Who is forcing what? The biggest energy thing that California did was deregulation in 1998 - and that made the utilities there a mess. The subsidies to develop electric vehicles in this country are a drop in the bucket compared to the Corn subsidies, I am not saying that off-shore drilling is bad, I do think that Alaska is not properly used, but I also think that we need to an awful lot more to make the transition to electric vehicles. What expensive unproven technologies are there in electric vehicles? We have thousands of hybrids on the road for over 5 years now showing you that we have the battery technology - so there is nothing unproven there. The beauty of something like the Volt is that it is all proven technology. Electric motors, batteries with an optimized IC engine to keep it charged once you go over the range. There is absolutely nothing unproven about it. It is expensive because it is at an early development stage - and it moves the thinking about the way cars are built and how to distribute energy to them - but the technology is far from unproven. As for Nuclear power-plants, Obama actually is starting to move that thing after many years that these power-plants were not built in this country - in Feb. of 2010 - he added loan guarantees for building new nuclear power-plants - which is more than any president has done in this country since the 70s - it might not be fast, but it is a start. There is an awful lot that this administration mucked - but if they have done one thing somewhat right - is put proper attention to energy reuse, efficiency and development. It is far from done - but it is much better than was done in a long, long time. At the end of the day, the idea that enterprising people will find solution without the assistance of government subsidies is nice in a Utopian world, but when it comes to massive infrastructure changes - countries that do not have these strategic decisions prove to be in problem - I find absolutely no problems with energy infrastructure investment - because it is proper investment that will build the hot-bed that enterprising people can thrive in. There are tons of enterprising people in Africa - but they are not developing much of anything because the infrastructure is not there. The place where governments involvement makes sense is in infrastructure investments - so I have no problems with incentives to build and consume these game changing technologies. The farm subsidies made sense in the 30s and the 40s, the investment in the highway system in the 50s made sense - and likewise, the investment in new-age energy technologies these days make sense. This is exactly where government needs to step in and provide the investment and long-term burden. It was true when DARPA developed networking in the 60s and 70s and the space investment of the 50s to 70s did wonders for the industrial success of this country. This is the place for government investment. The places where enterprising people will not be able to lift it by themselves because the investment is high and it will take a while to see the benefits. Heck, in a financial system where publicly owned private enterprise via the stock market is built on quarterly results - it is the only way to get these things done...
Government picks winners and losers. It's crony capitalism and leads to excesses like we've seen on Wall Street where gains are privitized and losses are socialized. I say let the best technology win, with no subsidies. If it's coal, I'm fine with it. Not only is crony capitalism corrupt, but it's suboptimal. Bureaucrats have demonstrated over and over that they're really bad at picking winners and losers. They run into Hayek's Knowledge Problem, and that's why the market will generally make the best choice. Jonas Salk once said that if the government was the sole provider of polio research we would have had the world's most advanced iron lung, but no vaccine. As for nuclear, "moving toward" is not the same as "beginning construction". There's so much useless regulation surrounding these plants, it's impossible to build them in this country. The truth is, we're awash in oil and more is being discovered every day. Oil is expensive because it's priced by a cartel. Break the cartel or avoid it altogether. Peak oil has been predicted time and time again, and always turns out to be false. Let energy costs rise or fall to their real levels and people will act accordingly. We have plenty of domestic sources of petroleum to satisfy our needs for decades, in which time we can develop technologies privately to replace them.
Not looking for an investment, just a house to own. They are cheap houses, you can buy a 3k square foot house in cash for what a downpayment is in LA. I figure I have at least 4-5 years until the prices even creep up a little if at all.
Vegas blows. IMO, it's only cool to visit for a few days. If I had to live there I'd pick 'burb of Henderson. If it's the climate that's appealing I'd look to Scottsdale, AZ before the Vegas metro.
