Proposition 23

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=sreeb]
I continue to believe the 500K number is self serving crap.[/quote]

Why? Who’s interests are being served?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
500,000 existing green energy jobs are at risk. Compare that to the 4,000 employees of Valero and Tesoro, two massively polluting companies who have contributed the most money to try and bamboozle the public into voting for prop 23.[/quote]

BigGubment: Let me preface this statement with a disclaimer that it is NOT pro-Prop 23. However, again you either cite facts incorrectly, or misuse them entirely.

While Valero and Tesoro may only employ 4,000 employees in California, Big Oil employs far more than that number in this state. If Chevron isn’t California’s largest employer, it is close, and maintains two of the largest refineries in this state (Richmond and El Segundo). Add in BP (Carson), Exxon (Torrance) and Conoco (Wilmington) and I’d be willing to be that you’re well in excess of that somewhat suspect 500k employees number that the green industry supposedly employs.

The problem with green/clean energy is that, at present, its nowhere near being able to supplant oil/gas/coal in terms of either volume or pricing.

I’d be curious as to your thoughts regarding the failure of wind energy in Spain (and it proved ruinously expensive for the Spanish government, which subsidized it nearly completely) or the British (who found out far too late that the production and productivity claims offered for wind energy were wildly overstated).

As dirty as oil/gas/coal are, and I won’t dispute that they are, there isn’t, at present, a realistic alternative that can provide this amount of energy at a reasonable price.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
500,000 existing green energy jobs are at risk. Compare that to the 4,000 employees of Valero and Tesoro, two massively polluting companies who have contributed the most money to try and bamboozle the public into voting for prop 23.[/quote]

BigGubment: Let me preface this statement with a disclaimer that it is NOT pro-Prop 23. However, again you either cite facts incorrectly, or misuse them entirely.

While Valero and Tesoro may only employ 4,000 employees in California, Big Oil employs far more than that number in this state. If Chevron isn’t California’s largest employer, it is close, and maintains two of the largest refineries in this state (Richmond and El Segundo). Add in BP (Carson), Exxon (Torrance) and Conoco (Wilmington) and I’d be willing to be that you’re well in excess of that somewhat suspect 500k employees number that the green industry supposedly employs.

The problem with green/clean energy is that, at present, its nowhere near being able to supplant oil/gas/coal in terms of either volume or pricing.

I’d be curious as to your thoughts regarding the failure of wind energy in Spain (and it proved ruinously expensive for the Spanish government, which subsidized it nearly completely) or the British (who found out far too late that the production and productivity claims offered for wind energy were wildly overstated).

As dirty as oil/gas/coal are, and I won’t dispute that they are, there isn’t, at present, a realistic alternative that can provide this amount of energy at a reasonable price.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
500,000 existing green energy jobs are at risk. Compare that to the 4,000 employees of Valero and Tesoro, two massively polluting companies who have contributed the most money to try and bamboozle the public into voting for prop 23.[/quote]

BigGubment: Let me preface this statement with a disclaimer that it is NOT pro-Prop 23. However, again you either cite facts incorrectly, or misuse them entirely.

While Valero and Tesoro may only employ 4,000 employees in California, Big Oil employs far more than that number in this state. If Chevron isn’t California’s largest employer, it is close, and maintains two of the largest refineries in this state (Richmond and El Segundo). Add in BP (Carson), Exxon (Torrance) and Conoco (Wilmington) and I’d be willing to be that you’re well in excess of that somewhat suspect 500k employees number that the green industry supposedly employs.

The problem with green/clean energy is that, at present, its nowhere near being able to supplant oil/gas/coal in terms of either volume or pricing.

I’d be curious as to your thoughts regarding the failure of wind energy in Spain (and it proved ruinously expensive for the Spanish government, which subsidized it nearly completely) or the British (who found out far too late that the production and productivity claims offered for wind energy were wildly overstated).

As dirty as oil/gas/coal are, and I won’t dispute that they are, there isn’t, at present, a realistic alternative that can provide this amount of energy at a reasonable price.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
500,000 existing green energy jobs are at risk. Compare that to the 4,000 employees of Valero and Tesoro, two massively polluting companies who have contributed the most money to try and bamboozle the public into voting for prop 23.[/quote]

BigGubment: Let me preface this statement with a disclaimer that it is NOT pro-Prop 23. However, again you either cite facts incorrectly, or misuse them entirely.

While Valero and Tesoro may only employ 4,000 employees in California, Big Oil employs far more than that number in this state. If Chevron isn’t California’s largest employer, it is close, and maintains two of the largest refineries in this state (Richmond and El Segundo). Add in BP (Carson), Exxon (Torrance) and Conoco (Wilmington) and I’d be willing to be that you’re well in excess of that somewhat suspect 500k employees number that the green industry supposedly employs.

The problem with green/clean energy is that, at present, its nowhere near being able to supplant oil/gas/coal in terms of either volume or pricing.

I’d be curious as to your thoughts regarding the failure of wind energy in Spain (and it proved ruinously expensive for the Spanish government, which subsidized it nearly completely) or the British (who found out far too late that the production and productivity claims offered for wind energy were wildly overstated).

As dirty as oil/gas/coal are, and I won’t dispute that they are, there isn’t, at present, a realistic alternative that can provide this amount of energy at a reasonable price.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
500,000 existing green energy jobs are at risk. Compare that to the 4,000 employees of Valero and Tesoro, two massively polluting companies who have contributed the most money to try and bamboozle the public into voting for prop 23.[/quote]

BigGubment: Let me preface this statement with a disclaimer that it is NOT pro-Prop 23. However, again you either cite facts incorrectly, or misuse them entirely.

While Valero and Tesoro may only employ 4,000 employees in California, Big Oil employs far more than that number in this state. If Chevron isn’t California’s largest employer, it is close, and maintains two of the largest refineries in this state (Richmond and El Segundo). Add in BP (Carson), Exxon (Torrance) and Conoco (Wilmington) and I’d be willing to be that you’re well in excess of that somewhat suspect 500k employees number that the green industry supposedly employs.

The problem with green/clean energy is that, at present, its nowhere near being able to supplant oil/gas/coal in terms of either volume or pricing.

I’d be curious as to your thoughts regarding the failure of wind energy in Spain (and it proved ruinously expensive for the Spanish government, which subsidized it nearly completely) or the British (who found out far too late that the production and productivity claims offered for wind energy were wildly overstated).

As dirty as oil/gas/coal are, and I won’t dispute that they are, there isn’t, at present, a realistic alternative that can provide this amount of energy at a reasonable price.

[EconProf]

I’ve read elsewhere that green jobs are from one to three percent of CA jobs, depending on how one defines “green” jobs. I know that some definitions are pretty silly, including for example all trash haulers, recyclers, etc.
What we do know is that if you double the number of green jobs, and in the process cripple the vast majority of jobs in the rest of the economy, you have a net job loss in the state.
And BGIG, in the early part of the lengthy study you cited here, that is exactly what it predicted.

[EconProf]

I’ve read elsewhere that green jobs are from one to three percent of CA jobs, depending on how one defines “green” jobs. I know that some definitions are pretty silly, including for example all trash haulers, recyclers, etc.
What we do know is that if you double the number of green jobs, and in the process cripple the vast majority of jobs in the rest of the economy, you have a net job loss in the state.
And BGIG, in the early part of the lengthy study you cited here, that is exactly what it predicted.

[EconProf]

I’ve read elsewhere that green jobs are from one to three percent of CA jobs, depending on how one defines “green” jobs. I know that some definitions are pretty silly, including for example all trash haulers, recyclers, etc.
What we do know is that if you double the number of green jobs, and in the process cripple the vast majority of jobs in the rest of the economy, you have a net job loss in the state.
And BGIG, in the early part of the lengthy study you cited here, that is exactly what it predicted.

[EconProf]

I’ve read elsewhere that green jobs are from one to three percent of CA jobs, depending on how one defines “green” jobs. I know that some definitions are pretty silly, including for example all trash haulers, recyclers, etc.
What we do know is that if you double the number of green jobs, and in the process cripple the vast majority of jobs in the rest of the economy, you have a net job loss in the state.
And BGIG, in the early part of the lengthy study you cited here, that is exactly what it predicted.

[EconProf]

I’ve read elsewhere that green jobs are from one to three percent of CA jobs, depending on how one defines “green” jobs. I know that some definitions are pretty silly, including for example all trash haulers, recyclers, etc.
What we do know is that if you double the number of green jobs, and in the process cripple the vast majority of jobs in the rest of the economy, you have a net job loss in the state.
And BGIG, in the early part of the lengthy study you cited here, that is exactly what it predicted.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
BigGubment: Let me preface this statement with a disclaimer that it is NOT pro-Prop 23. However, again you either cite facts incorrectly, or misuse them entirely.

While Valero and Tesoro may only employ 4,000 employees in California, Big Oil employs far more than that number in this state. If Chevron isn’t California’s largest employer, it is close, and maintains two of the largest refineries in this state (Richmond and El Segundo).
[/quote]

Chevron employs 6,000 people in California and is California’s 34th largest employer.

http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview6.asp?printer=&next=oview6&id=&nodeid=12&stfips=06&group=2

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Add in BP (Carson), Exxon (Torrance) and Conoco (Wilmington) and I’d be willing to be that you’re well in excess of that somewhat suspect 500k employees number that the green industry supposedly employs.
[/quote]

None of those employers are in the top 50. Let’s assume they all tied with Asian Housekeeping as California’s 50th largest employer and have 5,000 California employees each.

Here’s what that totals up to:
Chevron: 6,000
BP: 5,000
Exxon: 5,000
Conoco: 5,000

That’s 21,000 employees at the very most. You were only off by a factor of 25.

Your posts are some of the most retarded on this site. You seriously have the nerve to question my use of facts when you pull shit out of your ass like that? Pathetic. Are you posting from a mental institution or something?

Stop trolling this thread you moron. Bring actual facts to the discussion or just shut the hell up.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The problem with green/clean energy is that, at present, its nowhere near being able to supplant oil/gas/coal in terms of either volume or pricing.
[/quote]

In Houston, green energy is priced almost the same as fossil-fuel based energy:

Green Mountain Energy is offering Texas electricity consumers an environmentally friendly service at a rate matching that of Reliant Energy — a sign of a growing interest in green energy and the rising price of traditionally produced power.

Touted as a “pollution free” plan, Green Mountain Energy gets the power it sells from wind turbines and hydroelectric plants and will cost about 11.1 cents per kilowatt-hour, the same price current Reliant Energy customers are paying.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/2938859.html

Again, it is you that is playing fast and loose with the facts. How the hell do I get labeled as a troll by the owner of this site when idiots like you are allowed to roam free and spout BS incessantly?

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
BigGubment: Let me preface this statement with a disclaimer that it is NOT pro-Prop 23. However, again you either cite facts incorrectly, or misuse them entirely.

While Valero and Tesoro may only employ 4,000 employees in California, Big Oil employs far more than that number in this state. If Chevron isn’t California’s largest employer, it is close, and maintains two of the largest refineries in this state (Richmond and El Segundo).
[/quote]

Chevron employs 6,000 people in California and is California’s 34th largest employer.

http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview6.asp?printer=&next=oview6&id=&nodeid=12&stfips=06&group=2

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Add in BP (Carson), Exxon (Torrance) and Conoco (Wilmington) and I’d be willing to be that you’re well in excess of that somewhat suspect 500k employees number that the green industry supposedly employs.
[/quote]

None of those employers are in the top 50. Let’s assume they all tied with Asian Housekeeping as California’s 50th largest employer and have 5,000 California employees each.

Here’s what that totals up to:
Chevron: 6,000
BP: 5,000
Exxon: 5,000
Conoco: 5,000

That’s 21,000 employees at the very most. You were only off by a factor of 25.

Your posts are some of the most retarded on this site. You seriously have the nerve to question my use of facts when you pull shit out of your ass like that? Pathetic. Are you posting from a mental institution or something?

Stop trolling this thread you moron. Bring actual facts to the discussion or just shut the hell up.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The problem with green/clean energy is that, at present, its nowhere near being able to supplant oil/gas/coal in terms of either volume or pricing.
[/quote]

In Houston, green energy is priced almost the same as fossil-fuel based energy:

Green Mountain Energy is offering Texas electricity consumers an environmentally friendly service at a rate matching that of Reliant Energy — a sign of a growing interest in green energy and the rising price of traditionally produced power.

Touted as a “pollution free” plan, Green Mountain Energy gets the power it sells from wind turbines and hydroelectric plants and will cost about 11.1 cents per kilowatt-hour, the same price current Reliant Energy customers are paying.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/2938859.html

Again, it is you that is playing fast and loose with the facts. How the hell do I get labeled as a troll by the owner of this site when idiots like you are allowed to roam free and spout BS incessantly?

