Slashdot Mirror
Mayors of 7,400 Cities Vow To Meet Obama's Climate Commitments (theguardian.com)
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.
Cities and states are the ones that are meant to participate under the Constitution.. not the feds. And this method goes on without the US sending billions more that we don't have to other countries.
Best recognize. And the rest of you just sit your civil war memorial protecting oxycontin using bring back our coal jobs Toby Keith listening asses down.
We got this.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is old news. The political will to reduce carbon emissions has been with city mayors long before Donald Trump has been President - it's called the Compact of Mayors. 400 cities joined the organization to reduce carbon emissions and that was in 2015.
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 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. If so, I imagine the taxpayers may have something to say about that...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's amazing that all it took for the left to rediscover the general principle of "government at the lowest level" was the election of Donald Trump, really.
They were just asking to get butt raped.
No means yes
More political red meat that has nothing to do with technology
Donald has yet to get a major piece of legislation passed even though his party has majorities in the House and Senate. He blames everything on Obama and Democrats but offers no solutions. The majority for his voters are poor and working class under educated whites who depend on government programs like Medicaid and SSD to survive.
Trump pretends to care about these folks during his rallies but actively supports Congressional Republicanâ(TM)s attempts to gut these programs.
Iâ(TM)ll be voting for Trump and Congressional Republicans from here on out. You can lead a horse to water but you canâ(TM)t make it drink.
Let these uneducated âoegobermentâ hating retards keep voting against their own economic interests. Iâ(TM)m done defending them. From here on out my argument will be that Republicans should keep passing economic policies that fuck their poor, uneducated, white trash voters and focus on the real problem. Not redirecting the tax cuts that go along with them so they benefit middle class voters instead of the top 10%.
The top 10% get plenty of carved out tax breaks given to them on the backs of poor and working class voters. Itâ(TM)s time to get middle class voters into the game!
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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. 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 those were for Hillary (a bit more, or a bit less depending on the area). Even more damning for your assertion though. is that just 88 percent of black voters went for Clinton, and around 64 percent of hispanic voters - both of those groups make up large elements of the bigger cities, so that further erodes the original 75%.
In the end the people of the large cities are maybe with your ideas about 40-50% or so. What happens when you adopt policies that has locals actually feeling pain, in terms of jobs lost or a shattered economy? They will boot out people who share your ideals and pu in power people who present alternatives... and that is exactly how the Republican party came to enjoy such a widespread lead in local political positions across the country.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oh, StuporKankle, not only are you making anonymous posts to insult yourself, you are using them to stroke your mastubatory needs by declaring a "win" from your witless reply.
I suggest you stick with the Kancolle porn you've been ordering off the internet, it is less creepy.
So you agree, Donald Trump's denunciation of the treaty was pointless, just an act of grandstanding
Well of course, that was obvious.
as he boldly claims that he'll negotiate a better deal,
That was not pointless, as he succeeded - we are already in a better deal, where states take on the cost of compliance and don't give nearly so much money to third-world slush funds. That is actually a pretty giant success on the part of Trump.
Glad you realized this, because while it's not an impeachable offense,
Ha! You silly statists are more into 'Peachment than the whole state of Georgia.
Meanwhile Trump does what he pleases under your noses. From the outside it's rather hilarious to watch.
Much like his faked Time Magazine covers.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Best recognize. And the rest of you just sit your civil war memorial protecting oxycontin using bring back our coal jobs Toby Keith listening asses down.
We got this.
Well, let's just see where your liberal policies have gotten us, shall we?
I was just now reading an article on immigration, which lists 6 quick facts(*) from the immigration report Trump asked for.
This was information largely hidden by the Obama administration, and Trump made it public.
From that report:
Note that this information was basically hidden by Obama: no one knew what was happening, and no one knows how long it was went on (and we probably never will).
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.
And it's white collar jobs as well as low-level ones.
So tell me - how will that GDP work out for you, when you're out of a job?
(*) 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.
I'd rather live in a city that openly says it won't abide by such edicts. That way I know that they're not beholden to environmentalists, but to their constituents.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Err #4356 : State Machine is already in "SKWin" state, attempt to move to "AdolestantUIDRename" state is an invalid transition.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If they REALLY wanted to show Trump was wrong they would send 10-20% of their city budget to a random wealthy political organization outside of the U. S. as their part of the Accord's wealth redistribution plan which was the reason Trump rejected it. The Paris Accords were a hoax in that it did nothing noticeable to affect future climate and was only a way for connected individuals to get richer taking their cut of its wealth redistribution.
But even taking what they say they'll do I already know how it will turn out. Like all liberal proclamations they feel good saying they'll do something, but they never come through and it is forgotten except with the memory that they were morally superior for just saying they'd do something. With liberals this happens EVERY TIME one of these bandwagon feel good mini-movements get started.
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.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
None of these cities will contribute a dime to the Paris Accord "slush fund" which is one of the main reasons Trump pulled out of it. Of course any city can voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint, and so you can you.
No person needs a government to slim their climate footprint. You can do it on your own just follow this guide: http://co2doom.com/blog/2016/12/22/infographic-a-guide-for-climate-alarmists
The irony is that all those people screaming for carbon regulations are flying around in private jets, gas guzzling SUV's, super yachts, and mega mansions not raising the slightest effort to lower their carbon footprint. Why do you think that is?
The Democrats are good at losing, and being sore losers at the same time. Note I have no issues with Pairs accord, just that Obama, the "constitutional scholar" threw out the constitution. Obama was arrogant ever since he began his presidency, starting in 2009 with "elections have consequences", he even admits it as his biggest mistake. Even though he admitted to his arrogance 2015, for good measure he said FU to Republicans in April 2016 with Paris and said he didn't need the Senates approval. The genius couldn't figure out for the life of him, after 8 years why Republicans didn't want to work with him. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
It's an interesting spin, but really the main point is they're simply rejecting Trump's leadership.
Call it 'Federalism' if you like, and try to left-right'ify, but there aren't many Republicans who still support Trump at this point.
Look a the Dow Chemicals things, we have a known cause of Autism, chlorpyrifos, it's banned for home use, it's banned in many countries, its been studied and causes brain defects in children, and damage to adults and it's detected over the safe limit in US food.
Dow CEO pays Trump $1.2 million, and Scott Pruit then cancels a ban on the chemical. If consumers then refuse to eat that tainted food that's killing their kids brains, are they doing "Federalism", or are they simply rejecting the squatter in the Whitehouse they didn't elect?
Dear President Obama:
I don't agree with many things you have one - but all in all, thtink you have been one of the BEST presidents in newer histtory AND THANK TOU FOR DOING YOUR PART IN SAVING OUR WORLD!
From the bottom of my pale, white heart to the colorful and experienced heart yours: THANK YOU! You're quickly becoming another one of my african-american heroes! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORLD (just stop spying on everyone).
If only your nation could security it's servers for shit and stop nuking the planets (try Thorium reactors?)
Love you man, U hope you educate more young folks to follow your footsteps, amen!
This is exactly the kind of bullshit that we voted to CHANGE. Once we see the conspiracy here for what it is: yet another attempt to launch a coup against our duly elected president in chief Donald Trump and his decisions made as our leader. Please, for all that holy in our united states of america, to support the constitution, to support our right to bear arms and practise our religon freely, donate today to the Trump 2020 campaign and the NRA. It is only through your generous support that we can fight this insidius threat to our very way of life.
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 commerce as they do it and as long as they do not do it in a manner that runs afoul of the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Signing on to some international agreement is a different critter and is a violation of the Constitution.
The people doing this present save-the-planet crap are NOT principled people; they are nearly all doing it out of spite over the loss of the 2016 election and I doubt a single one of them supports the 10th Amendment on ANY other subject. I doubt ANY of them are for the feds no longer funding planned parenthood, or social security, or Obamacare, or foodstamps, or the feds keeping out of all the sex-and-gender politics, or dropping all federal regulations of what people do on their own land, or letting states decide on their own education funding or their own transportation funding and policies, etc. Nope. I'd bet none of these jerks support ANY degree of the 10th amendment at all; they're just pretending this is a sorta 10th amendment "thingy".
Again, if they do thiis as a stand-alone thing they're probably hypocritical but legally fine (though on the modern leftist-judge idea that what you SAY can be used to block your perfectly legal actions, perhaps not) but if they sign international agreements they coulf be in trouble.
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 rights. Crazy as it sounds, I can't discount the possibility that Obama secretly holds pro-2nd views.
Same with Trump. Regardless of your opinions of the man, he has demonstrated mastery of public manipulation. Could his intent have been to encourage environmentalism? It's borderline conspiracy theory craziness, I'll grant you, but I can't discount that as a possibility.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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?
"the mayor of Atlanta, told reporters he had travelled to Europe "
Well, I hope he rowed over in a boat otherwise he was burning fossil fuels.
If these 7400 bunches of idiots would like to check out what is happening in South Australia with a 50% renewable target, they might have a bit of a rethink. if not I'm sure their constituents will help them to revise their opinions.
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.
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
Yes, genocide, that'w how we view the constant progrressive attacks on our culture. And yes, people will react violently to genocide.
"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.
Typical of 'Climatedot' - every single day they have at least one 'climate change - the sky is falling in' bullshit article, spreading the myth of 'catastrophic man-made global warming' and the 'evils of CO2'.
This is the kind of insanity this leads to:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/study-another-example-of-how-california-bollixes-carbon-regulation-through-biofuels/
Growing corn to use as FUEL instead of as food, when we have more than enough oil and coal to last for hundreds of years.
We even have the insane situation where trees from RAINFORESTS are being cut down and shipped to the U.K. to be BURNED in power stations as supposedly 'green fuel', and 'carbon friendly', absolute insanity.
Ok 74000 cities.
But 740 cities sitting on a mountain of Coal Gas, and Coal Seam and Shaile and Oil Sands, and oil pumping water into earthquake fault lines - plus a lot of petro-economies will UNDO the statements of the 74000 cities that drive around on imported oil.
I'm sure Fukishima is all behind clean energy. And Penn behind clean coal.
The New York. We are all clean now. But don't count all the steel, cement and glass brick pollution used to make the materials we import. Yup pollution imputation nees to be measured too- before that paper trumpet blows.
Should the law for people be different in each city too? After all, that was just as equally "what is supposed to happen". Can one city just ban all firearms? Or is that not supposed to happen because their rights SHOULD be quashed?
No, your claim is bollocks.
Just look average energy price that consumers pay... in europe and think twice before going "green"
22(euro)cents per kwh
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?
Ken
Let me understand your position. Indentations only matter if it's Trump and a travel ban.
I'm amused that you think indentations matter.
Well, let's just see where your liberal policies have gotten us, shall we? I was just now reading an article on immigration, 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 the story is based".
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 my point of view, these are all good goals for either ideology, left or right, to aim for.
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 district system works.
4,700 idiots are somehow elected mayor...
Why? Why give up the competitive advantage for your citizens by forcing them to comply with your ideas of what's "green"?
Personally, I think we should take an individual approach. If YOU want to do this kind of thing, great, but the government isn't going to force you to do it.
That is the real question.
We've seen this before with cities trying their own minimum wage hikes. A few in deep blue states will get away with it, while Republican state legislatures (32 of the 50 states by my count) will pass laws banning cities from doing anything on their own.
the headline should read "Mayors of 7400 cities vow to waste constituents money".
Careful or Trump will Tweet about each one, and say bad things, that may make them feel bad, and he will smile.
These mayors want to clean up the environment and conserve resources; that is a good thing. Are they also going to take on Obama's commitment to send billions of dollars to third-world countries to atone for our "exploitation" of the world? I doubt it.
He will not divide us (we'll do it ourselves)
ad infinitum
More totally irrelevant 'partisan politics' fanfare.
More perpetuation of the venomous and idiotic notion that common people can do something about pollution by making small changes to their lifestyle.
If you want to save the environment, throw down this system and stop the insane consumption of resources for its own sake. So VERY many of us have our motivation, our outrage, stolen away from us by these false outlets for our discontent. Stop falling for it. Take up your problems with those who actually cause them. And being polite isn't going to cut it. You're going to need a sterner argument than mere words can provide.
Here is why this is the stupidest thing since sliced beans.
These cities are doing NOTHING about actual toxic emissions. They have a delusional monomania about CO_2, while ignoring for example diesel particulates, SO_2 emissions, toxic organics like those from roof tarring, and similar stuff that directly harms people's health right now. Why? Because no one makes money by preventing toxics, but plenty of people make money by selling "renewable" solutions which increase said cities' expenses, while in fact having zero effect on global warming.
So, these programs are really a violation of the 1st Amendment, since they amount to an impermissible endorsement of a particular religion -- the apocalyptic climate cult.
It's not 7400 cities.
It's 7500 now.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You're just making your states and cities less efficient by avoiding green energy.
Why are jobs growing so fast in Blue cities?
Because we build. We invest. We make more efficient products, goods and services, using LESS energy, and we use CHEAPER green energy.
Wind and solar are - wait for it - CHEAPER.
The Invisible Hand of Capitalism cares nothing for your failed fossil fuel religion.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
...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.
They have kiosks that sell these at places all over America. I've seen them at amusement parks as well. There are also about a half dozen websites that will do this for you, some even have examples with Time magazine (and GQ and Sports Illustrated).
The Snarky Left is an amazing phenomenon to watch as it has nearly destroyed the liberal political crowd's power in this country. If you honestly believe DJT snuck into one of his many golf clubhouses to put up a fake Time magazine cover, then holy shit you are stupid. Of course you seem to think people who don't agree with you live on a different world, so maybe you are just insane?
Tabs or spaces?
....let'em. Most of them don't have any money (see California).
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
I'd rather live in a city that openly says it won't abide by such edicts. That way I know that they're not beholden to environmentalist lobbying groups, but to their constituents.
But then that would upset the modbombers here.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Trump is out of touch. Your comment shows that you are too.
It isn't a "good thing" that Trump withdrew from the Paris Accords and then the cities stepped up. It's a serious sign of a disconnect between the Trump Administration and all those municipalities and the people they represent.
Trump is clueless and got to where he is by shouting down others, perfecting a line of patter that the gullible can fall for, and failing upwards in the manner best described by the Peter Principle.