Front Page  »  

Green bills fared poorly in Sacramento

September 12, 2011

It’s been a bad year at the state capitol for environmental issues despite an ostensibly friendly administration, and it’s a trend being felt nationwide as the economy hemorrhages. [SanJoseMercuryNews]

Representatives of many California environmental interest groups had hoped that Gov. Jerry Brown’s election would usher in an era of successful eco-politics, but high unemployment and a growing sentiment against government regulation appear to be working against that objective.

Warner Chabot, executive director of the California League of Conservation Voters, told the Mercury News, “For the environment, this is probably the least productive year in a decade.”

The governor has 30 days to sign a stack of bills on his desk, few of which are environmentally significant. Among the so-called “green” bills awaiting gubernatorial ink is one to ban the sale of shark fins in California. Others would allow non-profits to keep state parks open, and extend property tax breaks for open space.

Major legislative efforts to regulate plastics and batteries failed, as did a proposed restriction on a controversial oil and gas practice called hydraulic “fracking.”


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I might still be in the minority, but whenever I see “green” attached to anything, I quickly wonder what scam they are working the government (and hence the tax-paying “producers”) with. Almost everything “green” is a scam, it seems. A few are just ignorant and hoping for a bandwagon mentality, I don’t fault them; but those “green jobs” that were touted were so full of crap, that you’d have to be SMOKING the green to think they would pan out.


However, we are a well-trained, indoctrinated society. I am sure their failure was due to the opposing party, whichever that may be.


I’ve heard it said that a two party system is more efficient for total control than even a dictatorship.


Ponzi schemes, shell games, green initiatives… it never stops.


0

You nailed it, rOy!


0

You are guilty of what our politicians and our govt. always does. You are lumping everyone together, all or nothing.

They’re not all bad, I believe that many green bills are good. Unfortunately you only see the bad the ones. I’m not sure if that’s selective viewing on your part, if you just see one bad apple and throw them all in with it or if you just hate green bills because helping the environment is such a lib thing to do.


0

It is possible that I have selective viewing, but I find it hard to find a “green” company that doesn’t basically exist to get grants and other tax-payer-confiscated wealth. If you have a list or even the name of one good one, I would like to see it (and look into it).


Also, helping the environment is NOT just a “lib thing to do” – I cannot find ANYONE that wants to harm the environment. I know they exist (far away from the environments they usually are harming), but to say that only a liberal cares for the environment is pretty silly.


0

What happened to the right and capitalism. Of course green companies can’t work for free, of course if they can get grants or other govt. help they’re going to to do it, of course not to the extent that the oil companies get their subsidies and and tax breaks. But maybe one day they’ll catch up to them. I would much much rather give my tax money to a co. that makes us less dependent on oil than give my tax money to Exxon. You want to see confiscated wealth, look at how much we’re paying Halliburtion to handle our wars, they’re making a fortune off of us, why do you think we’re still in Iraq? I don’t see you or anyone on the right complain about the the money the oil companies are robbing from us or how much Halliburton is taking from us but lord have mercy if a company wants to make solar panels more affordable for the rest of us.


Helping the environment for the most part is met with hostility and fear by the right (in most cases) and your post is a perfect example of that. A good example was the thread regarding grocery bags. Doesn’t matter what group is supporting that ban, a thimble full of commensense tells us that they are bad for the environment. Name me one bill, one measure anything supported or presented by the right that helps the environment. Maybe the one where they want open our wilderness areas to logging, developement, mining etc.? That’s the rights idea of helping the environment.


Typed fast no proof reading so excuse typing mess.


0

Mainly because oil companies are not stealing from me; rather, I am hooked on their product and freely choose to buy it.


Also, oil companies DO NOT receive government subsidies. That is fallacious. There are some sweet tax breaks, but all companies get tax breaks.


The hostility and fear from the right with respect to “helping the environment” is because people on the right actually read the text of the regulations and impositions that the left want to put on us. Just look at this “one-time use” shopping bag fiasco. Tell me how that “helps” the environment!


Opening our wilderness to logging? We have no logging in this country anymore; it’s all imported now. Mining? Sure, there are just so many mines popping up everywhere. Development? You’re better sticking to that one, though I’d bring up SLO’s crooked mayor Marx a la Dalidio & Copelands (her environmental lefty group has no problem with a car dealership paving over farmland worse than Dalidio was proposing…).


Anyway, I was hoping to see an example of “green” company that did not exists to siphon money out of the tax payers by way of the government.


0

http://go.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationid=149


Although this article is a bit old it will help you to understand the subsidies that oil companies receive. Not all companies get the same sweet subsidies that oil companies receive.


I’ve already explained how one time use bags hurt the environment. Go back and read it. I shouldn’t have to repeat it, it’s simple commensense.


