Monday, October 25, 2010 3:22:17 PM
An all-of-the-above solution is the way to go. We don't have the technology to replace oil/coal on a mass scale unless we go full-on nuclear, and that`s not going to happen unless we take away standing to sue from the environmental wingnuts.
To understate, the USA is the Saudi Arabia of coal and shale oil- we`re not going to run out of carbon based fuel for centuries to come. Humanity has gone from steam engines to the moon in 100 years; by the time we run out of fossil fuel, we`ll have found a replacement.
As far as global warming, I`m sure China and India would be happy to have us cripple our own economy by instituting cap and trade insanity (or maybe not since their #1 export market would dry up) while they go on merrily building fossil fuel and nuke based power plants. If global warming theory is right, we`re effed anyway w/o global cooperation, so why strangle ourselves with green legislation?
Prop 23 is actually seeking to strike down PREVIOUS legislation which mandates increase efficiency, etc. until the unemployment for California is below 5% for four consecutive quarters (NOT 12 consecutive months, on average for a year, etc.) Unemployment in California has been hovering between 10-12%
In the past similar mandates have not only been met but exceeded.
The existing legislation only fines people for not showing deliverable gains. For instance if GM doesn't meet standard X but shows that they have technology in the pipeline that meets or exceeds X fines may not be levied or may be reduced. In this way California will be able to generate money from people not even trying, while increasing the efficiency of existing technologies which means less waste which means lower over head. This solves two problems for California, they make more money and spend less: