
WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance - rbanffy
http://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-new-york-governor-cuomo-and-california-governor-brown-announce-formation-united
======
kibwen
Are they open to more states joining, I hope? I'd like to petition my own
state government to get on board. If the federal government's going to keep
shitting the bed, this is the last hope I have left.

~~~
djschnei
Originally, this is much more in the purview of state government than it would
be in federal government, anyway. It's easier for us to affect change, as well
as easier for us to shield ourselves from shitty governance, when decisions
like this are made closer to home. If this buffoon is accomplishing one thing,
it's illustrating the importance of state supremacy - Broken glass half
full... while it's plummeting off a cliff... kinda deal.

------
arkis22
>Under the auspices of the Paris agreement, the Obama administration pledged
to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by between 26% and 28% below the 2005
level by 2025. Much of that change already is well under way, though, as a
result of factors outside of any president’s control: slower economic growth
following the financial crisis, the shale gas revolution that has replaced a
third of coal use and shifting driving habits.

>The Rhodium Group calculates that the U.S. still will come close to a 17%
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as soon as 2020, though it predicts no
more significant progress in the remaining five years. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration projected shortly before Mr. Obama took office that
greenhouse gas emissions would rise by about 1% a year in the next several
years, but they fell sharply. Very little of that had to do with Mr. Obama’s
decisions.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-paris-matters-less-than-
it-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-paris-matters-less-than-it-
seems-1496348964)

Progress is and will continue to be made regardless of backing out.

It will be interesting to see if the other countries back out. If people are
attaching a lot of importance to this agreement, and other countries back out
since the US did, the other countries will look awfully hypocritical.

------
toisanji
I would read the full speech from Trump, he makes some good points, although
im sure some of it is false and not sure how it compares to other factors.

[http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-
agreement...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-agreement-
speech/)

"For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these
emissions by a staggering number of years \-- 13. They can do whatever they
want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on
receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from
developed countries."

"China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we
can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will
be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can
double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe
is allowed to continue construction of coal plants."

"In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those
jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign
countries."

"This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries
gaining a financial advantage over the United States."

"Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it
includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States
through the so-called Green Climate Fund -- nice name -- which calls for
developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of
America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments. So we’re going to be
paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way
ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and
many of them will never pay one dime."

"Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance
from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one
degree -- think of that; this much -- Celsius reduction in global temperature
by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from
China alone would wipe out the gains from America -- and this is an incredible
statistic -would totally wipe out the gains from America's expected reductions
in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars"

FYI, I'm not into politics and I'm 100% pro environment, I do try to be open
and hear every party's point of view.

~~~
azernik
1\. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because
their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to
lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become
developed countries. They will not sign on.

2\. We're paying poor countries to mitigate these effects, by subsidizing
their use of _cleaner_ energy to industrialize. And to compensate them, since
the areas most negatively affected by climate change are also poor.

3\. The United States is not, in fact, particularly generous about foreign
aid.

4\. The Paris Agreement is intended to be a _start_ \- the reductions are so
small in part to win over right-wing Americans, who in turn have the audacity
to turn around and blast this agreement for not being effective enough.

~~~
dkhenry
1\. I don't think global warming cares who emits the carbon. If climate change
is really as big and life changing an issue as everyone knows it is they will
sign on, there is no reason to sign away the livelihoods of Americans to
benefit China, what happens when you do that is those people whose jobs you
have just ended do in fact have opinions and votes.

2\. We are subsidizing them with no benefit to us at all, and in turn we are
also giving them the ability to outperform us in manufacturing the capability
to create clean energy, if you want to help them use clean energy mandate that
it comes from local companies. No one will like someone else showing up with
bags full of sovereign wealth and tipping the scales. These countries per
capita might be poorer, but from a global markets level they are right on par
with their American counterparts.

3\. Debate? We are by far the largest foreign aid donor.

4\. The Paris Agreement was signed by the President without the consent of
congress, partially because it didn't win over right-wing Americans.

At some point we need to be adults about this and do something, the country is
not supposed to be run as a Dictatorship by either party, all its doing is
slowly killing everyone

~~~
ryanobjc
2\. I'm pretty sure not having oceanic level rise, and drowning out the most
expensive real state in the world is a benefit to us! The notion that somehow
the developed world gives $100b (over what time frame? That matters a lot) and
gets nothing in return is ridiculous. Manufacturing clean energy stuff is not
within grasp of most developing countries. So they have to import tools,
expertise and goods... from where?

3\. The US gave $31b in foreign aid. Which sounds generous, until you do it
per capita. In which case the US slips way off. The closest economic
comparison would probably be the EU which gave $87b away. I, like many,
consider charitable giving and aid a sign of strength, not a reason to whine
about how unfair life is when you're the richest.

~~~
dkhenry
2\. They are not importing tools and expertise, they are have the tools and
expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to
America. If you want to see some a benefit then write the mandate that
American companies must be used to provide the clean energy capabilities to
the developing countries. Not only would that be rejected it would be a bad
idea for many reasons, but the opposite is deemed to be OK.

3\. Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad especially when you
consider that as that number gets bigger the return you get on it diminishes.

~~~
cerebellum42
Re. 2: Most of the aid funds are actually transferred in the form of subsidies
to deals with companies from the "giving" country. For example, India is
massively expanding its solar energy capacities. This is happening partly as a
deal with German companies and the German government, which subsidizes the
whole trade. That way India gets cheap solar energy infrastructure and Germany
supports its solar energy industry.

I honestly don't know if this is happening in the same way with American
companies, but to be honest, if it's not that would make me want to take a
hard look at the reasons for it. Lack of effort from the government to make
those deals, or inability to make attractive deals - which would be a rather
worrying indicator of the american industry's health.

By completely exiting, Trump is effectively leaving the field of renewable
energies to other countries. By relying more on burning fossil fuels for
energy he can definitely give America a short term boost by preventing energy
costs from rising further, but he might also cripple its renewable energy
industry - which employs more US citizens than Oil, Coal and Gas combined.

Trump wouldn't have had to exit the agreement to do what he wants by the way -
the agreement does not have any penalties for not fulfilling it, and it allows
every country to adjust its own goals in the agreement, without asking anyone
else for permission.

------
abalashov
If they could just somehow recruit Texas to the cause, they'd pretty much have
the leverage, as anchors of economics and policy for much of the rest of the
country.

~~~
IChangedCareers
Texas runs its own power grid. Not the same interest as NY and CA in
particular. They are probably actually cleaner than both combined?

~~~
Bud
Why would you just plain guess at TX being cleaner than CA, the clear leader
among all US states on climate issues, without bothering to look it up?
Careless and lazy.

~~~
gumby
Because Texas has a lot of wind power (so much that the price sometimes goes
negative at night) and because, although California gets a lot of its power
from renewable energy, most of that is imported (WA hydro) while in-state
production remains dirtier.

Don't get me wrong: I live in CA and would be happy never to set foot in Texas
again, but this responds to your specific statement.

~~~
acchow
why is hydroelectric power not "renewable"?

~~~
gumby
I'm merely saying while California _consumes_ a lot of energy from renewable
sources, most of the energy _generated_ in the state is dirty.

In the specific case of hydro, California has, for all intents and purposes,
none. There is some pumped hydro _storage_ (as far as anyone can tell, all the
reasonable candidate sites are in use) but actual generation comes from WA
which has plenty of water flow. This also means that WA deals with the
environmental problems of these generator dams, and California does not.

California does have some wind and solar of course, in additional to its
hydrocarbon plants. But lots of gas peakers.

------
almostApatriot1
Maybe this will motivate Cuomo not to shut down all the nuclear plants in NY.
I'm not sure how he plans to achieve any sort of reduction if you have to
replace nuclear as well (which provides NY with 30% of its electricity).

~~~
Spooky23
New York can buy from Canada. Quebec has a vast ability to generate
hydropower.

~~~
rtx
Hydropower is bad for the eco system.

------
jacquesm
Now that's a thing to be happy about. Funny how every time Trump feels that
he's about to grab the brass ring it is snatched away from him one way or
another. Governing without consensus building is harder than it seems
apparently.

~~~
yongjik
I wonder if Trump is secretly happy with the development. In addition to all
the European liberals, he now gets to point his fingers at treasonous liberal
states. Great for energizing your support base.

~~~
prawn
Beyond that, puts the burden of cost on some areas rather than his base.

When the political right in Australia cut climate research funding, and
private industry and the community stepped up to try to fund it instead, those
politicians pointed to this as an ideal response.

------
scarmig
Throw in all the solidly blue states and all the solidly blue cities, and
you'd have a majority of the US's population and GDP.

~~~
jjawssd
Why do these non-democrats hold the USA hostage to their policies? Why can't
the democrats appeal to them?

------
pvnick
1) Good - states' actions are how the constitution was framed

2) Weird - the governors appear to be taking action unilaterally by executive
decree, which is how the Paris accord was originally agreed to (Obama) and
reversed (Trump)

This might be the best of all worlds. Blue states can join the alliance, and
red states can stay out. Everyone's happy and the economic effects can play
out as they will.

------
laretluval
Looking forward to a future where the seceded states are ruled by the
institutional descendant of the Climate Alliance Executive Committee.

------
Stingray7
Most of those countries that would grandstand in front of the public and say
they would sign a climate change agreement are full of it!!! If they won't
step up and pay their fair share in NATO obligations to defend their own
people, how are you going to trust them to abide by some little climate change
agreement??? It's a bad deal! Trump was right. It's just another way to get
America to pay for most of it! Bravo Zulu Trump!

------
vyrotek
_Maybe_ we can get Phoenix in on this too?

[http://www.azfamily.com/story/35561955/phoenix-mayor-vows-
to...](http://www.azfamily.com/story/35561955/phoenix-mayor-vows-to-continue-
paris-deal-regardless-of-trump-decision)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Global warming might be a bad deal for Arizona.

But most big city governments are going to be run by liberal Democrats
because...they are big cities. Not that they are wrong, just pointing that
out.

~~~
jjawssd
The fact that many larger cities are controlled by Democrats is a very
interesting phenomenon that I do not fully understand.

~~~
alexbeloi
From the point of view of role of government in people's lives

My guess has always been that the difference comes about because smaller
communities can organize to solve problems without government help, so they
lean towards 'limited government'. Larger communities have a naturally harder
time organizing, and so they lean towards government programs.

If your community is 1,000 people and 1% of your population is homeless, you
probably know the names of all 10 people and figure out a solution case by
case. If your community is 10,000,000... that's 100,000 homeless people, which
is a wholly different problem.

------
enknamel
There is a massive difference between caring about the environment and
following the Paris Climate Agreement. We as a country can do a ton to reduce
our damage to the environment. However it is going to be a drop in the bucket
to what some third world and massively developing countries will contribute.
Follow Amdahl's Law. The biggest emitters should get the biggest spanking.

This is why Paris Agreement is almost completely worthless. China is the
largest contributor of green house gasses in the world and emits about a third
of all the green house gasses. (if not drastically more given the shady
reporting). And they want to give China a free pass to keep polluting the
world for another 13 years while every other country gets their emissions
under control?

I'm very pro environment and any serious agreement must have China curbing
their emissions now. They emit twice the green house gasses as the US (which
is the number 2 contributor). That cannot be allowed to continue.

~~~
adrr
On per capita basis, we're more than double china. Getting US to china levels
on per capita basis would make a huge difference in preventing climate change.

Source:
[http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC)

~~~
enknamel
Well no it wouldn't. Per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions.
Amdahl's Law. China contributes more than double the next country in terms of
green house gasses, and they are contributing more per capita year over year.
This is why China curbing their emissions would have a bigger effect than
anyone. If they cut their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will
be reduced by 1/6th. If US cuts their per capita emissions in half, global
emissions will be reduce by 1/12th.

Which one of these alternatives is better for the environment?

~~~
realityking
The problem is that you solution would require telling developing nations that
they're not allowed to reach the living standard you and I enjoy - how is that
fair?

~~~
enknamel
Why should that matter? All that matters is the environmental damage is
reversed. That requires reducing emissions until we produce technology that
can massively pull carbon out of the air.

Continuing to insanely pollute the environment in the name of "fairness" is a
great way to destroy the world.

------
dreamthtwasrome
And so it begins. Gore Vidal and many others predicted an autocrat near the
end.

~~~
tanilama
Trump?

------
Stingray7
America doesn't need an agreement with another country to positively affect
climate change. Do you??? No you don't! Everyone just needs to do their part!
Bravo Zulu Trump!

------
Stingray7
America doesn't need an agreement with another country to positively affect
climate change. Do you??? No you don't! Everyone just needs to do their part!
Bravo Zulu Trump!

------
pmurT
Wow, can I choose not to have my tax dollars go to this?

I think the future of government is voting through selective funding of
programs by each individual.

------
S3curityPlu5
Waste of money in my opinion.

------
Crontab
I predict that Florida Governor, and part-time Spider-Man villain "The
Vulture", will not being joining the group - even as Miami slowly floods.

------
artpop
This is starting to sound like the “Rim States” from the science fiction novel
Black Man (Thirteen) by Richard K. Morgan. Basically the blue and red states
separate in the future because they couldn’t resolve their differences. The
blue states go on to prosper and the red states languish.

It struck me how plausible it sounded when I read it. Now with the commander
in shit-the-bed Donald Trump and the rising tide self-destructive behaviour,
it’s looking like a good option to me.

~~~
Karrot_Kream
While I'm happy that the states are picking up the slack, are you really
insinuating that the Red states are leading to their own self-destruction,
going on to "languish"? I'm saddened that people have this viewpoint over such
a large swath of the country.

~~~
michaelchisari
Except that there is overwhelming truth to it. There are now, effectively, two
economic models for states to follow, and they're very partisan models. There
is the California model (high taxes, high minimum wage, strong environmental
standards, strong labor protections, etc) and the Kansas model (cut taxes,
privatization, gutting protections). California's growth rate compared to
Kansas' growth rate is a matter of night and day.

California is by no means a utopia, but if you're using the standard metrics
of a healthy economy, blue states like it are doing things right, and red
states like Kansas simply are not.

~~~
larsiusprime
There are not 'blue' and 'red' states -- this is an artifact of the electoral
college. There are huge 'red' zones mixed throughout 'blue' california. Usa on
the whole is purple.

EDIT: Yes, I'm aware of distortions in the electoral college. My point is that
some people seem to think that California is this massive blue block and that
rural population you know, doesn't matter. The divide is not "red state" vs
"blue state" it's cities vs. the rural. Yes the cities have more population.
But the rural population exists and if you go for separation they would have
to come along too, and maybe they would have something to say about it (such
as breaking their rural portions off from your state and rejoining the rest of
the USA, for one).

~~~
michaelchisari
_There are huge 'red' zones mixed throughout 'blue' california._

Geographically, yes. But land doesn't vote, people do. By population, it's a
huge spread. Hillary beat Trump by over a 30% spread. 61.73% vs 31.62%.

Most of the big "blue" states are similar. In Illinois, it was a 17% spread.
Over 22% spread in New York.

~~~
cderwin
That doesn't change the fact that nearly one out of three Californians voted
for Trump (of those who voted, anyways). It's a huge spread politically, but
32% of the population isn't something that can just be handwaved away.

------
IChangedCareers
Noting that all three are (D). Statement of fact, and not opinion attempt. The
actionable items on renewables are also huge with deregulation of energy
sectors in these three states which is huge impact. Also noting, the lobbyst
are all renewable folks - et al Tesla. :) SolarCity ... wonder who was pushing
this? ya. Again .... not a political statement. Just pointing out the obvious.

~~~
alexbeloi
ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and BP are all in favor of America
staying in the Paris climate agreement, and if you look at those company's
websites, they all accept the prevailing scientific consensus on climate
change.

The coal industry is the last holdout of the climate change skeptics. Everyone
in oil and gas has seen the future and have started to push research and
investments into renewables to limit their risk exposure.

------
throwaway-1209
As a taxpayer in one of those states, I'm more worried about whether they plan
to pony up the $100B/yr that the US was obliged to under the agreement. If
they do, I'd like to know where it'll come from. And if they don't, then what
exactly will this alliance do?

~~~
zachwood
The US was not obligated to pay $100B/yr in the agreement.

Obama pledged $3B by 2020.

[http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/why-trump-
seeing...](http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/why-trump-seeing-red-
about-green-climate-fund-n767351)

~~~
throwaway-1209
You guys need to pick which figure to quote. Here's a number from 2015, from
NPR: [http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2015/12/12/459502597/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2015/12/12/459502597/2-degrees-100-billion-the-world-climate-agreement-by-
the-numbers).

Quote: "To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener
sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed
world will provide $100 billion a year". And further: "Developed countries won
inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years," Chris
explains, "so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time."

Or straight from the agreement: "Agreement shall set a new collective
quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account
the needs and priorities of developing countries"

While that's $100B/yr from the "developed world" as a whole, we all know by
the example of NATO what that _really_ means.