Read about how McCarthy wants to open wilderness and what some of the rights reasoning is for doing so. Logging and mining are absolutely planned uses for wilderness areas.


“Anyway, I was hoping to see an example of “green” company that did not exists to siphon money out of the tax payers by way of the government.”


…As opposed to what the oil companies do to us and also through the govt. (see subsidies article above). BTW, I was also waiting to see what bill, measure, plain old support that has been given by the right for anything that helps the environement. The words ‘green’ and environment are bad words to the right. You people (cons) are very anti environment/green and I have yet to see a righty that can prove different.


0

This has to be one of the silliest postings I have ever seen on this site. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are ready, willing and able to abandon their common sense and buy into this kind of big business propaganda, so long as they think there might be some money to be made.


Ponzi schemes? shell games? Look no further than your friendly neighborhood oil company. The very fact that they and their cohorts are reading Cal Coast News and commenting is interesting. They are up to something around here, and it may have to do with fracking activity in southern Monterey County. It ALWAYS has to do with big money.


Wake up, people. Cancer rates keep climbing, our kids have unprecedented rates of autism. Do you honestly think this has nothing to do with the toxic stew of chemicals we are exposed to every day?


But then, there is money to be made from those chemicals. So for some people that makes it OK to poison us all, including their kids and grandkids, and their neighbors. Hey, life is short anyway, right?


0

My clearly defined personal opinion is the silliest thing you’ve seen here? I guess you must not visit a whole lot, then!


As evil as the oil companies may be to some (many?) I wonder how much petroleum products are in your life. I’m a realist. I know the modern world revolves around oil – it’s no lie. We need it, we’re hooked. Most are not ready to step back 200 years and do without it, and those facts will likely not change ever if any time soon.


It must be frustrating for you. Cancer rates keep climbing? Do we know that? How? Because more are diagnosed and reported today than, say 100 years ago? Ergo, cancer must be more prevalent? More kids are autistic based on diagnosis done recently? I’d hate to REALLY scare you and point to MORE VACCINES today vs. “back then” or even that it is a “spectrum” disorder that is constantly expanding.


…and *my* comments are silly.


0

Becoming less dependent on oil is not stepping back in time. Becoming less dependent on oil is progression, moving forward. It’s the right that doesn’t want to move forward, I’m not sure why you guys want to be slaves to oil and the middle east. It’s the same way you guys keep advocating for us to pay for the wealthy by paying their taxes and allowing them to change laws that benefit them and not us, it just doesn’t make sense. It’s not impossible to wean off or at least make drastic cuts of our use of fossil fuels.


0

Typo, typo, typo… I said it would be stepping back to “do without it” – not becoming less dependent on it.


Your argument falls like all other anti-oil tirades, in that there is no replacement that is as efficient as fossil fuels. I would LOVE for there to be a replacement, but we need to be honest: there is no replacement for fossil fuels without being prohibitively expensive, not convert to energy as efficiently, and most importantly, be as easily storable and transportable.


I’ve been waiting for Mr. Fusion ever since 1985.


0

There absolutely are ways to right now to become less dependent on oil ie the single use shopping bag debacle, you people aren’t even willing to take baby steps to wean yourselves from oil, you won’t even try. Instead of giving oil companies subsides for exploration why don’t we give that money to citizens to help buy solar panels for their homes. Your attitude along with the rest of the cons is to just simply say it’s impossible but it’s not. Factually it’s not impossible to become less dependent on oil. It might be hundreds of years before we can completely wean off of oil and seeing how hard it is to get people off of simple things like grocery bags I’m sure it will take hundreds of years. Right now we could do a lot to cut back on our usage of fossil fuels,,but you won’t even try because it has the ‘lib’ ring to it.


0

Just keep it up. The harder you try to steer people away from the truth and common sense, the more you give yourself away. Yes, your comments are “silly”


0

Excellent and insightful response. Truly. I did not know my personal opinions had such power to steer people away from the truth, as you see it. Amazing. Alas, apparently I am also giving myself away when I should be charging. Silly me.


0

r0y: google : SV40

Mary Ferrie’s Monkey

.


0

Gah! More conspiracies! Man, I hope it is not linked (as I read it, it’s still a hot debate) to cancer for humans. Still, a good example of how vaccines might not be the be-all, end-all hope for us… Thanks for giving me something new to chew on!


0

I’m inclined to view all legislation as a scam of sorts, but if you don’t check into them, you never know.


I have mixed feelings on the green initiatives, sometimes they do more harm than good, but you have to check them out to know.


0

All legislation and all politicians. I do not trust them by default, until proven otherwise. Just seems safer that way. Red or Blue, liberal or conservative. Too many people with too many agendas and ideologies they want to push onto other people.


0