Slashdot Mirror
61 Mayors Commit To Adopt, Honor and Uphold Paris Climate Accord After US Pulls Out (curbed.com)
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.
Here is the real story and the eventual history that will be Trump's: Destruction of the US global power and influence, and fanning the flames of the sub-national groups that will replace nations as a whole. The fall of the US leadership will coincide with the fall of the US as a functioning nation, but rather than subsuming into a failed state like Somalia and Yemen, its best cities will rise into global roles. Consider this Greek history in reverse, with city-states becoming the real holders of power.
Look how he unites the American people.
What a hero.
Stop paying for welfare in red states. Bam, several trillion dollars.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
>"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.
Climate change disproportionately affects liberals. If you're a corn farmer in fly-over country you have the luxury of being a climate skeptic. Condo owners in Miami on the other hand are shitting their pants right now.
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 - making an end run around the democratic process, taking away the peoples' voice - seems especially troubling.
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.
Sufficiently advanced pragmatism is indistinguishable from hypocrisy.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
>"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 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, 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. 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 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.
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).
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Only it's not quite so simple. This particular issue cuts widely across party, ideological, religious, and other divides. What we have seen in the marijuana legalization movement is a true bottom-up, single-issue, grassroots, non-affiliated reform movement. It's a result of people analyzing the facts available to them and seeing that the laws don't match up. And there was no party or ideology guiding all these disparate individuals, over half the population now, to the same conclusion. Having followed this particular issue very closely, from without and within (knowing personally activists involved with NORML and MPP), I feel qualified to make this statement. You can either take my word for it, or look at the polls, or really any other hard data you can find. None of it contradicts what I am saying.
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?
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.
I stole this Sig
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.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
i think you'll find the $100B is the total for ALL the countries involved
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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.
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.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
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.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
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].
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.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
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?
...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?
-Styopa
County support for Colorado Amendment 64:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
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...
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.