Mayors of 7,400 Cities Vow To Meet Obama's Climate Commitments (theguardian.com) 298
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Mayors of more than 7,400 cities across the world have vowed that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord will spur greater local efforts to combat climate change. At the first meeting of a "global covenant of mayors," city leaders from across the US, Europe and elsewhere pledged to work together to keep to the commitments made by Barack Obama two years ago. Cities will devise a standard measurement of emission reductions to help them monitor their progress. They will also share ideas for delivering carbon-free transport and housing. Kassim Reed, the mayor of Atlanta, told reporters he had travelled to Europe to "send a signal" that US states and cities would execute the policies Obama committed to, whether the current White House occupants agreed or not. Reed, whose administration has promised that the city of Atlanta will use 100% renewable energy by 2035, said 75% of the US population and GDP lay in urban areas, where local leaders were committed to fighting climate change. "We have the ability to still achieve between 35% and 45% CO2 emission reductions without the involvement of the national government and it is why I chose to be here at this time to send a signal to 7,400 cities around the world that now should be a time of optimism, passion and action," he said.
That's what is supposed to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly.
This is awesome.
They're proving we didn't need them with some accord to do what's right, they're proving we can do it on our own.
Re: That's what is supposed to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
That's sorely needed too. When you get into blue collar industries, you see all kinds of waste, including energy, that slashdot nerds or other engineers could easily fix at a profit for all. But there's this idea that it all has to come top down, so people stay in their niches, and the guys on top can't see the simple things from every day life. That's why really effective action against climate change, which is also makes long term financial sense, will best come from the bottom up: its a million small cha
Re: (Score:2)
I think the belief we need leaders when instead we can have loads of individual actors on the same page is a false belief. We've proven we don't actually need Santa Clause to surprise kids with presents in the morning.
Lining our own pockets - with our own money - instead of sending it to Paris. I'm happy with this situation. Especially since the biggest polluters weren't on the hook for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 isn't pollution and is a red hearing argument to justify any action the manipulators want.
Plants breathe it.
There are historical times when it has been much higher than it is now.
Volcano's release it at staggering rates that may or may not outpace what humanity does. [livescience.com] Regardless, even ones that appear to be dormant and inactive can still release it.
If you want to lower CO2 levels plant more plants to breathe it in and quit polluting the oceans - something which all costal nations are guilty of, many wor
Re: (Score:2)
There are historical times when it has been much higher than it is now.
This is a real red herring argument. It doesn't matter if it was higher twenty million years ago when dinosaurs were roaming the earth. The important thing is how fast it is changing and if life on this planet has the time to adapt or not.
The current speed of CO2 and warming increase is unprecedented. Changes that usually take thousands of years or longer are happening in decades.
If you want to lower CO2 levels plant more plants to breathe it in and quit polluting the oceans
Easier said than done. 200,000 acres of rainforest are burned every day. This does not include other types of forest that are als
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 in excess is pollution, regardless of what breathes it. It is already causing problems.
False. Those times are prehistorical, not historical. It really doesn't matter to us, as a practical matter, what the world was like fifty million years ago. What matters is that we evolved under certain conditions, and civiliza
Re: (Score:3)
Except both India and China are going gangbusters in moving towards renewables and if the US was still part they would be getting the monies soon.
Re: That's what is supposed to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's good but not desirable. The same way schools being forced to raise funds with bake sales is good, but not desirable.
Forced? We have some of the least cost efficient education on the planet. The school system where I live (Fairfax Co., VA) is funded by some of the highest property taxes in the nation. And yet, the waste and disregard for taxpayers money is blatant. And all the while, teachers still send home lists of supplies to coerce parents into providing what the schools could easily afford. Oh, and don't even think about not playing along if you care about your kid's grades. What a racket.
Re: That's what is supposed to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
All the countries with better and cheaper education systems have theirs centrally funded and managed. It seems like your problem is not enough government, not too much.
The problem with small government is that it is too easy to corrupt. People like to present a false dichotomy of large vs. small, but there is such a thing as the right size too.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice hijack. Nobody said anything about large vs. small govt. But I'll play just because Ami knows I'm a proponent of smaller govt.
Please point to the evidence that smaller governments are easier to corrupt. Let me help you with that, and look at the chart here, and tell me the size of some of the least corrupt governments.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You are comparing kids whose parents have the resources to home school them to the average?
Re: (Score:3)
Depends. The EU is pretty large in terms of the number of people it represents, but also pretty small in terms of the actual number of staff it has. It is also fairly immune to lobbying and bribery - ignore the Euroskeptic press - and does a lot that is in the interests of its constituents rather than in the interests of big business and the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
It scales fine, but in inverse of what you believe, - there's more support power at the base of the pyramid than at the top. Instead of a small group siphoning U.S. dollars to in turn crack a whip on us we're now doing it ourselves. There's more whips on this level and the money can stay where it's at - it's actually more effective at this level.
Re:That's what is supposed to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
I am one of those hated conservatives ... but I agree this is perfect...
The Paris Accord was not a ratified treaty... there was no way to enforce it.
If Cities and states want to voluntarily take action... go for it. That is how the constitution works...
Watch out in those local and state elections however... ;)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Cities and states want to voluntarily take action... go for it. That is how the constitution works...
Nope. They are forbidden from forming concords among themselves, let alone with foreign nations, without the consent of Congress.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3.
As such, they* are violating the Constitution, and Congress ought to revoke their attempt to circumvent the Federal Government, and the Department of Justice ought to bring them up on charges under the Logan Act.
You do believe in the law, right? And following the PLAINLY written text of the Constitution?
*Cities being non-sovereign entities are dep
Re: That's what is supposed to happen (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not making a concord, they're just saying they will act in a way which happens to be compatible with one. Since the Paris agreement was mostly a collection of more-or-less unilateral commitments for a common goal, as opposed to a monolithic give-and-take trade deal, this kind of works.
The main problem will be if higher government enacts laws that cities can't meet their pseudo-Paris commitments under. For example, federal or state law proclaiming no new wind farms, a cap on installed solar capacity,
Re: (Score:2)
They're not making a concord,...
Let me understand your position. Indentations only matter if it's Trump and a travel ban. But the intentions of these mayors is somehow different? I guess we'll have to wait for SCOTUS to decide.
indentations matter! (Score:2)
Let me understand your position. Indentations only matter if it's Trump and a travel ban.
I'm amused that you think indentations matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me understand your position. Indentations only matter if it's Trump and a travel ban.
I'm amused that you think indentations matter.
I'm amused that you don't know that they do in a legal sense under some conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not making a concord, they're just saying they will act in a way which happens to be compatible with one.
And I'm not tying my shoes. I'm just putting my shoelaces in an arrangement that keeps my shoes from falling off.
Close, but not exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
States, cities, and the people themselves are indeed supposed to take on anything they choose to that is not specifically allocated to the federal government by the Constitution. International relations (including war,diplomacy,international treaties and agreements, etc) are however among the things specifically allocated to the feds.
If some state, or county, or city wants to enforce some super-strict environmental policies of their own, that's perfectly fine - as long as they do not interfere in interstate
Re: (Score:2)
In general, they're doing it because they're in favor of lowering CO2 emissions, and after Trump won it will have to be done at the local level.
Those are appropriations that are explicitly allowed in the Constitution, and it's reaso
Re: (Score:2)
The interstate commerce clause has, in my opinion, been overstretched since the 1940s. It's beyond "currently".
Re:That's what is supposed to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you don't think the developed economies of the world who have benefited by trashing the planet should pay something to help clean it up?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nope.
Re: That's what is supposed to happen (Score:2)
Since you are ignorant, I googled it for you.
China $32 billion in 2016 (external climate aid)
India $11 billion (internal budget)
(The US is becoming irrelevant)
Re: That's what is supposed to happen (Score:2)
Re-read the summary - these are world mayors, not just US.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually, it's not well documented, particularly if we're considering charity towards everyone. Conservatives are more likely to give to people like themselves, not people in general who need help. Conservatives give more money to churches, and although churches are pretty much automatically tax-deductible they don't spend all their money on charity. The situation is a lot more complicated than that.
