• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dystopia is Coming, and It Begins in California

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ever since the rule of Robespierre in the French Revolution, radical ideals linked to state power have unleashed some our most repressive regimes. The repression is powered by intentions which may begin as good but evolve to tyranny.


California Governor Brown imposing massive regulations for meaningless climate goals

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin California Governor Brown’s SB 32 law requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels 40% below levels measured in 1990 is necessitating the development of massive numbers of new regulations and policy that will allow the state government to control and dictate virtually every aspect of Californian’s lives…

Continue reading →

California Governor Brown’s SB 32 law requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels 40% below levels measured in 1990 is necessitating the development of massive numbers of new regulations and policy that will allow the state government to control and dictate virtually every aspect of Californian’s lives including:

  • where and how they can live,
  • what kind of jobs and businesses they can work in,
  • what kind of housing they can have,
  • what kind of car they can drive (if any),
  • how many miles can they drive,
  • what kind of public transportation they must use,
  • how many times they must walk and bicycle,
  • how much and what kind of energy they can use,
  • what kind and how food can be farmed,
etc, etc.
The AB 32 year 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (year 2020 levels reduced to year 1990 measured levels) could be achieved by primarily addressing electricity generation and industrial sector greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts through increased use of renewable energy, energy efficiency and fuel substitution efforts.
But the SB 32 emission targets are so absurdly set that every aspect of Californian’s lives must be dictated and controlled to achieve Governor Brown’s ludicrous climate alarmist driven goals. . . . .
 
More copy/paste spam from the conspiracy blog WUWT? Who would have guessed.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]Here's what Senate Bill 32 means for California | The Sacramento Bee[/h]www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article100734142.html
Sep 8, 2016 - Senate Bill 32, SB 32, climate change, cap-and-trade, greenhouse gas emissions, Jerry Brown, California.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
[h=3]California is about to find out what a truly radical climate policy looks ...[/h]www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12650488/california-climate-law-sb-32

Aug 29, 2016 - Then, in late August, after much fierce debate, the California Assembly and Senate passed a new bill, known as SB 32, that would go much ...
Click to expand...

You probably should have led with those. But I suppose they didn't have the right amount of vicious propaganda to suit your needs.

I don't know about 'independents,' but in my experience many American conservatives in particular (though also many liberals) emphasize the importance of a relatively high degree of autonomy for the states precisely because they can act as petri dishes for social and economic innovations which could prove risky if implemented nationwide from the get-go. If you really believed in your brown agenda, you would probably be rejoicing in what should end up being a failure of California's green push.

Of course, so far "California is on pace to push its emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020 — and the economy has thrived" (Vox), so perhaps they have a slightly better understanding of what they're doing than the keyboard economists of WUWT. Maybe that is what you fear, and the reason for the vitriol of the OP.

 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
You probably should have led with those. But I suppose they didn't have the right amount of vicious propaganda to suit your needs.

I don't know about 'independents,' but in my experience many American conservatives in particular (though also many liberals) emphasize the importance of a relatively high degree of autonomy for the states precisely because they can act as petri dishes for social and economic innovations which could prove risky if implemented nationwide from the get-go. If you really believed in your brown agenda, you would probably be rejoicing in what should end up being a failure of California's green push.

Of course, so far "California is on pace to push its emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020 — and the economy has thrived" (Vox), so perhaps they have a slightly better understanding of what they're doing than the keyboard economists of WUWT. Maybe that is what you fear, and the reason for the vitriol of the OP.

Click to expand...

You have missed the point. The focus of concern is not the 2020 targets, dubious as they may be, but rather the new 2030 targets.

The state is already on track to nudge its greenhouse-gas emissions back down to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Then, in late August, after much fierce debate, the California Assembly and Senate passed a new bill, known as SB 32, that would go much further, mandating an additional 40 percent cut in emissions by 2030:
 
Mithrae said:
You probably should have led with those. But I suppose they didn't have the right amount of vicious propaganda to suit your needs.

I don't know about 'independents,' but in my experience many American conservatives in particular (though also many liberals) emphasize the importance of a relatively high degree of autonomy for the states precisely because they can act as petri dishes for social and economic innovations which could prove risky if implemented nationwide from the get-go. If you really believed in your brown agenda, you would probably be rejoicing in what should end up being a failure of California's green push.

Of course, so far "California is on pace to push its emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020 — and the economy has thrived" (Vox), so perhaps they have a slightly better understanding of what they're doing than the keyboard economists of WUWT. Maybe that is what you fear, and the reason for the vitriol of the OP.
Click to expand...

It was all in the OP link. The new SB 32 targets are for 2030.

The AB 32 year 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (year 2020 levels reduced to year 1990 measured levels) could be achieved by primarily addressing electricity generation and industrial sector greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts through increased use of renewable energy, energy efficiency and fuel substitution efforts.
But the SB 32 emission targets are so absurdly set that every aspect of Californian’s lives must be dictated and controlled to achieve Governor Brown’s ludicrous climate alarmist driven goals. . . . .
 
Who cares what California does? It's their state. As long as no one's civil rights are stripped due to race, religion, ethnicity, sex or disability, California's state's rights supersede whatever the **** some uneducated Right Winger in Mississippi thinks.
 
calamity said:
Who cares what California does? It's their state. As long as no one's civil rights are stripped due to race, religion, ethnicity, sex or disability, California's state's rights supersede whatever the **** some uneducated Right Winger in Mississippi thinks.
Click to expand...

I don't know where the author is from but he's certainly not uneducated.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Critisising him for not comenting on the subject of the thread is weak when you also fail to make any comment on the subject.
Click to expand...

Like I'd give a **** about some lunatic color font reply. Using that crap to make oneself feel special is weak and a fail. It's almost always a sign of mental illness.

You can suck on that CT blog spam and pretends it constitutes an education. Act just like a Truther. Have fun.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I don't know where the author is from but he's certainly not uneducated.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the author. I was referring to average California hater
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom