What is Digg?178 Comments
- OCPaddler, on 11/05/2008, -0/+109Hmmm, the NRDC was against both props 7 and 10 and for prop 1A:
"Two misguided propositions masquerading as renewable energy plans will appear on California's Nov. 4, 2008, ballot. Propositions 7 and 10 would set back the state's efforts to build a clean energy future. NRDC has championed clean energy for more than 30 years but opposes both of these measures, which would reverse course on California's drive to tap renewable resources.
There is a clear winner on the Nov. 4 ballot, however. Proposition 1A would catalyze the development of a high-speed rail system and make improvements to existing rail networks. Here's a breakdown of the three initiatives and NRDC's recommendations."
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/calballotinitiativ ... - Juaquin, on 11/06/2008, -0/+99This is FUD. Both props were horribly worded and actually would have hurt renewable energy. Even companies that make renewable technology, and the utilities that use it, were against these props.
- LAWriter, on 11/06/2008, -2/+60Proposition 10 was CORPORATE WELFARE for billionaire/swift boat funder/GOP SCUMBAG T Boone Pickens and his wind power scheme, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF, OLD MAN.
- SniperGX1, on 11/05/2008, -2/+59People didn't vote for it because it would make energy more expensive and there weren't checks and balances to insure our beloved PG&E didn't take the money and run.
- paulmer2003, on 11/06/2008, -1/+57I voted against them...they had a bunch of stuff tacked on which was NOT good. Do some research.
- Plastic3D, on 11/06/2008, -0/+42I'm a Green CA voter who said "No" to the prop7: (we are using 100% wind power at our house in Palo Alto - just so you know I care.)
Read the Cons here:
http://caivp.org/propositions/proposition-7/2008/1 ...
Hilights here:
-It is an environmentally unsound bill which forces small energy providers out of the market using absurd regulations while bolstering the power of established utility companies
-It provides no adequate regulatory apparatus to oversee the production of new alternative energy sources; in fact, it shifts the responsibility for energy production to the wrong place
-Its drastic quickness could be such a shock to California’s economy that it would cause a depression
-It is a rehash of an old method of policy making by Government fiat, rather than through cooperation with those institutions which actually understand the implications
-It is opposed by environmental groups, corporate groups, Democrats, Republicans and alternative energy advocates
-It ignores the necessity of market mechanisms for the production of energy by mandating the usage of unrealistic long-term contracts
If Bay area homeowners want to help out with solar, and with affordable LEASED panels, I saw on the news the other day about solarcity, which leases panels for your rooftop at $117/month, and it usually saves $200 on your electric bill, so it's a no-brainer! I'm going to look into it ASAP. - tamman2000, on 11/06/2008, -0/+407 was fatally flawed... It would have disinsensitivised small scale solar and wind. It was explained pretty well in the ballot explainer that every registered voter got in the mail. There were environmental organizations endorsing a no vote on 7. Well intentioned, but poorly written...
- JoeJoeMa, on 11/06/2008, -0/+39I ride my bike to work, and have more solar panels than fingers, i voted no on both as well.
they were junk.
buried as inaccurate - chickenloco, on 11/06/2008, -0/+36These were OPPOSED by almost everyone... Including ENVIRORMENTAL Corporations... Do your research, please.
- doiveo, on 11/05/2008, -1/+32state wide rail could answer many environmental and life standard issues too. Might be a poor time to go into dept for it however.
- itseffinkasey, on 11/06/2008, -0/+29I voted against these props because they were flawed and wouldn't have helped us anyway. BURIED.
- tallguyg, on 11/06/2008, -0/+24those energy bills were opposed by all the major environmental groups. if you look at the fine print they simply favored big businesses. one of the bills was written by a Arizona businessman who just wanted us to buy his biofuels.
They were horrible energy plans. - Gndoab, on 11/06/2008, -0/+22Um, statewide rail is a cheaper and cleaner way of transporting goods and people throughout the state.
- lesoleil, on 11/06/2008, -0/+22prop 7 and 10 are flawed to the max.
T Boone Pickens is a natural gas powerhouse and will use whatever agenda he has to become the biggest business evarrr.
His plans to use natural gas as a fuel is legit, but not legit enough. if you're going to have a proposition which tries and helps the environment (which is would marginally), there should be a consensus of not having fossil fuels at all.
just my 2 cents - NonLeftistDiggr, on 11/06/2008, -1/+22should read, CA votes against yet more seriously corrupt propositions.
- inactive, on 11/06/2008, -0/+19Indeed. I actually voted no on these, and I'm a green supporter.
- JessicaSarahS, on 11/06/2008, -1/+18Exactly! I'm all for renewable energy, but these were not the right propositions. They created loopholes for smaller energy companies and promoted lax compliance rules.
- TheHEARSEDRIVER, on 11/06/2008, -0/+16Neither of these were what they appeared. Prop 7 would've denied support from smaller solar companies and diverted it to the Big 3. Prop 10 was just an excuse to fund T. Boone Pickens' CNG industry.