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
BigGubment: Let me preface this statement with a disclaimer that it is NOT pro-Prop 23. However, again you either cite facts incorrectly, or misuse them entirely.

While Valero and Tesoro may only employ 4,000 employees in California, Big Oil employs far more than that number in this state. If Chevron isn’t California’s largest employer, it is close, and maintains two of the largest refineries in this state (Richmond and El Segundo).
[/quote]

Chevron employs 6,000 people in California and is California’s 34th largest employer.

http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview6.asp?printer=&next=oview6&id=&nodeid=12&stfips=06&group=2

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Add in BP (Carson), Exxon (Torrance) and Conoco (Wilmington) and I’d be willing to be that you’re well in excess of that somewhat suspect 500k employees number that the green industry supposedly employs.
[/quote]

None of those employers are in the top 50. Let’s assume they all tied with Asian Housekeeping as California’s 50th largest employer and have 5,000 California employees each.

Here’s what that totals up to:
Chevron: 6,000
BP: 5,000
Exxon: 5,000
Conoco: 5,000

That’s 21,000 employees at the very most. You were only off by a factor of 25.

Your posts are some of the most retarded on this site. You seriously have the nerve to question my use of facts when you pull shit out of your ass like that? Pathetic. Are you posting from a mental institution or something?

Stop trolling this thread you moron. Bring actual facts to the discussion or just shut the hell up.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The problem with green/clean energy is that, at present, its nowhere near being able to supplant oil/gas/coal in terms of either volume or pricing.
[/quote]

In Houston, green energy is priced almost the same as fossil-fuel based energy:

Green Mountain Energy is offering Texas electricity consumers an environmentally friendly service at a rate matching that of Reliant Energy — a sign of a growing interest in green energy and the rising price of traditionally produced power.

Touted as a “pollution free” plan, Green Mountain Energy gets the power it sells from wind turbines and hydroelectric plants and will cost about 11.1 cents per kilowatt-hour, the same price current Reliant Energy customers are paying.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/2938859.html

Again, it is you that is playing fast and loose with the facts. How the hell do I get labeled as a troll by the owner of this site when idiots like you are allowed to roam free and spout BS incessantly?

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
BigGubment: Let me preface this statement with a disclaimer that it is NOT pro-Prop 23. However, again you either cite facts incorrectly, or misuse them entirely.

While Valero and Tesoro may only employ 4,000 employees in California, Big Oil employs far more than that number in this state. If Chevron isn’t California’s largest employer, it is close, and maintains two of the largest refineries in this state (Richmond and El Segundo).
[/quote]

Chevron employs 6,000 people in California and is California’s 34th largest employer.

http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview6.asp?printer=&next=oview6&id=&nodeid=12&stfips=06&group=2

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Add in BP (Carson), Exxon (Torrance) and Conoco (Wilmington) and I’d be willing to be that you’re well in excess of that somewhat suspect 500k employees number that the green industry supposedly employs.
[/quote]

None of those employers are in the top 50. Let’s assume they all tied with Asian Housekeeping as California’s 50th largest employer and have 5,000 California employees each.

Here’s what that totals up to:
Chevron: 6,000
BP: 5,000
Exxon: 5,000
Conoco: 5,000

That’s 21,000 employees at the very most. You were only off by a factor of 25.

Your posts are some of the most retarded on this site. You seriously have the nerve to question my use of facts when you pull shit out of your ass like that? Pathetic. Are you posting from a mental institution or something?

Stop trolling this thread you moron. Bring actual facts to the discussion or just shut the hell up.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The problem with green/clean energy is that, at present, its nowhere near being able to supplant oil/gas/coal in terms of either volume or pricing.
[/quote]

In Houston, green energy is priced almost the same as fossil-fuel based energy:

Green Mountain Energy is offering Texas electricity consumers an environmentally friendly service at a rate matching that of Reliant Energy — a sign of a growing interest in green energy and the rising price of traditionally produced power.

Touted as a “pollution free” plan, Green Mountain Energy gets the power it sells from wind turbines and hydroelectric plants and will cost about 11.1 cents per kilowatt-hour, the same price current Reliant Energy customers are paying.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/2938859.html

Again, it is you that is playing fast and loose with the facts. How the hell do I get labeled as a troll by the owner of this site when idiots like you are allowed to roam free and spout BS incessantly?

[Author]

Posts