CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming

CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 12, 2010

4,598 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

wow

Ontario, CA

#43 Oct 13, 2010
left of Limbaugh wrote:
Every single Academy of Science in every developed nation on Earth has verified that global warming is real.
Every "Academy of Science" organization in the world has used faulty, fraudulent data to "prove" global warming exists. No one can trust these people because they have an agenda and fudge the numbers in order to get more funding for their false claims of global warming. It's all about the money and keeping themselves employed. Without the phony data, they would be out of work, so they make things up in order to keep that paychecks coming in. Open your eyes. In the 70's the threat was global cooling, another agenda based study to keep the PhD types employed. Wake up America.
Skep 41

Cathedral City, CA

#44 Oct 13, 2010
The Greenies want to steal your car. How else are the enviro-nazis going to lower carbon emissions? The nut-job legislator who proposed 'interactive' thermostats shows that the Green Fascists also have a bone to pick with your air conditioner. There is NO scientific evidence that carbon levels effect temperature. None. AB 32 is another gambit by the totalitarian left to control our lives using stupid Chicken Little scare tactics.There is only one way to "break our addiction to oil"--take your car away. You think they wont do it? Let Prop 23 fail, and it will, and find out.
Fun time

Eureka, CA

#45 Oct 13, 2010
JEG wrote:
<quoted text> Poor comprehensive skills.
Not really. I comprehend very well. Apparently when someone disagrees with you you
then you tell them they don't comprehend.

I understand well written propositions this one isn't.
2Smart2vote4Meg

Brea, CA

#46 Oct 13, 2010
NO on Prop 23! I will strongly oppose anything the culture of corruption Texas/big-oil/cheney-bushies crowd is behind.
Interested in Vallejo

San Mateo, CA

#47 Oct 13, 2010
Yes, is the only vote on Prop 23. I attended a very interested meeting on this prop given by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc plus did some research on putting Solar on my house. The price of solar is between $35,000 and $40,000 for a 1600 sq ft house. How many years do you think it would take to break even on a project at that price? You couldn't pay cash for it, even with the government incentives, so let us add finance costs and the total cost could easily be $55,000 or $60,000. Also, solar manufacturing is not done in this state so we would have to truck in the panels. I believe in cleaning up our air, water and land but we have to do it without creating a bigger problem than we had in the first place. We could start with some personal responsibility. All you have to do it look to the side of road as you drive through California to understand legislation is not the only answer.
Upland dad

United States

#48 Oct 13, 2010
I see we have some John and Ken listeners here. Yes on 23!
Yeppers

Santa Rosa, CA

#49 Oct 13, 2010
People Get a Clue wrote:
One of the largest polluters in the state is trucking. The trucking industry is against asking for the suspension of this law because it will force truckers to have smog compliant trucks in the next two years. The trucking industry is for the most part using much older trucks with no pollution controls (the black soot coming from the exhaust). Because they have been slow to upgrade or replace their trucks, they are hoping to get a suspension of this law. They want the law suspended until the unemployment rate reaches a level that we have not seen in this state in decades, and probably won't see again. This will mean that they can keep these older, polluting trucks on the road longer. Many of these older trucks are not safe to operate anymore, and they put the general public at risk. They have known of this law since 2006 and have not complied with it hoping it would be repealed. It will require that the trucking industry will have to comply with smog laws and get "smog" certificates just like every person who drives a car in this state. If you reduce the amount of diesel pollution in this state, you will lower cancer risks to everyone who lives here, Trucking companies will have to buy newer trucks with smog equipment. Newer trucks are also safer trucks as they need fewer repairs and therefore are less likely to have a problem that could lead to a catastrophic accident on our freeways. The trucking companies will not be leaving the state. The law will require trucks from other states comply with this smog law to enter our state. Since these trucks from other states will no longer be allowed into our state, it will create more trucking jobs to bring goods into our state. Our freeways will be safer. 5.5 percent unemployment is not going to happen in our state for 12 months, so basically, truckers will always be allowed to drive these polluting, unsafe trucks on our roads putting all of us at risk.
The "black soot" coming from the diesel truck is from diesel fuel. This same exhaust is also seen coming out of regular cars that drive on the highway that use diesel fuel. The trucking companies should upgrade their trucks when they are no longer usable and a risk to both driver and others but what they are being asked to do is replace entire fleets of trucks that are working and are fairly new; costing millions which would then end up in truckers being laid off because of the high expense to replace perfectly fine trucks. This will also increase the cost of almost everything we get locally and non-locally as delivery costs will increase; the price will go up for the store so the store will reflect that increase to you the consumer.
wow

