61 Mayors Commit To Adopt, Honor and Uphold Paris Climate Accord After US Pulls Out (curbed.com) 247
After President Trump announced his intent to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, 61 mayors across the country have pledged to adopt the historic agreement themselves. The group of mayors, who represent 36 million Americans and some of the largest U.S. cities, outlined a plan to align with the other 194 nations that adopted the accord. From a statement provided by the climate mayors: We will continue to lead. We are increasing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. We will buy and create more demand for electric cars and trucks. We will increase our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a clean energy economy, and stand for environmental justice. And if the President wants to break the promises made to our allies enshrined in the historic Paris Agreement, we'll build and strengthen relationships around the world to protect the planet from devastating climate risks. The world cannot wait -- and neither will we.
Cool beans (Score:2)
Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers that the former persident agreed to? $100B a year, if I remember correctly. The world is waiting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers
I checked the list for the usual suspects. Sure enough: Mayor Rahm Emanuel, City of Chicago, IL. Meanwhile, we learn today that S&P and Moody's have downgraded Illinois to "Near Junk, Lowest Ever for a U.S. State," [bloomberg.com] because these people have been spending themselves into an epic hole for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a large house in a rural area, a boat, and a truck to tow the boat, then climate change policy is a direct attack on your quality of life.
Unlikely. You don't lose quality if you have a better engine in the boat and truck, or go both electric or in case of the boat hybrid.
You just prefer to eat more cheap food and get fatter instead of saving some money and upgrade your hardware.
I'm sailing, my boat engine runs less then 20 minutes a day. 10 to get out of the harbor and 10 to get back in. Well,
Re: (Score:2)
So a bunch of liberals on the east and west coast get swallowed by giant flood.For some reason that brings a smile to my face.
And also... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers that the former persident agreed to? $100B a year, if I remember correctly. The world is waiting.
Some questions:
That last one - makin
Re:And also... (Score:5, Informative)
Some questions:
.) Does pulling out of the Paris agreement prevent us from making as good or better climate decisions?
Yes it does, because it diminishes the ability of nations to coordinate their actions. It leaves US-based corporations (a large constituency among polluters) free to continue flouting established science and driving their aging, archaic business models along, dragging the American economy with it. This is bad for voters.
No. China and the EU see a strategic opportunity here to use technological advances to do the the USA in the 21st Century what the USA did to Britain in the 19th Century—use newer industrial technology to out-compete the established corporate interests.
There is a global cost to this, but China especially is willing to suffer in order to win. Its more interventionist economic policies have already given it a strategic advantage in terms of alternative energy tech (especially solar), and if it has to accept a 1-2% mid-term drop in GDP in order to sideline the USA, it will happily pay that price.
Fuck your straw man.
Just because you can't see the wisdom of a largely voluntary commitment process, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The Obama administration managed a near-miracle in the way this was structured, so that the bulk of the commitments came into the non-binding schedule 2 portion of the agreement. This meant that countries would not be straitjacketed into onerous commitments that they had no hope in honouring. By allowing signatories the right to choose how far they want to go, and when they'll get there, they made it possible for everybody to sign the same document. And the genius of that is because it allows recalcitrant countries to be singled out and cajoled into coming along for the ride without having to deal with corrupt, backward, reactionary legislatures like the American Senate, just to take a random example out of the air. But more on that in a moment....
Redistribution of the ability to survive. Because countries don't survive climate change, species do.
... or don't.
You know what cheating is? Cheating is when simply fucking lying about climate change because you're fat and rich today and "fuck you that's why" becomes your ruling mantra. That is pretty much what the Republican party had done. Nowhere else in the world is the question of climate change a partisan platform issue.
The only other nations who didn't ratify the Accords are Nicaragua and Syria. Syria didn't attend COP21, because they were kind of distracted. Nicaragua refused to sign on because they didn't think the Accords went far enough. The USA is literally alone in this folly.
The Senate majority's willingness to put party before country (or species, for that matter) is the cheat. President Obama acted in the national and global interest, doing everything within his legal power to ensure that American came along, even if the Republican party didn't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
No. China and the EU see a strategic opportunity here to use technological advances to do the the USA in the 21st Century what the USA did to Britain in the 19th Century—use newer industrial technology to out-compete the established corporate interests.
How exactly does that work? I mean, if the new technological advances make businesses more profitable, wouldn't they adopt them on their own without needing global government agreements to force them to?
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't they adopt them on their own without ...
Obviously not, just look at internet speeds and technology and prices in USA.
Or the quality of typical throw away american products.
People by either cheap and throw away, or a brand and pay premium.
Rational "we shift with the cheaper stuff" and "long term _investments_" into high quality goods etc. is not really the strength of the US capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim was that European or Chinese businesses would out compete the US with the advanced green technologies. That's not the same thing as the quality of the product.
Is the US economy going to be better off without the Paris accord, or worse off?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the US economy going to be better off without the Paris accord, or worse off? ... etc. That is completely unrelated to most stock prices, perhaps rela
Who knows.
As far as I can see the US economy does not follow the rhythm of the world.
However every time the US economy has a crash or swing down everyone is fearing it would affect the world economy. Usually it does not. E.g. look at the Dow Jones. Why people believe falling prices for stocks influence the world economy is beyond me. Steel mills have to run
Re: (Score:2)
Yankee treaties, always one way and are only binding as long as it suits the Yankees, for everyone else, Yankees demand they are bound by Yankee treaties under threat of economic and or military attack, Yankee treaties are law as long as Yankees say they are, they second Yankees say they are not, they are not.
Paris climate accord, yet another glaring globally public demonstration of exactly who the US government really is, two faced liars, deceivers and exploiters and if ever there was a country everyone
Re:Cool beans (Score:4, Informative)
I don't like this trend (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Money don't grow on trees son, it gotta come from somewhere and the best place to get it from is the poor, because hell they got nothing to loose anyways.
With the rich paying less taxes, they will be able to afford a much bigger yacht and 4 sports cars instead of 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now. Remember that el Presidente Tweetie is only a baby Christian. The word in Christian circles is that if G-d wanted the poor to be rich, he'd have given them money. They are clearly just losers who won't work in jobs that don't exist.
More specifically, giving the rich more dough means they get to invest more. However, that only affects the supply, not demand. Companies won't produce more if the market isn't there and there are not enough rich people to make much of a market for most things. And if y
Re:I don't like this trend (Score:4, Informative)
>"I have seen this more and more since Trump took office. Trump dismantles EPA's public protections. Local governments agree to pick up the slack."
Actually, this is generally the way the country is supposed to be run. By the design of the country and explained in the Constitution, most of the power and running of the country is SUPPOSED to be at the state and local levels. In this manner, it keeps the Fed under control, gives localities more freedom to meet the specific needs of their citizens, and creates competition/exploration/choice. Of course, that doesn't work with everything, but that is why there are a few SPECIFIC powers granted to the Federal government- they are listed right in the Constitution (coining money, common defense, post office etc). Those rights NOT listed that the Fed has commandeered are numerous- things like healthcare, education, welfare, are good examples.
We are the United States of America, not the Federal State of America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama enacted a lot of his campaign promises through executive orders, which is a very weak foundation to build policy. What one POTUS can create another can destroy. If Obama wanted to create a lasting legacy then he should have got Congress on board and made it law. That way his legacy would have required an act of Congress to bring down.
Where the Democrats really screwed up was to weaken the filibuster, the "nuclear option" they enacted to get the bills they wanted into law. The filibuster is to slow
Let me see if I understand you (Score:2)
Go check again, the Federal government actually has minimal oversight over schools, healthcare or welfare.
So you're saying that:
"No child left behind" is optional,
"Common core" is just a recommendation,
I don't have to have health insurance if I don't want it, and
the government doesn't set my SSA retirement benefits?
Is that what you're saying?
