Ohh, i agree with that. I am quite liberal as well (dems are a bit too conservative for my taste, but the libertarians, most seem to misunderstand their own platform, and most greens are just deluded, but thats neither here or there. )
I like arnold as well, i was ready to expect him to be a bad gov, but hes done a decent job. My issue lies in me being an arizonan. Most of their water is pumped out of the colorado here in az, causing an ecological disaster to the river, and seriously affecting our own amount of water, in addition, most of that clean energy comes from Palo Verde, here in az, and they generally pay less than fair value for thier juice, while us arizonans pay more to make up for it. That, and they keep sending their republicans to us, driving up our housing market costs, and making the state more and more conservative. and lets not even get started on the traffic from the dumb drivers they export.... On 6/8/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
leaking pen wrote: >I'm conflicted. Im usually all in on an attack on california . . . I had a low opinion of Gov. Schwarzenegger when he was elected, and I am a democrat, but if I lived in California I would be pleased to vote for him now. He has done a spectacular job promoting sound policies on the environment and energy. He is probably the best governor in the nation on these issues. Since the 1950s California has played a leading role in reducing pollution and energy consumption. California today has close to the lowest per capita energy consumption of any state (it is #46), and it has the most efficient and cleanest electric power generation. See: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA In 2004, Alaska had the highest per capita consumption, 1,186 million BTU, followed by Wyoming and Louisiana. The bottom three were, predictably, 5 times lower than the top states: California, 233 million BTU New York, 221 million BTU Rhode Island, 210 million BTU See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use_per_cap.pdf All other technologies being equal, per capita energy consumption is usually inversely proportional to the overall wealth, education, health and overall well being of the population. That is not say rich people consume less energy than poor people. It means that the population as a whole is usually better off when average consumption is low. In countries like China, with horribly backward technology such as coal-fired steam locomotives and kerosene lighting, per capita energy consumption is low, but people waste what little energy they have. In other words, dollar output per BTU of energy is low. China used to be about 6 times worse than Japan and Europe, and 3 times worse than the U.S. but lately it has improved. I think they did this mainly by buying Japanese technology. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Profile.html Energy Intensity (2004E) 9,080.4 Btu per $2000-PPP** http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Japan/Profile.html Energy Intensity (2004E) 6,531.9 Btu per $2000-PPP** EU states are the best: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Italy/Profile.html Energy Intensity (2004E) 6,044 Btus per $2000, PPP** As usual, the U.S. is down there with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and other energy producing nations. Mineral wealth impoverishes states and nations. U.S. cars are laughably obsolete, and our factories, office buildings and houses are a gift to the fossil fuel industry. We like to burn money. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Profile.html Energy Intensity (2003E) 9,568.5 Btu per $2000-PPP** http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Russia/Profile.html Energy Intensity (2004E) 15,763 Btu per $2000-PPP** Saudi Arabia is dead last, as usual: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/Profile.html Energy Intensity (2004E) 17,554 Btu/$ -- PPP (vs U.S. value of 9,336 Btu/$)** - Jed
-- That which yields isn't always weak.