This is true to a point. But, when you need the infrastructure - you make an educated guess, invest in it, and let it go from there. The Utopian dream of "do nothing, the market will figure it out" has shown itself to be just as bad as over-regulation - either by the creation of troll bridges protected by interested parties or by not having enough long-term investment to bring you to a place where you can stand on the shoulders of giants to continue and invent. In this case, it is pretty clear that oil is a resource that is unlikely to get cheaper. So you have to invest in alternative options and let them, within reason based on acceptable infrastructure, fight it out. The cool thing is that if for some reason we find ways to get oil cheaply in the future - the electric grid can be powered by oil, just as it can be powered by coal, nuclear, geo-thermal, wind, solar, bacteria, wave technology and god knows what else. Investing in electric grid powered transportation infrastructure opens you up to this free-market competition down the line. If coal proves to be the smart way forward, it works, if it's nuclear, still so, if oil is magically plentiful and cheap - again, nothing lost. Add the fact that technologically it is pretty inefficient to produce the energy on board as is currently done with the internal combustion engine - especially when it is tied directly to the drive-train - using scale for the energy production in a power-plant is usually more efficient (and cleaner) - It is cheaper to buy goods created in bulk than to make all our own goods, the same will be true of energy where we will replace on board conversion (via the IC engine) with storage and use from a mass-production facility. The beauty of using the electric grid as the transportation energy source is that they are picking winners and losers only in one specific area - distribution of the energy, and quite frankly, I think it is pretty clear that the electric grid is a more efficient way of distributing energy than the fleets of fuel tankers that supply the gas stations all around the country... - other than that - the way we create that electricity is open for the free market to optimize. You can not make loops with a Boeing 747, you do not run slaloms with an 18 wheeler. Your moves are deliberate and need to be started in advance. This is where we are with regard to nuclear energy in this country - but for the first time in 40 years, we are actually starting to make these moves. It's a start. How are you going to break the oil-producing countries cartel? With war? Good luck with that... BTW - the off-shore drilling/Alaska drilling is just as big a tanker to move as the nuclear one is in this country. But the reality is that by making the distribution a commodity via the electric grid - you do more to break the cartel's stronghold when you tell them - if you price us too high, we will use coal or nuclear or whatever else. Moving to the electric grid basically does some of what you want to do with regards to the oil cartels...
There are no "incentives" to pollute. I am in favor of not regulating and trading a "carbon footprint" as it will destroy California's economy even further. California is already one of the worst states to do business in, chasing more manufacturing and industrial jobs while increasing the prices of all goods and services will do more harm than whatever the "cap and trade" program aims to do.
..only the beginning..... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bp-arco-sale-20110202,0,3820499.story
they want to require 1/3 of energy from renewable sources? http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/03/3373329/democrats-launch-green-energy.html
Unbelievable. We're already near bankrupt and the plan is to subsidize a 50% increase in really (I mean REALLY) expensive and money losing ventures like this. That's a 50% increase by 2012 alone, and another 50%+ over 8 years from that point. No wonder the bankruptcy lawyers tell you to charge their fees on your credit card.
That's pretty stupid. That's not a bad idea. You help develop these industries without forcing them upon everyone. This is actually a pretty decent idea - as it is basically investing in efficiency - which can lead to business advantage. There is a difference between helping these industries because they are a promising new area of expertise where you can forge a strategic advantage and forcing them down the throat of people, This is the same as forcing E15 gasoline on everyone because you have a glut of ethanol... stupid.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110216/D9LDNS7G0.html Calif gov. freezes hiring, drops minimum wage suit SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday ordered a state government hiring freeze amid California's $26.6 billion fiscal crisis, hours after he dropped a lawsuit filed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over whether the governor has the authority to pay state workers minimum wage. Brown announced what he said was a comprehensive hiring freeze that applies to vacant, seasonal, full-time and part-time positions. The administration estimates the freeze, along with other cost-cutting efforts like reducing the number of state-issued cell phones, will save $363 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1, about $200 million of which will be in general fund savings. "We must do everything possible to save money and make government leaner and more efficient," the Democratic governor said in a statement.
Freezing hiring? That's rich. For California to solve its problems, it needs to massively cut the size of its government. Brown is sticking his head in the sand.
