If Republicans want to play the "no redistribution to red states game" I think the Democrats should agree.
Biden just announced last week the broadband subsidies and Texas got 3.2 billion which is more money than any other state including California. Right wingers talk **** and belittle democrats and dems capitulate by giving them money. Insanity
That's would really hurt Texans. Abbott doesn't care about people. He's all about the business owners, the border, and gun pushing.
https://reason.com/2023/07/03/do-d-c-and-rhode-island-really-need-200-million-for-broadband-access/ Do D.C. and Rhode Island Really Need $200 Million for Broadband Access? How not to distribute federal funds by Jonas Du 7.3.2023 2:03 PM President Joe Biden's administration is investing $42.45 billion to expand high-speed internet access across America. Many states already have near-universal access to broadband, but they'll still receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. Last week the White House announced state allocations for the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, declaring that the program aims to "connect everyone in America to reliable, affordable high-speed internet by the end of the decade." At this point, more than 90 percent of American households already have net connections with speeds at least four times faster than BEAD's definition of "high-speed internet." Yet the legislation that established BEAD requires each state, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, to receive a minimum of $100 million regardless of need or population. As a result, states (especially small states) with more broadband access will tend to receive more funding per capita than states with millions of unserved residents: For example, 99.8 percent of Rhode Island residents have broadband access, according to BroadbandNow, which got its results by combining data from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and private telecommunications companies. The state, which has a population of just over a million, still received more than $108 million in BEAD funds. That equates to over $49,000 per unserved Rhode Islander. Similarly, the District of Columbia, with a population of under 700,000, has 99.5 percent broadband coverage yet received over $100 million. That's more than $30,000 per unserved D.C. resident. The three states with the lowest broadband access are West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi, with less than 80 percent coverage. They're getting less than $2,100 per unserved resident—a fraction of what D.C. and Rhode Island received. This scheme also hurts large, populous states. Texas and California have over 3.7 million and 1.3 million people without broadband access, respectively. Texas got less than $900 per unserved resident. California got less than $1,400. BEAD and the FCC define broadband or high-speed internet as a connection with a download speed of at least 25 megabits per second (Mbps) and an upload speed of 3 Mbps; areas that don't meet those standards are considered "unserved." The program's Notice of Funding Opportunity states that the funds will be "distributed primarily based on the relative number of 'unserved' locations," with a focus "on deploying broadband service to unserved locations…and underserved locations" Yet billions of dollars will now go to areas that already have adequate broadband.
Hmm better question is why are we giving a MAGA town 22 million to help with trump voters ?! . Dems govern and help Republicans while they **** on democrats. Projects like this are happening in the thousands all over the nation. You think truck drivers are going vote for biden. Give me a break. The funny thing is clowns like @bigtexxx have the audacity to claim libs are destroying this country. Libs are literally subsidizing this entire nation.
At the center of California insurance woes is Proposition 103 , which requires insurance providers to get “prior approval” from the Department of Insurance before raising their rates. Under the law, passed in 1988, when a provider requests a rate increase of over 6.9%, the public can demand a hearing, which can lengthen the application process and increase the cost for the insurer. If you ask the insurance industry, Prop. 103 is the cause of California’s coverage woes. Consumer advocates in Calif are saying “The insurance companies are trying to create shortages and panic in the California marketplace,” " they are using climate change as a “battering ram” to force through excessive rates and privately created models for setting premiums in a bid to evade public scrutiny. "
https://theconversation.com/ecologi...much-sooner-than-expected-new-research-207955 Ecological doom-loops: why ecosystem collapses may occur much sooner than expected – new research Across the world, rainforests are becoming savanna or farmland, savanna is drying out and turning into desert, and icy tundra is thawing. Indeed, scientific studies have now recorded “regime shifts” like these in more than 20 different types of ecosystem where tipping points have been passed. Across the world, more than 20% of ecosystems are in danger of shifting or collapsing into something different. These collapses might happen sooner than you’d think. Humans are already putting ecosystems under pressure in many different ways – what we refer to as stresses. And when you combine these stresses with an increase in climate-driven extreme weather, the date these tipping points are crossed could be brought forward by as much as 80%. This means an ecosystem collapse that we might previously have expected to avoid until late this century could happen as soon as in the next few decades. That’s the gloomy conclusion of our latest research, published in Nature Sustainability. Human population growth, increased economic demands, and greenhouse gas concentrations put pressures on ecosystems and landscapes to supply food and maintain key services such as clean water. The number of extreme climate events is also increasing and will only get worse. What really worries us is that climate extremes could hit already stressed ecosystems, which in turn transfer new or heightened stresses to some other ecosystem, and so on. This means one collapsing ecosystem could have a knock-on effect on neighbouring ecosystems through successive feedback loops: an “ecological doom-loop” scenario, with catastrophic consequences. How long until a collapse? In our new research, we wanted to get a sense of the amount of stress that ecosystems can take before collapsing. We did this using models – computer programs that simulate how an ecosystem will work in future, and how it will react to changes in circumstance. We used two general ecological models representing forests and lake water quality, and two location-specific models representing the Chilika lagoon fishery in the eastern Indian state of Odisha and Easter Island (Rapa Nui) in the Pacific Ocean. These latter two models both explicitly include interactions between human activities and the natural environment. The key characteristic of each model is the presence of feedback mechanisms, which help to keep the system balanced and stable when stresses are sufficiently weak to be absorbed. For example, fishers on Lake Chilika tend to prefer catching adult fish while the fish stock is abundant. So long as enough adults are left to breed, this can be stable. However, when stresses can no longer be absorbed, the ecosystem abruptly passes a point of no return – the tipping point – and collapses. In Chilika, this might occur when fishers increase the catch of juvenile fish during shortages, which further undermines the renewal of the fish stock. We used the software to model more than 70,000 different simulations. Across all four models, the combinations of stress and extreme events brought forward the date of a predicted tipping point by between 30% and 80%. This means an ecosystem predicted to collapse in the 2090s owing to the creeping rise of a single source of stress, such as global temperatures, could, in a worst-case scenario, collapse in the 2030s once we factor in other issues like extreme rainfall, pollution, or a sudden spike in natural resource use. Importantly, around 15% of ecosystem collapses in our simulations occurred as a result of new stresses or extreme events, while the main stress was kept constant. In other words, even if we believe we are managing ecosystems sustainably by keeping the main stress levels constant – for example, by regulating fish catches – we had better keep an eye out for new stresses and extreme events. There are no ecological bailouts Previous studies have suggested significant costs from going past tipping points in large ecosystems will kick in from the second half of this century onwards. But our findings suggest these costs could occur much sooner. We found the speed at which stress is applied is vital to understanding system collapse, which is probably relevant to non-ecological systems too. Indeed, the increased speed of both news coverage and mobile banking processes has recently been invoked as raising the risk of bank collapse. As the journalist Gillian Tett has observed: The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank provided one horrifying lesson in how tech innovation can unexpectedly change finance (in this case by intensifying digital herding). Recent flash crashes offer another. However, these are probably a small foretaste of the future of viral feedback loops. But there the comparison between ecological and economic systems runs out. Banks can be saved as long as governments provide sufficient financial capital in bailouts. In contrast, no government can provide the immediate natural capital needed to restore a collapsed ecosystem. There is no way to restore collapsed ecosystems within any reasonable timeframe. There are no ecological bailouts. In the financial vernacular, we will just have to take the hit.
First wind farm going up in NJ. Wind farms coming to California, Washington, New York later this month also.
It is truly mind blowing how we produced zero solar panels before Biden came into office. We had no supply chain for any critical next generation technology.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/05/world/hottest-day-world-climate-el-nino-intl/index.html Yesterday was the hottest eva on record
"This week’s records are probably the warmest in 'at least 100,000 years,' Jennifer Francis, a senior scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center, told CNN, calling the records 'a huge thing.'" um . . . unlikely
Biden did say he was going to be President to all Americans including those who didn’t vote for him. I’m glad to see he’s doing that rather than punish or neglect Red states. Too many complain about partisanship and doing things solely based on polling. Well Biden isn’t doing that.
Hes being a president to the entire world. The only way to tackle climate change is by driving down costs. People don't realize the transformation that's happening in the industrial sector in America.
