"Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke
BO an his fellow marxists are on their way to screw over the American middle class and the poor. We can all thank the leftists who voted for these power grabbing money grubbing a-holes.
The end of the wonderful country I once knew is coming. Goodbye America, hello Euro style socialistic sh*thole.
Last edited by DamnYankee; 06-27-09 at 05:30 AM.
In Spain the nr. 1 industry is Tourism, followed until the crash, by construction of new homes/buildings. When the nr 2 industry collapses then it will account for a large part of the unemployment... it is freaking logic.
As for Gabriel Calzada. He is a so called "libertarian" aka a conservative and his report must be taken in that context. His report says that the Spanish investment in green technology has cost 110.000 jobs in "other industries". What he bases this on is known only to him it seems. In total there are over 40 million people in Spain and the unemployed at the moment is 4 million. 110.000 jobs out of 4 million is not by any mathematical standard "a huge part".. not even close.
But what he some what correctly states is the "eco corruption"
Corruption can be very bad. However far far far more jobs have been lost due to corruption in the building industry than anything else. Building license corruption has cost over 1 billion euros in damage to the local county of Marbella.. the Spanish version of Monte Carlo.. basically where all the uber rich go to play. Corruption in local government during the last 10 to 20 years has in part lead to the over reliance on the construction sector in Spain, since it has basically been a free for all drunk building spree where no consideration was made towards planning laws and the law in many popular areas of Spain. This corruption is now coming home to roost, with 40000+ homes in the above county of Marbella being tagged for demolition due to being illegal. And Marbella is not that big a county, population wise..
So Mr Gabriel Calzada can take his views and put them into the context of reality. I bet he is more pissed over that his conservative party has not had a chance in hell of gaining political power in Spain since the Madrid bombings and that it is the socialist (regrettably) that are getting the praise for getting industries to invest so much in alternative energy. Like it or not it is not cheap to be a the forefront of next generation alternative energy, but the cost savings for Spain in the short, medium and long run have the potential to be huge. Just imagine if half of the US energy production was from alternative energy .. imagine the amount of money saved on buying oil?!
Spain's problem is in part that it is still recovering from the Franco regime. People over 40 basically dont have the educational level expected of most employers today, and this especially goes for women who were discouraged from high education under Franco. Many of the "old ways" and laws from the Franco era are still being used and they are highly ineffective but they are also part of life here. It takes time for things to change and in the mean time those ways are costing far far more jobs than any alternative energy investment ever will do.
Spain has had systemic unemployment problem since Franco (and before) due to the laws and attitudes. For one, Spain's economic growth has been one of the highest in the western world, far far over that of the US, and yet it has a near constant 6 to 10% unemployment for decades.
So I think Gabriel Calzada should focus on such things instead of criticizing one of the good projects in Spain. Where is his criticizing of the construction industry or the telecommunications industry? Or why is he not after the conservative politicians that have cost so many jobs due to their corruption?
But I just found the report on the net and when I get time I will read it, but on the face of things stuff does not add up with the comments by Mr Calzada as reported by posters on these boards.
Up to now he's lied about everything and picked the dstruction of America to tell the truth about.
Obama said and I paraphrase: "My plan for Cap and Trade plan will cause electric bills to skyrocket".
"Mar 15, 2008 ... My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it".
Barack Hussein Obama Extreme leftist & Anti American
When are the Granola Liberals going to get it. If this ignorant plan did all they claim to reduce CO2 the effect is less than 1 degree in like 30 years or something and even that is BS because global warming is a HOAX. 21 states set record low temperatures in the last 12 months and the ARMY reasuch Office said 86% of today's increases are the result of a normal Sun cycle and not man caused.
This whole global warming, Cap and Trade Bill BS should be in the conspiracy area. Wake up America before Obama drives us into 3rd world status so he can feel at home.
Last edited by Councilman; 06-27-09 at 06:32 AM.
why ted kennedy doesn't want windmills near him:
Pictures from the energy companies show slim towers rising cleanly from the landscape or hovering faintly in the distant haze, their presence modulated by soft clouds behind them. But a 200- to 300-foot tower supporting a turbine housing the size of a bus and three 100- to 150-foot rotor blades sweeping over an acre of air at more than 100 mph requires, for a start, a large and solid foundation. On a GE 1.5-MW tower, the turbine housing, or nacelle, weighs over 56 tons, the blade assembly weighs over 36 tons, and the whole tower assembly totals over 163 tons. [Click here for a perspective on their size. Click here for the specs of popular models.]
As FPL (Florida Power & Light) Energy says, "a typical turbine site takes about a 42×42-foot-square graveled area." Each tower (and a site needs at least 15-20 towers to make investment worthwhile) requires a huge hole filled with steel rebar–reinforced concrete (e.g., 1,250 tons in each foundation at the facility in Lamar, Colo.). According to Country Guardian, the hole is large enough to fit three double-decker buses. At the 89-turbine Top of Iowa facility, the foundation of each 323-foot assembly is a 7-feet-deep 42-feet-diameter octagon filled with 25,713 pounds of reinforced steel and 181 cubic yards of concrete. The foundations at the Wild Horse project in Washington are 30 feet deep. At Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee, too, each foundation is at least 30 feet deep and may contain more than 3,500 cubic yards of concrete (production of which is a major source of CO2). On Cefn Croes in Wales the developer built a complete concrete factory on the site, which is not unusual, as well as opened quarries to provide rock for new roads -- neither of which activities were part of the original planning application [click here for photos of the abhorrent destruction on Cefn Croes].
On many such mountain ridges as well as other locations, it would be necessary to blast into the bedrock, as Enxco's New England representative, John Zimmerman, has confirmed, possibly disrupting the water sources for wells downhill. At the Waymart plant in Pennsylvania, the foundations extend 30-40 feet into the bedrock. At Romney Marsh in southern England, foundation pillars will be sunk 110 feet. For each 6-feet-deep foundation at the Crescent Ridge facility in Illinois, another 24 feet was dug out and filled with sand. Construction at a site on the Slieve Aughty range in Ireland in October 2003 caused a 2.5-mile-long bog slide.
(Building on peat bogs is recognized as a serious disruption of an important carbon sink; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds opposes wind development on the Scottish island of Lewis because the turbines would take 25 years to theoretically save the amount of carbon that their construction will release from the peat (not to mention the threat to birds -- see below).
I wonder how cap and trade will stop this emitter of more greenhouse gas than than the US can produce in a decade:
NASA - Sarychev Volcano
From what I understand, this bill will do little to achieve any promising environmental impact, as it pertains to the emissions of CO2. One of the provisions was going to be that the government would "sell" credits to companies that over went their alotted CO2 output, and was supposed to generate an extra $600 Billion for the government, but I believe that had to be axed in order to get a few more republican votes, as well as some exceptions for the agricultural industry. So now the government will simply be handing out these credits.
Environmental groups are saying its a stupid bill, and conversly people who care about our economy are saying its a stupid bill. The only people who like this bill, are people who know nothing about either issue. I oppose it, based upon its likely economic impact, FWIW.
"Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis
Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat