Green Jobs in CA!!!

One day after being applauded at a climate change summit in posh Beverly Hills, California officials faced a different kind of reception during a Sacramento public hearing on the state's monumental greenhouse gas reduction plan. A standing room only crowd of Latino farm workers, inner city residents, dozens of cities and air district officials, small businesses and major manufacturers gave the air resources board an earful about the plan.

By far the loudest complaints at the marathon Sacramento hearing were about the use of cap and trade to reduce some emissions, rather than tough, mandatory regulations applied to refineries, power plants and others. Under such trading programs, polluters' greenhouse gas emissions are capped at a certain amount, but the companies are allowed to pay for reductions elsewhere, possibly in other states and countries, and continue to spew out high levels of both greenhouse gases and traditional air pollution locally.

California's proposal would allow such market-based reductions by refineries and power plants. Residents of poor, highly polluted communities say that will leave them eating dust once again.

"No to cap and trade! There is a better way," said Ray Leone, who said he was raised in a migrant worker community in the state's smoggy Central Valley, and now heads a Fresno-based environmental policy institute. He said a similar pollution credit program had already allowed a sooty power plant to be shut down in wealthy Kern County, while allowing large new plant to built in a dirt-poor Fresno area.

"This is a terrible foreshadow of what will come with cap and trade," testified Leone. "It's really a terrible step."
Business groups, community activists blast California’s cap-and-trade plans | Grist

thats the point Maggie, buying the excess when the economy is bad already based on bad science to begin with puts people out of work. You would have these companies, you know the big bad evil companies that employ people, for that evil thing called money, just simply go out of business all for the sake of " saving the planet" which by the way doesn't need saving. Then turn around and wonder why these evil companies are laying off these poor people and putting them on the streets and not providing them with insurance. Amazing,....
 
One day after being applauded at a climate change summit in posh Beverly Hills, California officials faced a different kind of reception during a Sacramento public hearing on the state's monumental greenhouse gas reduction plan. A standing room only crowd of Latino farm workers, inner city residents, dozens of cities and air district officials, small businesses and major manufacturers gave the air resources board an earful about the plan.

By far the loudest complaints at the marathon Sacramento hearing were about the use of cap and trade to reduce some emissions, rather than tough, mandatory regulations applied to refineries, power plants and others. Under such trading programs, polluters' greenhouse gas emissions are capped at a certain amount, but the companies are allowed to pay for reductions elsewhere, possibly in other states and countries, and continue to spew out high levels of both greenhouse gases and traditional air pollution locally.

California's proposal would allow such market-based reductions by refineries and power plants. Residents of poor, highly polluted communities say that will leave them eating dust once again.

"No to cap and trade! There is a better way," said Ray Leone, who said he was raised in a migrant worker community in the state's smoggy Central Valley, and now heads a Fresno-based environmental policy institute. He said a similar pollution credit program had already allowed a sooty power plant to be shut down in wealthy Kern County, while allowing large new plant to built in a dirt-poor Fresno area.

"This is a terrible foreshadow of what will come with cap and trade," testified Leone. "It's really a terrible step."
Business groups, community activists blast California’s cap-and-trade plans | Grist

thats the point Maggie, buying the excess when the economy is bad already based on bad science to begin with puts people out of work. You would have these companies, you know the big bad evil companies that employ people, for that evil thing called money, just simply go out of business all for the sake of " saving the planet" which by the way doesn't need saving. Then turn around and wonder why these evil companies are laying off these poor people and putting them on the streets and not providing them with insurance. Amazing,....

I disagree that it's based on "bad science" so that's a whole different discussion which also never gets resolved among those who believe the majority of scientists and those who believe the naysayers that global warming is a hoax.

I'm not all in favor of cap and trade to begin with, so I'm really in no position to express an opinion. Frankly, the "trade" part looks like it has the potential to become rife with corruption, so I'm hoping some other alternatives are proposed. We already have laws in place for heavy fines in violation of the existing Clean Air Act, so why not put those fines in a separate "escrow-type" account that the violating company could tap into to make the necessary changes in order to comply? Right now, they're just paying the penalty and little gets done to serve the purpose of the penalty. The money goes into the Treasury and then who knows if it's separated out or just goes into the general fund for general spending?
 
One day after being applauded at a climate change summit in posh Beverly Hills, California officials faced a different kind of reception during a Sacramento public hearing on the state's monumental greenhouse gas reduction plan. A standing room only crowd of Latino farm workers, inner city residents, dozens of cities and air district officials, small businesses and major manufacturers gave the air resources board an earful about the plan.

By far the loudest complaints at the marathon Sacramento hearing were about the use of cap and trade to reduce some emissions, rather than tough, mandatory regulations applied to refineries, power plants and others. Under such trading programs, polluters' greenhouse gas emissions are capped at a certain amount, but the companies are allowed to pay for reductions elsewhere, possibly in other states and countries, and continue to spew out high levels of both greenhouse gases and traditional air pollution locally.

California's proposal would allow such market-based reductions by refineries and power plants. Residents of poor, highly polluted communities say that will leave them eating dust once again.

"No to cap and trade! There is a better way," said Ray Leone, who said he was raised in a migrant worker community in the state's smoggy Central Valley, and now heads a Fresno-based environmental policy institute. He said a similar pollution credit program had already allowed a sooty power plant to be shut down in wealthy Kern County, while allowing large new plant to built in a dirt-poor Fresno area.

"This is a terrible foreshadow of what will come with cap and trade," testified Leone. "It's really a terrible step."
Business groups, community activists blast California’s cap-and-trade plans | Grist

thats the point Maggie, buying the excess when the economy is bad already based on bad science to begin with puts people out of work. You would have these companies, you know the big bad evil companies that employ people, for that evil thing called money, just simply go out of business all for the sake of " saving the planet" which by the way doesn't need saving. Then turn around and wonder why these evil companies are laying off these poor people and putting them on the streets and not providing them with insurance. Amazing,....

I disagree that it's based on "bad science" so that's a whole different discussion which also never gets resolved among those who believe the majority of scientists and those who believe the naysayers that global warming is a hoax.

I'm not all in favor of cap and trade to begin with, so I'm really in no position to express an opinion. Frankly, the "trade" part looks like it has the potential to become rife with corruption, so I'm hoping some other alternatives are proposed. We already have laws in place for heavy fines in violation of the existing Clean Air Act, so why not put those fines in a separate "escrow-type" account that the violating company could tap into to make the necessary changes in order to comply? Right now, they're just paying the penalty and little gets done to serve the purpose of the penalty. The money goes into the Treasury and then who knows if it's separated out or just goes into the general fund for general spending?

First lets be honest here, the majority of IPCC scientists agree with that not the majority of scientists. You are aware that the IPCC took a report done by Dr. Mann of the Univ. of Va. known as the "hockey stick" and basically reproduced it without any study? There are in fact literally thousands of scientists that disagree with the findings of the IPCC. I don't believe scientists from MIT, Harvard, Yale, Univirsity of Alabama, and institutions all over the world can hardly be considered "naysayers" because they don't agree with Dr. Mann's findings and march in lock step with the "Global Warming" sky is falling crowd. You are aware that many of these environmental laws are the direct reason why this country is not a business friendly nation and then the democrats keep asking why jobs are outsourced. The facts are there are many different energy solutions out there that would meet the demands this nation has and do so in a environmentally sensitive manner and not destroy this nations economy while doing so. This nation needs to end it's dependance on foreign sources of energy and by imposing a tax on domestic sources of fossil fuels making imported sources of energy cheaper is NOT one of them. You want "green jobs", you want a "green economy" then allow for ALL domestic energy solutions to be tapped and they can be done so in an environmentally sensitive manner and tell the the enviromental lobby to stop putting the interest of this nation on the back burner or otherwise get out of the way,.,.
 
i keep on saying....what ever California does....DONT DO IT.....25-30 years ago California was an innovator of progress.....now they are the innovators of destruction....Nancy Pelosi,Barbara Boxer,Henry Waxmen,Maxine Waters,David Drier,Jerry Lewis and numerous state assembly asswipes....they come to your state....call the MILITIA.....they are all considered DESTRUCTIVE to human society...ESPECIALLY ....ANYONE in the state legislature....

I think they are reacting to what the people in their districts want, just as the Republican California lawmakers do northward of LA County. Who do you think doesn't want drilling for oil off the coast of Santa Barbara? Democrats? Uh uh...the wealthy "conservatives" in that county who don't want their starter castles to look out upon oil platforms.

It works both ways.

Actually, according to a poll taken in 2008, paid for by the oil companies, 61% of the residents in Santa Barbara County favor offshore drilling compared to 51% statewide who oppose it. The county has no control over the issue as offshore drilling in SB has been by both the state and federal government since a spill in 1969. In 1969, the governor was one Edmund Gerald "Pat" Brown, Sr. (D). In 1969, Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
 
Schwarzenegger has thrown his support behind a Texas company's proposal to tap an oil field just off the coast of Santa Barbara County. Drills lowered from an existing oil platform near Vandenberg Air Force Base would bore as many as 30 wells into the seabed over the life of the project. The state could reap $1.8 billion in royalties over 14 years.

Viewed on an annual basis, that isn't much - just over $100 million a year. But with California's government facing a $24.3 billion deficit and literally running out of money, the Tranquillon Ridge drilling project would give the governor a rare new source of revenue.

To critics, that smacks of selling out California's treasured coast.

Federal bans on offshore drilling along the nation's East and West coasts expired last year, done in by the historic spike in oil and gasoline prices. California officials - including Schwarzenegger - have been pushing the Obama administration to reinstate the bans. If the state allows this one project, critics say, that argument will be much harder to make.

"The symbolism of drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel is like the symbolism of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," said Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara. "It means you can drill anywhere."

The project's supporters - including many environmentalists - consider those fears misplaced. Tranquillon Ridge, they say, is too unique to serve as a Trojan Horse for opening the coast.
Schwarzenegger considers oil drilling off coast
 
i keep on saying....what ever California does....DONT DO IT.....25-30 years ago California was an innovator of progress.....now they are the innovators of destruction....Nancy Pelosi,Barbara Boxer,Henry Waxmen,Maxine Waters,David Drier,Jerry Lewis and numerous state assembly asswipes....they come to your state....call the MILITIA.....they are all considered DESTRUCTIVE to human society...ESPECIALLY ....ANYONE in the state legislature....

I think they are reacting to what the people in their districts want, just as the Republican California lawmakers do northward of LA County. Who do you think doesn't want drilling for oil off the coast of Santa Barbara? Democrats? Uh uh...the wealthy "conservatives" in that county who don't want their starter castles to look out upon oil platforms.

It works both ways.

never indicated otherwise ....its the same shit with the Kennedy's and the wind turbines that they dont want off the coast where their palace lies in Mass.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo2rMj8KVtQ]YouTube - John Stossel Wind Power and NIMBY[/ame]

Exactly Harry, when it comes to environmental regulations and bills, that put a foot down on the economic throat of people in this nation the same people that sit up and tell us all how wonderful it is for us then cry NIMBY when it comes to their own little worlds.... See Al Gore's jet. or Nancy Pelosi's for that matter or the number of congressman that have their SUV's at idle A/C running in front of Capitol everyday. Then you have Partrick Kennedy telling us all how terrible we are because we use coal and that nasty old nuclear. But no way he will have a wind farm in his backyard It might spoil the view out his window...
 
YouTube - John Stossel Wind Power and NIMBY

Exactly Harry, when it comes to environmental regulations and bills, that put a foot down on the economic throat of people in this nation the same people that sit up and tell us all how wonderful it is for us then cry NIMBY when it comes to their own little worlds.... See Al Gore's jet. or Nancy Pelosi's for that matter or the number of congressman that have their SUV's at idle A/C running in front of Capitol everyday. Then you have Partrick Kennedy telling us all how terrible we are because we use coal and that nasty old nuclear. But no way he will have a wind farm in his backyard It might spoil the view out his window...

and what gets me is that fucking lowlife hypercritical nephew of his Robert, the so called "environmentalist" is the lawyer representing the family to keep those things out of there....but if you wanna put them in your backyard....we can work it out....
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy2zGGSf-tg]YouTube - The Truth About Al Gore[/ame]
 
i keep on saying....what ever California does....DONT DO IT.....25-30 years ago California was an innovator of progress.....now they are the innovators of destruction....Nancy Pelosi,Barbara Boxer,Henry Waxmen,Maxine Waters,David Drier,Jerry Lewis and numerous state assembly asswipes....they come to your state....call the MILITIA.....they are all considered DESTRUCTIVE to human society...ESPECIALLY ....ANYONE in the state legislature....

I think they are reacting to what the people in their districts want, just as the Republican California lawmakers do northward of LA County. Who do you think doesn't want drilling for oil off the coast of Santa Barbara? Democrats? Uh uh...the wealthy "conservatives" in that county who don't want their starter castles to look out upon oil platforms.

It works both ways.

Actually, according to a poll taken in 2008, paid for by the oil companies, 61% of the residents in Santa Barbara County favor offshore drilling compared to 51% statewide who oppose it. The county has no control over the issue as offshore drilling in SB has been by both the state and federal government since a spill in 1969. In 1969, the governor was one Edmund Gerald "Pat" Brown, Sr. (D). In 1969, Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. Democratic governors caused an oil spill?

Santa Barbara can't seem to make up its mind.

California county retreats on offshore drilling | Green Business | Reuters
 
LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - California's controller said on Wednesday that he would have to issue IOUs in a week if lawmakers can't quickly solve a $24 billion budget deficit, and the state's treasurer plans to tap a reserve fund to meet debt service costs.

The measures came as a budget crisis deepened in the most populous U.S. state and the gridlocked legislature failed to pass a proposed $11 billion in cuts.

"Next Wednesday we start a fiscal year with a massively unbalanced spending plan and a cash shortfall not seen since the Great Depression," Controller John Chiang said in a statement announcing that he would be forced to use IOUs to pay the state's bills beginning on July 2.

California set to issue IOUs as fiscal crisis weighs | Reuters

and this is the standard they want to set for the rest of the nation *shakes my head*

You're jumping from one particular subject (CA's emission standards) to another broader issue (CA's lousy accounting practices in general). Nobody has suggested the whole country should follow CA's lead on anything except regulating pollutants.
 
One day after being applauded at a climate change summit in posh Beverly Hills, California officials faced a different kind of reception during a Sacramento public hearing on the state's monumental greenhouse gas reduction plan. A standing room only crowd of Latino farm workers, inner city residents, dozens of cities and air district officials, small businesses and major manufacturers gave the air resources board an earful about the plan.

By far the loudest complaints at the marathon Sacramento hearing were about the use of cap and trade to reduce some emissions, rather than tough, mandatory regulations applied to refineries, power plants and others. Under such trading programs, polluters' greenhouse gas emissions are capped at a certain amount, but the companies are allowed to pay for reductions elsewhere, possibly in other states and countries, and continue to spew out high levels of both greenhouse gases and traditional air pollution locally.

California's proposal would allow such market-based reductions by refineries and power plants. Residents of poor, highly polluted communities say that will leave them eating dust once again.

"No to cap and trade! There is a better way," said Ray Leone, who said he was raised in a migrant worker community in the state's smoggy Central Valley, and now heads a Fresno-based environmental policy institute. He said a similar pollution credit program had already allowed a sooty power plant to be shut down in wealthy Kern County, while allowing large new plant to built in a dirt-poor Fresno area.

"This is a terrible foreshadow of what will come with cap and trade," testified Leone. "It's really a terrible step."
Business groups, community activists blast California’s cap-and-trade plans | Grist

thats the point Maggie, buying the excess when the economy is bad already based on bad science to begin with puts people out of work. You would have these companies, you know the big bad evil companies that employ people, for that evil thing called money, just simply go out of business all for the sake of " saving the planet" which by the way doesn't need saving. Then turn around and wonder why these evil companies are laying off these poor people and putting them on the streets and not providing them with insurance. Amazing,....

