CA doing something right? WTF, mate?!
The other day, I came across a BusinessWeek article describing the measures that California has taken to curb their appetite for energy in the wake of their recent energy crisis.
Those West Coast hippies might enjoy regulation a little too much, but at least this time they're pushing in the right direction. State building codes now require fluorescent lighting, which is generally more efficient than incandescent lighting, for new construction and remodels. They have a system of rebates to encourage the purchase of high-efficiency appliances where it helps most: HVAC and refrigerators. They are pushing to require white roofs, which will save quite a bit of energy (via reduced cooling costs) in places that are both hot and sunny.
The only thing mentioned in the article that I don't agree with is renewable-energy requirements for electrical utilities. I think that such demands should be pulled by consumers, not pushed out by producers. If using dino fuel has 'external' costs associated with it (securing Arabian oil fields, treating pollution from coal plants, etc.), then quantify that cost and add an appropriate (and strictly limited in scope!) tax.
Overall, though, it seems California is headed in the right direction wrt energy conservation and independence. For once, I wish the rest of the country (and world) would follow its lead.
5 comments:
WTF, mate?!
Your communist beliefs qualify you for traitor status within the USA that I love.
You know why there are so many earthquakes in CA? Because the people in CA are so cracked out that even Mother Nature tries to get back at those tree huggers.
Long Live The Fossil Fuel!
Tom
Clearly, you believe that the mass-burning of fossil fuels is irreversibly harming the environment. That's okay! Climate change is far too complicated for anybody to have proven a conclusive, causal link between global warming (or cooling) and burning fossil fuels en masse.
Clearly, you also believe that we shouldn't expend any effort to lessen our impact on the environment, even without concrete data to prove the specifics of the positive effects. I think that's pretty silly, but I doubt I could change your mind.
There is another aspect though, that inextricably links American interests with energy conservation: energy independence. The less energy we consume, the less energy we have to buy from the Saudis, Russians, and Venezuelans. That revelation should make any American patriot a rabid proponent of conservation.
Ummm, I sorta forgot a 'not' in the first sentence of that comment. Whoops.
Please Click And Read
I suppose you support the loss of this mans freedom too.
Not to mention all of your people that say the Stealers have every right to make their dumb QB wear a helmet while riding his motorbike!
You and your people need to let natural selection fulfill its purpose. You are coming up with every whacky idea to improve safety, prolong life, and save the environment. All of this keeps the morons alive and well. Ultimately I fear that one of the morons you save may get to powerful and blow us all up!
Tom
I am 100% on your side about the online gambling issue. I'm at /least/ as mad about it as you are. The last bit of that column is where you find the real motivation. Note how the government itself (via lotteries) and the Indian casinos (using their powerful lobby) want to keep /their/ gambling illegal, while legislating away their competitors. It's disgusting.
The Steelers have every right to require any of their players to wear a helmet when motorcycling, as long as it's spelled out in their contracts. What I find unacceptable is when the /government/ thinks it has the right to make us wear helmets or seatbelts.
Don't even think about lumping me with nanny-state assholes like Hillary Clinton. What kind of anti-logic led you to link my post about energy conservation to your opinion about nanny states?
P.S. Have you seen all the renewed hoopla about 'injury-proof' playgrounds? As if we needed to pussify our kids even more...
Post a Comment