myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 378, 379, 380 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
I would ask for some credible evidence that the oil industry has snuffed alternates, but its too wearying.


though I can not find the source a researcher that worked for one of the oil company solar research centers (i think in Vacaville California) came out many years later to blow the whistle so to speak that it was indeed the mission of the oil company so called solar research center that he worked in to lock out any developments in solar energy by applying for as many patents in all areas as they could. I read or herd on the radio an interview with him about it a long time ago and do not have the link to it, could have been about 10 years ago he discussed it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/03/prodigal-sun

Quote:
It was the winter of 1981 and the country was just beginning to feel the sharp edges of the Reagan revolution. Denis Hayes, head of the fledgling Solar Energy Research Institute, was walking through the halls of the Department of Energy when an acquaintance came up to him and said, "Has Frank lowered the boom on you yet?" The Frank in question was an acting assistant secretary, but the boom, it turned out, was falling from the top. President Reagan had once been General Electric's most camera-ready tout, and his administration viewed alternative energy with open scorn. "They're going to kill your study," the gray-suited informant warned Hayes, before slipping down the corridor.


Quote:
By the late 1970s, Exxon, Mobil, Arco, and other oil companies had bought out many patents for the photovoltaic cells that collect sunlight and convert it to electricity, prompting consumer watchdogs like Ralph Nader to sound the alarm that companies with vested interests in "hard" energy were in position to smother "soft" innovations.


http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/1555243/oil-companies-patent-trolling-biofuel-production
Quote:
"Thought oil companies were done patent trolling to try to shut down any efforts to wean us off of crude oil (e.g. Chevron and NiMH batteries)? Think again. BP and DuPont (Butamax) have taken an advanced biofuel company to court over infringement of newly awarded patents for developing biobutanol. When an oil company advertises it is looking for alternative fuels, it's not necessarily because they want to be socially responsible..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby#Global_influence
Quote:
"Fossil fuels lobby" is the umbrella term used to name the paid representatives of large fossil fuel (oil, gas, coal) and electric utilities corporations who attempt to influence governmental policy. So-called Big Oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total S.A., Koch Industries, Chevron Corporation, and ConocoPhillips are amongst the largest corporations associated with the energy lobby. General Electric, Southern Co., First Energy, and the Edison Electric Institute are among the influential electric utilities corporations.[1] Both electric companies and big oil and gas companies are consistently among the ten highest-spending industrial lobbyists.[2]


Quote:
Influence of the energy lobby in the United States[edit]
In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million.[3][4] From 2003-2006, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.[5] During the United States elections in 2012 which includes the presidential election there was much spending by the lobbies.
[6]

my gosh we overthrow governments for oil company interests/profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadan_Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#Early_petroleum_development

http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/docs/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KGB-NP



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:09 am    Post subject: Cost Of Solar PV Will Fall To 2 Cents/kWh In 2050, Says Frau Reply with quote

Cost Of Solar PV Will Fall To 2 Cents/kWh In 2050, Says Fraunhofer Study

http://www.energypost.eu/fraunhofer-solar-power-will-cost-2-ctskwh-2050/
Quote:
“In a few years, solar energy plants will deliver the most inexpensive power available in many parts of the world. By 2025, the cost of producing power in central and southern Europe will have declined to between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt hour, and by 2050 to as low as 2 to 4 cents.” These are the main conclusions of a study by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems commissioned by the German think tank Agora Energiewende. In view of these conclusions, “plans for future power supply systems should therefore be revised worldwide”, says Patrick Graichen, Director of Agora.

According to Agora Energiewende, which describes itself as “an independent German think tank dedicated to research on the future of the electrical power system”, the Fraunhofer study “uses only conservative assumptions about technological developments expected for solar energy. Technological breakthroughs could make electricity even cheaper, but these potential developments were not taken into consideration.”

Solar power is already cost-effective, Agora notes. “In the sunny, desert country of Dubai, a long-term power purchase contract was signed recently for 5 cents per kilowatt hour, while in Germany large solar plants deliver power for less than 9 cents. By comparison, electricity from new coal and gas-fired plants costs between 5 and 10 cents per kilowatt hour and from nuclear plants as much as 11 cents.”

According to the study, “most scenarios fundamentally underestimate the role of solar power in future energy systems.” The study shows “that solar energy has become cheaper much more quickly than most experts had predicted and will continue to do so,” says Dr. Patrick Graichen, Director of the Agora Energiewende in a press release. “Plans for future power supply systems should therefore be revised worldwide. Until now, most of them only anticipate a small share of solar power in the mix. In view of the extremely favourable costs, solar power will on the contrary play a prominent role, together with wind energy – also, and most importantly, as a cheap way of contributing to international climate protection.”

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Despite the asinine comments about my investment portfolio, accepting the reality of the world's energy needs does not indicate any resistance to alternate sources of energy provided they make sense."


My apologies mrgybe if my comments about your investment portfolio got under your skin. Maybe I was foolish in my presumption, but you have to admit that you have been a very consistent cheerleader for the oil industry, to include a range of other traditional carbon based industries. One would only think that you would follow your heart and mind into your investment strategies, especially when you still have such strong feelings about leveraging the opportunities available both here and abroad. Moreover, in light of the executive experience and insight you've gained in your past career, it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't still have some irons in the fire. But maybe you're more like me, and you let different mutual funds manage your money. Let the experts deal with it. It's much less of a worry that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps this is why the coal and oil industries hate subsidies for improving conservation:

Quote:
Energy efficiency cut New England prices by 24% in winter 2014: report
Portland, Maine (Platts)--16Apr2015/415 pm EDT/2015 GMT

Energy efficiency savings lowered New England's wholesale electricity prices by 24% in the winter of 2014, according to a report released Thursday by the Acadia Center, an energy advocacy group.

Efficiency programs suppressed electric demand by 13.7% from January through March 2014, lowering payments to generators by $1.49 billion, the report said.

With New England looking for ways to cut its power prices, the group said the region's states should prioritize energy efficiency investments, which cost about 4 cents/kWh.

But efficiency is not a one-size "cure-all" for the region's electricity needs, said Jamie Howland, Acadia Center director for energy efficiency and demand-side initiative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With Earth Day coming up this week, it is time to revisit some of the developing science about the reality, and the costs, of global warming. I have no illusions that those who trust only Murdoch papers, or brag that they learned nothing in high school, will pay attention. But in an ongoing effort to place facts just outside the conservative bubble, consider this a public service.

First up, an article on the drought, and the science team at Stanford trying to figure out whether this is a symptom of climate change. Turns out that it most likely is. http://www.pressreader.com/usa/san-francisco-chronicle/20150419/281487864884389/TextView

from the article:
Quote:
A big culprit in all of this, the team says: global warming.

"No matter how you look at it, global warming is occurring, and this is increasing the risk of extreme events, " Diffenbaugh said. "We have to deal with the reality tha we are in a new climate."


Next, an article on what climate change means to shorelines and waterfronts. Pay particular attention to the three graphs on the second page that show time series of CO2 concentration, temperature, and sea level change. As we all know by know, the uneducated and the unscrupulous will clip time series--on jobs as well as temperature--to misrepresent the science. But anyone with any grounding in statistics and trends would be impressed by the graphs: http://cityminded.org/the-shoreline-of-the-future-permanently-temporary-13099

Third, from a think tank--not funded by the Koch's--comes a new report on the economic consequences. Lest you think this is another report from Al Gore, the Committee includes George Shultz and Olympia Snow--left over from the era when Republicans were responsible and responsive.

http://riskybusiness.org/

Some are short=sighted enough to think that climate change and sea level only threatens those who bought property near the beach. Not so. Higher sea level and decreased snow pack threatens property far from the shoreline. The report (page 45) notes that more than 7 million Californians, and roughly $580 billion in assets are within the floodplain and at risk to increased and more frequent flooding.

Near the coast, a massive amount of public facilities are at risk, including 140 schols, 3,500 miles of roads, 280 miles of railway, 28 waste water treatment plants and 30 large power plants. None of the costs of protecting these facilities will come from fees on carbon unless Congress Act. That means this is a subsidy of the coal and oil industries of staggering proportion.

Party on, forget that there will be a hangover.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jp5



Joined: 19 May 1998
Posts: 3394
Location: OnUr6

PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finally an honest explanation of the Cali. drought.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Big Idea: California Is So Over
04.19.15 12:01 AM ET

California’s drought and how it’s handled show just what kind of place the Golden State is becoming: feudal, super-affluent and with an impoverished interior.

California has met the future, and it really doesn’t work. As the mounting panic surrounding the drought suggests, the Golden State, once renowned for meeting human and geographic challenges, is losing its ability to cope with crises. As a result, the great American land of opportunity is devolving into something that resembles feudalism, a society dominated by rich and poor, with little opportunity for upward mobility for the state’s middle- and working classes.

