By Matt Artz
Saturday, June 27th, 2009 at 9:34 am in Stark, Uncategorized.
Fremont’s rep was the only Bay Area Democrat to vote against the climate bill. He called watered-down.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
The most critical thing at this point is GETTING SOMETHING PASSED. I disagree with my former boss here. Watered down it might be, but we need something over nothing.
I posted this in another comment, but why won’t Stark support your bid for City Council? He refuses to talk, but there must be a reason. I think it’s totally weak sauce that he won’t support you, especially after you worked for him.
On another note, I think it’s time someone push him out of office. He has been in office WAY WAY WAY too long.
I agree with much of Stark’s statement. He’s saying that with this bill energy will follow the following formula:
Price to generate + demand for vouchers + incentives to investors = consumer cost.
Stark want’s to take the incentives to investors out of the equation. It’s a better value for the consumer and keeps the added global expense of energy (that is guaranteed by this bill) in the arena of obtaining the goal of low emissions.
I’m shocked at how much this admin has got the backs of Wall Street. I think there was a time for a G.W. Bush and a time for a Barack Obama. Conservative as I may be, I wouldn’t even expect this crap from McCain. We’re really entering the era of haves and have nots.
Rick, Anu and Bill are both intimately involved with his re-election committee…. =[
No, sometimes nothing is better. It’s a bad piece of legislation that’s going to raise costs on US businesses and ultimately the common citizen.
Between the higher energy costs (taxes have to be paid on these credits) and the damage to industry (NUMMI is already on Death’s doorstep), it’s not going to help Fremont. “Alternative” energy, even with the tax incentives and the cap-and-trade regime at its back, will not be affordable enough to make up the difference. Obama made it clear that this was a source of hundreds of billions of dollars in additional ‘revenue’ over the next decade. This ‘revenue’ flows from our pockets to government coffers. He spoke of the implications in his pre-election interview with the Chronicle. It makes for interesting reading.
The economy should be issue one at the moment, not the politics of climate change.
Watered down? Global warming mechanics are watered down. The human race produces 1/2 of 1% of all CO2. How will a tax on the economy help anything if we don’t effect climate. China produces so much more and they are not participating so all we are doing is weakening our economy for no benefit. Let’s focus on something we know is actually polluting and that is our relience on coal (50%) to produce electricity. We KNOW that that is pumping partiulate matter and radioactivity into the air. We really have not enough knowledge about what is causing climate change. In fact the earth has cooled in the past 30 years, but NO ONE knows if this ia an abberatio n, since this equation involves 100′s of variables. Remember in math how hard the solution set was whe you had 2 variables and 2 equations? The error factor with 100′s of variables makes any solution set very prone to error.
Let’s try to solve something we understand and work on making efficient alternative energy, nuclear, natural gas, and stop pumping our air with coal pollutants
This global warming issue is a phenomenom without any facts. Blindly taxing our ability to produce goods only handicaps our quality of life with no proven benefit. As the young folks like to say WTF?
Here’s a story to watch only if you don’t mind becoming totally depressed.
Keep voting for Stark if you work for the unemployment office.
Nummi shutdown is evidence of the Stark-greenie-whacko policies is detroying jobs.