Tuesday's Letters to the Editor

Tuesday's Letters to the Editor

There are 10 comments on the Daily Breeze story from Oct 25, 2010, titled Tuesday's Letters to the Editor. In it, Daily Breeze reports that:

Once again the voters of the state of California are being misled by companies from outside the state who are attempting to pass legislation that will benefit them, not California, using fear, uncertainty and doubt .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Breeze.

The Real Reason

United States

#1 Oct 25, 2010
RE: Check the facts on Prop. 23 - Bob Del Vecchio, Redondo Beach

Here's the "Other" facts that people need to know. AB32 and "NO on 23" are being pushed by radical environmental groups who really don't care about the truth either. AB32 used a study to promote the idea that it will create green jobs, but like any study, one has to ASSUME several things. IF study's assumptions are wrong, than the rosy outlook on creating green jobs is wrong.

Consider "Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources" by Gabriel Calzada Álvarez PhD. The study in Spain found that for every 4 jobs created, 9 were lost. Given California's 12.4% unemployment, WHY would ANYONE what to risk throwing even more people out of work?

http://www.google.com/url...

AB32 forces us to have "Carbon Trading" and adds more costs to doing business in California. If you want to have an eye opener, just GOOGLE, "Carbon Trading Fraud, Europe". This whole Carbon Trading idea results in higher energy costs. AB32 will drive jobs out of California.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/1...

The biggest surprise is that the so called Global Warming, isn't happening. Even the BBC had to admit, "This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

So, why are we going to increase costs in California and kill jobs? I assume so that radical environmental groups can feel good....
Barada

North Hollywood, CA

#2 Oct 25, 2010
@ The Real Reason @[QUOTE
So, why are we going to increase costs in California and kill jobs? I assume so that radical environmental groups can feel good....
[/QUOTE]

Follow the money and I bet it leads to the carbon traders like Al Gore.
Al_x Gore

United States

#3 Oct 25, 2010
jobs jobs jobs

Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA

#5 Oct 26, 2010
VOTE YES on Prop 23-- those big bad big companies that Bob cites in his argument are all EMPLOYERS; in other words, the good guys! If they make a profit, sure they take home money, but they also hire people. Hiring good, income good, profit good. VOTE YES on Prop 23!
covered in dirt

El Monte, CA

#6 Oct 26, 2010
Facts Or Fiction???

California has over 12,000 clean energy businesses and 500,000 employees.
California's clean energy firms have received $9 billion (60 percent) of venture capital funds in North America.

And the source for this statistical data is???

In exchange for free year-round day-use admission to California state parks, Californians will pay an $18 fee as part of the annual vehicle license fee to support state parks.

Does this mean that use of the parks is free as long as one pays the 18 dollar fee?????
Aloha

Honolulu, HI

#7 Oct 26, 2010
Sure, go ahead and listen to the OIL Companies. Their Number 1 interest is to protect the environment. They really want the USA off of Foreign Oil and on Alternative Energy. You can bet your life on it.

Some of us remember how filthy and burning the Air was in the 50's, 60's and 70's before California grew a set of balls and said "No More!"

California is the Environmental and Technology Leader Nationwide. Don't Go Backwards, Go Forwards.

The Nation follows your lead.
NO MORE CAR TAX

El Segundo, CA

#8 Oct 26, 2010
I support state parks, but I DO NOT support instituting a car tax (fee) to do it.

IT'S WRONG!
Read To Understand

Austin, TX

#9 Oct 26, 2010
Hey Bob Del Vecchio, Redondo Beach, how did "Prop 23's True cost" letter to the editor mislead you? ALL of the letter was factual data, so to be mislead you had to be reading the letter through partisan glasses. Now to your "misleading" response. Prop 23 would suspend AB 32 until the unemployment drops to 5.5 % but do you know what it was in 2006 when the Governator signed the Bill - 4.8%. And oh by the way, at this level 3 times in 30 years, but twice in the last decade......you left that part out. Your numbers on clean energy jobs was pulled out of the sky and the end of 2009 green jobs represented less than 1%(175,000) in the entire state of California..look it up! Your statement on clean energy business and jobs is also "misleading" if you had 100 clean jobs and created 50 more it would be a 50% increase. If you have 2 million private sector jobs and create 50 more it is nothing. Regarding your funding comments, does not seem to register with you that the NO side has out spent the YES side 3 to 1 and who are those people hedge funders, bankers remember Wall Street? Greenhouse gas CO2 is not a polllutant, you exhale don't you? Then you may be part of the problem. The only carpetbaggers are people that can't win the argument on merit and create false TV campaign ads trying to link CO2 and asthma. You may want to calibrate your "pertinent facts" between sipping the Kool-Aid.
The Real Reason

Hawthorne, CA

#10 Oct 26, 2010
Aloha wrote:
Sure, go ahead and listen to the OIL Companies. Their Number 1 interest is to protect the environment. They really want the USA off of Foreign Oil and on Alternative Energy. You can bet your life on it.
Some of us remember how filthy and burning the Air was in the 50's, 60's and 70's before California grew a set of balls and said "No More!"
California is the Environmental and Technology Leader Nationwide. Don't Go Backwards, Go Forwards.
The Nation follows your lead.
Rather than really address the issue of is the "Green Technology" going to create jobs or not, you just went for a simple minded slogan. An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. In your case, it must be a lie because of the "evil oil companies". This type of flawed logic is well known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

All this talk about green energy is all very nice, BUT the current cost for green solar power is about 3 times what Edison charges using less than green technology.

Do you like paying more for less?

Do you like killing jobs?

With unemployment at record highs, is it really smart to have AB32 that will kills jobs.

STOP listening to Al Gore's lies and do some research, you might be surprised.
Who Knows

Highland, CA

#11 Oct 26, 2010
Mr. Sandoval got it right. I'm voting No on the CV bond!

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.

Valero Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News High oil prices pinching refiners, too Refiners... (Apr '08) Mar '14 Bella 2
News Texas Oil Companies Oppose California Climate C... (Apr '10) Oct '11 Here Is One 156
News Cellulosic Ethanol | Frontier Renewable Resourc... (Apr '11) Apr '11 PGW 2
News Valero's Benicia refinery seeks break from tariffs (Dec '10) Dec '10 Birds Landing Bob 3
News Sierra Club to push Benicia to oppose Propositi... (Oct '10) Oct '10 domefoam 9
News Benicia City Council considers opposing ballot ... (Sep '10) Sep '10 BakersDozen 5
News Debate sought over state climate law (Sep '10) Sep '10 Joe Mama 2
More from around the web