The water situation reflects this breakdown in the starkest way. Everyone who follows California knew it was inevitable we would suffer a long-term drought. Most of the state—including the Bay Area as well as greater Los Angeles—is semi-arid, and could barely support more than a tiny fraction of its current population. California’s response to aridity has always been primarily an engineering one that followed the old Roman model of siphoning water from the high country to service cities and farms.

But since the 1970s, California’s water system has become the prisoner of politics and posturing. The great aqueducts connecting the population centers with the great Sierra snowpack are all products of an earlier era—the Los Angeles aqueduct (1913), Hetch-Hetchy (1923), the Central Valley Project (1937), and the California Aqueduct (1974). The primary opposition to expansion has been the green left, which rejects water storage projects as irrelevant.

Yet at the same time greens and their allies in academia and the mainstream press are those most likely to see the current drought as part of a climate change-induced reduction in snowpack. That many scientists disagree with this assessment is almost beside the point. Whether climate change will make things better or worse is certainly an important concern, but California was going to have problems meeting its water needs under any circumstances.

Not Meeting the Challenges.

It’s not like we haven’t been around this particular block before. In the 1860s, a severe drought all but destroyed LA’s once-flourishing cattle industry. This drought was followed by torrential rains that caused their own havoc. The state has suffered three major droughts since I have lived here—in the mid ’70s, the mid ’80s and again today—but long ago (even before I got there) some real whoppers occurred, including dry periods that lasted upwards of 200 years.

This, like the threat of earthquakes, is part of the price we pay to live in this most beautiful and usually temperate of states. The real issue is how to meet this challenge, and here the response has been slow and lacking in vision. Not all of this is to be blamed on the greens, who dominate the state politically. California agriculture, for example, was among the last in the nation to agree to monitoring of groundwater. Farmers have also been slow to adjust their crops toward less water-dependent varieties; they continue to plant alfalfa, cotton, and other crops that may be better grown in more water-rich areas.

Many cities, too, have been slow to meet the challenge. Some long resisted metering of water use. Other places have been slow to encourage drought-resistant landscaping, which is already pretty de rigeur in more aridity-conscious desert cities like Tucson. This process may take time, but it is already showing value in places like Los Angeles where water agencies provide incentives.

But ultimately the responsibility for California’s future lies with our political leadership, who need to develop the kind of typically bold approaches past generations have embraced. One step would be building new storage capacity, which Governor Jerry Brown, after opposing it for years, has begun to admit is necessary. Desalinization, widely used in the even more arid Middle East, notably Israel, has been blocked by environmental interests but could tap a virtually unlimited supply of the wet stuff, and lies close to the state’s most densely populated areas. Essentially the state could build enough desalinization facilities, and the energy plants to run them, for less money than Brown wants to spend on his high-speed choo-choo to nowhere. This piece of infrastructure is so irrelevant to the state’s needs that even many progressives, such as Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, consider it a “ridiculous” waste of money.

We are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation.

And there needs to be, at least for the short term, an end to dumping water into San Francisco Bay for the purpose of restoring a long-gone salmon run, or to the Delta, in order to save a bait-fish, the Delta smelt, which may already be close to extinct. This dumping of water has continued even as the state has faced a potentially crippling water shortage; nothing is too good for our fish, or to salve the hyper-heated consciousness of the environmental illuminati.

The Political Equation

The biggest reason California has been so slow, and uncharacteristically feckless, in meeting this existential challenge lies with psychology and ends with political power. The generation that built the sinews of modern California—most notably the late Governor Pat Brown Sr., the current governor’s father—sprang from the old progressive spirit which saw in infrastructure development a chance not only to create new wealth, but also provide opportunity to working- and middle-class Californians.

Indeed, if you look at California’s greatest achievements as a society, the Pat Brown legacy stands at the core. The California Aqueduct turned vast stretches of the Central Valley into one of the most productive farming regions in the world. The freeway system, now in often shocking disrepair, allowed for the construction of mass suburbia that offered millions a quality of life never experienced by previous generations. At the same time the development of energy resources—California still boasts the nation’s third-largest oil production—helped create a huge industrial base that included aerospace, semiconductors, and a host of specialized industries, from logistics to garment manufacturing.

In contrast, Jerry Brown has waged a kind of Oedipal struggle against his father’s legacy. Like many Californians, he recoiled against the sometimes haphazard and even ugly form of development that plowed through much of the state. Cutting off water is arguably the most effective way to stop all development, and promote Brown’s stated goal of eliminating suburban “sprawl.” It is typical that his first target for cutbacks this year has been the “lawns” of the middle-class suburbanite, a species for which he has shown little interest or tolerance.