Re: (Score:2)
Complying with NCLB gets a school additional federal funding. So yes, it is optional. Noone goes to jail or gets fired/shut down if they say 'fuck NCLB'. Although considering how poorly managed most schools are, they probably rely on that federal funding.
And yes, if you don't mind paying the additional fine/tax, you can go without health insurance if you want to boycott the industry.
But its the hot trend (Score:2)
All the hard-core liberal mayors are into this alternative Federal policy stuff, where the Feds do (or don't do) X and the mayors and city councils decide to do contrary policy Y. I think the whole sanctuary city movement started a lot of it and Trump's election has certainly accelerated it.
Some of the time it's sensible, regional policy making the Feds shouldn't have been doing anyway or that cities or states should be doing.
But an awful lot of it seems like empty grandstanding on areas like diplomacy, fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't like this trend (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh I'm sorry, was Obama in charge of the entire Congress? Because the last time I checked the motherfucking Constitution, Congress, and not the President, is responsible for spending and taxation.
The reason the debt problem will never be solved is because people who need a serious crash course in civics keep blaming the wrong branch of the bloody government! Hold Congress responsible for their fucking job and make them pass surplus budgets until the debt is cleared. That is the only way, besides becoming a failed state, to get rid of our debt.
So please, for our country's sake, read the Constitution or shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how fast the left can switch blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost as fast as the right can.
Hints of Future History (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Destruction of the US global power and influence
I don't want to be a global power. I don't want the US policing the world.
Do you like imperialist American hegemony? How about America just takes care of America, and the rest of the world can deal with their own problems, in their own way, without being bossed around by America?
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting down on our military power (which is not what the Republicans and Trump apparently want to do) has its advantages.. Throwing away US leadership in other areas really doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Greg Bears excellent novel "Queen of Angels". He is not explicitly describe the decline of the state and the rice of the cities but it gets clear from the context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the real story and the eventual history that will be Trump's: Destruction of the US global power and influence
Ok, I'll reply. This destruction was well under way under Obama and the left, who hold as a plan for the future for the US to fall into wimpydom as China dominates the world. They view it as inevitable, so might as well turn to taxing and borrowing the hell out of ourselves to help our decline along while garnering votes.
I didn't mod this down, but I expect those upset that you were modded down will, with no feeling of irony, mod this down.
Win for trumps legacy (Score:5, Funny)
Look how he unites the American people.
What a hero.
Re:Win for trumps legacy (Score:4, Insightful)
I never thought I'd find myself thinking about that overused The Dark Knight quote about "the hero we deserve" in relation to Trump, but here you've gone and made me think it.
You don't suppose he's actually making himself the villain in order to unite us? That's a scary thought.
Re: Win for trumps legacy (Score:3)
Gotta lower my expectations some more, eh? (Score:2)
No funny comments, except maybe a couple of the ones modded insightful. Not even a joke about destroying the planet as a possibly impeachable offense.
Winners: Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China. Losers: Rest of the world unless China saves the day.
YES! This is as it should be (Score:2)
Make the responsibility local and hence much more accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
Seattle is already over it's annual carbon limit with the fire started by the hobos under the West Seattle freeway bridge.
Hmmmmm (Score:2)
Where are they going to find the billions of dollars to pay to foreign governments, and will their constituents be ok with that?
After all, I'm not worrying about the agreements mandates on limiting emissions, since the US didn't join the Kyoto protocols, yet is still meeting the standards due to the switch from coal to natural gas for a large amount of power generation, in addition to adding wind and solar generation too.
Soooo, the only thing these Mayors really have to do is come up with case to hand to ti
Re: (Score:2)
Where are they going to find the billions of dollars to pay to foreign governments
Simple. They can't count. The number of mayors goes from 61 to 68 and then 83 depending on how far you drill down through the related articles.
just wow (Score:2)
so there's a president that presides over nothing I guess. What's the point?! Too many chiefs? Not enough indians? Pick a leader to lead, and fire the leader that doesn't. This is just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on! Don't be depressive. There are good things about Trump, too!
I get dozens of Trump jokes and funny comedian movies about Trump every day on FB and other media, e.g. the latest press release from the white house: "Trump states he was disappointed about his meeting with the Pope. He was only met by Gods proxy".
Will they send "loss and damage" money overseas? (Score:3)
The Paris Agreement provided for more than voluntary reductions, but also for developed nations to send $100 billion in aid to developing nations for climate change mitigation--mitigation which is measured against self-established goals. Part of the agreement also provides for additional funds to be sent to address "loss and damage" suffered by various island states and developing nations for environmental damage caused by global warming.
Is it the intent of these mayors to spend city funds on helping foreign nations negatively impacted by global warming to help address the damage there?
It might be hard for EU and Liberals to understand (Score:3)
...but abandoning the Paris accord doesn't prohibit any US individual, company, or state from pursuing greener policies. Not one.
The US federal government doesn't control its citizens behavior, to a large degree. In fact, what it does often is a negative driver of public action.
After all, the US is "officially" metric as well since the 1970s, see how much that official change made a difference?
I checked which cities (Score:2)
I checked which cities are part of this.
The first thing these cities need to understand is that they are committing to distributing a MINIMUM of $100 billion dollars EVERY year to countries like North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Many of those cities do not even have a $100 billion budget, so I am wondering where they will get the money from. You could rob Bill Gates and pay for part of one year, but there is no sunset clause and there are only so many Bill Gates' that you can steal from.
Do not get me wrong,
Fine, let them starve! (Score:2)
King Obama promise, violation of the Constitution (Score:2)
Obama acted like a child king and just thought he could sign up the US for a treaty without getting a sign off from the Senate.
Basically Obama was trying to use an international treaty to write law in the US without consulting Congress at all. For some reason Obama and his legal scholars thought they could sign up the US for treaties as long as they didn't call it a "treaty" they didn't need to have the Senate's approval.
Many on the right including me are only objection to the Paris accords was that Obama w
Re:Article 2? (Score:5, Insightful)
What part of this do you think violates Article II? They're not talking about joining into a treaty, only abiding by it.
It's funny, but when the Right wants to limit black voters or take away some woman's rights to birth control, it's all about the 10th Amendment and "states' rights", but when states want to do something that Donald Trump doesn't like, they forget everything about federalism and insist on a strong centralized government.
I don't mind hypocrites, as long as they're honest about it.
Re:Article 2? (Score:5, Insightful)
And when the left wants to smoke weed, they suddenly remember states' rights and the 10th Amendment, but when they don't like what the local board of education is doing or don't like that people are allowed to own and carry firearms, that memory fades into a cloud of pipe smoke.
Both sides do plenty of picking and choosing about when and where they respect the rights of states. Conservatives tend to more frequently side with states' rights over the Federal government because that fits with their fundamental principles, but obviously isn't applied in all cases. Let's be honest about the fact that nobody is 100% consistent with their principles in all cases, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out hypocrisy. Just don't get too holier-than-thou about it.
Re:Article 2? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Re:Article 2? (Score:5, Interesting)
Doubtlessly, there will be political groups trying to claim the mantle of marijuana law reform. I have even heard, in the wild, things like "Trump is relaxing marijuana laws" when he is totally disinterested in the issue, and his appointees (Jeff Sessions) are taking direct action in the opposite direction. It should be noted that what Sessions is undoing is the Obama-era, states-rights policy of not enforcing federal marijuana laws in states that have voted to bypass them.
I'm sure you can cite examples of libertarians calling for marijuana law reform, because I've heard it too. But to say that it can be claimed as a "libertarian success" - how is that? Do most reform advocates identify as libertarian? Have libertarians campaigned anywhere in the same league as non-affiliated groups like NORML and MPP? Have elected libertarians swung the marijuana vote in any state legislature? Hell, do they even have any representatives in the legislatures in question?
Re: (Score:2)
Abortion and gay rights have nothing to do with the left. Che and other socialists killed gay men as being part of the decadent bourgeoisie.
Re: (Score:2)
Abortion and gay rights have nothing to do with the left. Che and other socialists killed gay men as being part of the decadent bourgeoisie.
Certainly you're aware that the label of "left" as applied to members of the Democratic party isn't the "left" you're using there.
Libertarians didn't get weed legalized. Lots of Democrats under Democratic legislatures did. Sure legalization of weed is definitely a libertarian ideal- but you'll find many Democratic ideals are.
Disclaimer: I'm in Seattle. I helped legalize weed for recreational purposes here. You'll notice that Seattle has something in common with other states with very liberal weed laws. T
Re:Article 2? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Uhhh... what?
Libertarians generally support legalization true... but they're fairly anemic as a political force in the US. They generally just make a bit of noise during the GOP Primaries when some form of libertarian pops up and takes a chunk of the base with them for a few months.
Liberals also generally support legalization, and they're a much stronger political force.
Legal weed without Liberal support is just another fringe idea.
Legal weed without Libertarian support is still a plausible outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing they're anemic, but much power on the Republican side was wielded by people who were libertarian-oriented in many of their viewpoints.
Many of the big columnists, Alan Greenspan, even Ronald Reagan (economically, though not on social issues) were such.
How? Insofar as many started as conservatives, conservatism is against the use of government power to reach into new areas without careful consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
conservatism is against the use of government power to reach into new areas without careful consideration.
LOL. You don't really believe that. Conservatism is against the use of government power in the same way that Liberalism is. They want to use it when it benefits them, and don't want it used when it annoys them.
No matter how you swing it, reaching into a woman's womb is a new area, and I've seen their careful consideration. Panels of men testifying to panels of men.
Sorry dude, you're speaking about a definition of a word that has no actual use in American politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. The last Democrat national politician to support legalization was Carter. He dropped it in his first year. Since then, nothing.
And the last libertarian national politician to win office was the spaghetti monster. Sorry for the reality, but Dems are the only ones who will effectively fight your fight. It'd be in your interest to support your libertarian candidate until you find they don't have a chance to win, and at that point switch to the Dem. The last two Democratic Presidents famously smoked. The last Rep one? Never happened. The last Libertarian? Same.
Re: (Score:2)
Washington, California, Oregon.
Some more...
New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska
Do I need to explain the significance of these to you? I'll give you a hint, when it comes right down to it, it was the Liberals that legalized weed. Not the Libertarians. But then we could argue all day about whether or not self-styled libertarians are anything but ashamed republicans.
Re:Article 2? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Colorado the left and the right supported legal weed. That is how it passed. The best arguments though for legal weed where from some of the groups on the right. The argument boiled down to locking up pot heads is a waste of money. None of them hurt anyone else, the vast majority held stable jobs and the cost of locking them up was bankrupting the state so even if the state made no money from tax revenue it would still be a huge net win. The state does actually get quite a lot in tax revenue from weed at this point.
Part of the reason I voted for legalization of weed was the conservative arguments. I have never used it in my life, I have no real intention to use it but I don't rule it out but spending money to lock up pot heads that mainly threaten bag of chips and pizzas while playing video games or considering how deep a flower is wastes a lot of money. All the money spent to arrest them, charge them, convict them, lock them up etc for someone that is not a threat to society is a gigantic waste. If we are going to spend that much money it needs to be worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument boiled down to locking up pot heads is a waste of money. None of them hurt anyone else, the vast majority held stable jobs and the cost of locking them up was bankrupting the state so even if the state made no money from tax revenue it would still be a huge net win.
Note that the authoritarian counter argument to that would be that you could make it revenue positive by fining them rather than incarcerating them. Give everyone caught for possession a choice of an on-the-spot $50 fine or a federal prosecution and money will flow into the state coffers. Plus, you can withdraw the offer of the fine from anyone who seems inconvenient to the state.
