After Republican Protest, Oregon's Climate Plan Dies (npr.org) 565
Oregon's climate change bill that would cap carbon emissions and make polluters pay for their greenhouse gas production is dead, Senate President Peter Courtney, a Democrat, announced on the state Senate floor Tuesday morning. "As a walkout by Republican senators over the cap-and-trade bill entered its sixth day -- and in an apparent attempt to bring them back -- Courtney gave assurances that the bill would die in the Senate chamber," reports NPR. From the report: Republican Sen. Cliff Bentz said Tuesday morning he had only just heard of Courtney's announcement and that he had questions about its meaning. "The question becomes, 'What are they trying to do?' " said Bentz, who is believed to be staying in Idaho while the boycott plays out. "Are they trying to make some sort of arrangement? If they are suggesting they don't have the votes, what's the procedure they're going to use to kill the bill?" Sen. Tim Knopp, a Republican from Bend, Ore., echoed that confusion. "We need clarification. What does that mean?" Knopp said. "Does it mean it's dead until the 2020 session? Is the governor going to take it up in a special session?" Meanwhile, senators who backed the bill appeared livid and declined to speak to reporters on the floor. All 11 Republican senators fled the state last week to avoid voting on the bill. Gov. Kate Brown ordered the Oregon State Police to find the Senate Republicans and bring them back to the Capital in Salem for a vote, but none of the Republicans had been found. The New York Times explains what this fight is really about, what's actually in the bill, and how Oregon's bill compares to other state climate policies. Here's an excerpt from the report: Senate Republicans say the legislation would have a devastating effect on farmers, dairies and the state's struggling logging industry, among others. More than that, Republicans say, the bill represents an existential threat to rural life, and they want the residents of Oregon to decide on the proposal, not the Democrats who control the state's capital.
The highly debated bill would make Oregon one of several states to impose an emissions-trading program, a market-based approach to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would place limits on the amount of carbon dioxide that businesses could lawfully emit. By 2050, for instance, the bill would mandate an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels. Some businesses would be required to buy credits for every ton of greenhouse gas they produce. Those credits would then be purchased at special auctions and traded among businesses. Over time, the state would make fewer credits available, ultimately forcing companies to pollute less. The plan, commonly known as cap-and-trade, is modeled after a California law. It is far more extensive than most. Oregon would become just the second state, after California, to require that businesses in every sector of the economy pay for the planet-warming greenhouse gases that they emit.
The highly debated bill would make Oregon one of several states to impose an emissions-trading program, a market-based approach to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would place limits on the amount of carbon dioxide that businesses could lawfully emit. By 2050, for instance, the bill would mandate an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels. Some businesses would be required to buy credits for every ton of greenhouse gas they produce. Those credits would then be purchased at special auctions and traded among businesses. Over time, the state would make fewer credits available, ultimately forcing companies to pollute less. The plan, commonly known as cap-and-trade, is modeled after a California law. It is far more extensive than most. Oregon would become just the second state, after California, to require that businesses in every sector of the economy pay for the planet-warming greenhouse gases that they emit.
This wasn't a protest (Score:2, Interesting)
This is literally the end of rule of law. It's terrifying. We should all be freaking the hell out right about now.
Indeed this was diferent to dems refusal to work (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Indeed this was diferent to dems refusal to wor (Score:4, Interesting)
I find that refusal to do the work they were elected for because they don't like the law to be disgusting and completely contrary to any democratic ideals.
They're doing the work they were elected to do for the people who elected them.
Part of the issue with the cap-and-trade law is that it is being enacted with the "emergency clause". That means that it is so critical to the function of the government that it cannot be delayed in implementation at all, it must go into effect immediately. I'm sorry, but a six month or even a year delay while any legal challenges (including initiative overturn) can take place won't change anything. All the planning for implementation can take place while the legal challenges are happening, and then implement it under non-emergency rules.
The only reason for the emergency clause is so that the system can be put in place before anyone has a chance to challenge it -- and without a lot of detailed planning that might keep it from being a complete fiasco, like the Oregon ACA website turned out to be.
And no, I'm sorry, one senator saying he wouldn't become a political prisoner again doesn't make this an armed revolt.
I'll also point out, as our local paper did, that Kate Brown knows her authority to use state police to round up senators specifically because she was faced with the same option when in the Senate and DEMOCRATS walked out to prevent a Republican-backed law from being enacted. Goose, meet gander.
Re: This wasn't a protest (Score:3, Insightful)
The Oregon Senate is 30 members, and the rules of the senate require 20 (66%) for a quorum. The US senate only requires only (51%). Either Oregon arranged for this sort of thing to happen by design, or they should fix their rules.
Re: This wasn't a protest (Score:4, Informative)
Democrats have staged walkouts over other issues in the recent past, this isn't a new thing or even a purely-republican thing.
Actually, the Gov. called out the state police, but they are unable to retrieve missing legislators once they cross the state line.
Everything that occurred in this issue is legal, no one has committed a crime, you need to take a deep breath and see this for what it is, one party asking a matter be put up to the voters to decide, the other party refusing.
Re: This wasn't a protest (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats have staged walkouts over other issues in the recent past, this isn't a new thing or even a purely-republican thing.
The walkout isn't the new thing.
The Republican politicians and right-wing militias threatening to shoot any law enforcement officer that tries to bring a walked-out legislator back to the Capitol is.
When Democrats did their walk-outs, there was no threat to murder the police.
It's not legal to make threats of violence (Score:5, Informative)
If I showed up to the Whitehouse with 100 guys in cammo carrying riles and said "If Donald Trump signs any more orders about locking kids up in concentration camps there's gonna be trouble" I would get arrested. That's what happened here only replace "Donald Trump" with "Democrats" and "locking kids up in concentration camps" with "climate change bills".
The fact remains that violence was used to interfere in a legitimate political process. That is a crime in any jurisdiction I know of. If you're incapable of seeing that then I don't know if there's any hope left for this country. You're literally a classic case of "It can't happen here". It's happening right in front of you and you refuse to see it. Is this a defense mechanism to avoid facing harsh reality? I don't know. I just don't know...
Re: (Score:3)
You've eliminated one material fact from that statement, the part where the parent was confronted by the police and during questioning got in the car and sped off. I don't blame you for omitting this, it hasn't been in any of the news coverage. I only found it when I read the police reports and mapped
Re: (Score:3)
they had him blocked in when the video started. even if he did 'appear to flee' the scene, which in the absence of body cameras is subject to debate, they response was unjustified. They could have had him exit the vehicle, get on this knees with hands on head. Thats assuming he did actually flee the scene. They followed him all the way home, no lights no sirens according to everything. Even during the video I saw no lights running. Ive seen many a police response and they dont turn off their lights just bec
Re: (Score:3)
I'm actually kind of concerned by the governor using the threat of violence to force the legislature to do something they obviously don't want to do...
It's their job. If they don't want to do it, they can resign.
Re: (Score:3)
It's their job. If they don't want to do it, they can resign.
You realize we have three branches of government for a reason, don't you? It isn't the job (or the authority) of the governor (executive) to force the legislative to vote on something. If the legislative branch cannot vote on something that's nor her decision to make.
Imagine Trump being able to force US senators to appear in chambers to vote on something. If that doesn't scare you, imagine Obama having that power. Yes, let's allow the President to have the power to send the army (or FBI) out to round up se
There was a protest though (Score:3, Interesting)
Missing from the summary is the very real protests there were, such as a fleet of logging trucks all taking the day to drive through the state capital.
The bill is immensely unpopular across the state, even in the capital - if they put it up for a vote it would fail by something like 70-80% according to polls.
This is Republicans echoing the will of the people that live in Oregon, instead of obeying the Climate Fear Masters demands.
Know what else would echo the will 'o the people? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly, when the democrats did this same shit though, ie holding an effective sick-out, to keep a bill from passing that they knew they had no votes for, I felt the same way. This sort of shit, from either side, is nothing but thuggery and a precursor to tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is literally the end of rule of law. It's terrifying."
That's funny. To the best of everyone else's experience, NOTHING has changed as a result of these actions. I think you're a bit easily terrified.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, like all of these stupid analogies, you're ignoring the fact those opposed to Jim Crow were fighting injustice, while here Republicans are fighting to let the world burn.
One country's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. The problem is that there's no universally agreed upon code of what is just. Unless you're accusing the Republicans of being moral hypocrites who are acting this way even though they believe it is wrong for them to do so, then they'll simply tell you that they believe that they are fighting injustice, you won't agree with them, and we're back to square one.