But it’s not just water that exemplifies the current “era of limits” psychology. Energy development has always been in green crosshairs and their harassment has all but succeeded in helping drive much of the oil and gas industry, including corporate headquarters, out of the state. Not building roads—arguably to be replaced by trains—has not exactly reduced traffic but given California the honor of having eight of the top 20 cities nationally with poor roads; the percentage of Los Angeles-area residents who take transit has, if anything, declined slightly since train-building began. All we are left with are impossible freeways, crumbling streets, and ever more difficulty doing anything that requires traveling.

The Road to Feudalism

These policies have had numerous impacts, like weakening California’s industrial sector, which cannot afford energy prices that can be twice as high as in competing states. Some of those who might have worked in the factories, warehouses, and farms of California now help swell the numbers of the welfare recipients, who remarkably make up one-third of the nation’s total. As recently as the 1970s and ’80s, the percentage of people living in poverty in California was below the national average; California today, based on cost of living, has the highest poverty rate in the country.

Of course, the rich and entitled, particularly in Silicon Valley have achieved unprecedented riches, but those middle-class Californians once served by Pat have largely been abandoned by his son. California, long a relative beacon of equality and opportunity, now has the fourth-highest rate of inequality in the country. For those who, like me, bought their first home over 30 years ago, high housing prices, exacerbated by regulation, are a personal piggybank. But it’s doubtful either of my daughters will ever be able to buy a house here.

What about “green jobs”? California leads in total number of green jobs, simply by dint of size, but on a per-capita basis, a recent Brookings study notes, California is about average. In wind energy, in fact, California is not even in first place; that honor goes to, of all places, Texas, which boasts twice California’s level of production. Today even  The New York Times has described Governor Jerry Brown’s promise about creating a half-million green jobs as something of a “pipe dream.” Even surviving solar firms, busy in part to meet the state’s strict renewable mandates, acknowledge that they won’t be doing much of the manufacturing here, anyway.

The Cost of Narcissism

Ultimately this is a story of a state that has gotten tired, having lost its “animal spirits” for the policy equivalent of a vegan diet. Increasingly it’s all about how the elites in the state—who cluster along the expensive coastal areas—feel about themselves. Even Brown knows that his environmental agenda will do little, or nothing, to combat climate change, given the already minimal impact of the state on carbon emissions compared to escalating fossil fuel use in China, India and elsewhere. But the cosmopolitan former Jesuit gives more priority to his spiritual service to Gaia than the needs of his non-affluent constituents.

But progressive narcissism is, as some conservatives assert, not the main problem. California greens are, to be sure, active, articulate, well-organized, and well-financed. What they lack is an effective counterpoint from the business class, who would be expected to challenge some of their policies. But the business leadership often seems to be more concerned with how to adjust the status quo to serve privileged large businesses, including some in agriculture, than boosting the overall economy. The greens, and their public-sector allies, can dominate not because they are so effective as that their potential opposition is weak, intimidated, and self-obsessed.

What we are witnessing the breakdown of a once-expansive, open society into one dominated by a small group of plutocrats, largely in Silicon Valley, with an “amen” crew among the low-information donors of Hollywood, the public unions, the green lobby, and wealthy real estate developers favored by Brown’s pro-density policies. This coalition backs Brown and helps maintain the state’s essentially one-party system. No one is more adamant about reducing people’s carbon footprint than the jet set of Silicon Valley or the state’s planning elite, even if they choose not to live in a manner that they instruct all others.

This fundamentally hypocritical regime remains in place because it works—for the powerful and well-placed. Less understandable is why many Hispanic politicians, such as Assembly Speaker Kevin de Leon, also prioritize “climate change” as his leading issue, without thinking much about how these policies might worsen the massive poverty in his de-industrializing L.A. district—until you realize that de Leon is bankrolled by Tom Steyer and others from the green uberclass.