- winstonsmith303, on 11/06/2008, -0/+14Seriously. I voted against it because it would have given every single contract to big businesses without giving any consideration to the smaller companies essentially forcing TONS of people out of jobs. We'll get there - we just need a less flawed bill.
- odetonarwhal, on 11/06/2008, -3/+15People voted no in fear that it was something like Prop 10 (T. Boone Pickins).
- padreryan, on 11/06/2008, -0/+12Some thing you non-Californian folks have to keep in mind about this election for us...
Unfortunately, Prop 8 passing was no surprise. A very similar prop passed in 2000, and only ended this May because the supreme court. We actually showed an improvement- in 2000 the vote was close to 60-40, where as 8 was a much closer margin.
When it comes to California, the rest of the country only sees Los Angeles and San Fransisco, which are both very progressive, forward thinking areas. But we also have a lot of less urban areas - we have more agriculture than any other state, and those areas tend to vote conservative (along with uber right-wing Orange County, where I unfortunately had to grow up.)
As for these green props- both 7 and 10 were expensive and badly written. No one trusted either.
It's better in California to vote no on ANYTHING you aren't 100% sure about because we are TOO democratic; we forgo representation and give consitutional amendment powers to a 51% majority. It has made our state nearly impossible to govern, and our budget crisis from years back has never ended. Although I'm disappointed in CA's vote for 8, now was not the time for 7 or 10. - Zomgondo, on 11/06/2008, -0/+12Yep. One of them was sponsored by T. Boone Pickens (who would dearly love us to buy more natural gas from him), and nobody could even understand the other... so they got shot down. That has nothing to do with whether or not we like green energy (pretty much everyone I know is 100% in support of more solar and wind power), it just means the proposed laws sucked.
- thatsmyaibo, on 11/06/2008, -0/+11They were ***** props. A pretty package with ***** inside. Also, why should taxpayer money go to helping people by hybrids? If you care about the environment, buy a fuel efficient car on your own dime. We are already in debt as it is.
- vondrak, on 11/06/2008, -0/+11Prop 10 was incentives for "alternative fuel" vehicles, this included primarily natural gas vehicles. Natural gas isn't getting us off nonrenewable sources or cutting back on greenhouse gasses(significantly). And lets be honest here, who's going to buy a natural gas car? Who's going to buy their own refill station, which by the way would earn you a $2000 rebate, so I can't imagine how expensive they are.
I'm all for alternative energy, but not if it's an alternate form of hydrocarbons. - robbob, on 11/06/2008, -1/+12Innovation is already happening in CA without the taxpayers footing the bill. VCs are paying for it.
- pandaboy99, on 11/06/2008, -0/+10Prop 10 was just a scam to switch us from oil to natural gas at the tax payers expense
- KMye, on 11/05/2008, -0/+10recently moved back to OR from 10 years in CA...
didn't look into 1a in detail since I didn't have to. The west coast is begging for an effective rail system, but all three CA friends I talked to yesterday said they voted against it as well...shame, I guess, it wasn't structured right?
Prop 8 is disappointing, but not entirely surprising...wasn't it an earlier popular vote gay-marriage-ban proposition that the CA supreme court just overturned? It's interesting when you look at a county-by-county map of CA. As with almost all states, it's not a blue state, it's a red state with blue cities (SF-area, LA-area).
I'm amazed and heartened prop 11 is apparently passing. Wish this could happen in every state... - GregLoire, on 11/06/2008, -1/+11People in favor of corrupt propositions are supposed to mislead the public about what they truly do BEFORE the election. You're doing it wrong.
- hipnerd, on 11/06/2008, -0/+9I looked at who opposed these measures.
The Sierra Club opposed one. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties opposed the other.
I want to invest in new energy sources, but I want to do it smartly. - ehalasey, on 11/06/2008, -0/+9When we earned reading comprehension abilities. You should try it sometime. It's pretty good.
- maceelk, on 11/06/2008, -1/+10i still voted for 10, but i don't really mind that it lost. I was just excited to wake up and see prop 1 passed, the rest of America can thank us later when they link up to our system.
- ehalasey, on 11/06/2008, -0/+8Man, I hate when uninformed voters talk down to people who read the measures.
1. Prop 10 wanted us to use a SINGLE TYPE of vehicle that would be powered by this magical, "renewable" natural gas. Yes, let's limit our options. That's a GREAT idea.
2. Natural gas isn't a renewable resource. Sorry. It isn't.
3. T. Boone Pickens, whose whole fortune is invested in natural gas, WROTE AND FUNDED PROP 10.
4. We should set up a system that encourages major corporations to undercut smaller utility businesses (i.e., the vast majority of providers of renewable energy), even though the major corporations show no signs of providing green energy? How does THAT work to our benefit?
5. For ***** sake, THE SIERRA CLUB OPPOSED THESE MEASURES! - inactive, on 11/06/2008, -3/+11Don't forget: the midwest begins about 20 miles from the coast.
- drivelocity, on 11/06/2008, -0/+8Buried. Propositions 7 & 10 were power grabs by a couple of rich guys, both from other states. It could have set us back and raised our utility costs.
- doughboy334, on 11/06/2008, -0/+8badly written POS legislation, NO on 7 for me.
- jayfarer, on 11/06/2008, -0/+7Inaccurate.
If you actually read the prop past its name, you would realize that it is not what you might think it is. - iammatt00, on 11/06/2008, -0/+7Finally someone speaks with a level head on this digg. The Propositions were CRAP from the get go, the only ones who speak up for the props are the uneducated who "vote how they are told to". One of these years, people will learn to do research for themselves.
- noahspurrier, on 11/06/2008, -0/+7Look people-who-didn't-even-read-the-freaking-proposition-and-don't-what-they-are-talking-about:
You have to read more than just the one-line description of the proposition. Let's look at a short list of angry conservative types who were AGAINST prop 7:
Sierra Club California
California League of Conservation Voters
Environmental Defense Fund
Union of Concerned Scientists
Natural Resources Defense Council
California Democratic Party
Green Party of California
The Peace & Freedom Party of California
San Francisco Bay Guardian
"Oh! Wait! That can't be right... something seems wrong here.
What's going? I'm so confused! The name of the proposition sounded so nice."
Here's a rule of thumb: if you can't get the Green Party and the San Francisco Bay Guardian to support your nutty plan to save the planet then maybe things are not what they seem.
http://www.cagreens.org/elections/2008/Proposition ... - ikcor, on 11/06/2008, -0/+6If you're not from California, read the initiatives before you judge. It's not often that big energy AND environmentalists both agree on the same thing: that these props sucked.
- Divector8, on 11/06/2008, -0/+6Actually, the measures that this proposition were aiming to enforce are already in place and if it passed, all it would do is extend the deadline for when power companies need to switch to renewable energy.
Its one of those bills that looks great on the surface but all it does is makes it easier on the power companies. - scoottie, on 11/06/2008, -1/+7no California voted against greedy people like nancy pelosi and pickens. how the hell do expect people to vote for these when the governor goes on TV asking for the feds to bailout the state and then asking for 10+ billion dollars for these crappy initiatives? give us something real to vote for. these did nothing for the advancement of new fuel tech.
- merripen, on 11/06/2008, -1/+7Our state took months to simply pass a yearly budget. We have very little spending room right now. This is no time for frivolous spending, especially on deeply flawed and misguided propositions like these.
- smashblu, on 11/06/2008, -0/+6Prop 1 passed. The children's hospital one was ridiculous. A similar prop passed in 04 and they still haven't used the money for that!
- MoralThreat, on 11/06/2008, -0/+6Same here. 7 was worded horribly and would have never worked. And 10 was just plain stupid. I'm all for clean energy, but don't try to ***** the populace over in the process.
- mugicha, on 11/06/2008, -1/+7I was wondering how to vote on 11 and did some research. The Democratic voting guide said to vote no so that made me think I should vote yes. Then I checked the Republicans and thought that if they said to vote no then for sure I should vote yes but that was the only prop they listed as "no position". Finally I checked the Green party and they, surprisingly, also recommended no. Their explanation was that even though the current system sucks, at least we know who to blame when it doesn't work. One of the Green party's principles, apparently, is transparency in government, so they were arguing against prop 11 because it set up an anonymous body to redraw districts that would not be accountable to the people. I thought that was a pretty argument against it so I voted no on it.
Interestingly, the Greens recommended no votes on all the bond measures, including the high speed rail. They basically described them all as tax-payer funded boondoggles, which confirmed what I was thinking already myself. It's easy to wonder wtf California was thinking when it voted down these supposedly "green" propositions, but if you look into it even the Sierra club was against prop 7. Just because something says "Clean Energy" on it doesn't mean you should vote for it or gnash your teeth when it fails.
Now, prop 8, that's something to ask California wtf it was thinking. - glui2001, on 11/06/2008, -0/+5Pay attention to details people! The propositions would've required the state to sell bonds that will have to be paid back over a period of time! No way! Although the intentions are good, I don't want the state to be the ones responsible. State and govt are slow, inefficient and wasteful of your hard earned tax dollars. It's BETTER to let some private entity come in and build the bullet train or bring about green energy that doesn't cost taxpayers!
- sweetlez, on 11/06/2008, -0/+5Totally agree. These propositions were a bit misleading in that not only were there no checks and balances, but one of the props went to a billionaire oil tycoon so he can get tax rebates on heavy automobiles.
- youannoyme, on 11/06/2008, -0/+5Yeah...mostly...
bigotry and funding just earned Cali a gay marriage ban unfortunately:( - BigManOnCampus, on 11/05/2008, -0/+5Yeah, I'm really happy that 11 is passing. I'm hoping we can finally make the legislators in this state actually represent their populations, instead of just being career politicians with no fear of being ousted.
- redcatalina, on 11/06/2008, -0/+5disinsensitivised? o.0
-
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is