Schwarzenegger Blasts Bush on Global Warming

[Denny Crane]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...arzenegger.html

Schwarzenegger Blasts Bush on Global Warming

ABC News' Mary Bruce Reports: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., spoke out against President Bush this morning attacking his administration for its failure to counter global warming emissions.

"This administration did not believe in global warming," Schwarzenegger told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview that will air Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

"They just didn't believe in it or they didn't believe that they should do anything about it, since China is not doing anything about it and since India is not willing to do the same thing, so why should we do the same thing?" Schwarzenegger said.

"We don't wait for other countries to do the same thing. That's what makes America number one... And I think we have a good opportunity to do the same thing, also, with fighting global warming," he said.

Schwarzenegger's comments came in reaction to the Environmental Protection Agency's recent decision not to take further action against global warming during the remainder of Bush's presidency. "Well, to be honest with you, if they would have done something this year, I would have thought it was bogus anyway," he said. When asked why, the California Governor said, "because you don't change global warming and you don't really have an effect by doing something six months before you leave office."

Schwarzenegger argued that any action taken by the administration at this point would not have been sincere.

"I think that the way they have done it is much better...This administration did not believe that [carbon dioxide] and greenhouse gases is a pollutant. They fought this in court and then finally the Supreme Court had to tell them, 'Yes, it is a pollutant,'" he said.

He also highlighted the strides taken by California to counter global warming.

"I'm very happy that California is in the forefront," he said. "We are very aggressive. We have made a commitment to roll back our greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 level ... We didn't wait for Washington. I just felt that the administration and the federal government have been terrific partners in a lot of things for us and we have worked together very well, but environmental issues was not one of them."

 

[Denny Crane]

And then he hopped into his SUV and drove to the airport and took his private jet home.

 

[Lavalamp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 13 2008, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And then he hopped into his SUV and drove to the airport and took his private jet home.</div>
lol probably haha.

Or his personal Austrian tank.

Anyway, the economy isnt looking great, and reducing CO2 emmissions wont help the American economy. If anything it will move more factories and jobs to countries with less standards.

 

[huevonkiller]

Damn, Global Warming has infected the minds of many...

 

[Chutney]

Behind all that nonsensical rambling, I do agree with him on one point: I don't like how the US (and Canada) point to the subpar standards in developing countries like India and China as a reason why they don't have to focus their attention on environmental issues. This might be more applicable to Canada, but it makes no sense to me.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 13 2008, 11:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And then he hopped into his SUV and drove to the airport and took his private jet home.</div>

Regardless....He's right...

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 15 2008, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Behind all that nonsensical rambling, I do agree with him on one point: I don't like how the US (and Canada) point to the subpar standards in developing countries like India and China as a reason why they don't have to focus their attention on environmental issues. This might be more applicable to Canada, but it makes no sense to me.</div>

Our record on the environment is pretty spectacular.

An oddity is that our CO2 emissions have increased by a small % on an annual basis during economic boom years, but for every other greenhouse gas, our emissions have gone down for the past 30 years. We've cut the amount of lead in the air by eliminating leaded gasoline. We cut the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere to near zero. Lake Erie was once considered a "dead" lake, now it's quite clean. Almost all our energy came from burning coal a few decades ago, and now we burn a lot less of it and when we do it's scrubbed to make the smoke cleaner.

&c

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 10:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 15 2008, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Behind all that nonsensical rambling, I do agree with him on one point: I don't like how the US (and Canada) point to the subpar standards in developing countries like India and China as a reason why they don't have to focus their attention on environmental issues. This might be more applicable to Canada, but it makes no sense to me.</div>

Our record on the environment is pretty spectacular.

An oddity is that our CO2 emissions have increased by a small % on an annual basis during economic boom years, but for every other greenhouse gas, our emissions have gone down for the past 30 years. We've cut the amount of lead in the air by eliminating leaded gasoline. We cut the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere to near zero. Lake Erie was once considered a "dead" lake, now it's quite clean. Almost all our energy came from burning coal a few decades ago, and now we burn a lot less of it and when we do it's scrubbed to make the smoke cleaner.

&c
</div>

...and Los Angeles moved out of first place as the nations' most polluted city because of California's aggressive regulations. It then shifted to Houston...Bush...

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DennyCrane)</div><div class='quotemain'>Lake Erie was once considered a "dead" lake, now it's quite clean.</div>

That was after the fire, right?

Its a shame it takes a tragedy to get things turned around.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DennyCrane)</div><div class='quotemain'>Almost all our energy came from burning coal a few decades ago, and now we burn a lot less of it and when we do it's scrubbed to make the smoke cleaner.</div>

I believe most of our electricity still comes from coal?

T. Boone Pickens "may" be on to something. . I am skeptical of wind but Solar has merit as a stopgap in the sunbelt.

another possibility

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Anyone remember what Dubya was in charge of before he became President?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydayl...Feature_03.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Houston has a serious air quality problem. Since 1999, the Texas city has exchanged titles with Los Angeles as having the most polluted air in the United States defined by the number of days each city violates federal smog standards.</div>

 

[Denny Crane]

Gotcha.

Bush was personally pumping large amounts of pollution in the air all by himself.

LOL

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 11:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Anyone remember what Dubya was in charge of before he became President?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydayl...Feature_03.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Houston has a serious air quality problem. Since 1999, the Texas city has exchanged titles with Los Angeles as having the most polluted air in the United States defined by the number of days each city violates federal smog standards.</div>
</div>

To beat LA in that category, you really have to be trying.

 

[Denny Crane]

Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California?

All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.

 

[Real]

The thing I hate about man-made global warming, is that the debate on whether man has or has not caused global warming is stifled by enviornmentalists, the media, and other liberals like Al Gore.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California?

All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.</div>

Of course. It's California's fault that Bush looks the other way on pollution, whether it be his country or his state. Enron, and the selling of power to California in the early part of the century is an entire new thread.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 15 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The thing I hate about man-made global warming, is that the debate on whether man has or has not caused global warming is stifled by enviornmentalists, the media, and other liberals like Al Gore.</div>

Well, lets broaden it a bit. I know that China is polluting as much as any country in the world. Their air pollution is reaching us all the way on the California coast. What can we do about it? Not much really.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California?

All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.</div>

Of course. It's California's fault that Bush looks the other way on pollution, whether it be his country or his state. Enron, and the selling of power to California in the early part of the century is an entire new thread.
</div>

Enron wouldn't have been in a position to sell anything to California if California made all its own power. Generating power usually means burning oil, gas, or coal - since we don't do nuclear anymore and there's only a few hydroelectric dams.

We can talk about the evils of Enron separately, as you say, but it doesn't change the fact that California is outsourcing its pollution problems to elsewhere, and Houston just happens to be one of the places that has been willing to suffer the pollution for cash to satisfy the needs of places like California.

You can't ignore the fact that there's a cost (pollution) to making energy under the restrictive regulations put in place by govt. and it's only a matter of WHERE you pollute, not how much you pollute.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California?

All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.</div>

Of course. It's California's fault that Bush looks the other way on pollution, whether it be his country or his state. Enron, and the selling of power to California in the early part of the century is an entire new thread.
</div>

Enron wouldn't have been in a position to sell anything to California if California made all its own power. Generating power usually means burning oil, gas, or coal - since we don't do nuclear anymore and there's only a few hydroelectric dams.

We can talk about the evils of Enron separately, as you say, but it doesn't change the fact that California is outsourcing its pollution problems to elsewhere, and Houston just happens to be one of the places that has been willing to suffer the pollution for cash to satisfy the needs of places like California.

You can't ignore the fact that there's a cost (pollution) to making energy under the restrictive regulations put in place by govt. and it's only a matter of WHERE you pollute, not how much you pollute.
</div>

No, Denny. That is not how it went down. When the electricity demand in California rose, utilities had no financial incentive to expand production, as long term prices were capped. Instead, wholesalers such as Enron manipulated the market to force utility companies into daily spot markets for short term gain. For example, in a market technique known as megawatt laundering, wholesalers bought up electricity in California at below cap price to sell out of state, creating shortages. In some instances, wholesalers scheduled power transmission to create congestion and drive up prices.

There was clear and present manipulation going on , which then California governor Gray Davis took the fall for, and ultmately led to Arnold being elected. Then Enron was found guilty of all of the above, and the rest is history.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We can talk about the evils of Enron separately, as you say, but it doesn't change the fact that California is outsourcing its pollution problems to elsewhere, and Houston just happens to be one of the places that has been willing to suffer the pollution for cash to satisfy the needs of places like California.

You can't ignore the fact that there's a cost (pollution) to making energy under the restrictive regulations put in place by govt. and it's only a matter of WHERE you pollute, not how much you pollute.</div>

Outsourcing pollution?????? California uses more automobiles than any other state. THEY NEED REGULATION on pollution!!! They burn more fossil fuels. It is Imperative that they keep it as clean as possible. This is the most polluted state, and yet they try as hard as they can to curb it. They have gone so far, that the automobile industry is fighting them over their pollution reduction measures.

Read.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/enviro...0,1582283.story

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 15 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The thing I hate about man-made global warming, is that the debate on whether man has or has not caused global warming is stifled by enviornmentalists, the media, and other liberals like Al Gore.</div>

Well, lets broaden it a bit. I know that China is polluting as much as any country in the world. Their air pollution is reaching us all the way on the California coast. What can we do about it? Not much really.
</div>

The Chinese are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Sign the Kyoto, then build more coal power plants.

And according to the liberal enviornmentalists we're the one not addressing the issue.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 15 2008, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 15 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The thing I hate about man-made global warming, is that the debate on whether man has or has not caused global warming is stifled by enviornmentalists, the media, and other liberals like Al Gore.</div>

Well, lets broaden it a bit. I know that China is polluting as much as any country in the world. Their air pollution is reaching us all the way on the California coast. What can we do about it? Not much really.
</div>

The Chinese are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Sign the Kyoto, then build more coal power plants.

And according to the liberal enviornmentalists we're the one not addressing the issue.
</div>

Right, so California is getting it from multiple directions. Now do you see why they are so strict on environmental control?

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Ken Lay, one of Bush's BEST FRIENDS...

One of the energy wholesalers that became notorious for "gaming the market" and reaping huge speculative profits was Enron Corporation. Enron CEO Ken Lay mocked the efforts by the California State government to thwart the practices of the energy wholesalers, saying, "In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money." The original statement was made in a phone conversation between David Freeman (Chairman of the California Power Authority) and Kenneth Lay (CEO of Enron) in 2000, according to the statements made by Freeman to the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism in April[10] and May[11] 2002.

S. David Freeman, who was appointed Chair of the California Power Authority in the midst of the crisis, made the following statements about Enron's involvement in testimony submitted before the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on May 15, 2002:

"There is one fundamental lesson we must learn from this experience: electricity is really different from everything else. It cannot be stored, it cannot be seen, and we cannot do without it, which makes opportunities to take advantage of a deregulated market endless. It is a public good that must be protected from private abuse. If Murphy’s Law were written for a market approach to electricity, then the law would state “any system that can be gamed, will be gamed, and at the worst possible time.” And a market approach for electricity is inherently gameable. Never again can we allow private interests to create artificial or even real shortages and to be in control."
"Enron stood for secrecy and a lack of responsibility. In electric power, we must have openness and companies that are responsible for keeping the lights on. We need to go back to companies that own power plants with clear responsibilities for selling real power under long-term contracts. There is no place for companies like Enron that own the equivalent of an electronic telephone book and game the system to extract an unnecessary middleman’s profits. Companies with power plants can compete for contracts to provide the bulk of our power at reasonable prices that reflect costs. People say that Governor Davis has been vindicated by the Enron confession."
Enron eventually went bankrupt, and signed a US$1.52 billion settlement with a group of California agencies and private utilities on July 16, 2005. However, due to its other bankruptcy obligations, only US$202 million of this was expected to be paid. Ken Lay was convicted of multiple criminal charges unrelated to the California energy crisis on May 25, 2006, but he died due to a massive heart attack on July 5 of that year before he could be sentenced. Because Lay died while his case was on federal appeal, his record was expunged and his family was allowed to retain all its property.

 

[Vintage]

Guys, you need to be careful....

China could soon be demanding an apology from you for blasting them the way some of you have done in this thread.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ken Lay was Bill Clinton's buddy, too. Enron donated $100,000 to the Clinton campaign in 1992, and paid another $25,000 for various parties celebrating Clinton's election. The Clinton administration helped Enron in numerous power plant deals around the world. You won't have a hard time finding excerpts of letters by Ron Brown and other Clinton administration trade reps on behalf of Enron, like this one:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl.../28/12723.shtml
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"Enron power, a world renowned private power developer, is in the final stages of negotiating two combined cycle, gas turbine power projects," wrote Brown in his 1995 letter.

"The first, a 500 MW plant in East Java, should bring commercial power generation by the end of 1997 if it can promptly negotiate a gas supply Memorandum of Understanding with Pertamina. The other project, a smaller plant in East Kalimantan, also awaits a gas supply agreement.

"I urge you to give full consideration to the proposals," concluded Brown to the Indonesian minister. In October 1995, Brown wrote another letter, this time to Hartarto Sastrosurarto, Indonesia's Coordinating Minister for Trade and Industry, pressing him to conclude the Enron power plant deals.

"I would like to bring to your attention a number of projects involving American companies which seem to be stalled, including several independent power projects. These projects include the Tarahan power project, which involves Southern Electric; the gas powered projects in East Java and East Kalimantan, which involves Enron," wrote Brown.

"Your support for prompt resolution of the remaining issues associated with each of these projects would be most appreciated," concluded Brown.

On Nov. 18, 1996, Enron CEO Ken Lay announced that the deal with Suharto was complete. According to Enron's public statement, the U.S.-led energy company had finally won the East Java Power project.</div>


Gray Davis was a complete asswipe as Governor. He gambled with the peoples' money on energy futures, which is a highly risky type of thing for anyone to invest in (any futures trading is). No amount of political spin can change this fact, or the fact he left office with the state spending at a $60B deficit with $60B in income.

California simply does not generate all the energy it requires. I live 10 miles from the Hoover Dam, which generates hydroelectric power, and the bulk of it goes to Los Angeles. Since California went through its energy crisis, our electric bills here have doubled.

Enron was a legitimate business for quite a while, but got into the dot bomb craze and blew it all. They're not the only big company that went under in the Clinton era this way. AT&T was so old a company that it's stock symbol was a single letter (T), and ended up getting sold off in pieces; it exists today as a brand name, the brand having been bought by Cingular. MCI, people joked, stood for "Money Coming In" and it got rolled up in a dot bomb kind of play along with several other actual profitable internet companies and went under as WorldCom. Sears, another very old company with a single letter stock symbol (S) was on the brink.

I do not in any way want to diminish the actual crimes that Ken Lay committed, which were more related to corporate governance than anything to do with the California energy crisis. However, Lay wasn't an evil man; he was quite generous and a pillar of the Houston community for years. He contributed large sums of his own money to all kinds of charities. He produced quality jobs for a lot of people for years, but when his company got into trouble, he did a lot of bad things that he deserved to go to prison for.

