Proposition 23

[jstoesz]

air_ogi,

Your rhetorical argument is a complete fallacy. I could just as easily point to china and show what their complete lack of pollution control as done for their GDP growth.

There is no way that regulating ghg’s can have anything but a depressive effect on the economy as a whole (subsidies and regulations for GHG’s take from producers and give to non producers). Other aspects of the economy can be sufficiently strong to overcome this depressive effect (probably the case for germany). There is no 1-1 correlation…only influence.

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[jstoesz]

I am just going to laugh here for a second…

[quote] people like you [/quote]

Now that is rich! I forgot to mention I also support murdering baby seals, and sometimes shoot marmots for fun, oh and I hate recycling to boot.

Do you know me? Do you know my positions on pollution?

Data to back up claims, eh.

CHINA!!!! is the antithesis to your argument. High growth rate little GHG control.

[quote] It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.[/quote]

This argument does not require specific data. I can find studies that show this, but I am sure you can find an equal and opposite number of the same. This point is simply made through logic, it is econ 101. Let me break this down into small digestible chunks.

If you take capital from a productive industry (one that makes a profit) and give it to an unproductive industry (one that does not make a real, unsubsidized profit), you will have less profit! Less Profit means less jobs.

Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).

I have not commented on the benefits of regulating pollution (ftr I am not convinced CO2 is a pollutant, but that is besides the point)…I have only spoken of the economic implications of doing so. To argue that AB32 will magically create unproductive jobs without costing productive jobs is to deny gravity. But with that said, I am a big proponent of environmental protection, and the fact that you automatically believe that I must want to rape and kill the environment is sadly unsurprising.

ftr germany 12% more energy from renewables than california.

[jstoesz]

I am just going to laugh here for a second…

[quote] people like you [/quote]

Now that is rich! I forgot to mention I also support murdering baby seals, and sometimes shoot marmots for fun, oh and I hate recycling to boot.

Do you know me? Do you know my positions on pollution?

Data to back up claims, eh.

CHINA!!!! is the antithesis to your argument. High growth rate little GHG control.

[quote] It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.[/quote]

This argument does not require specific data. I can find studies that show this, but I am sure you can find an equal and opposite number of the same. This point is simply made through logic, it is econ 101. Let me break this down into small digestible chunks.

If you take capital from a productive industry (one that makes a profit) and give it to an unproductive industry (one that does not make a real, unsubsidized profit), you will have less profit! Less Profit means less jobs.

Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).

I have not commented on the benefits of regulating pollution (ftr I am not convinced CO2 is a pollutant, but that is besides the point)…I have only spoken of the economic implications of doing so. To argue that AB32 will magically create unproductive jobs without costing productive jobs is to deny gravity. But with that said, I am a big proponent of environmental protection, and the fact that you automatically believe that I must want to rape and kill the environment is sadly unsurprising.

ftr germany 12% more energy from renewables than california.

[jstoesz]

I am just going to laugh here for a second…

[quote] people like you [/quote]

Now that is rich! I forgot to mention I also support murdering baby seals, and sometimes shoot marmots for fun, oh and I hate recycling to boot.

Do you know me? Do you know my positions on pollution?

Data to back up claims, eh.

CHINA!!!! is the antithesis to your argument. High growth rate little GHG control.

[quote] It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.[/quote]

This argument does not require specific data. I can find studies that show this, but I am sure you can find an equal and opposite number of the same. This point is simply made through logic, it is econ 101. Let me break this down into small digestible chunks.

If you take capital from a productive industry (one that makes a profit) and give it to an unproductive industry (one that does not make a real, unsubsidized profit), you will have less profit! Less Profit means less jobs.

Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).

I have not commented on the benefits of regulating pollution (ftr I am not convinced CO2 is a pollutant, but that is besides the point)…I have only spoken of the economic implications of doing so. To argue that AB32 will magically create unproductive jobs without costing productive jobs is to deny gravity. But with that said, I am a big proponent of environmental protection, and the fact that you automatically believe that I must want to rape and kill the environment is sadly unsurprising.

ftr germany 12% more energy from renewables than california.

[jstoesz]

I am just going to laugh here for a second…

[quote] people like you [/quote]

Now that is rich! I forgot to mention I also support murdering baby seals, and sometimes shoot marmots for fun, oh and I hate recycling to boot.

Do you know me? Do you know my positions on pollution?

Data to back up claims, eh.

CHINA!!!! is the antithesis to your argument. High growth rate little GHG control.

[quote] It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.[/quote]

This argument does not require specific data. I can find studies that show this, but I am sure you can find an equal and opposite number of the same. This point is simply made through logic, it is econ 101. Let me break this down into small digestible chunks.

If you take capital from a productive industry (one that makes a profit) and give it to an unproductive industry (one that does not make a real, unsubsidized profit), you will have less profit! Less Profit means less jobs.

Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).

I have not commented on the benefits of regulating pollution (ftr I am not convinced CO2 is a pollutant, but that is besides the point)…I have only spoken of the economic implications of doing so. To argue that AB32 will magically create unproductive jobs without costing productive jobs is to deny gravity. But with that said, I am a big proponent of environmental protection, and the fact that you automatically believe that I must want to rape and kill the environment is sadly unsurprising.

ftr germany 12% more energy from renewables than california.

[Author]

Posts