I disagree that it's based on "bad science" so that's a whole different discussion which also never gets resolved among those who believe the majority of scientists and those who believe the naysayers that global warming is a hoax.

I'm not all in favor of cap and trade to begin with, so I'm really in no position to express an opinion. Frankly, the "trade" part looks like it has the potential to become rife with corruption, so I'm hoping some other alternatives are proposed. We already have laws in place for heavy fines in violation of the existing Clean Air Act, so why not put those fines in a separate "escrow-type" account that the violating company could tap into to make the necessary changes in order to comply? Right now, they're just paying the penalty and little gets done to serve the purpose of the penalty. The money goes into the Treasury and then who knows if it's separated out or just goes into the general fund for general spending?

First lets be honest here, the majority of IPCC scientists agree with that not the majority of scientists. You are aware that the IPCC took a report done by Dr. Mann of the Univ. of Va. known as the "hockey stick" and basically reproduced it without any study? There are in fact literally thousands of scientists that disagree with the findings of the IPCC. I don't believe scientists from MIT, Harvard, Yale, Univirsity of Alabama, and institutions all over the world can hardly be considered "naysayers" because they don't agree with Dr. Mann's findings and march in lock step with the "Global Warming" sky is falling crowd. You are aware that many of these environmental laws are the direct reason why this country is not a business friendly nation and then the democrats keep asking why jobs are outsourced. The facts are there are many different energy solutions out there that would meet the demands this nation has and do so in a environmentally sensitive manner and not destroy this nations economy while doing so. This nation needs to end it's dependance on foreign sources of energy and by imposing a tax on domestic sources of fossil fuels making imported sources of energy cheaper is NOT one of them. You want "green jobs", you want a "green economy" then allow for ALL domestic energy solutions to be tapped and they can be done so in an environmentally sensitive manner and tell the the enviromental lobby to stop putting the interest of this nation on the back burner or otherwise get out of the way,.,.

Whatever...you and I don't agree about much of anything, but at least you're nice about it.


ti0601341.jpg


earth.jpg


...
 
i keep on saying....what ever California does....DONT DO IT.....25-30 years ago California was an innovator of progress.....now they are the innovators of destruction....Nancy Pelosi,Barbara Boxer,Henry Waxmen,Maxine Waters,David Drier,Jerry Lewis and numerous state assembly asswipes....they come to your state....call the MILITIA.....they are all considered DESTRUCTIVE to human society...ESPECIALLY ....ANYONE in the state legislature....

I think they are reacting to what the people in their districts want, just as the Republican California lawmakers do northward of LA County. Who do you think doesn't want drilling for oil off the coast of Santa Barbara? Democrats? Uh uh...the wealthy "conservatives" in that county who don't want their starter castles to look out upon oil platforms.

It works both ways.

never indicated otherwise ....its the same shit with the Kennedy's and the wind turbines that they dont want off the coast where their palace lies in Mass.

Really? I coulda sworn...
 
YouTube - John Stossel Wind Power and NIMBY

Exactly Harry, when it comes to environmental regulations and bills, that put a foot down on the economic throat of people in this nation the same people that sit up and tell us all how wonderful it is for us then cry NIMBY when it comes to their own little worlds.... See Al Gore's jet. or Nancy Pelosi's for that matter or the number of congressman that have their SUV's at idle A/C running in front of Capitol everyday. Then you have Partrick Kennedy telling us all how terrible we are because we use coal and that nasty old nuclear. But no way he will have a wind farm in his backyard It might spoil the view out his window...

Too bad, Navy, but I think your brainwashing is complete. You too finally believe that it's ONLY Democrats with attitudes and bad policy. It's sad, really.

Just for the heck of it (I was hoping to find some article on Jeb Bush and Mel Martinez instrumental in getting a moratorium on Florida's offshore drilling), so I Googled the two words: REPUBLICAN NIMBYS. Voila! Pages of examples, my friend, too numerous to pick through to find the one I wanted. But I did settle on this gem which seems to say it all, with respect to basic hypocrisy.

