5 ms·

>New Orleans doesn't count. I'm not sure anything outside the Northeast does. There were many calls to stop funding post-hurricane reconstruction until Sandy

>New Orleans doesn't count. I'm not sure anything outside the Northeast does. There were many calls to stop funding post-hurricane reconstruction until Sandy hit. Puerto Rico is still struggling to get funding years after Irma and Maria, and Houston is debating if they really want to stop construction in the Addicks reservoir and surrounding areas.

chiefalchemist 7y ago
In NJ we got "stronger than the storm" and zero reputable talk - that I recall - about the possibility of not being so willing to rebuild. It's difficult to sway public opinion about the immediacy when so many other signals parrot tradition and the staus quo. We're not stronger than the storm, only amazingly dumber.
addicted 7y ago
NYC was crippled by Sandy, and that didn’t lead to any changes. Let’s be honest. The only thing that will change is if the Republican party’s power reduces.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  What would your theoretical Democrats do differently?
  - jaredklewis 7y ago
    Because the first step to doing something about climate change is believing it exists.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      You didn’t answer the question. What policy would be different?
      - JoeSamoa 7y ago
        First off the EPA would get proper funding: https://www.edf.org/deep-epa-cuts-put-public-health-risk https://www.edf.org/deep-epa-cuts-put-public-health-risk And would admit clearly that it is something we can change and start promoting policies that help move society in the right direction. Instead they are censoring themselves and the organization is all but toothless. https://time.com/5075265/epa-website-climate-change-censorship/ https://time.com/5075265/epa-website-climate-change-censorsh... So yea things would be different.
      - belltaco 7y ago
        The Paris agreement was a good start, which Trump pulled the US out of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
        DuskStar 7y ago
        A lot of people (myself included) would say that the Paris Agreement gave up too much for too little. If everyone followed the limits there, the climate would still be fucked - and those limits were far more restrictive for countries like the US than the developing world. And while it might be reasonable to say that it's not fair to ask for those countries to give up their chance of getting out of poverty, it still leaves the problem. I can accept giving up things to save the climate. I, and many others, can't accept giving up things to see the world go to hell anyways.
        emj 7y ago
        Agreements are stepping stones to work together, allowing you to reposition your country in the global scheme to be in a better place when a new harsher agreement comes. It's not obvious what you want to say, but the Paris agreement would have been a piece of cake if we had taken responsibility.
        jfnixon 7y ago
        In terser language: we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this.
  - IAmEveryone 7y ago
    Democrats would, at the very least: - Not invent new rules designed to prop up coal power plants that would otherwise no longer be competitive - Not delay improvements in fuel efficiency standards - Continue to allow California to set more rigorous standards - Not open up wast swaths of the coasts for oil drilling - Remain in the Paris Treaty, making it harder for other countries to fall back behind their promises - Not levy 30% import tariffs on foreign solar panels ...and so on
  - lsadam0 7y ago
    Obama’s “War on Coal”: https://time.com/2806697/obama-epa-coal-carbon/ https://time.com/2806697/obama-epa-coal-carbon/ Trump ran on and has tried to revitalize the coal industry: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/trump-s-biggest-move-to-end-war-on-coal-won-t-rescue-industry https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/trump-s-b... The first step in solving our problems, political or otherwise, is being honest about them. No matter where on the political spectrum you fall, every voting American knows that one side has pushed the idea that climate change is a hoax while the other has been trying to take action. I’m not sure what the motivation of your question is. Proving that democrats have attempted action while the republicans have chosen to ignore science, is such low hanging fruit that I’m a bit baffled.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      From the GGP: > NYC was crippled by Sandy, and that didn’t lead to any changes. This is what I was referring to. Would the Democrats have implemented more hurricane protections? I don't think either party has any sort of sane carbon-reducing policy. The Republicans are obviously insane, but the Democrats seem to be focused more on attacking politically charged targets than on actually getting things done. You say they've "attempted" action - I'd say they've implemented things that are more virtue signaling than effective. (plastic bag bans, straw bans... These are not the actions of someone who cares about the environment more than political point-scoring)
      - lsadam0 7y ago
        Discussing improved hurricane protections is shifting the conversation to addressing symptoms rather than root causes. The conversation thread starts with the assertion that the US will be unable to take climate change seriously until a major city is lost. While you make fair points, you're not disagreeing with general trends. Democrats have made moves to address emissions, while Republicans are struggling to admit there is even a problem. We do live in a Democracy, and politicians do have to work within the reality of what can be passed. The general public is the problem. Until the public has a strong appetite for addressing climate change, no meaningful change will happen. Any leader making bold moves prior to that is just going to be voted out. The scary conclusion at the root of this thread is that the public will lack that will until a major city is lost.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

In NJ we got "stronger than the storm" and zero reputable talk - that I recall - about the possibility of not being so willing to rebuild. It's difficult to sway public opinion about the immediacy when so many other signals parrot tradition and the staus quo. We're not stronger than the storm, only amazingly dumber.

addicted 7y ago

NYC was crippled by Sandy, and that didn’t lead to any changes. Let’s be honest. The only thing that will change is if the Republican party’s power reduces.

DuskStar 7y ago
What would your theoretical Democrats do differently?
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  Because the first step to doing something about climate change is believing it exists.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    You didn’t answer the question. What policy would be different?
    - JoeSamoa 7y ago
      First off the EPA would get proper funding: https://www.edf.org/deep-epa-cuts-put-public-health-risk https://www.edf.org/deep-epa-cuts-put-public-health-risk And would admit clearly that it is something we can change and start promoting policies that help move society in the right direction. Instead they are censoring themselves and the organization is all but toothless. https://time.com/5075265/epa-website-climate-change-censorship/ https://time.com/5075265/epa-website-climate-change-censorsh... So yea things would be different.
    - belltaco 7y ago
      The Paris agreement was a good start, which Trump pulled the US out of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        A lot of people (myself included) would say that the Paris Agreement gave up too much for too little. If everyone followed the limits there, the climate would still be fucked - and those limits were far more restrictive for countries like the US than the developing world. And while it might be reasonable to say that it's not fair to ask for those countries to give up their chance of getting out of poverty, it still leaves the problem. I can accept giving up things to save the climate. I, and many others, can't accept giving up things to see the world go to hell anyways.
        emj 7y ago
        Agreements are stepping stones to work together, allowing you to reposition your country in the global scheme to be in a better place when a new harsher agreement comes. It's not obvious what you want to say, but the Paris agreement would have been a piece of cake if we had taken responsibility.
        jfnixon 7y ago
        In terser language: we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this.
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  Democrats would, at the very least: - Not invent new rules designed to prop up coal power plants that would otherwise no longer be competitive - Not delay improvements in fuel efficiency standards - Continue to allow California to set more rigorous standards - Not open up wast swaths of the coasts for oil drilling - Remain in the Paris Treaty, making it harder for other countries to fall back behind their promises - Not levy 30% import tariffs on foreign solar panels ...and so on
- lsadam0 7y ago
  Obama’s “War on Coal”: https://time.com/2806697/obama-epa-coal-carbon/ https://time.com/2806697/obama-epa-coal-carbon/ Trump ran on and has tried to revitalize the coal industry: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/trump-s-biggest-move-to-end-war-on-coal-won-t-rescue-industry https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/trump-s-b... The first step in solving our problems, political or otherwise, is being honest about them. No matter where on the political spectrum you fall, every voting American knows that one side has pushed the idea that climate change is a hoax while the other has been trying to take action. I’m not sure what the motivation of your question is. Proving that democrats have attempted action while the republicans have chosen to ignore science, is such low hanging fruit that I’m a bit baffled.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    From the GGP: > NYC was crippled by Sandy, and that didn’t lead to any changes. This is what I was referring to. Would the Democrats have implemented more hurricane protections? I don't think either party has any sort of sane carbon-reducing policy. The Republicans are obviously insane, but the Democrats seem to be focused more on attacking politically charged targets than on actually getting things done. You say they've "attempted" action - I'd say they've implemented things that are more virtue signaling than effective. (plastic bag bans, straw bans... These are not the actions of someone who cares about the environment more than political point-scoring)
    - lsadam0 7y ago
      Discussing improved hurricane protections is shifting the conversation to addressing symptoms rather than root causes. The conversation thread starts with the assertion that the US will be unable to take climate change seriously until a major city is lost. While you make fair points, you're not disagreeing with general trends. Democrats have made moves to address emissions, while Republicans are struggling to admit there is even a problem. We do live in a Democracy, and politicians do have to work within the reality of what can be passed. The general public is the problem. Until the public has a strong appetite for addressing climate change, no meaningful change will happen. Any leader making bold moves prior to that is just going to be voted out. The scary conclusion at the root of this thread is that the public will lack that will until a major city is lost.