Re: (Score:3)
Taxing them brings even more revenue because you waste no time on enforcement at all and you have far fewer points of contact you have to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but soon police are tackling and killing people who sell single cigarettes, not because it's a huge crime, but because it cuts into revenue of government-as-highway-robber.
Re: (Score:2)
The feds simply can't afford to enforce pot laws. And they can't find jurors willing to convict in 99% of cases.
In CA, asshole DAs have been forced (by the voters) to get honest jobs after trying bullshit like you describe.
Re: (Score:3)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
2012 Election results by County for Colorado (I didn't do 2016... Because I'm not really sure that election was a liberal/conservative thing):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Sure some people on "the right" supported it. But they were the minority in their party, and in the end, voted pretty much along standard liberal/conservative elective county lines to reject legalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal Democrats even go up to 78%, which is the highest among any group.
Unfortunately, these don't compare directly liberals to libertarians. While I agree libertarian number should be higher, you can't say liberals aren't pro-weed, or "they never supported it, still don't".
Re: (Score:2)
Really, left is just a stupid moniker. It could mean something else in any particular demographic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same could be said of the right, states rights aren't important when it comes to sanctuary cities, abortion or anything else. States rights is false flag by the republican party, they believe in it less than the democrats do they just lie about it. Unfortunately their own voters are stupid enough to believe them while they try to take states rights away and dramatically expand federal power.
Re: (Score:3)
Sufficiently advanced pragmatism is indistinguishable from hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to steal that. I like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically, liberals complain about local school boards who want their specific religion to have a special place in the schools, from what I've seen. This is either official prayer or displays or replacing science with religious nonsense.
Re: Article 2? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't live in any of those cities, then it is not your business. The city spends its own citizen's taxes on the city.
If you live in one of those cities, you should be happy they try to poison you less by decreasing smog emitted by the city.
I have absolutely no idea, why would you have any problem with this. If you are a jobless coal miner go and enter a chinese reeducation programme (in case you want to work) for building solar panels/wind turbines OR vote for basic income (in case you don't want to work).
Re: Article 2? (Score:3)
No it doesn't. It just means they're going to hold themselves to higher standards than the federal government requires. If the population don't agree they can elect different mayors.
It's like how the UK didn't sign up to the EU working time directive, but the Ordnance Survey - a semi state body - opted into it, which was good for employees.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll agree to voter ID the second you make it 100% free and make elections a national holiday. But you won't because it's about disenfranchising people you don't want voting. If your concern was truly voter fraud you would agree with the 2 conditions I set without hesitation.
Re: Article 2? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If "rights to birth control" means all tax payers need to pay for it then yeah fuck that.
Why not? We're all paying for your insulin shots and limp-dick pills. Women are 51% of the population, after all. You shitbags are a minority.
Re: (Score:3)
In 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable.[59] In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns.[60][61] On May 15, 2017, the law officially died when the US Supreme Court rejected efforts to review the Appeals Court ruling.[62].
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be a signatory to that type of agreement in order to abide by it. Let's say, for example, that the Paris accord includes a certain target for vehicle emissions. There's nothing in Article II that would prohibit a state from setting t
Re: (Score:2)
California's emissions standards, as an example.
Every states employment law as another.
That being said, I could see the fuckhead-in-chief threatening to go after (somehow) those states that decide to hold themselves to the higher set of standards.
Re: (Score:2)
If cities want to try to be cleaner that's fine, it's not a Constitutional battle at all. The real battle would be had The Prior administration tried to actually enforce any of the accord requirements as it was never sent to the Senate to be ratified. And a
Re: (Score:2)
>"Congress never ratified the Paris Agreement. In fact, Obama never sent it to Congress for ratification. there is nothing to "withdraw" from...we were never in it."
Don't try to use logic or reason here with any topic in which the word "Trump" is injected. It apparently doesn't work...
But Trump did do exactly what he promised the voters in his election campaign promises. Had he not, then the same people would be complaining that he was a liar or didn't do what he said he would do.
I don't like Trump, no
Re: (Score:3)
>"Congress never ratified the Paris Agreement. In fact, Obama never sent it to Congress for ratification. there is nothing to "withdraw" from...we were never in it."
Don't try to use logic or reason here with any topic in which the word "Trump" is injected. It apparently doesn't work...
Agreed.
But Trump did do exactly what he promised the voters in his election campaign promises.
Disagree. Almost everything he promised on day one [theatlantic.com] hasn't even been done yet - 100+ days out.
Had he not, then the same people would be complaining that he was a liar or didn't do what he said he would do.
If you actually look at the previous link or probably find any other metric, compare by numbers with Hillary or *any* other president (potential or not), you find the difference astounding. The man is, by all unbiased metrics [google.com], the biggest liar we've ever seen at this level, by (very) far.
I don't like Trump, nor some of what he does, but the alternative was not any better (just in different ways). I think South Park put it the best- we had a choice between a turd sandwich or a giant douche.
Hillary was attacked by the right for decades, Russia added a ton more propaganda to make the country believe in crazy conspiracy theories. Pizzagate is not a thing. The FBI said her crimes were piddly and would be laughed out of court. You can't compare running her own email server to the possibility of perjury, espionage, and treason that the current Administration is under investigation for. The current topic of Paris agreement is an economic no-brainer [mediamatters.org]. Those are oil & gas companies saying we should go forward with it because there is money to be made in leading the world in technology. If you believe the scientists, this is a huge moral issue with millions of lives at stake. Secretary of Defense James Mattis [motherjones.com] sees climate change as a national security threat. This choice is a ridonculous one, and you can't compare this Administration to the boringness of what Clinton's would have been.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just cite Media Matters? Please go away left wing nut job.
Re: (Score:2)
The president doesn't have to send treaties to the senate for ratification if he already has the statutory authority to execute them. Status of forces agreements are the very definition of a treaty, when was the last time Congress ratified one of those? I'm not aware they've EVER ratified one. The president already has the authority to make these treaties as he's commander in chief and it's within his authority to enforce the treaty.
Here's a history lesson for you, Since WWII the Senate ratifies less than 5
Re: (Score:2)
And try to learn how to make a logical, fact based argument without resorting to ad-hominem attacks. Only a fool assumes that someone has less of a
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have to have ratification to appropriate money.
A treaty that is ratified by the Senate is part of the law of the land, and we still aren't all that great at complying with them. Congress and the President can pass laws that conform to a treaty without ratification.
Of course, Congress had no part of this, so Trump is legally justified in reversing what Obama did. Whether it's a good idea is another question.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if Trump ever accomplishes anything then at least we'll have something to compare to.
Re: Cities over states (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know how the Electoral College works. I've considered it a bad idea for quite a few decades now.
Rural areas receive lots of Federal and State money. Roads aren't cheap. Neither is running electricity and phone lines all over the place. They tend to be poorer than the urban areas, so Federal and State money for education tends to matter more to them. Overall, urban areas tend to support the rural ones financially.
Drug tests on welfare recipients show that very few of them do illegal drugs, and so
Re: (Score:2)
If you are really confused about this, you could try reading the history of the US Constitution. Specifically focus on the "Great Compromise". Without it we wouldn't have a country at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
We'll pay some Amazonian tribe $X per tree that they promise to save. But we get nothing if ADM develops a fast growing tree and we plant a bunch of those.
And those tribes are nomadic. In a couple of years, we'll have to pay the next one that moves in all over again for the privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But Trump's move takes it off the table should a change in majority occur in the next election cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to cancel coal plants once they're already built. Their priorities are changing. Nor do I care whether they're moving from coal to non-fossil-fuel plants because of the treaty or because they didn't want the pollution or whatever. Diminishing the role of coal in producing electricity is good for a large number of reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you have to develop the skills needed for modern manufacturing, which is usually not a case of being at a machine and doing something repetitive. (Actually, we do have some manufacturing jobs like that where I work, but most require skill with modern computer-controlled machinery.)