Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
BigGovernmentIsGood
ParticipantValero and Tesoro (dirty oil energy companies), the two biggest backers of proposition 23, only have 4,000 employees in California.
Compare that paltry number of dinosaur jobs to the clean-energy industry in California:
The number of clean energy businesses and clean energy jobs has increased in California 45% and 36%, respectively, in the period between 1995-2008. [17] This rate of growth is 10 times more than the state’s average job growth rate.[18]
California has over 12,000 clean energy businesses [19] and 500,000 people are employed in clean energy occupations.[20] With over $9 billion in venture capital funds, California’s clean energy firms have received 60% of venture capital funds in North America [21].
The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has stated that suspending AB 32 would “dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or so-called ‘green jobs’ by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case.” [22]
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_%282010%29#About_AB_32
Why would anyone want to risk 500,000 jobs in order to try and protect 4,000? Vote no on Prop. 23 to protect California’s 500,000 clean-energy jobs.
ParticipantValero and Tesoro (dirty oil energy companies), the two biggest backers of proposition 23, only have 4,000 employees in California.
Compare that paltry number of dinosaur jobs to the clean-energy industry in California:
The number of clean energy businesses and clean energy jobs has increased in California 45% and 36%, respectively, in the period between 1995-2008. [17] This rate of growth is 10 times more than the state’s average job growth rate.[18]
California has over 12,000 clean energy businesses [19] and 500,000 people are employed in clean energy occupations.[20] With over $9 billion in venture capital funds, California’s clean energy firms have received 60% of venture capital funds in North America [21].
The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has stated that suspending AB 32 would “dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or so-called ‘green jobs’ by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case.” [22]
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_%282010%29#About_AB_32
Why would anyone want to risk 500,000 jobs in order to try and protect 4,000? Vote no on Prop. 23 to protect California’s 500,000 clean-energy jobs.
ParticipantValero and Tesoro (dirty oil energy companies), the two biggest backers of proposition 23, only have 4,000 employees in California.
Compare that paltry number of dinosaur jobs to the clean-energy industry in California:
The number of clean energy businesses and clean energy jobs has increased in California 45% and 36%, respectively, in the period between 1995-2008. [17] This rate of growth is 10 times more than the state’s average job growth rate.[18]
California has over 12,000 clean energy businesses [19] and 500,000 people are employed in clean energy occupations.[20] With over $9 billion in venture capital funds, California’s clean energy firms have received 60% of venture capital funds in North America [21].
The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has stated that suspending AB 32 would “dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or so-called ‘green jobs’ by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case.” [22]
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_%282010%29#About_AB_32
Why would anyone want to risk 500,000 jobs in order to try and protect 4,000? Vote no on Prop. 23 to protect California’s 500,000 clean-energy jobs.
ParticipantValero and Tesoro (dirty oil energy companies), the two biggest backers of proposition 23, only have 4,000 employees in California.
Compare that paltry number of dinosaur jobs to the clean-energy industry in California:
The number of clean energy businesses and clean energy jobs has increased in California 45% and 36%, respectively, in the period between 1995-2008. [17] This rate of growth is 10 times more than the state’s average job growth rate.[18]
California has over 12,000 clean energy businesses [19] and 500,000 people are employed in clean energy occupations.[20] With over $9 billion in venture capital funds, California’s clean energy firms have received 60% of venture capital funds in North America [21].
The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has stated that suspending AB 32 would “dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or so-called ‘green jobs’ by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case.” [22]
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_%282010%29#About_AB_32
Why would anyone want to risk 500,000 jobs in order to try and protect 4,000? Vote no on Prop. 23 to protect California’s 500,000 clean-energy jobs.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]
As it stands I’ve asked BGIG the question at least two times. I’ll ask it again Mr Troll..ahem…BGIG…What does AB 32 do that rewards the person/entity that makes the cheap green thneed?[/quote]What are you asking?
Participant[quote=sd_matt]
As it stands I’ve asked BGIG the question at least two times. I’ll ask it again Mr Troll..ahem…BGIG…What does AB 32 do that rewards the person/entity that makes the cheap green thneed?[/quote]What are you asking?
Participant[quote=sd_matt]
As it stands I’ve asked BGIG the question at least two times. I’ll ask it again Mr Troll..ahem…BGIG…What does AB 32 do that rewards the person/entity that makes the cheap green thneed?[/quote]What are you asking?
