NationStates Jolt Archive

California imports a large portion of it's energy instead of producing it's own because they are legally restricted from building the energy plants they need. So, instead of fixing the law that keeps them dependent on other states (and, incidentally, putting a burden on the energy infrastructure of other states), they want to impose yet another restriction on personal freedom - all this in the name of saving the energy using public a whopping $18.00/year in electric bills (this in a state where the average energy bill is between $150 and $250 a month depending on the time of year) and, of course, being "green."

Not that it really matters - the wealthy will buy them anyway and the poor can't afford them.

I was born and raised in California. Even though I now live in Colorado, I still have a residual affection for my home state and I still have friends there. I keep hoping and praying that someday something done in California will actually make sense.

http://www.greendaily.com/2009/01/05/california-mulls-crackdown-on-kw-hogging-flat-panel-tvs/?icid=200100397x1216136004x1201051588

Oh jeese...

I guess I'd better get on the phone with Best Buy today.

You see, these futuristic new sets are a huge power drain compared to their cathode ray predecessors. That's why the California Energy Commission is considering a preemptive crackdown on flat screens.
Stupid wastes of power shouldn't be allowed. Actually, the proposal of the California EC is quite minimal.
Here in the EU, within some years incandescent lightbulbs will be banned altogether. Why? Because about 85% of the power you put in an incandescent lightbulb goes away in invisible radiation (mostly infrared). Since we have more efficient ways to produce light, let's use them.

Stupid wastes of power shouldn't be allowed. Actually, the proposal of the California EC is quite minimal.
Here in the EU, within some years incandescent lightbulbs will be banned altogether. Why? Because about 85% of the power you put in an incandescent lightbulb goes away in invisible radiation (mostly infrared). Since we have more efficient ways to produce light, let's use them.

Nanny statism.

Here in the US incandescent lightbulbs are also on the way out, not because of some law, but because, in the long run, we save money when we use them.

You should understand how California legislation works.

First, some celebrity with too much money and clout who has the intellectual abilities of a kindergarten drop-out (and I may be too hard on kindergarten drop-outs) reads (or has read to them) an article in the latest dirt-dishing, fact-light, vacuous and vacant tabloid about how electric power plants are destroying California's eco-system. So, instead of actually getting facts about how the electrical infra-structure works (of course, when you're IQ-light this becomes a challenge), they immediately start spouting off about saving the environment and restricting power plant usage and construction (no mention is made of the burgeoning population from immigrants - both from other states and other countries as well as from people dropping litters all over the landscape because they can afford sex but not birth control). The elected government, ever eager to please the money people, proposes laws which immediately recieve the support of the people because, after all, a celebrity backs it and celebrities are, like, gods. So stupid laws get passed because stupid people can't be bothered with facts and then the state finds itself up against it and, instead of saying, "that was stupid, let's repeal it and try something sensible," they say "wow, the stupid law is driving us to bankruptcy, let's pass another stupid law and add to the problem."

This isn't about saving power, it's about the cumulative effects of stupidity.

This isn't about saving power, it's about the cumulative effects of stupidity.

The last part there, that's the whole meaning of politics.

Wait, so the CEC is *considering* a bill you disagree with, so that's an excuse to run around screaming about "OHNOES CALIFORNIA" as if we're a fucking collective-consciousness hive-mind? No it isn't.

And don't even try and tell me with a straight face that your state doesn't ever even *consider* doing things you disagree with.

Stupid wastes of power shouldn't be allowed. Actually, the proposal of the California EC is quite minimal.
Here in the EU, within some years incandescent lightbulbs will be banned altogether. Why? Because about 85% of the power you put in an incandescent lightbulb goes away in invisible radiation (mostly infrared). Since we have more efficient ways to produce light, let's use them.

that pretty messed up. I understand the shift to florescent light bulbs, but there really is no need to ban incandescent light bulbs. I don't know if you've noticed this bu incandescent light bulbs look better. Also a lot of people feel florescent bulbs give them migraines and nausea. shift their for cost sure, but force people to buy something that will make them sick that's just barbaric.

Wait, so the CEC is *considering* a bill you disagree with, so that's an excuse to run around screaming about "OHNOES CALIFORNIA" as if we're a fucking collective-consciousness hive-mind? No it isn't.

And don't even try and tell me with a straight face that your state doesn't ever even *consider* doing things you disagree with.

And when my state does, I make a big stink about it too. Wow, what a novel concept.

You know what's sad? San Fransisco is actually a beautiful city, and I enjoyed my time there. I just wish the politicians weren't so stupid, I may move out to California then.

And when my state does, I make a big stink about it too. Wow, what a novel concept.

My ass you do. You don't go on a rant about how your state "strikes again!" or how "someday something done in [your state] will actually make sense." Nor would you inevitably decline into some derogatory "fruits and nuts" comment or blubber about "falling into the sea" either.

But by all means show me the threads full of vitriol targeted against your entire state as a result of some bit of legislature that hasn't even been passed yet.

You know what's sad? San Fransisco is actually a beautiful city, and I enjoyed my time there. I just wish the politicians weren't so stupid, I may move out to California then.

You're from North Carolina.

My ass you do. You don't go on a rant about how your state "strikes again!" or how "someday something done in [your state] will actually make sense." Nor would you inevitably decline into some derogatory "fruits and nuts" comment or blubber about "falling into the sea" either.

But by all means show me the threads full of vitriol targeted against your entire state as a result of some bit of legislature that hasn't even been passed yet.

that's because Pennsylvania is not as stupid as California.

My ass you do. You don't go on a rant about how your state "strikes again!" or how "someday something done in [your state] will actually make sense." Nor would you inevitably decline into some derogatory "fruits and nuts" comment or blubber about "falling into the sea" either.

But by all means show me the threads full of vitriol targeted against your entire state as a result of some bit of legislature that hasn't even been passed yet.

That's because currently my State is in a state of stupidity limbo where the stupid people in the Democrat party are shut down by the stupid people in the Republican Party and vice versa, and the Governer doesn't have enough gray matter between his ears to put together a coherent idea (let alone a state budget). So we haven't passed or drafted up a single dumb law in the 2 years I have been here.

Nanny statism.

Mmhh. So, let's godwin a bit.
A city - namely, the city of NY, back in 1900 (more or less) - makes a ban on coal-powered underground railways and forces to go electric, because of health issues. According to you, this is nanny statism. Why should the politicians intervene about such matters? Coal-powered trains are noisy and smelly, electric-powered trains aren't smelly, in the long run people would have saved money (and lungs) by using them.

How much time would that have taken, though? How many people would have had their lungs ruined?

Leaving things without regulation means following purely economical considerations. Which, as the last months prove, DON'T work very well.


You should understand how California legislation works.
First, some celebrity with too much money and clout who has the intellectual abilities of a kindergarten drop-out...
*snip the rant*
This isn't about saving power, it's about the cumulative effects of stupidity.

Too bad that, since, as I gather California passes bills through the scrutiny of a legislative body elected by the population of California itself, and also referenda can be called against bills, this means that Californians actually like (or at least don't dislike enough) said bills.

that's because Pennsylvania is not as stupid as California.

No, I think it's because Pennsylvania is a worthless shit-state that no one cares about, whereas California is the most populous state, the wealthiest state and our economy helps prop up the US. We give more in federal taxes than we take and if anyone from California so much as sneezes everyone either covers their mouth or offers a kleenex, because we're center fucking stage.

that pretty messed up. I understand the shift to florescent light bulbs, but there really is no need to ban incandescent light bulbs. I don't know if you've noticed this bu incandescent light bulbs look better. Also a lot of people feel florescent bulbs give them migraines and nausea. shift their for cost sure, but force people to buy something that will make them sick that's just barbaric.

That's a pretty backwater place you're living, then. The low-consumption lightbulbs I can find in ANY electricity store here (I'm not talking neon tubes) don't give nausea or headaches to anyone.

The need for banning incandescent arises from the fact that incandescent cost (at the momenty of buying them, not in the whole operative life) LESS than low-consumption bulbs. Hence, since low-consumption are better, incandescents have to be banned, or most people would stick to them.

No, I think it's because Pennsylvania is a worthless shit-state that no one cares about, whereas California is the most populous state, the wealthiest state and our economy helps prop up the US. We give more in federal taxes than we take and if anyone from California so much as sneezes everyone either covers their mouth or offers a kleenex, because we're center fucking stage.

See my explanation, not the trolls.

You're from North Carolina.

Touche

No, I think it's because Pennsylvania is a worthless shit-state that no one cares about, whereas California is the most populous state, the wealthiest state and our economy helps prop up the US. We give more in federal taxes than we take and if anyone from California so much as sneezes everyone either covers their mouth or offers a kleenex, because we're center fucking stage.

I think its more the silly ballot initiatives that make people laugh at California.
and how the population can be talked into voting away liberties with a multimillion dollar ad campaign from the Mormon church.

That's because currently my State is in a state of stupidity limbo where the stupid people in the Democrat party are shut down by the stupid people in the Republican Party and vice versa, and the Governer doesn't have enough gray matter between his ears to put together a coherent idea (let alone a state budget). So we haven't passed or drafted up a single dumb law in the 2 years I have been here.

that's like the perfect government. one that doesnt make laws or do anything else.

that's like the perfect government. one that doesnt make laws or do anything else.

Except that it still costs money.

See my explanation, not the trolls.

Well OK, but I find that hard to believe. Surely there are some proposed bills or what have you that are retarded in Pennsylvania. They just aren't getting as much attention. Same with the other states really.

I think its more the silly ballot initiatives that make people laugh at California.

Nah I think the reasons I stated were fairly spot-on, with the exception that Pennsylvania isn't really a shit-state, it just isn't California. Can't fault them for that I guess. :)

and how the population can be talked into voting away liberties with a multimillion dollar ad campaign from the Mormon church.

Oh, well I'm glad that a loss of civil liberties is so amusing to you. But please, let's not pretend Proposition 8 won by a landslide, let alone unanimously. Assuming the worst about a people because they live in a state that passed some stupid law is itself stupid. It's like assuming everyone in the US is a fucking retarded racist because GW Bush got elected.

that's like the perfect government. one that doesnt make laws or do anything else.

It still spends a lot of money on things it don't need to.

That's a pretty backwater place you're living, then. The low-consumption lightbulbs I can find in ANY electricity store here (I'm not talking neon tubes) don't give nausea or headaches to anyone.

The need for banning incandescent arises from the fact that incandescent cost (at the momenty of buying them, not in the whole operative life) LESS than low-consumption bulbs. Hence, since low-consumption are better, incandescents have to be banned, or most people would stick to them.

I haven't seen a need to ban incandescents.

Recently, the price of flourescent and diode-based bulbs has dropped (the compact flourescents have dropped from insane to cheap in a few years). Combine this with the fact that either lasts far longer than incandescents, and uses a lot less electricity will cause people to switch over.

I think the tipping point had more to do with the replacement cost of the bulb, and less to do with what the bulb light looked like, or whether or not laws were forcing people to change over.

I see the diode type replacing the compact flourescent in the next few years - they are even brighter, use even less energy, and don't have the disposal problems of compact flourescents.

I see the diode type replacing the compact flourescent in the next few years - they are even brighter, use even less energy, and don't have the disposal problems of compact flourescents.

Less mercury in them too.

To me this seems a reasonable step to stop pointlessly wasting the leccy and its hardly a big sacrifice at that. I know people are going to throw their arms up and shout 'nanny state', but isn't this sort of thing precisely state is for? Sacrificing a level of individual freedom for the long-term interests of all? The liberal 'let everyone do as they like' part of me is uncomfortable with it, but this sort of thing is necessary and maybe if people don't voluntarily want to do it, it might be best if they are forced to.

I think the tipping point had more to do with the replacement cost of the bulb, and less to do with what the bulb light looked like, or whether or not laws were forcing people to change over.
Meh. People are quite silly sometimes. There are people who actually wouldn't even wear seatbelts in their cars because they've driven 30 years without them.

I see the diode type replacing the compact flourescent in the next few years - they are even brighter, use even less energy, and don't have the disposal problems of compact flourescents.
Could be. LEDs, still are not very practical for many applications (like in paraboloids: you cannot put ALL the LEDs in the focus!). LED tech need another bit of improvement before we can use it as main lighting source.

Touche

I was living down in Durham during that whole Nifong thing. Gave me new perspective on what I previously thought were the fruitless causes some of my local politicians. Seems that they were relatively restrained in their idiotic zeal, compared to Nifong.

That's because currently my State is in a state of stupidity limbo where the stupid people in the Democrat party are shut down by the stupid people in the Republican Party and vice versa, and the Governer doesn't have enough gray matter between his ears to put together a coherent idea (let alone a state budget). So we haven't passed or drafted up a single dumb law in the 2 years I have been here.

Which is why you have the referendum system, so the people can move the stupidity along.

Which is why you have the referendum system, so the people can move the stupidity along.

The only referendum we had this election year was a reasonable one from the local government. It was about getting money from federal funds to help finance an overhaul of the sewer system in some of the smaller towns of the county.

But by all means show me the threads full of vitriol targeted against your entire state as a result of some bit of legislature that hasn't even been passed yet.


All though this isnt targeted at me, you can easily find me flying off the handle over things IL does and saying some very nasty things;)


Anyway, to be honost, meh, Ill care about this if it actually happens. But I did find ASD's little rant about how laws are passed in Cali funny. :D

California imports a large portion of it's energy instead of producing it's own because they are legally restricted from building the energy plants they need. So, instead of fixing the law that keeps them dependent on other states (and, incidentally, putting a burden on the energy infrastructure of other states), they want to impose yet another restriction on personal freedom - all this in the name of saving the energy using public a whopping $18.00/year in electric bills (this in a state where the average energy bill is between $150 and $250 a month depending on the time of year) and, of course, being "green."

Not that it really matters - the wealthy will buy them anyway and the poor can't afford them.

I was born and raised in California. Even though I now live in Colorado, I still have a residual affection for my home state and I still have friends there. I keep hoping and praying that someday something done in California will actually make sense.

http://www.greendaily.com/2009/01/05/california-mulls-crackdown-on-kw-hogging-flat-panel-tvs/?icid=200100397x1216136004x1201051588

California is a shit hole I moved out of there 3 years ago I wish the rest of my family would get the hell out of there. That state is going to go down in flames due to the state government being so fracked up.

To me this seems a reasonable step to stop pointlessly wasting the leccy and its hardly a big sacrifice at that. I know people are going to throw their arms up and shout 'nanny state', but isn't this sort of thing precisely state is for? Sacrificing a level of individual freedom for the long-term interests of all? The liberal 'let everyone do as they like' part of me is uncomfortable with it, but this sort of thing is necessary and maybe if people don't voluntarily want to do it, it might be best if they are forced to.

Of course, I'm one of those reactionaries who thinks the government should only do for the people those things they can't do for themselves. Silly me, I seem to have forgotten that, for many people, can't and won't are the same thing.

Really, if you choose not to use common sense, how can you possibly trust the state to show common sense for you?

Too bad that, since, as I gather California passes bills through the scrutiny of a legislative body elected by the population of California itself, and also referenda can be called against bills, this means that Californians actually like (or at least don't dislike enough) said bills.
Your faith in the legislative process is heartening! However, politicians can use the money they get from the God-like celebrities to run a 30 second TV spot coinciding with Survivor or that show about Hugh Hefner's three girlfriends (Girls Next Door?) saying that they are saving the public money AND saving the environment too and it would have the same effect. Most people just don't give a hoot in the first place, anyways.

I would think Californians would be more worried about where the 30 billion missing dollars are gunna come from.

That state is going to go down in flames
Haha, cause of all the fires. I get it.

The only referendum we had this election year was a reasonable one from the local government. It was about getting money from federal funds to help finance an overhaul of the sewer system in some of the smaller towns of the county.

At least something got done. California takes referendum to a new level - ensuring that something, even if it's completely idiotic, gets done.

There is a very good reason to ban incandescent light-bulbs, that so far everyone here has missed - and it has nothing to do with saving energy.

Incandescent light-bulbs use very thin coils of tungsten wire for the filament. Tungsten is necessary because it has an extremely high melting point (more than double that of iron or steel) - and can therefore be made to glow very bright without melting. Contrary to popular belief, the filament does not "burn out". Each time you switch the bulb on, the filament goes from room temperature to over 1000 degrees in a fraction of a second. Doing this repeatedly causes enormous heat-stress, which makes the filament brittle, so it eventually snaps. This is why bulbs last a lot longer if they are left on all the time.

It doesn't take much tungsten to make a light-bulb - considerably less than a 1 gram, in fact. But multiply that by the millions made (and mostly thrown away into landfill sites when they fail) each year, and pretty soon we're talking about a lot of tungsten, most of which is not recovered.

Tungsten is a rare metal. It's also difficult and energy intensive to refine because of it's high melting point. In 1990, a calculation was performed based on the known reserves of tungsten ore at the time. The result was that if we carried on using it for light-bulbs at the same rate (and not recovering it), then the world supply would run out in 20 years.

If we did run out, would it mean we couldn't make incandescent light-bulbs any more?
Not at all. We would simply revert back to the best alternative, which is carbonised bamboo splinters. These were used in some of the earliest known light-bulbs. They are very cheap to make, but unfortunately have very short lifetimes compared to tungsten filaments, and are much less efficient.

I would personally love to have super-bright LED's replace all the lights in my house, despite the fact that I use energy-saving bulbs anyway. They make a very pure white light, use hardly any power, produce hardly any heat (which demonstrates how efficient they are), have very long lifetimes, and their lifetime does not depend on how many times they are switched on and off.

Except that it still costs money.

you call them taxes. I call it a bribe to not have government make things worse.

That's because currently my State is in a state of stupidity limbo where the stupid people in the Democrat party are shut down by the stupid people in the Republican Party and vice versa, and the Governer doesn't have enough gray matter between his ears to put together a coherent idea (let alone a state budget). So we haven't passed or drafted up a single dumb law in the 2 years I have been here.

OH OH OH I have a stupid idea that our state is considering!

They want to implement a toll on our part of 80 (the eastern-most that goes into jersey) in order to pay for public transportation in Philadelphia (some 2 hours away). It may be just me, but I think that's pretty stupid.

No apostrophe in "its".

No, I think it's because Pennsylvania is a worthless shit-state that no one cares about, whereas California is the most populous state, the wealthiest state and our economy helps prop up the US. We give more in federal taxes than we take and if anyone from California so much as sneezes everyone either covers their mouth or offers a kleenex, because we're center fucking stage.

Connecticut and New Jersey are the wealthiest states in the US

California Strikes Again!OH NOEZ! :eek: :eek:

Connecticut and New Jersey are the wealthiest states in the US

With some of the highest costs of living, so it pretty much balances out.

You know, with all that geothermal, wind power and solar power potential, they could easily meet their power needs if they instead put the additional taxes towards encouraging more of those clean, renewable power plants. But then again, this is the state with a power infrastructure so poor and ripe for abuse that they were defrauded multiple times by Enron back in the early 2000's...

Truth is, conservation isn't going to be enough in a state that is adding over 500,000 new residents per year. You need more power plants to meet that demand, and you're simply not going to be able to use extortion to get the additional capacity you need. Unless California either greatly reduces its population growth or builds more plants, these measures will do nothing but increase economic hardship, especially among poorer residents that don't even own these devices. I hate to let people down, but transmission lines and substations are a necessity for making sure the grid works properly; they might be ugly, but there isn't another option that isn't prohibitively expensive or even more challenging. I guess it's easy to oppose such measures when the lights are own, but as the problem worsens more and more blackouts will be a reality, and nothing devastates a modern economy more than energy shortages.

Plus, the idiocy of taxing products that are one of the fundamental components of your economy is staggering. Considering how important electronics and IT industries are to California's economy, discouraging consumption of those devices and further increasing the cost of living will just worsen the great sucking sound of tech jobs heading overseas or to states like Texas and Washington.

You know, with all that geothermal, wind power and solar power potential, they could easily meet their power needs if they instead put the additional taxes towards encouraging more of those clean, renewable power plants. But then again, this is the state with a power infrastructure so poor and ripe for abuse that they were defrauded multiple times by Enron back in the early 2000's...

Truth is, conservation isn't going to be enough in a state that is adding over 500,000 new residents per year. You need more power plants to meet that demand, and you're simply not going to be able to use extortion to get the additional capacity you need. Unless California either greatly reduces its population growth or builds more plants, these measures will do nothing but increase economic hardship, especially among poorer residents that don't even own these devices. I hate to let people down, but transmission lines and substations are a necessity for making sure the grid works properly; they might be ugly, but there isn't another option that isn't prohibitively expensive or even more challenging. I guess it's easy to oppose such measures when the lights are own, but as the problem worsens more and more blackouts will be a reality, and nothing devastates a modern economy more than energy shortages.

Plus, the idiocy of taxing products that are one of the fundamental components of your economy is staggering. Considering how important electronics and IT industries are to California's economy, discouraging consumption of those devices and further increasing the cost of living will just worsen the great sucking sound of tech jobs heading overseas or to states like Texas and Washington.

Unfortunately for California, taxing industries until they leave has been the governmental MI for several decades. It's not that I believe industries should be tax exempt, but there is a definite line between what promotes growth and what is punitive - California crossed it. Eventually they'll chase out agriculture - which is one of the big industries they have left.

The governmental style of California, composed as it is of stupidity, lunacy and a huge deference to monied idiots has served to take what could be a paradise and turned into a hell. Education has gone from being first in the nation to lagging behind Arkansas. The economy, which should be holding the nation up, is dragging it down. And they still have smog and foul water.

Does California have the budget to lower taxes on big business? As I understand it, their no deficit rules have them in quite a pickle with a 41 billion dollar deficit to fix.

Does California have the budget to lower taxes on big business? As I understand it, their no deficit rules have them in quite a pickle with a 41 billion dollar deficit to fix.

The problem is that punitive taxes, presumably designed to help the environment and fund the government, drove many business out of the state. You can't tax what isn't there.

So now, an ever decreasing middle class is bearing the brunt of taxes. Those who are able, are leaving, those who can't are sinking into poverty. Those who won't leave are too wealthy to give a crap.

And before you say "tax the wealthy," it doesn't work that way. Try to impose a fair tax on the wealthy and they're out of there before you can say "Britney Spears' mama." Either that or they have a stable of tax attorneys devising ways to keep them from paying taxes (and it still costs them less than what they would pay in taxes).

So California taxes industries that harm the environment? Doesn't it offer carbon emission credits and create a market for those? I was under the impression that's how environmentally-based business taxes generally were constructed.

I'm sure most of those revenues they generate are piped straight into subsidizing budding enviropower companies...

Politicians are stupid because the voters are stupid.

Politicians are stupid because the voters are stupid.

Voters are about as stupid as they were 200 years ago.

The only response, naturally, is to not vote.

Connecticut and New Jersey are the wealthiest states in the US

I think he meant total GDP not GDP per capita.

california law does not prevent the building of the kind of power generating facilities it needs. capitol economics, in concert with the current structure of incentives and disincentives, at the federal as well as state level, does that.

all of the energy needed and much much more, CAN be generated in ways, in combinations of ways, that don't involve burning anything. i think whats being bitched about is even this little bit of reluctance to kiss the ass of corporate greed.

trying to equate that with meeting energy needs, which is pure propiganda bovine waste product.

you know, california, was well on the way to building a sustainable energy infrastructure, and what happened, fuel industry, oil and coal, got togather and created something to deliberately torpeado that. it was called enron. it didn't 'fail' do to 'missmanagement'. it did exactly what it was desigend to do. it's 'failure' and all the people who got shafted by that included.

and what happened, the state starved out and refused to pay its bills to the small and even large, clean energy providers.

that's the honest what and why of it. that's even why the corporate mafia took away our elected, granted not very 'sexy', governer, grey davis, and shoved its hollywood pet, aaahneey, down our throats in his place.

that's even why the corporate mafia took away our elected, granted not very 'sexy', governer, grey davis, and shoved its hollywood pet, aaahneey, down our throats in his place.

The car tax was a stupid idea. He paid the price. No one took Davis away but the voter. He screwed us over buying energy at the peak of its price anyway, so no sympathy for him. A dozen or so San Onofres would be a good start if we want our own power supply.

The car tax was a stupid idea. He paid the price. No one took Davis away but the voter. He screwed us over buying energy at the peak of its price anyway, so no sympathy for him. A dozen or so San Onofres would be a good start if we want our own power supply.

anyone who doesn't think that whole recall nonsense wasn't engineered by the corporate mafia, ought to invest in the proverbial bridge back east somewhere.

i mean, look, if it was for real the "will" of "the people", why didn't we end up with either one of the porn stars, or someone who could actually have done the job right, like peter camejo?

as for the car tax being a stupid idea; WRONG! it was and is, exactly what libertarians always pretend to want for everyone else then themselves, a user fee, the people who use a facility or service paying for the service or facility they use, rather then everyone else having to, whether they do or not.

I see nothing wrong with conserving energy. The reality is that that is the best bet "alternative energy" that could be developed today. Some nay sayers just can't believe the amount of energy that could potentially be saved by working on efficiency. Solar, wind, nuclear, ethanol are not feasible as a total replacements, and hydrogen is even further out. The truth is most of the energy wasted every month in the whole country could power small countries for a year.

And if the gov't doesn't promote efficient designs, who will? With the kind of thinking presented in this very thread, like that 18 bucks off the bill is meaningless, I doubt free enterprise would work it out itself in this area, just like it didn't with the loan industry.

anyone who doesn't think that whole recall nonsense wasn't engineered by the corporate mafia, ought to invest in the proverbial bridge back east somewhere.

i mean, look, if it was for real the "will" of "the people", why didn't we end up with either one of the porn stars, or someone who could actually have done the job right, like peter camejo?

as for the car tax being a stupid idea; WRONG! it was and is, exactly what libertarians always pretend to want for everyone else then themselves, a user fee, the people who use a facility or service paying for the service or facility they use, rather then everyone else having to, whether they do or not.

Since when is compatibility with libertarian philosophy the measure of good policy? It isn't to me. The car tax's affected the poor in a disproportionate way. That's an instant populist issue, and Davis should've anticipated it. The will of the people was against Davis. We got Arnold because he was more popular than the porn star and whoever else.

It doesn't take much tungsten to make a light-bulb - considerably less than a 1 gram, in fact. But multiply that by the millions made (and mostly thrown away into landfill sites when they fail) each year, and pretty soon we're talking about a lot of tungsten, most of which is not recovered.
Tungsten is also used in shotgun shot, since lead birdshot has been banned in many places, and tungsten is another heavy metal.

Each shot uses considerably more than 1 gram of tungsten (more like an ounce), and you don't replace it twice a year like a light bulb, but shoot out by dozens in a day.

If what you're saying about tungsten shortage is true, light bulbs are the last thing to worry about in regards to it.

Connecticut and New Jersey are the wealthiest states in the US

California nominal GDP $1.8 trillion, Connecticut and New Jersey $681 billion... combined.

Now sure you can look at GDP per capita, but then we're not talking about "wealthiest state" but "state with the people who are on average wealthier," which doesn't mean so much.

California nominal GDP $1.8 trillion, Connecticut and New Jersey $681 billion... combined.

Now sure you can look at GDP per capita, but then we're not talking about "wealthiest state" but "state with the people who are on average wealthier," which doesn't mean so much.

I think he meant total GDP not GDP per capita.
When discussing wealth, it is inaccurate to go by GDP. GDP is good for discussing the size of the economy (California has the largest economy in the United States). When discussing actual wealth, it is more accurate to go by PPP or GDP per capita or average income (in which case, Maryland wins).

For example, the US GDP is 13,807,550, and Japan's is 4,381,576. On this scale, it would appear that Japan is incredibly poor. Per capita, however, we see the US GDP per capita become 45,725, and Japan's becomes 34,296.

Japans economy is 1/3 the size of the United States, but they are not producing significantly less per person.

GDP measures size, GDP per capita measures wealth.

When discussing wealth, it is inaccurate to go by GDP.

It is a perfectly valid measure of the economy of a State. What did you think we were talking about?

GDP is good for discussing the size of the economy (California has the largest economy in the United States).

Mm-hmm.

When discussing actual wealth, it is more accurate to go by PPP or GDP per capita or average income (in which case, Maryland wins).

For example, the US GDP is 13,807,550, and Japan's is 4,381,576. On this scale, it would appear that Japan is incredibly poor. Per capita, however, we see the US GDP per capita become 45,725, and Japan's becomes 34,296.

So a state with a population of 1 guy, who's a billionnaire, would have a GDP per capita several orders of magnitude above any other nation. Would you then contend that this makes the hypothetical state "wealthy" in any real sense?

Japans economy is 1/3 the size of the United States, but they are not producing significantly less per person.

They have 1/3 less wealth to use, as a state.

GDP measures size, GDP per capita measures wealth.

They both measure gross domestic product, one just divides by population so as to pretend population and wealth have nothing to do with each other.

It is a perfectly valid measure of the economy of a State. What did you think we were talking about?The economy of a state is not the only factor when considering wealth. All you said was wealth.





So a state with a population of 1 guy, who's a billionnaire, would have a GDP per capita several orders of magnitude above any other nation. Would you then contend that this makes the hypothetical state "wealthy" in any real sense?All things considered, it actually would be quite wealthy, given that its wealth would only have to support one person.

This hypothetical state has 1 billion dollars to support 1 person.
State X also has 1 billion dollars, but has to support 10 people.
State Q also has 1 billion dollars, but has to support 1 billion people.

According to GDP, they are equal, but the wealth they hold is remarkably different.



They have 1/3 less wealth to use, as a state.1/3 less wealth to use to support 2/5ths of the population.



They both measure gross domestic product, one just divides by population so as to pretend population and wealth have nothing to do with each other.Whereas the other pretends that 1 billion dollars is the same when it has to support 1 person and when it has to support 5 billion people.