The situation in California was entirely due to REGULATION. You can read an accurate description of California's problems here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/34215.html

I'll quote a relevant part of the above link here:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Here's how the current crisis was created. A half-decade ago, energy deregulation became big buzz in Sacramento's political circles. In 1996, Assemblyman Steve Peace, considered by some to be the Sen. Pat Moynihan of the California legislature, decided to get in front of this parade. He organized the relevant players —big industrial customers, utilities, environmental groups, and consumer groups—and the result was an electricity restructuring bill that passed the legislature unanimously. Whenever that happens, you can safely bet something screwy is going on.

Politicians claimed the plan would provide consumers with more choice and lower prices. Big business figured its purchasing power would allow it to secure lower prices, of the sort the feds deliver up in the Pacific Northwest with the heavily subsidized Bonneville Power Administration. Consumer and environmental groups got lots of restrictions on how the utilities could operate, including price controls, which, as Cuba shows, do a great job of protecting consumers from such things as consumer goods, including necessities such as food, clothing, and, well, electricity. They also got a guaranteed 10 percent rate cut right off the bat.

California has both public utilities and investor-owned ones. The investor-owned utilities had to sell off their power plants, since vertical integration is considered almost as sinful as giving out free Web browsers. Still, they too got what they thought was a good deal: They got to charge their customers a "competitive transition charge," which almost offset the 10 percent rate cut and allowed them to recoup their "stranded costs," a euphemism for stupid investments in inefficient plants. They also got a cartel scheme worthy of trial lawyers and Big Tobacco: New competitors had to charge customers the same "competitive transition fee" and hand the money over to the state. Between the price controls and the rate cut, any new competitor entering the California market would have to price their juice so cheaply that it wouldn't be worth the effort.

Seeking a tightly managed market, the pols behind the restructuring made another costly error, the result being a totally mangled market. They mistook a physical marketplace (e.g., the New York Stock Exchange) for the market itself. But the latter is simply individuals or firms agreeing to voluntary transactions wherever they may be, a sort of floating crap game that takes place all the time, everywhere and nowhere. The pols not only created an actual, centralized marketplace called the Power Exchange in a building in Pasadena, they also mandated that all electricity must be bought and sold there. Concerned that all transactions be revealed to the public, they further prohibited buyers and sellers from agreeing to individual contracts and mandated that everyone pay the same -- and highest -- price offered on any given day. So that's how the "market" price for power would be set for the utilities. Here's another catch: Regulators would set the price the utilities could charge energy consumers.

Now this scheme may be many things, but a deregulated market it certainly isn’t. But none of this mattered much as long as electricity was plentiful and wholesale prices remained sufficiently under the politician's price caps, a situation which existed until 2000.</div>

Keep in mind that govt. has the power to define what is a crime, and when they looked for a scapegoat, they found an easy mark in Ken Lay. A classic govt. cover up. I think you would be smart enough to figure it out given the true facts.

As for California... The NYC and Chicago metropolitan areas are nearly as populated as L.A. and don't have the pollution issues or the need for the strict kinds of regulation California has. What is unique about California's situation is not the people or number of cars, but the geography. LA is in a bowl formed by mountain ranges; this stagnates the air circulation in the area, causing pollution to not be disbursed as readily. The SF Bay Area, especially the Peninsula, is similarly surrounded by mountains.

I read your link to the LA Times article. In response:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/business...&ei=5087%0A

My comment on the NY Times article is that GM is one of the greenest automakers in the world, with a wide array of vehicles that run on ethanol in various concentrations, natural gas, etc., etc.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Going back to your logic on why Houston beat out LA in 1999 as the most polluted city...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California?

All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.</div>

California didn't have power pumped into the state until energy companies began shutting down their plants in 2000, and thus the rolling blackouts that we were going through. How can you accuse California of driving up the pollution in Houston when they had already been doing so on their own before we even asked them for additional energy? That makes zero sense. <u>Houston</u> is responsible for how Houston is polluting in their own city, period.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Houston, we have a problem</div>

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Gray Davis was a complete asswipe as Governor. He gambled with the peoples' money on energy futures, which is a highly risky type of thing for anyone to invest in (any futures trading is). No amount of political spin can change this fact, or the fact he left office with the state spending at a $60B deficit with $60B in income.

California simply does not generate all the energy it requires. I live 10 miles from the Hoover Dam, which generates hydroelectric power, and the bulk of it goes to Los Angeles. Since California went through its energy crisis, our electric bills here have doubled.
As for California... The NYC and Chicago metropolitan areas are nearly as populated as L.A. and don't have the pollution issues or the need for the strict kinds of regulation California has. What is unique about California's situation is not the people or number of cars, but the geography. LA is in a bowl formed by mountain ranges; this stagnates the air circulation in the area, causing pollution to not be disbursed as readily. The SF Bay Area, especially the Peninsula, is similarly surrounded by mountains.</div>


Couple of things here. The laws regarding California's energy were put into the books only a couple of years before the whole crisis occurred. I understand some of the problems that were directly tied to Davis, but blame can't be entirely thrust at his feet for what a previous administration put into law. In fact, one could say that the previous governor, Pete Wilson, was the one who gambled on California's energy future when he pushed the bills through in the first place. Four or five years after, it must be all Gray Davis's fault, that is what Gray's opponents will say.

Post 2000, we now don't generate all the electricity we need. That is not because we don't have the capacity to do so. If you recall, one of our biggest energy suppliers in the state went bankrupt after all this, and ended up turning their power plants off! Of course that is going to have an effect on our ability to power ourselves. I'm not surprised at all that we are still buying power from other states to bandaid this.

Do not equate LA to "all of California". As for LA's pollution, that comes from the fact that every man, woman, and teenager in LA drives their own cars, and refuses to take public transit or carpool. They have the worst traffic, and drive the most cars, period. The geography has a little bit to do with that, but not as much as you might think. Where I work, up here, we have a valley called the Silicon Valley. It is very similar to LA in terms of population density, and physical geography ( a bowl). The biggest difference I have seen between the two areas is the enormous amount of public transit that exists here. People up here often carpool as well. Those two things combined keep this area from becoming what LA has always been for the better part of a century now.

 

[Lavalamp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 15 2008, 11:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I believe most of our electricity still comes from coal?

T. Boone Pickens "may" be on to something. . I am skeptical of wind but Solar has merit as a stopgap in the sunbelt.

another possibility </div>

Here is a chart that shows where US electricity comes from:

In regards to Solar power, its really terrible. It is incredibly expensive to set up and maintain if panels break or wear out. The energy produced is quite small, or else people would use them to reducy their electricity bills.

Nuclear is probably the most viable, Hydroelectric the 2nd, then Wind (not as effective as the first 2 and cost a fair amount to build for the energy they produce), then using Tide changes to turn turbines along coasts.

Oh and here is a potential solar power project that might be done in 2013.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Also known as a power tower, a solar power facility that uses a field of two-axis tracking mirrors known as heliostats. Each heliostat is individually positioned by a computer control system to reflect the sun's rays to a tower-mounted thermal receiver. The effect of many heliostats reflecting to a common point creates the combined energy of thousands of suns, which produces high-temperature thermal energy. In the receiver, molten nitrate salts absorb the heat energy. The hot salt is then used to boil water to steam, which is sent to a conventional steam turbine-generator to produce electricity.</div>

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 08:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Gray Davis was a complete asswipe as Governor. He gambled with the peoples' money on energy futures, which is a highly risky type of thing for anyone to invest in (any futures trading is). No amount of political spin can change this fact, or the fact he left office with the state spending at a $60B deficit with $60B in income.

California simply does not generate all the energy it requires. I live 10 miles from the Hoover Dam, which generates hydroelectric power, and the bulk of it goes to Los Angeles. Since California went through its energy crisis, our electric bills here have doubled.
As for California... The NYC and Chicago metropolitan areas are nearly as populated as L.A. and don't have the pollution issues or the need for the strict kinds of regulation California has. What is unique about California's situation is not the people or number of cars, but the geography. LA is in a bowl formed by mountain ranges; this stagnates the air circulation in the area, causing pollution to not be disbursed as readily. The SF Bay Area, especially the Peninsula, is similarly surrounded by mountains.</div>


Couple of things here. The laws regarding California's energy were put into the books only a couple of years before the whole crisis occurred. I understand some of the problems that were directly tied to Davis, but blame can't be entirely thrust at his feet for what a previous administration put into law. In fact, one could say that the previous governor, Pete Wilson, was the one who gambled on California's energy future when he pushed the bills through in the first place. Four or five years after, it must be all Gray Davis's fault, that is what Gray's opponents will say.

Post 2000, we now don't generate all the electricity we need. That is not because we don't have the capacity to do so. If you recall, one of our biggest energy suppliers in the state went bankrupt after all this, and ended up turning their power plants off! Of course that is going to have an effect on our ability to power ourselves. I'm not surprised at all that we are still buying power from other states to bandaid this.

Do not equate LA to "all of California". As for LA's pollution, that comes from the fact that every man, woman, and teenager in LA drives their own cars, and refuses to take public transit or carpool. They have the worst traffic, and drive the most cars, period. The geography has a little bit to do with that, but not as much as you might think. Where I work, up here, we have a valley called the Silicon Valley. It is very similar to LA in terms of population density, and physical geography ( a bowl). The biggest difference I have seen between the two areas is the enormous amount of public transit that exists here. People up here often carpool as well. Those two things combined keep this area from becoming what LA has always been for the better part of a century now.
</div>

First of all, I lived in Silicon Valley for 15 years and know it quite well. I travel there on business a few times a year, and it is amazing how busy the freeways are at all times of the day; I don't think it's any better than LA in that respect. There's just fewer people. See the part you quoted me that I bolded.

Second, you are still describing the problems with California's attempt to <u><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">regulate</span></u> energy. Pawn it off on Wilson, he deserves some of the blame. You can't ignore what Davis did as governor, which is exactly what I posted - he bankrupted the state and gambled the peoples' money on risky investments.

Third, California has not produced its power needs for decades. The Hoover Dam began transmission of electricity to Los Angeles in 1936.

Fourth, and a new point, LOL at California and how they regulated MTBE in their gasoline.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 08:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 15 2008, 11:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I believe most of our electricity still comes from coal?

T. Boone Pickens "may" be on to something. . I am skeptical of wind but Solar has merit as a stopgap in the sunbelt.

another possibility </div>

Here is a chart that shows where US electricity comes from:

In regards to Solar power, its really terrible. It is incredibly expensive to set up and maintain if panels break or wear out. The energy produced is quite small, or else people would use them to reducy their electricity bills.

Nuclear is probably the most viable, Hydroelectric the 2nd, then Wind (not as effective as the first 2 and cost a fair amount to build for the energy they produce), then using Tide changes to turn turbines along coasts.
</div>

Solar's a joke. It only works _at all_ because the govt. subsidizes it. The more solar panels built, the less a % of all energy generated by solar panels. Figure that one out and you realize it's a scam.

Hydroelectric has massive environmental ramifications.

Windmills are a blight on the landscape. I do not fathom why people would protect ANWR and support a massive windmill farm covering much of the rockies. They're also a net energy loser like solar panels.

Pickens' idea is intriguing to say the least. The things he says that make the most sense are twofold: we need to solve the supply side of the equation here at home (he suggests wind), and the transfer of money from the US to the middle east is outrageous.