Proposition 23

[EconProf]

Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Usually I vote NO on all propostions unless they can convince me that

1. It needs to be really really really done.
2. It really can only be done by voters i.e. legislature can not/will not do it.

Thus the only proposition worthy of my YES vote this cycle is proposition 20 – the one that takes away the job of redistricting away from CA legislature.[/quote]

Enron, allow me to suggest that Prop 19 also meets your criteria. Clearly we’ve spent enough on the war on drugs to no avail, and there is no way that politicians are going to legalize marijuana.

Cheers,

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Usually I vote NO on all propostions unless they can convince me that

1. It needs to be really really really done.
2. It really can only be done by voters i.e. legislature can not/will not do it.

Thus the only proposition worthy of my YES vote this cycle is proposition 20 – the one that takes away the job of redistricting away from CA legislature.[/quote]

Enron, allow me to suggest that Prop 19 also meets your criteria. Clearly we’ve spent enough on the war on drugs to no avail, and there is no way that politicians are going to legalize marijuana.

Cheers,

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Usually I vote NO on all propostions unless they can convince me that

1. It needs to be really really really done.
2. It really can only be done by voters i.e. legislature can not/will not do it.

Thus the only proposition worthy of my YES vote this cycle is proposition 20 – the one that takes away the job of redistricting away from CA legislature.[/quote]

Enron, allow me to suggest that Prop 19 also meets your criteria. Clearly we’ve spent enough on the war on drugs to no avail, and there is no way that politicians are going to legalize marijuana.

Cheers,

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Usually I vote NO on all propostions unless they can convince me that

1. It needs to be really really really done.
2. It really can only be done by voters i.e. legislature can not/will not do it.

Thus the only proposition worthy of my YES vote this cycle is proposition 20 – the one that takes away the job of redistricting away from CA legislature.[/quote]

Enron, allow me to suggest that Prop 19 also meets your criteria. Clearly we’ve spent enough on the war on drugs to no avail, and there is no way that politicians are going to legalize marijuana.

Cheers,

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Usually I vote NO on all propostions unless they can convince me that

1. It needs to be really really really done.
2. It really can only be done by voters i.e. legislature can not/will not do it.

Thus the only proposition worthy of my YES vote this cycle is proposition 20 – the one that takes away the job of redistricting away from CA legislature.[/quote]

Enron, allow me to suggest that Prop 19 also meets your criteria. Clearly we’ve spent enough on the war on drugs to no avail, and there is no way that politicians are going to legalize marijuana.

Cheers,

XBoxBoy

[sd_matt]

[quote=EconProf]Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.[/quote]

BGIG. I’m all for any program that rewards whoever invents cheap green energy. The quickest way to get everyone green is to have the technology that everyone is lining up to buy.
This is the point I was trying to make with the “Should Google go nuclear?” video. I don’t know whether or not Polywell will work…or FRC or Focus Fusion for that matter. The good thing about these ideas is that they first start off with the question “Will this idea make electricity cheaper”?

Fusion is not a bad idea, but ITER (Tokamak reactor) is a bad idea. It will never be cost competitive…just like crystalline Solar PV.

Once again irony…most of us here are supposedly far right of you…yet we have a better understanding of just how alternative energy needs to be implemented.

Maybe I’m wrong about AB32. So show me what it is that AB32 does that rewards the person that invents cost-competitive green energy.

Of course BGIG, I’m assuming you are something more that a troll or schill.

[sd_matt]

[quote=EconProf]Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.[/quote]

BGIG. I’m all for any program that rewards whoever invents cheap green energy. The quickest way to get everyone green is to have the technology that everyone is lining up to buy.
This is the point I was trying to make with the “Should Google go nuclear?” video. I don’t know whether or not Polywell will work…or FRC or Focus Fusion for that matter. The good thing about these ideas is that they first start off with the question “Will this idea make electricity cheaper”?

Fusion is not a bad idea, but ITER (Tokamak reactor) is a bad idea. It will never be cost competitive…just like crystalline Solar PV.

Once again irony…most of us here are supposedly far right of you…yet we have a better understanding of just how alternative energy needs to be implemented.

Maybe I’m wrong about AB32. So show me what it is that AB32 does that rewards the person that invents cost-competitive green energy.

Of course BGIG, I’m assuming you are something more that a troll or schill.

[sd_matt]

[quote=EconProf]Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.[/quote]

BGIG. I’m all for any program that rewards whoever invents cheap green energy. The quickest way to get everyone green is to have the technology that everyone is lining up to buy.
This is the point I was trying to make with the “Should Google go nuclear?” video. I don’t know whether or not Polywell will work…or FRC or Focus Fusion for that matter. The good thing about these ideas is that they first start off with the question “Will this idea make electricity cheaper”?

Fusion is not a bad idea, but ITER (Tokamak reactor) is a bad idea. It will never be cost competitive…just like crystalline Solar PV.

Once again irony…most of us here are supposedly far right of you…yet we have a better understanding of just how alternative energy needs to be implemented.

Maybe I’m wrong about AB32. So show me what it is that AB32 does that rewards the person that invents cost-competitive green energy.

Of course BGIG, I’m assuming you are something more that a troll or schill.

[sd_matt]

[quote=EconProf]Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.[/quote]

BGIG. I’m all for any program that rewards whoever invents cheap green energy. The quickest way to get everyone green is to have the technology that everyone is lining up to buy.
This is the point I was trying to make with the “Should Google go nuclear?” video. I don’t know whether or not Polywell will work…or FRC or Focus Fusion for that matter. The good thing about these ideas is that they first start off with the question “Will this idea make electricity cheaper”?

Fusion is not a bad idea, but ITER (Tokamak reactor) is a bad idea. It will never be cost competitive…just like crystalline Solar PV.

Once again irony…most of us here are supposedly far right of you…yet we have a better understanding of just how alternative energy needs to be implemented.

Maybe I’m wrong about AB32. So show me what it is that AB32 does that rewards the person that invents cost-competitive green energy.

Of course BGIG, I’m assuming you are something more that a troll or schill.

[sd_matt]

[quote=EconProf]Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.[/quote]

BGIG. I’m all for any program that rewards whoever invents cheap green energy. The quickest way to get everyone green is to have the technology that everyone is lining up to buy.
This is the point I was trying to make with the “Should Google go nuclear?” video. I don’t know whether or not Polywell will work…or FRC or Focus Fusion for that matter. The good thing about these ideas is that they first start off with the question “Will this idea make electricity cheaper”?

Fusion is not a bad idea, but ITER (Tokamak reactor) is a bad idea. It will never be cost competitive…just like crystalline Solar PV.

Once again irony…most of us here are supposedly far right of you…yet we have a better understanding of just how alternative energy needs to be implemented.

Maybe I’m wrong about AB32. So show me what it is that AB32 does that rewards the person that invents cost-competitive green energy.

Of course BGIG, I’m assuming you are something more that a troll or schill.

[briansd1]

No on 23.

This is an interesting piece on why we should vote no on 23.

The Terminator vs. Big Oil
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 5, 2010

The Terminator, a k a the Governator, is not happy. And you shouldn’t be either.

What has Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California incensed is the fact that two Texas oil companies with two refineries each in California are financing a campaign to roll back California’s landmark laws to slow global warming and promote clean energy innovation, because it would require the refiners to install new emission-control tools. At a time when President Obama and Congress have failed to pass a clean energy bill, California’s laws are the best thing we have going to stimulate clean-tech in America. We don’t want them gutted. C’mon in. This is a fight worth having.

[briansd1]

No on 23.

This is an interesting piece on why we should vote no on 23.

The Terminator vs. Big Oil
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 5, 2010

The Terminator, a k a the Governator, is not happy. And you shouldn’t be either.

What has Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California incensed is the fact that two Texas oil companies with two refineries each in California are financing a campaign to roll back California’s landmark laws to slow global warming and promote clean energy innovation, because it would require the refiners to install new emission-control tools. At a time when President Obama and Congress have failed to pass a clean energy bill, California’s laws are the best thing we have going to stimulate clean-tech in America. We don’t want them gutted. C’mon in. This is a fight worth having.

[briansd1]

No on 23.

This is an interesting piece on why we should vote no on 23.

The Terminator vs. Big Oil
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 5, 2010

The Terminator, a k a the Governator, is not happy. And you shouldn’t be either.

What has Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California incensed is the fact that two Texas oil companies with two refineries each in California are financing a campaign to roll back California’s landmark laws to slow global warming and promote clean energy innovation, because it would require the refiners to install new emission-control tools. At a time when President Obama and Congress have failed to pass a clean energy bill, California’s laws are the best thing we have going to stimulate clean-tech in America. We don’t want them gutted. C’mon in. This is a fight worth having.

[briansd1]

No on 23.

This is an interesting piece on why we should vote no on 23.

The Terminator vs. Big Oil
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 5, 2010

The Terminator, a k a the Governator, is not happy. And you shouldn’t be either.

What has Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California incensed is the fact that two Texas oil companies with two refineries each in California are financing a campaign to roll back California’s landmark laws to slow global warming and promote clean energy innovation, because it would require the refiners to install new emission-control tools. At a time when President Obama and Congress have failed to pass a clean energy bill, California’s laws are the best thing we have going to stimulate clean-tech in America. We don’t want them gutted. C’mon in. This is a fight worth having.

[Author]

Posts