So, in the end, we are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation. True, it has some virtues: greener, cleaner, and more “progressive” on social issues. But it’s also becoming increasingly feudal, defined by a super-affluent coastal class and an increasingly impoverished interior. As water prices rise, and farms and lawns are abandoned, there’s little thought about how to create a better future for the bulk of Californians. Like medieval peasants, millions of Californians have been force to submit to the theology of our elected high priest and his acolytes, leaving behind any aspirations that the Golden State can work for them too.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/19/big-idea-california-is-so-over.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another view of California from the Washington Monthly:

April 19, 2015

Dear Conservative Concern Trolls: California Will Be Just Fine, Thank You

By David Atkins

Joel Kotkin over the The Daily Beast has scribbled out the millionth version of the “California is Dying” article—a genre of conservative wishful thinking that turns out to be hilariously wrong every time it is written. For years the story was that California would become the next Greece: hopelessly in debt, unable to pay its bills, with an exodus of taxpayers. That turned out to be bunk, of course: all the state needed was a 2/3 Democratic supermajority and a Democratic governor, and the state’s fiscal situation was rectified almost immediately.

The new opportunity to concern-troll California with big business propaganda comes with the drought. The drought has become the platform from which the conservative complaint machine hits all its favorite targets: Silicon Valley and Hollywood elites, environmentalists, immigrants, and public works (especially transportation.) Republicans who wish they could turn California into Texas want the state to divert rail funding into building more freeways, drain the wetlands to support oil fracking and big agriculture, and close down the borders so that racist whites will feel a little less uncomfortable. They also want to build lots and lots of desalination plants, and blame progressive policy for the widening income inequality gap that sets the wealthy coast apart from the poorer interior.

Fortunately, however, California isn’t Texas. We’re smarter and more patient than that.

We know that without addressing climate change, nothing we do in the short-term to alleviate drought issues is going to matter all that much. The droughts will get harsher and more severe, which will eventually flip the conversation from an annoyance about giving up almonds and front lawns to an existential question about whether parts of the state are even habitable. The only way to handle it is to lead the nation on climate change abatement, setting a gold standard as the nation’s most prosperous and most populous state.

We also know that no matter how much we spend on freeways, the state’s population and projected growth is such that we need alternatives, including but not limited to high-speed trains. The need for and efficacy of high-speed rail isn’t theoretical. Anyone who has been to Europe, China or Japan has seen that their rail services are heavily used and light years beyond anything we have in the states. There may come a day when self-driving cars provide greater efficiency and safety to freeway commutes, and when hydrogen and electric vehicles reduce the carbon emissions of all that freeway traffic. But that day is not today, and alternatives will be necessary regardless.

Fortunately for us, Californians are also aware that draining all of our natural resources and killing all of our wildlife is not a good plan for the future. Permanently destroying our wetlands and driving species to extinction so that frackers, golfers and almond farmers can continue to abuse exorbitant amounts of water is not the answer. It’s not just public policy makers that understand this, but the majority of California voters: much of the wetlands restoration is enshrined into California’s state constitution via the initiative process.

As for desalination, it is certainly on the table—many communities are already implementing desalination plans. But desalination can only do so much, and it is very costly and energy intensive. Much more can be done in the short term through reasonable efforts at conservation, a challenge that Californians in our wisdom are more than prepared to meet.
Finally, with respect to income inequality, conservatives have this bizarre fantasy about liberalism and feudalism. There they engage in classic psychological projection: it is progressive policy that protects the public from feudalism. It is conservative economic policy that is the guaranteed destruction of the middle class and harbinger of feudalism. Income inequality is growing everywhere, largely as a result of Reaganite and Thatcherite public policy, but also due to economic forces like automation. Those effects are most obvious where there is the greatest prosperity and economic activity—places like California and New York that drive most of the economic engine of America and pay more taxes to the federal government than they get back, so that states like Alabama and Kansas can have the road signs whose costs their own economies are too feeble to cover.

California, as usual, will survive just fine. The drought will eventually end; our forward-thinking climate policies will do much to reduce the severity of future droughts; a combination of wise planning and conservation will protect the public and the environment; our progressive transportation policies will ensure multi-modal options even as California-based entrepreneurs like Google and Elon Musk work to make car travel smarter and more sustainable; our immigration policies will continue to make our diversity one of our greatest strengths; and our economic policies will continue do much to mitigate the ill effects of wealth and income inequality exacerbated by conservative economic policy by providing education, healthcare and decent safety net to all.

And the California model will continue to roll forward, superior to the immoral, inhuman and unsustainable Texas model, while still covering the tab for all the federal infrastructure most of the red states can’t figure out how to pay for themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For those who actually know anything about California, it is the captive of the Jarvis Gann group. Propositions 13 and 218 killed any potential for addressing the water issues in California.

Those with no clue quote the Daily Beast.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 378, 379, 380 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 379 of 573

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group