This just boils down to "but it's okay when I do it" and we know that just spawns endless back a
I don't recall violence from the anti-Jim Crow (Score:3, Insightful)
Jim Crow opponents _did_ break the law... and were arrested. There's tons of photos of Bernie Sanders getting put in cuffs and he spent many a night in jail. That's civil disobedience though, not an armed insurrection. The difference is the protesters took t
Re: This wasn't a protest (Score:2)
...while here Republicans are fighting to let the world burn.
If only it were so simple... and you weren't.
Re: (Score:3)
...in the south ...in the 1950s.
MLK did not endorse either party, saying, “I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” He supported politicians of both parties who supported civil rights and criticized politicians of both parties who opposed civil rights. Since the Civil War, the Rep
Re:This wasn't a protest (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Then they're wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Brian Boquist.
Law enforcement better "send bachelors and come heavily armed." He later followed up his threat by saying it was "not thinly veiled."
https://www.apnews.com/1a3dd1c... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Are you only watching FOX News? Because there were threats to the police.
Re:This wasn't a protest (Score:4, Informative)
The effrontery! (Score:2)
Forcing hard working companies to pay for their pollution? Inconceivable!
That is a cost that must be externalized and socialized!
Shirking Job Responsibilities (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Shirking Job Responsibilities (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans want the voters to decide directly on the issue this fall, Democrats refuse to put it on the ballot.
Why won't the majority Democrats put this on the ballot? What are they afraid of?
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans want the voters to decide directly on the issue this fall, Democrats refuse to put it on the ballot.
Why won't the majority Democrats put this on the ballot? What are they afraid of?
So in your opinion, every time the Republicans don't like something, Oregonians have to go through a circus like this, staged by a bunch of Republican drama queens, followed by a plebiscite? The Democrats were voted into office, they already have a mandate from the majority of the Oregon population to do this. If the boot was on the other foot you would be waving your MAGA hat and screaming treason.
Re: Shirking Job Responsibilities (Score:4, Insightful)
So in your opinion, every time the Republicans don't like something, Oregonians have to go through a circus like this, staged by a bunch of Republican drama queens, followed by a plebiscite?
I guess you don't realize that Oregon is one of the states with an active (perhaps over-active) ballot measure process. We have like four elections per year on various stuff, and it is not unusual for the general election to have a dozen different measures, some of which cover the same topic. Some of the measures are citizen-generated, some are legislative referrals. Sometimes the legislature actually follows the "will of the people" on said measures, sometimes they ignore the people.
Sending this to the people is part of the normal, well-known process of referring a matter to the ballot. It's like, you know, not that unusual, and hardly the daunting challenge you want to pretend it is.
they already have a mandate from the majority of the Oregon population to do this.
Gerrymandering bad when it elects Republicans and needs to be stopped. Gerrymandering good when it elects Democrats because it creates mandates for whatever Democrats want to do. Check.
If the boot was on the other foot you would be waving your MAGA hat and screaming treason.
Nice try at bring your TDS into this. Not relevant, and it hasn't happened before.
Re:Shirking Job Responsibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy.
Yay Democracy! (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to laugh at people who called Democracy the "Tyranny of the Minority". Now I'm crying a little inside.
It's high time Europe invaded America to restore Democracy, that's how international politics works right?
Re:Yay Democracy! (Score:4, Informative)
It's the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority, depending on your social choice function. I am working on altering policy votes to solve that; check out my healthcare survey [forms.gle] for the first experiment.
Popular vote is a damaged system; and party primary is notably horrific.
Party primary leads to polarization due to marginal utility of voting in the primary if you're a party-line voter: most party-line voters don't care who gets nominated, and most who care are strongly-opposed to the opposite party and thus the strength of opposition to moderates and the favor for polarized candidates is linearly correlated to marginal utility of voting in the primary. That leads to polarized pluralism, and eventual single-party rule (oligarchy), dictatorship, and a collapse of democracy: the dangerous ideals of the other party make them a national security threat, and they must be eradicated. The separation of citizens from subjects is only the beginning.
Party primary also prevents a representative result. A party, representing a segment of a population, will vote only with the input of that segment. If we split two parties 50-50, then a consensus among the party would skew candidate to each side and away from the consensus of the electorate. This skew worsens when you have non-affiliated independent voters wedged between the parties on political ideology.
With plurality or majority-runoff (instant runoff voting is majority-runoff on paper), the largest group selects the party winner, and the largest party selects the winner. Runoff faces distortion and can be manipulated to select the least-liked candidate (that's supposed to be impossible, but adding an even-less-liked candidate means you can elect the formerly impossible-to-elect candidate, so the mathematical property is meaningless). This property tends to drive division into two main parties (the American two-plus system).
This damage continues to express itself in other structures, such as top-two (selecting the two plurality winners), which is vulnerable to all the failures and manipulations of plurality, and can be used by a minority party to shuffle a majority party out of the general election.
So how do we fix it?
Unified Majority combines a proportional nonpartisan blanket primary with a Condorcet election. The Primary is run by single transferable vote. When electing one, we select 7 nominees; when electing multiple, we select 2-4 times the number of seats and finish with another round of STV.
STV ensures that if 1/(n+1) voters prefer a set of candidates over what everyone else wants, one of those will be elected. For seven, that's 1/8. A plurality election between these seven candidates, given completely-honest voting and the same voters, would have nearly-equal vote counts cast for all candidates.
This totally-eliminates the oligarchy problem: there is no oligarchy coalition (as in a party's primary), and that coalition doesn't usurp a collegiate (the party for which they select the nominee, should that party be the majority party and thus able to dictate the election). It is strictly-harmful to a voter to form a coalition with other voters and change their first-choice candidate.
Tideman's Alternative is strategy-resistant, and it's also highly-unlikely that a coalition will have the votes to perform a burying attack. In simulations, I've had to create ridiculous imbalances to make burying work. When the burying works, it eliminates the Condorcet candidate and strongly tends to elect a candidate even less-preferred by the burying coalition, so strategic voting tends to produce a worse outcome than voting honestly. This is not absolute; however, it is not only mathematically-unlikely to break favorably to any manipulator, but also impractical in that it is mathematically-unlikely that a situation allowing such attacks to impact the election will ever arise in a large enough population (small po
Tax Pollution (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It also requires the the least regulation and the smallest chance to be gamed.
Pollution regs are gamed like crazy, by the legislator. They'll require you to install a kind of pollution control device that, surprise, is only made by one company that just happens to be owned by some state senator's cousin. They'll grandfather in existing companies that make the right donations to the right people. Regs will lock companies in to first generation technologies and make switching to better technologies 20 years from now effectively impossible.
Well, at least that's how current pollution
Re: (Score:2)
You pay first then.
Pay what? Subsidies for heavy polluters? ... because that is what we are doing as long as manufacturers don't have to pay the environmental bill for their activities and are able to off load that damage onto the taxpayer.
Re: (Score:3)
I already am. All of us are already paying for the damaged caused by, and cleanups required by this pollution.
When those floods hit the Midwest due to an "unusually massive rainfall" and we paid out disaster aid, that's us paying first.
When massive fires destroy a bunch of California, made much worse by drought and insects that no longer die every winter, that's us paying first.
When we have an "unusually busy" hurricane season that caused massive flooding in Texas, that's us paying first.
The should all be fired (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to debate the merits or lack there of the proposed legislation, because to me that is the lesser issue.
What I am seeing here is that these elected officials have totally abrogated their responsibility by choosing not to participate in the legislative process. As a result they are not fit to hold those positions as they have undermined the concept that the government represents the will of the people who have elected these senators in the first place.
The correct way to get what you want is via the ballot box, not via holding people hostage.
Re: The should all be fired (Score:3, Insightful)
The correct way to get what you want is via the ballot box, not via holding people hostage.
Funny you would say that, because the Republicans want the matter decided directly at the ballot box, Democrats refuse to do so...
Re: The should all be fired (Score:5, Informative)
The correct way to get what you want is via the ballot box, not via holding people hostage.
Funny you would say that, because the Republicans want the matter decided directly at the ballot box, Democrats refuse to do so...
The Democrats are in a position power because of the ballot box, which gives them the basis for denying the Republicans requests. If you are going to start ignoring that process, then you are starting to dismantle the democratic process - which in the long term is not in the best interests of anyone.
So while this situation may seem unreasonable (And depending on your point of view Dems ramming something through, or Repubs objecting by not being present) it is the Dems who are acting within the democratic process.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've noticed a pattern here. Democrats seem to stick to the process, even to a fault, while Republicans will happily subvert it to get what they want.
Take the Supreme Court nomination. Obama nominated a good, centrist candidate. Republicans refused to even hold confirmation hearings. They just ignored process and waited until Obama was out of office, then rammed Kavanagh through. Democrats could have done the same, just appointed their candidate without the hearings, screw the process because winning is wha
Re: (Score:2)
AmiMojo, you are such a hypocrite I do not even know why people read the drivel you post.
"The democrats seem to stick to the process... Republicans will happily subvert it..."
Dems = good
Repubs = Evil
As if the Democracts have never done this.
I'll tell you who is evil. YOU and your perpetuating of these lies.
The MSM and people like you are destroying the USA and dividing it. Not Trump, not the republicans.
I'm not saying Trump is perfect or that everything the Republicans do or want is good. But the last 3 yea
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not actually a big fan of the Democrats. I'm not fond of centre-right parties in general. But they are also the better choice of the two available options. Not good, some of them are awful. Just the least bad.
On the other hand some of the stuff the Republicans do is actually evil. I'm sure there are many decent republicans trying to steer that boat in the right direction, but I'm not going to hold back calling the actually evil ones out because it upsets some people.
BTW, I think you are a little unclear
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of what I was getting as. The Democrats are too concerned with taking the moral high ground instead of doing what it takes to win. For them the way you win is more important than actually winning; they would rather lose than play dirty.
The result of that is, IMHO, worse than playing dirty. Because of the Supreme Court thing the US is in danger of taking away women's bodily autonomy, it's that serious. And what did they get out of it? Obama tweeting about what dicks the Republicans were being, an
Re: (Score:2)
What I am seeing here is that these elected officials have totally abrogated their responsibility by choosing not to participate in the legislative process.
What you are seeing here is a broken legislative process. If the legislators don't appear, and they depart of their own accord and are not kidnapped or otherwise unlawfully prevented from appearing, then their absence should be registered as abstention from voting. Oregon is broken.
An otherwise reasonable request by GOP (Score:3, Interesting)
Rather than debate the debatable points in the Oregon climate change bill, I'd like to focus on the the basic issue the Republican lawmakers are arguing for - putting such a sweeping legislative change on the ballot, rather that enact it on the whim of a couple dozen legislators.
Why are Oregon Legislators refusing to let the voters decide? Are they incapable of explaining the importance of passing this bill to the voters?
From the outside looking in, it could appear that Oregon Democrats are trying to ram an unpopular measure down the throats of their fellow Oregonians.
Re:An otherwise reasonable request by GOP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An otherwise reasonable request by GOP (Score:5, Informative)
As a Republican living in Portland OR, I have an interesting view on this situation
Because of the population distribution in Oregon, the legislature is controlled by Salem and Portland. If you live in Eastern Oregon, your interests don't matter.
Historically, problems in the Portland and Salem area are solved by passing a State Law. Most of the area east of the Cascade mountains is controlled by Republicans. But because they don't have the population numbers, they have no ability to influence the debate on issues.
Around 1990, Portland, Salem and Eugene voters got very concerned about urban sprawl. Living in Portland, I agree, it was an important issue. So instead of comprehensive land use planning in the region, the State passed comprehensive land use laws. Works well in the Portland region. Has increased population density, driven up home prices. Now they are worried about rental prices. In Eastern Oregon, it has resulted in extreme difficulties in developing new housing. When a new prison was built in Eastern Oregon, near Ontario, it spurred a lot of economic activity in the area. A lot of new housing was needed. It was all built across the border in Western Idaho, because it was easier. If you drive past farms in Eastern Oregon, you see a lot of abandoned homes. Sitting there rotting on the farm. Why? Because under Oregon's land use laws, if the farmer wants to be able to let one of his kids build a house on the farm, if there is an abandoned home there, they can get an exemption to replace the building with a new home. But if they tear down the house, and don't replace it within 6 months, they lose the grandfather privilege to replace it forever. So the home sits there, an ugly eyesore, because they might need to replace it someday.
I was a Planning and Zoning Commissioner in Western Idaho during some of this, so yeah, I had some experience with the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An otherwise reasonable request by GOP (Score:5, Insightful)
That one side of the aisle has decided to walk out because they don't like it and are in a minority is ridiculous - they're basically treating the entire political system with contempt and should be treated as such in return, both by the people of Oregon and the state's legislature and courts. I know the US likes to think they are number one in everything, but really, being number one in the list of most disfunctional political systems isn't an honorific that you actually want (not that the UK would mind losing the position).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Gerrymandering aside, I'm assuming that assignment of the Oregeonian senate districts is at least reasonably close to each senator having the same number of members of the public they are meant to be representing"
When 60% of the people in your state live in 5 cites, that results in 90% of the area being disenfranchised.
The entire political system in Oregon deserves the contempt they get. In reality, we should be two separate states.
Re: (Score:2)
When 60% of the people in your state live in 5 cites, that results in 90% of the area being disenfranchised.
Why do you care about area being disenfranchised, does land have voting rights now? Do forests get move votes than deserts? What about swamps?
Re: (Score:2)
I see this phrase (Score:2)
tossed around a lot lately
"existential threat"
Is this the "fake news!" catch-phrase-of-the-day, to divert people's attention from the issues at hand?
No Food, Water or Electricity. (Score:2)
Cities are basiclly parasitic.
They do not produce Electrity, Water or Food.
Just cut those things off and see how well they do.
Cap and Trade (Score:3)
The plan, commonly known as cap-and-trade, is modeled after a California law.
With some adjustments, i's not a bad idea. It's like the market for real estate. It is (largely) in private hands and can be traded back and forth. But they aren't making any more of it, so the supply is limited. So some regulators draw a line and say "This is how much pollution we can allow." Then the market decides what the best allocation of that resource should be.
The only change I'd propose is that: Every person moving up from California should bring their emissions allowance with them.
Please Slashdot not so political (Score:5, Insightful)
arguing polotics is great fun. But it's not the fun I come to slashdot for. Go ahead and post stuff about climate change but not the poltics of it. And go ahead a post stuff about Amit Pi and the death of net neutrality but lets not make it all about republicans or democrats, lets make it about the merits.
And maybe just for laughs lets have a two month ban on the super callous fragile sexist nazi potus. Then we can relax a bit on this site and not have the urge to troll so much.
RFC: not saying the T-word (Score:2, Interesting)
I propose that everytime a post mentions the T-word that the posts under this should redirect to some hardcore off topic nerd discussion such as aspects of the Julia language.
examples: Here's my question for discussion. Why did the Julia language developers think that it was a good idea to number arrays from 1 instead of 0. I get that it makes it like matlab. But numpy shows you don't need to be that slavish. I don't get why an otherwise beautiful innovation had to be maimed like that. Is there a logic
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a logic I'm missing?
They wanted to conquer the burgeoning populace of Fortran coders who hadn't yet reset their array's index starts to 0?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
but lets not make it all about republicans or democrats
Why do you hate America?
Re:Please Slashdot not so political (Score:4, Funny)
arguing polotics is great fun. But it's not the fun I come to slashdot for. Go ahead and post stuff about climate change....
Obama forbid we post about actually fixing the problem!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, I get it. Some people are tired of all the acrimony. You're just looking at it the wrong way.
See, the Democrats are the National League and the Republicans are the American League. The normal day to day operations of the nation are the regular season and the primaries are the play offs. The World Series? That's the Presidential Election.
Pick a side and root for your favorites and make sure you let those other bums know they ain't welcome on your turf.
Party politics are sports for stupid people and as
Then don't read the post (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like these stories, what's to keep you from ignoring them? I, for one, like to argue with other nerds about politics. Nobody is forcing you to read these stories or participate in the discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
arguing polotics is great fun. But it's not the fun I come to slashdot for. Go ahead and post stuff about climate change but not the poltics of it. And go ahead a post stuff about Amit Pi and the death of net neutrality but lets not make it all about republicans or democrats, lets make it about the merits.
And maybe just for laughs lets have a two month ban on the super callous fragile sexist nazi potus. Then we can relax a bit on this site and not have the urge to troll so much.
Then why do you deliberately click on posts marked 'Politics' and read them? Are you a glutton for punishment or is getting angry over politics posts something that you actually enjoy. Nobody forced you to come here and get involved in the discussion, you could have just skipped the whole discussion entirely. As for climate change, I don't think there is any discussing that subject without mentioning politics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. EPA emssion controls on cars decreased pm10 and pm2.5, but at the cost of increased CO2 emissions. Was this the right trade? This is relevant because EV's offer a sort of emissions offset that may be the right thing and may not be. I'm not convinced either way yet. Perhaps hydrogen is a better way? 2. Where can most effectively spend our resources when dealing with climate issues? will climate change problems occur no matter what now because no one has control over the output of the entire earth or will every little detail help the big picture enough to avoid the worst prognosticated effects? It feels like these somewhat unanswerable questions drive us to politics. What specific studies would change your mind one way or the other?
This command and control approach where politicians try to pick winners and losers is inefficient. Get rid of government subsidies and efficiency standards. The market can best determine where to route resources.