Participant[quote=sd_matt]
As it stands I’ve asked BGIG the question at least two times. I’ll ask it again Mr Troll..ahem…BGIG…What does AB 32 do that rewards the person/entity that makes the cheap green thneed?[/quote]What are you asking?
Participant[quote=sd_matt]
As it stands I’ve asked BGIG the question at least two times. I’ll ask it again Mr Troll..ahem…BGIG…What does AB 32 do that rewards the person/entity that makes the cheap green thneed?[/quote]What are you asking?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And it no longer is. Not like it used to be, anyway. It has destroyed its competitive advantage, and due to not only regulation, but also due to excessive litigation and prohibitively expensive insurance that arose due to that litigation.
[/quote]The Kauffman Foundation ranks California as the 8th best state for New Economy businesses:
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/2008_state_new_economy_index_120908.pdf
I suspect you are lamenting the loss of old-line businesses that polluted the hell out of the environment. While those businesses are moving out, innovative new startups are cropping up all the time.
Proposition 23 is currently polling at 45% against with only 34% for it:
It looks like it’s going to go down in flames and you can look forward to more of those businesses who make money by making the public pay for their externalities leaving the state. I say good riddance. For every pollution-based business that leaves, there will be 100 technology-based startups to take their place.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And it no longer is. Not like it used to be, anyway. It has destroyed its competitive advantage, and due to not only regulation, but also due to excessive litigation and prohibitively expensive insurance that arose due to that litigation.
[/quote]The Kauffman Foundation ranks California as the 8th best state for New Economy businesses:
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/2008_state_new_economy_index_120908.pdf
I suspect you are lamenting the loss of old-line businesses that polluted the hell out of the environment. While those businesses are moving out, innovative new startups are cropping up all the time.
Proposition 23 is currently polling at 45% against with only 34% for it:
It looks like it’s going to go down in flames and you can look forward to more of those businesses who make money by making the public pay for their externalities leaving the state. I say good riddance. For every pollution-based business that leaves, there will be 100 technology-based startups to take their place.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And it no longer is. Not like it used to be, anyway. It has destroyed its competitive advantage, and due to not only regulation, but also due to excessive litigation and prohibitively expensive insurance that arose due to that litigation.
[/quote]The Kauffman Foundation ranks California as the 8th best state for New Economy businesses:
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/2008_state_new_economy_index_120908.pdf
I suspect you are lamenting the loss of old-line businesses that polluted the hell out of the environment. While those businesses are moving out, innovative new startups are cropping up all the time.
Proposition 23 is currently polling at 45% against with only 34% for it:
It looks like it’s going to go down in flames and you can look forward to more of those businesses who make money by making the public pay for their externalities leaving the state. I say good riddance. For every pollution-based business that leaves, there will be 100 technology-based startups to take their place.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And it no longer is. Not like it used to be, anyway. It has destroyed its competitive advantage, and due to not only regulation, but also due to excessive litigation and prohibitively expensive insurance that arose due to that litigation.
[/quote]The Kauffman Foundation ranks California as the 8th best state for New Economy businesses:
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/2008_state_new_economy_index_120908.pdf
I suspect you are lamenting the loss of old-line businesses that polluted the hell out of the environment. While those businesses are moving out, innovative new startups are cropping up all the time.
Proposition 23 is currently polling at 45% against with only 34% for it:
It looks like it’s going to go down in flames and you can look forward to more of those businesses who make money by making the public pay for their externalities leaving the state. I say good riddance. For every pollution-based business that leaves, there will be 100 technology-based startups to take their place.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And it no longer is. Not like it used to be, anyway. It has destroyed its competitive advantage, and due to not only regulation, but also due to excessive litigation and prohibitively expensive insurance that arose due to that litigation.
[/quote]The Kauffman Foundation ranks California as the 8th best state for New Economy businesses:
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/2008_state_new_economy_index_120908.pdf
I suspect you are lamenting the loss of old-line businesses that polluted the hell out of the environment. While those businesses are moving out, innovative new startups are cropping up all the time.
Proposition 23 is currently polling at 45% against with only 34% for it:
It looks like it’s going to go down in flames and you can look forward to more of those businesses who make money by making the public pay for their externalities leaving the state. I say good riddance. For every pollution-based business that leaves, there will be 100 technology-based startups to take their place.
-
AuthorPosts
