Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[SoCal Deek]

Really Kay? This was your SUMMARY? 

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Really Kay? This was your SUMMARY? 

You've never heard of a comprehensive summary? 

[B-Man]

 

EVERYTHING IS RACIST:

 

 Environmentalist Says He Was ‘Canceled’ From Speaking At Event Because He Implied Coronavirus Came From China.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Greybeard]

  A climate change apologist.

 

http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare

[B-Man]

 

 

AGAIN ?

 

Only Six Months to Save the Planet!

by John Hinderaker

 

Original Article

 

The International Energy Agency says we have only six months left to save the world from global warming: [A]ccording to the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), we only have six months left to prevent total climate change disaster. “This year is the last time we have, if we are not to see a carbon rebound,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol told the Guardian on Thursday in an article with the headline: “World has six months to avert climate crisis, says energy expert.”

 

Is that a promise? Can we count on being left alone by climate scolds as of January 1, 2021?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

If we would only transfer wealth from the rich countries to the poor ones..............that would heal the earth !

 

 

 

SNOWFALLS ARE NOW JUST A THING OF THE PAST:

 

“Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: ‘World has six months to avert climate crisis, says energy expert.'”

 

 

Why, yes I have, many, many times, including this classic:

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added.

—The Grauniad, January 17th, 2009.

 

 

Oh, and the classical reference in the headline, of course.

 

 

 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

Woah it’s been kinda quiet here the past month…fine, I’ll talk to myself. Don’t mind me!

 

<< TLDR Summary: hybrid carbon pricing legislation is totally where it’s at. Carbon taxes for small emitters at state/local level, cap-and-trade permit markets for big ones at national/international level, happiness for all. >>

 

Skeptical Kay Adams: “Hey, Kay! Everyone at PPP has been absolutely DYING to hear your thoughts on carbon pricing legislation. So you gonna talk about it or what?!”

Green Kay Adams: “Oh wow! Oh gosh, Kay…and here I was thinking maybe nobody cared about the global warming topic anymore. Well sure, let’s begin!”

 

1. The Debate: Economists haven’t reached an agreement yet as to which of the two types of carbon pricing systems is best, but right now carbon taxation methods seem to be winning the international popularity contest ahead of emissions trading schemes (i.e. cap-and-trade). There are also hybrid systems of the two that haven’t really been studied too rigorously. These ones happen to be what interest me the most.

 

2. My Proposal: a hybrid carbon pricing system that features carbon taxes at the state level for small emitters (like cars) and carbon cap-and-trade at the national level for large emitters (like the concrete industry). I would also remove all applied fossil fuel subsidies and consider renewable energy subsidies as needed during the energy transition process. While nationalizing the entire energy industry seems to be a popular option for a small handful of eco-socialists, I feel that the private market is more than capable of efficiently handling everything provided it has these government-imposed corrections for carbon negative externalities.

 

3. Brief Overview of Benefits: my proposal is primarily a cap-and-trade one, so it still maintains the most salient features of these plans that make it popular with environment-first minded people. Namely, it’s easy to have scientists set the appropriate limits for the major polluters at the supply level and then have the private market determine the price at the demand level. It’s also easier to couple cap-and-trade systems with other countries, since man-made global warming (MMGW) is fundamentally a global problem and since we have to account for companies wanting to set up shop in other countries where it could be cheaper to pollute. Cap-and-trade is also the best system for dealing with the dreaded “green paradox,” where industries are inclined to ramp up their pollution early in anticipation of beating increased restrictions over time. Unfortunately cap-and-trade permit markets can also be volatile, and I think it’s a really good idea to minimize market instability specifically throughout the transportation and food sectors of the American economy. So that is why I prefer keeping a simple carbon dioxide (and methane too!) tax at the state level for automobiles and meat/dairy products and such, since localized economic oversight may be our safest bet for securing overall stability.

 

4. Addressing Drawbacks: the #1 problem is going to be the high level of political cooperation required, not just within the US but also between other countries. My best response to that is to say we should increase MMGW awareness among voters, get back into the Paris Agreement, and carefully set up government oversight committees to referee the cap-and-trade permit market and the allocation of emissions permits. Another major concern is how any economic shocks from the energy transition process will affect the most economically vulnerable citizens (i.e. the working class). Aside from careful monitoring of carbon pricing legislation, I’d say that it is imperative that this legislation be carried out in parallel with other Green New Deal (GND) components that can financially help the working people, such as enhanced social welfare programs and urban infrastructure renovations that make public transportation more accessible. A final warning I should mention is that a lot of our accumulated knowledge of carbon pricing implementations come from European countries, which clearly don’t have the diffuse transportation layout demands that we have here (Canada may be our closest analogue, although their population is mostly concentrated close to their southern border with us). Our smartest options for countering any uniquely American economic shocks will be to undergo major civic infrastructure upgrades (including high-speed rails?), have job retraining programs for former fossil fuel workers, and expand emergency supplies of the DOE’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the duration of the energy transition process.

 

Skeptical Kay Adams: “I don’t know, Kay. Still seems like a lot of effort to address a problem we don’t even know is real.”

Green Kay Adams: “Kay, first address point #2 from the MMGW science section of my/our previous post. Also, please provide scientific papers or article reviews from dissenting scientific opinions on MMGW.”

Skeptical Kay Adams: “Are you getting cheeky with me, Kay? I’m not too comfortable with you playing economic God, either. Look at you…intruding into our private markets, capriciously choosing energy industry winners and losers like this...deplorable.”

Green Kay Adams: “You disappoint me, Kay. In my/our previous post, please recall point #3 from the problems section with finding MMGW solutions. Also, please feel free to take up any specific economic concerns with any of your favorite qualified professional economists. Greenhouse gas emissions are negative externalities that MUST and CAN be addressed.”

Skeptical Kay Adams: “But how are you going to PAY for your Green New Deal utopia, Kay? Tax us all to death?!”

Green Kay Adams: “Settle down, Kay. That’s another debate entirely which I will take up in the Trump Economy thread at some point soon. Until we meet again, old friend!”

Skeptical Kay Adams: “Wait! Wait! Kay, come back. Can you also respond to the three posts above?”

Green Kay Adams: “Sure, why not, Kay? I have nothing better to do with my life this morning. But not before I post a delightful meme commemorating our wonderful discussion.”

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/29/2020 at 9:20 PM, Greybeard said:

 http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare

 

I was vaguely familiar with Michael Shellenberger beforehand as a bigly pro-nuclear environmentalist. It looks like he really has it out for climate change fearmonger lefties, with which to some extent I agree. But he also has a new book to sell and seems to have identified a sizable combined niche market of engaged climate change skeptics and rebel environmentalists. Telling people that everything is actually okay and that they hardly have to change anything about their habits is always a strong marketing ploy. Scanning the link and looking through the table of contents of his new book, “Apocalypse Never”…

 

1. Here’s what we likely agree on: merits of nuclear energy, wind energy limitations, biofuel disdain, doubts on achieving international carbon neutrality via non-nuclear renewable energies alone.

2. Where we may agree on some points but disagree on others: bans on plastic straws/bags and general policies toward plastics, practical implementations of a solar energy infrastructure, green policy successes of various European countries since 1970’s, lab-grown meat’s effect on climate.

3. A VERY hard sell, but I’ll listen to his argument: insufficient solar energy tech advancements, warmer climate not making natural disasters worse, overrated importance of Amazon rainforest and broad deforestation/reforestation/soil carbon sequestration issues, non-issue of Malthusian population growth versus food supply.

4. Just…no: non-causal role of humans in Holocene extinctions (?!?!?!), everything he says related to the factory farming subject (increased industrial agriculture preventing zoonotic pandemics, vegetarianism reducing individual carbon footprints by only less than 4%, global land use for meat having shrunk by size of Alaska...this is an archetypal anti-vegan argument being made here with very common examples of statistical cherry-picking, logical sleights of hand, and language gymnastics used to fit the agenda). Ok well technically we’re both against free-range grass-fed meat, but I’m approaching that one also from ethical grounds while he’s making the purely environmental argument.

 

Has anyone here read this book? I won’t financially support someone as stridently pro-factory farming as this guy, but I’m willing to read his book this summer if I stumble upon a free online PDF version somewhere.

 

On 7/2/2020 at 11:13 AM, B-Man said:

Original Article

The International Energy Agency says we have only six months left to save the world from global warming: [A]ccording to the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), we only have six months left to prevent total climate change disaster. “This year is the last time we have, if we are not to see a carbon rebound,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol told the Guardian on Thursday in an article with the headline: “World has six months to avert climate crisis, says energy expert.”

 

On 7/5/2020 at 5:36 PM, B-Man said:

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added.

—The Grauniad, January 17th, 2009.

 

As I’ve ranted about here in the past, my first immediate thought is that these “OMG only X number of months left until Kevin Costner’s Water World dystopia!!!” claims are neither accurate nor persuasive. My next immediate thought, however, is that something is probably getting lost in translation between the original sources (IEA, Jim Hansen) and these online conservative editorials. If I were magically in control of the entire MMGW communication pipeline, I’d focus strictly on reporting the current status of all the climate data benchmarks and climate tipping points*, along with both the estimated max and min time limits based on whichever specific “doomsday” climate model** calculations were used. It’s not quite as sexy and captivating as some of these climate alarmism headlines, but I think people appreciate and are more receptive to scientific honesty.

 

* A side note on what I mean by climate tipping points: remember that these are the positive climate feedback loop sources we talked about earlier that would lead to accelerated planetary warming and irreversibilities on the order of civilization timespans. Off the top of my head, some of these include the East and West Antarctic ice sheets, the Greenland ice sheet, the Amazon rainforest, the North American boreal forests, and the Siberian permafrost. Early signs of the degradation of the polar ice sheets, for example, show that the advancement through these “points-of-no-return” markers has unfortunately been underway this century.

 

** Side notes on what I mean by “doomsday” climate models: they come in many wonderful computational flavors. The degrees of freedom include limits on allowed mean global temperature increases since the beginning of the Industrial Age, different levels of international efforts toward greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and probabilities that countries will meet these standards in the future. Some models go by greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations instead of global mean temperatures. The 1.5 degrees Celsius limit models are the more ideal ones, but also the least practical to be met. I think I’ve seen deadlines for 1.5 degree models that range approximately between the year 2030 with moderate emissions reduction efforts and 2050 with major reduction efforts. The 2 degrees Celsius limit models are much more realistic to stay under by 2100, but they’re also likely to trigger too many of those tipping points to certain extents, as well as lead to intolerable devastation of our global food supplies (examples: drastic disturbances to pollinating insect migration patterns, greater scope of desertification coverage, greater frequency of droughts, larger ocean hypoxic dead zones) and various collapses of ecosystems (such as 90+% of the coral reefs worldwide due to ocean acidification). No one wants to touch those 3, 4, or 5 degree models for good reason. We’ve already blown past the 1 degree limit.

[123719bwiqrb]

This just in - the environment was cancelled. I just read it on Twitter.  Too difficult to wrangle.

[KRC]

22 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

Woah it’s been kinda quiet here the past month…fine, I’ll talk to myself. Don’t mind me!

 

{cutting to save space, but content was great}

 

Skeptical Kay Adams: “I don’t know, Kay. Still seems like a lot of effort to address a problem we don’t even know is real.”

Green Kay Adams: “Kay, first address point #2 from the MMGW science section of my/our previous post. Also, please provide scientific papers or article reviews from dissenting scientific opinions on MMGW.”

Skeptical Kay Adams: “Are you getting cheeky with me, Kay? I’m not too comfortable with you playing economic God, either. Look at you…intruding into our private markets, capriciously choosing energy industry winners and losers like this...deplorable.”

Green Kay Adams: “You disappoint me, Kay. In my/our previous post, please recall point #3 from the problems section with finding MMGW solutions. Also, please feel free to take up any specific economic concerns with any of your favorite qualified professional economists. Greenhouse gas emissions are negative externalities that MUST and CAN be addressed.”

Skeptical Kay Adams: “But how are you going to PAY for your Green New Deal utopia, Kay? Tax us all to death?!”

Green Kay Adams: “Settle down, Kay. That’s another debate entirely which I will take up in the Trump Economy thread at some point soon. Until we meet again, old friend!”

Skeptical Kay Adams: “Wait! Wait! Kay, come back. Can you also respond to the three posts above?”

Green Kay Adams: “Sure, why not, Kay? I have nothing better to do with my life this morning. But not before I post a delightful meme commemorating our wonderful discussion.”

 

 

This is for Green Kay Adams: I see you wanting to tax people for driving cars. How are the poor supposed to get to work if they can no longer afford their transportation because the government wants to add yet more taxes? Or, is this another "tax the rich" scheme? Not sure how much is going to be left in their wallets after taxing them for student loan forgiveness, taxing them for the Green New Deal, taxing them for M4A, etc. They would already be taxed at over 100% just for those items.

 

For Skeptical Kay Adams: You go girl!!

 

Finally, you may want to seek help for the multiple personality disorder. ?

[Tiberius]

Eight straight days over 90 degrees in WNY 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Eight straight days over 90 degrees in WNY 

And in July no less!! Someone call the media!

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Eight straight days over 90 degrees in WNY 

Most of June here was below the average. Huh. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 7/8/2020 at 8:45 AM, KRC said:

 

This is for Green Kay Adams: I see you wanting to tax people for driving cars. How are the poor supposed to get to work if they can no longer afford their transportation because the government wants to add yet more taxes? Or, is this another "tax the rich" scheme? Not sure how much is going to be left in their wallets after taxing them for student loan forgiveness, taxing them for the Green New Deal, taxing them for M4A, etc. They would already be taxed at over 100% just for those items.

 

For Skeptical Kay Adams: You go girl!!

 

Finally, you may want to seek help for the multiple personality disorder. ?

 

Woah someone read my post!! Thanks, KRC!

 

The basic premise is that financial hits from gas taxes on a destitute person’s individual budget will be offset by benefits from other various GND programs, including health care benefits and public transportation options. But there are a lot of moving policy parts in such grand legislative proposals, many of which may end up not being synchronized, so that some citizens may experience incidental financial hardship during the country’s renewable energy transition process. That is why I’d strongly support temporary “fuel stamp” eligibility programs or gas tax reimbursements or circumstantially dependent transportation subsidizations through employer applications.

 

Since we already tax people for driving cars in the form of gasoline excise taxes, this is not uncharted policy territory. There’s nothing unethical about (reasonably imposed) fuel taxes, either. Taxing forms of transportation that pollute is obviously not the same as taxing breaths of air or directly taxing public water consumption or anything crazy like that. All environmental taxes aim to curb bad behavior and incentivize good behavior. Gas taxes would aim to expedite renewable tech innovation while also helping to pay for greenhouse gas damages, which ultimately our government will be financially responsible for fixing in the years ahead.

 

Next Saturday morning, I can post a thorough explanation of my taxation and budgetary proposals in the Trump Economy thread. By this point, however, you probably know my politics and can guess where the conversation is heading. I’m most closely aligned with Tulsi Gabbard on policy issues (about 90%...with that other 10% including her decision to endorse Joe Biden and sell out to the Democratic Party establishment…sigh). As you can also tell by now, I prefer responding with detailed lengthy (long-winded?) paragraphs instead of a few short sentence sound bites. Otherwise, I find that online political discussions tend to break down from simple misunderstandings that then quickly entice mudslinging from opportunistic internet trolls.

 

Think of Real, Green, and Skeptical more like Freud’s ego, superego, and id and less like Moe, Larry, and Curly. The true psychological concern is why I spend so much time composing political thoughts on an obscure internet football message board, knowing that maybe only 4 or 5 people read them…hmmm…

[3rdnlng]

31 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Woah someone read my post!! Thanks, KRC!

 

 

I make every effort to read your posts. I even categorize them and put them on my reading list. Seriously, I believe that you are sincere, which places you far apart from the usual Lefty flakes here. The fallacy that I see in your comments (in general) is that you propose government interference or control in solving issues. That invariably involves a tax or a regulation of some sort. Sin taxes have been around for some time but are by nature self-defeating. They are used to fund programs unrelated to the actual "sin" itself. Take tobacco use for example. We all know it has been substantially reduced over the last decade/decades. The average Marlboro smoker spends somewhere between $5000-$10000 a year to pay for their habit. A lot of smokers choose to quit making the idea of a "sin tax" effective in reducing smoking overall but eliminating the taxes that the government has become accustomed to. Other smokers buy their smokes at Indian reservations if possible and save a good deal of money on taxes. The government loses the taxes from that too. Simply put, government programs that are based on coercing actions by taxing are basically self defeating. If those programs work they defund the government. If they don't work taxes simply are increased and government relies even more on smokers to fund them.

 

Back a decade ago I vehemently argued against the ACA here at PPP.  I always prefaced my arguments with something along the lines of "although I'm philosophically against what Obama is trying to do, my biggest objections are that it is basically flawed and would be implemented by an incompetent administration". The programs that the government put in place must at a minimum be able to work. The ACA was doomed to fail because they went against the basic tenants of insurance by ignoring the "Law of Large Numbers". Liberal government does things like this all the time. They ignore facts and promote "feelz" based programs. Like I said, I know you are sincere, but you're just wrong.

[KRC]

On 7/11/2020 at 6:45 AM, RealKayAdams said:

 

Woah someone read my post!! Thanks, KRC!

 

The basic premise is that financial hits from gas taxes on a destitute person’s individual budget will be offset by benefits from other various GND programs, including health care benefits and public transportation options. But there are a lot of moving policy parts in such grand legislative proposals, many of which may end up not being synchronized, so that some citizens may experience incidental financial hardship during the country’s renewable energy transition process. That is why I’d strongly support temporary “fuel stamp” eligibility programs or gas tax reimbursements or circumstantially dependent transportation subsidizations through employer applications.

 

The bolded part is where I have an issue. You and I both know the government is not going to pass benefits on to the plebs. Passing the buck to others (employers, the "rich," etc.) is not a viable plan. As the cliché says, eventually, you run out of other people's money. Especially when you have a laundry list of other programs that also need money.

 

Quote

Since we already tax people for driving cars in the form of gasoline excise taxes, this is not uncharted policy territory. There’s nothing unethical about (reasonably imposed) fuel taxes, either. Taxing forms of transportation that pollute is obviously not the same as taxing breaths of air or directly taxing public water consumption or anything crazy like that. All environmental taxes aim to curb bad behavior and incentivize good behavior. Gas taxes would aim to expedite renewable tech innovation while also helping to pay for greenhouse gas damages, which ultimately our government will be financially responsible for fixing in the years ahead.

 

While gas taxes may not be new, does not mean we need to continually add more. I constantly hear about how this or that tax will be used for x purpose. It rarely works out. After you pay the kickbacks to Congresscritter's friends to do the work and kickbacks to your campaign contributors and funneling money to your personal campaigns, there is no money left and we hear "we need to raise taxes again." ENOUGH with more taxes (not yelling at you). They already waste enough of my money and use too much of it to enrich themselves for me to give them more.

 

Quote

Next Saturday morning, I can post a thorough explanation of my taxation and budgetary proposals in the Trump Economy thread. By this point, however, you probably know my politics and can guess where the conversation is heading. I’m most closely aligned with Tulsi Gabbard on policy issues (about 90%...with that other 10% including her decision to endorse Joe Biden and sell out to the Democratic Party establishment…sigh). As you can also tell by now, I prefer responding with detailed lengthy (long-winded?) paragraphs instead of a few short sentence sound bites. Otherwise, I find that online political discussions tend to break down from simple misunderstandings that then quickly entice mudslinging from opportunistic internet trolls.

 

I look forward to your economic thoughts. Spoiler alert: I probably will not agree. ?

 

Quote

Think of Real, Green, and Skeptical more like Freud’s ego, superego, and id and less like Moe, Larry, and Curly. The true psychological concern is why I spend so much time composing political thoughts on an obscure internet football message board, knowing that maybe only 4 or 5 people read them…hmmm…

 

It is a healthy outlet (however, you may still want to seek help for the multiple personality disorder ?). Even if only a few people read it (I think more people read it than you realize), it is always healthy to discuss actual ideas. You just have to wade through the crap from the trolls. The ignore feature works well, but we are stuck with people continually responding to their crap. I will keep reading, even though you and I are on different ends of the political spectrum. You have convinced me to move more towards your ideas in some areas. Others, not so much. But I appreciate the conversation.

[Orlando Tim]

On 7/10/2020 at 8:50 AM, Tiberius said:

Eight straight days over 90 degrees in WNY 

Really your best global warming argument is high temps? I am going to ask why your 8 days means warming but this month a few years back does mean the opposite?

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/02/26/rochester-weather-february-2015-winter-coldest-month-ever/24067501/

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Really your best global warming argument is high temps? I am going to ask why your 8 days means warming but this month a few years back does mean the opposite?

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/02/26/rochester-weather-february-2015-winter-coldest-month-ever/24067501/

No, best argument is that there are more heat trapping gases trapping more heat in the atmosphere 

[KRC]

On 7/11/2020 at 7:57 AM, 3rdnlng said:

I make every effort to read your posts. I even categorize them and put them on my reading list. Seriously, I believe that you are sincere, which places you far apart from the usual Lefty flakes here. The fallacy that I see in your comments (in general) is that you propose government interference or control in solving issues. That invariably involves a tax or a regulation of some sort. Sin taxes have been around for some time but are by nature self-defeating. They are used to fund programs unrelated to the actual "sin" itself. Take tobacco use for example. We all know it has been substantially reduced over the last decade/decades. The average Marlboro smoker spends somewhere between $5000-$10000 a year to pay for their habit. A lot of smokers choose to quit making the idea of a "sin tax" effective in reducing smoking overall but eliminating the taxes that the government has become accustomed to. Other smokers buy their smokes at Indian reservations if possible and save a good deal of money on taxes. The government loses the taxes from that too. Simply put, government programs that are based on coercing actions by taxing are basically self defeating. If those programs work they defund the government. If they don't work taxes simply are increased and government relies even more on smokers to fund them.

 

Back a decade ago I vehemently argued against the ACA here at PPP.  I always prefaced my arguments with something along the lines of "although I'm philosophically against what Obama is trying to do, my biggest objections are that it is basically flawed and would be implemented by an incompetent administration". The programs that the government put in place must at a minimum be able to work. The ACA was doomed to fail because they went against the basic tenants of insurance by ignoring the "Law of Large Numbers". Liberal government does things like this all the time. They ignore facts and promote "feelz" based programs. Like I said, I know you are sincere, but you're just wrong.

 

I completely agree. The demand is rarely reduced when the sin taxes are imposed. Therefore, people just look for alternatives to get their supply. You mentioned a few. When Canada imposed a tax on cigarettes, all it did was increase smuggling of cigarettes from the U.S. 

 

As far as ACA, it relies on 100% participation. Otherwise, the costs become too high and people drop out (causing the costs to go even higher). A self-perpetuating problem unless the government can force people to participate.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, KRC said:

 

I completely agree. The demand is rarely reduced when the sin taxes are imposed. Therefore, people just look for alternatives to get their supply. You mentioned a few. When Canada imposed a tax on cigarettes, all it did was increase smuggling of cigarettes from the U.S. 

 

As far as ACA, it relies on 100% participation. Otherwise, the costs become too high and people drop out (causing the costs to go even higher). A self-perpetuating problem unless the government can force people to participate.

Cigarette smoking is way down in the blue states.