|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
You may want to read the headline story in Businessweek (4/30/2001)
titled "The Future Of California". It ain't pretty. But regardless,
CA accounts for 14% of the US economy and in the past year generated
25% of the job growth. If CA sinks, then it will take the rest of
the country with it.
JW
--- In realtraders@xxxx, "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxx> wrote:
> I think no one begrudges California its energy consumption, the
point was
> unwillingness to pay the social and environmental costs of hosting
the
> facilities (electric, gas and oil) required to produce the energy
consumed.
> Then California screams gouging when they have to pay the costs of
acquiring
> energy from those states which do pay the social and environmental
costs. I
> don't deny that there has been egregious corporate profiteering,
however
> elected California politicians disassembled a working power system
in the
> expectation of acquiring power from outside the state at bargain
prices.
>
> Earl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Me" <ibe98765@xxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxx>
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [RT] Another Panic Cut Sets Stage for Rate Hikes Next
Year
>
>
> > Regarding use of energy in CA, I was surprised to come across the
> > statistic below. we don't use that much electricity per capita.
But
> > because CA is a big state in terms of land area, we get blamed for
> > total high consumption. You've got to compare oranges with
oranges...
> >
> > California is 48th in per-capita energy consumption. The state is
> > 2nd -- behind Texas -- in total power consumed.
> >
> > Latest figures. Source: U.S. Department of Energy
> >
> > JW
> >
> > --- In realtraders@xxxx, "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxx> wrote:
> > > I agree with much of what you say, however there was a very well
> > written
> > > guest column on the WSJ editorial page a couple of weeks ago,
> > setting forth
> > > the case that Californians expect social, environmental, and
> > economic
> > > perfection without any trade-offs so it seems natural that costs
> > there would
> > > lead the rest of the country. It rang a bell when I read it,
> > however I felt
> > > that much of it was applicable to urbanized areas in the rest of
> > the country
> > > as well - remember those red and blue election maps? What I do
know
> > (living
> > > in the Southwest), is that because Californians don't want
energy
> > facilities
> > > built locally, California is draining off energy supplies (and
> > water as
> > > well) from surrounding areas thus driving scarcity and costs for
> > the rest of
> > > us. Unfortunately, too many Californians are now leaving their
> > idealized
> > > world and moving in with those of us who eschew urbanized
America
> > thereby
> > > driving up housing costs along with water and energy
consumption.
> > >
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|