Selflessness is reflected in me campaigning to have my own taxes raised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no way to break through the partisan barrier that people like this guy and a few others on this site have. They simply peek at the letter behind any politicians name to tel if they're doing a good or a bad job. Unfortunately that's how a lot of the younger generations now look at it. It seems like somewhere along the late 90's thinking for yourself was banned from schools. And this is what you get. I fortunately was a fuckup during school so I didn't go through a lot of it and my father made me do
Re: (Score:2)
You make a lot of assumptions about my partisanship based upon what? Trust me, I've cursed across at both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking that the liberal backlash against Trump pulling out of the climate agreement will cause local governments and corporations to do more to become energy efficient than they would have otherwise. Therefore his action will be a net positive. Even if energy efficiency improvements / CO2 reductions don't produce positive climate change, it will help us move toward energy self sufficiency.
The Art Of The Empty Gesture (Score:2, Interesting)
Almost all of the carbon emission targets will naturally be met anyway by natural decline in carbon emission. Greater uptake in natural gas use, much greater increase in Solar use (since prices for solar have been falling over the past few years), greater uptake in electric cars - it all means most cities will not actually have to to anything at all to meet the specious goals set forth. Paris was always meaningless from a carbon output perspective. We'll vastly exceed the goals set forth by 2028...
I wond
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you agree, Donald Trump's denunciation of the treaty was pointless, just an act of grandstanding as he boldly claims that he'll negotiate a better deal, pretending that it was, in some way a harmful injury to America that he saved us from, when in fact, it was not, and he could have simply managed to do nothing, and still gotten away with saying it was working, making his actions pointless. He didn't even get the credit he would have if he'd submitted it to the Senate.
Glad you realized this, because whi
Re:On Effective Puffery (Score:4, Funny)
Come on, you never photoshopped yourself standing on the moon? Or anything else? The rest of us have which is why we think complaining about it makes you look like a stick-in-the-mud arse.
1. I have never photoshopped myself standing on the moon, or anything similar, and neither has anyone I know.
2. I have also never faked a Time magazine with myself on the cover and put it on the wall at work, and neither has anyone I know
3. These two things are not the same. Work is different from home, for a start
4. But, if anyone I knew had done either #1 or #2, they would be the subject of unending ridicule and in the case of #2, they'd be likely to be fired
5. If you genuinely have done this. If you really honestly have faked a picture of yourself to big yourself up, and not for shits'n'giggles, then holy shit you live in a different world from me.
Re: On Effective Puffery (Score:2)
2. I have also never faked a Time magazine with myself on the cover and put it on the wall at work, and neither has anyone I know
If you google "put yourself on time magazine cover" (no quotes) [lmgtfy.com] you get dozens of websites that allow you to do just that, for any number of magazines... this isn't some fringe thing Trump invented.
I don't care to research them, but suffice to say Trump has been covered/reported on in Time magazine, and I'm not sure if the articles cited on the fake Time cover are real, and if real were from the issue with the fake cover photo.
Finally, it's odd and embarrassing that the photos/fake covers were on the wall a
Re: (Score:2)
2. I have also never faked a Time magazine with myself on the cover and put it on the wall at work, and neither has anyone I know
If you google "put yourself on time magazine cover" (no quotes) [lmgtfy.com] you get dozens of websites that allow you to do just that, for any number of magazines... this isn't some fringe thing Trump invented.
I don't care to research them, but suffice to say Trump has been covered/reported on in Time magazine, and I'm not sure if the articles cited on the fake Time cover are real, and if real were from the issue with the fake cover photo.
Finally, it's odd and embarrassing that the photos/fake covers were on the wall at some of his golf clubs, but does it, in any meaningful way, matter?
I've been chuckling at the people who seem to think that vanity magazine covers never existed before the whole "Trump fake Time cover!!!" baloney. You can even get an app for your phone apps that will create these things.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I wonder if these cities ALSO plan to funnel billions of dollars to third world slush funds, which was the real goal of the Paris accords.
You do realize the the penalties were always voluntary and that each country sets it's own goals, right? There was never going to be any money going anywhere, you rat-swindler.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the "left" who want to put a brake on man-made climate change, it is everyone who wants a livable planet 100 years in the future.
Re:The Art Of The Empty Gesture (Score:5, Insightful)
You haven't really thought it through, have you?
What do you think has caused solar prices to reduce? Did it ever occur to you that technological progress which has driven costs down might be related to the government incentives in many countries?
As for the "billions of dollars". Do some research on how much the US was supposed to contribute and how much it actually has (hint, the latter number isn't measured in billions).
In future, please try to avoid getting your facts from the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel backers.
Oh, and finally, the program under which the Federal government provided loan guarantees to Solyndra actually made a profit for the US government.
Re: The Art Of The Empty Gesture (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and finally, the program under which the Federal government provided loan guarantees to Solyndra actually made a profit for the US government.
The 'program' was much greater than Solyndra.
Solyndra 'cost' the program over a half-billion dollars, with which they built a factory in Silicon Valley with singing robots that made very fragile, very expensive, solar panels.
Solyndra was predicted to fail by the Bush administration, then a well-placed campaign contributions later the new Obama administration rejected the prediction of their own experts that Solyndra would fail by a certain date and issued the half-billion in loan guarantees anyway. Solyndra went bankrupt almost exactly on schedule, less than a month before the obama administration's predictions.
Not quite sure how the government 'profits' from loan guarantees - please explain how that works. The loans weren't issued by the government and the interest wasn't paid to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and finally, the program under which the Federal government provided loan guarantees to Solyndra actually made a profit for the US government.
Without the underlying numbers, "made a profit" is a meaningless statement. If you take a look at the Dept. of Energy's own rosy projections [energy.gov], you see that even they are not predicting the program will turn an actual (inflation-adjusted) profit.
For a loan portfolio around $30 billion, they're predicting $5 billion in interest payments over the entire term of the program, with average loan terms around 25 years. That $5 billion apparently does not account for defaults (over half a billion already over the f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah because carbon reduction would have happened naturally and has nothing to do with investments from governments. /Sarcasm
There are countries far ahead of the USA who analysts say will struggle to meet the emissions targets. So good luck doing it by natural attrition with the fed's opposed to it at every turn.
I wonder if these cities ALSO plan to funnel billions of dollars to third world slush funds, which was the real goal of the Paris accords.
Not sure what upsets me more, that you don't understand the agreement or that as an American who rose to power by climbing up the general decay of the environment and who stand on your hill of moral
Re: The Art Of The Empty Gesture (Score:2)
You ignore the countries that said they would also backout of the Paris Accord unless they get the monies promised them. [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, if all of this was as easy as pie, why the Orange Clown went back on it? I guess, it was because of cheap popularity points in Idiocracy?
Re: (Score:3)
The fact of an existing trend is completely orthogonal to the efficacy or otherwise of a city's actions in affecting climate change. If a city buys EV buses and promotes public transport more generally, its CO2e from transport will be lower than it would otherwise have been. That kind of action is exactly what these cities are committing to.
The Steps (Score:2, Informative)
First they read you.
Then they make poor alterations to your name that indicates mentally they are seven, possibly eight years old.
Then everyone laughs at them and realizes the original points were never even questioned with validity or by an adult mind.
Then you win.
State Violation (Score:2)
Err #4356 : State Machine is already in "SKWin" state, attempt to move to "AdolestantUIDRename" state is an invalid transition.
Re: The Art Of The Empty Gesture (Score:2)
the US military uses 1/4 million barrels of oil a day protecting "freedom"
Citation please.
World oil production is 96 million barrels/day [iea.org]
Trump, the radical environmentalist? (Score:2)
I've noticed for years that when a very public figure head makes a controversial stance against something, it only serves to popularize the opposition. A variation of the Streisand Effect, or an more ur-version of it at any rate. I wonder how aware politicians have been of this, and have used this to push their own agenda?
Obama and guns for instance; guns and ammo sales skyrocketed in 2008 and 2012, so much so that there were severe ammo shortages. Obama never made any real moves to limit 2nd amendment r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We were told that this sort of stuff would have been a Republican wet dream. THE DEMOCRATS DID IT
Re: (Score:2)
It was Bill Clinton, A FUCKING DEMOCRAT that federally deregulated the banks and federally instituted the racist 3-strikes law.
We were told that this sort of stuff would have been a Republican wet dream. THE DEMOCRATS DID IT
And the Dems wonder why they can't win elections.
Re: (Score:2)
It was Bill Clinton, A FUCKING DEMOCRAT that federally deregulated the banks and federally instituted the racist 3-strikes law.
Presidents don't pass legislation, Congress does. They can veto legislation, but only if Congress can't sweeten it enough to get a 2/3 majority.
The Congress during all but the first 2 years of Clinton's term was heavily Republican, and run by Newt Gingrich. Bill was in a position where he could dedicate his remaining 6 years in office to being a speedbump, or work with them to blunt the hard edges off of the right-wing crap that the people of the USA elected that congress to pass.
Now you could argue tha
What about heavy industry? (Score:3)
What percentage of the heavy industry in the US is under the jurisdiction of state and local governments that have signed up to these carbon reduction plans?
Venusian Politics (Score:3)
So, what I don't get is the political angle on this. I don't think there are very many people who deny that the climate is changing any more. Sure, there's a question of whether or not it's being substantially caused by human activity. Sure, I (along with 98% scientists) believe that there is a correlation. But regardless of human activity, are there really people out there who deny the correlation between CO2 and CC, regardless of human involvement?
Maybe they should go and spend some time on Venus.
Meaningless non-commitments (Score:3)
"Reed, whose administration has promised that the city of Atlanta will use 100% renewable energy by 2035"
What is that commitment here is nothing, other than the administration who committed to it will long gone by then and will be liable for nothing. In 2035 you can ask, hey, why isn't Atlanta 100% on renewables, and the answer will be "what are you talking about, we didn't commit to anything, go talk to the retired politicians who made you this promise".
Commitments backed by nothing are meaningless publicity stunts. It's like taking an unsecured loan with zero payments until well after your death. In this case what they are borrowing is popular votes.
Re: (Score:3)
Commitments backed by nothing are meaningless publicity stunts.
Quite often commitments are backed by "nothing" is the sense that nobody today has any skin in the game, but that future people are on the hook.
..even for contractual promises signed 40 years ago? Yeah.
For instance, see the funding of the local public union pensions. Notice the complete lack of funding?
Around the world? (Score:2)
Mayors of 7,400 Cities Vow To Meet Obama's Climate Commitments
Anonymous Coward 9 hours ago 127
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Mayors of more than 7,400 cities across the world have vowed that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord will spur greater local efforts to combat climate change.
So all these mayors from around the world Have committed to comply with The Paris Accord? Big whoop! Their national leaders already committed - are they planing to meet to US goals and honor the US obligations with regard to funding 3rd-world developing nations as they continue to increase their levels of greenhouse gasses for years?
Re: (Score:2)
Cough up the cash if their country chooses not to? I'm guessing the answer is nope. They just are going to uphold THEIR individual commitment to the Paris Accords, which is pretty much "nothing" at all.... They are not a party to the agreement, didn't have any commitments prescribed in the agreement and have no control over if the country they are in or out of the agreement.
Which really illustrates the whole farce that this is... The Paris Accords didn't really do anything significant on emissions reduc
Will They Pay 3rd World Not to Pollute? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you need an answer to that question? This whole Paris Accord thing is a farce. We are just patting ourselves on the back and making ourselves feel better, but nothing is really being accomplished.
Next, States outlaw it. (Score:2)
Well as long as they vowed.. (Score:2)
...We should be OK.
For example, the mayor of my city, Los Angeles, vowed to make the pork-ridden DWP ( Department of Water and Power) begin contributing to the cost of their health plans. FYI: the AVERAGE DWP employee earns 26% more than the average civilian worker.
They just renegotiated with the union yesterday. The new contract has them contributing nothing to health care, with a 12% raise.
So , really, Vows are worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If only a fraction of the country addresses global warming, the response won't be as effective. That can't be too hard to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? The left is pleased that cities and states are doing this, but they'd be more pleased if cities, states and the federal government were doing this.
The Wrong Number (Score:3, Insightful)
The percentage (75%) does not mean much by itself until you figure out the breakdown of how many people are actually with you in any significant way.
We know from the last election where both sides were portrayed as elemental roots of all evil, that only 59% of eligible voters even voted [dailydot.com]. That means there's something like 40% of the people in the cities who do not give a whit for the agendas of either side, and frankly think people like you are a loon.
Then of the people who DID vote, only about half of thos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wrong Numbers (Score:2)
Mayors of 7,400 Cities Vow To Meet Obama's Climate Commitments
Anonymous Coward 9 hours ago 127
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Mayors of more than 7,400 cities across the world have vowed that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord will spur greater local efforts to combat climate change.
How many of those world mayors live in countries that signed on to the Paris Accord and are already committed at some level?
How many of this world cities are adopting stricter US emission targets and plan on paying third-world countries to reduce emissions 'in the future', as opposed to the lower standards their national leaders agreed to?
How many of those mayors have the ability to influence energy generation in their cities and towns?
Aside from holding a press conference and enjoying some positive publicity, what does this mean?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: mm-hmm (Score:2)
When the country is republican majority not only at the federal level, but also at the state level - the GOP controls not only the house, senate, and Oval Office but about 2/3rds of state governorships and about 2/3rds of state legislatures.
Democrats barely control their own party.
Majority and control (Score:2)
When the country is republican majority not only at the federal level, but also at the state level - the GOP controls not only the house, senate, and Oval Office but about 2/3rds of state governorships and about 2/3rds of state legislatures.
You seem to be confusing "majority" with "control". The country is Republican-party controlled not only at the federal level, but also at the state level. But, in fact, it is slightly Democratic-party majority . More people voted for Democratic-party representatives than voted for Republican representatives.
The reasons for this is in the details of the representative voting system. You can call it "gerrymandering" if you like, or you can just consider it a consequence of the way the representation by d
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy being hungry and isolated. (Score:2)
The very rural population that you despise is the same rural population that feeds you and transports your goods.
If anything can be said about them, they surround and outmatch you.
Re: mm-hmm (Score:2, Informative)
That was FDR and Ted's father that took that racist action.
Re: (Score:2)
In discussions about the relocation camps, I've noticed that liberals tend to call it racist and unacceptable while conservatives are more likely to justify it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When your two kids turn 18 and are trying to get jobs, there is also one immigrant competing for those same jobs.
The other side of this is without immigration the US population would be shrinking. If we stopped immigration completely, then "Who will your two kids be working for when there is 10-20% fewer consumers than now?" Our economy is still heavily dependent on the idea of forever growing demand.
Re: Your kids won't get jobs (Score:2)
Correlations to family size (Score:2)
There are three things that are well established at correlating to reduced family size:
1. Wealth. Poor people have larger families.
2. Education. Better educated people have larger families.
3. Access to birth control. Coercion is not needed: simply having birth control available for use, for those who choose to use it, results in (on the average) smaller family size.
From
Re:Your kids won't get jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
I have heard this argument so many times, but it is flawed. You are looking at jobs as if they are static fixed things like physical goods. That is simply not the case. Many immigrants move to a new country and START a business. Are they stealing your children's jobs too?
What happens to your 'they are stealing the jobs' argument in the next 50 years as the Earth's median population gets older and older? In 1950 the average age of a human being on earth was under 30. Right now the average age worldwide is around 33 years old. In the USA it is 38 years and that 5 year difference represents a vast population of aging baby-boomers born after WWII that require ever increasing care. (Well at least for the next 25 or 30 years) Demographically at some point you are going to have to choose whether you want your parents to be taken care of by immigrants or robots. There simply won't be enough working age 'americans' to do the work. In case you think I'm lying or making things up, just visit any assisted living facility anywhere in the US. It's already happening. There is and always will be a place in America for immigrants. If there were no jobs here for them they would not come here legally or otherwise. My grandparents came here from eastern europe fleeing tyrany, war and starvation in the early 20th century. Who am I to turn down someone coming here today for the exact same reason?! What kind of hypocrite would I be?
This kind of Nationalist, Populist, B.S. will be the death of us all. I for one want the Star Trek future promised to me by Gene Roddenberry and Bill Hicks. The one where we quit being greedy selfish beasts and become civilized. After all, it's just a ride [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Probably by then a lot of those jobs will be starting to be handed over to machines and automated.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one want the Star Trek future promised to me by Gene Roddenberry and Bill Hicks.
