Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Admiral Yi]

One of the many curious aspects of Trump's presidency is the degree he finds himself at war with his own executive branch.

How is that curious?  First action of his presidency was to call the CIA and FBI traitors and dumbasses for saying Russia meddled.

DRAIN THE SWAMP

[Valmy]

Speaking of the "Green New Deal" so I am hearing it somehow drove Amazon out of NYC or something? How? One crazy law that was never going to be passed suggested by one extremist Congresswoman drove Amazon out of NYC?

I have no idea what is going on there.

[Admiral Yi]

Speaking of the "Green New Deal" so I am hearing it somehow drove Amazon out of NYC or something? How? One crazy law that was never going to be passed suggested by one extremist Congresswoman drove Amazon out of NYC?

I have no idea what is going on there.

They didn't pull out because of any laws or regs or anything concrete like that.  They pulled out because of public outcry.

I was confused by that as well.

[Valmy]

Speaking of the "Green New Deal" so I am hearing it somehow drove Amazon out of NYC or something? How? One crazy law that was never going to be passed suggested by one extremist Congresswoman drove Amazon out of NYC?

I have no idea what is going on there.

They didn't pull out because of any laws or regs or anything concrete like that.  They pulled out because of public outcry.

I was confused by that as well.

Ah. So why am I seeing all these think pieces linking it to the Green New Deal and whats-her-name?

What was the public outcry about? I guess I am not getting why this NYC deal is a national story. If New Yorkers didn't like the deal the city struck with Amazon that sounds like a local deal.

[Admiral Yi]

Because she was one of the principle outcriers.  I think the proposed site might be in her district.

The outcry was basically an anti-gentrification argument combined with a claim that the tax break was too big.

edit: I got a chuckle out of whoever said "we could spend that $3 billion on other great things."  What $3 billion are you talking about, you idjit?  It doesn't exist yet and now never will.

[Valmy]

Ah. So why am I seeing all these think pieces linking it to the Green New Deal and whats-her-name?

What was the public outcry about? I guess I am not getting why this NYC deal is a national story. If New Yorkers didn't like the deal the city struck with Amazon that sounds like a local deal.

Because she was one of the principle outcriers.  I think the proposed site might be in her district.

The outcry was basically an anti-gentrification argument combined with a claim that the tax break was too big.

The tax break thing probably was too big IIRC. But it concerns a bit to have the whole party linked to this one extremist.

edit: I got a chuckle out of whoever said "we could spend that $3 billion on other great things."  What $3 billion are you talking about, you idjit?  It doesn't exist yet and now never will.

Idiocy like this is what I generally expect from her. Just launching a big political waves without really thinking it through. Maybe she is our Ted Cruz.

[The Larch]

Speaking of the "Green New Deal" so I am hearing it somehow drove Amazon out of NYC or something? How? One crazy law that was never going to be passed suggested by one extremist Congresswoman drove Amazon out of NYC?

I have no idea what is going on there.

I read a few weeks ago that it was possibly cancelled because it appeared that the project would be blocked or seriously delayed in some obscure public board that had to greenlight it because a loud opponent to the project got appointed to it. No idea about how the pundits you listen to link it to the GND.

Edit: Found an article about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/15/amazon-new-york-long-island-city-hq2-michael-gianaris

[Eddie Teach]

Valmy, Ted Cruz is our Ted Cruz.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ocasio-Cortes had little to do with the Amazon pull-out from NYC. It is not in her district and as a federal rep, she basically had zero direct power to influence how it played out.  The press played up her limited role because she is a name now and the state and local politicians who actually were involved have no name recognition.

Unions, although very weak nationally, sitll have political influence in NYC and are not friendly to Amazon.  The governor and mayor ran a closed process which made it easy to criticize from the outside. Also the lack of key detail and the lack of transparency made it easier to criticize. They key focal point of opposition was in the NY state sentate, which controls appointments to a state planning board whose approval was needed to get around NYCs otherwise difficult zoning regulations. Basically the state senate leader was going to make it impossible for the planning board to get to the required unanimity requirement. Cuomo's response was to plan to circumvent the board but at that point Amazon walked.

There's no way to know for sure what Amazon's thinking was, but my suspicion is that Bezos was taken aback by the old-school hardball NY politicking and got cold feet.  Cuomo is tough and ruthless and likely would have gotten the deal through, especially with the mayor on board, but Amazon didn't like the heat and the media.

[Grey Fox]

No one should be friendly to Amazon.

[Habbaku]

No one should be shelling out billions in taxpayer subsidies to massive corporations, either.

[The Minsky Moment]

Mu understanding is that Amazon stood to benefit from the application of existing NYC and state programs and credits that are also available to other employers.   Amazon's project was so big the total $$ number rose to the billions whereas it would be a much smaller number for a smaller business.

[Syt]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/28/mps-debate-climate-after-school-strike-but-only-a-handful-turn-up?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

MPs debate climate after school strike – but only a handful turn up

In the week that the UK experienced its hottest ever winter day, just a handful of government MPs attended a debate on climate change in parliament on Thursday.

Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said she had secured the discussion after being inspired by the thousands of UK schoolchildren who went on strike over climate change this month and wanted to thank them for forcing MPs into action.

Moran said climate change had not been debated in the main chamber of the House of Commons for two years. She spoke, however, to a chamber where the seats were predominantly empty. At points, as few as 10 MPs sat on government benches, although the opposition side was more occupied. The lacklustre response to the debate from the government was in stark contrast to the condemnation by Downing Street to the thousands of children involved in the strike for climate change, calling it "truancy".

Mary Creagh, chair of the environmental audit committee, said politicians needed to shape and bend the financial system to invest in a green economy.

"To achieve net zero [carbon emissions] we have to reduce our emissions rapidly and at scale in every area of our economy and our lives," she said.

Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, said last year's UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report – detailing the difference between meeting a 1.5C rise above pre-industrial levels compared with 2C – gave the most alarming picture yet of the impact of climate change.

He said: "If you look at the trends, we are not heading for that apocalyptic 2 degree rise, we are heading something that looks more like 3 degrees, the consequences of which we cannot possibly estimate."

In light of that, he said "the idea of children missing a few hours of geometry or PE to wake our political system up is somehow the wrong thing to do just seems ... absurd".

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, who secured the debate with Moran, said long-term climate targets had to be amended to net zero. She said even after all of the international conferences and pledges, the Earth was still set to warm by 3-4C.

"Time is quickly running out to limit warming even to the 1.5 or 2 degree aspirations of the IPCC. We face a climate emergency ... It calls for unprecedented boldness of vision and a new way of thinking."

[Syt]

https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/state-rep-daryl-metcalfe-says-reducing-carbon-dioxide-emissions-will-kill-his-vegetables/Content?oid=13785614

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe says reducing carbon dioxide emissions will kill his vegetables

"I enjoy my vegetables, and plants need CO2, so I want to make sure we have plenty of CO2 out there so we have green grass and green vegetables growing."

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Cranberry) is well known for making ludicrous statements, ones that are typically tinged with arch-conservative ideology. For example, a video went viral that showed an irritated Metcalfe shouting "I'm a heterosexual. I have a wife. I love my wife. I don't like men, as you might," when touched on the elbow by a colleague in a hearing last year.

At a Feb. 20 meeting, Metcalfe continued that trend, but this time by embracing climate-change denial. In a committee hearing in Harrisburg about a new report called Advancing Pennsylvania's Energy-Enabled Economy, Metcalfe claims reducing carbon dioxide emissions will actually harm the planet since plants need carbon dioxide (CO2) to survive.

"Just to be on record, I enjoy my vegetables, and plants need CO2, so I want to make sure we have plenty of CO2 out there so we have green grass and green vegetables growing," said Metcalfe in a video released on his Facebook page.

"We need CO2, we can't eliminate all CO2. We are going to have an interesting debate for those that want to reduce something that is actually needed by our environment. And claiming that they are improving the environment."

This claim is obviously false. Earth had plants and agriculture before humans started refining coal and other practices that released massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And environmentalists want to reduce CO2 emissions as a goal to slow down climate change, not eliminate CO2 altogether from our atmosphere.

Maybe Metcalfe was trying to make the argument that more CO2 is better for the planet since it could boost agricultural production. That argument has been made before by former U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in 2017, and it has some flaws.

According to the Scientific American magazine, several climate scientists agree that theoretically more CO2 could increase production of agricultural plants. But sharp increases could also reduce nitrogen, which plants, especially wild ones, consume as food. (Plants use CO2 to breathe.)

Additionally, more CO2 in the atmosphere has shown to raise global temperatures. And global temperatures rising quickly can have disastrous effects on plant life. The Scientific American states increased CO2's "negative consequences — such as drought and heat stress — would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life."

A request to Metcalfe's office for comment on this story was not returned.

Further perplexing is that Metcalfe goes on to defend and boost natural gas-drilling, aka fracking, which has been a large driver in reducing CO2, even while boosting other greenhouse gases like methane.

"I think the average individual that is out there trying to heat their home in Philadelphia or in Pittsburgh is very thankful that natural gas has been developed so much in Pennsylvania," said Metcalfe.

He also lauded the construction of the cracker plant in Beaver County, which will refine natural gas into plastics and should boost fracking production in the region.

But even conservative websites publish stories about fracking's role in reducing CO2 emissions. A 2017 article from the Daily Caller say, "Fracking has cut more CO2 emissions than all renewable energy combined."

Metcalfe also criticized renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and claimed they couldn't provide the level of power needed to heat homes during cold snaps. But according to the Canadian Wind Energy Association, winter is actually the high season for Canadian wind production.

Metcalfe is the chair of the state House's Environmental Resources & Energy committee, and decides the fate of much of Pennsylvania's environmental legislation. He wrapped up his speech by claiming environmentalists where using "flawed reasoning" when pushing for greener policies.

"To try and put your own view out there instead of putting your facts into account, I think is very flawed science, very flawed reasoning," said Metcalfe. "And not something that our citizens ultimately appreciate or benefit from."

[Eddie Teach]

The quotes they give don't make the claims ascribed to him.