S04.E14: United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

[Athena]

Quote

Other segments: June 2017 London attack, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

 

[Lantern7]

Heads up: the episode starts at 11:15 tonight.

[stillshimpy]

Thank you, @Lantern7,  DVR setting altered accordingly.   I feel like I should offer the box a shot of B12 beforehand because one thing is for sure, it hasn't been an uneventful news cycle.   They won't lack for material, so there's that.   Now watch, tonight's topic will be about the gross national product of some place I've never even glimpsed on a map, but whose fate is tied closely to mine somehow.  I think I'm starting to become nervous on behalf of the LWT writer's room.  They have to have some topic at hand each week, some carefully prepared deep dive on some pressing issue, knowing each time that they are but a refresh button away from breaking news that can't be ignored entirely.  

I'm sure it's always that way, I just hadn't ever really considered it much before I only got to see a moment or two of planned penguin puppets I might have known.    Now I'll always be playing the what-might-have-been game at the end of every episode.   The penguin possibility is out there now and it can't be withdrawn.  

[ganesh]

Trump has zero concept of context of anything. 99.97% of the countries on the planet agreed on something for the first time in human history. The USA essentially ceded leadership on basically anything important. If you're Germany, China, India, why would you bother inviting the USA to the table know? Certainly there is some adult in the administration with the literary skills to actually read the accord and realize backing out is worthless. One point Jon failed to mention was that this is a *4* year process. The effective date of ending association with the accord is the day after the presidential election in 2020. 

I do like how the response from governors and mayors was like, "ok, whatever."

[purist]

What a profoundly depressing segment on the Paris Accord. John's fury and incredulity were marvellous to behold, but really, the world is in deep trouble and Drumpf and his GOP cronies are contributing to the end of the world as we know it.

Bye, USA. It was nice knowing you.

[iMonrey]

I liked the piece about the way the US media characterized the terrorist attack in London as "under siege." For one thing, it speaks to the exploitative nature of our media vs the rest of the world, but it's also a notable distinction between the way we react to these kinds of attacks versus the people who actually live near them. It's sobering to think Brits and Europeans are already becoming desensitized to terrorism. 

Eliot Spitzer actual had a more concise explanation on Real Time Friday for why any (Republican) politician would be against the Paris climate accord. There are just enough House Reps, Senators and Governors in coal states that are too married to the idea that their economy is dependent on coal production, and it's too easy for them to say any reduction in coal power means job losses. I mean, for those states, yeah, it does. And that's what reducing the carbon output is all about - getting off coal. And you can point out how China is creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs but the naysayers are going to fall back on the fact that these coal miners are never going to learn a new trade. You basically have to say sorry, you're shit out of luck. Either  you job train, or you retire. 

[Traveller519]

Quote

but the naysayers are going to fall back on the fact that these coal miners are never going to learn a new trade. You basically have to say sorry, you're shit out of luck. Either  you job train, or you retire. 

There's also some premise to the thought that areas that have geological formations that fall under enough pressure to produce coal, likely also have access to Geothermal wells, and likely equipment that can be modified for that kind of drilling. But no one really wants to take the upfront risk, as it's highly speculative, and payouts are unknown. Well, if you've got a workforce that's unemployed, and trends are moving to renewable energy, maybe take a look at subsidizing Geothermal drilling in your area instead of crying about bygone industries.

Somebody also needs to lay it out for these guys that even if we were never burning oil for energy again, there's still going to be a huge demand for petroleum based products. Nylon, that material that all those "crazy lefty hippies" wear in the form of Gore-Tex and pluck as guitar strings, petroleum product. Highly durable industrial plastics, petroleum. Asphalt, that thing that all our roads are made out of, petroleum. Dairy Queen soft-serve ice cream, petroleum (and other-things, don't worry).

[ganesh]

29 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

There are just enough House Reps, Senators and Governors in coal states that are too married to the idea that their economy is dependent on coal production, and it's too easy for them to say any reduction in coal power means job losses.

I get that the representatives want to bring jobs to their districts. That's fine. This seeming attitude of "coal miners can only mine coal and that's all they can do" just strikes me as so condescending and lazy in a way. 

15 minutes ago, Traveller519 said:

There's also some premise to the thought that areas that have geological formations that fall under enough pressure to produce coal, likely also have access to Geothermal wells, and likely equipment that can be modified for that kind of drilling. But no one really wants to take the upfront risk, as it's highly speculative, and payouts are unknown. Well, if you've got a workforce that's unemployed, and trends are moving to renewable energy, maybe take a look at subsidizing Geothermal drilling in your area instead of crying about bygone industries.

This is a good idea. I'd say it's worth the risk. I'd also say you can build small nuclear reactors on closed coal plant sites too, which may be less speculative. Either way, investing in some job training and forward thinking isn't really a bad thing. Even the big energy companies have said that coal is on the way out. I don't see what digging one's heels in is accomplishing. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

Dairy Queen soft-serve ice cream, petroleum (and other-things, don't worry).

Whaaaaaat???

Quote

I get that the representatives want to bring jobs to their districts. That's fine. This seeming attitude of "coal miners can only mine coal and that's all they can do" just strikes me as so condescending and lazy in a way. 

Pandering, more like. These are the people they need to vote for them so they're disinclined to say "you need to find other work." Even if they themselves know deep down it's the only reasonable conclusion.

I really loved the Paris piece overall but felt like Oliver was remiss in not getting to the reasons why Trump wanted to pull out.

Edited June 5, 2017 by iMonrey

[Traveller519]

4 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Whaaaaaat???

It's similar to petroleum jelly (vaseline), and is the emulsifier, which keeps it light.

[ganesh]

9 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Pandering, more like. These are the people they need to vote for them so they're disinclined to say "you need to find other work." Even if they themselves know deep down it's the only reasonable conclusion.

No, I get that. I don't want to stray too far, but given that the clips of Trump shown on the show talked about coal so much, my point is more like, "you're a coal miner out of work. I have some new job possibilities for you." If it works out, you're the person who got all the out of work coalminers brand new jobs! I think there's a part of those voters that are like, "I'm a coal miner, my father was, my grandfather was, that's what I am." Everyone is just basically backward looking. I wish the clean power plan had gone into effect because it would have at least forced them to try something. 

13 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I really loved the Paris piece overall but felt like Oliver was remiss in not getting to the reasons why Trump wanted to pull out.

Obama liked it. That's been the overriding motivation of this administration for basically any action. 

[mjc570]

I'm surprised John didn't mention the theory that Trump withdrew from the PARIS climate agreement because of French Pres. Macron's epic handshake.  Perhaps had it been called the "Russian climate agreement," we'd still be a part.

My favorite from this episode:  The Dalai Lama" tweet (Kill yrslf,loser) just cracked me up.  It worked for me on so many levels. 

[mojoween]

I feel like the interviewees are the problem in the 60 Minutes interviews.  It's their fault they parrot back whatever the interviewer said.

[paigow]

Russia has replaced China as the primary coal supplier to North Korea....Seems like that market would be worth a few new jobs in US mines....if there was only a legal way to do it.....

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, mojoween said:

I feel like the interviewees are the problem in the 60 Minutes interviews.  It's their fault they parrot back whatever the interviewer said.

I do think it's a tactic when you watch a full interview, although it's hard to tell when they're just showing the clips. 

[Hanahope]

I love John continuing to point out what a fucking idiot of a president we have.

[stillshimpy]

20 hours ago, iMonrey said:

 

I liked the piece about the way the US media characterized the terrorist attack in London as "under siege." For one thing, it speaks to the exploitative nature of our media vs the rest of the world, but it's also a notable distinction between the way we react to these kinds of attacks versus the people who actually live near them. It's sobering to think Brits and Europeans are already becoming desensitized to terrorism. 

 

 

In fairness to the UK:  terrorism isn't exactly new stuff and as recently as the 1970s and early 80s the IRA (technically that was the Provisional Irish Republican Army because there were several versions of the IRA that are all pretty much called the IRA)  was blowing crap up on a regular basis, including assassinating Lord Louis Mountbatten.  That version of the IRA didn't declare a ceasefire until the late 90s.  They aren't already desensitized, they just aren't treating it as a something solely related to one thing, since terrorism is actually really quite an old tactic far predating this current round.  It's not their shiny object, basically.  

12 hours ago, ganesh said:

I do think it's a tactic when you watch a full interview, although it's hard to tell when they're just showing the clips. 

It's actually a tactic that interviewers are taught in order to get things on the record.  I briefly flirted with the idea of being a journalist many years ago, until my mortal enemy Brevity turned out to be part and parcel of that endeavor.  Anyway, it is a technique and it works, try it in real life and it actually works, when you ask someone any kind of clarifying question in conversation:  "When I was married to Zeus, he cheated on me with every mortal available"  "When you were married to Zeus?"  "Yes, when I was married to Zeus."   It's a pretty reliable technique, as proven, it's just when the clips are connected like that it really stands out.  They are just trying to get the quotable soundbite.  

Good show, heavy on depressing as hell, light on many active giggles.  But hey, at least I can quit sweating what it might be like to be 90-years-old at any point because no way are we making it that long if 45's current trajectory continues. 

It's freeing, really, in its own way.  In that really, really crappy way.  

I enjoyed the segment on the histrionic press coverage (NPR had a similar one that was really quite good) of anything that might be related to present day terrorism.  Our coverage tends to behave like a toddler given a giant Snickers to consume, followed by a shot of espresso complete with eventual pants pooping.  

Edited June 6, 2017 by stillshimpy

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

Wagner seems to be thrilled by the free publicity.

In a video posted on his Facebook page, Wagner, the state senator from York County and Republican candidate for governor, thanked Oliver for “putting my name and picture on national TV.”

In a post introducing the video, Wagner said Oliver’s segment “is probably worth a million dollars in free advertising for our campaign.”

 

Scott Wagner thanks HBO comedian John Oliver for skewering him on ‘Last Week Tonight’

[Lantern7]

Out of the post-Stewart era hosts, I think John has the best gig, mainly because he can openly curse. I reckon that curse words are basically bacon bits, but with the salads we've been getting lately, John has decided to flood the bowl. I'm not saying he's doing a better job than Samantha or Trevor . . . just that he can literally go "What the fuck?!?" without bleeps or euphemisms.

ETA: Forgot the "h" twice. I hate slipping like that.

[cpcathy]

I've said this before, but John saying "fuck" just tickles me to no end.

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

Scott Wagner is a Republican state senator from Pennsylvania, and this November, he is running to replace Democratic Governor Tom Wolf.

Like many opponents of PC culture, Wagner prides himself on saying things that he maybe shouldn't say. Nothing exemplifies the Senator's complete lack of filter better than what happened at a Town Hall meeting this week.

Still, before we get into that, first you need to understand a little bit about Wagner's history. For those that don't know, Wagner is a firm climate change denier with a laughable understanding of basic science.

His thoughts on climate change are so bizarre, that John Oliver even used them as a punchline for an episode of Last Week Tonight in 2017.

 

Quote

 

"You've said that climate change is a result of people's body heat, and are refusing to take action on the issue," said Strauss, who is a volunteer with Sunrise, a political group that fights climate change.

"Does this have anything to do with the $200,000 that you have taken from the fossil fuel industry?" Wagner began to answer the question politely, but then veered off into condescension.

"Rose, I appreciate you being here," he began.

"You're 18 years old. You're a little young and naive. Are we here to elect a governor, or are we here to elect a scientist? I'm here to be the governor."

 

Quote

 

Strauss isn't the only one to identify this problem. The organization 314 Action has made it a primary goal to try and get more scientists and pro-science candidates elected to office.

Already in 2018, the organization has succeeded in getting more scientists to run for office than ever before, prompting some people to call it "the year of scientist."

On the other hand, Strauss says politicians like Wagner are alienating young voters like herself, who tend to understand the science behind anthropogenic climate change far better than conservative politicians.

While 97 percent of active publishing climate scientists accept the reality of human-caused climate change, there are 180 climate deniers in the 115th Congress, with 142 in the House and 38 in the Senate.

 

Quote

 

"There's unequivocal evidence that climate change is happening," Strauss said.

"Most people know that, even if Scott Wagner doesn't.

But while Strauss says she has received a bunch of support from environmentalists and liberals in the past few days (the state's Democratic Party called Wagner's comments "insulting"), Wagner's conservative base lauded the politician's insensitive and evasive response.

"Thanks for giving an honest answer instead of some kind of wimpy/politically correct one," one supporter wrote on Facebook.

 

Republican Candidate Calls 18-Year-Old Climate Activist 'Naive'. Her Response Is Perfect

[purist]

9 hours ago, OneWhoLurks said:

While 97 percent of active publishing climate scientists accept the reality of human-caused climate change, there are 180 climate deniers in the 115th Congress, with 142 in the House and 38 in the Senate.

Not enough facepalms in the world.