Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
California has passed a law setting the nation's first mandatory limits on carbon dioxide . Mandatory limits will start in 2012 and a reduction of 25% must be achieved by 2020. This will be great news for Arizona and other neighboring states who will get lots more businesses leaving CA.
The owner of a cement plant in Colton was interviewed. He said his plant cannot afford to make the changes to meet the new law. Unless he can work out a deal with the lawmakers he will shut down and lay off his 140 workers. Cement manufacturing will then become one more industry that moves offshore. Presently 40% of California's cement comes from Mexico and China who have no environmental laws at all.
I simply cannot understand this. California's unemployment rate is among the highest in the nation. And it's going to go higher. So in the midst of an economic crisis with millions out of work and the state in desperate need of the tax money that employed people pay the California lawmakers stab bsuiness in the heart with another onerous regulation. And make no mistake about it - this is the grand daddy of all hurtfull business legislation to ever come out of the Democrats running California.
This is a great post which goes to the heart of the issue.
You know, I wouldn't mind if Gore butt-slaves like Pavley craps out feel-good "global warming" legislation like AB32, but what they should do is not just say "stop doing this", but say "stop doing this and we will fund a new, alternative way of doing this to go in a new direction".
The quoted poster is exactly right. Without these idiot legislators fundingimplementable alternatives (not this, "oh someday the God of technology will find a way to do this without CO2") to keep businesses like concrete making here, economics dictates that this stupid legislation will either push these industries out of California or just make the product more expensive and take more out of our paychecks.
I also just love (sarcasm!) how the environmentalists co-opted useful air pollution laws and equated harmful, locally impacting, harmful gases such as ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulates with carbon dioxide. Not only is this bastardization of the air pollution laws watering down it's effectiveness through subversion, it will ultimately cause a backlash which will get people to roll back previously helpful air pollution laws and its results.
Just how bad is equating CO2 with combustion byproducts? You are
"polluting" by expelling CO2 right now! Stop breathing! As you type on your computer, the electricity your computer is using is generated by CO2. Turn off AND UNPLUG your computer right now (the side benefit are these people will not "enlighten" City Data anymore ). Until you get a hydrogen burning car, STOP DRIVING that CO2 producing car right now! Don't buy anything whose products are shipped by CO2 producing trucks. I hope you get the message, reducing CO2 is going to be a multi-trillion dollar effort.
And even if all of Californians chuck their cars, computers, homes, and live in mud huts and live off the land, will the reduction in CO2 make our air more breathable? F**K NO! Not even that, OUR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE WILL NOT GO DOWN 0.001 DEGREE AS A RESULT! The other 49 states will still emit CO2. F'ing China and India and Russia certainly will not reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 is a TRACE GAS, so the overall percentage of CO2 reduction by Californians going into mud huts means NOTHING. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. NOTHING.
So for all the Pavley lovers, bask in your confirmation bias, bystander effect or conformity smugness and feel like "your saving the planet" and you're oh-so-"enlightened" over the unwashed masses. You Pavley lovers are too stupid to think for yourselves, so you cling onto others who say they are enlightened, so you can feel smarter yourselves. The only problem is, you're bringing the whole state down in the process.
My question is, do you have any ideas of helping change production methods? Would you support nuclear power (which would drastically reduce CO2 emissions and costs and wean us off foreign oil)? Wind farms and solar power are wonderful technologies, however, they may be too expensive to implement at this moment. France has gone 80% nuclear and they have the lowest electricity costs in Europe and import much less fossil fuels per capita than we do.
I'm pro-nuclear power, and I also favor solar and wind power. The alternatives to fossil fuels will have to be a conglomeration of different energy sources. I'm especially bullish on solar. After all, all energy comes from the sun, so why not tap directly from the source?
As for solar and and wind being expensive, all new technologies start out as being expensive. Who could afford personal computers and cell phones when they first came out? Who's using personal computers and cell phones now?
Quote:
If you don't have the innovation but ban the production, that regression IMO. Innovate first, THEN ban the old technologies. The current policy will only cause California (and the US at large if implemented at federal level) to become more inefficient, and places like China and India (who have no intention of following the Kyoto protocol despite signing it) will take on our old industries and cause any CO2 reduction we've done at home to be moot. So, innovate FIRST the ban. Else, anything we do will be moot (unless we decide to block Chinese goods and Indian goods due to their lax enviro standards, which given their current ownership of trillions in treasuries, I don't see happening).
Nobody's talking about banning CO2 emitting technologies. The law is talking about reducing CO2 emissions, not banning them. And the process is gradual (supposed to take years).
Nobody's talking about banning CO2 emitting technologies. The law is talking about reducing CO2 emissions, not banning them. And the process is gradual (supposed to take years).
I meant reduction, but any type of immediate "cap" can be a "ban" or "tax" in economics terms.
Quote:
As for solar and and wind being expensive, all new technologies start out as being expensive. Who could afford personal computers and cell phones when they first came out? Who's using personal computers and cell phones now?
I will give you a touche.
Also glad you're pro-nuclear. I encounter folks all the time who don't like it, but think that energy will magically fall out of the sky. It's a bit frustrating knowing that we can do it, but that there are NIMBY folks who don't want to push forward with it, even if it were thousands of miles from civilization. They equate Cold War with nuclear power, and it's quite upsetting.
That's bizarre. I usually disagree with happ but he's right, here in this topic. He hasn't been hateful at all.
Some of the most hateful anti intellectual stuff I've seen on a message board, and that's saying something. The mindset of happ was alive and well in Stalinist Russia. I'd like to add something else too. Who cares if some of us do not live in California? It's part of the US, isn't it? Not only that but many of us have friends, family and loved ones in the once and former Golden State. Another thing, I don't much care for chitterlings but just love gospel music. Jazz and blues too. Happ is angry ignorance personified.
Now regarding the issue at hand. Once again we see how both political parties are now brain dead. The Democrats who used to profess love and concern for the working classes will sacrifice all on the altar of environmental political correctness. Their Republican opposition show no alternatives other than to carry on in the same vein. The Democratic majority in California has taken a meat axe approach that will only widen the divide between rich and poor in California, while killing off more of the already depleted middle class. We should have had an energy Manhattan Project in this country. One that would have resulted in the cleaner environment we all want, without sacrificing our already diminished standard of living. There's still time. Build a bridge to the future that will reestablish our nation's technical and economic superiority. Not a plan like California has established that will result in more misery for all but a select few.
I really think this is BS, no offense. I've DEFINITELY seen cleaner LARGE places than LA-SoCal, SF, or the Inland Empire. They are VERY dirty. San Diego is the only clean place I can think of.
Of course there are cleaner large cities. But, in terms of per capita, California actually does a better job than most. You have to remember that California is the largest and most populous State in the Country with 36 million vs. 23 million of Texas the 2nd most populous State. The Los Angeles Southland itself (incorporating LA, OC, IE) has over 18 million or half of California's population. If its' people don't care about environmental issues, then it really doesn't matter how many regulations get set.
The only two States that have a large population that beats California's ranking in the Forbe's list is New York, and New Jersey. Kudos for them. But, more than likely it's because of how their major cities are centered, more walking than driving, rather than a conscious effort of New Yorkers and New Jersians.
Anyhow... that's how I'd rank "green" efforts.... Per capita effects on carbon foot print... and in the most part, California does a better job than most.
Like I said, it's a balance. Over regulation can kill the economic engine and reduce funding for environmental protections. I'm critical of the legistlature... but, in the most part... the goal is necessary for the public good. We just have to figure out how to do it more economically and complete projects that we already started.
less consumption cheaper gas prices less pollution.
americans like big cars. needs to stop. it makes OPEC rich.
There is a fairly quick solution to this if States and managers can see further than traditional management styles.
It's called "telecommuting".
Supposively 40% of jobs can be done by telecommuting and that most workers would prefer it if they can even with reduced pay.
In turn, it would reduce carbon emissions, reduce Oil use, reduce ware and tear on our infrastructure, vehicles, and improve efficiency as people don't waste hours on the road and companies don't have to worry about people being late, fake sickness, and pay higher office expenses (or extra room they don't need).
Some of America's largest companies such as Best Buy, Ebay, S.C. Johnson, and a lot of other companies already use telecommuting as part of their work place strategy and have already reported great results in productivity (sometimes workers work at all hours), and worker satisfaction (as they don't waste time commuting).
The State should create an incentive for companies to incorporate telecommuting. The best way to reduce emissions, is to not emit anything at all.
Maybe? The simplest solution to our problem... is lying right in front of your face (literally).
Some of the most hateful anti intellectual stuff I've seen on a message board, and that's saying something. The mindset of happ was alive and well in Stalinist Russia. I'd like to add something else too. Who cares if some of us do not live in California? It's part of the US, isn't it? Not only that but many of us have friends, family and loved ones in the once and former Golden State. Another thing, I don't much care for chitterlings but just love gospel music. Jazz and blues too. Happ is angry ignorance personified.
This will be the last response to you, my friend. You have the right to post your opinion anywhere on C-D & if you want to call California names & write outrageous political nonsense ["Stalinist Russia" - so I guess governor Schwarzenegger is a Communist since he more than anyone in California has insisted on environmental improvement both in America & abroad - he is a Republican, BWT].
Now, if I decided to get involved in any Southern state forum & cut loose on how much I deplore current Georgia policies then I would be blasted as an interloper who only wants to provoke argument, right? We live in entirely different states w/ quite different outlooks. Maybe that makes America great but maybe it also slows down progress to accommodate resistance to science [including redacting it from official government reports]. Bush actually went to war with California by siding with Detroit automakers over additional safeguards for California-only cars & thwarted Arnold to allow our state to set it's own standards [as it has for 20 yrs].
So when people like yourself decide to support a repression of the truth\ science you can expect a quick response of rejection as well as challenging your motivation [who from California posts in your state's forum referring to you as "commuists" . It is helpful for all posters to check out the opinion of contributers other posts. Generally a pattern emerges about how that poster thinks. Like when you posted your opinion on California's upcoming gubernatorial by referring to us as "marxists". You have the right to post here all you want but you don't have our respect for doing in the manner you chose
And even if all of Californians chuck their cars, computers, homes, and live in mud huts and live off the land, will the reduction in CO2 make our air more breathable? F**K NO! Not even that, OUR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE WILL NOT GO DOWN 0.001 DEGREE AS A RESULT! The other 49 states will still emit CO2. F'ing China and India and Russia certainly will not reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 is a TRACE GAS, so the overall percentage of CO2 reduction by Californians going into mud huts means NOTHING. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. NOTHING.
I looked it up: the atmosphere is 0.038% CO2. The CO2 content has nothing to do with our breathing.
If we are going to do the carbon thing it won't make any difference unless almost all the world does it too. For Californians we will be economically competing with the other states and the rest of the world like a runner in a race with a millstone around their neck.
We need to rethink this and coordinate action with the rest of the world. It makes no sense for one state to go it alone.
I looked it up: the atmosphere is 0.038% CO2. The CO2 content has nothing to do with our breathing.
If we are going to do the carbon thing it won't make any difference unless almost all the world does it too. For Californians we will be economically competing with the other states and the rest of the world like a runner in a race with a millstone around their neck.
We need to rethink this and coordinate action with the rest of the world. It makes no sense for one state to go it alone.
Since when has California's politicians ever cared about our businesses being able to compete in the world? Their goal in life is to put them at as much of a competitive advantage as possible through crazy laws and regulations.
I don't know if the concrete plant is such a good example about job loss though. Doesn't concrete have to be mixed close to the work site? Maybe that guy will move his business to Arizona but California will still need locally produced concrete. The result of this law will mean higher costs for anything made with concrete. So say hello to higher costs for housing, office space, retail space, roads and bridges, power plants (oh, nevermind, they don't build new power plants in California), and a million other things. But since when does the legislature care about your cost of living?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Until you get a hydrogen burning car, STOP DRIVING that CO2 producing car right now! Don't buy anything whose products are shipped by CO2 producing trucks. I hope you get the message, reducing CO2 is going to be a multi-trillion dollar effort.
