california dreaming - guardian 4.10.09

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
agreed. i'm curious to know what the core issues are, instead of conservative v liberal mudslinging.

wow, that made me sound like a politician, didn't it?
 
This is a rather Captain Obvious point, but considering that CA had by far the worst housing bubble in the US, it's unsurprising that they fell particularly hard when the crisis hit.



there's that unfettered, unregulated, yee-haw cowboy capitalism for you.

the road to ruin, every time.
 
if all these things make it so great, and indeed i'd certainly agree on most of them, then why is it in so much trouble?



the economic conservatives in Orange County and the housing bubble. and their demand to slash taxes.

as ever, it's the conservatives. they're busy screaming about Roman Polanski while the hills north of Hollywood burn.



sorry, i guess this isn't what you were looking for. i'll let a californian answer.
 
we are not abandoning green energy. The goal of 20% being produced by those sources still stands, and is set to increase. We can actually do both, consider nuclear power and green energy. It's called energy mix.
But at what cost? Haven't your electricity rates skyrocketed under your "feed-in tariff" that guarantees green energy producers a price 7 times higher than that traditional energy producers get on the market? Am I close?
 
is that the best you can do with what he said?

it is extremely narrow-minded to think that what he said is outrightly dismissable. though, to your credit/defence, his POV was poorly put. the essence of his pov, however, is very important if his numbers are even 5 miles from the ballpark.

His numbers aren't even close, so how else is one to take them except for pure xenophobia? He's the one that called it an "uncomfortable fact". Why would the ethnic make up of his child's kindergarten class be of such concern? I live in a city that's majority hispanic and we're thriving, so what is his concern? You tell me.
 
But at what cost? Haven't your electricity rates skyrocketed under your "feed-in tariff" that guarantees green energy producers a price 7 times higher than that traditional energy producers get on the market? Am I close?

Where did you get these numbers?
 
Our energy prices have gotten a lot higher, but that wasn't caused by green energy alternatives. Our main problem is that we are such an intelligent bunch that we let Russia became virtually the monopoly supplier of gas. And the gas price is tied to the oil price. Their reasoning is, since gas comes from the same source as oil their prices should be the same as well.
Add to that, that the liberalisation of markets still left us with an oligopoly. Even though they are regulated, they are very quick at raising prices, but very slow at lowering. And regulation is too weak to really force them to go down with prices in real-time.
Also, renewable energies would be competitive even without these forms of subsidies. Except for solar power here in Germany. That is only feasible in some parts of the country. Big producers are already jumping on to the train of green energies, and the markets are succeeding. But of course they also like to stick to nuclear and coal power. It should be considered that every coal worker in Germany is subsidised 1.5 times of the revenue he generates. We continue to destroy huge parts of our country until 2018 for a very expensive energy source, even though the majority is already imported from the US and Australia.

As long as the prices don't spiral out of control and even low-income groups can afford them I don't even see a problem in higher energy prices. It reduces wasting energy more than any campaign could achieve.
 
I know here in TX our energy prices have gone up slighty where I live except where they are going more green, go figure.

And in West TX where wind is really picking up energy prices are dropping.
 
Also, renewable energies would be competitive even without these forms of subsidies.
At a certain price they would be everywhere, but if that price is achieved by not drilling for oil, building nuclear or coal power plants or implementing dopey Cap & Trade scheemes, I don't think that makes much economical sense and is in reality a de facto subsidy.
Big producers are already jumping on to the train of green energies, and the markets are succeeding. But of course they also like to stick to nuclear and coal power.
Well they have to because renewable energy is both inefficient and highly unreliable making it unsuitable for baseload-grid use thus requiring a conventional energy source backup at all times.
 
CA troubles include a certain number of CA-specific issues, including: a divided state legislature, complete with a state constitution that makes ratifying any budget almost impossible; short term plans for state revenue (boosts in sales taxes, bond buying and selling, etc) at the expense of long term strategy; and immigration issues that affect everything from payroll taxes to health care. While the film industry is just one among many industries that have taken root in CA, the affect of runaway production on the local economy is also significant, as it affects employment, tax revenue, etc.

At the same time, CA is also being hit hard by the same economic issues ravaging the country (three other states in the country are also faced with massive unemployment). With the eighth largest economy in the world, it's no surprise that CA is going to be hit inordinately hard by the recession. The question is, who will lead us out.
 
The question is, who will lead us out.

true-lies_l.jpg


GET TO THE CHOPPA
 
At a certain price they would be everywhere, but if that price is achieved by not drilling for oil, building nuclear or coal power plants or implementing dopey Cap & Trade scheemes, I don't think that makes much economical sense and is in reality a de facto subsidy.

Well they have to because renewable energy is both inefficient and highly unreliable making it unsuitable for baseload-grid use thus requiring a conventional energy source backup at all times.

Well, I guess we have fundamental differences in our economical philosophy there. While for you pretty much any government meddling with the markets is an unjustified intervention, I don't always oppose the state using its powers in order to allocate resources and steering the economy towards a sustainable use of those resources, or to influence their demand by driving up or down the respective prices.
Also, Germany has almost no oil resources and the few we have wouldn't satisfy demand at all if left with those alone. Same with coal. So if we didn't promote the use of the resources we have, wind, water, biogas and a little sun, we would be perfectly independent of those countries in possession of such. Same with uranium.
For me there are a few other factors as well. If I didn't care about future generations, I would say, "Screw that green energy and use up the oil". If I didn't believe in climate change I would say, "Screw those windmills and let's take our chances with that damn global warming." Which for me, by the way, is no question of believing, and I don't really want to sit here in 40 years and say "Boo! You were wrong!" or "Yes, you were right."
If I didn't care that those resources were limited I wouldn't care for renewables either.
From an economical standpoint, of course nothing ever makes sense that prevents one from maximising his profit at the cost of future. But only if you follow the economic philosophy that there is no tomorrow. Or that climate change doesn't matter as long as we don't have waterproof evidence that it exists. I think, if we left resource allocation to the markets alone, we would just go through all those resources in the shortest amount of time, and our grandchildren would be very thankful for that.

Efficiency of renewables is increasing. And that's not a great argument. Every new technology lacks in efficiency. And some old technologies as well. A coal-power plant still has an efficiency level of about 35 percent. Nuclear power plants not much better. A conventional light-bulb emits about 95 to 98 percent heat.
We know that those forms of power generation are not always available. But we also aim for just 20 percent by 2020. Not 100 percent. And some other forms are, like water power or biogas. And we are still at the beginning of having figured out how to store energy.
 
You certainly make some good points V V in regards to natural resources. That certainly would affect energy policies and would vary from country to country. And new technologies will become more efficient with time.
 
and what new technologies need are creative people, and creative people are drawn to tolerant, liberal, arts-oriented cities like San Francisco, New York, LA, Boston, Seattle, etc.
 
I think it's a point for the US, too. If the States weren't importing such vast amounts of oil from the middle east, their own resources would be exploited in just a very few years.
And this efficiency debate always comes up with new technologies. Or that they are not as good, yet. E.g. electric cars. Well, true that. But if industry didn't start on a small level and grew from there, progress would never be made. And you can't expect a new technology to be at the same level as that which has been around for decades. No reason to never promote it, in my eyes.
 
the economic conservatives in Orange County and the housing bubble. and their demand to slash taxes.

as ever, it's the conservatives. they're busy screaming about Roman Polanski while the hills north of Hollywood burn.

As ever :huh:


So more taxes on job creators, more illegal immigration, more social diversity, and more subsidies for green jobs is the way out?
 
if you think it's that complicated, you need to stay in school.

<>

So the way you vote determines your state's economy? It has absolutely nothing to do with what resources, what kind of industries drive that state's economy, or anything like that, it all depends on if you like Romney, McCain, Obama or Clinton right? What a joke.
 
Back
Top Bottom