A revenue neutral carbon tax allows the market to pick the most efficient solution, and allows us to reduce income and sales tax. Instead we are taxing on things that we ought to be encouraging: income and sales. It's bass ackward.
Re:Haha! Good riddance. (Score:4, Informative)
I remember the democrats doing this trick in Wisconsin. It's not an exclusive trick to either party.
https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17... [npr.org]
Sometimes when you are the minority party, you have to use any tactics you can. The law can always be changed to not require a full branch to vote.
Re:Democrats refused too vote too (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely false. Name them.
The reason that the bill failed is that the Oregon Senate is split 18 to 12 [wikipedia.org] D to R and must have 20 senators in session to have a quorum [nytimes.com]. All 12 republican senators have refused to attend Senate sessions while the bill remains pending.
You would have to have 3 democrats voting against the bill to have a tie. So name the 3 refusing to support the bill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, known to be opposed to it
Sen. Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, also expressed doubts, specifically about the bill’s impact on gas prices
Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, D-Gresham,: three well-placed Capitol sources affiliated with Democrats confirmed Monnes Anderson was the third hold-out.
Source:
https://www.oregonlive.com/pol... [oregonlive.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"Expressing doubts" and omitting the part where Brad Reed, a spokesman for the environmental group Renew Oregon, said the senator 'told us she was a âyes,â(TM)" doesn't suffice to make those no votes.
If Demoncrats couldn't get 16 votes, Republicans wouldn't be hiding out in Idaho or parts unknown. The bill would be voted upon and simply not pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Go on thinking that. The short session is coming.
Re: (Score:3)
Name them.
Re: Democrats refused too vote too (Score:2)
Re:Arrogant Progressives (Score:5, Insightful)
The climate crisis will affect everyone. In rural communities, in cities, on mountains, on the Great Plains, everywhere. Therefore, we must become CO2 neutral. There is no way around it if we want to have a future. However, we cannot just stop producing CO2 and other greenhouse gases, as this would kill the economy and even more important food production. Therefore, we must implement solutions which help to transform our way of life in a way that CO2 production is eliminated. This is and will be a continuous process. When we start now and aim for a steady reduction, we must be neutral by 2040. Globally of course.
First things are: Have a CO2 tax and eliminate subsidizes for carbon industry. The collected money can be used to directly support poorer people and industry to move to lower carbon emissions by, for example, electric cars, creating working public transit system in towns, supporting solar panels on roofs, support the development of CO2 neutral farming etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel strongly that solar panels would help a lot.
One of the idiotic hurdles: if you can afford to put up a bigger system than you need, so you generate surplus electricity (and help save the planet), you do not get rewarded. You don't get to sell that electricity back into the grid at standard rates. I forget the numbers, but it's pitifully low. It's all because of stupid govt. regulations which were obviously cooked up by power companies. Idiots.
Re:Arrogant Progressives (Score:4)
so you generate surplus electricity (and help save the planet), you do not get rewarded. You don't get to sell that electricity back into the grid at standard rates.
Before you rant, you should check the numbers. For Oregon, which is the state being pilloried here, this [pacificpower.net] is the applicable tariff for consumer-generated power:
"Full retail rate". Of course you pay the other fixed costs of infrastructure because you are making use of the infrastructure to deliver your power to other people, but "full retail rate" for the actual power.
Cap-and-trade is just a means of wealth redistribution, and the small companies that make up most of the economy aren't going to survive if their wealth is redistributed to other, bigger companies by having to buy credits just to stay alive. And notice one important thing. The Republicans are saying "let the people decide", not "let representatives of the large population centers decide". There is a significant dissatisfaction with the state being run by the two largest population centers, who don't care about anyone outside their areas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are working on it, do you suggest waiting until they are done before doing anything?
"Someone else is worse than me so I don't have to do anything"
How about trying to be best at something for once?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Arrogant Progressives (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Americans don't want to deal with global warmin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I simply haven't seen a bill actually do anything to lower pollution. I'll dispense with the 'global warming' debate since nobody really has all the answers. But you can definitely put me squarely in the lowering pollution camp. These stupid fucking carbon credit laws do nothing to lower the output. Its just a glorified distribution of wealth. So what, I don't pollute so I can make money selling my carbon credits to some polluter. That doesnt lower the output of the polluter, it just means his costs go up b
Re: (Score:3)
Senate Republicans say the legislation would have a devastating effect on farmers, dairies...
Ah, since the politicians say it, must be true.
It's not like we can see the effects of the policy. I mean, I'm sure all these projects in CA being funded by the cap and trade bill are all terrible for the farmers, who hate healthy soil and water. http://calclimateag.org/health... [calclimateag.org] http://calclimateag.org/a-call... [calclimateag.org] http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/sw... [ca.gov]
Re:Americans don't want to deal with global warmin (Score:5, Insightful)
Hyperbole much? Give me a number, backed with ANY citation, of the number of people who will be killed by switching to renewables.
Re: (Score:3)
Per capita the US is among the most polluting countries in the world, more than two times what the average Chinese person pollutes (which is also displayed on the website you refer to)
Re:Americans don't want to deal with global warmin (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that most of the Chinese pollution is created to export cheap goods and electronics to the US, so the US is also indirectly responsible for a large part of Chinese CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
Jackbooting nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's not legally-binding, and they are legally-required to come vote and can be compelled to do so by State constitution (I assume; most State constitutions allow this, and it is said that Oregon's in fact allows the Legislature to compel the presence of absent legislators).
Upon their return, the Capitol Police could be ordered to restrain them and to keep them in chambers, and the Senate could initiate a vote anyway.
Remind me to reject any vote to make me Chamber leader. I'm not psychologically-eq
Re:Democrats caving in again (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with Democrats is they play by the rules.
While they have the majority and could (probably) have voted the bill into law without Republican support, the law requires a quorum to even have a vote in the first place; and they didn't have enough legislatures to do that.
If the tables were turned - if it was Democrats who walked out to deny the quorum - then the Republicans would have voted anyway because the rule of law means jack shit to them. (See also: Wisconsin.)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Democrats caving in again (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah because we all know Democrats would never stage a walkout like this [wikipedia.org]. And in the Wisconsin example you gave the Republicans didn't violate the law: the quorum requirements only applied if there was a financial impact on the government: they just removed the provision of the bill that had that, and then they were completely legally free to pass the bill.
I'm no fan of the Republican's, BTW. I'm just even less of a fan of this whole "us vs them" bullshit that the two-party system brings with it. Both Democrats and Republicans suck. In different ways, sure. To a different degree, maybe. But they both suck, and both only maintain power by convincing their followers that the other guys are the real enemies. That's what you're doing here: defending Democrats when they did exactly the same thing as the Republicans, and pretending that it's somehow a different action, or that Democrats somehow wouldn't do something you know they've done.
Re:Democrats caving in again (Score:4, Insightful)
f the tables were turned - if it was Democrats who walked out to deny the quorum - then the Republicans would have voted anyway because the rule of law means jack shit to them
Your fantasy version of non-existent future events is hilarious. You're saying that legislation voted on without a quorum would somehow survive a court challenge? No, you're just childishly conjuring up imaginary cartoon villains that don't exist, and pretending they'd have some sort of magic powers that don't exist. We have plenty of examples of angry Democrats denying quorums in all sorts of legislative chambers. Because you happen to agree with their politics, you think that's noble and good. If someone you personally don't like does the exact same thing, then they're evil and bad and have super powers. Do you even listen to yourself?
... is fantastically funny. Democrats lost a thousand state legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the presidency (and by extension the Supreme Court) and millions of two-time Obama voters in 2016 because - among other things - people were disgusted by decades of lying and corruption on the D side, as personified finally by Hillary Clinton and her family's corrupt political machine. We've seen it on display again as top figures under the Obama administration weaponized the DOJ, CIA, and FBI to try to shut down a political campaign they didn't like and then to try to undo the election results. The states opted for an ill-mannered jerky New York real estate developer rather than tolerate another season of that crap. That you don't see it, and assert a delusional opposite of it, is exactly the sort of mindset that's going to cause another round of weeping, shrieking snowflakery in 2020.
And your entire notion that the Democrats' problem is that they play by the rules
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Democrats is they play by the rules.
Um, "sanctuary cities"? No, they don't.
Re: Wonderful! (Score:2)
You either willfully or ignorantly ignored the fact that Republicans want the measure put to a vote by the voters, not a couple dozen legislators.
The question isn't "why did the GOP deny the Democrats a vote" it's why are the Democrats refusing to put the issue on the ballot?
Re: (Score:3)
Because Oregon is a representative democracy, in which representatives are elected to make this kind of decision?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And has that ever worked? The Paris agreement had something similar and it was summarily cancelled by the next administration, not just in the US but even France, Germany etc have already signaled they won't be able to abide by it and nobody really has or wants to pay out for the credits.