Ontario, CA

#50 Oct 13, 2010
2Smart2vote4Meg wrote:
NO on Prop 23! I will strongly oppose anything the culture of corruption Texas/big-oil/cheney-bushies crowd is behind.
You're a fool. To vote against something simply because you oppose a particular group or business is stoopid. The damage prop 23 will do to this state is immeasurable. 1.2 million lost jobs to start. Entire industries put out of business. Corporations fleeing the state for more business friendly environments. A No on 23 will turn California into Mexico, a third world state with 50% poverty and no businesses to prop up the economy.
wow

Ontario, CA

#51 Oct 13, 2010
Interested in Vallejo wrote:
Yes, is the only vote on Prop 23. I attended a very interested meeting on this prop given by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc plus did some research on putting Solar on my house. The price of solar is between $35,000 and $40,000 for a 1600 sq ft house. How many years do you think it would take to break even on a project at that price? You couldn't pay cash for it, even with the government incentives, so let us add finance costs and the total cost could easily be $55,000 or $60,000. Also, solar manufacturing is not done in this state so we would have to truck in the panels. I believe in cleaning up our air, water and land but we have to do it without creating a bigger problem than we had in the first place. We could start with some personal responsibility. All you have to do it look to the side of road as you drive through California to understand legislation is not the only answer.
If the politicians truly wanted solar power in this state they would make it affordable. They choose not to so that SCE and all the others can rake us over the coals and make as much money as possible. The politicians have been paid off by the power companies to jack up the prices of solar so no one can afford it, thus the power companies keep their monopolies.
Wayne

Suisun City, CA

#52 Oct 13, 2010
2Smart2vote4Meg wrote:
NO on Prop 23! I will strongly oppose anything the culture of corruption Texas/big-oil/cheney-bushies crowd is behind.
Actually, "Big Oil" is not behind 23. I have no clue who the cheney-bushies crowd is.

Royal Dutch Shell Oil Co. opposes it, Chevron Corp. is officially neutral, Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC have decided not to get involved and ConocoPhillips has yet to contribute.

Three independent, American owned oil refiners Valero Energy Corp., Tesoro Corp. and Koch Industries have contributed most of the money raised to support Proposition 23. Valero and Tesoro don't even produce oil.

If "big oil" got behind Prop 23, you'd see a heck of a lot more money flowing in...
Interested in Vallejo

San Mateo, CA

#53 Oct 13, 2010
The theory of global warming is sponsed by people that will make a lot of money off the American public if they can convince us it is true. You could start with VP Gore. Putting that aside let us direct our arguments to California. People need to understand that PGE incentives are not paid by PGE but are a state or federal government program. Therefore, it is paid for out of taxes. You are paying yourself and basically stealing from your neighbors and your children when you receive the incentive credit. I'm absolutely positive most do not purchase items with that intent.

We as the residents of one of the largest states in the union need to decide how to keep our air and water clean on a schedule that is good for the many without bankrupting all. Since we didn't participate in AB32 as well informed citizens we now have the opportunity to say stop, let us back up and look at this again.

Vote yes on 23.
Christopher

North Hollywood, CA

#54 Oct 13, 2010
23 is sponsored by two big oil companies, that's all I need to know to vote it down. politics ain't rocket science.
Roudy

Yuba City, CA

#55 Oct 13, 2010
I am voting yes on it.
Nuke Gal

Livermore, CA

#56 Oct 13, 2010
Yes on 23. PGE is so incredibly expensive because they barely produce any power. They buy it from states who do produce power and they pay a premium for it which is passed onto the consumer. The environmentalists don't want nuke plants and as much as they say that they want solar they've been holding up the all the big solar farm plans that PGE has because they'll displace the Mohave ground squirrel. The whole green movement is a scam. The green power that gets a premium price here is bought from BC hydro above the normal premium because hydro is green. Of course they also can't produce enough power so they buy roughly 80% of their green power from coal plants. This dirty power meets all the green requirements when it is sold this way, and it's not likely to change no matter how militant the greenies become.
abouthechild

Mill Valley, CA

#57 Oct 13, 2010
How about Food. Do you all like to eat food ? There is a very interesting connection between climate stability and food... Hopefully you won't have to learn about that the hard way - Funny how that climate thing might even have an effect on the economy.

You could call up your friends in Africa, India and the middle Easton climate change and WATER. Or Europe - give your long lost relatives a ring around xmas and see how how they are doing with that 1000 year record cold spell - the ocean currents are ALREADY shutting down over there.

“bamboo forest and an iced tea”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#58 Oct 13, 2010
Christopher wrote:
23 is sponsored by two big oil companies, that's all I need to know to vote it down. politics ain't rocket science.
while no is 23 being sponsored by wall street hedge fund manager LOL
Diehard Dem

Brea, CA

#59 Oct 14, 2010
Just say NO to deep pockets big oil and their lying Republican enablers. Denying the tons of climate change evidence might bring a dubious comfort in the short term, but the real and present danger go away. Sooner rather than later you can bet the foreign petro dicators and the US big oil thieves wil surely stick it to us again w over 4.50 and 5 per gallon of unleaded. We need to fast track clean and abundant solar, wind, biomass and other safe alternative energy r&d and do it ASAP. To get anything worthwhile done will take time even under ideal circumstances. Progress is way to slow because we always have to waste time and money fighting among ourselves while super rich oil producers sit back and laugh at the little oil buying peasants. If we fail to develope a few feasible alternatives to oil that is growing scarcer by the day we can't really blame anyone but the one we see in the mirror. NO ON 23 the big oil financed scam designed to keep us forever sucking on their expensive teet.
Wayne

Suisun City, CA

#60 Oct 14, 2010
abouthechild wrote:
How about Food. Do you all like to eat food ? There is a very interesting connection between climate stability and food... Hopefully you won't have to learn about that the hard way - Funny how that climate thing might even have an effect on the economy.
You could call up your friends in Africa, India and the middle Easton climate change and WATER. Or Europe - give your long lost relatives a ring around xmas and see how how they are doing with that 1000 year record cold spell - the ocean currents are ALREADY shutting down over there.
Too bad California, and the US for that matter, can't do a thing about climate change. It has to be a world movement, or we will destroy our economy without enjoying any benefits.

Oh, I guess you are saying we have to do something, even if it won't work...
Paul

Pasadena, CA

#61 Oct 14, 2010
I don't know if Global Warming exists but I need this prop to fail. I am in the replacement window industry and need energy prices to go up alot. Energy companies will use the mandate to justify increasing homeowner energy bills. This will force homeowners to buy new replacement windows for their homes to make them more energy efficient. One window manufacturer told me energy prices for homeowners will rise up to 200% in the next 10 years. Homeowners will have to buy new windows to keep their cost down. Please vote NO on prop 23!!!
THESAULSTER

Los Angeles, CA

#62 Oct 14, 2010
Okay wrote:
<quoted text>Just like it was freezing in the 70s and we were all going to die.
AAAAAAH the earth is freezing were all gonna die!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
drugs (Jun '15) Wed Cdub94 4
Looking to buy... May 2 Audrina 1
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Apr 29 Zionism is racism 72,025
News Pacific Grove swears in new city manager, exami... Apr 26 Lucy Anne 1
News HBO's 'Big Little Lies' starring Nicole Kidman ... Apr 26 Julie Jane 1
News Environmental groups now back revised Carmel Ri... Apr 26 Julie Jane 1
News Monterey native Rachel Roy: I'm not 'Becky with... Apr 26 Julie Jane 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages