Comment box Scope: information/summary, personal thoughts Tone: neutral Opinion: a bit Sarcasm/humor: none Intriguing political commentary on measures the US state of California is taking to...
Comment box
Scope: information/summary, personal thoughts
Tone: neutral
Opinion: a bit
Sarcasm/humor: none
Intriguing political commentary on measures the US state of California is taking to ensure that its environmental regulations withstand a potential second GOP victory in the 2024 election.
Strategies include having Biden approve federal waivers for emissions regulations before the May deadline (any later, and future administrations could overturn them -- but before, they can't); establishing emissions reduction plans with industries cooperatively which actually benefit them, as opposed to the Tr. approach of "tak[ing] a sledgehammer to 50 years of the program and to all of your many billions of investments in batteries"; making small short-term emissions concessions to stakeholders in order to stabilize industry support for long-term environmental emissions reduction plans; and more.
The federal Supreme Court could apparently strike down California's ability to set stricter emissions standards than the federal Clean Air Act if it so chooses, but lots of these industry agreements are designed to circumvent that issue. Whether or not the Court limits CA's power, CA is working to make investment in green tech a priority for major manufacturers.
I thought that the idea of state-to-country partnerships (like California-Sweden) were particularly interesting. From an economic perspective, having pre-established research and development connections with a stable and renewable-focused outside force does put California in a good position in the event that the US federal government decides to, say, withhold research funding for better EV technology, or whatever.
The article author seems to think Gavin Newsom will run for president in 2028, which I also believe is probable, although the precise electoral landscape four years from now is impossible to predict. Frankly, I can't even really predict the election this year.
I don't live in California so maybe Tildesonians in that state have opinions on things too!
Given the size of California's economy and relative isolation from the rest of the country, it makes sense for us to negotiate directly with other countries, especially in a situation where we...
Given the size of California's economy and relative isolation from the rest of the country, it makes sense for us to negotiate directly with other countries, especially in a situation where we might disagree with the White House. I'm not interested in secession at all, but I'm also much more proud of my state than I am of being an American.
I don’t see why there aren’t attempts at a west coast coalition. There’s more than enough money and population between the three states to build single payer healthcare for residents there. At a...
I don’t see why there aren’t attempts at a west coast coalition. There’s more than enough money and population between the three states to build single payer healthcare for residents there. At a certain smaller scale it’s too big of a problem to handle. But I can’t believe it can’t be done when including two of the wealthiest states.
California is actually working on passing a universal healthcare bill through the state leg at the moment. It was reintroduced this year through the Nurse's Union, I believe.
California is actually working on passing a universal healthcare bill through the state leg at the moment. It was reintroduced this year through the Nurse's Union, I believe.
This is great to hear. What do you think the Democrats (or civil society?) are doing correctly that is allowing actual pro-welfare state legislation to be passed over there? (Instead of the...
This is great to hear. What do you think the Democrats (or civil society?) are doing correctly that is allowing actual pro-welfare state legislation to be passed over there? (Instead of the Democrats just being less right wing than the Republicans as is the case in the rest of the US, at least from an outsider's perspective)
My take is that there's a few overlapping factors. One is the type of wealth, social mobility, and wealth inequality in the state. Both the computer and entertainment industries are full of new...
My take is that there's a few overlapping factors.
One is the type of wealth, social mobility, and wealth inequality in the state. Both the computer and entertainment industries are full of new money people who started middle class and rose to be pretty well off, leading to people with money and the time/energy to use it who still have the memory of being less well off. Even the libertarians here have more of an understanding of the ways that market forces pervert the free market when it comes to vital services. This leads to a wealthier population that broadly supports social services.
Another is the overall size and wealth of the population. Because California is so large and well off, it's possible to get the sorts of systemic benefits from scale. It's also somewhat geographically isolated from the rest of the country, so there are fewer concerns about being part of a large, multi-state system. If California wants it and can pay for it, they don't need to negotiate with anyone about it.
Additionally, California already runs an open health insurance marketplace for all residents. You don't have to have a health insurance broker or a company-sponsored plan, you just go on the Covered California website and pick what level of insurance and provider you want. And they're already subsidizing health insurance for lower income people. During the pandemic those subsidies were broadly expanded with the goal of making sure as many people as possible were getting care. With that infrastructure and the smaller-scale tests that've already happened, it's not a sea change to cover everyone's insurance, but just an increase in scale.
So there's a variety of factors that make it easier here than in other places, in ways social, geographic, economic, and infrastructural.
It seems like states must be breaking this all of the time? This could be implemented as a utility, with each state contracting the utility company and giving them tax money.
enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State
It seems like states must be breaking this all of the time? This could be implemented as a utility, with each state contracting the utility company and giving them tax money.
It genuinely does depend on the form that the compact takes. You're right that many such agreements exist between states like, for example, reciprocal recognition of things like nurse licensing,...
It genuinely does depend on the form that the compact takes. You're right that many such agreements exist between states like, for example, reciprocal recognition of things like nurse licensing, or natural resource management. It seems like the standard set by the Supreme Court is that congressional consent is required when the compact stands to increase the political power of the participating states. Some compacts to which there are no reasonable objects (e.g. the examples above) tend to get allowed.
As a lifelong Californian, Newsom has been pretty open about wanting to run for president for as long as I can remember him being in politics. I don't see a problem with him running for president,...
As a lifelong Californian, Newsom has been pretty open about wanting to run for president for as long as I can remember him being in politics. I don't see a problem with him running for president, he's done some good here in the state. He won't be as progressive as I would like, but he will be an acceptable president if he runs.
Given that CA is the 5th largest economy in the world, I don't think much will change with our partnerships with other countries.
The biggest scandal I can think of is being hypocritical during lock downs with the French Laundry visit. Which Republicans had readily done so it was a pointless powergrab through that special...
The biggest scandal I can think of is being hypocritical during lock downs with the French Laundry visit. Which Republicans had readily done so it was a pointless powergrab through that special election.
It’s my vague understanding that sometimes, diplomacy results in pretty vague agreements that don’t do much? But maybe these are different? What do these agreements do?
It’s my vague understanding that sometimes, diplomacy results in pretty vague agreements that don’t do much? But maybe these are different? What do these agreements do?
Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none The article is referring to what would formally be called a "letter of cooperation." It doesn't prescribe specific...
Comment box
Scope: information
Tone: neutral
Opinion: none
Sarcasm/humor: none
The article is referring to what would formally be called a "letter of cooperation." It doesn't prescribe specific dollar amounts for either government to spend in scientific research or knowledge-sharing, but effectively commits to operating consistent trade agreements in general, with reference to climate change. The offices of the signatories of each government would be developing specific implementations that incorporate knowledge-sharing and such.
I don't know of other instances of states coordinating economically with foreign governments in this particular way, so I don't know whether it has been effective in the past.
While I really really hope Trump doesn't win, that is very smart on their part not to assume that he won't. Now I wish voters would do the same and not be complacent but I have little faith in...
While I really really hope Trump doesn't win, that is very smart on their part not to assume that he won't. Now I wish voters would do the same and not be complacent but I have little faith in people now that it's been four years they haven't forgotten why they voted him out in the first place (sadly most of it was from how he handled the covid situation which is not a big issue anymore so it would be easy to forget. Though I'd say that was only the tip of the iceberg on how horrible he and the Republicans were).
Comment box
Intriguing political commentary on measures the US state of California is taking to ensure that its environmental regulations withstand a potential second GOP victory in the 2024 election.
Strategies include having Biden approve federal waivers for emissions regulations before the May deadline (any later, and future administrations could overturn them -- but before, they can't); establishing emissions reduction plans with industries cooperatively which actually benefit them, as opposed to the Tr. approach of "tak[ing] a sledgehammer to 50 years of the program and to all of your many billions of investments in batteries"; making small short-term emissions concessions to stakeholders in order to stabilize industry support for long-term environmental emissions reduction plans; and more.
The federal Supreme Court could apparently strike down California's ability to set stricter emissions standards than the federal Clean Air Act if it so chooses, but lots of these industry agreements are designed to circumvent that issue. Whether or not the Court limits CA's power, CA is working to make investment in green tech a priority for major manufacturers.
I thought that the idea of state-to-country partnerships (like California-Sweden) were particularly interesting. From an economic perspective, having pre-established research and development connections with a stable and renewable-focused outside force does put California in a good position in the event that the US federal government decides to, say, withhold research funding for better EV technology, or whatever.
The article author seems to think Gavin Newsom will run for president in 2028, which I also believe is probable, although the precise electoral landscape four years from now is impossible to predict. Frankly, I can't even really predict the election this year.
I don't live in California so maybe Tildesonians in that state have opinions on things too!
Given the size of California's economy and relative isolation from the rest of the country, it makes sense for us to negotiate directly with other countries, especially in a situation where we might disagree with the White House. I'm not interested in secession at all, but I'm also much more proud of my state than I am of being an American.
If y'all secede can Illinois come too
I don’t see why there aren’t attempts at a west coast coalition. There’s more than enough money and population between the three states to build single payer healthcare for residents there. At a certain smaller scale it’s too big of a problem to handle. But I can’t believe it can’t be done when including two of the wealthiest states.
California is actually working on passing a universal healthcare bill through the state leg at the moment. It was reintroduced this year through the Nurse's Union, I believe.
Let’s fucking go
This is great to hear. What do you think the Democrats (or civil society?) are doing correctly that is allowing actual pro-welfare state legislation to be passed over there? (Instead of the Democrats just being less right wing than the Republicans as is the case in the rest of the US, at least from an outsider's perspective)
My take is that there's a few overlapping factors.
One is the type of wealth, social mobility, and wealth inequality in the state. Both the computer and entertainment industries are full of new money people who started middle class and rose to be pretty well off, leading to people with money and the time/energy to use it who still have the memory of being less well off. Even the libertarians here have more of an understanding of the ways that market forces pervert the free market when it comes to vital services. This leads to a wealthier population that broadly supports social services.
Another is the overall size and wealth of the population. Because California is so large and well off, it's possible to get the sorts of systemic benefits from scale. It's also somewhat geographically isolated from the rest of the country, so there are fewer concerns about being part of a large, multi-state system. If California wants it and can pay for it, they don't need to negotiate with anyone about it.
Additionally, California already runs an open health insurance marketplace for all residents. You don't have to have a health insurance broker or a company-sponsored plan, you just go on the Covered California website and pick what level of insurance and provider you want. And they're already subsidizing health insurance for lower income people. During the pandemic those subsidies were broadly expanded with the goal of making sure as many people as possible were getting care. With that infrastructure and the smaller-scale tests that've already happened, it's not a sea change to cover everyone's insurance, but just an increase in scale.
So there's a variety of factors that make it easier here than in other places, in ways social, geographic, economic, and infrastructural.
I'm not really sure what it is about the state that makes us like this, but I'm glad that we are.
This type of thing is very possibly unconstitutional, depending on the form that such a coalition takes.
It seems like states must be breaking this all of the time? This could be implemented as a utility, with each state contracting the utility company and giving them tax money.
It genuinely does depend on the form that the compact takes. You're right that many such agreements exist between states like, for example, reciprocal recognition of things like nurse licensing, or natural resource management. It seems like the standard set by the Supreme Court is that congressional consent is required when the compact stands to increase the political power of the participating states. Some compacts to which there are no reasonable objects (e.g. the examples above) tend to get allowed.
As a lifelong Californian, Newsom has been pretty open about wanting to run for president for as long as I can remember him being in politics. I don't see a problem with him running for president, he's done some good here in the state. He won't be as progressive as I would like, but he will be an acceptable president if he runs.
Given that CA is the 5th largest economy in the world, I don't think much will change with our partnerships with other countries.
The biggest scandal I can think of is being hypocritical during lock downs with the French Laundry visit. Which Republicans had readily done so it was a pointless powergrab through that special election.
It’s my vague understanding that sometimes, diplomacy results in pretty vague agreements that don’t do much? But maybe these are different? What do these agreements do?
Comment box
The article is referring to what would formally be called a "letter of cooperation." It doesn't prescribe specific dollar amounts for either government to spend in scientific research or knowledge-sharing, but effectively commits to operating consistent trade agreements in general, with reference to climate change. The offices of the signatories of each government would be developing specific implementations that incorporate knowledge-sharing and such.
I don't know of other instances of states coordinating economically with foreign governments in this particular way, so I don't know whether it has been effective in the past.
While I really really hope Trump doesn't win, that is very smart on their part not to assume that he won't. Now I wish voters would do the same and not be complacent but I have little faith in people now that it's been four years they haven't forgotten why they voted him out in the first place (sadly most of it was from how he handled the covid situation which is not a big issue anymore so it would be easy to forget. Though I'd say that was only the tip of the iceberg on how horrible he and the Republicans were).