Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Cap and Trade and Global Warming      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 101
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religionPage 5 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by next-generation fuels, but regardless of what you're reading, nothing has the same net available energy per unit volume of easy oil. Everything else takes substantially more energy to process into usable form, even if it starts out with a similar gross energy density. There is simply no replacement for oil as a source for liquid fuel.

Drilling here will only add marginally to our current supply without changing our demand profile. If we change the demand profile by increasing our efficiency, when we do drill here that oil will go much much farther. It is an appreciating asset. The longer we leave it in the ground, the more it will be worth to us later on.

You are advocating band-aid cures for cancer.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 102
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/24/2010 7:53:19 AM
Still, American voters have seen fit--so far--to keep these legal monstrosities in place. I think the main reason is that like motherhood and apple pie, a clean environment's an easy sell. It sounds so wonderful--except to many blacks, who have traditionally viewed environmentalism as a clever way of excluding them from certain areas. I doubt most people have the vaguest idea of what getting a somewhat cleaner environment costs them. And I'm sure very few realize the economic disruption these laws cause. They'd realize it very keenly if they were ever involved with even one Environmental Impact Report.


People put up with it because they intuitively recognize that pollution is a form of fraud. Why should anyone be able to claim a profit by diverting the costs of their operations to the taxpayers--particularly when the damage they do by degrading the environment--that is to say the property values of others--might well be irreparable?

BTW, the EPA was put in place and designed to work as it does during the Nixon administration I believe. Would that not make it a Republican approach?

Yes, EIRs are expensive, but far less so than the damage we know people will wreak if due diligence is not required beforehand. Nuclear power plants, in particular, are high-risk installations. If they can't be sited and built safely, they shouldn't be built. My Dad was a nuclear power plant engineer and I am familiar with the technology and the risks. Boiling water reactors are perhaps the least risky because they are the least complex. Pressurized molten sodium-cooled reactors? Good grief! Talk about catastrophes waiting to happen! And we still don't have a settled method with known costs for dealing with wastes, either high- or low-level. Are the taxpayers supposed to pay for that for the next 10,000 years or more?

Y'all hate giving welfare to people with faces, but when it's a corporation, its blank check time.

BTW, Match, I agree with 3 of the 4 reforms you propose for health care. I'm not too keen on restricting access by consumers to legal recourse considering the discrepancy in power between an individual and a major corporation in any legal dispute. Can you spell Erin Brockovich? Can you imagine how the people in Hinkley would be faring or what else might wind up in goundwater if she hadn't been able to pursue the case?
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 103
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/24/2010 8:19:58 AM
I hope more states start telling the Feds to get out. Between unfunded mandates and the stealing of our money though taxes, it has gone far enough. Currently 11 states are suing several different agencies of the federal government based on the 10th amendment for overstepping. This needs to become nationwide movement. If you disagree please explain why you want the federal government involved in anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhXOvitrkKo


Louisana State University Federal Agency Directory lists over 1,300 distinct organizations across all three branches of federal government: Legislative branch (Congress); Executive branch (President and departments and independent agencies); and Judicial branch (Supreme Court and Circuit Courts). link: http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/fedgov.html
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 104
view profile
History
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/24/2010 9:18:24 AM

Would that not make it a Republican approach?


Yes. Mr. Nixon was about the most liberal Republican on domestic policy anyone could imagine, at least until George W. Bush. I think Nixon may have been inattentive to domestic issues because of his preoccupation with foreign policy.

I don't agree that EIR's ensure only due diligence, or that they are far less expensive than the damage which we'd see without them. That may have been true when they first began as single sheet check-off forms, but for many years now they've been mostly a stratagem for preventing development. The best legal strategy is almost always to attack a project right up front--at the EIR stage--before the owner can get too far along. Later on, he'll acquire a vested property interest that's harder to take away.

