[thevardanian]

The thing I don't understand is why it's assumed that somehow the Paris Treaty is somehow enforced, or binding, or that it will even actually improve conditions more-so than independent initiative.

I personally think that the USA can achieve its goal without the Paris Treaty through personal responsibility of the states, and independent initiatives through counties, and cities. That type of independent resolution is necessary for long term improvement at the grassroots level.

The US, I don't think, can get to the level of European in terms with climate, unless the US, and its states stop being complacent, and reliant on the Federal government.

[hibikir]

Treaties like this have a big signaling component, just like macroeconomics. Improvements are perfectly possible without them, but even a toothless treaty affects all kinds of decisions downstream.

We also take into account that energy production is about large capital investments that aren't looking at tomorrow, but a decade or two ahead at the minimum. Building a new coal plant today isn't a bad idea because it'll be way to expensive to run in its first year, but because it'll be less and less attractive as time goes by, and will probably have its life cut short.

This is why on one hand, Trump's decisions aren't necessarily that hard hitting in the long run as long as the people building plants can expect his decisions today to be a historical aberration. It's the long run trendline that is important, and we can tell about that by what other stakeholders do.

That said, I'd not put much faith in most states caring about climate change individually. There's plenty of states that are deep red and where most energy today still comes from coal, and where candidates don't even bother mentioning an energy stance: Elections are about protecting religion and policemen and lower taxes. It's not that the states are relying on the federal government on the environment: If there's a mention of the environment, it's something like 'The EPA is too tough on our farmers'. This was a real talking point in Missouri's last election for governor, and guess what? the candidate that was in favor of letting farmers dump more chemicals into rivers won.

The federal government can force those states to make changes, but they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming. It's good to have some states that lead the charge on this, but it's can't be the main way to do this. If this is decided state by state, the Midwest will be mostly powering itself with coal for decades.

[XorNot]

A counterbalance here though is that the global trend is making coal a poor investment. People building power plants do it for the return - and they won't do it if they can get a better return elsewhere.

That's really the tipping point for solar - if it can provide a better return then coal plants. It's getting close, but the significant thing is that solar scales so much better then coal because you can build it anywhere - minimal environmental impact statements, no real supply lines other then grid access, minimal staffing and maintenance. If a straight up solar farm can provide a reliable return on investment over coal power, then no one is going to bother building coal plants any longer unless tax-breaks rain from the heavens (which they might).

And the kicker is very much that scalability aspect - solar doesn't even need to provide much of a better return then coal plants to beat them, it just needs to be deployable in such volume that the obvious investment strategy becomes "build solar".

And we're getting there - fast.

[thevardanian]

If you don't have faith in states taking initiative then as a whole you can't have the USA change. That's just how our culture, and our governance works.

States NEED to take responsibility. If we are to change as a nation we need to stop looking at the globe and do a bit of introspection so that we can change internally. Otherwise if states are left out of the equation then the problem of climate change can never be solved.

While the federal government can possibly do that, and it is a huge possibility, trying to get the states to change at the grassroots is of far greater impact, and efficiency, as that is the Number 1 problem that USA faces. Not a lack of federal imposition, but a lack of grassroots understanding in America. And the one thing Americans hate perhaps the most is being told what to do by men in suits.

[tjr225]

As a current Missouri resident - I am getting the heck out of here.

[akg_67]

You are not alone. Look into population migration numbers among states.

[hyperbovine]

More than half of the US live in big cities, a number which is only going to get bigger. The 20 largest MSAs account for about a third of the population of our country. Getting a comparatively small number of mayors, governors, and state legislatures on board could go a long way towards reducing our carbon emissions, even as Washington aimlessly spins its wheels for another administration or three.

[guelo]

> personal responsibility of the states

huh? If the 4 million people of Oklahoma don't take "personal responsibility" for polluting the atmosphere we all pay the price not just them.

[thevardanian]

Well yes. That's exactly my point. They need to, and we need those people TO take "personal responsibility".

How the treaty will get Oklahoma to take personal responsibility is beyond me.

[ntsplnkv2]

The less people the better.

If every other country follows the Paris accord, and many US states, it really won't matter as much what Oklahoma does.

[woodandsteel]

Lots of US states are charging ahead on their own. Take California, for example.

