4 ms·
I don’t think Montana’s stance on coal jobs is ruining your future children’s world in any directly measurable way - but please, keep speculating on other state
by asynchronous 3y ago
I don’t think Montana’s stance on coal jobs is ruining your future children’s world in any directly measurable way - but please, keep speculating on other state’s internal politics.
- Zigurd 3y agoFuture archeologists will wonder at the evidence they see in tree rings and ice cores: "These morons burned coal when they had renewable energy sources?"
- asynchronous 3y agoI love how no one actually addressed my comment which was we have a literal S-tier energy source pretty much anywhere we want it, at the expense of a small amount of radioactive waste, and yet we stick our heads in the sand and let the solar panel door-to-door salesmen convince us not to use it. You’re joking if you don’t include nuclear energy into the green new deal.
- oblio 3y agoWouldn't Montana have disproportionate influence on US politics, due to the way the US Senate works? As well as presidential elections.
- bluGill 3y agoYes, but it isn't that extreme. They only have 2 senators out of 100.
- LeifCarrotson 3y agoTwo senators, each of which represent about 550,000 people, compared to (on the other end of the scale) California's two senators, who each represent about 20,000,000 people. That's a 36x imbalance, which is pretty disproportionate. Every person from a state with lower population than the median is overrepresented in the Senate, every state with higher than median is underrepresented.
- jandrewrogers 3y agoIt is a good thing that the Senate represents the States then, and not the people. There wouldn't be much point in having two houses of legislature if they both represented the same entities.
- 1970-01-01 3y agoSo this is the exact opposite view of the Montana supreme court. The GP post. The children won the lawsuit.. Coal is absolutely and directly ruining their future. This is no longer an argument.
- the-printer 3y agoAppealing to the decision of Montana’s Supreme Court does little to refute whether coal production in their state produces an imminent danger to your children. If you are a Montanan then excuse me.
- mrguyorama 3y agoAh yes, CO2 famously stops at state borders, it's very nice like that.
- the-printer 3y agoThis isn't about the facetious point that you're trying to make. It's about whether one state's specific judicial decision at all concerns what takes place beyond its borders.
- 1970-01-01 3y agoI don't understand this refute at all. Coal cannot stay confined to Montana's borders in any real sense. The coal is mined to export, and it is then burned in coal plants, which are very bad.
- the-printer 3y agoasynchronous's comment was about whether coal jobs in Montana yield any measurable risks to your children, wherever you are. Referring to Montana's judicial decisions as if they are edicts that span beyond its borders is a weak counterargument.
- 1970-01-01 3y ago