Also, a lot of environmentalist obstruction has been exactly the sort of thing liberals supposedly detest--exclusion of "the wrong people" by well-off whites. What do you think the race, education, and income of the average member of a major environmental organization are? I can also cite you to articles which make the case that one important driving force behind environmental regulation has been the interest of homeowners in making their properties more valuable, by excluding new development.

There is no such thing as "safe"--there's only more safe, or less safe. And I'm satisfied that nuclear electric plants can be made safe enough to live with, and then some. Gasoline has about ten times the energy per pound of TNT. Should we then ban gas stations because it's too dangerous to be anywhere near so much gasoline? Driving's more dangerous yet. Ban that too? The danger from nuclear plants has been vastly overstated--not surprising, when the public overestimates that danger by about ten thousand times, according to the risk evaluation surveys I've seen. (People also vastly *underestimate* the danger of everyday things like the pool chlorine tablets sold in the big box store down the block. Nasty stuff in a fire.)

The Hollywood propaganda film you mention is a good example. The fact Brockovich's boss was able to convince a jury hexavalent chromium had caused the inhabitants of a whole town to look something like the mutants in "The Hills Have Eyes" doesn't make it true. Juries also believed John Edwards when he told them he could, even as he stood before them, hear the spirits of children who'd died from birth defects cause by those reckless doctors his clients were suing. Other lawyers who've studied the facts believe the whole things was unadulterated manure designed to fleece the firm involved. I'm not sure even one person in Hinkey was injured by hexavalent chromium, let alone any that the firm accused put there.

If one property owner is damaging another owner's land, the damaged owner can sue for private nuisance or for a continuing trespass. If an activity's affecting a whole community, the government can sue to have it abated as a public nuisance. The usual remedy is an injunction, or compensation, if the injury's already been caused. In combination with state conservation laws, these procedures could work very well. EPA , at least as it operates now by coercing states into enforcing federal laws for it as little viceroys, is corroding our individual liberties. I believe delegating it that power is unconstitutional. With the Depts. of Education, HHS, and Commerce, EPA's right at the top of my hit list.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 105
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/24/2010 9:34:00 AM

I don't agree that EIR's ensure only due diligence, or that they are far less expensive than the damage which we'd see without them. That may have been true when they first began as single sheet check-off forms, but for many years now they've been mostly a stratagem for preventing development. The best legal strategy is almost always to attack a project right up front--at the EIR stage--before the owner can get too far along.


Well, not all development is good development, and if the process is being abused the solution is to fix the process, not dispense with due diligence--which is what you appear to advocate.


And I'm satisfied that nuclear electric plants can be made safe enough to live with, and then some. Gasoline has about ten times the energy per pound of TNT. Should we then ban gas stations because it's too dangerous to be anywhere near so much gasoline? Driving's more dangerous yet. Ban that too? The danger from nuclear plants has been vastly overstated--not surprising, when the public overestimates that danger by about ten thousand times, according to the risk evaluation surveys I've seen.


Well, apparently the residents of Nevada disagree, and they've got vastly more experience at dealing with the governmental agencies involved in nuclear technology than we do. There is a difference between danger and risk. Gasoline in liquid form is stable and safe. It has to be atomized to become explosive. Radioactive waste is dangerous as it lays. Your analogy is flawed. The consequences of a nuclear accident could be monumental, and after TMI and other incidents at plants that were rated as safe, the odds of an accident appear far higher than the official estimates would indicate. TMI was not supposed to happen. Would you yourself live downwind of a plant?


The fact Brockovich's boss was able to convince a jury hexavalent chromium had caused the inhabitants of a whole town to look something like the mutants in "The Hills Have Eyes" doesn't make it true.


What is your alternative explanation that would be more plausible for the cluster of documented medical problems there, all of which were known to be consistent with hexavalent chromium exposure, along with the documented presense of the chemical in amounts known to be unsafe in the groundwater they drank?

What part of "true" are you and your buddies unwilling to accept?


If an activity's affecting a whole community, the government can sue to have it abated as a public nuisance.


The problem with pollution is that it might not be discovered until after irreparable harm has been done to property and people downstream. If you can enjoin after the fact, you should be able to enjoin before the damages is done when it is clear that such damage would be likely. That is what an EIR is supposed to assess. Assessment of the true cost of a development is simply due diligence.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 106
view profile
History
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/24/2010 4:56:54 PM

Would you yourself live downwind of a plant?


Yes. I wouldn't give it as much thought as driving to the grocery store--which would be many times more likely to get me killed. I don't need to be irrational about risks just because (as the surveys I mentioned prove) most people are.

Lat I heard, the people of Nevada wanted the Yucca Mountain project, but federal rules had held it up. Even today, Nevada's full of people who are willing to take risks. They were the rule in the Old West, and that heritage still survives there, and in some other western states. That's one of the things I like about them. It's died out in California, unfortunately.

I'm familiar with the idea of designing events to be more unlikely, the greater the damage they would cause. It's even a principle for determining negligence in tort law. That's why Americans today (being as wise and vigilant as ever) are so unwilling to allow even the slightest chance that the Islamists in Tehran will acquire nuclear weapons. No, we'd never even think of letting something so catastrophically dangerous happen.

Who documented the things in Hinkey that you mentioned? Ms. Brockovich? All sorts of "scientific" studies are criticized or not accepted as showing true results. Concluding that something causes an effect when it really doesn't is so common we give it the name "Type One" error. I'm a skeptic, and the principle of Occam's Razor makes a lot of sense to me. And if some Hollywood dolt thinks a thing's true, it's a good bet it's not. I don't know where my buddies stand on all this. We're usually more concerned with what we're drinking.

Courts regularly grant injunctions before the fact, if the petitioner can show he's very likely to suffer an imminent injury and that it would be irreparable. And much of EIR's has nothing to do with pollution, in the old sense of bilge pouring out of a pipe into some pristine stream. They require the proponent of a project to evaluate the effects it will probably have on dozens of different categories of things, from the balance of jobs and housing to road congestion to the well-being of nearby native bugs and weeds. And if any of these effects is "significant," you have to explain in detail just what you plan to do to "mitigate" it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 107
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/24/2010 5:11:52 PM

They require the proponent of a project to evaluate the effects it will probably have on dozens of different categories of things, from the balance of jobs and housing to road congestion to the well-being of nearby native bugs and weeds. And if any of these effects is "significant," you have to explain in detail just what you plan to do to "mitigate" it.


Yep, and the reason you have to do all that is to avoid costly lawsuits down the line. Mitigation of the costs you are likely to impose on others would be the same whether an agency holds you accountable for them or a court. What is it exactly that you hope to gain by holding developers unaccountable prior to groundbreaking?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 108
view profile
History
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/24/2010 9:16:51 PM

What is it exactly that you hope to gain by holding developers unaccountable prior to groundbreaking?


In this country, we don't hold people legally accountable for actions before they take them. That's been basic to due process since the beginning. Developers are always accountable anyway, because of zoning and site planning laws. If someone proposes to build a giant, noisy hammer mill to shred scrap metal next to the old folks' home, the local planning commission's never going to OK the project.

But as long as the plans for a factory, say, include everything the law requires, why shouldn't the owners be able to build it in an area zoned for it? Since when do our laws prevent people from doing something, on the assumption that if we let them do it, they'll break some other law later? "You can't drive your car, because if you do, we know you'll stop at a bar, drink, and then drive it while under the influence."

Maybe anyone who wants to build a house with a fireplace should have to commission studies of the likely physical, social, economic, cultural, aesthetic, etc., effects of the fireplace under various conditions for each day of the year, with statistical analyses (using only an agency-approved procedure, of course.) What if the analysis showed there was a 73% probability that one day each year, weather conditions would be such that smoke from that chimney would cause 1.2 asthmatic children within a two-mile radius to experience temporary psychological discomfort? Just think of the harm! The rest of us can't let these selfish individualists abuse their precious "freedoms" like that, can we? And so what if the analysis added $30,000 to the price of a new house? Let 'em pay!

Some EIR'S *may* avoid costly lawsuits later. No one knows whether someone would have sued, but for the EIR. But having been involved with EIR's, I know how often they *prompt* suits from people opposed to development in general.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 109
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/25/2010 12:05:17 AM

In this country, we don't hold people legally accountable for actions before they take them.


When it comes to land use planning involving permanent and irrevocable changes to the landscape, I see no reason why neighbors should not have some reassurance beforehand that proposed new uses won't ruin the neighborhood. Do you?

Right now, the law requires that the owners of the proposed factory do due diligence to ensure that they won't be trashing the neighborhood. I'm fine with that. If you feel that the process is subject to abuse, propose a fix that preserves the intent of assuring the neighbors that their property rights won't be encroached on before the fact.

If an EIR isn't the right process for that, what would be? (Hint: if you say the market you will have missed the point entirely. The market fails in the face of fraud, whether deliberate or conveniently negligent.)
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 110
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/25/2010 6:04:09 AM
Starry I think we agree completely. Several premises have to be accepted for any of this to make sense. The global warming wheels are off the truck and Al Gore ain't returning calls. A lot of people have difficulty separating pollution (particulants in the air for example) from Earth warming. The idea we are soon running out of various fossil fuels is also questionable. The idea that the free market cannot/will not respond with new sources of energy is also fallacious.

It's just a bunch of crony capitalists, who have lost their ability to compete in an open free market looking for government regs and barriers to entry to keep their gigs. Of course China and India and other's didn't buy, and this false science has left these fascists flat footed while the rest of the world has moved on.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 111
it seems to be rapidly unravelling...this secular religion
Posted: 2/25/2010 11:43:32 AM
Starry,

There are environmentalists who do make that argument against solar installations. The reasons that I don't are:

1) If you take down all the windmills, the landscape will pretty-much recover within one person's lifetime. Try tearing out a nuclear plant.

2) There is no risk of radioactive contamination spreading from a windmill farm.

Your point about ROI on a nuclear plant is far from proven. Investors in Rancho Seco lost money in a very big way.

Even if climate change turns out to be a red herring, peak oil is a reality. The tools for monitoring the intensity of fuel utilization developed for cap and trade can help us to identify highly inefficient processes and products. Increasing the efficiency of those activities will get us the biggest bang for the buck in terms of reducing our dependence on oil.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 112
true costs of doing business
Posted: 2/25/2010 2:49:22 PM
Just saw this and thought it would be of interest:


UN Report Reveals Financial Cost of Environmental Damage

February 23, 2010 – In a report due for release in May, the United Nations uncovers that the largest 3,000 international companies cause an estimated $2.2 trillion in environmental damage per year. More than half of that total is on account of greenhouse gas emissions.

London-based environmental consulting firm Trucost was commissioned to write the report, which is accompanied by growing concern over the lack of payment for use, loss, and damage to the environment. The failure to include “ecosystem services” such as free clean air and erosion control in business models has led to the verge of a resource crisis. The UN hopes to encourage companies to reduce their impacts before governments force them to do so through strict regulations, high taxes, or climate change litigation.

Figures are likely to be higher in the final report than the estimated $2.2 trillion because the study doesn’t include household, governmental, social, or long-term hidden costs of activities. In fact, one of the challenges Trucost faced in their study was assessing impacts throughout companies’ entire supply chain. Richard Mattison, COO and study head for Trucost, comments: “Externalities of this scale and nature pose a major risk to the global economy, and markets are not fully aware of these risks, nor do they know how to deal with them."