~~~
burkaman
NATO is a great example. The US funded about 22% of the NATO budget last year,
which seems about consistent with its size relative to the other members:
[http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/stock...](http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/stock_2015/20151019_1510_NATO_common_funded_budgets_2016-2017.jpg)

~~~
throwaway-1209
That's some weird set of numbers you got there. But I got a better one:
[http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-c...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-
chart-11).

~~~
burkaman
This is a graph of what members spend on their own military, not what they
contribute to NATO. It's still relevant, because we have an obligation to
defend other members and how well they defend themselves affects our behavior,
but it's not a zero-sum game. Greece decreasing its defense budget does not
mean we need to increase ours, and Poland increasing theirs doesn't mean we
can decrease ours.

NATO members absolutely should spend what they agreed to spend, but we aren't
forced to spend 3.6% of our budget on defense because they don't. That's
something we choose to do, and we could stop if we wanted to.

~~~
throwaway-1209
NATO mandates that members of NATO spend at least 2% of their GDP on their own
militaries. The vast majority of them do not, they just count on the US
stepping in for free if shit hits the fan. The point of NATO is that countries
keep up their militaries to the acceptable standard so as to lend a helping
hand if the need arises, not that they contribute equally to the NATO's
doughnuts budget.

------
jorblumesea
In some ways, it doesn't really matter. Regardless of how hard people try to
fight against alternative energies, the market forces will seek out
inefficiencies. Consumers are driving demand for electric cars, cheaper energy
and states are turning away from coal more and more every year. States that
adopt alternative energies will see long term advantages and those that don't
will eventually be forced to confront it. Some states have already adopted
measures far beyond what the US has ratified or even proposed.

Trump can posture as much as he wants, he's against a huge tidal wave of
change and on the wrong side of history.

~~~
usaar333
The agreement doesn't per say matter all that much (Trump wasn't going to obey
it anyway).

But it's hard for me to see how failing to tax externalities of fossil fuels
are not making it that much harder for renewables and nuclear to win. I
actually find you a bit optimistic; natural gas is extremely cheap these days
(in part because the externalities aren't taxed); while it is much better than
coal (in many dimensions), switching all fossil fuels to a "less bad" fossil
fuel aren't enough to hit necessary emissions targets.

~~~
jorblumesea
Taxing fossil fuels would speed up the process, but the writing is on the wall
when it comes to fossil fuels as a whole. You know when Exxon Mobil and other
big players are starting to get into the alternative energy business the tide
is turning.

------
xienze
One thing I never see addressed with all the talk about climate change:

Let's say we managed to cease our CO2 production, even reverse the current
man-made warming trend (save me the "impossible hypothetical scenario" talk,
substitute in whatever values of "cease" we would have accomplished with the
Paris Agreement, whatever).

Eventually, the earth is going to warm significantly without the aid of
mankind. What are we supposed to do about that? Global warming is an
eventuality, and no amount of carbon taxes that apply to a certain set of
countries and not to others is going to change that. So someone enlighten me,
what's the long, long-term view plan for global warming?

~~~
stevenleeg
> Eventually, the earth is going to warm significantly without the aid of
> mankind

What exactly are you referring to here? The sun expanding and becoming hotter
as it ages? If so we're talking about the timeline of a few billion years.
Climate change is something that has already begun to affect us and will
continue to worsen over the course of the next few decades, which makes this
issue far more pressing than whatever "natural warming" you're referring to.

~~~
cderwin
No, he or she was just observing that natural warming/cooling moves pretty
randomly, and even if we can null out the human effect on it, we need to be
able to withstand a dramatic change in global temperature.

~~~
prawn
Are you sure it's random? I think there have been reasonably regular cycles
through history? e.g.,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

------
jjawssd
"Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them –
which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will
shift to it." [1]

Bjorn Lomborg explains that The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1
trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The
truth? It won't do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer -
except politicians and environmentalists.

What is the solution? Copenhagen Consensus has consistently argued for a
R&D-driven approach. Fortunately, more people are recognizing that this
approach is cheaper and much more likely to succeed –including the Global
Apollo Program which includes Sir David King, Lord Nicholas Stern, Lord Adair
Turner and Lord John Browne. [1]

NOTE: Please do not down-vote if you disagree with my post. If you disagree,
please explain yourself in a relevant comment. Thank you.

[1] [http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-
neglig...](http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-
impact-of-paris-climate-promises)

