West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Russell Bell on November 04, 2010, 12:40:41 AM
-
I don't understand it honestly. I know that green jobs are part of the future (distant future or near future, thats up to who you ask), but should we really be overhauling the system (which will cost lots and lots of money and cause employers to not want to hire) in a time when as a state we have 12% unemployment? In my humble opinion, I say absolutely fuck no.
I look at the added costs to businesses who have vehicles or heavy machinery who will have to improve current equipment or buy new stuff, and I see places that are going to lay people off and not hire anyone new. The law that will have to be followed because of prop 23's failure at the polls, calls for businesses to reduce their greenhouse gasses to a 1990 level (25% according to wiki).
Someone who voted against this give me a reason why.
-
I'm an environmentalist. You want to take a look at added cost to business, well I'm taking a look at added cost to the environment. It's much more severe in the long run. The LAO couldn't even accurate report the pros and cons to Prop 23, they're just a bunch of vague beliefs for both sides.
-
Meanwhile the "environmentalists" can't see the bigger picture, the pollution will just move elsewhere while on aggregate the developed world's standard of living quickly erodes, but don't let the bigger picture get in the way of your "principles".
No one of importance really gives a flying fuck about "pollution" the depleted uranium they have dropped by the millions of tonnes in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan also, but nope, gotta have your feel good factor. It will feel good when you hear of ten million green jobs being created, you won't care about the 30 million jobs lost as a result because you are captain planet!
And so the new religion is birthed
-
Meanwhile the "environmentalists" can't see the bigger picture, the pollution will just move elsewhere while on aggregate the developed world's standard of living quickly erodes, but don't let the bigger picture get in the way of your "principles".
No one of importance really gives a flying fuck about "pollution" the depleted uranium they have dropped by the millions of tonnes in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan also, but nope, gotta have your feel good factor. It will feel good when you hear of ten million green jobs being created, you won't care about the 30 million jobs lost as a result because you are captain planet!
And so the new religion is birthed
I don't give a fuck about other places, I give a fuck about where I live. Go ahead and put quotation marks over pollution like if it's myth, there are motherfuckers dying with cancer along the 710 corridor in Long Beach/L.A.. Oh wait, it's just a coincidence I'm sure that there is a higher concentration of cancer in that area than in the rest of the state based on pure randomness. Go ahead and make fun of these people, with your "witty" remarks about Captain Planet, it's not changing my beliefs about where I live. This is my fucking house.
-
Bad economic times are exactly the right time to make regulations stricter and force this technology to be implemented because if these things were done during good times the corporations would still complain and say "this'll cause a slowdown, can't we wait some more?".
We can't wait anymore. We have the technology and the knowledge to replace fossil fuel already, it's just a matter of forcing the cheapass corporations to make the initial buys to create an economy-of-scale and bring the technology into wide use. You may not know this, cars between 1910 and 1922 were all-electric, it wasn't til the mid-20s that gasoline became cheaper than electricity thanks to the Saudi oil fields being drilled.
We need to create a system to pay Californians well if they generate extra electricity and the state should also loan money to homeowners to buy American solar panels or to fix up their homes for conservation. Both those things would circulate money in the economy and create jobs for the construction industry, while saving electricity and creating a market for solar energy.
Also, they should require both conservation technology and solar technology in all future buildings via building codes because recently an MIT lab developed solar tech that you can literally paint on a building so that the entire part of said building that gets sunlight can be used to produce energy. Combine that with wireless electricity and continue to develop the technology and we could make fossil fuels unnecessary.
Fuck the oil and coal corporations. Since the 1970s they've bought the rights to these technologies to hold the patent and prevent them from being produced to protect their ill-gotten monopoly.
-
Meanwhile the "environmentalists" can't see the bigger picture, the pollution will just move elsewhere while on aggregate the developed world's standard of living quickly erodes, but don't let the bigger picture get in the way of your "principles".
No one of importance really gives a flying fuck about "pollution" the depleted uranium they have dropped by the millions of tonnes in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan also, but nope, gotta have your feel good factor. It will feel good when you hear of ten million green jobs being created, you won't care about the 30 million jobs lost as a result because you are captain planet!
And so the new religion is birthed
I don't give a fuck about other places, I give a fuck about where I live. Go ahead and put quotation marks over pollution like if it's myth, there are motherfuckers dying with cancer along the 710 corridor in Long Beach/L.A.. Oh wait, it's just a coincidence I'm sure that there is a higher concentration of cancer in that area than in the rest of the state based on pure randomness. Go ahead and make fun of these people, with your "witty" remarks about Captain Planet, it's not changing my beliefs about where I live. This is my fucking house.
Cancer rates are 1 in 3, because of the synthetic crap you digest, the radiation around you and the CRAP they put in the water supplies, there is of course the sulphur and all that good stuff, but if it's not in your back yard the prevailing winds carry it to you.
Oh and ah yes, the small matter of depleted uranium being dropped like confetti!
Don't you get how marketing works? you use the most striking examples to sell your product, in this case, it's about some genuinely bad cases which sell the case of shutting everything down bar the few.
-
Meanwhile the "environmentalists" can't see the bigger picture, the pollution will just move elsewhere while on aggregate the developed world's standard of living quickly erodes, but don't let the bigger picture get in the way of your "principles".
No one of importance really gives a flying fuck about "pollution" the depleted uranium they have dropped by the millions of tonnes in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan also, but nope, gotta have your feel good factor. It will feel good when you hear of ten million green jobs being created, you won't care about the 30 million jobs lost as a result because you are captain planet!
And so the new religion is birthed
I don't give a fuck about other places, I give a fuck about where I live. Go ahead and put quotation marks over pollution like if it's myth, there are motherfuckers dying with cancer along the 710 corridor in Long Beach/L.A.. Oh wait, it's just a coincidence I'm sure that there is a higher concentration of cancer in that area than in the rest of the state based on pure randomness. Go ahead and make fun of these people, with your "witty" remarks about Captain Planet, it's not changing my beliefs about where I live. This is my fucking house.
Cancer rates are 1 in 3, because of the synthetic crap you digest, the radiation around you and the CRAP they put in the water supplies, there is of course the sulphur and all that good stuff, but if it's not in your back yard the prevailing winds carry it to you.
Oh and ah yes, the small matter of depleted uranium being dropped like confetti!
Don't you get how marketing works? you use the most striking examples to sell your product, in this case, it's about some genuinely bad cases which sell the case of shutting everything down bar the few.
Yeah fucking marketing, because people all over the god damn united states care about that 710 corridor. SHIT IT'S ALL OVER THE WEB/NEWS/FORUMS OMG EVERYWHERE. Yeah, I have more faith in a peer reviewed study about the 710 corridor and its surrounding areas than whatever the fuck you're gonna say about it.
-
There are local environmental issues throughout the world, if these local issues are being deal with the support of the local community...why should outsiders give a fuck? Mind your own god damn business.
-
Bad economic times are exactly the right time to make regulations stricter and force this technology to be implemented because if these things were done during good times the corporations would still complain and say "this'll cause a slowdown, can't we wait some more?".
We can't wait anymore. We have the technology and the knowledge to replace fossil fuel already, it's just a matter of forcing the cheapass corporations to make the initial buys to create an economy-of-scale and bring the technology into wide use. You may not know this, cars between 1910 and 1922 were all-electric, it wasn't til the mid-20s that gasoline became cheaper than electricity thanks to the Saudi oil fields being drilled.
We need to create a system to pay Californians well if they generate extra electricity and the state should also loan money to homeowners to buy American solar panels or to fix up their homes for conservation. Both those things would circulate money in the economy and create jobs for the construction industry, while saving electricity and creating a market for solar energy.
Also, they should require both conservation technology and solar technology in all future buildings via building codes because recently an MIT lab developed solar tech that you can literally paint on a building so that the entire part of said building that gets sunlight can be used to produce energy. Combine that with wireless electricity and continue to develop the technology and we could make fossil fuels unnecessary.
Fuck the oil and coal corporations. Since the 1970s they've bought the rights to these technologies to hold the patent and prevent them from being produced to protect their ill-gotten monopoly.
Incorrect actually and bad researching, the oil corporations like this, they can make huge amounts of money off carbon trading because there are many processes they can modify to rake in carbon offsetting.
-
There are local environmental issues throughout the world, if these local issues are being deal with the support of the local community...why should outsiders give a fuck? Mind your own god damn business.
An "outsider" has every right to express themselves on any issue, or else there really would be no actual discussion just continuous piggy backing and back slapping. As an "outsider" it should also speak to the unbelievable blindness and naivety.
I mean for fuck sake if you want to live in a dirt poor country where industry is but a speck on the map, then I am sure there are many places you can go to.
That is basically the future of America, but it won't matter, at least not for a while because it will feel good and then people will just wrap themselves in the bullshit of the "elections" every few years when suddenly hmm maybe rollings things back decades and decades wasn't a good idea because the developing countries will do whatever they want and perhaps being dirt poor aint so cool after all.
-
What I find really fucking hilarious is that it wasn't that long ago where environmental concerns were seen as anti establishment ideas, now it clear isn't. Apparently, I'm a part of this huge monster that is trying to fuck people over and get rich off. Your "outsider" bullshit doesn't contribute nothing. How about people work on disproving all of these peer reviewed work that deals with environmental issues, until then there is no discussion.
-
That is why I used the term naivety, you are right, the environmentalist movement is big, many genuine concerns, but it's being steered.
I remember when environmentalists were concerned about GM foods, rightly so to, but then along came the cries of the sky is falling save the earth from carbon emissions and suddenly the majority switched completely off this issue.
I illustrated the point before, false arguments are used to nullify, like "oh the oil corporations love the sound of your language" when they LOVE "your" language for the very point I have mentioned above.
I never said that environmentalists intentionally want to hurt themselves or others or intentionally collude, but merely that people are being swept along by the latest craze and that, if it wasn't in the interests of the special interests, then there would be no funding for these things, they would register, sure as outrage, but muted outrage, ignored by the media and the mainstream as a whole.
-
That is why I used the term naivety, you are right, the environmentalist movement is big, many genuine concerns, but it's being steered.
I remember when environmentalists were concerned about GM foods, rightly so to, but then along came the cries of the sky is falling save the earth from carbon emissions and suddenly the majority switched completely off this issue.
I illustrated the point before, false arguments are used to nullify, like "oh the oil corporations love the sound of your language" when they LOVE "your" language for the very point I have mentioned above.
I never said that environmentalists intentionally want to hurt themselves or others or intentionally collude, but merely that people are being swept along by the latest craze and that, if it wasn't in the interests of the special interests, then there would be no funding for these things, they would register, sure as outrage, but muted outrage, ignored by the media and the mainstream as a whole.
I agree that they are being steered. I mean, look at how much the state of CA can make from smog checks? Yes, they are necessary to a point. But they have a built in tax of 8.25 for each one that goes directly to the state!! One shouldn't forget environmentalism has been turned into a business, and just like every other business, the pursuit of money clouds original intentions.
-
I'm an environmentalist. You want to take a look at added cost to business, well I'm taking a look at added cost to the environment. It's much more severe in the long run. The LAO couldn't even accurate report the pros and cons to Prop 23, they're just a bunch of vague beliefs for both sides.
Ok. I feel you that prop 23 does have a kind of "who knows" factor.....to some extent. It is common sense that if a businesses costs go up, especially if they aren't getting a return from their investments, will have less money. USUALLY....less money = less hiring/more firing. I get that your area of the state is a terrible place for smog, but so is mine (the Central Valley). I just don't understand the timing of this bill I guess. It is so incredibly bad. It really reeks of that "elitism" that many complain about when talking about gov't, usually environmentalist-only dem's or business-only minded repubs. 12% unemployment means a whole hell of a lot more (and should to everyone who has family who are looking 4 jobs or are doing it themselves) than a few more carcinogens in the air.
-
Real unemployment levels are above 20% by the way, as horrifying as 12% is, it's nowhere near the full picture.
-
Real unemployment levels are above 20% by the way, as horrifying as 12% is, it's nowhere near the full picture.
Yep. The number they give us doesn't include people who have given up looking for work but still need it, etc. We are truly fucked. And to be honest, if our environment gets fucked a little harder while our economy (hopefully, somehow, and very slowly) recovers, who gives a shit.
The David Arquette videos sum this issue up perfectly for me. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/david-arquette-prop-23-vi_n_768952.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/david-arquette-prop-23-vi_n_768952.html)
The general idea is that Big Oil is beating the shit out of California with its pollution, and in the video, David Arquette is taking punches from the Big Oil "thugs" and therefore represents the California citizen/environment, whatever. I find it hilarious that rich celebrities use these issues to vilify rich companies who lobby for their interests (and in this case, the working man's interest) when they do the exact same shit. I also find it funny that someone who doesn't need to look for work is so adamantly against this prop (coincidence?) and is convincing others who should be worried about working to vote against their own future.
-
The economy isn't everything. Some things are more important, one of which is the environment. That's why I voted no on 23.
-
The economy isn't everything. Some things are more important, one of which is the environment. That's why I voted no on 23.
Thats another funny thing about this. Many people who supported this, would support expansion of welfare, entitlements, etc (aka social programs for poor people). But they turn around and support something that will kill jobs (at least in the short term) that will hurt the guy trying to improve his own situation and avoid leeching off the govt. Just an observation, not necessarily anyone in here.
I know a lot of people around where I live (mostly dumb college kids who hate anything associated with republicans, like 23) just looked at it as a partisan issue...."well oil companies suck, and they like, like to hurt people and the environment, and didn't Bush have something to do with oil? Yeah I'm voting against it". I respect that you actually have some convictions, even though I disagree big time.
Would you have the same opinion if you were working in a machine-heavy industry (Im assuming u dont), like construction or agriculture?
-
See, this is where I have a fundamental difference with the modern GOP.
Not everyone who use social programs are 'leeches', or even most of them. There are truly sick and disabled and disadvantaged people who get left to die if we just tell them to fuck themselves...and a democracy cannot exist with large mobs of sick, disabled or poor people just staying in the street. They suffer, and it wounds society creating a festering sore which makes people angry and crazy, which you can see a bit of now with how many people are losing their homes and people get more and more bitter and our economy worsens. Imagine if we abolished Social Security tomorrow like the Rs want. There are so many people who have either lost everything or never had anything in the first place for whom $500 a month (SSI maximum payment) is their only resource at all.
And protecting the environment is more important than jobs. You're argument is basically one of the arguments for making all drugs legal as well, because all the various drug jobs are better than no jobs at all, right? But hard drugs (not weed) damage society because they are addictive and cause crime as people are essentially slaves to the high. In that same way we have to protect the environment because if sea levels rise and the climate changes severely it will affect food and water supplies for the entire world.
It's like that saying, "Don't shit where you eat."
-
See, this is where I have a fundamental difference with the modern GOP.
Not everyone who use social programs are 'leeches', or even most of them. There are truly sick and disabled and disadvantaged people who get left to die if we just tell them to fuck themselves...and a democracy cannot exist with large mobs of sick, disabled or poor people just staying in the street. They suffer, and it wounds society creating a festering sore which makes people angry and crazy, which you can see a bit of now with how many people are losing their homes and people get more and more bitter and our economy worsens. Imagine if we abolished Social Security tomorrow like the Rs want. There are so many people who have either lost everything or never had anything in the first place for whom $500 a month (SSI maximum payment) is their only resource at all.
And protecting the environment is more important than jobs. You're argument is basically one of the arguments for making all drugs legal as well, because all the various drug jobs are better than no jobs at all, right? But hard drugs (not weed) damage society because they are addictive and cause crime as people are essentially slaves to the high. In that same way we have to protect the environment because if sea levels rise and the climate changes severely it will affect food and water supplies for the entire world.
It's like saying don't shit where you eat."
Fact is, many people cheat the welfare system. Because we live in such a "PC" society when dealing with certain people/groups, a lot of times people are afraid to voice this and afraid to hear it cause it might sound bigoted to someone who doesnt know better. I am not saying that we shouldnt have some assistance or that all people on it are cheats. I know many people who survive off of govt assistance (family, friends who actually deserve it). But, think about how many people you know that would lie or cheat their way to get something they wanted if they thought it was possible they got away with it. This is human nature to do this. The people saying they "can't work" because of a technicality but really if they pushed themselves halfway they would be fine. Couples having multiple kids without thinking of the effect: child care paid for, needed medical services,etc. Look all I'm saying is that there are alotta cheats out there doing this because of the golden faucet being turned on in states like CA. Look at our state then look others: we are the biggest welfare state in the country, and cant provide our communities with simple services.
How does this tie into 23? Making more regulations on businesses in an especially tough time will probably lead to less hiring and more firing. We dont need to be hurting small business right now, we should help it so it can hire us. Less unemployment = less people on govt assistance. If we were able to give jobs to those who need them, then we could more afford to help those that really do need govt assistance.
-
California's welfare system has been largely abolished and the maximum CalWORKS payment was $221, *before* Schwarzenegger got rid of it. And I think you had to prove you were getting job training, and you were limited to 2 years (for life). And most studies said it was effective at getting people independent.
And I'm with you when it comes to kids. Society should encourage the poor to get an abortion. There are so many people who shit out kids and dump them in the system and to me the system was worse than death in terms of how shitty it is (and I was only in it a few years, imagine what it is to be in the system from birth).
If it were up to me senior year in high school would be all about life skills like parenting, how to get a job, how to cook instead of fast food and how basically to function independently. So many kids don't have that and it would reduce poverty right there.
The oil industry and big polluters will prosper regardless of the economic or legal situation and they certainly aren't small businesses. See, even after the Gulf disaster BP made record profits so I really am not concerned about them.
If you really support small businesses we need to handle the severe shortage of credit so business can expand, hire and create domestic demand. We need that, because the big banks are too busy investing in China and leeching from our government to pay for it.
-
Would you have the same opinion if you were working in a machine-heavy industry (Im assuming u dont), like construction or agriculture?
No, I don't work in a machine-heavy industry. If I did of course I would feel differently.
I understand where you are coming from too. I never look at issues like this as black-and-white. I feel whether the proposition passed or got rejected, there would be some negative consequence, which have been pointed out in here. I guess it all boils down to a voter's individual priorities. We differ on that, but I understand your viewpoint completely.
-
I was against prop 23 because it dwells in such a shady grey area. There's no conclusive evidence that it would even lower the unemployment rate. Then there's the actual stipulations. It seems like just an excuse for major corporations to get out of going green. And look who were the major backers of Prop 23. Is it that hard to put 2 and 2 together? Going green will have a much more positive affect on our economy in the long run. There's ways to fix our short-term problems without giving up our future.
-
I was against prop 23 because it dwells in such a shady grey area. There's no conclusive evidence that it would even lower the unemployment rate. Then there's the actual stipulations. It seems like just an excuse for major corporations to get out of going green. And look who were the major backers of Prop 23. Is it that hard to put 2 and 2 together? Going green will have a much more positive affect on our economy in the long run. There's ways to fix our short-term problems without giving up our future.
So because big oil backed this bill it couldnt possibly benefit the working person of California? I know you didn't state that directly, but come on. 2 + 2 for me on this issue is, cost goes up for business, they hire less. Pretty simple. We'll see how it plays out, but why do you think that businesses don't wanna be here? California, according to Forbes, is the 10th worst state for business. Its like people wanna cut off their nose to spite their face because an "undesirable" element was behind a proposition.
I agree with you about the long run. But we cannot afford to make these changes now.
-
I was against prop 23 because it dwells in such a shady grey area. There's no conclusive evidence that it would even lower the unemployment rate. Then there's the actual stipulations. It seems like just an excuse for major corporations to get out of going green. And look who were the major backers of Prop 23. Is it that hard to put 2 and 2 together? Going green will have a much more positive affect on our economy in the long run. There's ways to fix our short-term problems without giving up our future.
So because big oil backed this bill it couldnt possibly benefit the working person of California? I know you didn't state that directly, but come on. 2 + 2 for me on this issue is, cost goes up for business, they hire less. Pretty simple. We'll see how it plays out, but why do you think that businesses don't wanna be here? California, according to Forbes, is the 10th worst state for business. Its like people wanna cut off their nose to spite their face because an "undesirable" element was behind a proposition.
I agree with you about the long run. But we cannot afford to make these changes now.
Looking at who is financing a bill is extremely important as it makes it clear what parties the bill is intended to benefit, especially one where the stated reasons for its existence are speculation at best. Its not a solution, in fact its effectively suspending indefinitely the resolution of another problem.
For me to okay a proposition it has to have a clear-cut goal. This is a bill for crying out loud! If it has problems or murky areas in it, it shouldn't be passed into law. I have an idea, how about supporting a bill that is actually intended to help fix the unemployment issue?
-
I was against prop 23 because it dwells in such a shady grey area. There's no conclusive evidence that it would even lower the unemployment rate. Then there's the actual stipulations. It seems like just an excuse for major corporations to get out of going green. And look who were the major backers of Prop 23. Is it that hard to put 2 and 2 together? Going green will have a much more positive affect on our economy in the long run. There's ways to fix our short-term problems without giving up our future.
So because big oil backed this bill it couldnt possibly benefit the working person of California? I know you didn't state that directly, but come on. 2 + 2 for me on this issue is, cost goes up for business, they hire less. Pretty simple. We'll see how it plays out, but why do you think that businesses don't wanna be here? California, according to Forbes, is the 10th worst state for business. Its like people wanna cut off their nose to spite their face because an "undesirable" element was behind a proposition.
I agree with you about the long run. But we cannot afford to make these changes now.
Looking at who is financing a bill is extremely important as it makes it clear what parties the bill is intended to benefit, especially one where the stated reasons for its existence are speculation at best. Its not a solution, in fact its effectively suspending indefinitely the resolution of another problem.
For me to okay a proposition it has to have a clear-cut goal. This is a bill for crying out loud! If it has problems or murky areas in it, it shouldn't be passed into law. I have an idea, how about supporting a bill that is actually intended to help fix the unemployment issue?
Then you just play a bluff card, like the insurance companies being against the health care bill when it turns out it was actually written by the insurance company. Or the big oil corporations supposedly being against carbon cuts when instead it is beneficial to them. Saying simply look who finances is too simplistic because they finance both sides, the only way to ensure that you can steer the boat fully. You have to look at who makes the major gains and when you do, it's always big business who make the major gains, since most of these bills are drafted by them. It's not even difficult to pinpoint either since a lot of the advisers have direct conflicts of interests with these very corporations. Here for example the government openly uses advisors who are still employed with business interests, so they essentially lease them lol.