Mattison does not disclose which companies were included in the report, but does hint that it includes all 500 of Standard & Poors largest publicly traded companies in the U.S.. This means that Exxon, Microsoft, Apple, GE, JP Morgan Chase, and Johnson & Johnson are among the top of the list.

If companies such as these were required to be financially accountable for their pollution, more than one-third of their profits would be wiped out and many would go under. One major risk every company should urgently recognize is the possibility that they could run out of resources needed for basic operation.

Mattison again warns: “Whether they actually have to pay for these costs will be determined by the appetite for policy makers to enforce the 'polluter pays' principle. We should be seeking ways to fix the system, rather than waiting for the economy to adapt. Continued inefficient use of natural resources will cause significant impacts on [national economies] overall, and a massive problem for governments to fix."
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 113
true costs of doing business
Posted: 2/25/2010 4:02:21 PM
Well since there is zero danger from greenhouse gases, since there is no anthropogenic global warming, the damage is 1/2 that or $1.1 trillion, in a $50T world economy that works out to about a 1/50th, or 2% damage factor. I'd say that's pretty darn good by any measure off efficiency.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 114
true costs of doing business
Posted: 2/25/2010 4:34:12 PM
When you add in the indirect costs that they mentioned, I suspect the total will bounce right back up to about 4%. The problem with that 4% is that if it isn't repaired, its cumulative year over year. In 30 years or so, the entire place will be trashed unless the polluters pay up. And again, you're spreading that cost over the entire economy, not allocating it to the polluters. So, the stockholders could well be in a world of hurt if their companies don't clean up their acts before the damage is done. Just sayin'
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 115
more climate skeptics
Posted: 2/26/2010 6:27:23 AM
I've watched and read a lot of evidence to global climate hoax, but this small video may be the single best for the casually interested person. The Professor is quite unassuming, and uses brilliant graphics. And tell your liberal friends to come out from under the bed and stock up on winter clothes lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=channel
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 116
more climate skeptics
Posted: 2/28/2010 7:51:09 AM
GC nice to see someone finally put it all in context. I believe we all want cleaner air and water and to stop the mass pollution of the earth, but doing it through a financial ponzi scheme is not the way(Cap and Trade).
All though the planet is hugely overpopulated where its natural resources are concerned, we need a natural evolution to alternative energy without cutting off the fossil fuel economy we now have.

I do find it funny that all the other countries that blame the U.S. for most of this have not revealed any epiphany of alternative energy industries in their countries.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 117
view profile
History
true costs of doing business
Posted: 3/1/2010 8:07:28 AM
^^^^^^Would that be the same U.N. which places countries like Libya and Sudan on human rights commissions, and which is so obviously biased against Jews and against Israel? It's not even as credible as the old League of Nations was, which faded away after letting Mussolini call its bluff by invading Ethiopia in 1935.
 HeyJenny
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 118
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/14/2010 7:02:16 PM
I agree that we've got to do something but Cap and Trade isn't it. Obviously I'm just a U.S. citizen so it doesn't matter what I think. It always seems to come down to the middle class feeling it the most. I found this article today on doomdaily.com
This is only part of the article but it makes a very good point on how we COULD end up paying for this, I don't know what the final print was of the bill as it got signed by the president.

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home
Posted by harbinger on Nov 19th, 2009 and filed under Alex Jones

A License Required for your house

Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.
No one is excluded

Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency
performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.

And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.

But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.

Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/14/2010 7:57:19 PM
Some of the best surfing and one of the best nude beaches is by San Onofre and it doesn't seem to bother anyone, but those windmills and solar panels in the desert are total eye sores.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 120
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/15/2010 12:02:48 PM
Well, I'd be fine with updated codes and compliance for new construction and incentives for existing homes to be retrofitted.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/15/2010 1:20:35 PM

Well, I'd be fine with updated codes and compliance for new construction and incentives for existing homes to be retrofitted.


All well and good--let any city, county, or state change its building codes, if people there think it's best. But what authority there is in the Constitution for Congress to dictate the design of someone's house, I can't imagine. And every time the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or some other authority is misconstrued to expand the reach of the federal government, it makes us less a nation of laws.

If tax incentives are going to be used for that kind of thing, I think the scheme should be designed so that whoever benefits has to repay his tax break later on, from the money the installation saves him.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 122
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/21/2010 9:48:19 AM
The unfair Villaraigosa DWP rate increase
Bill Boyarsky • March 16 2010 7:21 PM

In proposing big increases in electricity bills, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa seems to ignore the terrible hardships the Great Recession is imposing on the working people of Los Angeles. The increase—really a tax hike—is, in fact, a highly regressive tax, hitting low-income people disproportionately. It’s just one more blow to residents suffering from one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates. Just how are they supposed to pay their utility bills, which in some cases can be higher than their mortgage payments?

I’ve been reporting for Truthdig about the combination of rising unemployment and lack of medical care is causing great suffering. I have visited the California Employment Department office in Pacoima and St. John’s Well Child and Family Center in South Los Angeles.

In Pacoima, I talked to Alameda Holstein, who works for the Los Angeles City Department of Aging and is attachéd to the employment office to help find jobs for those 55 and older. “They are very desperate,” she said of the job seekers. ‘They have not been in this position before. They are very much humiliated. … Very well-educated people are coming to me.’” At. St John’s, the line of people awaiting medical care stretched a half a block or more.“I think [the problem] has expanded 20 percent this past month,” said Ingrid Hernandez, a staff member.

Department of Water and Power electricity bills would rise between 8.8 and 28.4 percent, according to the Los Angeles Times, in a plan that is supposed to encourage the use of renewable power, such as solar, and move the city away from coal-driven power plants.

It is unclear how this money would be spent. David Zahniser and Phil Willon reported in the Times that the money “would help pay for new environmental initiatives, including more aggressive conservation programs and a solar initiative designed to create 16,000 jobs.” What kind of jobs? The presence of union officials at the mayor’s side is a pretty good sign that they would be union jobs at the Department of Water and Power, whose employees are being spared the layoffs ripping through the rest of city government.
Villaraigosa said the Water and Power Department would hire “green doctors” to evaluate the energy efficiency of homes. The “doctor” would also help residents buy energy efficient lightbulbs and refrigerators. in my opinion, the guy at the hardware stores knows enough about energy efficient bulbs, and Costco will be glad to sell me an energy efficient refrigerator without the city’s help.

Villaraigosa said more increases will be needed in the future for him to reach his goal of obtaining 40 percent of the city’s power from renewable sources. Encouraging use of renewable sources is an admirable goal, but levying a tax/rate increase to reach it in the depths of this recession makes no sense. Especially when this tax will hit the poor the hardest. The sad fact is that only more prosperous Angelenos will be able to fork over $20,000 or so for a home solar system, or $8,500 for a do-it-yourself solar kit from Home Depot. The poor and the middle class, struggling to make ends meet and worrying about their jobs, will be just plain out of luck.
 cdukshnow
Joined: 3/19/2010
Msg: 123
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/25/2010 5:06:16 AM
No, no he doesn't at all. "I fully support a single payer system when it comes to healthcare", "I don't support a single payer system...". LOL "The troops will be pulled out of the middle east in 3 months" LOL Then he sent them back in, but to another country. I don't appreciate his racism either, which he has made ridiculously obvious "a world where white folks (he really sai "white folks"?) greed runs a world in need. LOL

Thom
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/25/2010 12:04:36 PM

which he has made ridiculously obvious "a world where white folks (he really sai "white folks"?) greed runs a world in need.


WHO said that? A public official?
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 125
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/25/2010 12:25:10 PM
excerpts of Barack Obama from his autobiography, Dreams of My Father. In one, Obama remembers a sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, aprtheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... That's the world! On which hope sits."
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Cap and Trade and Global Warming