patrick.net

rando says

Russia loves global warming!

Best thing that ever happened to them. https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/for-russia-global-warming-benefits-outweigh-negatives-3407

Russian's also love it because it's a means to empower the Greens to prevent the US from developing our own oil and gas - thus keeping supply low and the price of oil high which only makes Russia richer.

If Trump was really Putin's puppet, he would not be pulling out of the Paris accord.

socal2 says

If Trump was really Putin's puppet, he would not be pulling out of the Paris accord

Did you forget--he's playing 4D chess right now. Messing with the liberals minds.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Tim Aurora says

Another side effect is that now China and Germany become the defacto leader of the world. Take that Russians, China is now your problem

Bwahahaha. China and India weren't required to lower CO2 Emissions until 2030. And no 3rd party verification.

No thanks!

That is true, but they can't lower their emissions and poverty at the same time, especially India. There are 300 million Indians, equal to the population of the US, who don't have electricity yet. The limitations for emissions assigned to each country was based on how much they have been emitting, which seems pretty fair to me.

Dan8267 says

Oh, and don't bitch when all the people from New York and California take over your state and its land.

New York, California and Washington say they'll stick to Paris deal as Trump backs out
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/ny-ca-and-wa-say-theyre-sticking-to-paris-deal-after-trump-backs-out.html

Dan8267 says

you think the left is intolerable now, wait until all those kale-eating hippies and social justice warriors are in Idaho, Nebraska, and Texas. A lot of red states will go blue and you'll lose that electoral college advantage you have.

Would be a good counterbalance if that came to fruition

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

We'll just have to tax the hell out of the rich to pay for the effects of climate change.

How about we tax the hell out of people who choose to live at sea level by the coast?

Why? Just tax the hell out of the polluters.

Trump is leaving Paris climate agreement even though majority of Americans in every state supported it

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/trump-leaves-paris-climate-agreement-though-americans-supported-it.html

Which one is the fake news?

Dow Jones +135 "Races to new Record"
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/01/investing/dow-record-trump-rally-wall-street/index.html

Musk Joins CEOs Calling for U.S. to Stay in Paris Climate Deal
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-31/musk-leads-ceos-full-court-press-on-paris-as-trump-weighs-exit

Strategist says

New York, California and Washington say they'll stick to Paris deal as Trump backs out

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/ny-ca-and-wa-say-theyre-sticking-to-paris-deal-after-trump-backs-out.html

Every State should give Trump the boot and stick with the Paris deal, like California, Washington, and NY.
Boycott all states that don't give Trump the boot.

Is this where we say, "Oh thank God there weren't any white people there.'

Strategist says

Why? Just tax the hell out of the polluters.

You mean people who use electricity, heat & cool their homes and drive to work?

Those polluters?

Here in California, the poorest people will be hit hardest because they can't afford to live in the nice coastal areas and need AC to cool their homes and have massive commutes to work.

Tim Aurora says

Mar-a-lago . I hope it drowns

Trump will put up a wall to prevent this.

Dan8267 says

Because coast lines were stable for literally tens of thousands of years

No, it wasn't.

Dan8267 says

We'll just have to tax the hell out of the rich to pay for the effects of climate change.

.... or die trying.

socal2 says

Strategist says

Why? Just tax the hell out of the polluters.

You mean people who use electricity, heat & cool their homes and drive to work?

Those polluters?

Here in California, the poorest people will be hit hardest because they can't afford to live in the nice coastal areas and need AC to cool their homes and have massive commutes to work.

It's an argument used frequently when it comes to taxing gasoline. I'm not sure if the argument holds water. The poorest, who are on welfare don't work anyway. The poor elderly don't work, students live by the campus. If minimum wage workers are driving long distances, they are doing something wrong. There is always a job nearby that pays minimum wages.
Utilities are heavily subsidized for the poor.
Society should take the needs of everyone into account, not just the poor.

Strategist says

The poorest, who are on welfare don't work anyway

They don't? Are you sure about that?

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

How about we tax the hell out of people who choose to live at sea level by the coast?

Because coast lines were stable for literally tens of thousands of years

Nitpick: "only" 10,000, not tens of thousands.

Why should we punish people for doing what was wise while not punishing the fools who fucked everything up? The expense of moving our major wealth producing cities hundreds of miles will measure in the quadrillions of dollars, far more wealth than was extracted by polluting. This is why conservatives suck at running businesses and government. They can't do correct cost-benefit analysis.

By "conservatives" I presume you mean the Oligarch-GOP and Neocons. Destroying the planet for short term gains isn't quite conservative.

This is a form of externalizing costs, or privatizing the gains, socializing the costs, risks, and losses. Very popular practice among people vocally against socialism.

Not a peep out of the governor. However, if it was anyone but whites off campus, he'd be holding press conferences and wringing his hands...

FP says

Or like majority of American kids saying that English is their language.

Yes, most American kids were mutilated, raped, tortured, and forced to adopt the ways of the European oppressor.

" And the Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike. They took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, "Boil there, you offspring of the devil!" Other infants they put to the sword along with their mothers and anyone else who happened to be nearby. They made some low wide gallows on which the hanged victim's feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His twelve Apostles, then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive. To others they attached straw or wrapped their whole bodies in straw and set them afire. With still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them round the victim's neck, saying, "Go now, carry the message," meaning, Take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains. They usually dealt with the chieftains and nobles in the following way: they made a grid of rods which they placed on forked sticks, then lashed the victims to the grid and lighted a smoldering fire underneath, so that little by little, as those captives screamed in despair and torment, their souls would leave them...."

http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/02-las.html

joeyjojojunior says

Strategist says

The poorest, who are on welfare don't work anyway

They don't? Are you sure about that?

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/

Holy shit. I stand corrected. I revise my statement... most poor, who are on welfare don't work anyway.
I guess if you make $1,800 per month, with 6 kids, you will need welfare. These are the type of people I would respect. At least they are working, and doing their best.

Strategist says

They don't? Are you sure about that?

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/

Holy shit. I stand corrected. I revise my statement... most poor, who are on welfare don't work anyway.

I guess if you make $1,800 per month, with 6 kids, you will need welfare. These are the type of people I would respect. At least they are working, and doing their best.

I owe you a beer for proving me wrong.
Dan owes me a hundred beers for proving him wrong a hundred times.

Strategist says

If minimum wage workers are driving long distances, they are doing something wrong. There is always a job nearby that pays minimum wages.

Utilities are heavily subsidized for the poor.

Patrick's website is primarily a real estate site and there has been plenty of discussion how one has to be very well off to live in the Bay Area or in the nice coastal areas in SoCal.

Most people in California aren't uber rich and have veeeery long commutes to work from the inland areas. This woman for example.

"Up at 3:30 a.m., Jackie Turner is out the door by 5:15 a.m., when it’s still pitch black outside in Brentwood — her new suburban hometown, a place where she actually could afford to buy a house.

Then the San Jose native hops in her car and joins the crowd — the thousands of mega-commuters who drive four, five and six hours daily to get to and from their eight-hour jobs in Silicon Valley, Oakland and San Francisco. Having purchased homes in less costly outlying areas, they travel through multiple microclimates on their way back to the Bay Area’s core, battling and occasionally outwitting gridlock, testing their emotional endurance."
http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/09/30/bay-area-commuting-nightmares-jobs-in-city-affordable-homes-in-exurbia/

socal2 says

"Up at 3:30 a.m., Jackie Turner is out the door by 5:15 a.m., when it’s still pitch black outside in Brentwood — her new suburban hometown, a place where she actually could afford to buy a house.

Then the San Jose native hops in her car and joins the crowd — the thousands of mega-commuters who drive four, five and six hours daily to get to and from their eight-hour jobs in Silicon Valley, Oakland and San Francisco. Having purchased homes in less costly outlying areas, they travel through multiple microclimates on their way back to the Bay Area’s core, battling and occasionally outwitting gridlock, testing their emotional endurance."

There are many people like that who do it on a regular basis. I call them nuts.
I have done it too, when I was 19. Almost 3 hours to my job one way. I had no problem then, because it was a temporary job, and i needed the money.

Strategist says

There are many people like that who do it on a regular basis. I call them nuts.

There are tens of millions of Americans who can't afford to live near their jobs. Many of them live in deep liberal Blue states like California, New York and Washington that already have high taxes and housing development restrictions making the cost of living sky high.

If these states are foolish enough to raise the cost of living even higher implementing Paris accord energy restrictions, many of the residents will certainly boycott and move to greener pastures like Texas - as many are already doing every single week.

Seriously, how can you think that middle class and poor Americans won't suffer the most from increasing the price of energy?

And why do you want to take away the best weapon America has (producing our own oil and gas) against OPEC and the Russians at this critical point in time? We have far more pressing immediate concerns to deal with.

socal2 says

And why do you want to take away the best weapon America has (producing our own oil and gas) against OPEC and the Russians at this critical point in time? We have far more pressing immediate concerns to deal with.

Reducing greenhouse emissions would help against OPEC--it wouldn't have much effect on oil and gas production but would have a bigger effect on oil and gas consumption.

socal2 says

And why do you want to take away the best weapon America has (producing our own oil and gas) against OPEC and the Russians at this critical point in time? We have far more pressing immediate concerns to deal with.

Hell no. Don't get me wrong. American oil is a much much better alternative than OPEC and Russian oil. No argument there.
A better alternative for America and the world is a FREE source of fuel like solar, which will put the final nail in the coffin of OPEC, pollution, and Climate Change. Russia will thrive because it will end up being a capitalist country, and become one of us.
OPEC will have one hell of an adjusting to do because they don't have the brains, the capacity, or the willingness to develop. Fuck them. I have no compassion for 7th terrorists.

joeyjojojunior says

Reducing greenhouse emissions would help against OPEC--it wouldn't have much effect on oil and gas production but would have a bigger effect on oil and gas consumption.

There's a billion Indians and Chinese that aren't even using cars or electricity yet. They will pick up demand where we drop off, unless the plan is to keep them mired in crushing 3rd world poverty.

If America doesn't produce our own (and cleaner) natural gas and oil, OPEC and Russia will very much benefit in the near term.

Like I said--oil and gas production shouldn't be affected very much.

joeyjojojunior says

it wouldn't have much effect on oil and gas production but would have a bigger effect on oil and gas consumption.

Joey? You do realize, all production would be eventually consumed, don't you?

Yes...

Trumps dad was a democrat? Ok

joeyjojojunior says

Yes...

So...

Strategist says

A better alternative for America and the world is a FREE source of fuel like solar, which will put the final nail in the coffin of OPEC, pollution, and Climate Change.

I'm not against solar or alternatives. I'm against no-nothing government bureaucrats FORCING us to use it before the technology is economically viable to replace oil and gas which is still the cheapest and most productive energy source known to Man.

We can do alot of harm to humanity and our economies if we do this wrong or too fast. History is replete with examples of needless famines and misery because of ignorant government central planning. We are paying the price now because dumb greens wanted to ban nukes 30 years ago. These same people are now screaming that we are all going to drown if we don't do something NOW.

Besides - America is already decreasing our carbon emissions faster than any other country thanks to fracking and natural gas. No environmental regulations were needed to achieve this carbon reduction, just old fashioned innovation and profit motive. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can develop our new found energy bonanza, improve our economy, get people back to work, reduce our carbon emissions through cleaner natural gas, put the hurt on OPEC/Russia and also work on developing alternative fuels.

The U.S. Leads All Countries In Lowering Carbon Dioxide Emissions
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/06/19/the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-lowering-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#d7c29f15f48b

Obligatory
www.youtube.com/embed/Vs1e2PPqTOE

socal2 says

Strategist says

A better alternative for America and the world is a FREE source of fuel like solar, which will put the final nail in the coffin of OPEC, pollution, and Climate Change.

I'm not against solar or alternatives. I'm against no-nothing government bureaucrats FORCING us to use it before the technology is economically viable to replace oil and gas which is still the cheapest and most productive energy source known to Man.

That has changed in many states. Solar is now a lot more economical in high electricity states like California, Hawaii, and many others.

socal2 says

We can do alot of harm to humanity and our economies if we do this wrong or too fast. History is replete with examples of needless famines and misery because of ignorant government central planning. We are paying the price now because dumb greens wanted to ban nukes 30 years ago. These same people are now screaming that we are all going to drown if we don't do something NOW.

That was 30 years ago. Nuclear energy was clearly more economical than fossil fuels. Times have changed.

socal2 says

Besides - America is already decreasing our carbon emissions faster than any other country thanks to fracking and natural gas. No environmental regulations were needed to achieve this carbon reduction, just old fashioned innovation and profit motive. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can develop our new found energy bonanza, improve our economy, get people back to work, reduce our carbon emissions through cleaner natural gas, put the hurt on OPEC/Russia and also work on developing alternative fuels.

That I agree. Spearheading solar is even better. Solar is just a technology like cell phones and computers whose costs are falling like a rock. Solar is already the cheapest source of energy in most of the world. It makes no sense to promote a dying product like coal, which creates so much pollution.

Can someone describe what "It's too late." &" You fucked around & fucked up this place." mean.

Almost forgot. You don't give a damn.

HEY YOU says

Can someone describe what "It's too late." &" You fucked around & fucked up this place." mean.

HEY YOU says

Almost forgot. You don't give a damn.

That's true. No one gives a damn, but if you want an answer, some elaboration would help.

There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in liberal nanny state land with this political sacrilege and defilement of liberal religious tenets! Burn the heretic Trump at the stake!

I think China and India should have stricter emissions standards to make up for having so many people farting.