|
Post by jeffolie on Sept 25, 2010 12:20:00 GMT -6
CA's Prop 23 may kill alternative energy investment by BIG ELECTRIC in California. Prop 23 will be important to the electricity bill paid for by every California resident. =================================================== Proposition 23 poll shows a dead heat among California voters California’s global warming law, passed in 2006, is aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions by power plants, factories and vehicles. The ballot initiative, Proposition 23, would delay implementation of the law until California unemployment drops to 5.5% and stays at that level for a year. Unemployment is now over 12%, and a sustained level at or below 5.5% has rarely been achieved, so environmental advocates argue that the initiative would in effect put the law on indefinite hold. More than two-thirds of likely voters in the survey said that global warming is a “very important” or “somewhat important” issue to them. And more than four in 10 likely voters said they have “complete” or “a lot” of trust in what scientists say on the subject, with more than two in 10 saying they have a “moderate” amount of trust. On the ballot measure itself, the survey showed that about one-fifth of likely voters had not yet taken a position. Forty percent favor the initiative and 38% oppose it, essentially a dead heat. latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/09/proposition-23-poll-global-warming-california.html
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Sept 25, 2010 16:03:53 GMT -6
I support the proposition.
For starters even if CA ceased to exist it wouldn't make a dent in the global emissions especially by nations like China and India who take up the slack in terms of pollution emissions and who don't even try to have clean air, water or even know what green house gasses are for that matter.
Let those fuckers tighten down on emissions and then we can get on board. But not before.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Sept 25, 2010 17:45:08 GMT -6
I support the proposition. For starters even if CA ceased to exist it wouldn't make a dent in the global emissions especially by nations like China and India who take up the slack in terms of pollution emissions and who don't even try to have clean air, water or even know what green house gasses are for that matter. Let those fuckers tighten down on emissions and then we can get on board. But not before. I agree, the current State of California 'global warming' policies do nothing to abate much air pollution that impacts my family's health or result in eliminating smog in California. I find California's 'global warming' policies just too expensive because they will further raise electricity bill during tough economic times for those least able to afford higher electricity bills. This acts as a 'regressive' expense similar to a 'regressive tax'. I hate to be on the side that oil companies are paying for campaign advertising; so, I am conflicted. I hate that China, India, etc. get away with horrible pollution and extremely wasteful energy comsumption for manufacturing. Although Prop 23 does not bring home manufacturing jobs nor stop the loss of more manufacturing jobs. California can not compete with dirt poor labor costs across the world. America needs tariffs.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Sept 25, 2010 23:29:33 GMT -6
"America needs tariffs."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 26, 2010 2:28:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Sept 26, 2010 11:04:31 GMT -6
Yep slapping heavy tariffs on goods produced in nations with no emissions controls should be mandatory.
Makes too much sense so it won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 26, 2010 19:17:45 GMT -6
I support the proposition. For starters even if CA ceased to exist it wouldn't make a dent in the global emissions especially by nations like China and India who take up the slack in terms of pollution emissions and who don't even try to have clean air, water or even know what green house gasses are for that matter. Let those fuckers tighten down on emissions and then we can get on board. But not before. Really, you going to 'save the planet' huh, with extremely high energy prices.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 26, 2010 19:19:40 GMT -6
Yep slapping heavy tariffs on goods produced in nations with no emissions controls should be mandatory. Makes too much sense so it won't happen. No emission controls? That will be a propaganda victory to the greatest scam in history.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Sept 26, 2010 19:56:17 GMT -6
FredorBob wrote:
Really, you going to 'save the planet' huh, with extremely high energy prices.
Dude, where in the hell did you get that idea, Arnold's bullshit Global Warming law is bad news for CA and needs to be sidelined. CARB doesn't need more power or kill what's left of industry in CA. Already they came awfully close to shutting down the rail road in this state and were only stopped by the court.
Oh very high energy prices would be good though if you want to break the back of our consumerist society and kill growth around the world. And it's going to happen regardless of our wishes. There is simply not enough low hanging fruit(energy) available.
No emission controls? That will be a propaganda victory to the greatest scam in history.
WTF are you doing twisting my words around, you want to start a argument because I used the word tariff? About the only people who have a issue with tariffs are Republicans.
All I want to see is the U.S. apply some very harsh tariffs on goods that originate from the world's major polluters, polluters who don't even bother to regulate/control emissions.
|
|
|
Post by kramer on Nov 13, 2010 9:16:27 GMT -6
FredorBob wrote: Really, you going to 'save the planet' huh, with extremely high energy prices.Dude, where in the hell did you get that idea, Arnold's bullshit Global Warming law is bad news for CA and needs to be sidelined. CARB doesn't need more power or kill what's left of industry in CA. Already they came awfully close to shutting down the rail road in this state and were only stopped by the court. I wonder if prop 23 would have passed if people were told that CARB and the CA government is considering getting CA integrated into an international REDD (and then later, a REDD+) scheme? www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/meetings/073010/notice.pdfA REDD scheme is a program where we will pay other countries with large areas of forests money each year for their trees to store our carbon as well as pay to help them manage and grow their forests. www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57A30I20090811?sp=true
|
|