Tertium Quids: The GOP NIMBYs
 
YouTube - John Stossel Wind Power and NIMBY

Exactly Harry, when it comes to environmental regulations and bills, that put a foot down on the economic throat of people in this nation the same people that sit up and tell us all how wonderful it is for us then cry NIMBY when it comes to their own little worlds.... See Al Gore's jet. or Nancy Pelosi's for that matter or the number of congressman that have their SUV's at idle A/C running in front of Capitol everyday. Then you have Partrick Kennedy telling us all how terrible we are because we use coal and that nasty old nuclear. But no way he will have a wind farm in his backyard It might spoil the view out his window...

Too bad, Navy, but I think your brainwashing is complete. You too finally believe that it's ONLY Democrats with attitudes and bad policy. It's sad, really.

Just for the heck of it (I was hoping to find some article on Jeb Bush and Mel Martinez instrumental in getting a moratorium on Florida's offshore drilling), so I Googled the two words: REPUBLICAN NIMBYS. Voila! Pages of examples, my friend, too numerous to pick through to find the one I wanted. But I did settle on this gem which seems to say it all, with respect to basic hypocrisy.

Tertium Quids: The GOP NIMBYs
except thats not what he said
 
LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - California's controller said on Wednesday that he would have to issue IOUs in a week if lawmakers can't quickly solve a $24 billion budget deficit, and the state's treasurer plans to tap a reserve fund to meet debt service costs.

The measures came as a budget crisis deepened in the most populous U.S. state and the gridlocked legislature failed to pass a proposed $11 billion in cuts.

"Next Wednesday we start a fiscal year with a massively unbalanced spending plan and a cash shortfall not seen since the Great Depression," Controller John Chiang said in a statement announcing that he would be forced to use IOUs to pay the state's bills beginning on July 2.

California set to issue IOUs as fiscal crisis weighs | Reuters

and this is the standard they want to set for the rest of the nation *shakes my head*

You're jumping from one particular subject (CA's emission standards) to another broader issue (CA's lousy accounting practices in general). Nobody has suggested the whole country should follow CA's lead on anything except regulating pollutants.

Maggie, we are adopting Ca. emission standards for cars, building codes, and even following patterns set down in California for industrial emission caps. Those are not my words those are straight from Mr. Waxman's hearing. As for California's budget issues, let me say this, when companies leave Califorina because of the heavy hand of regulation the tax base shrinks and the state takes in less money! I know you understand that Maggie, now while I won't blame all of California's problems on that, I can see that it is a contributing factor, and would say that to follow those same patterns across the nation would lead to the same results nation wide.
 
YouTube - John Stossel Wind Power and NIMBY

Exactly Harry, when it comes to environmental regulations and bills, that put a foot down on the economic throat of people in this nation the same people that sit up and tell us all how wonderful it is for us then cry NIMBY when it comes to their own little worlds.... See Al Gore's jet. or Nancy Pelosi's for that matter or the number of congressman that have their SUV's at idle A/C running in front of Capitol everyday. Then you have Partrick Kennedy telling us all how terrible we are because we use coal and that nasty old nuclear. But no way he will have a wind farm in his backyard It might spoil the view out his window...

Too bad, Navy, but I think your brainwashing is complete. You too finally believe that it's ONLY Democrats with attitudes and bad policy. It's sad, really.


Just for the heck of it (I was hoping to find some article on Jeb Bush and Mel Martinez instrumental in getting a moratorium on Florida's offshore drilling), so I Googled the two words: REPUBLICAN NIMBYS. Voila! Pages of examples, my friend, too numerous to pick through to find the one I wanted. But I did settle on this gem which seems to say it all, with respect to basic hypocrisy.

Tertium Quids: The GOP NIMBYs

Way too leap to a conclusion there Maggie, however, I make no distinction between stupid republican legislation and stupid democrat legislation. See my comments about the AIG Bailouts, and I'm not just talking about the stimulus. BAd bills are bad bills no matter who puts them up. Actually , I think wind is a good solution, but is one solution , and not one by itself. The only reason I mentioned NIMBY in this issue is because I happen to notice that cap and trade is a democratic bill. Your right though .. Mel Marteniz should have supported offshore drilling in Fl. If you support a soultion then you support it!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top