[propman]

Texas is the biggest renewable energy producer in USA and almost all is from wind in the last 6 years. Rick Perry the big fossil fuel Republican did this from a $7B unpopular at the time investment into transmission lines from wind heavy areas to highly populated areas. He was criticized heavily, but is the sole reason for 25% of the entire US Wind power capacity

He did it for economic reasons and most of the renewable energy produced in the Statss are from red states. We have to invest in transmission lines and continue the PTC if we want to continue being #1 in Wind and these are both bipartisan issues. Just not very important to either party right now

[sriram_sun]

It was 2009. Wind and Renewables were seen as saviors of the economy and a lot of TARP funding was thrown at these kinds of projects as well. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/14/14greenwire-stimulus... So I don't think it was all Perry's foresight, but Governers grabbing any funding that was available just to keep the unemployment numbers down.

[caliagent]

I have lived on California my entire life and all we have managed to accomplish were feel good initiatives which made for great PR puff pieces and were quickly shuffled down the road.

I remember the first electric car, hailed as a true step forward, that was subsequently killed. Go to Santa Monica beach patrol stations and see all of the failed electric car station plug poles that were sawed off and tossed onto a heap to rot. The end result of an economy that pushed SUVs over what we are currently seeing. And yes, for the most part those status junkies traded their SUVs for Priuses.

We are asked to conserve water when the wasteful farms and elites use more water than every citizen combined and our efforts (I recall as a youth, if it's yellow let it mellow as an allusion to not flushing if you don't have to) are literally a drop in the bucket. I remember my dad putting a brick in our toilet tank to reduce overall water capacity in an effort to 'do our part'; all the while our neighbors ignored the lawn watering rules (like our officials watered their estate grounds).

San Fernando Valley stopped watering or used minimal recycled water on the median's vegetation and trees in "an effort to save water". They even went so far to print signs everywhere along these plots and all advertising spaces (bus stop, billboard, etc) which have their own environmental impact that's conveniently ignored. End result is that all of these well matured trees died and cracked or burned in the subsequent year's end.

We also get billboards about food waste costing us water (one about eggs is fairly prevalent) which goes back to ignoring the actual major sources of waste.

The Nestlé corporation was allowed to do this: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580 And yet we are expected to 'do our part' to help a corporation's profits?

Lastly, recycling. We are asked at every turn to recycle amd separate garbage to an extent, yet there is no punishment for recycling thieves like in New York. So we taxpayers fund recycling efforts, containers, centers and trucks only to have the proverbial gold stolen each night by thieves. I stopped sorting my garbage when I was driven to the brink being woken every trash day at 3 am by opportunists raiding every can thoroughly. I had compassion until then. Most who still do have not had first hand experience in their ivory gated communities.

In summation, the best laid plans if the misguided bleeding hearts.

[skybrian]

I agree with some of that. You can point to things that didn't work, particularly in the early days.

But you can also point to stuff that did work. Early electric cars were failures, but there are lots of them on the road now.

Also, it seems you have no real criticism of Priuses. You just want to complain about them. Why? They work fine.

[caliagent]

Their incentive of carpool lane cheating is one, as the average prius driver coasts along merrily with no regard to how ICE vehicles gear or drive. But that's just personal anecdotes again.

The main issue with them is the ever present illusion that electricity comes from unicorn farts (hyperbole yes). Talk of real solutions must include compromises such as methods which harm the environment less than the benefit they provide.

Shoving manufacturing, mining etc to China and other nations with zero regard for environmental impact needs to end. Yes all of your iPhone packaging might be 99.999 recycled materials but at what ultimate ignored cost. Burning circuit boards in the street is rarely addressed.

Even just the famed silicon valley companies which promote this socialist garbage cannot be burdened with opening their main company location in a reasonable nowhere town as that would hurt their elite status symbol. Better to force all of your wage slaves to commute or live in overpriced renting situations than to have your private car service shuttle a handful of rich executives as needed.

[mikeash]

> I remember the first electric car

You should give Guinness a call. They think the oldest living person is 117, and you should have that beat by at least 15 years.

[greglindahl]

Huh. Palo Alto is closing on 50% renewable energy for the entire city, not to mention the large % of electric cars.