WTF Climate Change News

Lexxi

meow
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
118
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
12-14-2007
SLU Posts
6381
Can we have their status as a state?

We got dissed on the funds any state got, even though we are larger than some of them, in the stimulus. Instead getting the much smaller amount territories get, even though we pay taxes and they do not. Usually you hear 'the 50 states and dc' .... not this time.

So what reason did the rs give? We are not a state. Then people wonder why dc citizens want to be a state.
Are you referring to population? If so, then yes. Land area? Rhode Island is smallest state at 1,045 square miles. Washington DC is 68.34 mi².

Population: As of 2013:
Washington DC: 646,449
Vermont: 626,630
Wyoming: 582,658
"Meanwhile, Vermont and Wyoming both have two U.S. senators and a representative, enjoying full rights as states."

for below: COVID-19 Stimulus Bill: What It Means for States
Below is NCSL’s summary of provisions impacting states. NCSL will provide additional information on the distribution of specific funds as guidance becomes available. Please don’t hesitate to contact NCSL with any questions.


Direct Economic Stimulus Funding to States, Territories, Local and Tribal Governments

  • Provides $150 billion to states, territories, local and tribal governments to use for expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19 in the face of revenue declines, allocated by population proportions.
    • Distribution is based on population. No state shall receive a payment for fiscal year 2020 that is less than $1.25 billion.
    • 45% of a state’s funds are set aside for local governments, with populations that exceed 500,000, with certified requests to the U.S. secretary of Treasury. Certification requires a signature by the chief executive of the local government that the uses are consistent with certain requirements.
      • NCSL believes the funds remaining from the 45% set aside for localities revert back to the state.
    • $3 billion set aside for District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.
    • $8 billion for tribal governments.
  • Funds can be used for costs that:
    • Are necessary expenditures incurred due to COVID-19.
    • Were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of the date of enactment of this section.
    • Were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends Dec. 30, 2020.
List of funding from CDC to states and Localities: CDC Coronavirus Funding to Jurisdictions (April 23, 2020)

At least through HHS - CDC, District of Columbia received $12,979,739.80 so far. More than some, less than some states. A lot more than most territories, except Puerto Rico, which has received a total of $14,406,772.00 so far.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,232
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
Are you referring to population? If so, then yes. Land area? Rhode Island is smallest state at 1,045 square miles. Washington DC is 68.34 mi².

Population: As of 2013:
Washington DC: 646,449
Vermont: 626,630
Wyoming: 582,658
"Meanwhile, Vermont and Wyoming both have two U.S. senators and a representative, enjoying full rights as states."

for below: COVID-19 Stimulus Bill: What It Means for States
List of funding from CDC to states and Localities: CDC Coronavirus Funding to Jurisdictions (April 23, 2020)

At least through HHS - CDC, District of Columbia received $12,979,739.80 so far. More than some, less than some states. A lot more than most territories, except Puerto Rico, which has received a total of $14,406,772.00 so far.
By population, yes. Land area is meaningless if only a few people live in the state.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Lexxi

danielravennest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,796
SLU Posts
9073
Jeff Gibbs, who wrote and directed the film, has suggested that unrestrained economic and population growth should be the target of environmentalists’ efforts rather than technological fixes.
Gibbs is out of touch with reality on population growth, like so much else in that film. Births, as represented by the 0-14 age group, have more or less leveled off, so growth is quite restrained. However, it takes a lifetime for that restraint to propagate to all age groups. Unless you are in favor of killing off people, total population will continue growing due to younger age groups having more people than older ones. That's called "momentum" in demographics circles.

 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Innula Zenovka

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,415
SL Rez
2006
Unless you are in favor of killing off people, total population will continue growing due to younger age groups having more people than older ones.
We have too many people on this planet; that's a fact. We're already well beyond the carrying capacity of our planet in terms of arable land, potable water, ocean ecosystems, and other resources. We can't dig ourselves out of that hole if our population growth levels off, or even gradually lessens, we're still too many people for too long.

As it happens, I don't advocate mass murder, which is why I'm in the "we're so screwed" camp. Without sudden, massive de-population, I very much doubt we can avert catastrophic climate change. But I greatly suspect we're already too far down that path to change our fate, which is one of the reason I'm not advocating active removal of 75%-80% of humans on this planet. We'll get there soon enough.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,006
SLU Posts
18459

Renewable electricity will be the only source resilient to the biggest global energy shock in 70 years triggered by the coronavirus pandemic, according to the world’s energy watchdog.

The International Energy Agency said the outbreak of Covid-19 would wipe out demand for fossil fuels by prompting a collapse in energy demand seven times greater than the slump caused by the global financial crisis.

In a report, the IEA said the most severe plunge in energy demand since the second world war would trigger multi-decade lows for the world’s consumption of oil, gas and coal while renewable energy continued to grow.

The steady rise of renewable energy combined with the collapse in demand for fossil fuels means clean electricity will play its largest ever role in the global energy system this year, and help erase a decade’s growth of global carbon emissions.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Beebo Brink and Archer

Fionalein

an old grumpy cat
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
943
SL Rez
2017
Give this dumbass a bible - use a text marker on Genesis 1:26-28

Before handing it over smack it onto his head 27 times though...

According to the bible God gave us earth and all the creatures therein as ours to care for, not to do as we please. According to both Christian lore and ancient traditions we are responsible for what is given into our custody.
 
Last edited:

Free

Freebie Worlder
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
9,927
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
Give this dumbass a bible - use a text marker on Genesis 1:26-28
Genesis 1:26 said:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness
Barely 1 sentence in and we're already in confusing territory.
 

danielravennest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,796
SLU Posts
9073
Coal reached 22% of US electric power in the latest 12-month rolling reporting period. It used to be 50%, and was 30.4% when Trump took office. Meanwhile renewables were up to 17.9% in the same period.

The previous 12 months is a better indicator than monthly, because of seasonal peaks and lows. However coal reached a new low of 17.7% in Feb 2020. We may start seeing coal-free days in a few years, like the UK has on a regular basis. That same month renewables supplied 20.7%, beating coal.

I'm well aware there is a lot of natural gas being burned for power, but I'm happy the worst polluter is on its way out.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,415
SL Rez
2006
Maybe. I greatly suspect that COVID-19 is just the first of many majorly disruptive events that will keep people so focused on the present that mitigating climate change is pushed farther and farther down in our list of priorities. Eventually those disruptions will be climate events, but the effect will be the same. Focus on the current emergency, ignore the looming sword overhead. I think it's going to become increasingly difficult to get ahead of it all.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,006
SLU Posts
18459
Maybe. I greatly suspect that COVID-19 is just the first of many majorly disruptive events that will keep people so focused on the present that mitigating climate change is pushed farther and farther down in our list of priorities. Eventually those disruptions will be climate events, but the effect will be the same. Focus on the current emergency, ignore the looming sword overhead. I think it's going to become increasingly difficult to get ahead of it all.
Remember, though, that the UK -- and just about every other country in the world other than the US -- is still committed to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, so our government is looking for ways to reduce emissions, and this is an opportunity to do just that.
 

danielravennest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,796
SLU Posts
9073
Remember, though, that the UK -- and just about every other country in the world other than the US -- is still committed to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, so our government is looking for ways to reduce emissions, and this is an opportunity to do just that.
The US may not be officially on the Paris Agreement, but as of February coal for power is down 55% from its mid-2000's peak, and renewables just had a 40 day streak of out-supplying coal. Quite a few states, cities, and corporations have zero carbon goals now.
 

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,253
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
October 2009
SLU Posts
65535
Maybe. I greatly suspect that COVID-19 is just the first of many majorly disruptive events that will keep people so focused on the present that mitigating climate change is pushed farther and farther down in our list of priorities. Eventually those disruptions will be climate events, but the effect will be the same. Focus on the current emergency, ignore the looming sword overhead. I think it's going to become increasingly difficult to get ahead of it all.
Murder hornets.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,415
SL Rez
2006
What has become obvious from the COVID-19 lockdown is that economic slow-downs are massively disruptive, both financially and socially. Only the threat of imminent death has persuaded a portion of the population to shelter in place and effectively reduce their carbon footprint, which was not the goal but has been one of the side-effects. And another substantial portion of the population, at least in the U.S., is unconvinced and actively resists these measures. And all too many people would love to shelter in place, but quite literally cannot afford to do so; the demands of today override the needs of tomorrow.

This is why mitigating climate change is such a very difficult, if not downright impossible, goal to achieve within the necessary time-frame. It's not that we couldn't do it eventually -- danielravennest often posts the progress being made in technical solutions of great promise -- it's just that we can't change fast enough to outpace the progression of climate change. Even temporary disruptions to our entrenched resource consumption/product production patterns are extremely painful. Fearful people rebel, sociopathic business owners and government officials rebel. Chaos ensues and the overall situation deteriorates.

Compare what we're experiencing right now against the magnitude of the climate change problem. If we can't control people enough to fight a pandemic -- where the results of shelter-in-place are glaringly obvious and measurable -- it's going to be exponentially more difficult to get people to sacrifice for improvements they will never see in their lifetime. It takes 50-100 years for changes we make now -- for good or ill -- to be fully felt. There's no perceivable reward for the person who changes their behavior. Some people can make the leap of imagination, but looking around now at how little people understand about the mechanics of a pandemic and how to stop it, asking them to make major lifestyle changes to temper climate change is doomed to failure. We're just not psychological wired that way.

If there's any hope at all, we need a radical new approach that directly addresses the core emotional reactions that people express in times of stress. We're not pushing the right buttons yet. This not just a technical challenge to overcome, it's a psychological challenge.
 
Last edited:

Sid

Lurking until the next post
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,144
Location
Limburg,NL
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Yes
We simply can't.
Six weeks into lock down Ikea opened again in NL:



As if in a waiting row for a ride in a theme park, waiting to get in.
We so need to go out and keep ourselves entertained.
People can't wait to go back to business as usual.
 
Last edited: