Sunday, February 06, 2011

Clean Air: Lithium Drive: Clean Tech Summit 2011 - Luncheon with Keynote by Thomas Steyer tnr.v, czx.v, alk.ax, lmr.v, tsla, rm.v, nup.ax, srz.ax, usa.ax, jnn.v, abn.v, res, mcp, avl.to, quc.v, cee.v, sqm, fmc, roc, li.v, wlc.v, clq.v, lit, nsany, byddf, gm, dai, rno.pa, hev, aone, vlnc




  California can lead the world in the right direction one more time: Thomas Steyer  - "PROP 23 - It was biggest campaign on the environment in the history. People has voted in more numbers than during the President election" Backed by this kind of people, including Elon Musk and Ed Lee common sense can survive in the post carbon society on the American soil.

"Great energy and vision from Ed Lee Mayor of San Francisco - please make no mistake: he is also a politician and it is the main message here. Now it is the way to stay popular - by promoting Electric Cars. We have a great challenge with Peak Oil and Energy Security and we have people ready to take it now. Things are moving forward. It is only California - some can say, but California is extremely important to set the right tone with electric cars - California on a stand-alone basis is a second largest consumer of Oil  after the U.S. as a country.

"Peak Oil: Jim Puplava and Robert Hirsch: The Impending World Energy Mess. We have been following Jim Puplava for years now in Gold and Silver and this is one of the best recent interviews on Peak Oil subject, which is very frequent topic of his discussions."
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proposition 23 was a California ballot proposition that was on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot[1] It was defeated by California voters during the statewide election by a 23% margin.[2][3][4][dead link][5]. If passed, it would have suspended AB 32, a law enacted in 2006 that is in extenso, legally referred to as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.[6] Sponsors of the initiative referred to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative while opponents called it theDirty Energy Prop[7].
The goal of the proposition was to freeze the provisions of AB 32 until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. As the current rate is 12.4%, this wording was seen by Arnold Schwarzenegger and others as a wording trick to delay the environmental regulations indefinitely[8]. AB 32 requires that greenhouse emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020, in a gradual process of cutting that is slated to begin in 2012.[9]Reducing greenhouse emission levels to 1990 levels will involve cutting them by about 15% from 2010 levels.
AB 32 includes a provision allowing the Governor of California to suspend the provisions of AB 32 if there are "extraordinary circumstances" in place, such as "significant economic harm". The supporters of Prop 23, Assemblyman Dan Logue and Ted Costa, decided to circulate a petition to accomplish a suspension of the environmental regulations.[10]Governor Schwarzenegger, as well as the major party candidates for GovernorJerry Brown, and Meg Whitman, have all stated they will vote "no" on Prop 23. Brown however favors "adjustments" to AB 32, while Whitman would immediately suspend AB 32.
Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, predicted in April that total campaign spending on this proposition would top the $154 million record set in 2006 by Proposition 87.[11]
If campaign spending on the proposition does reach that level, it could be because supporters and opponents view the battle over the suspension of AB 32 as symbolic in the larger national debate over global warming. Steven Maviglio, speaking for a group that wants to keep AB 32 intact, said, "...this could be a ground zero for the battle for the future ofclean energy."[11]
Enhanced by Zemanta
Post a Comment