiest industries, extraction and other toxic waste emitters - muddying people's understanding, sooner or later the obvious will be impossible to ignore.
Here's a nice little simplistic take. I'm hammering away at the idea of encouraging curiosity, because I think if people figure it out for themselves, at their own pace, without coercion, their understanding will be solid. When they realize they've been had, perhaps they will start to worry about themselves and their friends and family, and act. "Worse Than Poop":
http://www.worsethanpoop.com/videos2/
I'm glad states and cities, as well as the marketplace and industry, are acting on behalf of progress.
But in the end, when most of the people start noticing the big changes all around them, the change in seasons, increased extremes of weather, rising seas, migration of species (including pests and disease vectors), action will grow and grow. Knowledge will be power.
Despite the villains - the best PR money can buy, from the wealthiest industries, extraction and other toxic waste emitters - muddying people's understanding, sooner or later the obvious will be impossible to ignore.
Here's a nice little simplistic take. I'm hammering away at the idea of encouraging curiosity, because I think if people figure it out for themselves, at their own pace, without coercion, their understanding will be solid. When they realize they've been had, perhaps they will start to worry about themselves and their friends and family, and act. "Worse Than Poop":
http://www.worsethanpoop.com/videos2/
1
Of course, Ms. Anderson, the hardening of the shores of the mid-western rivers and the draining of the marshlands on either side of them had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Missouri floods.
You might want to broaden your horizons a bit, ma'am, because your narrow view is leading you to conclusions that can easily be countered with solid, real-world evidence.
Remember what happened to New York City in Hurricane Sandy?
The storm surge had no where to go but up because the great sponges of the marsh system of the lower Hudson River have been relegated to NFL stadiums and team headquarters and lots and lots of parking for, at best, 15 events a year.
THAT was smart thinking from the liberal...I'm not sure that we can survive much more of that !
You might want to broaden your horizons a bit, ma'am, because your narrow view is leading you to conclusions that can easily be countered with solid, real-world evidence.
Remember what happened to New York City in Hurricane Sandy?
The storm surge had no where to go but up because the great sponges of the marsh system of the lower Hudson River have been relegated to NFL stadiums and team headquarters and lots and lots of parking for, at best, 15 events a year.
THAT was smart thinking from the liberal...I'm not sure that we can survive much more of that !
4
Wow! As a survivor of Hurricane Sandy (my parents in NJ) I'd be inclined to blame some of the development you complain about on Republicans, particularly the likes of Christie. But I'd agree with you about the problems with removing natural flood defenses. Doing something about that would be more likely on my side of things than by Trumpians and Republicans, who are in the pocket of wealthy interests and developers.
That does not make global warming irrelevant.
That does not make global warming irrelevant.
2
Support for the Paris Climate Accord by states, cities, and businesses, especially cities, is encouraging. Over 80% of Americans now live in cities and the proportion is growing. As a result, this is where the political and economic clout of the country is concentrated. Consequently, where cities go, the nation will eventually follow.
As the editorial board points out, the market place is the other force that will keep the U.S. moving to a lower carbon future. And while it is true that Washington can help by pushing for higher fuel economy, consumer demand can also stimulate continued development of more fuel efficient vehicles. If consumers want them, manufacturers, domestic or foreign, will develop and build them.
As President Trump tries to push the country back into the past, politically, economically, and socially, states, cities, businesses, and individual citizens are moving into a more sustainable future. This is what a revolution looks like.
As the editorial board points out, the market place is the other force that will keep the U.S. moving to a lower carbon future. And while it is true that Washington can help by pushing for higher fuel economy, consumer demand can also stimulate continued development of more fuel efficient vehicles. If consumers want them, manufacturers, domestic or foreign, will develop and build them.
As President Trump tries to push the country back into the past, politically, economically, and socially, states, cities, businesses, and individual citizens are moving into a more sustainable future. This is what a revolution looks like.
2
This is all very encouraging, but one of the biggest elephants in the room is America's appetite for driving gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs. My wife's Prius gets a gold star, of course, but my larger hybrid SUV really hasn't delivered the promised fuel economy. We've recently been renting a Nissan Altima when we travel by air, and I've been amazed at the excellent fuel economy that automakers are now achieving even with purely gas-powered cars. We need to figure out how to nudge ourselves and our fellow citizens into putting green rhetoric into their future choices when it comes to cars, SUVs and trucks.
3
"We need to figure out how to nudge ourselves and our fellow citizens into putting green rhetoric into their future choices when it comes to cars, SUVs and trucks."
There's two options:
1. Government forces you to buy hybrid cars. Of course, there's already a precedent for that, and it's called the Affordable Care Act.
2. There's a worldwide oil shortage and people ditch their SUVs/pickup trucks in favor of hybrids or smaller, more fuel-efficient cars because people don't want fuel costs to eat their budget. There's a precedent for that, too, and it happened in 2008.
Which option would you prefer?
There's two options:
1. Government forces you to buy hybrid cars. Of course, there's already a precedent for that, and it's called the Affordable Care Act.
2. There's a worldwide oil shortage and people ditch their SUVs/pickup trucks in favor of hybrids or smaller, more fuel-efficient cars because people don't want fuel costs to eat their budget. There's a precedent for that, too, and it happened in 2008.
Which option would you prefer?
Those aren't the only two options. The most sensible one is a carbon tax that raises the price of gasoline to better reflect the uncounted costs, present and future, of pouring millions of tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere, along with other pollutants. Some of that tax revenue could be applied to things like tax credits for purchasing fuel efficient vehicles. There's lots of ways to "skin the cat" if we get serious about this.
It certainly is astounding when you look at the millions of additional pounds of steel on the highways being fueled by gasoline that are solely due to people's desire to have a bigger car. Most SUV's are not purchased for their utility, but because they are bigger and felt to be safer. Even with new airbag technology, people still feel they need a bigger and heavier car to survive a collision, and it leads to an increase in the average size car.
1
I've read the article a couple of times now, and somehow the EB forgot to explain why the PA was good for the US to begin with. If we abide by Obama's commitments, we transfer money to poorer countries, artificially hobble our economy and allow India and China to keep polluting for years. Not only that, we stand at the edge of a slippery slope, giving up some of our sovereignty in the name of fighting ACGW. So, EB, what's in it for us?
I don't care if cities and states and corporations make symbolic statements re abiding by the toothless PA. But does anyone really think they will follow through, particularly if in their efforts to meet the accord's commitments it ends up costing them money?
I don't care if cities and states and corporations make symbolic statements re abiding by the toothless PA. But does anyone really think they will follow through, particularly if in their efforts to meet the accord's commitments it ends up costing them money?
3
Liberal states and cities that apply the Paris Accord restrictions will pay by losing jobs, tax revenue etc. when businesses leave due to oppressive, job killing regulations. This accord, which really didn't require anyone to do anything, supposedly reduces temperatures by .02 degrees by 2100 (MIT study). Repeat .02 degrees by 2100. Supposedly because NONE of the disasters predicted by the climate alarmists have come true. In other words, accord accomplishes nothing except economic hardship, like a plethora of other liberal ideas. Notice how these types of predictions are 50 years out and longer? No one will remember them when they don't come true.
5
So much to refute and so little space - Let's focus on "none of the disasters predicted by the climate alarmists have come true". Have you seen the video of the crack in the Arctic ice? What about rising sea levels that threaten the low-lying islands and vulnerable sea coasts? What about the unprecedented rapid rise in world temperatures? Not to mention the 97 per cent of climate scientists that agree that human activity is causing this and that it is catestrophic? How much I vidence do you need?
some things I wonder
-- do those who decry the science "deniers" who are skeptical about ACGW really understand science?
-- Have the alarmists actually done any research re ACGW, understand the theory -- or do they simply accept that CLIMATE CHANGE is real because the NY Times told them so?
-- If it was discovered that CC is actually not real, the earth isn't warming, would the left say "Hooray" OR -- would they be annoyed, deny the new scientific evidence because it conflicted with their favorite narrative of "we're destroying mommy earth?"
-- if the proposed solutions for CC involved -- less government, less taxes, less wealth transfer, more use of fossil fuels -- would the left still embrace CC science?
-- how many alarmists still drive around in SUVs and live in big houses?
-- how many of those who embrace climate science can rebut any of the criticisms (identification of problems) of the "science" --
-- how many alarmists understand what normal variation is
there are more, but the biggest one is -- why does anyone think the PA was a good deal for the US? Instead of saying Trump is stupid (sort of a leftist mantra by now) why not articulate exactly what we -- the US -- is missing out on?
-- do those who decry the science "deniers" who are skeptical about ACGW really understand science?
-- Have the alarmists actually done any research re ACGW, understand the theory -- or do they simply accept that CLIMATE CHANGE is real because the NY Times told them so?
-- If it was discovered that CC is actually not real, the earth isn't warming, would the left say "Hooray" OR -- would they be annoyed, deny the new scientific evidence because it conflicted with their favorite narrative of "we're destroying mommy earth?"
-- if the proposed solutions for CC involved -- less government, less taxes, less wealth transfer, more use of fossil fuels -- would the left still embrace CC science?
-- how many alarmists still drive around in SUVs and live in big houses?
-- how many of those who embrace climate science can rebut any of the criticisms (identification of problems) of the "science" --
-- how many alarmists understand what normal variation is
there are more, but the biggest one is -- why does anyone think the PA was a good deal for the US? Instead of saying Trump is stupid (sort of a leftist mantra by now) why not articulate exactly what we -- the US -- is missing out on?
7
Prediction: If the trade show/convention industry decides it will only have trade shows and conventions in cities and states that actively align with the climate change accord, cities and states will fall all over themselves "signing up".
Of course, Trump would take credit for that too, but maybe it's a price worth paying.
Of course, Trump would take credit for that too, but maybe it's a price worth paying.
3
The trade show/convention industry should seriously consider the impact of its enormous carbon footprint on exacerbating climate change. It would be pretty hypocritical to demand that sites adhere to green theology while you were spewing billions of tons of dangerous pollutants into the atmosphere.
In between 2005 and now was the great recession. The biggest drop in greenhouse gas emissions resulted from the economy collapsing in 2008. If you look at US emissions stating 2009 there isn't much improvement. Emissions dropped about 10% from 2005 to 2009. And dropped only 4% from 2009 to 2016.
Trump's policies along with cheap oil and gas will probably make emissions reduction going forward much harder. And more importantly, our increase in fossil fuel production, mostly in oil and gas, is being exported and burned elsewhere. This adds to the common global atmosphere of ever accumulating greenhouse gases. Those gases include carbon dioxide, methane and a whole host of others that seem to be increasing. Methane is probably the most worrisome in an ever warming world. There's a lot trapped in soil and hydrates.
I guess my overall point is we're not going to natural gas bridge ourselves to a cooler world. Especially when fracking shale and tight rock produces light liquids and crude oil, too. And we are not going to achieve any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by exporting more crude oil, refined products and liquid natural gas (LNG).
Cynically, we could collapse the entire world's economy to achieve emissions reduction. Which Trump might do accidentally or by design. I'm not sure which since Trump has Bannon as an advisor.
Trump's policies along with cheap oil and gas will probably make emissions reduction going forward much harder. And more importantly, our increase in fossil fuel production, mostly in oil and gas, is being exported and burned elsewhere. This adds to the common global atmosphere of ever accumulating greenhouse gases. Those gases include carbon dioxide, methane and a whole host of others that seem to be increasing. Methane is probably the most worrisome in an ever warming world. There's a lot trapped in soil and hydrates.
I guess my overall point is we're not going to natural gas bridge ourselves to a cooler world. Especially when fracking shale and tight rock produces light liquids and crude oil, too. And we are not going to achieve any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by exporting more crude oil, refined products and liquid natural gas (LNG).
Cynically, we could collapse the entire world's economy to achieve emissions reduction. Which Trump might do accidentally or by design. I'm not sure which since Trump has Bannon as an advisor.
But we have to hope that Trump and the GOP don't interfere or nullify what the states and cities are doing. And so far Trump and the GOP have given no signs of willingness to keep out of things like this.
3
Can you tell me with a straight face, hen3ry, that New York City has done a single thing to reduce ITs carbon footprint?
For that matter, can you tell me about ANY city ANYWHERE that has reduced its carbon footprint?
Of course, cities are for the most part free of the smog that used to plague those urban areas, but remember, THOSE achievements were not done BY the cities in any way, shape or form. Those were either federal or state actions which FORCED the cleanups of visible particulate emissions.
But let me remind you, that elimination of visible particulate emissions had little or nothing to do with REDUCING the use of fossil fuels for anything...They merely shifted from one fossil fuel to another.
Its time, sir, that you begin embracing nuclear power, a possibility now that Harry Reid isn't singlehandedly preventing the establishment of a permanent nuclear waste site, to REPLACE the fossil fuels on which YOU depend for your lifestyle.
For that matter, can you tell me about ANY city ANYWHERE that has reduced its carbon footprint?
Of course, cities are for the most part free of the smog that used to plague those urban areas, but remember, THOSE achievements were not done BY the cities in any way, shape or form. Those were either federal or state actions which FORCED the cleanups of visible particulate emissions.
But let me remind you, that elimination of visible particulate emissions had little or nothing to do with REDUCING the use of fossil fuels for anything...They merely shifted from one fossil fuel to another.
Its time, sir, that you begin embracing nuclear power, a possibility now that Harry Reid isn't singlehandedly preventing the establishment of a permanent nuclear waste site, to REPLACE the fossil fuels on which YOU depend for your lifestyle.
1
reductions of particulate emissions is thought to have increased global warming by reduction of the albedo of the atmosphere.
Many in a few months we all can breathe an air of relief when perhaps the greatest threat to climate change is impeached. Furthermore, maybe there could be an addendum to the impeachment that deports him to Russia. I'm sure he'll find the climate much more to his liking.
1
Let's not rejoice just yet. John Oliver in his last week's show had many local politicians and state representatives exhibiting their own stupidity, with comments like the Earth's population has increased and the body heat creates global warming. As Napoleon said stupidity in politics is not a handicap.
2
This is a fight worth having--maybe our most important political fight in the long run.
I swear Trump is some kind of eco-terrorist, but in the area of terrorism, it is important for counter forces to move in quickly and take control.
Let's hope the group of 1200 government and business leaders grows rapidly. Bully Trump knows how to grab the bully pulpit and command media attention--negative attention is fine with him as long as this egomaniac is center stage
But much of politics is symbolic, and I believe many millions of Americans care very much about this planet, but we very much need to feel we are not alone and have not been abandoned by politicians and businesses. Trump is adept at sucking up all the O2 in the room, so this counter group needs plenty of news coverage (such as this editorial), daily publicity, attractive, intelligent spokespeople, and they need grass-roots organization
It was grass-roots organization that launched the anti-fracking movement in central NY where we used to live, and it was a heck of an uphill fight, town by town, combating the powerful gas industry. It was not the environmental argument, however that won a temporary ban on hydrofracking in the state. Gov. Cuomo commissioned a health report that documented harm done by methane, contaminated waste water that no one wanted stored in their jurisdiction, etc.
Ultimately, economics and market forces will boost renewable energy and jobs, but taking on Trump NOW is crucial politically.
I swear Trump is some kind of eco-terrorist, but in the area of terrorism, it is important for counter forces to move in quickly and take control.
Let's hope the group of 1200 government and business leaders grows rapidly. Bully Trump knows how to grab the bully pulpit and command media attention--negative attention is fine with him as long as this egomaniac is center stage
But much of politics is symbolic, and I believe many millions of Americans care very much about this planet, but we very much need to feel we are not alone and have not been abandoned by politicians and businesses. Trump is adept at sucking up all the O2 in the room, so this counter group needs plenty of news coverage (such as this editorial), daily publicity, attractive, intelligent spokespeople, and they need grass-roots organization
It was grass-roots organization that launched the anti-fracking movement in central NY where we used to live, and it was a heck of an uphill fight, town by town, combating the powerful gas industry. It was not the environmental argument, however that won a temporary ban on hydrofracking in the state. Gov. Cuomo commissioned a health report that documented harm done by methane, contaminated waste water that no one wanted stored in their jurisdiction, etc.
Ultimately, economics and market forces will boost renewable energy and jobs, but taking on Trump NOW is crucial politically.
4
The Trump presidency is liked an overturned 18 wheeler at a key highway interchange during rush hour. Time to be creative to work around this mess.
3
The Trump presidency is like an overturned semi-trailer flatbed that was loaded with the stinky-grease containers that you see behind places like Mickey Dees ... etc. They look like dumpsters, but aren't.
They are on fire, with hot burning awful grease spreading across the road, burning asphalt mixed in. Clouds of awful stinky dangerous smoke billow and blow downwind.
And the GOP stands around and says "what, me worry? That's the smell of money and progress, boys!"
They are on fire, with hot burning awful grease spreading across the road, burning asphalt mixed in. Clouds of awful stinky dangerous smoke billow and blow downwind.
And the GOP stands around and says "what, me worry? That's the smell of money and progress, boys!"
3
When negotiating with the Chinese remember that they are negotiating for their benefit, not the world's. They will want immediate benefits for their climate changes and their performance of those changes will be off in the future. Lastly, as we have just seen, any local advocates who try to monitor China's performance will be thrown in jail by local authorities. Expect BIG words, little performance.
This might be why President Trump and President Xi get along.
This might be why President Trump and President Xi get along.
3
President Trump is not abdicating responsibility.
President Trump has decided that the U.S. economy must not be governed by bureaucrats in Europe.
And he is right.
This is one of the reasons for which he was elected.
And a good thing, too.
President Trump has decided that the U.S. economy must not be governed by bureaucrats in Europe.
And he is right.
This is one of the reasons for which he was elected.
And a good thing, too.
10
The Paris Agreement doesn't place the U.S. under anyone's rule. It sets a target but leaves to each country how to achieve it.
3
Look, I think Trump did the wrong thing. HOWEVER I do think that this may actually turn out for the best for the climate. Here's why:
The number one concern conservatives have with climate change is not that they don't believe the research, but that they are afraid of the government overstepping its reach and tyrannizing over people's rights. Now that the federal government is stepping back, local governments are stepping in. Conservatives will be happy with this because it is that decentralized locus of power which makes our country not a centralized dictatorship. We may actually come out with a populace which is MORE convinced about global warming and MORE ready to do something about it, since the 'something' is decided on at the local level and not by far-off bureaucrats in Washington.
The number one concern conservatives have with climate change is not that they don't believe the research, but that they are afraid of the government overstepping its reach and tyrannizing over people's rights. Now that the federal government is stepping back, local governments are stepping in. Conservatives will be happy with this because it is that decentralized locus of power which makes our country not a centralized dictatorship. We may actually come out with a populace which is MORE convinced about global warming and MORE ready to do something about it, since the 'something' is decided on at the local level and not by far-off bureaucrats in Washington.
4
The recent meeting between California Governor Jerry Brown and Chinese President Xi Jinping is a case of California stepping into a void created by Trump. Trump will not like the policies that California sets, but since he has abdicated his position, we will step in. We can only agree for our state, but since our economy is so large that manufactures cannot ignore us, we will in effect set policy for the country. Opps! Did I just say something out loud that people would rather not have spoken?
This is part of the message that President Xi is sending Trump, someone explain the rest to Trump. Be sure to use small words so he gets it.
This is part of the message that President Xi is sending Trump, someone explain the rest to Trump. Be sure to use small words so he gets it.
7
When you Californians brag like a Texan about the size of your economy, does that include all of the money companies like Apple have parked in offshore tax havens? Does that include the deferred infrastructural maintenance and repairs on things like the Oroville Dam? Does that include world ticket sales for feature length car crashes made in Hollyweed? Does that include decades of glutting the once great educational system - K through Ph.D. (the worst high school graduation rate in the country- Mississippi thanks y'all) ? Does that include twice daily freeway parking lots? Does that include water shortages in every urban area? Does that include exorbitant housing prices? What's your explanation for all of these progressive California policies, Bruce?
What state do you live in? Just curious. I live in CA and work 1 mile from home. I work for a green company, too. There are plenty of people doing good things here. My daughter goes to a school that is rated 9+ out of 10. Not all is what you write. We have our problems but actively work toward changing some of them. Are you?
I witness much freeway upgrade but more Mass Transit Upgrade must be undertaken as well -as reduced carbon output comes front and center.
4
NYT you seemed to have forgotten to mention the $3.0 billion USA price tag on the Paris agreement. I’m sure the other countries that remain in the agreement will be more than willing to pay their fair share.
The Paris agreement is a bad deal, there is zero enforcement. You set your own goals and just feel good about making speeches the politics.
Climate change is real and it needs real solutions. Engineers rather than politicians are needed to help draft a real plan with goals and a path to achieve the goals.
As an example NYS announced the closing of Indian Point Nuclear Power plant just north of NYC. However, NYS doesn’t suggest of how they are going to back fill the power generated by that plant, which emits zero Co2. That’s ok politicians are not accountable for results just to make great speeches.
The Paris agreement is a bad deal, there is zero enforcement. You set your own goals and just feel good about making speeches the politics.
Climate change is real and it needs real solutions. Engineers rather than politicians are needed to help draft a real plan with goals and a path to achieve the goals.
As an example NYS announced the closing of Indian Point Nuclear Power plant just north of NYC. However, NYS doesn’t suggest of how they are going to back fill the power generated by that plant, which emits zero Co2. That’s ok politicians are not accountable for results just to make great speeches.
4
I think the only way ahead is for state and city governments to implement socially responsible goals despite Mr. Trump's spiteful and ruinous attempts to reverse president Obama' initiatives.
3
The Washington regime's environmental deconstruction will not benefit the people or ameliorate Global Warming. It is an effort by a few oil and coal billionaires to have some highly profitable quarters. In the lifetimes of people today coastal Florida will flood. Don't buy Fla real estate. The irreconcilable political gulf in the US can only be resolved by political independence for the various parts. What sense does it make for the various levels of government to be so strongly at odds over so many issues with one side moving into the future and the other clinging to the past?
4
Republicans want to limit the role of the federal government, and return power to the states and local control.
Well, you're getting your wish on this issue.
Well, you're getting your wish on this issue.
6
Republicans only cry "States' Rights" when the federal government is doing something they don't like. When states do something they don't like, (legalizing same-sex marriage, it was Conservative Republicans who introduced the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Even now, as states legalize marijuana, that old "States' Righter" Jeff Sessions said he would use federal prohibitions against marijuana to close them down. Of course, this depends on electing responsible & reasoning federal officials (states & even districts each decide their own federal election laws now, to our disadvantage). A Constitutional amendment standardizing all voting laws is necessary, eliminating the Electoral College, which slants the vote to small, rural states.
In 1777, we had the Articles of Confederation. It gave major powers to the states & created a weak central government. In 1787, the new nation was in chaos & the Founding Fathers quietly returned to Philadelphia to craft a new Constitution that insured the supremacy of the federal government over those of the several states. In the Civil War, one of the most common reasons for the South's loss was that it was a Confederacy of independent states. It had a weak federal government under Jefferson Davis. Chaos ruled.
Federal action ended Slavery, gave women the vote, created the Civil Rights & Voting Rights Acts, and so many more freedoms. Under States' Rights, every state would act as its own sovereign.
United we Stand. Divided we fall.
In 1777, we had the Articles of Confederation. It gave major powers to the states & created a weak central government. In 1787, the new nation was in chaos & the Founding Fathers quietly returned to Philadelphia to craft a new Constitution that insured the supremacy of the federal government over those of the several states. In the Civil War, one of the most common reasons for the South's loss was that it was a Confederacy of independent states. It had a weak federal government under Jefferson Davis. Chaos ruled.
Federal action ended Slavery, gave women the vote, created the Civil Rights & Voting Rights Acts, and so many more freedoms. Under States' Rights, every state would act as its own sovereign.
United we Stand. Divided we fall.
2
Is it REALLY "stupidity"?
Or is it mendacity, pandering to right-wing extremists and big donors (Koch Bros, Robert Mercer, etc), and willful egomania run amok?
And who would have EVER imagined the day when a NY Times editorial would have felt the need to use the word "stupidity" to describe a US president and/or his policies? (And the term is apt and spot-on!) A very, very sad sign of the dark times we live in now...
Or is it mendacity, pandering to right-wing extremists and big donors (Koch Bros, Robert Mercer, etc), and willful egomania run amok?
And who would have EVER imagined the day when a NY Times editorial would have felt the need to use the word "stupidity" to describe a US president and/or his policies? (And the term is apt and spot-on!) A very, very sad sign of the dark times we live in now...
12
Who would have EVER imagined the words "President Trump"?
3
It's fascinating---in a clinical way---how you cite the NT Times "need" to use disrespectful language as actual proof of their subject's deplorable character.
Or maybe the writer got a little carried away with his self-righteous wrath, maybe the pompous and self-important in the role of Accuser of the Peeseident?
Nah, couldn't be---this is the Times, they're always right.
It's as if, to a good NY Times reader, the paper's word is divine, 100% objective & utterly without bias---therefore, if the Times uses disrespectful, unprofessional language, it can only mean the person they're attacking is truly evil.
Check your head at the door, folks.
Or maybe the writer got a little carried away with his self-righteous wrath, maybe the pompous and self-important in the role of Accuser of the Peeseident?
Nah, couldn't be---this is the Times, they're always right.
It's as if, to a good NY Times reader, the paper's word is divine, 100% objective & utterly without bias---therefore, if the Times uses disrespectful, unprofessional language, it can only mean the person they're attacking is truly evil.
Check your head at the door, folks.
1
The NYT editorial board are true blue believers in the climate apocalypse prophesies. As most climate fanatics they ignore and even deny the existence of facts contrary to the prophesy, such as the fact that plant mass has increased by a massive 25% to 50% in the last few decades. This increase is largely the result of co2 fertilization. Also this puts into question the apocalypse prophesy:
http://co2coalition.org/2017/05/31/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-inv...
Now just who is stupid?
http://co2coalition.org/2017/05/31/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-inv...
Now just who is stupid?
2
Liberals are never happy unless we're spending lots of money on dubious agreements. Solyndra, anyone? And that headline is a new low for Journalism. When you retreat to name-calling to prove your point you've lost your argument.
6
China and Iran are signatories of the Paris Accord. This is a joke. China and Iran do not care about the environment. Signing a silly multilateral agreement like this is not how we "lead". We should not do anything to jeopardize our immediate well being for some nebulous 2025 goal of "temperature reduction". If the states want to act to reduce emissions -- that's great! Also, market forces are clearly generating great strides towards renewable energy sources which inevitably will improve and mature over time. We are doing fine. We do not need to sign silly agreements with China and Iran to prove that we can lead.
4
Excellent Op-Ed and analysis. States do not need the federal government to take the lead on combating global warming; they can take the lead when the federal government buries its head in the sand on any issue.
Thus, it is super that 29 states have taken this bull by the horns and are moving forward to combat the global issue of global warming. And kudos especially to California, for taking on the lion's share of this task. CA will lead us into the future on this issue, and should also take the ball in leading the world in developing new technologies for alternative energy sources for fossil fuels.
Good job CA!!!
Thus, it is super that 29 states have taken this bull by the horns and are moving forward to combat the global issue of global warming. And kudos especially to California, for taking on the lion's share of this task. CA will lead us into the future on this issue, and should also take the ball in leading the world in developing new technologies for alternative energy sources for fossil fuels.
Good job CA!!!
1
Not sure how the editors arrived at "stupidity" when the editorial clearly shows a national enthusiasm for not only working toward the goals of the Accord but likely exceeding them through American ingenuity and technology.
Governments at all levels can work with their own citizens to do what works locally and individuals can do their own share.
This has clearly been working well over the past decades as the US has steadily lowered emissions and improved our own environment. There's always more to do, so let's do it!
Governments at all levels can work with their own citizens to do what works locally and individuals can do their own share.
This has clearly been working well over the past decades as the US has steadily lowered emissions and improved our own environment. There's always more to do, so let's do it!
When something is true like our effect on climate change, no lie can change it for it is here for all of us to see. One man no matter his influence who has his head in the sand or other places can not deny it. Admittedly we have a whole segment of society who would just want to wish it away because any sort of change is not acceptable. But the climate of the earth is well beyond our wishes to change. The Paris Accords as others have said were merely a declaration of intentions and its leadership can inspire each one of us to do our part. Stupidity has no bounds, but as humans we can still rise above et.
1
Ah, just Robert, how true.
But humans are NOT immune to the whims of nature, nor are can they escape the forces of natural selection.
To think that they can is to assume an arrogance of monumental proportions.
But humans are NOT immune to the whims of nature, nor are can they escape the forces of natural selection.
To think that they can is to assume an arrogance of monumental proportions.
1
I am truly shocked at the NYT's headline, but "stupidity" is the right word. We have never had such an ill-informed, narrow-minded, short-sighted, selfish president. Same to the people who support and defend his position.
1
The article seems to imply that Ontario & Quebec are American states, rather than Canadian provinces. Clarification would be appreciated.
1
If everyone in the world consumed as much energy as the average U.S. citizen, the world would have to be seven times larger to hold the garbage. So it's great to see U.S. citizens take up the responsibility for tackling problems of climate change at the individual & city level, despite what is happening at the national level currently. According to the Department of Energy, hospitals account for 8% utilization of fossil fuels in the U.S. I have no affiliation or stock in the following, but in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, the Gundersen Clinic along with hospital partners such as Lutheran General Hospital have founded Gundersen Envision - a program that emphasizes clean renewable energy utilization for clinic and hospital systems. American Health Systems at the local city level should attempt to mimic what they have done. The world needs to know that the U.S. citizen is still responsible and still in the ball game of reducing our carbon utilization.
http://www.gundersenenvision.org/envision/
http://www.gundersenenvision.org/envision/
It is hopeful to think that cities and states will keep us in the carbon reduction game, but, anyone wading through the complicated reality of reducing carbon emissions at those scales is dispirited by Trump's withdrawal from Paris and the the clean power plan. Tackling this challenge through the policy measures available to cities and states is lifting a heavy load from the fulcrum of the lever arm; the federal government has 5x more leverage to affect change through straight-forward policy measures. Simply put: what we need--what we've always needed--is a carbon tax which would price the externalities of carbon emissions into all aspects of the economy.
The Paris accord had no teeth - it was a feel good exercise, and how we lead in green energy is dictated, as noted in this piece, by "market forces." People that lament the Paris accord break are interested in the symbolism, not the reality. If local, state, and federal government enact policies that are favorable to consumers and investors of green energy, we will have a successful transition to environmentally favorable energy. In fact, one would argue, that the Paris accord was a hinderance, as market forces may allow us to reach goals far in excess of the inconsistent Paris agreement.
2
Using energy sources that reduce carbon emissions and do not create toxic waste makes sense for the planet. We all share the environment and it is in our collective best interests to keep it in the best shape possible. Aside from "Big Coal" and those employed by the coal industry and some fossil fuel industries which groups are in favor of pollution? The global temperatures are rising and polar ice is melting. This is not even controversial and coastal flooding will become an even bigger problem.
I hope states like Florida, Louisiana, and other coastal red states are ready for the consequences of electing an "anti-environment" President. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. can meet Paris Accord targets without support from the federal government. In the meantime the ice continues to melt.
I hope states like Florida, Louisiana, and other coastal red states are ready for the consequences of electing an "anti-environment" President. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. can meet Paris Accord targets without support from the federal government. In the meantime the ice continues to melt.
What a terrific illustration!
1
Some commenters understand that cities and states can do whatever they want about their environment without giving Eurocrats US tax dollars. So go clean up whatever you want in your city or state. India does not need our tax dollars. In fact, Trump's removing the US from the Paris deal empowers local gov to do what they should be doing.
Kudos to all the people who are taking matters into our own hands to end our dependency on fossil fuels. One caution though...natural gas is a fossil fuel and is not considered "clean energy" especially with the harmful effects of methane leaks. We have solar, wind and geothermal. Let's move faster!
1
Missouri is known as the "SHOW ME" state. To convince people that destroying climate change measures is stupid, we need to demonstrate it.
==========================================================
Words, words, words and more words, are not enough. The words come and the words are soon forgotten. Talk, talk, talk, but action speaks louder.
I suggest that contests we held to search for the most effective demonstrations and symbols to combat Trump's stupidity on climate change.
==========================================================
Words, words, words and more words, are not enough. The words come and the words are soon forgotten. Talk, talk, talk, but action speaks louder.
I suggest that contests we held to search for the most effective demonstrations and symbols to combat Trump's stupidity on climate change.
2
The proof is staring us in the face: Take a cruise to the Arctic. Go see the storm drains overflowing in Miami during high tide. There's already plenty of evidence. When climate change is proven 100% it will be too late to fix it. It's like waiting for absolute proof that the asteroid heading towards us is going to strike the earth.
1
You might want to use Venice as a better example...
But if you look beneath the surface of the waters, you will find that Venice is SINKING....SINKING because of the amount of water that they are pumping out of the ground to meet the needs of an ever-growing population.
But if you look beneath the surface of the waters, you will find that Venice is SINKING....SINKING because of the amount of water that they are pumping out of the ground to meet the needs of an ever-growing population.
Venice stopped its groundwater pumping before 1990. It's still sinking. See
http://www.livescience.com/19195-venice-sinking-slowly.html
http://www.livescience.com/19195-venice-sinking-slowly.html
3
Honeybee wants to know where was our outrage when other countries went astray.
Time just doesn't allow a discussion of how blind this statement really is.
So here's an analogy, by way of a shortcut. The guy at the wheel of the car you're in heads fast and furious towards a cliff. But other cars have also done this and so why are you upset your driver's taking you down also.
Another point: the world's climate doesn't recognize national borders.
And another: the Western countries, US especially, have produced the greatest amount of pollution to date. India, China, Mexico can barely mimic the excesses of our industrial revolutions as they have already recognized the folly of fossil fuels. China, in fact, is widely reported as picking up the lead for climate control, filling the vacuum of leadership Trump has vacated.
Time just doesn't allow a discussion of how blind this statement really is.
So here's an analogy, by way of a shortcut. The guy at the wheel of the car you're in heads fast and furious towards a cliff. But other cars have also done this and so why are you upset your driver's taking you down also.
Another point: the world's climate doesn't recognize national borders.
And another: the Western countries, US especially, have produced the greatest amount of pollution to date. India, China, Mexico can barely mimic the excesses of our industrial revolutions as they have already recognized the folly of fossil fuels. China, in fact, is widely reported as picking up the lead for climate control, filling the vacuum of leadership Trump has vacated.
1
Thank goodness some elected representatives as well as thousands in academia and research labs, and in various businesses, along with millions of ordinary, intelligent citizens are going to do everything we can to reduce carbon emissions. Given the plausible risks, it is the right thing to do of course.
The plain fact is trump is both ignorant and stupid, and so are most of his supporters. The rest of us have to follow the best science we have today and mitigate the risks to the degree we can. The vote in 2018 will be huge too, we've got to correct our course quickly.
Supporting continued basic research in new technologies, and building renewable energy infrastructure is the only thing that makes sense, economically as well as regarding the well being of people and the planet in the decades and centuries to come.
We all have to support as we can those who are trying to create a sustainable future and a good quality of life for all, and help get rid of those who aren't.
No one is doing more damage to our planet than trump and his minions. Collectively those of us who care can change our direction back to one that reflects sanity.
The plain fact is trump is both ignorant and stupid, and so are most of his supporters. The rest of us have to follow the best science we have today and mitigate the risks to the degree we can. The vote in 2018 will be huge too, we've got to correct our course quickly.
Supporting continued basic research in new technologies, and building renewable energy infrastructure is the only thing that makes sense, economically as well as regarding the well being of people and the planet in the decades and centuries to come.
We all have to support as we can those who are trying to create a sustainable future and a good quality of life for all, and help get rid of those who aren't.
No one is doing more damage to our planet than trump and his minions. Collectively those of us who care can change our direction back to one that reflects sanity.
2
Irony. Unintended consequences. Trump pulls out of the Paris Accord. Idiotic. Boneheaded. A crime against reason & science & humanity & life. Yet the backlash it generates is immense – states, municipalities, communities, families & individuals all now furiously focused on climate change. Changes the conversation. Deepens & broadens it. The Great Disruptor disrupts.
The USA, anomalous in the world for its widespread popular ignorance on climate change, starts having a real conversation. Media mentions & Google searches on “climate change” soar. Does he believe in it? Does he deny it? Do you??
Boneheaded action compels reasoned reaction. Idiotic action boomerangs & points a big fat finger straight in the face of ordinary citizens across the country: what do YOU think? What will YOU do?
Irony. Unintended consequences. Trump pulls out & a stalled conversation ruptures. A quantum shift unfurls. Pittsburgh rebels. Austin & Milwaukee & D.C. & San Diego & Charlotte & San Antonio & Massachusetts & Ohio & Washington & Oregon & California rebel. States & cities & counties & townships & municipalities & families & people across the country stand up & say NO Trump, that ain’t happening you Ignorant Orange Menace. Too much at stake to put our faith in your sorry lying ass.
Trump’s withdrawal from Paris has the potential to totally backfire & end up being more positive than negative for the climate. If we seize the moment & act.
The USA, anomalous in the world for its widespread popular ignorance on climate change, starts having a real conversation. Media mentions & Google searches on “climate change” soar. Does he believe in it? Does he deny it? Do you??
Boneheaded action compels reasoned reaction. Idiotic action boomerangs & points a big fat finger straight in the face of ordinary citizens across the country: what do YOU think? What will YOU do?
Irony. Unintended consequences. Trump pulls out & a stalled conversation ruptures. A quantum shift unfurls. Pittsburgh rebels. Austin & Milwaukee & D.C. & San Diego & Charlotte & San Antonio & Massachusetts & Ohio & Washington & Oregon & California rebel. States & cities & counties & townships & municipalities & families & people across the country stand up & say NO Trump, that ain’t happening you Ignorant Orange Menace. Too much at stake to put our faith in your sorry lying ass.
Trump’s withdrawal from Paris has the potential to totally backfire & end up being more positive than negative for the climate. If we seize the moment & act.
5
So you agree with the decision. Great.
You misinterpret. I profoundly disagree with it. Just trying to take a broader view and speak to the possibilities for positive progressive action that this boneheaded decision creates.
Your article's illustration says it all:
It's up to cities, states and individuals to clean up the messy footprints this president leaves behind wherever he goes.
It's up to cities, states and individuals to clean up the messy footprints this president leaves behind wherever he goes.
The Associated Press reports, however, that the agreement does not bind either China or California to specific greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets....all nonsense!. The left cant help it self!
3
"Mr. Trump's climate stupidity." Perhaps the headline line should read "... compensate for Mr. Trump's stupidity on climate." Is the climate stupid or is Mr. Trump stupid?
Yesterday, a service technician came to our home to check on the solar installation. That he was a well-groomed and spoken Hispanic didn't matter, but what did is that he is one of 500,000 people employed in the renewable energy industry in California. For those keeping track, that is 10 times more people than mine coal. I am proud to live in a state that recognizes the need to leave behind a sustainable world.
2
Trump and his supporters are essentially unbridled capitalists who cannot deal with situations where there are external and unforeseen costs to a particular industry. Economists call these externalities. Health care and the environment are two major industries that cannot be left to private individuals and industries to operate unchanged. The U.S. should have a single payer healthcare system that covers all Americans. The U.S. belongs in the Paris treaty and should impose much higher carbon taxes and lead the technological change to a sustainable country and planet.
2
Funny thing about Economists, they don't use the word "capitalism" lightly. See, there are fundamental differences between the different types of Capitalism which arise from the era of Economic thought they originated in. Smith's Capitalism differs from that of Friedman, whose differs from that of Veblen, etc. Next time you try to invoke Economics, do try to adhere to its standards when it comes to the quality of the arguments, rather than draw on uninformed popular notions that have no empirical or actual support in Economic Literature.
Just goes to show where the republicans true loyalty lies. It's not the free market. It's with oil companies.
5
I suppose Libertarians will say this represents the market at work, so we don't have to do anything. However, as usual, it ignores the reality that it took government subsidies and regulation to get the "ship" moving. It may be that much of the hard work is already in process and can't be changed, but it ignores the fact that a 2% rise in temperature is huge. Look at the polar ice cap, Greenland, and the Antarctic and you realize that even this increase will be devastating.
Without government action, we will literally be awash in trouble. The melting ice will desalinate the oceans causing mass extinctions while destroying a major food supply, flood our coasts, and change our weather patterns. The wealthy can ignore this, because they figure they can buy their way out of trouble - just sell your Oceanside home and move further inland. Most Americans and other people on earth do not have that luxury. Of course, the wealthy will just blame them for making bad decisions if they are hurt by global warming. After all, they should have known about it and taken action!
Without government action, we will literally be awash in trouble. The melting ice will desalinate the oceans causing mass extinctions while destroying a major food supply, flood our coasts, and change our weather patterns. The wealthy can ignore this, because they figure they can buy their way out of trouble - just sell your Oceanside home and move further inland. Most Americans and other people on earth do not have that luxury. Of course, the wealthy will just blame them for making bad decisions if they are hurt by global warming. After all, they should have known about it and taken action!
81
The whole US coastline from Boston Massachusetts south to Brownsville, Texas is sand. The slope ratio of these beaches is about 600 to 1. In other words, for 1 ft of sea level rise, the shoreline will recede about 600 feet. It won't be easy to unload expensive homes in this zone if sea level rise accelerates.
3
Steve, thanks for your accurate data about sea shore slope ratios. But it does raise a question. If 1 foot rise in ocean level moves the shoreline 600 feet shouldn't 1-2 inches move it 50-100 feet? I was recently on vacation at the AL Gulf coast, a place I have vacationed at since I was a kid. I'm 54 years old. The shoreline is in essentially the exact same place it was 1/2 century ago. If we have been experiencing historic global warming over the last 50 years and oceans were predicted to rise accordingly, and according to you rises in ocean levels should produce a 600x move of coastline... Why aren't we actually seeing that. Could it be that the connections between atmospheric CO2 levels, temperature changes and oceans level changes don't fit the climatologist's models the way we have been led to believe? And maybe, just maybe the targets of the Paris Climate Accord are based on less than reliable predictions?
1
There is a place I have been visiting for year on Cape Cod that has seen extensive changes in its relationship to the sea.
The parking lot that I used when I first visited in the late 1950's is now, what's left of it, about 150 yards or more off shore in ten-to-twelve feet of water.
Rise of sea levels? Nope.
It was the relentless battering of the coastal dunes by the storm waves of Atlantic storms. Sand was taken from one place and deposited further down up the beach or out to sea. A new sandbar is forming off shore that may end up accreting sufficient sand to make a new barrier beach some two hundred feet from the current shore. When that does happen, a new marsh may form behind it to welcome migrating birds and other wildlife to it soggy form.
All of this has happened before, and will happen for eons to come.
This natural process has far more to do with with natural cycles than it does with climate or sea-level changes, something that the apocalyptic thinking fails to recognize.
The parking lot that I used when I first visited in the late 1950's is now, what's left of it, about 150 yards or more off shore in ten-to-twelve feet of water.
Rise of sea levels? Nope.
It was the relentless battering of the coastal dunes by the storm waves of Atlantic storms. Sand was taken from one place and deposited further down up the beach or out to sea. A new sandbar is forming off shore that may end up accreting sufficient sand to make a new barrier beach some two hundred feet from the current shore. When that does happen, a new marsh may form behind it to welcome migrating birds and other wildlife to it soggy form.
All of this has happened before, and will happen for eons to come.
This natural process has far more to do with with natural cycles than it does with climate or sea-level changes, something that the apocalyptic thinking fails to recognize.
This headline is disrespectful and unwarranted.
No different from Hilary calling Trump supporters "deplorables".
There are many intelligent people who, while believing that climate change is real and must be dealt with, do not believe that the cost of dealing with it is irrelevant.
Perhaps, while global warming in an important issue, spending a few trillion dollars on reducing global temperatures less than a degree over the next 80 years is not a wise investment.
Trump's pulling out is simply providing the federal government with additional options for how to invest tight dollars in the future.
If businesses or cities and states believe it is in their best interest to fight for the climate, nothing is preventing them from doing so, even if the U.S. is not part of the Paris agreement.
With this headline, the Times seems to be burnishing its progressive credentials with the Left, but is using the language of a spoiled child.
No different from Hilary calling Trump supporters "deplorables".
There are many intelligent people who, while believing that climate change is real and must be dealt with, do not believe that the cost of dealing with it is irrelevant.
Perhaps, while global warming in an important issue, spending a few trillion dollars on reducing global temperatures less than a degree over the next 80 years is not a wise investment.
Trump's pulling out is simply providing the federal government with additional options for how to invest tight dollars in the future.
If businesses or cities and states believe it is in their best interest to fight for the climate, nothing is preventing them from doing so, even if the U.S. is not part of the Paris agreement.
With this headline, the Times seems to be burnishing its progressive credentials with the Left, but is using the language of a spoiled child.
9
Dear g. The Paris accord took years to negotiate by many professionals and scientists and diplomats from around the world and is the first attempt by every country in the world to acknowledge the need to do something about our pollution of the environment.
The US as one of the major pollutants in the world was proposing an aggressive but not impossible reduction in its emissions. That was showing leadership in what even you agree is necessary to be dealt with.
Now this ignorant president (sorry about the name calling, but this matter is too serious for niceties), disregarding the effort and thought that went into the agreement, tweets the US out of the agreement.
No g, the president may not be stupid, but you will have to find a way to define willful ignorance, vindictive reactions and demagoguery.
The US as one of the major pollutants in the world was proposing an aggressive but not impossible reduction in its emissions. That was showing leadership in what even you agree is necessary to be dealt with.
Now this ignorant president (sorry about the name calling, but this matter is too serious for niceties), disregarding the effort and thought that went into the agreement, tweets the US out of the agreement.
No g, the president may not be stupid, but you will have to find a way to define willful ignorance, vindictive reactions and demagoguery.
2
g
You say, "There are many intelligent people who, while believing that climate change is real and must be dealt with, do not believe that the cost of dealing with it is irrelevant."
Which leaves me confused. You're saying one may believe climate change is real, that something must be done, and then decide it's just too expensive?
Then what, fly to Titan and look for a better deal?
You say, "There are many intelligent people who, while believing that climate change is real and must be dealt with, do not believe that the cost of dealing with it is irrelevant."
Which leaves me confused. You're saying one may believe climate change is real, that something must be done, and then decide it's just too expensive?
Then what, fly to Titan and look for a better deal?
1
That was the problem...It was "negotiated" by many professionals and scientists and diplomats.
Nowhere in the discussions were the people who would have to implement and pay for the agreements.
Ask yourself this...
If the Paris agreement was such an important and meaningful milestone in the climate discussions, why did Obama refuse to place the "agreement" before The States' representatives in the Senate to make it binding law?
I'll tell you why...he knew he couldn't get a two-thirds majority to get it past...and would have been lucky to even get a simple majority.
Nowhere in the discussions were the people who would have to implement and pay for the agreements.
Ask yourself this...
If the Paris agreement was such an important and meaningful milestone in the climate discussions, why did Obama refuse to place the "agreement" before The States' representatives in the Senate to make it binding law?
I'll tell you why...he knew he couldn't get a two-thirds majority to get it past...and would have been lucky to even get a simple majority.
1
Just let them secede. Trumplandia: the New Confederacy. Let's see how well that works, without the Blue States paying their way. Without, the Federal Teat, this state would be empty. It's nearly there, already.
4
Nobody is calling for secession, except spoiled whinging lefties -- mostly in blue states -- but I guess even a few in Kansas.
We are not having a Civil War over a President who will serve for only 4 years. That's stupid.
We are not having a Civil War over a President who will serve for only 4 years. That's stupid.
1
There is just so much evidence that Trump is working to 'Make Trump Inc. Great Again' by helping the wealthiest industry on the planet with expectation of future kickbacks, I just think it should be obvious to everyone. Climate action threatens to leave $30 trillion to $100 trillion underground, and the people that own those assets need friends in high places to realize those profits before climate action becomes unavoidable (which I estimate is only a decade away). That is so much money, the smallest 'gratitude payment' getting back to Trump businesses is likely to triple or more the Trump families fortune. Everything from the Putin-love and the Paris divorce, to the Saudi trip and the Exxon CEO at the State Department suggests Trump is after some of that black gold. His behavior can be both predicted and judged by it. For example, how is he supposed to act toward a Europe that is running as fast as it can toward a renewable future? By threatening them with Russia, that's how. And why side with ISIS-funding Saudi Arabia over ISIS-targeted Iran? Saudi Aramco knows.
2
I'd like to hear more from the media about Governor Brown's trip to China last weekend,backed by a pledge from state governments and U.S. businesses to meet the climate change goals pledged by the U.S. government at the Paris Accords. Did any media accompany him on is trip? With whom did he meet and what were the outcomes? This is important.
With congress in gridlock, Governor Brown's coalition needs to be taken seriously by the national media.
With congress in gridlock, Governor Brown's coalition needs to be taken seriously by the national media.
13
Any action to implement any agreement with China can, and likely will, be challenged in Court since foreign policy is the sole and exclusive right, with the one exception of treaty ratification, of the President of the United States and his Executive Branch.
It the same thing as Gen. Flynn trying to talk to the Russians. It can easily be seen a treason.
It the same thing as Gen. Flynn trying to talk to the Russians. It can easily be seen a treason.
A question to the editors: Has the NYT ever used the word stupidity before in an editorial about a presidential decision? Of course more than half the world agrees that stupidity best describes this president's climate decisions. I just wonder whether a new milestone has been reached: the glaring ignorance, obtuseness and incompetence of this president and his administration makes it impossible for the opposition to even take them seriously. Alas the consequences of this administration's stupidity are deadly serious.
15
Yes, I was also surprised by the use of the word stupidity in the NYT -- but within a second I realized that ignorance no longer describes this man. After all, he has a limited elementary school level vocabulary -- it is exactly the word he would understand and use to describe any number of people who oppose him.
1
We have not, in my memory, had as stupid a president as this one before. That might explain it.
1
They have also used the appropriate word liar to describe this illegitimate man in the White House.
2
Psst ...
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
The petitioners prevailed: states of CA, CN, IL, ME, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VE and WT, territory of American Samoa and the cities of New York, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
By a 5-4 decision, with Scalia on the court, it ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the terms of the Clean Air Act of 1990.
Under Obama the EPA did the endangerment study, issued a formal Endangerment Finding. A set of opposed parties (Pruitt's OK was one of them) sued. They were shocked to find in 2012 that they lost ignominiously in the Federal District Court of DC (thought most favorable to them) and worse yet, the SCOTUS, with Scalia still on board, refused to hear further appeal.
Trump can withdraw the specific regulatory scheme of the CPP (though even that is not easy for Pruitt to do), but it is now settled law that CO2 must be effectively regulated.
Forgeddabout Trump's kabuki drama of withdrawing from the Paris Accord. All the action is what happens when the states sue again, and they are ready and itching to do so, waiting for Trump and Pruitt to actually do something that gives them cause.
No one, not even the coalsters like Murray and Blankenship, thinks that Congress could or would legislate CO2 out of the Clean Air Act.
Pruitt has already riled the hard right by admitting reality: attempting to withdraw and redo the Endangerment Finding is hopeless.
Pruitt is Wile E. Coyote holding the bomb.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
The petitioners prevailed: states of CA, CN, IL, ME, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VE and WT, territory of American Samoa and the cities of New York, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
By a 5-4 decision, with Scalia on the court, it ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the terms of the Clean Air Act of 1990.
Under Obama the EPA did the endangerment study, issued a formal Endangerment Finding. A set of opposed parties (Pruitt's OK was one of them) sued. They were shocked to find in 2012 that they lost ignominiously in the Federal District Court of DC (thought most favorable to them) and worse yet, the SCOTUS, with Scalia still on board, refused to hear further appeal.
Trump can withdraw the specific regulatory scheme of the CPP (though even that is not easy for Pruitt to do), but it is now settled law that CO2 must be effectively regulated.
Forgeddabout Trump's kabuki drama of withdrawing from the Paris Accord. All the action is what happens when the states sue again, and they are ready and itching to do so, waiting for Trump and Pruitt to actually do something that gives them cause.
No one, not even the coalsters like Murray and Blankenship, thinks that Congress could or would legislate CO2 out of the Clean Air Act.
Pruitt has already riled the hard right by admitting reality: attempting to withdraw and redo the Endangerment Finding is hopeless.
Pruitt is Wile E. Coyote holding the bomb.
6
Agreed. This may be the best way to handle an incompetent president: ignore him and do what we know to be right, then consider impeachment if he acts to countermand it. He's trying to catch a train that's not leaving the station.
Stupidity pretty much sums it up.....
6
Stupidity is just the right word for this (and a lot of other) nonsense spewing from the White House.
Where was the outrage about accords that allowed China, India, and Mexico to pollute with abandon so that American CEOs could rake in the profits and Americans could have more cheap, plastic tat in their homes?
Do the suddenly-outraged people not understand that pollution anywhere in the world affects all of us all over the world? Obama was President for 8 years and the US was part of these worthless climate accords, but not a whisper was said about the pollution all over the globe.
People in China were wearing smog masks while the US was engaged in climate agreements, while Obama was getting his ridiculous Nobel, and while the suddenly-outraged were happy as clams as high tide. Spare us the hypocrisy.
Do the suddenly-outraged people not understand that pollution anywhere in the world affects all of us all over the world? Obama was President for 8 years and the US was part of these worthless climate accords, but not a whisper was said about the pollution all over the globe.
People in China were wearing smog masks while the US was engaged in climate agreements, while Obama was getting his ridiculous Nobel, and while the suddenly-outraged were happy as clams as high tide. Spare us the hypocrisy.
8
The people have always paid for the poor behavior of the few, those ones who otained high office by questionable means, discovered already or eventually by failures to perform. This one did not even have the authority of plurality. I suspect the "states rights" elected were able by gerry-manderring (who remembers from fifth-grade who Gerry was?) to skew the electoral vote such that the opposite of what was intended has been realized.
Sadly, this has not been the first transgression. Even when we had a Democrat governor in Pennsylvania, I believe it was Reagan's parsimony, that he failed to compensate. Usually it is the families and children who suffer. A single man or woman can stave off for the night by a five dollar pint of vodka what the children cannot. I am sorry to advise the fattened that hunger is one thing that is never forgotten.
Sadly, this has not been the first transgression. Even when we had a Democrat governor in Pennsylvania, I believe it was Reagan's parsimony, that he failed to compensate. Usually it is the families and children who suffer. A single man or woman can stave off for the night by a five dollar pint of vodka what the children cannot. I am sorry to advise the fattened that hunger is one thing that is never forgotten.
Oily, crude, volatile and toxic are apt words to describe our President, his administration and all the Republicans who know the dangers to our planet from climate change but who have sold their integrity and humanity to the fossil fuels industries. Resist them, isolate and confound them and move forward together.
3
Trump's stupidity has made him irrelevant not only in the rest of the world but in many of our states and cities. Hopefully they will do enough to combat climate change and maintain some semblance of international respectability for our country until we get rid of Trump, Pruitt and the other morons in his administration and replace them with sensible adults.
7
The war against tobacco began in the 1950s with suits against the companies negligence, liability and fraud. But they were brought by private citizens, not by leadership on the Federal level, which was controlled by Big Tobacco.
By the 1980s, as evidence mounted and the damage became undeniably connected to tobacco small suits began to prevail.
Not until the 1990s did States' Attorneys General pick up the cause. In 1998 46 of them settled for over $200 billion.
And here we are again, lacking leadership at the top as a catastrophe that completely overshadows tobacco looms. Trump is an idiot but the GOP is spineless. Despite the metaphorical equivalent of cancer victims dropping left and right they remain stonily passive while Trump by his action denies any connection.
The more States take up the mantle of leadership and attack this cause the more likely we will soon prevail. Nothing will happen in DC until it's blindingly obvious, by which time it may arguably be far too late.
By the 1980s, as evidence mounted and the damage became undeniably connected to tobacco small suits began to prevail.
Not until the 1990s did States' Attorneys General pick up the cause. In 1998 46 of them settled for over $200 billion.
And here we are again, lacking leadership at the top as a catastrophe that completely overshadows tobacco looms. Trump is an idiot but the GOP is spineless. Despite the metaphorical equivalent of cancer victims dropping left and right they remain stonily passive while Trump by his action denies any connection.
The more States take up the mantle of leadership and attack this cause the more likely we will soon prevail. Nothing will happen in DC until it's blindingly obvious, by which time it may arguably be far too late.
11
The population went from 76.1 million in 1900 to 324.1 million in 2016 an increase of 4 times the population in 100 years and worldwide 1.5 billion to 6.1 billion between 1900 and 2000. Clearly this earth was not designed for sustained carbon dioxide output. At a global scale- 14% CO2 from Transportation in 2010 of which 95% energy is petroleum based fuels. Regardless of Trump, every person can demand cars without petroleum. Each and every person within their economic means can try mass transit, walk more, drive less. It's not up to Trump, it's up to us.
13
Too bad the NYC subway system is already loaded to the breaking point.
1
JMM*California
Transportation is certainly important, yes, and individual action, too. But keep in mind the rank order of sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
* Electricity production - 29% as of 2015 - 67% of electricity comes from burning coal and natural gas.
* Transportation - 27% as of 2015 - 90%t of fuels are petroleum.
* Industry - 21% as of 2015 - Fuels and chemical reactions necessary to produce goods.
* Commercial and Residential - 12% as of 2015 - Fossil fuels for heat, products, and the handling of waste.
* Agriculture - 9% as of 2015 - Methane and carbon dioxide from livestock, soils, and products.
* Land Use and Forestry - Net offset of 11.8% as of 2015 - Land areas act as a "sink", that is, they absorb carbon dioxide. Since 1990, managed forests and other lands absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emitted.
Transportation is certainly important, yes, and individual action, too. But keep in mind the rank order of sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
* Electricity production - 29% as of 2015 - 67% of electricity comes from burning coal and natural gas.
* Transportation - 27% as of 2015 - 90%t of fuels are petroleum.
* Industry - 21% as of 2015 - Fuels and chemical reactions necessary to produce goods.
* Commercial and Residential - 12% as of 2015 - Fossil fuels for heat, products, and the handling of waste.
* Agriculture - 9% as of 2015 - Methane and carbon dioxide from livestock, soils, and products.
* Land Use and Forestry - Net offset of 11.8% as of 2015 - Land areas act as a "sink", that is, they absorb carbon dioxide. Since 1990, managed forests and other lands absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emitted.
Its the technology, stupid. Carbon emissions have dropped almost entirely due to technology not legislation. States and cities do not develop technology. The fact that solar panels are twice as efficient and half the cost that they were just five years ago is not because of something that California did legislatively. Technological advancement drives political change, not the other way around. As long as renewable energy and conservation technologies continue to get better and cheaper emissions will continue to drop with or without legislation at this point.
31
But it's energy policy that set the ground rules, creates the incentives and sets the goal lines for technological improvement. LED light bulbs didn't just materialize out of thin air.
I think while that's true--it will not solve the entire problem. There are people who will only do what's right when there is a consequence.
Technology and regulation exist in an ecosystem. The solar power industry exists because states and the federal government set up subsidies that gave industry an incentive to produce the early solar cell manufacturing facilities. They were slow and inefficient, but possible because of subsidies. As demand grew, technology then did drive down the cost as you said. The subsidies are mostly being phased out because their purpose has been accomplished.
As you said, technology hatched the egg, but someone had to build the nest to make that egg possible.
As you said, technology hatched the egg, but someone had to build the nest to make that egg possible.
The climate accord was not only about CO2 stuff, it was the first time the ENTIRE WORLD was able to sit down together for a common cause. Like a super United Nations. And by the way Nicaragua did not sign because she thought the Climate Accord did not go far enough. Trumps just breaks everything.
4
It's been estimated that California alone can provide 10 times the number of Clean Energy jobs as the whole workforce of the coal industry. The problem is the education of those who are stuck in the Faux news rut. Coal is good for those who own the mines, it's never been good for miners.
Every decision of this administration is based on one thing alone: enriching those with great riches. Until that stops being thought of as a good thing, expect more of the same.
The good news is that these destructive actions are so transparent that opposition is forming quickly, and Europe is already counting out the madmen in Washington. Where there's light, there's reason, so don't look for it in a coal mine.
Every decision of this administration is based on one thing alone: enriching those with great riches. Until that stops being thought of as a good thing, expect more of the same.
The good news is that these destructive actions are so transparent that opposition is forming quickly, and Europe is already counting out the madmen in Washington. Where there's light, there's reason, so don't look for it in a coal mine.
13
California has a different climate than West Virginia, Sera -- California is very sunny and on the coast, and has large areas of flat desert suitable for solar arrays, and homes with flat roofs (ditto).
California is also the largest state, and the wealthiest. W. Virginia is tiny -- 1.8 million -- and among the poorest states.
It is unfair to expect poor W. Virginia to come up with investors and venture capitalists and MILLIONS of dollars to build solar plants -- in a state where it is not suitable (it is cold half the year, and SNOWS). W. Virginia is also very hilly, which ill suits it for solar panels and also for factories, and heavy manufacturing.
If you want to talk about "enriching those with great riches", no better example is how California -- the biggest and wealthiest state -- hogs all the attention and the other "flyover states" are ignored and neglected in national dialogs.
California is also the largest state, and the wealthiest. W. Virginia is tiny -- 1.8 million -- and among the poorest states.
It is unfair to expect poor W. Virginia to come up with investors and venture capitalists and MILLIONS of dollars to build solar plants -- in a state where it is not suitable (it is cold half the year, and SNOWS). W. Virginia is also very hilly, which ill suits it for solar panels and also for factories, and heavy manufacturing.
If you want to talk about "enriching those with great riches", no better example is how California -- the biggest and wealthiest state -- hogs all the attention and the other "flyover states" are ignored and neglected in national dialogs.
State and local efforts on climate change can help buy some precious time, while we work to defeat the agenda of President Donald Trump. I'm glad local governments are taking this long term threat seriously, because the voter tends to consider only the most immediate pressing issues.
6
Let's be clear: President Trump's withdrawal from Paris is treason - against the planet.
It's time to create a transnational court - along the lines of the International Court of Justice, in the Hague - with powers to try environmental crimes, in particular those crimes that extend beyond national borders, when jurisdiction is difficult to establish.
This court should also have powers to "pierce the corporate veil" and hold individual decision-makers and implementers personally responsible for their actions.
Ready to sign on?
It's time to create a transnational court - along the lines of the International Court of Justice, in the Hague - with powers to try environmental crimes, in particular those crimes that extend beyond national borders, when jurisdiction is difficult to establish.
This court should also have powers to "pierce the corporate veil" and hold individual decision-makers and implementers personally responsible for their actions.
Ready to sign on?
6
As soon as China the #1 polluter signs on and members of the hidden Communist party are proseuted and punished.
No, actually, the "climate stupidity" is treating AGW like a religion, endorsed with evangelical viciousness by a lot of people who can't possible understand the "science," good or bad, behind the claims of the climate "scientists" who are really only the high priests of a pathological pseudo-science. And the high priests are no less vicious in defending their pseudo-science.
Real science takes observations and devises and iteratively revises an hypothesis that explains the observations. Climate "science" started with the hypothesis--that humans are the culprit--and for years have been revising the observational data, and cherry-picking it, to support the Received Hypothesis. It's like Thomas Aquinas trying to construct "proofs" of the existence of the Christian god--you can "prove" anything if you make the right initial assumptions. You can "prove" astrology works--but only if you ignore the instances when its wrong.
Real science takes observations and devises and iteratively revises an hypothesis that explains the observations. Climate "science" started with the hypothesis--that humans are the culprit--and for years have been revising the observational data, and cherry-picking it, to support the Received Hypothesis. It's like Thomas Aquinas trying to construct "proofs" of the existence of the Christian god--you can "prove" anything if you make the right initial assumptions. You can "prove" astrology works--but only if you ignore the instances when its wrong.
8
A useful distinction should be made between "climatologists" and "climate scientists." Climatologists are those who are paid to write papers and attend conferences on the climate. Climate scientists are those who follow the scientific method to study the climate -- which includes fully disclosing data, methods, and averse results. The two sets of individual are neither disjoint nor equal.
You state your case against climate change rather dogmatically without proof, similar to a religious fervor rather than with scientific peer reviewed studies.. I suspect that your libertarian beliefs have affected your own "science" principles and that your science is based on alternative facts touted by the coal industry and its supporters. Virtually the whole world minus the U.S. has moved to embrace climate change and the technological changes needed.
You seem like such an angry libertarian. I would think a libertarian might sit back and say, let's see where the market takes us. And right now, as the editorial notes, the market is moving away from coal and toward renewable energy. But, because are likely approaching a tipping point, we also need the force of governments to support clean energy. Even libertarians will benefit from cleaner air and a more stable global climate.
The illustration under the title says it all:
Cities , states
Cities , states
You can remove "climate" from the headline and it works for a lot of issues.
3
Man. We could put solar panels on top of every school house in the South and we'd be done with our energy needs. Done. Duh. Done. Done.
The NYT editorial board cannot recognize the truth. The can, and did
publish it in a long article a couple of days ago pointed to by a tiny thing
on their online page. That article, of course, had no "comments" permitted,
and also of course, the suggestion to send a letter to the editor is useless since
they never get published, so I gave up trying.
Its simple: the Paris sham would not come even close to slowing the
rise in CO2. According to the usual alarmist projections it would reduce warming 0.16 degrees, not well over the "1" wanted.
And this article is talking 15 to 23 percent reduction. What's needed
if you believe semi-alarmist (not hyper-alarmist) projections is a reduction
in gross emissions to zero by 2050 (for the whole world) and net emissions
to well below zero (i.e. collecting CO2 from the air and sealing it underground) for a while.
This is not going to happen. And we know that China is not going to
stop development of carbon. Many countries did not even promise reductions!
Trump is just being his normal, realist, "big truth" self.
NYT: please give up your big lies and start telling the truth in lead editorials, not just semi-hidden articles.
publish it in a long article a couple of days ago pointed to by a tiny thing
on their online page. That article, of course, had no "comments" permitted,
and also of course, the suggestion to send a letter to the editor is useless since
they never get published, so I gave up trying.
Its simple: the Paris sham would not come even close to slowing the
rise in CO2. According to the usual alarmist projections it would reduce warming 0.16 degrees, not well over the "1" wanted.
And this article is talking 15 to 23 percent reduction. What's needed
if you believe semi-alarmist (not hyper-alarmist) projections is a reduction
in gross emissions to zero by 2050 (for the whole world) and net emissions
to well below zero (i.e. collecting CO2 from the air and sealing it underground) for a while.
This is not going to happen. And we know that China is not going to
stop development of carbon. Many countries did not even promise reductions!
Trump is just being his normal, realist, "big truth" self.
NYT: please give up your big lies and start telling the truth in lead editorials, not just semi-hidden articles.
Could it be that Mr. Trump's point in withdrawing from the Climate Pact was precisely what you describe in your sub-headline: that climate change can & will continue to be addressed in the United States through our own local, state, and national efforts, regardless of membership in an international agreement?
3
That was not his point.
1
He's not that bright. It was a finger in the eye of all those more educated and informed while also winking at his buddies in the Petro industry. (Didn't hurt that his ignorant followers see this as their moronic leader going against the mainstream.)
International organizations, while they certainly have their value, have a way of becoming massive bureaucracies that snowball the costs and complication of every thing they do, enable corruption, and when push comes to shove, have no "teeth." I think that was Mr. Trump's point. He just doesn't have Ted Sorensen for a speech writer.
So the Market is going to save us from Government. I guess we (the hoi polloi) are all Republicans now, but goodness knows what our Government is!
1
Great! Stuff gets done without giving $$$ to other countries.
4
He knows climate change is real. ALL the educated professional politicians who deny it in public know it is real. It is just that they are weighing their personal gains and those of their friends/donors above the public good. Their uninformed followers are another story.
7
I wonder how many of these liberal climate changers are direct descendants of people that thought the earth was flat a thousand years ago?
3
You mean climate deniers. Intelligent people understand science.
No climate deniers are the direct descendants of people that thought the earth was flat. Climate science is grounded in scientific research and knowledge. Climate deniers are grounded in ignorance and a desire not to look at reality.
1
The voices of resistance to Trump's on climate change need symbols.
====================================================
Emerson said: "We are symbols and (we) inhabit symbols ." (1844)
Words come and go, and Trump marches on. His army of supports love his moves to tear down progress made on climate change and in other areas.
Only when we demonstrate with persistent symbolism can we succeed.
=====================================================
====================================================
Emerson said: "We are symbols and (we) inhabit symbols ." (1844)
Words come and go, and Trump marches on. His army of supports love his moves to tear down progress made on climate change and in other areas.
Only when we demonstrate with persistent symbolism can we succeed.
=====================================================
Regarding man's ability to adjust climate temps beyond any level above near microscopic, Foolish Dreaming.
1
Should be titled, "Cities and states throw money away"
1
Yeah let's do nothing!
1
Economics drive almost everything. The burgeoning solar and wind industries are what will drive positive climate change, not the mutterings of an ineffective (nay, foolish) President.
93
Mr. Thurber
The "burgeoning solar and wind industries" have been intentionally hamstrung by your pro-market friends in Washington. These, "we don't need government picking winners and losers" frauds have been aggressively picking winners and losers in the energy sector for decades.
In the process they crushed any hope America had of being a leader in the renewable energy markets, handing that position to China as a gift wrapped in a big red bow.
Now that China is moving aggressively away from coal, our President is sweating to establish us as the world leader in horse and buggy energy production and the denial of care for black lung disease. We're finally winning at something.
Per your tragically accurate introduction, in America economics does drive everything. It doesn't have to be that way and, in countries around the globe, it isn't. Those would be the countries that eat our lunch in quality of health care, cost of health care, quality of education, support for families and those unable to work, income parity, and general quality of life (as if that matters).
Somehow you convinced us that your perverted, tightly controlled and willfully ineffective market is the best guide to life we can find. As you said, you can fool too many people, too much of the time. Like good capitalists you've found a way to get rich doing it, too.
The "burgeoning solar and wind industries" have been intentionally hamstrung by your pro-market friends in Washington. These, "we don't need government picking winners and losers" frauds have been aggressively picking winners and losers in the energy sector for decades.
In the process they crushed any hope America had of being a leader in the renewable energy markets, handing that position to China as a gift wrapped in a big red bow.
Now that China is moving aggressively away from coal, our President is sweating to establish us as the world leader in horse and buggy energy production and the denial of care for black lung disease. We're finally winning at something.
Per your tragically accurate introduction, in America economics does drive everything. It doesn't have to be that way and, in countries around the globe, it isn't. Those would be the countries that eat our lunch in quality of health care, cost of health care, quality of education, support for families and those unable to work, income parity, and general quality of life (as if that matters).
Somehow you convinced us that your perverted, tightly controlled and willfully ineffective market is the best guide to life we can find. As you said, you can fool too many people, too much of the time. Like good capitalists you've found a way to get rich doing it, too.
1
Unless you have you seen the contents of the Trump personal, family and business income tax returns and accounting, financial, legal and marketing records you do not what motivates our President.
The American people are the fools. Putin knows what the American people do not know.
The American people are the fools. Putin knows what the American people do not know.
1
There are not enough American states and cities to compensate for the scientific climate change stupidity of President Donald Trump and USEPA Scott Pruitt.
But Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are smartly and wisely all in prepared to lead the 194 Paris Accord nations representing 2.5 billion human beings in their two countries. While Trump will be dealing with Syria and Nicaragua which is much closer to his tiny cloistered New York City experience talent roots.
But Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are smartly and wisely all in prepared to lead the 194 Paris Accord nations representing 2.5 billion human beings in their two countries. While Trump will be dealing with Syria and Nicaragua which is much closer to his tiny cloistered New York City experience talent roots.
68
Nicaragua didn't sign the Paris agreement because they deemed it wasn't aggressive enough in meeting climate goals. That leaves the US and Syria.
3
Correction: Nicaragua has stated its intention to join the accord. So Syria and the US will be the only hold-outs. Boggles the mind.
There may not be enough states and cities to overcome the Trump's energy stupidity but the growing We Are Still In movement now includes colleges and universities, as well as business and investors. We're getting close to singing ”We Shall Overcome" and its "someday" is coming closer.
There has never been any federal attempt to stop any city or state from enacting whatever environmental measures they choose to. So why all the hysteria about the so called Paris agreement when all it means is that eurocrats will not be getting US taxpayer money?
5
It means US no longer leads. That role is now China's.
1
Amen! I think we have reached a tipping point in the climate effort and things are moving away from Washington politicians to businesses and local efforts. The irony here is that the all knowing markets of the Republican religion will take us where they don't want us to go.
4
Progress is more than possible, even with Donald standing in the way - his actions might be just the jolt we all need to stop waiting on the federal government to act and to prod our local and state governments to action. Federalism is a beautiful thing, people.
2
The new measure of progress is: Were we successful in counteracting any of the destructive forces of Donald Trump and the Republican Party? And when there is this newly measured success, Donald Trump will - as he done in the past - say something like: "See? They all said it couldn't be done. That success is because of me making American great again." But, success in a few states like California, New York, and others who were inspired to meet standards put up by the Obama administration, responding through innovation and change, will be balanced and perhaps overshadowed by those states bankrupted by actions such as refusing Medicare expansion, cutting taxes as a way to "grow" like Kansas, and failing to pass a budget for three years like Illinois. "Progress is possible even with Trump standing in the way". That sounds so good, so positive, but it only will be good if it can be sustained. These efforts, like with the ACA, were started under the Obama administration. It will be difficult to maintain if indeed we do not continue to be the "United" states of America, not simply with each state left to its own, with the burden of fewer resources. I will be happy to be proven wrong.
1
I am excited by the State's commitment to continue with policies to advance the environmental goals of the Paris Accord. They can and will, make a considerable contribution even without the Federal Government.
One example. even from years ago was in play when I bought a car in Europe for export to the US. "Does it meet emission standards in the US?", I asked. "No" they replied; "it meets California standards which are much more stringent."
One example. even from years ago was in play when I bought a car in Europe for export to the US. "Does it meet emission standards in the US?", I asked. "No" they replied; "it meets California standards which are much more stringent."
"'... California standards which are much more stringent.'" And indeed they ought to be. According to the American Lung Association's "State of The Air 2017" report, six of the top ten U.S. cities and their metro areas with the worst air-pollution problem are in California. Too many cars, too many people, and way too much smog...
2
I am more concerned, Michael, about YOUR efforts to help attain the goals that you herald.
What have YOU done to reduce your carbon footprint?
We've done quite a bit. We've converted to geothermal heating and cooling connected to a natural-gas-fired motor-generator that actually supplies energy to the system when power is not required in the home. We have but one car that gets in excess of 30 miles to a gallon. All lights in our home are now converted to energy-saving LEDs. All of our electronic devices in the house are connected.
What have you and your fellow believers in global warming...er...climate change...er...whatever you are calling it these days to evade having to accept responsibility for the scientific errors that have been committed in order to continue to feed off of the public grant trough?
What have YOU done to reduce your carbon footprint?
We've done quite a bit. We've converted to geothermal heating and cooling connected to a natural-gas-fired motor-generator that actually supplies energy to the system when power is not required in the home. We have but one car that gets in excess of 30 miles to a gallon. All lights in our home are now converted to energy-saving LEDs. All of our electronic devices in the house are connected.
What have you and your fellow believers in global warming...er...climate change...er...whatever you are calling it these days to evade having to accept responsibility for the scientific errors that have been committed in order to continue to feed off of the public grant trough?
Owl
I may be overstepping, but I'll take from your snark that you are among the Republican cognoscenti, wise to all things liberal and fraudulent.
So I'm left to wonder at the fallacy that allows you to dismiss the gargantuan body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming as scientists' universally grubbing around for grant money which your party has legislated virtually out of existence.
Still, I am pleased that you managed to put yourself in a position to simultaneously feel contempt for and superior to those daft climate change believers. Nicely done, if confusing.
I may be overstepping, but I'll take from your snark that you are among the Republican cognoscenti, wise to all things liberal and fraudulent.
So I'm left to wonder at the fallacy that allows you to dismiss the gargantuan body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming as scientists' universally grubbing around for grant money which your party has legislated virtually out of existence.
Still, I am pleased that you managed to put yourself in a position to simultaneously feel contempt for and superior to those daft climate change believers. Nicely done, if confusing.
Every one of these issues misses the bigger point. Trump won this election. Incredible though it still seems, he won. How? Beating HRC. Was HRC so reviled, so out of touch, so untrustable, that she could somehow lose to someone like Trump? Was she endorsed by this very paper? Yes to all of the above. Folks we "owe" the DNC of this mess, had the most popular politician of our time, Bernie Sanders not been cheated out of the nomination, this nation would again be building toward greatness. I voted for Bernie. the rest of you , with Trump as prez? Good luck with that.
6
Actually, the point is what to do going forward, not constantly hashing the past.
A key point, average guy, it is your luck as well as mine...
Is the damage that you do by bring down Trump worth less than the damage that would be done to work with Trump and his supporters to achieve a consensus that might actually get enough votes to pass through a Congress not very willing to entertain more of what you have offered in the past?
Isn't a repudiation of the eight years of Obama's dreamery the underlying message of Hillary Clinton losing an election that was certainly hers to lose.
And, and you noted at the beginning of your remarks, LOSE IT she did.
Is the damage that you do by bring down Trump worth less than the damage that would be done to work with Trump and his supporters to achieve a consensus that might actually get enough votes to pass through a Congress not very willing to entertain more of what you have offered in the past?
Isn't a repudiation of the eight years of Obama's dreamery the underlying message of Hillary Clinton losing an election that was certainly hers to lose.
And, and you noted at the beginning of your remarks, LOSE IT she did.
Besides Trump's glaring 'racism', in trying to erase from the map any and all initiatives, however rational and important for our well-being, with Obama's signature, it implies a most stupid hypocrisy intent in hurting the country's interests. There is not a trace of rationality in this vulgar bully's unscrupulous destruction of the Environment...by way of trampling on the Paris Accord, and control man-made climate changes nefarious if left unattended. Trump is an irresponsibly coward as well, given the United States is the main culprit in spewing CO2 into this Earth, and the adverse consequences being felt in poor countries unable to accommodate to the ever increasing ill-effects of heat, droughts and floods. Hats off to the thousands (millions?) countering Trump's evil. And condemnation of those complicit with Trump's mafia, those paid to not see what's going on.
Should those cities and states now send money to India?
2
Of course they should if they want to make sure the terms of the Paris Agreement are to be upheld.
Are they going to do it?
Fat chance, hawk, and you and I both know it.
But the whiners seem to think that everything that they can dream of can be put in play, no matter how limited might be their resources, the technology, and the general political will.
And we know where the "political will" stands these days in terms of governance.
Are they going to do it?
Fat chance, hawk, and you and I both know it.
But the whiners seem to think that everything that they can dream of can be put in play, no matter how limited might be their resources, the technology, and the general political will.
And we know where the "political will" stands these days in terms of governance.
1
"Mr. Trump has not only removed America from a leadership role in the climate fight..."
please...
paris is a social club, an aura without obligation and most of it at usa expense...commitments are non-binding and changeable without process or sanction).
on the other hand, trump (no vote or favor here. but...) may well have rung a wake up bell, "when more than 1,200 governors, mayors and businesses promised to do whatever they could to help the United States meet the climate goals President Barack Obama had committed (!?) to in the agreement."
if trump's action actually flushes out a gang who, by and large, were able to hide behind such devices as the paris "accord" (accorder pour ne rien faire, s'il vous plait) and has them declaring intentions to actually do something (a "can do" mind set for a "will do"promise?) he deserves a prix de l'esteem, at least.
the planet is in trouble and world leadership is sitting in the warming like the proverbial frogs in the pot, too cozy to worry about the coming boil.
in addition to the wider institutional failure, however, an individual commitment to action, to steps toward goals we can meet, no matter the leadership, is also lacking...private jets fly us to protest meetings, we drive when we can walk or bike (heavy lifting in a society addicted to convenience), the stuff we put on our lawns ends up in OUR lakes and streams, the plastic we toss forms islands in oceans and...
your choice here.
pick one, go for it.
please...
paris is a social club, an aura without obligation and most of it at usa expense...commitments are non-binding and changeable without process or sanction).
on the other hand, trump (no vote or favor here. but...) may well have rung a wake up bell, "when more than 1,200 governors, mayors and businesses promised to do whatever they could to help the United States meet the climate goals President Barack Obama had committed (!?) to in the agreement."
if trump's action actually flushes out a gang who, by and large, were able to hide behind such devices as the paris "accord" (accorder pour ne rien faire, s'il vous plait) and has them declaring intentions to actually do something (a "can do" mind set for a "will do"promise?) he deserves a prix de l'esteem, at least.
the planet is in trouble and world leadership is sitting in the warming like the proverbial frogs in the pot, too cozy to worry about the coming boil.
in addition to the wider institutional failure, however, an individual commitment to action, to steps toward goals we can meet, no matter the leadership, is also lacking...private jets fly us to protest meetings, we drive when we can walk or bike (heavy lifting in a society addicted to convenience), the stuff we put on our lawns ends up in OUR lakes and streams, the plastic we toss forms islands in oceans and...
your choice here.
pick one, go for it.
Why do even intelligent and well thought out commentaries like this inevitably make the entirely erroneous claim that natural gas is "cleaner". Methane is (now more than ever) being released in amounts that cancel out, most, if not all, the reduction in CO2 because it is 10-20 times more environmentally damaging than CO2 is. Why is this not a factor EVERY time natural gas's "cleanliness" is mentioned??
2
An intelligent, and well-thought out commentary would acknowledge a few important things: 1) Climate change happens on a scale we can't even fathom, especially when you consider we've only begun to reliably estimate temperatures less than 200 years ago. 2) Climate change is not always man-made. See: Cyanobacteria, Huronian Glaciation, Great Oxygen Event. 3) This is not about saving the world, a world which has survived far more devastating events than we humans could ever hope to inflict on it. Rather, this is about preserving the status quo. It's about control, the ability to decide what creatures should live and die, what the state of our world should be now and forever. Cry foul all you want, but in the end, the climate-change activism we see is about Control, and nothing else.
4
Spencer -- bright comment... unfortunately, the commentariat is so galvanized by the political lever the specious theory of ACGW gives them they will never listen to reason on this topic.
2
Although methane is a much more potent GHG than CO2 per mole, we are talking about far smaller quantities. Furthermore, I am told that it naturally oxidizes in the atmosphere with a decade or so, so that it does not have the potentially long-run effects CO2 does. Hence the greater concern about CO2.
In the early days of the Trump administration, the New York Times tried valiantly to apply customary couth to its reporting of the goings-on at the White House, even grappling with the ethical and stylistic issues of using words such as "lie," "mislead," and "untruth." Calling Trump's climate non-policy "stupidity" in the headline of this piece is a welcome reminder that the Times has taken off the gloves and is seeing Trump with much clearer eyes.
I'm pretty sure the Times never referred to the lines of Assad, Arafat, Kim Jong Un, Putin, etc in comparably harsh language, even though each of those man has acted with brazen disdain toward the rights & well-being of their own citizens.
In the progressive universe, everyone is deserving of courtesy, professional respect & carefully non-judgmental language.
---UNLESS they run afoul of progressive orthodoxy. Then it's no holds barred---anything goes, win by all means.
An America dominated by progressive leftists---what a scary place that would be.
In the progressive universe, everyone is deserving of courtesy, professional respect & carefully non-judgmental language.
---UNLESS they run afoul of progressive orthodoxy. Then it's no holds barred---anything goes, win by all means.
An America dominated by progressive leftists---what a scary place that would be.
In essence, Trump did the right thing when he left “a big hole to fill”. Now companies will strive to help the environment in their own unique ways instead of a one size fits all approach. But most importantly it will be done without Washington sending money overseas or to the Green fund where it will be “managed” by the 1%.
46% of the voters elected a man who has the science knowledge of a third grader. Wait, I just insulted third graders. Sorry.
The illustration under your headline says it all: cities, states and individuals will have to clean up behind him for as long as he is president.
I emphatically agree with the content of your editorial but wished you hadn't used the word "stupidity" in the title, as it is needlessly disrespectful. (It's more of an ad hominem than a descriptor.) I am thinking of former First Lady Michelle Obama's wisdom: "When they go low, we go high."
I know you boys want to sound tough and on top of the rolling freak show that is Trump & Co. And you're doing better to some degree.
But please don't mistake aggressive, deeply researched exposé with a general coarsening of tone and language. That's the fool's way. The easy way. The Republican way.
Today for example, this editorial about Trump's stupidity, or Friedman's "Trump lies" headline, are examples of the limited shelf life of this rhetorical tactic, of the demands it makes for increasing outrageousness just to keep things moving along. It's a large part of how Trump and those miserable, lying, traitorous Republicans got where they are today.
I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, about Trump or the situation in which he has put us.
I'm hoping you'll soon recall your formerly glorious selves, focus on powerful discovery and reporting supplied in impactful, game-changing style with relentless effectiveness.
Prose that demands a response. Reporting that generates action. That's the New York Times I'm hoping for.
But please don't mistake aggressive, deeply researched exposé with a general coarsening of tone and language. That's the fool's way. The easy way. The Republican way.
Today for example, this editorial about Trump's stupidity, or Friedman's "Trump lies" headline, are examples of the limited shelf life of this rhetorical tactic, of the demands it makes for increasing outrageousness just to keep things moving along. It's a large part of how Trump and those miserable, lying, traitorous Republicans got where they are today.
I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, about Trump or the situation in which he has put us.
I'm hoping you'll soon recall your formerly glorious selves, focus on powerful discovery and reporting supplied in impactful, game-changing style with relentless effectiveness.
Prose that demands a response. Reporting that generates action. That's the New York Times I'm hoping for.
Pay no attention to that man in the Oval Office. His administration is in shambles. How can he expect anyone to take him seriously?
I think we can survive Trump and all his malicious associates, if Democrats in Congress continue to fight and block Trump proposals, and if our states can take advantage of the freedom for independent action that our version of Federalism offers. Individuals can help by figuratively stoning all those who, like Thiessen, attempt to deflect and minimize Trumps gross errors. If reasonable people work just a bit harder in elections, we could just ignore Trump until his term is up, and we can proactively focus on Sessions' many flaws and insane beliefs so that he will not be nominated in 2020.
Oregon too is in the fight. In 2016 the Oregon Legislature voted to eliminate coal generation from the state's future and committed its largest utilities to supply at least half of their electricity from renewable resources by 2040. While there is the inevitable pro-coal, pro-pollution backlash, Oregon will win the final battle against belching more filth into our air. We are committed to renewable energy.
6
Here in Los Angeles, I'm surrounded by people who conserve energy and resources, drive hybrid and fully electric vehicles, have installed solar panels on their homes, and are conscious every day of the need to protect our environment. I worry that this bubble is not indicative of much of the rest of the country, but it does seem as if the need to conserve is taking hold on a grass roots level. I hope this belief isn't a naive one.
2
For a supposed brilliant businessman, whether it is insurance, casinos, airline industries, NFL teams, energy, he just doesn't seem to understand how markets work. In his private world Trump could declare bankruptcy or write it off on his tax return, but, now he is in charge of a company---US government--where those options are unavailable.
3
It does not take much 'brilliance' to inherit a business from your father. Nor a kingdom.
The Paris Climate Treaty has no force in the United States for the simple reason that President Obama never submitted it to the Senate for the constitutionally required 2/3 ratification vote. President Trump now prefers to withdraw it from consideration rather than bother the Senate with a foregone rejection.
That said, given the growing likelihood of a Republican rout in 2018, Republicans would do well to offer Democrats a moderate tax on CO2 emissions in exchange for permanent elimination of the EPA's power to impose ad hoc restrictions on emissions, while they are still in control of both houses of Congress.
Using the Obama Administration's own estimates of the "social cost of carbon" plus some economic analysis, I have proposed that a tax of $6.50 per metric ton of CO2 could be justified. For details, see http://blog.independent.org/2016/08/07/the-carbon-tax-welfare-triangle-o...
That said, given the growing likelihood of a Republican rout in 2018, Republicans would do well to offer Democrats a moderate tax on CO2 emissions in exchange for permanent elimination of the EPA's power to impose ad hoc restrictions on emissions, while they are still in control of both houses of Congress.
Using the Obama Administration's own estimates of the "social cost of carbon" plus some economic analysis, I have proposed that a tax of $6.50 per metric ton of CO2 could be justified. For details, see http://blog.independent.org/2016/08/07/the-carbon-tax-welfare-triangle-o...
Neither you nor Donald Trump know what you are writing and talking about.
There was and is no Paris Treaty. There was and is a Paris Accord and the United States is a signatory party to that agreement.
Failure to submit the Paris Accord to the U.S. Senate does not absolve America from abiding by the Paris Accords unless and until it has withdrawn in accord with the agreement's terms. While there are no legally enforceable obligations to follow the collective voluntary environmental commitments they do create an ethical moral honorable obligation.
There was and is no Paris Treaty. There was and is a Paris Accord and the United States is a signatory party to that agreement.
Failure to submit the Paris Accord to the U.S. Senate does not absolve America from abiding by the Paris Accords unless and until it has withdrawn in accord with the agreement's terms. While there are no legally enforceable obligations to follow the collective voluntary environmental commitments they do create an ethical moral honorable obligation.
An excellent article in the NY Times on June 3, 2017 by Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton reveals, through thorough research and unparalled writing, how we have arrived at this juncture:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-cli...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-cli...
3
True, but this article completely ignores the key facts of why and how the fossil fuel interests lost over and over again in court. Starting with the 2007 Supreme Court decision of MA vs EPA.
Pruitt and his cohort have sued 14 times over CO2. They lost 12 outright, crucially losing the suit (2012) over EPA's Endangerment Finding. The Federal District Court of DC ruled against them, and humiliatingly the Supreme Court (with Scalia) refused to hear further appeal.
They got a small victory on a side issue, but lost the main issue of one of these suits, and the 14th, the constitutionality of the CPP, is not yet decided.
Claiming "hubris" by the Obama administration is absurd when the action has been driven by lawsuits and Supreme Court decisions ... that the anti-regulation parties have consistently lost.
And certainly Pruitt will get sued shortly, when he does something that gives cause.
Pruitt and his cohort have sued 14 times over CO2. They lost 12 outright, crucially losing the suit (2012) over EPA's Endangerment Finding. The Federal District Court of DC ruled against them, and humiliatingly the Supreme Court (with Scalia) refused to hear further appeal.
They got a small victory on a side issue, but lost the main issue of one of these suits, and the 14th, the constitutionality of the CPP, is not yet decided.
Claiming "hubris" by the Obama administration is absurd when the action has been driven by lawsuits and Supreme Court decisions ... that the anti-regulation parties have consistently lost.
And certainly Pruitt will get sued shortly, when he does something that gives cause.
Since the Constitution contains no grant of power to Congress concerning climate, the only Constitutional mechanism is that of the cities, states, businesses, individuals, or anything else other than the federal government. Id like to say it mystifies me why the NYT treats this with such opprobrium but, unfortunately, I can't: To the modern Left, the Constitution has become an impediment to be ignored or evaded.
If the climate crowd wanted the federal government involved, they had two Constitutional options: get the consent of the Senate under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, for the Paris agreement, or amend the Constitution as provided under either of the methods provided in Article V. The Left chose to do neither,; ergo the Paris agreement, and all other federal activity regarding climate, including that by the EPA, is Constitutionally dead.
Maybe, though I doubt it, the Left will learn from this. They might learn that the federal government isn't, and was never meant to be, omnipotent. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists notwithstanding, the "Founders" specifically rejected what was then called a "consolidated" government. As James Madison put it, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." And dealing with "climate change" is not among those "few and defined" powers.
If the climate crowd wanted the federal government involved, they had two Constitutional options: get the consent of the Senate under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, for the Paris agreement, or amend the Constitution as provided under either of the methods provided in Article V. The Left chose to do neither,; ergo the Paris agreement, and all other federal activity regarding climate, including that by the EPA, is Constitutionally dead.
Maybe, though I doubt it, the Left will learn from this. They might learn that the federal government isn't, and was never meant to be, omnipotent. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists notwithstanding, the "Founders" specifically rejected what was then called a "consolidated" government. As James Madison put it, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." And dealing with "climate change" is not among those "few and defined" powers.
1
In this case it's not about the Constitution, Senate ratification, and not about whether or not 'few and defined powers' include addressing climate change. It's about our shared future, saving the planet and doing the right thing.
A very well-reasoned rationale for the government's idiotic inaction on the most pressing issue of our time.
The Constitution also counted slaves as 3/5s of a human. Pointing at our founding document - flawed as it is - is a great way to not face a challenge. The framers were unaware of many things in their time too many to enumerate. When we have one side that simply balks at EVERYTHING proposed, suggesting a Constitutional amendment is laughable.
The Stephen King novel "Under The Dome" was strangely prescient about our current political and environmental situation. An authoritarian egomaniac strongman seizes power and most of his efforts go into covering up his horrid actions and consolidating his power by destroying his enemies while the rest of the population suffocates on the unrecycled trapped and increasingly polluted air under the dome.
3
I love the idea of states moving forward (and feel badly for the people in states that go backward---but, they voted their state leaders in, so it's on them).
It would be great if, say, the northeast states banded together for their own single-payer, or, medicare-for-all program.
The scary part is ALEC and religious extremists infiltrating state government without citizen's knowing (and it seems easier to do in state/local gov), and hyjacking state laws to fit their insidious agenda--we all need to be extra vigilant now.
It would be great if, say, the northeast states banded together for their own single-payer, or, medicare-for-all program.
The scary part is ALEC and religious extremists infiltrating state government without citizen's knowing (and it seems easier to do in state/local gov), and hyjacking state laws to fit their insidious agenda--we all need to be extra vigilant now.
President Trump is not the only impediment to rational climate change policies. The partisan behavior of the Republicans is obviously not directed toward the good of the country - only at whats good for the Republicans. With the problems that face our nation and the world, politicians need to be focused on what is good for our country and the world. Given how the globe has shrunk our interdependence with other countries makes isolationism problematic, even dangerous.
Trump is succeeding beyond his wildest dreams; just few months in office and the most liberal of progressives are turning thier backs on the Washington swamp and seeking local and state solutions. History may well record this as one of the greatest power shifts in the history of a free people.
4
Petty, petty, petty! trump's withdrawel from the Paris Accords was simply to spite Obama and one of his prize goals. This president bases his decisions on who he hates most at the moment. It's really a dumb, dumb, dumb way to try and run the government.
11
Trump is "so yesterday." His policies for the environment are a disaster and will be ignored by states and consumers. China is way ("bigly") out performing the US in clean energy technology. I say "The 25th Amendment for the 45th President." He is simply unfit for his high position. Trickle, trickle, trickle with every day bringing ever more bungles.
2
There seems to be nothing sacred to the fake president in The White House. Scorn and derision are heaped upon everything that the previous real president sought to advance. Above all else, the ecosystem upon which life depends must be protected whether the fake president agrees or not. I applaud all citizens and elected officials who choose to stand in the way of the fake president and his ignorance, indifference and irresponsibility. We cannot allow him to succeed in his maniacal attempt to destroy what is left.
10
Thanks for reminding us that - America, ç'est ne Trump!
States and Cities may be compensating for Trump's stupidity, even citizens and countries are compensating, but the Republican "minions" in power continue to back and enable stupidity.
Perhaps we can adopt the French practice of flour thrown into politicians face substituting the flour with "clean-coal" dust. When Trump is finally indicted for crimes against EVERYONE, he needs to be made an example of and sent into a coal mine or pit to clean it up.
States and Cities may be compensating for Trump's stupidity, even citizens and countries are compensating, but the Republican "minions" in power continue to back and enable stupidity.
Perhaps we can adopt the French practice of flour thrown into politicians face substituting the flour with "clean-coal" dust. When Trump is finally indicted for crimes against EVERYONE, he needs to be made an example of and sent into a coal mine or pit to clean it up.
3
Lets discuss this "climate stupidity".
1. In 1979, our air and water quality was much worse than it is today......winters remained bitter cold for about three months, the rivers froze over.
2. Now, in 2017, with bright blue skies and higher water quality......winters are extremely MILD and we worry ourselves sick over Global Warming.
3. the ocean's tides have ebbed and flowed for eons of time. Sometimes water covered huge areas of what we now consider solid land. Attempts have been made to control the tides. King Canute of legend, famously attempted to simply ORDER the tides to stop. President Obama attampted this same feat recently with similar results.
1. In 1979, our air and water quality was much worse than it is today......winters remained bitter cold for about three months, the rivers froze over.
2. Now, in 2017, with bright blue skies and higher water quality......winters are extremely MILD and we worry ourselves sick over Global Warming.
3. the ocean's tides have ebbed and flowed for eons of time. Sometimes water covered huge areas of what we now consider solid land. Attempts have been made to control the tides. King Canute of legend, famously attempted to simply ORDER the tides to stop. President Obama attampted this same feat recently with similar results.
3
Now that you've clarified the issue I can stop worrying. And to think I let all those highly educated scientists try to blind me with facts and actual data.
3
In case you missed it, Wherever, I'd like to thank you for your ringing, if unintentional, endorsement of forceful environmental regulation.
Yes, indeed, our air and water are cleaner than they were in the in the blissfully ignorant 1970s. My river no longer burns, my Great Lake is no longer orange (except around Toledo), and we owe all that to erstwhile governments of all political stripes.
What you fail mention is that our current President is on course to reverse decades of accomplishment in the blink of a milky Republican eye.
You, apparently, are just fine with that.
Yes, indeed, our air and water are cleaner than they were in the in the blissfully ignorant 1970s. My river no longer burns, my Great Lake is no longer orange (except around Toledo), and we owe all that to erstwhile governments of all political stripes.
What you fail mention is that our current President is on course to reverse decades of accomplishment in the blink of a milky Republican eye.
You, apparently, are just fine with that.
What a shame we have a president so out of touch with reality. So now states, cities and people have to make the sensible decisions to keep our country progressing. How many more atrocities are we going to allow this ignorant egotist make before we finally rid ourselves of him. When he was first 'elected' I guessed he would quit within two years, I just hope I was off by a year and he goes away this year. The big mystery to me is how America could have produced so many people who do not have a clue as to how he is ruining our country and think he is doing great.
4
A very small story in today's NYT gives a sanitized version of the failure of a Spanish bank. A major Spanish bank. One with hundreds of branches, scores of them in the town this paper is published in. Nothing much to see or consider, according to the blase reporting. Want something to worry about? Something just a bid more pressing than dubious assumptions leading to dubious modeling leading to dubious conclusions? How about the imminent collapse of the European banking system, which outside of Germany and the Scandinavians, is essentially insolvent? How about the fact that the bank that "took over" the failed bank is a shell holding company providing fig leaf for this reality: there are no Greek, Italian or Spanish banks that are solvent without the ECB backing them verbally; all those banks' debt is owned by German and French banks, the latter of which has its own near-insolvency issues. So what happens when the inevitable happens - banks defaulting on their debt? Well, the Germans immediately leave the Euro, return to the Deutschmark to save their economy and watch the Latins, the Gauls, the Greeks and the Iberians slide toward Puerto Rican financial straits. Sell the news folks, and buy gold.
This is filing for divorce while promising to be faithful.
One cannot take solace in it. This is an abusive relationship and we won't realize the depths of its affect until we're free of it.
Stop justifying. Organize to VOTE, and define the next frontier for Democracy.
An impeachment (if justified) will only create a political martyr complex on the right. A decisive midterm vote would communicate what Americans want and will tolerate. Then hold your nose and vote him out decisively in 2020.
One cannot take solace in it. This is an abusive relationship and we won't realize the depths of its affect until we're free of it.
Stop justifying. Organize to VOTE, and define the next frontier for Democracy.
An impeachment (if justified) will only create a political martyr complex on the right. A decisive midterm vote would communicate what Americans want and will tolerate. Then hold your nose and vote him out decisively in 2020.
7
Alix -- the reality is that Trump will only be impeached if and when "his" GOP decides to impeach him. Democrats have no direct role or authority, being vastly outnumbered in the House.
The problem of a "martyr complex" is not a problem to Democrats now, look at the obvious; the resentful whites have been there since the Civil War, it just traded parties after the Civil Rights Act.
The GOP is riven apart, and all its old verities and shibboleths have been destroyed. At least 50% of the GOP "base" strongly identifies with Trumpism ... at least for the present.
Look at what Trump has been doing since the election: he has made zero attempt to actually govern or seek progress, no effort at all to actually move legislation, that would require some accommodation. Instead everything has been angry kabuki that accomplishes only one thing: it plays to his "base."
Trump's base isn't big enough to be a national party. There are only a few states where it is plausibly big enough to even win a state election without the aid of a large fraction of the more traditional Republicans.
Trump is engaging in the parable of the scorpion and the frog -- he's getting ready to sting. The rest of the Republicans have no idea who to escape this fate.
The problem of a "martyr complex" is not a problem to Democrats now, look at the obvious; the resentful whites have been there since the Civil War, it just traded parties after the Civil Rights Act.
The GOP is riven apart, and all its old verities and shibboleths have been destroyed. At least 50% of the GOP "base" strongly identifies with Trumpism ... at least for the present.
Look at what Trump has been doing since the election: he has made zero attempt to actually govern or seek progress, no effort at all to actually move legislation, that would require some accommodation. Instead everything has been angry kabuki that accomplishes only one thing: it plays to his "base."
Trump's base isn't big enough to be a national party. There are only a few states where it is plausibly big enough to even win a state election without the aid of a large fraction of the more traditional Republicans.
Trump is engaging in the parable of the scorpion and the frog -- he's getting ready to sting. The rest of the Republicans have no idea who to escape this fate.
If you look at every single one of Trump's EO's, deregulation, budget cuts and increased police, ICE, they all have one major thing in common They hurt and cost Blue States and help Red states in the short run. Trump is a very dangerous and vindictive man. Democrats must get a majority in Congress in 2018.
2
What better way to prove that government isn't necessary to solve all of the worlds problems than putting someone in the White House who doesn't seem capable of any constructive action.
3
I'm glad to see the Times "tellin' it like it is" and using the word "stupidity". As a scientist, I find climate change denial simply incomprehensible. Stupidity: there is no other word for it.
5
As a scientist, stupidity by itself isn't a plausible explanation; there aren't enough people who are that stupid.
Willful, truculent, in-your-face lying is the only explanation.
Willful, truculent, in-your-face lying is the only explanation.
Unfortunately, the Koch brothers know that states and cities are the next place for climate action. Look for major negative ads in the campaigns for mayor and city council seats in the coming years.
4
A constituency not mention in this piece is Native Americans. Their treaties give them the legal authority to stop many fossil fuel projects, like pipelines or fracking, to protect their water supplies and other resources, but the political power of global corporations puts politicians and militarized police on the side of polluters over Water Protectors. Despite global media ignoring most of these battles, Native Americans and other groups are teaming up to shut down fossil fuel corporations around the country and the world.
We individuals can lend our political power to these Water Protectors, with money, time, political commissions, and direct action. We can use our political power to force politicians and police to enforce the treaties our nation signed with their nations.
Stand with Idle No More, The Cowboy and Indian Alliance, those at Standing Rock and all of the other moments to protect water and other natural resources Their legal rights and moral determination, combined with our political power can price fossil fuels out of the market.
We individuals can lend our political power to these Water Protectors, with money, time, political commissions, and direct action. We can use our political power to force politicians and police to enforce the treaties our nation signed with their nations.
Stand with Idle No More, The Cowboy and Indian Alliance, those at Standing Rock and all of the other moments to protect water and other natural resources Their legal rights and moral determination, combined with our political power can price fossil fuels out of the market.
6
I find your editorial a bit confusing. Nothing Mr. Trump did prevents the states from enforcing green energy standards on their own. It will be a state or cities decision. All Mr. Trump did was say he was not going to participate in a global scheme with no real teeth that was aimed at transferring money from the US to other countries. China and India remain free to polute as do other countries. Mr. Obama should have made it a treaty but he knew it wouldn't pass the Senate with 2/3 majority. You applauded when he used his pen. Well Trump can do the same since it is not a treaty.
The air used to be filthy in LA. We didn't need Kyoto, Helsinki, or Paris to clean it up. When gas and solar are cheaper than coal it will go away. By the way, most of the natural gas that everyone loves comes from fracking that the NYT and progressives hate. We have lots of windmills in the midwest - sort of an ugly industrial look. How about a few hundred in Central Park and in the Hamptons?
The air used to be filthy in LA. We didn't need Kyoto, Helsinki, or Paris to clean it up. When gas and solar are cheaper than coal it will go away. By the way, most of the natural gas that everyone loves comes from fracking that the NYT and progressives hate. We have lots of windmills in the midwest - sort of an ugly industrial look. How about a few hundred in Central Park and in the Hamptons?
3
The Paris Climate Accord is concerned with facilitating a transition to clean energy to combat potentially catastrophic global warming. The main concern is better standards. Poorer countries would get some help to avoid economic disruption. We all live on the same planet. Maybe you and Trump don't care but luckily many states and municipalities will prevent stupidity at the highest level from further harming all of us.
Mr. Trump has been very clear. Global warming is a hoax. I don't understand what is confusing about this editorial. A lot of people do not agree with your Mr Trump and have taken the matter into their own hands.
Trump continues to run the Country as if his 35% base was a majority of the country. Job one for the American voters is to get rid of Trump and the Republican Congressional majority at the earliest opportunity either through election or impeachment should the opportunity arise.
In the meantime we need to act at the state, local and personal levels to achieve Carbon reductions.
In the meantime we need to act at the state, local and personal levels to achieve Carbon reductions.
11
Well, turns out it is the majority in enough places to fluster the donkeys to the extent thay will have to nominate a rabid, unhinged lefthanded loon that will make the Dukakis candidacy look formidable.
Accord, or not Accord. Trump or no Trump. If Americans don't get serious about protecting our environment, limiting the damage that we are doing, and treating Mother Earth with respect and love, we will not have the clean air and pure water to stay alive here for much longer. Unfortunately, Trump has made this about politics. It is about survival for all of us and the generations to come. It is about whether the humans, animals, and plants of Earth will have a future.
13
And it begins with each individual, I will add. Drive fuel efficient cars, drive less, buy less junk, throw away less food, hang clothes out to dry and the list goes on but to a person we should all do our part for now and for the future.
1
I keep Alice Walker's inspiring quote posted on the wall in my studio and several other places in my home. "The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any." WE THE PEOPLE do have POWER. I was one of thousands of people who called our governor in Minnesota after President Trump revealed his lack of vision by pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Mark Dayton responded, Minnesota will strive to honor the goals of the Paris Agreement. I urge State Governments throughout this country to provide and award financial incentives to industries and business operating within their state to abide by the Paris Agreement. Also, financial incentives need to be awarded to entrepreneurs who train people to work in alternative energy fields. American Citizens do not have to abide by the irresponsible behavior of our current President. He is not representing our best interests... we will represent ourselves. It would be great if the NYT provided a list of ALL the States who committed to honor and work to meet President Obama's goals. Americans need to know this information.
9
"Let the states decide" has always been the drum beat mantra of the GOP. Now, it is an inevitability if we are to protect ourselves from the federal government's ill conceived policies and grave errors.
To stop insurers from refusing to sell individual insurance policies in a state, for example, Governors and legislatures must take immediate action. The solution is rather simple.
Governors must inform insurers that, unless they sell affordable, quality individual policies in the state on par with the group plans they offer, the insurers cannot sell or administer group policies in that state. Period.
Insurers have built their multi-billion dollar empires on the sales of group plans. They would run back into the commercial, ACA individual and small business insurance marketplaces in an instant if their cash cows were threatened.
To stop insurers from refusing to sell individual insurance policies in a state, for example, Governors and legislatures must take immediate action. The solution is rather simple.
Governors must inform insurers that, unless they sell affordable, quality individual policies in the state on par with the group plans they offer, the insurers cannot sell or administer group policies in that state. Period.
Insurers have built their multi-billion dollar empires on the sales of group plans. They would run back into the commercial, ACA individual and small business insurance marketplaces in an instant if their cash cows were threatened.
8
1. The word "catastrophic" and other qualitative terminology often employed by climate change alarmists are subjective and ripe for argument—and rightly so. Ignoring the nonstandardized, nonuniform constellation of predictive climate models, and assuming with unquestioning faith that their predictions are absolutely, incontrovertibly flawless, we would be no closer to settling the normative questions that are bound up in the climate change debate.
2. The Times editorial board asks, "Can the United States meet its commitments without federal involvement?" and then never attempts to answer the question. Instead, the entire article—contrary to the Times' characteristic inability to imagine a world without a sprawling federal bureaucracy—unwittingly demonstrates the nimbleness and energy with which local, state, and regional political entities are, in classic, small-government Madisonian fashion, capable of shouldering large and complicated tasks.
So, the Times earns one point for unintentionally avoiding the stupidity it relentlessly levels against Mr. Trump, but it loses a point for hysterically insinuating that Mr. Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord—and that alone!—will lead to the catastrophic destruction of the planet's habitable real estate.
2. The Times editorial board asks, "Can the United States meet its commitments without federal involvement?" and then never attempts to answer the question. Instead, the entire article—contrary to the Times' characteristic inability to imagine a world without a sprawling federal bureaucracy—unwittingly demonstrates the nimbleness and energy with which local, state, and regional political entities are, in classic, small-government Madisonian fashion, capable of shouldering large and complicated tasks.
So, the Times earns one point for unintentionally avoiding the stupidity it relentlessly levels against Mr. Trump, but it loses a point for hysterically insinuating that Mr. Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord—and that alone!—will lead to the catastrophic destruction of the planet's habitable real estate.
2
100% on point. Now, if only the Times would have such open mindedness on how to fix Obamacare.
The US composes 5% of the world population yet consumes 25% of its natural resources. The developing world wants to be more like us.
So how are we setting an example for anyone when our population went from approximately 200 million in 1990 to approximately 300 million by 2010. A 50% increase in 30 years.
The US population is on course to go to 450 million by 2050, adding yet another 100 million plus to our population.
This is more than any other industrialized country on the planet. Only India, Pakistan and Nigeria are expected to grow faster.
Not only does this impact climate, it also impacts loss of habitat, species extinction and sends out a message to the world that population increase and its ramifications doesn’t matter.
That seems to be the message from the states, and local municipalities. Between population explosion and climate change, climate change is the less horrific for the planet.
We can guess why politicians won’t speak about the subject but why are the newspapers not pointing to this blatant contradiction?
I worry more about our lead when it comes to population than to climate change, which is but one of many symptoms of overpopulation.
So how are we setting an example for anyone when our population went from approximately 200 million in 1990 to approximately 300 million by 2010. A 50% increase in 30 years.
The US population is on course to go to 450 million by 2050, adding yet another 100 million plus to our population.
This is more than any other industrialized country on the planet. Only India, Pakistan and Nigeria are expected to grow faster.
Not only does this impact climate, it also impacts loss of habitat, species extinction and sends out a message to the world that population increase and its ramifications doesn’t matter.
That seems to be the message from the states, and local municipalities. Between population explosion and climate change, climate change is the less horrific for the planet.
We can guess why politicians won’t speak about the subject but why are the newspapers not pointing to this blatant contradiction?
I worry more about our lead when it comes to population than to climate change, which is but one of many symptoms of overpopulation.
12
States and municipalities might indeed backfill the noxious policy void created by an unaccountably obtuse President. No doubt this should be applauded. Local governance, however, cannot by itself recapture the forward-looking energy initiatives of former President Obama.
Such global leadership requires federal activism but this has been voluntarily off-shored by the mindlessly bilious resentment whose visionary horizon extends no further than the animus harbored for a competent predecessor whom the global public respects and admires.
Such global leadership requires federal activism but this has been voluntarily off-shored by the mindlessly bilious resentment whose visionary horizon extends no further than the animus harbored for a competent predecessor whom the global public respects and admires.
5
My parents always encouraged me to see the glass as half-full. Keeping that mindset in place, we should thank Donald Trump for waking up complacent Americans and literally forcing them to get involved in how their government works.
I recently attended a local Democratic Party monthly meeting and was shocked to see a line of people waiting to get into the meeting hall. The person running the meeting announced to the group - standing room only - that in her years of running these meetings she has never seen this kind of turn out. May this be a portent of things to come in 2018.
Most people are frightened over what is occurring in D.C. The only folks who are happy with the job Trump is doing are the 38% who still think he walks on water. There is virtually nothing anyone can do to sway these people from their adulation for this man. But they are not the majority.
It is great to see the mayors and governors of individual states take the helm on climate change. I wish them Godspeed.
I recently attended a local Democratic Party monthly meeting and was shocked to see a line of people waiting to get into the meeting hall. The person running the meeting announced to the group - standing room only - that in her years of running these meetings she has never seen this kind of turn out. May this be a portent of things to come in 2018.
Most people are frightened over what is occurring in D.C. The only folks who are happy with the job Trump is doing are the 38% who still think he walks on water. There is virtually nothing anyone can do to sway these people from their adulation for this man. But they are not the majority.
It is great to see the mayors and governors of individual states take the helm on climate change. I wish them Godspeed.
10
As California goes, so should go the nation. If more states legislated adherence to policies that California implements, the federal government's role would be irrelevant. Jerry Brown is doing a great job advocating for his state to be the leader this country needs.
34
Curiously, in many ways, the Republican/Trump alliance is reinvigorating the essence of our constitutional republic form of balanced government (Article 10). Clean energy, with its synthesis of economic, environmental and social issues, is the perfect example of states, local governments, and businesses acting in concert (with a previous administration's federal goal) to achieve a demonstrable beneficial purpose, a common good. At the same time, we need to pay close attention to current efforts that seem to utilize this same dynamic to achieve ends that are questionable if not obviously detrimental to our common good. The administration's education budget and programming perhaps offer an example of our need to remain vigilant.
4
When, if ever, will the media challenge the many misleading and just plain wrong statements that Scott Pruitt keeps making, to wit:
That since the U.S. has lowered carbon emissions to levels below 1995, everything is just fine--even though our current pace has no chance of reaching the targets set by the Obama administration for 2035, in fact, will effectively kill the goal of a 2% reduction worldwide, since the U.S. Is by far the largest contributor to carbon emissions.
That of the 51,000 mining jobs created in the last few years, only 2,000 are in coal mining.
That the removal of mileage per gallon standards won't help the economy and has no other purpose than keeping the demand for oil high.
That the notion of maintaining coal stocks and oil reserves is critical to our national security because our electrical grid might be attacked (?) is absurd.
When will the interviewers start doing their homework ?
That since the U.S. has lowered carbon emissions to levels below 1995, everything is just fine--even though our current pace has no chance of reaching the targets set by the Obama administration for 2035, in fact, will effectively kill the goal of a 2% reduction worldwide, since the U.S. Is by far the largest contributor to carbon emissions.
That of the 51,000 mining jobs created in the last few years, only 2,000 are in coal mining.
That the removal of mileage per gallon standards won't help the economy and has no other purpose than keeping the demand for oil high.
That the notion of maintaining coal stocks and oil reserves is critical to our national security because our electrical grid might be attacked (?) is absurd.
When will the interviewers start doing their homework ?
6
"since the U.S. Is by far the largest contributor to carbon emissions."
False. China is.
False. China is.
While I think the CC boogie man is based on faulty data sets, there is nothing wrong with states, cities and individuals switching to renewable energy sources. Ultimately, as fossil fuels run out, we will need other energy sources including nuclear to provide energy.
Defaulting to the feds to get it done is a cop out anyway. Consumer choice is critical if you want to reduce emissions. If all those who strongly believe that we are heading toward a climate apocalypse simply reduced their carbon footprint (smaller houses, cars, less plane travel, buying local rather than purchasing goods manufactured overseas) then that would make great headway. But the key is choice. The federal government shouldn't mandate those kind of consumer choices, nor should states.
Defaulting to the feds to get it done is a cop out anyway. Consumer choice is critical if you want to reduce emissions. If all those who strongly believe that we are heading toward a climate apocalypse simply reduced their carbon footprint (smaller houses, cars, less plane travel, buying local rather than purchasing goods manufactured overseas) then that would make great headway. But the key is choice. The federal government shouldn't mandate those kind of consumer choices, nor should states.
4
Since all the market forces are now aligned to make alternative energy so competitive this is a good time to withdraw governmental mandates and subsidies and let the market take over. The savings to tax payers would be wonderful at apparently no increase in utility bills to ratepayers
President Obama's environmental challenge was much like that of John Kennedy's - to put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth within 10 years.
Both appealed to the American spirit of competition, rising to a challenge, innovating, and meeting a goal. Both reached way beyond the stated goal - had humanity and history changing consequences in mind, and brought new technologies and materials and sciences and technology and jobs that had never been dreamed of before. And both left the people with a feeling of wonder and awe and inspiration - that man could reach for the stars, and be a good, science driven custodian of the earth for future generations.
But there the similarities end - as may the outcome. President Kennedy was the space programs biggest "booster". He allocated all the resources the program needed to achieve the goal, and inspired the country to get behind it, until we felt a part of it, rooting for it's success, and feeling it was our success too when they landed back on earth safely.
Speed forward to the noble goal of reducing man's huge impact on a rapidly escalating change in climate that nothing on earth has time to adapt to. Where is our leader? Doing his best at nay saying, at saying we can't - shouldn't - do it. Making us one of 3 rogue nations on earth, just to bend to the coal industry for god's sake.
Well, we'll do it in spite of him if we can't do it with him. And he won't be invited to the party - not he or the GOP - when we win.
Both appealed to the American spirit of competition, rising to a challenge, innovating, and meeting a goal. Both reached way beyond the stated goal - had humanity and history changing consequences in mind, and brought new technologies and materials and sciences and technology and jobs that had never been dreamed of before. And both left the people with a feeling of wonder and awe and inspiration - that man could reach for the stars, and be a good, science driven custodian of the earth for future generations.
But there the similarities end - as may the outcome. President Kennedy was the space programs biggest "booster". He allocated all the resources the program needed to achieve the goal, and inspired the country to get behind it, until we felt a part of it, rooting for it's success, and feeling it was our success too when they landed back on earth safely.
Speed forward to the noble goal of reducing man's huge impact on a rapidly escalating change in climate that nothing on earth has time to adapt to. Where is our leader? Doing his best at nay saying, at saying we can't - shouldn't - do it. Making us one of 3 rogue nations on earth, just to bend to the coal industry for god's sake.
Well, we'll do it in spite of him if we can't do it with him. And he won't be invited to the party - not he or the GOP - when we win.
19
Am I to understand that progress can be made despite the federal government? Despite it? Why on earth should this be? It's not as though he is a charismatic leader. He isn't even much of a leader of anyone, even Republicans. Why are we putting up with him?
Imagine what progress could be made if Trump would stop the Tweeting and lead. The "lead,follow, or get out of the way" expression seems apt.
I hate feeling this way about the president. I'm older, I still like Ike. But this fool?
Or maybe he's not such a fool. He is great at distraction, keeping the news full of his antics while the GOP dismantles our country.
Things are indeed bad if I entertain that possibility, but think about it. Is this all an act?
Imagine what progress could be made if Trump would stop the Tweeting and lead. The "lead,follow, or get out of the way" expression seems apt.
I hate feeling this way about the president. I'm older, I still like Ike. But this fool?
Or maybe he's not such a fool. He is great at distraction, keeping the news full of his antics while the GOP dismantles our country.
Things are indeed bad if I entertain that possibility, but think about it. Is this all an act?
8
Sorry. I made the mistake of watching his cheesy reality show once--he's not that good of an actor.
Can't wait till Trump tries to take credit for helping the planet by releasing the states and citizens from federal shackles and setting the market free.
2
The key phrase to this article is, " . . .even with Mr. Trump standing in the way." This is, of course, Twitter bait for our esteemed leader and the fact remains that many steps are necessary for us to stay "American." Let us hope we are up to the task.
3
To all of you who read the NYT from New Hampshire, let's set our sites on Gov. Sununu. Let's encourage NH to join California, New York, and other modern, thoughtful states, in creating policies to address climate change.
We're a purple state. The legislature is, by and large, a ludicrous, pathetic group of old reactionaries. We have a reasonably intelligent populace, however, who should be able to put pressure on an ambitious person like Sununu to effect policies that focus on the existential issue of our time. Organize!
We're a purple state. The legislature is, by and large, a ludicrous, pathetic group of old reactionaries. We have a reasonably intelligent populace, however, who should be able to put pressure on an ambitious person like Sununu to effect policies that focus on the existential issue of our time. Organize!
12
Right on! I am a NH citizen who will telephone Gov. Sununu's office this morning!
Yet another reason to look at Trump's taxes. We already know that he invested in the Keystone Pipeline scheme to take the dirtiest oil all the way from Canada to Texas where it will likely be shipped off to other countries leaving US residents to take all the risk of oil spills and all the profits to a very select few.
How many conflicts of interest must we tolerate from Trumpty Dumpty?
How many conflicts of interest must we tolerate from Trumpty Dumpty?
This is what we get when every decision in the WH is made on the bases of how it will feed the President's ego and denigrate / erase the great legacy of his predecessor.
Make no mistake about it. Steve Bannon - the racist and anti-government isolationist - won this battle over the very few sensible folks surrounding Trump.
Make no mistake about it. Steve Bannon - the racist and anti-government isolationist - won this battle over the very few sensible folks surrounding Trump.
4
Your headline should read:
"States and Cities Compensate for Mr . Trump's Stupidity" because the issue of climate is but one of many concurrent displays of ignorance from someone who has been described as unprepared, lacking knowledge, teller of lies, corrupt, unethical, and not morally fit to be our president. Just follow the trail of his tweets to understand why world leaders have given up on him as a person, and probably us as a nation.
"States and Cities Compensate for Mr . Trump's Stupidity" because the issue of climate is but one of many concurrent displays of ignorance from someone who has been described as unprepared, lacking knowledge, teller of lies, corrupt, unethical, and not morally fit to be our president. Just follow the trail of his tweets to understand why world leaders have given up on him as a person, and probably us as a nation.
If the sane people, business and communities voluntarily commit to the goals set by the Paris Accord, then the impact of this crazy man in the White House can be mitigated. Unfortunately this must happen not only on climate change issues but in every area that Trump has touched. If we can survive this exhausting president we will be all the stronger to reverse his decisions and impact.
4
Federalism is a beautiful thing. We have 50 shades of federalism, 50 different combinations of taxes, regulations, and policies. States that are willing to go green (and pay the cost of going green) are free to do so. Rather than a one-size-fits-all national mandate, each state is free to do what it thinks is best for its citizens. Federalism may be the key to keeping the peace in a very divided Nation. Texas adopts laws that work for Texans, and California adopts laws that work for Californians. And citizens get 50 choices--50 different shopping carts of different arrangements of laws, taxes, benefits, and policies--to vote with their feet by moving to a state with laws to their liking. Pax Federalis.
3
I hate to point out the obvious , but even if you can put a dome over California, New York and Massachusetts and a 10- foot high barrier around Florida --success in lowering the temperature globally, requires unified, global cooperation. Gas-guzzling pick-ups that Texans drive won't be offset by
Priuses in Cali.
Priuses in Cali.
4
I also hate to point out the obvious, but the point of the NYT article was that some state and local governments are acting locally to meet the Paris guidelines. It is not about states putting up domes, just about states taking local action to reduce carbon in accordance with Paris plan. California is free to do its thing, and Texas is free to do its thing. It is called freedom. Federalism (limited national power & reserved power in the states) protects liberty and recognizes that true liberty may mean one thing for those who live in California and something very different for those who live in Texas.
1
Trump just fools himself due to the very high levels of his incompetence to do his job and his paranoia.
I feel very confident predicting that this administration will have the highest number of firing in a kill the messenger mode and the highest number of hires of people not qualified for the jobs.
However, I do not feel sorry for the Trump treatment to his staff or Cabinet if they take it in order to keep a job. Power over dignity is pitiful and probably feels like working in Purgatory but it does not have mu sympathy.
I feel very confident predicting that this administration will have the highest number of firing in a kill the messenger mode and the highest number of hires of people not qualified for the jobs.
However, I do not feel sorry for the Trump treatment to his staff or Cabinet if they take it in order to keep a job. Power over dignity is pitiful and probably feels like working in Purgatory but it does not have mu sympathy.
2
"market forces" have already reduced "emissions" 12 %. How "stupid" is the President in allowing capitalism rather than an overbearing central government to allow technology to succeed. The Left's problem is that the Paris Accord tickles the idealism bone, but Trump and responsible conservatives know it will cost billions of dollars and millions of jobs. Please do the math correctly. Great that all these cities have "targets". We'll all be gone by any of their earliest predictions, which of course are more than hopelessly optimisitic. It's not "stupid". It's leadership.
1
What jobs? Conservative is becoming a euphemism for backward thinking obstructionist policies that do nothing to bring real jobs to America. Make Buggy Whips Great Again.
1
"...and responsible conservatives know it will cost billions of dollars and millions of jobs...."
Responsible conservatives should consider that spending billions of dollars will generate millions of jobs.
Your assertions are mutually exclusive.
Responsible conservatives should consider that spending billions of dollars will generate millions of jobs.
Your assertions are mutually exclusive.
There are not enough states nor cities to overcome President Trump's stupidity aka knowing things that are not true about the science of climate change. Plus the current head of the USEPA Scott Pruitt is a lawyer politician lobbyist beholden to the fossil fuel industry who actively fights for that interest led by the failing flailing coal industry. Finally the Republican Party majority in Congress is too cravenly cowardly to stand up for the country's interest regarding the environment.
Thus Xi Jinping of China and Narendra Modi of India are now leading the Paris Accord fight against climate change on behalf of the interests of their 2.5 billion people and the rest of humanity.
Thus Xi Jinping of China and Narendra Modi of India are now leading the Paris Accord fight against climate change on behalf of the interests of their 2.5 billion people and the rest of humanity.
We don't need Big Brother to watch over us and manage this. Why do the Leftists always want to put the bloated and inefficient government in charge? Mr. Trump did the right thing.
3
In making decisions, Trump's 30%+ base is more important than what the rest of the country thinks or how much damage will be done to the planet.
Typically of him!
Typically of him!
Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling in his grave wondering how the party he made famous for conservation is now ruining the planet for profit. An honest and thoughtful Republican party would restore the environmental regulations in law. But alas we have a Republican Party poisoned by Trump, McConnell, Ryan, and Pence who are trying to appease those voters who were conned by Trump's lies.
5
The fact that more than 1,200 governors, mayors and businesses have promised to do whatever they could to help the United States meet climate goals Is a good kick in the pants for the Commandeer in Chief. Can they and those who join them succeed with him not only not on board but working against them? Worth a try. At the very least, it indicates to the world that there are Americans other than Frump. It is important to send out signals to let the world know that there are still persons worth saving on this sinking ship.
5
I don't disagree. Though the word choice in the headline reminded me of how eloquently President Obama spoke of the coarsening of our political dialogue. I did not vote for Trump, but by using the word, "Stupidity," the NYTimes seems to be moving directly against the spirit of what the NYTimes Publisher and Executive Editor wrote to readers on Nov. 13, 2016.
They stated: "... we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you."
Yet by choosing to declare President Trump's actions as "Stupidity," the Times once again dismisses those Trump voters (many who we know voted for Obama twice) who have a valid disagreement with Paris Climate Agreement. This President must be held accountable, but as President Obama rightly knew, choosing to get into the mud with this President serves no one.
They stated: "... we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you."
Yet by choosing to declare President Trump's actions as "Stupidity," the Times once again dismisses those Trump voters (many who we know voted for Obama twice) who have a valid disagreement with Paris Climate Agreement. This President must be held accountable, but as President Obama rightly knew, choosing to get into the mud with this President serves no one.
The right-wing's old "states rights" mantra may just come back to haunt them!
3
So we not only have no decent president, we are now having to try to thrive despite having an indecent one. I hope we don't settle for that.
Since we are in the final months of his residency there is no reason to pay his policies much attention
The problem with trying to protect the environment locally is the reason that we needed an international accord to begin with. The environment is global, not local. Without federal laws local action will not protect people from the localities that fail to participate. The best that the progressive states and cities can do is model for the rest of the country. Fair to say that profit motives and self-interest have long beaten idealism on the environmental front.
I applaud States and Cities that strive to protect the environment. Regrettably they will still be downstream from the toxic flush of the rest. Let us hope that the damage done by Trump, Pruitt and their ignorant compatriots will not be irreversible.
I applaud States and Cities that strive to protect the environment. Regrettably they will still be downstream from the toxic flush of the rest. Let us hope that the damage done by Trump, Pruitt and their ignorant compatriots will not be irreversible.
143
The environment is not global, it is local and science fact backs this. Sudbury, Ontario implemented environmental remediation to clean up mining operations and not only is the environment cleaned up, but the local climate has returned to historical norms. Michigan is another example. But why rely on science facts and real data.
I cannot force you to act in the best interests of your neighbours, short of physical violence. But I can engage you in trade and negotiations in the hopes you will seek desired changes. Closed minded fools who believe that they alone can save the world will kill us all.
I cannot force you to act in the best interests of your neighbours, short of physical violence. But I can engage you in trade and negotiations in the hopes you will seek desired changes. Closed minded fools who believe that they alone can save the world will kill us all.
Let us do more than hope and start by revisiting Flint and other cities that have been contaminated by leaden water and corrupt politicians.
One hopes that the Association of Governors will band together and promote common legislation (little chance, I know) but wouldn't it be grand. Cities could join, tax breaks for the promotion of common goals. A real bottom up movement.
Who needs Congress? They'd never enact any laws to allow the supremacy clause to make the collective action worthless.
If not so serious, it would be fun to see the tantrums coming from the WH.
Who needs Congress? They'd never enact any laws to allow the supremacy clause to make the collective action worthless.
If not so serious, it would be fun to see the tantrums coming from the WH.
I think it would be nice if someone would draw up a personal Paris plan, that shows ways you as an individual can bring your contribution to emissions down by thirty percent. I can't afford, for example, to make energy efficient changes in my house, though I know it's old and leaky. But there might be other things I could do. We could use a sort of menu, advice that takes non-city dwellers and low income people into account.
What we need is a massive push to switch to renewable energy. Once installed renewable are almost free. Only a backward country would want top use extreme extraction techniques like mountaintop removal, tar sands stripping, fracturing of rock formations, and deep sea drilling, to get st fossil fuels that should stay in the ground.
The price of renewables it's already competitive with the price of fossil fuel, and dropping rapidly. It makes no sense to wait until our economy is less competitive compared to countries that are getting nearly free energy.
On top of that, if you include externalities from fossil fuel, costs born by spaceport but not included in the price, fossil fuels are already more expensive. These include wats for oil (like the War in Iraq, which have global oil corporations of the oil corporations; economic and political power centralized in shareholders and CEOs of oil corporations; spills, fires, explosions, etc, that kill and destroy economies; health effects from particulates and other causes; and global warming (which poses to great a risk of economic and environmental disaster even if the probability were small.
Even under Democrats, the Federal Government would not be able to solve this problem. It will take action by all of us. A powerful constituency not named in this article is Native Americans whose treaties should stop many of the new pipelines and fracking does.
The price of renewables it's already competitive with the price of fossil fuel, and dropping rapidly. It makes no sense to wait until our economy is less competitive compared to countries that are getting nearly free energy.
On top of that, if you include externalities from fossil fuel, costs born by spaceport but not included in the price, fossil fuels are already more expensive. These include wats for oil (like the War in Iraq, which have global oil corporations of the oil corporations; economic and political power centralized in shareholders and CEOs of oil corporations; spills, fires, explosions, etc, that kill and destroy economies; health effects from particulates and other causes; and global warming (which poses to great a risk of economic and environmental disaster even if the probability were small.
Even under Democrats, the Federal Government would not be able to solve this problem. It will take action by all of us. A powerful constituency not named in this article is Native Americans whose treaties should stop many of the new pipelines and fracking does.
Trump's symbolic attempt to satisfy his supporters, that 30% who are devoted to destroying everything Obama regardless of the harm to themselves, their children, and the future. Increasingly, Trump's actions confound reason and are clearly emotional and irrational. Strange outbursts against our friends and allies, except Saudi Arabia the source of Wahhabi Sunni terror, bizarre out reach to the very worst world leaders: Un, Duterte, Erdogan, Sisi, and our opponents Xi and Putin do not ruffle Trump's supporters. After all, it's all un Obama. What are sane people to do, States, companies who must answer to their shareholders? At the turn of the last century, America relied upon ICE to cool and preserve our food. A vast ice cutting industry provided thousands of jobs along the Hudson, in lakes and ponds, and ice warehouses and ships. When refrigeration arrived, many Americans lost their jobs and some lost their fortunes, because they clung to ICE. So much of Trump's support comes from "Southern Strategy" states that he is unlikely to try to revive the ice industry. But the withdrawal from the Paris accords may offer hope to Trump's northern supporters yet who hunger to cut ice on the Hudson....but it doesn't freeze over anymore.
165
If only Barack had known how dangerous those jokes told at t rump's expense would become.
Everything this so called president does is in answer to being made a buffoon at a national joke fest. A buffoon he is more than capable of filling out.
Everything this so called president does is in answer to being made a buffoon at a national joke fest. A buffoon he is more than capable of filling out.
If enough states and cities require adherence to the Paris Climate Accord in goods and services, US businesses will keep making better and ecologically clean services and products. This will allow our country to not fall behind during the Trump "presidency". When a real president is elected on 2020, we can rejoin the Paris Accord and move on from this disastrous chapter in our country.
3
While Governors like Cuomo are pledging to keep America moving forward in clean energy, other states are crowing over having the right to blow the tops of mountains off into stream beds.
We are still a bifurcated society.
Until we have a consensus that clean energy is good for business, good for jobs and not some liberal politically correct gobbledegook meant to stifle real people from real jobs so that we can protect frogs or some such thing, we are not going to act to develop alternate energy. But no worries - the Chinese will do it for us, and they will earn the jobs and growth.
A lot of adages come to mind: Pound foolish, penny wise. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Shoot yourself in the foot. Hoist on your own petard. Sticking your head in the sand.
All those adages exist because we do stupid things for stupid reasons. The mindset of the minority of the country that has somehow grasped the majority of power illustrates all of them.
Climate change is real. The outcomes and impacts are predicted to be dire: we are gambling the future on people disputing what "scientific theory" means, and the hope that scientists are all part of a liberal plot to do something -no one can quite define the goal - and hurt our jobs.
Good for all the governors and business leaders and cities that are committed to preserving the planet. Can they find a way to drag the rest of our citizens into the future with them?
We are still a bifurcated society.
Until we have a consensus that clean energy is good for business, good for jobs and not some liberal politically correct gobbledegook meant to stifle real people from real jobs so that we can protect frogs or some such thing, we are not going to act to develop alternate energy. But no worries - the Chinese will do it for us, and they will earn the jobs and growth.
A lot of adages come to mind: Pound foolish, penny wise. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Shoot yourself in the foot. Hoist on your own petard. Sticking your head in the sand.
All those adages exist because we do stupid things for stupid reasons. The mindset of the minority of the country that has somehow grasped the majority of power illustrates all of them.
Climate change is real. The outcomes and impacts are predicted to be dire: we are gambling the future on people disputing what "scientific theory" means, and the hope that scientists are all part of a liberal plot to do something -no one can quite define the goal - and hurt our jobs.
Good for all the governors and business leaders and cities that are committed to preserving the planet. Can they find a way to drag the rest of our citizens into the future with them?
294
I would love to see alternative energy companies establish locations in past and present coal-mining regions. Provide jobs and training to those who have been tied to the coal industry for generations for their economic survival and now must surely feel that it is being taken away from them. Education and employment can certainly change attitudes.
Walmart and Target are in a race to cover each of their store roofs with solar panels. So much so, that both retailers now produce more power than they use, which makes them effectively net green energy power plants. I know that here in Liberal Land were supposed to never say a good thing about insurance companies, drug companies or Walmart, but the fact is that the biggest companies in the private sector are really prime drivers in solving carbon emissions, and have been for some time. The private sector is leading, and it is the legislative side that is following.
It is best to work very hard to save frogs and such, because their health is a barometer of the health of the environment. We need the to preserve the whole food chain , from large keystone species to tiny krill.
When Trump was elected I contacted a local solar installer to add panels to my roof so that I would no longer use coal as a source. Those panels are due to be installed next month.
My point: We don't have to wait on state government or even cities. We can take action ourselves, and encourage our friends to do the same.
My point: We don't have to wait on state government or even cities. We can take action ourselves, and encourage our friends to do the same.
15
It's a terrible situation when we the law making-process is alienated from civil society. We shouldn't respond by legitimizing the irrelevance of the state that makes the laws, we should refuse to tolerate it and VOTE out the dysfunction.
If the American government under Trump will not do what is right and moral when it comes to climate change, then our hope lies with American enterprises and State governments to at least do what is profitable and economical.
Under Trump, the shining city on the hill is all business.
Under Trump, the shining city on the hill is all business.
1
It seems like we've recreated a climate change civil war with over half the states working to reduce carbon-based greenhouse gas emissions, including some of the most populous energy coming states. At a personal level, what advice would you give to your readers who would like to help? I've recently switched from oil to natural gas saving over $400/month and have been replacing all my light bulbs with LED ones. Does it make sense to switch to an all-electric or hybrid car and install solar panels? It seems that consumers can play a significant role in reducing their use of of carbon emitting energy that may make up the difference in state-level actions.
2
When the words "President" and "Trump" are no longer attached to each other in as little as 44 months , efforts made by individuals will have lessened the impact of our eventual return to facts. Professional deniers like Scott Pruitt will be retired by the oil companies as will the notion that we must delay, delay, delay and then panic, panic, panic so that a few can milk an old cow even further. We'll go about the work of giving our children options. Now is the time to invest if you have any ideas.
5
I've had bosses before that were inept. Resultantly, my colleagues would band together and somehow find a way to make things work. We were able to succeed despite the lack of leadership and understanding. It seems that that it's going to take that mentality to persevere. Between the vacancies at key posts-- like the attorneys general for one, the inexperience and ineptitude at the posts that have been filled, the policy created on a whim without the consultation of so much as an expert, and the lack of any leadership skills or coalition building in delegating Trump's poor choices, states and cities are going to have a lot of work on their hands.
5
Nations do not work that way, they collapse
Much like the evolution of public thought on the rights of LGBTQ citizens (acknowledging of course there is still a long way to go) the American public is evolving quickly on climate change and the necessity to transform both ourselves and our energy infrastructure. While a vocal minority is given disproportionate room to speak against improving things, the vast majority of citizens are "there" already.
By there I mean wanting to close all coal plants, close all nuclear plants, stop fracking, create vast seas of wind and solar power, and build infrastructure that both facilitates more mass transit and bicycling as well as a change to non-gas powered vehicles. Jobs created will more than offset jobs lost. We won't have the worry of the health of coal workers or the catastrophic possibility of a terrorist attack on a nuclear site.
There are unprecedented opportunities for both individual citizens, politicians, and business to lead on this issue. I for one am very excited to see how we innovate during the vacuum of leadership from the President and the GOP and how the next President will be able to build off of it.
By there I mean wanting to close all coal plants, close all nuclear plants, stop fracking, create vast seas of wind and solar power, and build infrastructure that both facilitates more mass transit and bicycling as well as a change to non-gas powered vehicles. Jobs created will more than offset jobs lost. We won't have the worry of the health of coal workers or the catastrophic possibility of a terrorist attack on a nuclear site.
There are unprecedented opportunities for both individual citizens, politicians, and business to lead on this issue. I for one am very excited to see how we innovate during the vacuum of leadership from the President and the GOP and how the next President will be able to build off of it.
2
Now aggressively educate the inhabitants of coal mining areas for new jobs, new skills and new life-long careers. It will take consummate charismatic leaders to convince people whose entire personal histories are bound up with coal finally to accept that coal is "over" and that they do not have to live in abject poverty because of that. There are other ways to survive, and here is a call for the greatest creative minds to bring inspiration to those of us who have become so single resource-dependent that they are embittered at our suggestion that they must change. To what? they yell so loudly that they cannot hear themselves think. They must save their lives even as we all try to save the planet, and we are charged with helping them save their lives. What is it all about, anyway? Renewable energy. Even renewable people energy. The raw stuff is hidden in those hollers and hills of West Virginia and elsewhere.
4
People who live in Eastern Kentucky have no desire to move and are survivors. The people trying to maintain the status quo are the coal billionaires, who are continuing to rape the land, and are promoting now natural gas as the answer. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is about exporting natural gas. A visit to Hazard Kentucky would be fun for you. A nice place.
1
While it is possible we could meet Paris targets without Trump, that is because the Paris targets are so paltry compared to the challenge of winning the battle on Climate Change. Many Republicans know this, but those in office cower beneath the electoral swords of the Kochs and the Mercers. Blue ribbon Republicans beyond electoral threat, including James Baker III, George Shultz, Henry Paulsen, and Greg Mankiw, are pushing what they call a Conservative Climate Solution. Including former Treasury Secretaries, heads of The Council of Economic Advisors, and CEO's of Goldman Sachs, this is group that knows economics beyond the spurious claims that switching energy sources is too expensive. They propose a Fee and Dividend strategy similar to what Citizens' Climate Lobby has been advocating for years. This strategy has been modeled to increase GNP, add jobs, and drastically reduce emissions, and do it without regressive pressure on the the lowest economic rungs of the society, with no government rule making, removing no money from the private economy. Grover Norquist and Bernie Sanders, if they could put their natural antagonism aside and study it together, could both support this policy. And until both sides can agree on a strategy, we will continue to careen toward climate disaster, with or without the Paris accord.
2
There's no sweet-talking this disaster. Changing how people behave, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau points out, requires the combined force of law, public opinion and the appeal of pleasure. With the federal government no longer in the business of making and enforcing laws discouraging the use of dirty carbon fuels and encouraging alternative clean fuels, the goal of reducing our reliance on carbon fuels is going to be a whole lot harder.
As to pleasure, Americans are way too pleasure-seeking and selfish to resist the exquisite joys that come from flashy SUV's and big, vulgar houses, which is to say all appeals to pleasure, in America, are pointless in trying to check global warming.
We're left, then with public opinion as the best way to resist Trump on climate change. Which is to say we need the forces of shame and honor to kick in. If we could turn consuming dirty energy into something shameful, we'd have a chance.
How hard would that be? In a consumer driven democracy like ours, all that's needed is enough of the right powerful celebrities and public figures to became known for living in modest homes that use solar or wind power and for driving energy efficient automobiles. People choosing to live in McMansions and drive big, fat SUV's would quickly turn into objects of derision and ridicule.
My sincere apologies about that last point. For a moment there, I was dreaming.
As to pleasure, Americans are way too pleasure-seeking and selfish to resist the exquisite joys that come from flashy SUV's and big, vulgar houses, which is to say all appeals to pleasure, in America, are pointless in trying to check global warming.
We're left, then with public opinion as the best way to resist Trump on climate change. Which is to say we need the forces of shame and honor to kick in. If we could turn consuming dirty energy into something shameful, we'd have a chance.
How hard would that be? In a consumer driven democracy like ours, all that's needed is enough of the right powerful celebrities and public figures to became known for living in modest homes that use solar or wind power and for driving energy efficient automobiles. People choosing to live in McMansions and drive big, fat SUV's would quickly turn into objects of derision and ridicule.
My sincere apologies about that last point. For a moment there, I was dreaming.
Within the space provided by the constitution while the states, cities, industry and businesses in the US are moving in tandem with rest of the world to catch up with the clean energy future, Trump under the toxic influence of the fossils fuel industry is hell bent on further polluting and harming the future of humankind.
30
I agree with everything in the editorial but question the use of the word "stupidity" in a NY Times editorial about any president. The word may be accurate but it feels more insulting than objective.
6
The word "stupidity" is perfectly appropriate when describing the actions of the con man in the White House.
The Times and its loyal readership will maintain professional distance, carefully nonjudgmental language and a veneer of civility with even the most reprehensible, morally corrupt individuals.
But fail to worship at the Church of Progressive Values, and watch those Lefties turn into seething hordes of fanatical, bloodthirsty ideological crusaders, ready to tear to shreds all who stand in their way.
But fail to worship at the Church of Progressive Values, and watch those Lefties turn into seething hordes of fanatical, bloodthirsty ideological crusaders, ready to tear to shreds all who stand in their way.
The Times' use of the word 'stupidity' goes far beyond disrespectful of the office of the President…
Taken in the larger context of decades of NY Times reporting on international terrorists, thugs, tyrants, convicted killers, racist agitators, antisemites and all-around bad actors, the paper's unbridled, seething language about President Trump becomes hypocritical, pathological, out-of-touch, and most of all, revealing---about the weirdly disproportionate moral perspectives of The NY Times writers and readers.
Taken in the larger context of decades of NY Times reporting on international terrorists, thugs, tyrants, convicted killers, racist agitators, antisemites and all-around bad actors, the paper's unbridled, seething language about President Trump becomes hypocritical, pathological, out-of-touch, and most of all, revealing---about the weirdly disproportionate moral perspectives of The NY Times writers and readers.
Meanwhile, the GOP Congress will do its dirty part to prop up Trumpism. One way is to defund irritating sources of data that show the folly of Republican environmental policies such NASA satellites that keep track of the steadily melting polar icecaps. How irritating these satellites are that were probably built and managed by "liberal" scientists!
11
What an extraordinary show of grass roots common sense and solidarity: Earlier, individual States opposed the Muslim travel ban and some continued to provide sanctuary in defiance of their President.
Could it be that the United States of America is less than the sum of its parts? If so there appears some justification for greater decentralization away from a Washington swamp that remarkably is displaying even greater incompetence than Brussels.
Could it be that the United States of America is less than the sum of its parts? If so there appears some justification for greater decentralization away from a Washington swamp that remarkably is displaying even greater incompetence than Brussels.
5
In my 70+ years I do not recall a president ever being called stupid! But in the case with Trump I find the term a bit mild, it is unbelievable how much negative words, actions and blunders he has accomplished in four months. I am waiting with apprehension of his surely explosive coming reaction as Comey testifies. Just as disturbing as an out of control president is how the Republicans are putting their agenda before country.
Even if the climate change is not directly attributed to mankind, we are still lowering our footprint leading to cleaner air, water and improving our environment. Look at a photo taken of the planet from the space station and one sees a very thin blue line between the Earth's surface and space. I believe its called the atmosphere and without it we are all dead!
Even if the climate change is not directly attributed to mankind, we are still lowering our footprint leading to cleaner air, water and improving our environment. Look at a photo taken of the planet from the space station and one sees a very thin blue line between the Earth's surface and space. I believe its called the atmosphere and without it we are all dead!
35
Just goes to show ya that the reactionarys are on their last legs. Their perpetual lair president aided and abetted by the clueless leadership in Congress seem to think they live in some alt universe where they will always get their way.
But the hounds of justice and propriety are closing in on the Carnival Barker and not one significant bill has been passed by the reactionarys in Congress. Reality is catching up to these guys and the polls show that clearly. The nation has finally learned that the snake oil they peddle is good for nothing.
As the late great pundit from Fort Worth, Molly Ivins, used to say "Good on ya" for all the official resistance now taking root.
But the hounds of justice and propriety are closing in on the Carnival Barker and not one significant bill has been passed by the reactionarys in Congress. Reality is catching up to these guys and the polls show that clearly. The nation has finally learned that the snake oil they peddle is good for nothing.
As the late great pundit from Fort Worth, Molly Ivins, used to say "Good on ya" for all the official resistance now taking root.
3
Trump says he's taking his ball and going home and everyone else says OK, go, we have our own ball. See ya. It's astonishing how quickly he's making himself irrelevant.
Yet America and the world still need America's federal government for the leadership it can, under a different president, provide. Most of us, the very best of us, really, really smart people I have to say, hope that change happens very soon.
Yet America and the world still need America's federal government for the leadership it can, under a different president, provide. Most of us, the very best of us, really, really smart people I have to say, hope that change happens very soon.
5
Citizens of these cities and states might want to have a word with their elected officials on this. These taxpayers will be footing the bill for the slush funds and mandates imposed by this horrific Paris accord.
3
Progressives appear to have hijacked that odious term "states' rights," which used to be not so subtle code words for a state's right to promote blatant racism, sexism and the dismantling of workers' rights. Now, thanks to Jerry Brown and other governors, racist right-wing politicians can't use it anymore. Because now it seems that the term states' rights is being redefined to mean that states have the right to promote protecting the environment, diversity, their workers and children when corrupt congressional leaders in Washington, D.C., refuse to do so. Poor racist right-wingers. Now they'll have to find new code words for their rotten agendas.
3
Last Friday's Washington Post (6/2) had a graph which showed US carbon emissions abiding with and not abiding with the by the Paris Climate Accords. Regardless of what we do by 2030 China-abiding by these Accords-will be entitled to produce 2-3 times the amount of carbon we are allowed to produce. The difference in our carbon output by agreeing to these accords is tiny. As our President said, 0.2-0.3 degrees centigrade.
China has enough resources to build an entire archipelago of islands in the South China Sea equipped with runways and entire naval bases in violation of international law and a decision by an international court. Why don't we insist they use these resources to convert their economy away from coal? How much carbon does building entire islands produce? Why would we ever agree to such terms?
It makes no sense to sacrifice jobs and spend billions in foreign aid to put ourselves at competitive disadvantage for a tiny reduction in carbon emissions especially when we are not helping poor countries but rather major competitor nations. It is prudent to reject the notion China and India should be allowed to spew 2-3 times the amount of carbon we are into the atmosphere.
I reject the NY Times use of the word stupidity. Stupidity was agreeing to this in the first place. And if this was so important, Obama shouldn't have squandered his Senate majority on the ACA and used it instead to confirm this treaty. It would then not be so easily revoked.
China has enough resources to build an entire archipelago of islands in the South China Sea equipped with runways and entire naval bases in violation of international law and a decision by an international court. Why don't we insist they use these resources to convert their economy away from coal? How much carbon does building entire islands produce? Why would we ever agree to such terms?
It makes no sense to sacrifice jobs and spend billions in foreign aid to put ourselves at competitive disadvantage for a tiny reduction in carbon emissions especially when we are not helping poor countries but rather major competitor nations. It is prudent to reject the notion China and India should be allowed to spew 2-3 times the amount of carbon we are into the atmosphere.
I reject the NY Times use of the word stupidity. Stupidity was agreeing to this in the first place. And if this was so important, Obama shouldn't have squandered his Senate majority on the ACA and used it instead to confirm this treaty. It would then not be so easily revoked.
7
The 0.2-0.3 numbers quoted by the President have already been debunked as incorrect. See below.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608015/trump-misused-mit-research-in-...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608015/trump-misused-mit-research-in-...
So now we get to look like a fool in the eyes of the world, AND pay the price tag anyway. It's the right thing to do, but Trump never lets that matter.
2
Future headline: "US States and Cities save the environment, Trump takes credit". I won't be surprised when he announces that this was his plan all along.
29
Trump's 'reverse psychology' seems to be working fine. We are now more united against Global Warming than a year ago. Additionally, he has brought Global Warming to center stage. Before, the GOP barely spoke of it, but now they, and the electorate, are well aware of the issue.
Trump's buffoonery is now equated with ignoring Global Warming. You couldn't ask for better wordsmithing and zeitgeist.
Trump's buffoonery is now equated with ignoring Global Warming. You couldn't ask for better wordsmithing and zeitgeist.
5
Federalism is alive once more. The impulse that created and passed the Constitution may now lead to cleaner air. No return to 'ring around the collar.' California will hold car manufacturers feet to the fire by maintaining its exemption to car mileage standards. Other states can join the evolving standard, making a big difference.
May Trumped learn to keep his mouth shut!
May Trumped learn to keep his mouth shut!
4
Given the complete lack of progress coming out of Washington over the past 10-years on addressing climate change, the solutions are to be had at the local community, city and state / regional levels. We are now at the point in the cost curves where renewables compete effectively against coal as a fuel source. There will be NO new coal plants built in US, and the nuclear power construction industry recently took a body blow with the bankruptcy of Westinghouse.
As an individual, ask your power provider to offer "clean energy" and be willing to pay a couple dollars more per month for it. Insulate your homes, use LED lights, upgrade your old furnace / AC unit, and buy efficient mileage cars. WE can achieve these goals without Washington.
As an individual, ask your power provider to offer "clean energy" and be willing to pay a couple dollars more per month for it. Insulate your homes, use LED lights, upgrade your old furnace / AC unit, and buy efficient mileage cars. WE can achieve these goals without Washington.
7
We are experiencing the fruits of a radical GOP dream. The irrelevance of a Presidency and Congress. They can still sow damage but the ways of mitigating it are growing. Maybe we should complete the dream and refuse to pay Federal income tax. Use that money at the state level.
5
Just a reminder of what your opinion page wrote last week "In truth, the agreement does not require any country to do anything". It did not require us to send money to foreign nations but there would be pressure to do so as long as we were part of the agreement. Better to spend the money here at home.
The mayors and governors who want to fill in should propose a special tax on their citizens to provide the funding the federal government declined. I would be interested to see how that works out.
As for me I'm on my way to reducing my 2005 levels: new air conditioner, new dishwasher, new water heater, new car that gets better gas mileage, solar exhaust fans on the roof, most lights are now LEDs. I'm not interested in sending money to other countries to do whatever with.
The mayors and governors who want to fill in should propose a special tax on their citizens to provide the funding the federal government declined. I would be interested to see how that works out.
As for me I'm on my way to reducing my 2005 levels: new air conditioner, new dishwasher, new water heater, new car that gets better gas mileage, solar exhaust fans on the roof, most lights are now LEDs. I'm not interested in sending money to other countries to do whatever with.
2
"But if we could add back in the Obama initiatives — for instance, the mandatory shutdown of all old coal-fired power plants, which are rules Mr. Trump wants to kill — we’d get to 23 percent, which is much closer."
I'm not nearly as pessimistic as many about Trump's Paris pull-out. What I quoted above shows even Trump cannot stem the tide, that the new money is flowing to renewables for their promise and their impact on the air we breathe. Thank God for states and cities taking the lead on this--and who knows how many more will jump on board as renewables get cheaper?
Trump's jettison of the Paris Accord may be embarrassing, but he won't be at the helm forever. In fact, given the tumult in Washington, who knows the limit of his term. While that still leaves us with know-nothing GOP leadership, even that can't last forever, and at some point, a Democrat will be president, poised to pick up the carbon reduction reins where Obama left off.
And let's not forget--as if we could--that even the most die-hard global warming skeptic might change their tune if weather patterns continue their deadly march. All it takes is one more natural disaster for the entire country to say, "enough" and vote in leaders who will take the lead, not shirk it. on reaching sensible climate change policy targets.
I'm not nearly as pessimistic as many about Trump's Paris pull-out. What I quoted above shows even Trump cannot stem the tide, that the new money is flowing to renewables for their promise and their impact on the air we breathe. Thank God for states and cities taking the lead on this--and who knows how many more will jump on board as renewables get cheaper?
Trump's jettison of the Paris Accord may be embarrassing, but he won't be at the helm forever. In fact, given the tumult in Washington, who knows the limit of his term. While that still leaves us with know-nothing GOP leadership, even that can't last forever, and at some point, a Democrat will be president, poised to pick up the carbon reduction reins where Obama left off.
And let's not forget--as if we could--that even the most die-hard global warming skeptic might change their tune if weather patterns continue their deadly march. All it takes is one more natural disaster for the entire country to say, "enough" and vote in leaders who will take the lead, not shirk it. on reaching sensible climate change policy targets.
4
We can make progress, but it seems that the Trump machine seems intent upon not only returning the federal government to the coal polluting past, but also hampering the states where it can. Hence the possibility that it will remove California's right to set tougher auto emission standards than exist at the federal level. Anyone who can remember the smog which used to hang over LA knows that that right has been a good thing for California and the nation.
No matter how much states can accomplish environmentally in years to come, they cannot prevent the USA's march under Trump to a place of irrelevance on the world stage nor can they prevent China from filling the leadership void we leave. That will be Trump's lasting 'legacy.'
No matter how much states can accomplish environmentally in years to come, they cannot prevent the USA's march under Trump to a place of irrelevance on the world stage nor can they prevent China from filling the leadership void we leave. That will be Trump's lasting 'legacy.'
2
Keep the list of companies that signed the agreement.
If a company you plan to buy from is not on the list, consider an alternative.
If a company you plan to buy from is not on the list, consider an alternative.
47
The be-all of climate protection never was the Paris Climate Accord, a cynical cave by the politically correct that even its exponents admit wouldn’t have adequately protected the climate. And Trump has invited the word to join with us in negotiating an agreement that would, and that would be balanced. That’s not “stupidity” but hard-headed reality.
Yet it’s a welcome change from regular fare to see in print editorial admiration for federalism, when this central tenet of American governance has been under such unremitting attack by the left for so many years. If enough states and cities are willing to pay for their own notions of climate salvation – despite an inability to pay for effective education in our more impoverished communities or to maintain our infrastructure – then federalism appears to be alive and well. I would only hope that the editors will see the irony in this next time they find the religious convictions of some of our communities too un-American.
Yet it’s a welcome change from regular fare to see in print editorial admiration for federalism, when this central tenet of American governance has been under such unremitting attack by the left for so many years. If enough states and cities are willing to pay for their own notions of climate salvation – despite an inability to pay for effective education in our more impoverished communities or to maintain our infrastructure – then federalism appears to be alive and well. I would only hope that the editors will see the irony in this next time they find the religious convictions of some of our communities too un-American.
9
"Trump has invited the word to join with us in negotiating an agreement that would, and that would be balanced."
Already been done Richard. That is the hard-headed that you and TrumptyDumpty havent/ cant /wont realize.
BTW please tell us whose religious convictions are viewed as being too *un-American*.
Already been done Richard. That is the hard-headed that you and TrumptyDumpty havent/ cant /wont realize.
BTW please tell us whose religious convictions are viewed as being too *un-American*.
1
David:
Obviously, it hasn't been done if Paris's own champions don't think it's enough. And, while I'm not religious myself, it's clear that religious convictions irk the editors enough to ignore the need to pay attention politically when millions of voters disagree with them -- on abortion among a number of other highly contentious issues where the only rational solution is compromise by ALL parties.
Obviously, it hasn't been done if Paris's own champions don't think it's enough. And, while I'm not religious myself, it's clear that religious convictions irk the editors enough to ignore the need to pay attention politically when millions of voters disagree with them -- on abortion among a number of other highly contentious issues where the only rational solution is compromise by ALL parties.
1
Fine - where's the alternative? We hear endlessly what we are not going to do, we don't hear word one on what we are going to do. So far Trump administration negotiations seem to begin and end with "Who knew it was so hard?" and off to the golf course. And besides, Trump's Clean Coal, Clean Air, Clean Water America First Energy Policy should support the Paris agreement's voluntary emission reduction standards that we set ourselves. Unless, of course, it's all just a lie.
4
First off, climate is LOCAL and extends to Regional. If you want to change your climate, go to the closest mirror and point at the person you see in it and say "You MUST change how you are living." Make your home more efficient, minimize what you "own". Choose the most efficient products. Make due with older products that still function and are fairly efficient. Do you really need to have laws and a government nanny to force you to do the right thing?
Corp-people are a different breed that is driven by greed. So here too, that person in the mirror can control where they purchase goods and services. This should get that corp-person's attention. Law are also needed to help force corp-people to be good citizens. We also need to change who we elect to office. This may mean throwing a baby or three out with the bath water, but we need free thinking not owned legislators.
Lastly, we also need to drop this misguided notion that we need to be the world's police force, moral compass, or whatever else. We claim that we champion the right of all to live as they wish and have a government of their OWN choosing, yet our actions are 100% the opposite.
Bottom line, we, the individual, are the agent of change.
Corp-people are a different breed that is driven by greed. So here too, that person in the mirror can control where they purchase goods and services. This should get that corp-person's attention. Law are also needed to help force corp-people to be good citizens. We also need to change who we elect to office. This may mean throwing a baby or three out with the bath water, but we need free thinking not owned legislators.
Lastly, we also need to drop this misguided notion that we need to be the world's police force, moral compass, or whatever else. We claim that we champion the right of all to live as they wish and have a government of their OWN choosing, yet our actions are 100% the opposite.
Bottom line, we, the individual, are the agent of change.
3
Carbon emissions per capita ofUS citizens is still 2.5x that of Europeans. Personal choices can reduce carbon emissions by about 50%, and there is much work to be done to educate people on how we can achieve this. More favorable market forces encouraging wind and solar will help. B
But state and federal regulations are imperative to get to the full 26-28% reduction we need to comply with our Paris commitment. Investment in efficient public transport is one area where the US lags other industrialized countries and where we could reduce emissions per capita significantly.
Utility level renewable energy sources will also require government policy support. Our national grid is sourced 80% by fossil fuels. This requires strong federal regulations applied in all states as per Obama's Clean Power Plan. The only way to reinstate this is to vote the obstructionist republicans out.
But state and federal regulations are imperative to get to the full 26-28% reduction we need to comply with our Paris commitment. Investment in efficient public transport is one area where the US lags other industrialized countries and where we could reduce emissions per capita significantly.
Utility level renewable energy sources will also require government policy support. Our national grid is sourced 80% by fossil fuels. This requires strong federal regulations applied in all states as per Obama's Clean Power Plan. The only way to reinstate this is to vote the obstructionist republicans out.
23
Thanks for mentioning personal choices. Nobody - even Pres Obama - has done anything to challenge ordinary people to do the 4-5 things we could all change that would collectively make a huge impact: eat less meat, build smaller homes, adjust the thermostat, drive less or not at all (public transit or biking or telecommute), buy less stuff. No politician or "green" business will/can say these things. Not that gov regulations (carbon tax, CAFE standards, building codes) aren't needed, but the impact of our collective choices could be huge--and could help citizens feel good about "joining the fight" for the life of our planet and of future generations. These people then become part of the energy fueling the movement toward better gov policies/practices. Plus, it gives us credibility as a nation when we suggest that less-wealthy but aspiring nations who want to live like we do temper their lifestyle choices (air conditioning, cars) in deference to a healthier climate future.
3
But our states, cities, and corporations that compensate for Trump's misguided decision-making produces a moral hazard for Trump, the presidency, and the country.
The more the consequences of Trump's ill informed decisions are neutralized and he is not punished, the more likely he is to continue upping the ante and taking greater risks with the country.
This sort of behavior works at times in real estate - skirting bankruptcy, doubling down, until the random jackpot deal saves the day (Jared is at this moment trying to execute one of these very risky bets with his 666 Fifth Ave property), but in the realm of international policy and relations it is madness. There is little upside and a great deal of downside - downside that too often results in mayhem, war, and death.
The more the consequences of Trump's ill informed decisions are neutralized and he is not punished, the more likely he is to continue upping the ante and taking greater risks with the country.
This sort of behavior works at times in real estate - skirting bankruptcy, doubling down, until the random jackpot deal saves the day (Jared is at this moment trying to execute one of these very risky bets with his 666 Fifth Ave property), but in the realm of international policy and relations it is madness. There is little upside and a great deal of downside - downside that too often results in mayhem, war, and death.
37
The post-Trump approach to environmental work seems to me to be more in tune with the American mentality than a set of blanket requirements. Americans are fond of private initiatives, neighbourhood and the effects of group dynamics; I'm a member of the National Wildlife Organization, and in all of their newsletters, nature protection or helping to save biotopes as well as endangered species is something that succeeds because of plain and simple non-governmental, concerned citizen involvement. Cities, counties, they are most important when it comes to establishing renewable energy initiatives. I say to just let the American Citizen, the local authorities do their jobs, and you'll find that this will be more successful than anything the government can do by means of laws.
2
CMD, you must travel in a pretty elite crowd. No one I know has the power as an individual citizen to build a multi mega-watt power plant or a mass transit system. Consumers might buy all the electric cars Tesla makes but they alone won't make a dent in CO2 emissions. It takes more than a few concerned citizens to transition a nation of 300 million into a new energy paradigm. Europe, especially Scandinavia, is providing a lot of good jobs by nurturing the clean tech entrepreneurs of the future.
2
True enough, but your suggestion requires trust and faith in the public and in our corporations. I might have gone along with you 1 year ago, but no longer. There are too many (people, companies, governments) who make decisions based solely on their immediate self-interest (hence, Trump). Without rules and regulations that "punish" selfish, stupid behavior (you can't trust in the invisible hand of Adam Smith), our environment will be damaged beyond the tipping point.
1
The free market will undo the damage done by Trump.
Take heart in the fact that there are much more intelligent people, with far more money (actual funds, not borrowed from Russian oligarchs) than our current squatter in the White House.
How do we recover and advance our nation after Donald's incompetence?
Private firms must lease the medians of every interstate in America and cover them with solar panels. Rain collection from those same flanks of solar panels can turn micro-turbines, creating a charge during storms. High speed rail will need to be built along those same corridors. Regional smart grids, isolated from neighboring communities and states by a "sally-port" firewall will make community energy production autonomous and protect our national grid from hacking. Home owners will soon be imposing their own "conscience tax" by installing solar on rooftops.
Do the math. Discover how pragmatic it is to turn our rail and automobile corridors into solar energy collection channels. Task Musk and his peers to create an automobile battery technology that can be swapped out in less time than it takes to fill a tank with fossil fuels.
In thirty years, whole skyscrapers will be built in major pollution centers that will act as scrubbers, much like those tower air ionizers in your home. Whole floors of select buildings will work to purify the air.
A term of national service, akin to the CCC and WPA will be essential.
Trump is temporary. Human innovation is a constant.
Take heart in the fact that there are much more intelligent people, with far more money (actual funds, not borrowed from Russian oligarchs) than our current squatter in the White House.
How do we recover and advance our nation after Donald's incompetence?
Private firms must lease the medians of every interstate in America and cover them with solar panels. Rain collection from those same flanks of solar panels can turn micro-turbines, creating a charge during storms. High speed rail will need to be built along those same corridors. Regional smart grids, isolated from neighboring communities and states by a "sally-port" firewall will make community energy production autonomous and protect our national grid from hacking. Home owners will soon be imposing their own "conscience tax" by installing solar on rooftops.
Do the math. Discover how pragmatic it is to turn our rail and automobile corridors into solar energy collection channels. Task Musk and his peers to create an automobile battery technology that can be swapped out in less time than it takes to fill a tank with fossil fuels.
In thirty years, whole skyscrapers will be built in major pollution centers that will act as scrubbers, much like those tower air ionizers in your home. Whole floors of select buildings will work to purify the air.
A term of national service, akin to the CCC and WPA will be essential.
Trump is temporary. Human innovation is a constant.
78
I forgot something: Try and obtain the book "Gaviotas" by Alan Weisman. This community may be in Columbia, but it is 100% independent of outside sources of energy, thanks to the inventiveness and dedication of those that helped found it. The book is a fantastic read.
3
"Do the math". Yes, I agree, do the math and you will determine that all green sources (including hydro) barely generate enough electricity to run the servers. What about running the nation? And considering your proposal of homeowners installing solar, (at subsidized rates), who is going to pay for maintaining the grid which needs a roughly $1 trillion upgrade? And finally, the thought about batteries - one needs to understand how much energy is contained in a fossil fuel compared to the amount of energy stored in a typical battery and then imagine the issues for a 6,000 acre wheat farmer trying to plant and harvest his crops. I mention farming because it is the tremendous productivity of farming (due to fossil fuels) which enable this nation (and all those cities!) to devote time and effort to all their other pursuits instead of spending 80% of their waking hours securing and maintaining their daily food supply. The math is very complex.
1
So, we can try to save the planet, but only if there's profit involved? If a private firm leases a median on an interstate, who pays for it? Who regulates the cost, or the efficiency? The free market? You're going to take the other interstate instead?
Does a government have no role in helping its own society survive and thrive?
I get the draw of a systemic dynamics in the public marketplace and how attractive that seems because there are many areas of the economy that's applicable. But, it seems like wishful thinking to say that the free market will come to the rescue.
Does a government have no role in helping its own society survive and thrive?
I get the draw of a systemic dynamics in the public marketplace and how attractive that seems because there are many areas of the economy that's applicable. But, it seems like wishful thinking to say that the free market will come to the rescue.
1
Trump clearly made the correct decision to get out of the agreement. The United States will continue on the path of cleaner energy. Obama's globalist, socialist policies would have been a true burden on poor people and middle class with well with the increase cost of energy. The facts are clear China and India would continued to increase fossil fuel emissions, not having to address it in more then a decade from now. The agreement would have sent hundreds of millions of dollars of US tax payer money overseas. The democrat new world order is harmful to the United States citizens and tax payers. That's a part of the many reasons Trump won in November, he clearly has the best interest of American tax paying citizens. The agreement was a treaty in that major economic polices were to have been implemented. Obama never had the authority to enter the United States into an agreement like that.
9
The agreement wasnt binding. Trump should of kept us in the agreement to show we are team players. If we didnt accomplish the goal but came close, there would be no penalties.
36
Trump is isolating America, that is perceived abroad as increasingly unwelcoming. Trump is hurting the tourist industry badly losing thousands of jobs there, foreign students and academic won't com here (and no, they don't take jobs from Americans because they have skills Americans don't have enough of), hospitals in poor areas will have to reduce services costing jobs, or even close if Trumpcare makes it through, and gas prices will rise due to Trump's latest stupid tweeting about Qatar and his (assumed) role in it. How is that good for the poor and middle class who have to pay for Trump's stupidity?
3
None so blind as those that can't or won't see the obvious! Your choice Jim.
Good...let the States and Major Cities handle this situation. They are the ones who would handle this anyway. The Federal Government doesn't have a magic button they can push to manage climate control. Yes, they can create laws but no one ( Cities, Counties and States) follows the federal laws they don't like anymore. Please refer to the Federal Law regarding immigration, sanctuary cities and States and throw in the marijuana laws which States ignore.
4
What if your state is broke? Illinois doesnt have the funds to fight this.
Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake that is not in Canadas clean up program. It doesnt touch Canadian soil. Who will help us clean up our water source. Trump is not interested and has cut the only program we had to clean it up.
Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake that is not in Canadas clean up program. It doesnt touch Canadian soil. Who will help us clean up our water source. Trump is not interested and has cut the only program we had to clean it up.
1
IL. should have the funds but your Blagojevich choice for Gov followed by Quinn crippled the State for years to come. You have a decent Gov now but it will take time. Vote carefully next time.
A lot of things can change and lots can happen on the way to fulfilling "Target" percentages. They are nice goals, but in no way are they guaranteed to be met. and 29 States is not the entire United States. The reason Natural gas is so cheap at the moment, is because of fracking. BUT It causes earthquakes, and is horrible for the environment. Have something devastating happen because of it, and it goes away. We need clean energy sources, but not at the expense of rising insurance rates, and the creation of unstable ground faults. Oklahoma for example. Just in 2014 alone, Insurer's sold 11.6 Million dollars worth of earthquake premiums. Insurers are happy, but homeowners aren't. Clean energy should be solar, wind, and other natural methods of creating power. Coal is now cleaner than ever and is a viable and reasonable source of energy, and it's plentiful. Setting lofty goals is fine, but lot's of things can get in the way of reaching them like wars, natural disasters, and tanking economies. The Paris compact is in no way legally binding, and if 10, 15, 20 countries decide to that they cannot afford compliance, guess what? It goes out the Window. Who is going to force compliance? The United States does need a better deal, because our commitment hinges on huge sums of MONEY to do the things we say we're going to do. We shouldn't be left holding the bag if other countries (200 of them) decide that it's no longer in their interests to do so. We need BINDING compliance.
How did coal get "cleaner than ever"? It is pretty much the dirtiest fuel and the only way is can become "clean" is to have methods of pollution control in use. Mining it is also extremely harmful to the Earth and the miners. The only really clean power is one that has no emissions.... the sun, the wind....
Some of the reasons the Paris Accord is important is that tackling this world-wide problem needs world-wide cooperation and effort. It's like peer pressure. ( How would binding compliance be enforced, and who would do it?) Another reason is that our being in the Accord would make us a partner- therefore we could sell our technology to countries developing their power systems, etc. thus reaping the economic gains of commerce. And of course, the whole world would benefit from cleaner air, water and hopefully a more stable climate.
Instead of the US being one of the big players, China will take that role, as it is clearly eager to do.
Some of the reasons the Paris Accord is important is that tackling this world-wide problem needs world-wide cooperation and effort. It's like peer pressure. ( How would binding compliance be enforced, and who would do it?) Another reason is that our being in the Accord would make us a partner- therefore we could sell our technology to countries developing their power systems, etc. thus reaping the economic gains of commerce. And of course, the whole world would benefit from cleaner air, water and hopefully a more stable climate.
Instead of the US being one of the big players, China will take that role, as it is clearly eager to do.
1
Coal byproducts are cleaner thanks to new and somewhat expensive Carbon Capture technology. But besides reducing carbon C02 emissions, the captured carbon can be used here in the U.S. and also exported to other countries to aid them in deployment at a new or existing facility which can achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen. Clearly coal is not the best choice for power generation, but only one option in a list of many.
1
The more enlightened states may well make progress, yet the accelerating proliferation of oversized houses, oversized Pickup Trucks and gas guzzling SUVs in much of America would seem to neuter much of it.
The houses built today will likely be part of our nation's housing stock for many generations. Despite smaller families, houses keep getting bigger.
Solar, Wind and other renewable sources are fine, but the demand side must be brought under control. States have far more levers than the Federal Government to impact the housing and transportation markets. States should look seriously at taxing outsized houses and huge SUVs. Instead of market value, states could tax cars and trucks based upon fuel economy, for example.
The houses built today will likely be part of our nation's housing stock for many generations. Despite smaller families, houses keep getting bigger.
Solar, Wind and other renewable sources are fine, but the demand side must be brought under control. States have far more levers than the Federal Government to impact the housing and transportation markets. States should look seriously at taxing outsized houses and huge SUVs. Instead of market value, states could tax cars and trucks based upon fuel economy, for example.
61
The gasoline tax is a tax on mileage. If you fill up more frequently you pay more tax.
3
And look at the quality of the houses you describe: wood-frame houses without insulation to keep them cool in the summer, warm in winter. Roofs which have no insulation either. Air conditioners running 24/7. Single-pane windows. Huge rooms which are expensive to keep warm. As lovely as American houses seem to us, we also realize that they are about as energetically inefficient as it is possible to be. Oh, and look at the waste of water, but that is another subject. One of the worst things is the system of flat rates for electricity and water. Consumption of all utilities is measured over here and you pay for what you use.
2
I am talking about a tax on the displacement of engines- not the fuel tax. In most states people pay an annual tax assessed on the car/truck/van they drive. States could easily tax Trucks and SUVs at a much higher rate and add a surcharge for large displacement engines.
I drive a gas powered car (1.8L Turbo 4) with plenty of power that commonly returns 45+ MPG at highway speeds and can easily seat 4 with 5 in a pinch. I am surrounded on the roadby single occupant SUVs that get 12-14 MPG in urban areas and maybe 22-24 MPG on the highway. Those monsters not only waste fuel, they put more carbon in the atmosphere.
In housing, an empty nest couple does not need 2,500 square feet heated and air conditioned, but that is not uncommon. The size of American families is shrinking and the size of houses continues to grow. As with cars, inefficient housing should be taxed at a higher rate to encourage more efficient construction.
One final example- Air Conditioning. There are units on the market with SEER ratings above 30, but the most commonly used units are in the mid teens. Inverter Compressor technology for HVAC should be mandated by law which alone could make a huge difference.
I drive a gas powered car (1.8L Turbo 4) with plenty of power that commonly returns 45+ MPG at highway speeds and can easily seat 4 with 5 in a pinch. I am surrounded on the roadby single occupant SUVs that get 12-14 MPG in urban areas and maybe 22-24 MPG on the highway. Those monsters not only waste fuel, they put more carbon in the atmosphere.
In housing, an empty nest couple does not need 2,500 square feet heated and air conditioned, but that is not uncommon. The size of American families is shrinking and the size of houses continues to grow. As with cars, inefficient housing should be taxed at a higher rate to encourage more efficient construction.
One final example- Air Conditioning. There are units on the market with SEER ratings above 30, but the most commonly used units are in the mid teens. Inverter Compressor technology for HVAC should be mandated by law which alone could make a huge difference.
1
Yes! Thank you, NYT for laying out an optimistic rough sketch!
14
This is the hope in a dark hour. California's economy is about the size of France's, and New York's is comparable to Canada's. If such states and the cities that are the economic engines of their states move forward, at least it will mitigate Trump's disastrous policies. It cannot compensate completely but may keep progress advancing.
The irony is that there are exponentially more jobs in renewable energy than in coal. When Trump fights for coal, it is as though he is touting how healthy a pack of cigarettes a day is, or issuing a clarion call on behalf of the horse and buggy sector or some other antique vintage Americana. Black lung disease alone much less pollution should be negatives that everyone understands.
Technology continues to advance rapidly in places like Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Red states have benefited from the development of wind farms and solar as well as corn-based fuels.
When Trump is so out of touch with American views and is pleasing only his cabal of billionaire polluters, he should be ignored. One day those polluters will have to pay for the damage they knowingly inflict on the environment and people's health. Just like the tobacco industry had large-scale lawsuits, the future will bring a financial reckoning post-Trump.
In the meantime, those states, cities and universities that are responsible global citizens can lead, and they will reap the benefits in new jobs, industry formation, engineering and technology.
The irony is that there are exponentially more jobs in renewable energy than in coal. When Trump fights for coal, it is as though he is touting how healthy a pack of cigarettes a day is, or issuing a clarion call on behalf of the horse and buggy sector or some other antique vintage Americana. Black lung disease alone much less pollution should be negatives that everyone understands.
Technology continues to advance rapidly in places like Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Red states have benefited from the development of wind farms and solar as well as corn-based fuels.
When Trump is so out of touch with American views and is pleasing only his cabal of billionaire polluters, he should be ignored. One day those polluters will have to pay for the damage they knowingly inflict on the environment and people's health. Just like the tobacco industry had large-scale lawsuits, the future will bring a financial reckoning post-Trump.
In the meantime, those states, cities and universities that are responsible global citizens can lead, and they will reap the benefits in new jobs, industry formation, engineering and technology.
197
It is all well and good for the cities and states to do their part to compensate for Trumps callousness with the environment. But until we can phase out the 500 coal fired power plants we're just placing a band aid on a festering wound. These plants produce 44% of the CO2 annually that pollutes our atmosphere.
So what to do. The States each have a Public Utility Commission (PUC) that governs each states utilities. And they have the clout to move away from coal. It's called the "pocketbook". They control the rates utilities can charge their customers. That's where pressure needs to be applied. And the state's can ban together for carbon tradeoffs to ease the cost of moving to renewable energy for the big polluter states like WY.
So what to do. The States each have a Public Utility Commission (PUC) that governs each states utilities. And they have the clout to move away from coal. It's called the "pocketbook". They control the rates utilities can charge their customers. That's where pressure needs to be applied. And the state's can ban together for carbon tradeoffs to ease the cost of moving to renewable energy for the big polluter states like WY.
44
the business case for coal is getting slimmer by the year, so they will close or scale down one way or the other.
1
Isn't it better if the states come up with plans that are tailored to their local preferences than to have a one-size-fits-all federal solution? Trump is not doing anything to stand in the way of states and cities pursuing their options.
Great work having 1200 individuals and organizations pull together. Not a majority of the public, but a good start.
Great work having 1200 individuals and organizations pull together. Not a majority of the public, but a good start.
4
No, it's not better. Efforts are more fragmented and the likelihood of success is lessened without federal resources, research and oversight.
66
Oklahoma's solution will likely be that if the believe hard enough that there is no problem, the problem will go away
12
The clean power plan, which Trump cancelled, did let states devise their own ways of meeting the goals.
6
Together states, cities, and other groups can do a lot, yes. What they cannot do very easily is continue the science. For example, Congress is letting NASA's ice observing satellites and other earth observing satellites die without replacement. This is almost certainly now baked in for the next decade.
252
Trump's budget also slashes government big science funding at the national labs of the Department of Energy where Nobel Laureates and other top scientists have often worked. This kind of brain drain hurts research, technology and national security in a world of rapidly advancing technology.
120
Fake news. The Republican budget for NASA is higher for 2017 than the Obama request, and the 2018 proposal is higher still.
4
maybe europe china russia or another space agency can fill that gab. other nations find researching climate change important enough you would think
2
We can all do more. ( conserve, recycle and change to green technologies )
However, what many are not talking about is the fuel mileage standards. President Obama enacted an almost doubling of the current standards, which are being rolled back by this administration.
It will be up to car manufacturers to lead the way and all of us to keep pressure on them to do so.
However, what many are not talking about is the fuel mileage standards. President Obama enacted an almost doubling of the current standards, which are being rolled back by this administration.
It will be up to car manufacturers to lead the way and all of us to keep pressure on them to do so.
219
For less money than the CAFE standards cost, the states that want to reduce the average fuel consumption could raise state gasoline taxes. It would be more efficient than CAFE. But it would cost Musk a good bit.
5
The good news is that the car manufacturers now sell their products to countries other than the USA and states such as CA have struct standards so it's unlikely that any of them will go back to making smog-belching gas-guzzlers. I used to prefer V6 vehicles but now I'm driving a 4-cylinder 2.0 liter 2016 Ford Escape with great gas-mileage and performance that's equivalent to a V8 10 years ago. My wife drives a Ford C-Max Energi which is a plug-in hybrid that does 60 mpg (equivalent) and is fun to drive.
Trump is out of step with the World and the USA, he can't be gone soon enough IMHO - Comey's testimony on Thursday may speed his departure.
Trump is out of step with the World and the USA, he can't be gone soon enough IMHO - Comey's testimony on Thursday may speed his departure.
148
Yeah and if you think car manufacturers really care about the environment and are going to voluntarily reduce emissions and increase gas mileage, I have a bridge to sell you.
3
Never underestimate what cities and states can accomplish when they are motivated without help from Washington DC. Oregon made the decision to clean up our state decades ago. We were tired of our dirty water and air and made the decision to clean up our environment. Yes there's always more we can do and we're working towards doing our part to meet the standards set by the Paris Climate agreement but we're not waiting for permission to act. Trump is temporary but our actions are what truly matter.
304
Yes but we cannot have 50 entities running in all directions.
True. Here in New York the air is cleaner, the Hudson River while it will never be free of all the toxins dumped in it over the years is much cleaner than in over a century. Some of it's fish are edible, and the recreational boating life has come back strong. The clam beds of the Great South Bay of Long Island that I mucked around in as a teenager are reopened and ripe with clams and scungilli. While it would be nice to have inspiring leadership from the White House that ship sailed last November so for now we have to build the world we want shoulder to shoulder.
3
read here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/02/climate/trump-paris-green...
Had the US kept it's full commitment it would have been about $10/per person (total, not per year) ... as Trump is abrogating it, about $3 per person.
And none of it was going to China, and not much going to India.
10 B$ over many years is chump change in international foreign aid. This is what we hand out per year to the top 5 recipients right now:
Israel: $3.1 billion.
Egypt: $1.5 billion.
Afghanistan: $1.1 billion.
Jordan: $1.0 billion.
Pakistan: $933 million.