Fun fact: The same year Star Trek was showing us a workplace where a black woman was a ship's officer treated just like every other co-worker, George Wallace was running for POTUS, and won 5 states and 46 electoral votes on a platform of racial segregation. He won the vote nationwide among young white men.
What Roddenberry presented wasn't a "promise", but an alternate aspiration for what we could one day be. If any of it looks normal now, that's only because a lot of people wanted that future, and paid fo [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was information largely hidden by the Obama administration, and Trump made it public.
Anyone who "hid" that information was only hiding it from themselves.
Re: Your kids won't get jobs (Score:3)
Watch how quickly 'illegal immigrant' morphs into 'immigrant' in this 'discussion', as if the two were interchangeable.
Every year the United States invites and hosts over one million legal immigrants, be they temporary H-1B visa workers, student visa holders, economic refugees,political refugees, etc. No one has any real issue with those immigrants, it's the ones that illegally cross the border, work off the books or engage in identity theft to secure work, and put increased burdens on our social, medical,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Oklan Warrior was complaining about legal immigrants, and some people apparently thought it was about illegal immigrants.
Re: (Score:3)
The saddest part of your post is you probably aren't even intentionally trolling. You think you are being insightful.
To put this simply: When your two kids turn 18 and are trying to get jobs, there is also one immigrant competing for those same jobs.
No, to put this simply: When your two kids turn 18 and are trying to get jobs, there are more jobs available because we have utilized immigration to improve our economy by them either starting their own companies or enhancing our overall workforce so more businesses are started and operated here.
The economy is not a zero sum game. If 100,000 people entered the US, it wouldn't make 100,000 mor
Correct: not reputable (Score:2)
Well, let's just see where your liberal policies have gotten us, shall we? I was just now reading an article on immigration [breitbart.com], which lists 6 quick facts(*) from the immigration report Trump asked for.
I've learned to not trust breitbart as a source until I've verified what they say from a primary source. Even when there is a kernel of fact in their articles, they often misinterpret it, and usually do some heavy-duty quote mining to pick just one part of a long sentence, even if quoting the whole sentence in context would state the opposite.
So: quote the original report, not the breitbart "interpretation" of the report.
(*) There will be the inevitable idiot claiming that Breitbart isn't a credible source. You may note that the idiot doesn't discredit the story, or the information from the story, or (heavens!) the *source* of the information on which the story is based. Take that as you may.
Correct. And I note that you didn't quote "the *source* of the information on which t
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking to to wrong guy.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new... [nydailynews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, strong language from an AC. Bet you don't talk like that in real life. Well, no, probably you do, to women and children. While I enjoy winding up losers from the mendicant state, i'd point out that both of my houses are more than self sufficient for electricity. So, take your foul little tongue and stick it back up a politician's arsehole.
Here's the forecast for electricity shortages for the next year in South Australia. Click on the SA button. The red bits are 'reserve shortfalls', or as we might say,
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, strong language from an AC. Bet you don't talk like that in real life. Well, no, probably you do, to women and children...
If you knew the first thing about Australia and Aussies, you'd know that Dave was speaking to you as one typically does to children there.
Re: (Score:2)
The new reality: where it's impossible to tell if what you've written was serious or satire.
Re: The Donald (Score:2)
Not redirecting the tax cuts that go along with them so they benefit middle class voters instead of the top 10%.
Define 'middle class', what is the income range for 'middle class'?
When 47% of all tax filers pay no net federal income taxes, the vast majority of whom receive payments in excess of all monies previously paid in, how exactly do you target tax cuts at them?
A person keeping more of their income isn't taking money from the government - they just aren't.
Re: 7,400 cities choosing to bankrupt themselves. (Score:2)
Yet green tech is where all the new jobs and growth is.
Remember when bus driver was considered a 'green job'?
Green jobs are interesting - we pay people to train for green jobs, we provide tax incentives to hire these trainees, we subsidise the research into green technologies, we subsidize green factories, we sudsidze the purchase of green technology, and we force utility companies to pay excessively high rates for anything that spills out of the subsidized solar panels and onto the grid.
Yeah, that's the free market driving demand for green technology.
Re: (Score:2)
May the farce be with you... Lip service over substance is all this thing is.