6 ms·

The good news is that Oregon, according to the article, also gave up on its climate change bill. This means that many of those coastal buildings might already b

The good news is that Oregon, according to the article, also gave up on its climate change bill. This means that many of those coastal buildings might already be under water by time a tsunami strikes, avoiding the problem.

kayfox 7y ago
"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  >"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum. Umm... no. They returned in time to continue the session. It didn't pass because there weren't enough Democrats who supported the bill. >The move seemingly ended a fight that has strained relationships in the statehouse since the first days of the session. HB 2020 would create an overall cap on Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions and would charge companies for their pollution. >But the bill saw backlash from industries that felt added costs would put them at a competitive disadvantage, and from citizens who chafed at an expected increase in gas and energy costs. Ultimately the pushback was apparently enough to convince three Democratic senators to oppose the bill, meaning it would likely not have enough votes to pass. https://www.opb.org/news/article/as-republicans-return-senate-moves-at-blistering-pace/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/as-republicans-return-senat... Edit: Probably violating HN guidelines, but: I provided a reliable source, yet am being heavily downvoted without any counterpoint or counterreference. What's the issue with my comment?
  - xrd 7y ago
    I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote?
    - krapp 7y ago
      Possibly a show of defiance and a political stunt intended to make their opponents look so unreasonable that camping out with extremist revolutionaries was a legitimate recourse. It's the same reason threatening to shut down the government is becoming more common, it makes you look tough and uncompromising in the face of what your base considers to be evil.
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      >I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote? It's not an either or. The bill may have been one of the motives to flee. The reality in the end, though, was that their tactic didn't defeat the bill. They came back before the end of the session. There was a quorum, but the Democrats realized they didn't have enough votes. My point is that claiming there wasn't a quorum, given how productive the end of the session was[0], is simply false. [0]They passed 100 bills in the last two days. https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-concludes-final-day-sine-die-house-senate/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-...
      - rootusrootus 7y ago
        You're getting downvoted on both comments because you're being disingenuous and partisan. The GOP senators absolutely refused to return to Salem until they were positive the bill would not pass if they allowed quorum. They would have stayed away indefinitely if necessary. Does not bode well for the future of our democracy. I guess we will see what the future holds.
        JetezLeLogin 7y ago
        Defensively upvoted BeetleB because the comment is literally and factually true and I see nothing disingenuous or partisan about it, nor would I venture into such intent-divining, mind-reading territory. You're correct about the intent of the Republican embargo, but your point is about what would have happened. BeetleB's comment is about what did happen. If we're all champions of rational discussion on HN then surely there's room for that much subtlety, not to mention plain facts. Not enough Democrats supported the bill; they declared it dead; Republicans decided in light of that, they could stop their stonewalling (and in my opinion, dereliction of duty). It's a technicality, and it's technically true.
  - heymijo 7y ago
    I re-read the guidelines last week when the HN people posted that they were updated. Here's my take on why you are being downvoted based on them. 1) This conversation veered into politics, making it more divisive. 2) Your response "Umm... no" to me reads as snarky even though you provided substantive, new to me information in your comment with a source. HN asks that in comments: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. In short, it seems to me that you veered towards snark when HN asks that we veer towards civility, especially about divisive topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      Thanks for trying to give a helpful answer. BTW, when I said I may be violating guidelines, I was referring to: >Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Regarding "Umm... no", I suppose some people see it as snarky. I didn't intend for it to be that way, and at least in real world situations, people don't appreciate it if I start the conversation with "You're wrong!". The "umm... no" was meant as a way to lighten the effect of pointing out that someone was wrong. Regarding the conversation veering into politics, I'd buy that argument if the parents were downvoted as well, which is clearly not the case. I'm not the one who brought politics into this thread. At the same time, consider the very same guideline you pointed out: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Yet multiple comments beneath mine are accusing me of being both partisan and disingenuous. Not exactly thoughtful, and as of the time of me writing this comment, I am the only one providing actual sources/references. Who else is being "substantive" here? As far as HN guidelines go, this is part of one of them: >Assume good faith. I find it hard to square comments accusing me of being disingenuous and partisan with that. And obviously, there is: >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. At the end of the day, I'm more inclined to think that the evidence points more to HN readers of my comment as being partisan. I merely posted a fact and backed it up - it was not an opinion. And it certainly was not an accusation. And in a later comment, I even acknowledged the nuances - yes, the senators were possibly motivated by preventing quorum - not something. Despite stating that, I'm still accused of being disingenuous by omission. What am I omitting? (Mostly replying to you as you actually tried to provide a helpful response, and if I respond to everyone individually, I'll hit the post limit very soon).
jdminhbg 7y ago
At 60M tons (and steady) of a worldwide 10,000M tons (and sharply increasing) of carbon emissions per year, those buildings’ underwater status is unlikely to be affected by Oregon’s carbon bill.
- rpenm 7y ago
  You must walk before you can run. An Oregon carbon tax could serve as a model to others, and help inch us toward international consensus. It's a coordination problem; signalling serves an important role.
  - mlinksva 7y ago
    Indeed. I love the symmetry of state/national legislation skepticism (pointless, all large jurisdictions need to coordinate) and consumer behavior skepticism (pointless, need to vote for legislators who will pass laws impacting all consumers). It's a dynamic problem; most likely any one individual jurisdiction's or person's particular decision isn't going to change global outcomes, but it's hard to see how to get on a better global path without lots of decisions aiming for that at every level.
  - jdminhbg 7y ago
    A carbon tax would indeed have been great, but unfortunately what was proposed was cap-and-trade and a bunch of "green jobs" pork. Better than nothing, possibly, but even so as likely to affect the international consensus as a zero-emission Oregon to affect the global temperature.

kayfox 7y ago

"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum.

BeetleB 7y ago
>"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum. Umm... no. They returned in time to continue the session. It didn't pass because there weren't enough Democrats who supported the bill. >The move seemingly ended a fight that has strained relationships in the statehouse since the first days of the session. HB 2020 would create an overall cap on Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions and would charge companies for their pollution. >But the bill saw backlash from industries that felt added costs would put them at a competitive disadvantage, and from citizens who chafed at an expected increase in gas and energy costs. Ultimately the pushback was apparently enough to convince three Democratic senators to oppose the bill, meaning it would likely not have enough votes to pass. https://www.opb.org/news/article/as-republicans-return-senate-moves-at-blistering-pace/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/as-republicans-return-senat... Edit: Probably violating HN guidelines, but: I provided a reliable source, yet am being heavily downvoted without any counterpoint or counterreference. What's the issue with my comment?
- xrd 7y ago
  I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote?
  - krapp 7y ago
    Possibly a show of defiance and a political stunt intended to make their opponents look so unreasonable that camping out with extremist revolutionaries was a legitimate recourse. It's the same reason threatening to shut down the government is becoming more common, it makes you look tough and uncompromising in the face of what your base considers to be evil.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    >I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote? It's not an either or. The bill may have been one of the motives to flee. The reality in the end, though, was that their tactic didn't defeat the bill. They came back before the end of the session. There was a quorum, but the Democrats realized they didn't have enough votes. My point is that claiming there wasn't a quorum, given how productive the end of the session was[0], is simply false. [0]They passed 100 bills in the last two days. https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-concludes-final-day-sine-die-house-senate/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-...
    - rootusrootus 7y ago
      You're getting downvoted on both comments because you're being disingenuous and partisan. The GOP senators absolutely refused to return to Salem until they were positive the bill would not pass if they allowed quorum. They would have stayed away indefinitely if necessary. Does not bode well for the future of our democracy. I guess we will see what the future holds.
      - JetezLeLogin 7y ago
        Defensively upvoted BeetleB because the comment is literally and factually true and I see nothing disingenuous or partisan about it, nor would I venture into such intent-divining, mind-reading territory. You're correct about the intent of the Republican embargo, but your point is about what would have happened. BeetleB's comment is about what did happen. If we're all champions of rational discussion on HN then surely there's room for that much subtlety, not to mention plain facts. Not enough Democrats supported the bill; they declared it dead; Republicans decided in light of that, they could stop their stonewalling (and in my opinion, dereliction of duty). It's a technicality, and it's technically true.
- heymijo 7y ago
  I re-read the guidelines last week when the HN people posted that they were updated. Here's my take on why you are being downvoted based on them. 1) This conversation veered into politics, making it more divisive. 2) Your response "Umm... no" to me reads as snarky even though you provided substantive, new to me information in your comment with a source. HN asks that in comments: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. In short, it seems to me that you veered towards snark when HN asks that we veer towards civility, especially about divisive topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    Thanks for trying to give a helpful answer. BTW, when I said I may be violating guidelines, I was referring to: >Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Regarding "Umm... no", I suppose some people see it as snarky. I didn't intend for it to be that way, and at least in real world situations, people don't appreciate it if I start the conversation with "You're wrong!". The "umm... no" was meant as a way to lighten the effect of pointing out that someone was wrong. Regarding the conversation veering into politics, I'd buy that argument if the parents were downvoted as well, which is clearly not the case. I'm not the one who brought politics into this thread. At the same time, consider the very same guideline you pointed out: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Yet multiple comments beneath mine are accusing me of being both partisan and disingenuous. Not exactly thoughtful, and as of the time of me writing this comment, I am the only one providing actual sources/references. Who else is being "substantive" here? As far as HN guidelines go, this is part of one of them: >Assume good faith. I find it hard to square comments accusing me of being disingenuous and partisan with that. And obviously, there is: >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. At the end of the day, I'm more inclined to think that the evidence points more to HN readers of my comment as being partisan. I merely posted a fact and backed it up - it was not an opinion. And it certainly was not an accusation. And in a later comment, I even acknowledged the nuances - yes, the senators were possibly motivated by preventing quorum - not something. Despite stating that, I'm still accused of being disingenuous by omission. What am I omitting? (Mostly replying to you as you actually tried to provide a helpful response, and if I respond to everyone individually, I'll hit the post limit very soon).

jdminhbg 7y ago

At 60M tons (and steady) of a worldwide 10,000M tons (and sharply increasing) of carbon emissions per year, those buildings’ underwater status is unlikely to be affected by Oregon’s carbon bill.

rpenm 7y ago
You must walk before you can run. An Oregon carbon tax could serve as a model to others, and help inch us toward international consensus. It's a coordination problem; signalling serves an important role.
- mlinksva 7y ago
  Indeed. I love the symmetry of state/national legislation skepticism (pointless, all large jurisdictions need to coordinate) and consumer behavior skepticism (pointless, need to vote for legislators who will pass laws impacting all consumers). It's a dynamic problem; most likely any one individual jurisdiction's or person's particular decision isn't going to change global outcomes, but it's hard to see how to get on a better global path without lots of decisions aiming for that at every level.
- jdminhbg 7y ago
  A carbon tax would indeed have been great, but unfortunately what was proposed was cap-and-trade and a bunch of "green jobs" pork. Better than nothing, possibly, but even so as likely to affect the international consensus as a zero-emission Oregon to affect the global temperature.