Lifestyle > Train of Thought

Why would someone vote against Prop 23?

(1/6) > >>

Russell Bell:
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.

Javier:
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. 

virtuoso:

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

Javier:

--- Quote from: virtuoso on November 04, 2010, 01:34:15 PM ---
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


--- End quote ---

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. 

Sami:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page