I don't like it. I sort of agree with the board member that dissented. The fees may be low now, but once they have been established, it will be easier for them to stick it to businesses with higher fees in the future and the costs of goods for the consumer are high enough as it is.
I agree with you. The consumers will start paying the passed on cost of the fees immediately, and then the Bay Area pollution board will discover that they need more money for better research. Do you know how the board was formed and just how much authority do they have? Everyone loves the Earth, but how do we know that they won’t just use the fees to line their pockets.
then making my income dependent on the financial well being of one economic area. You, on the other hand are probably not that smart are you, little backbencher?
Why didn't they take this great opportunity to accomplish twice as much by announcing an scale of cash benefits that could be earned, by any company, for things like solar panels and other new ways to reduce use of electric power like replacing glass shutters to reflect heat during noon hours or some such ways to reduce air-conditioning load and energy use?
If they dedicated 100 Percent of revenues to fight Global Warming they would increase, even double, their effectiveness and their credibility.
If they published in their website names and amounts and items, consumers would know who is really concerned about Global Warming and who wants to bake all people in an Earth warmer than the ovens at Auschwitz's.
Posted on Wed, 05/21/2008 - 14:56 — by pullio
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
do you think will be the first to whine about lost jobs and higher prices?
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
You?
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1851
I don't like it. I sort of agree with the board member that dissented. The fees may be low now, but once they have been established, it will be easier for them to stick it to businesses with higher fees in the future and the costs of goods for the consumer are high enough as it is.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Bazooka Joe,
I agree with you. The consumers will start paying the passed on cost of the fees immediately, and then the Bay Area pollution board will discover that they need more money for better research. Do you know how the board was formed and just how much authority do they have? Everyone loves the Earth, but how do we know that they won’t just use the fees to line their pockets.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
You also need to consider that this fee will probably drive out any industry that can leave. One thing the Bay Area does not need is less jobs.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
then making my income dependent on the financial well being of one economic area. You, on the other hand are probably not that smart are you, little backbencher?
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
My IQ can beat up your IQ any day of the week, you despicable slacker. :)
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
Just let me know what your IQ is, and whether you belong to MENSA and we will find out.
Or maybe you want to compare careers, or educations, or dissertations published, or papers published, or research dollars earned by grant.
By the way I will need your name and address to confirm your claims--you first.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 135
Why didn't they take this great opportunity to accomplish twice as much by announcing an scale of cash benefits that could be earned, by any company, for things like solar panels and other new ways to reduce use of electric power like replacing glass shutters to reflect heat during noon hours or some such ways to reduce air-conditioning load and energy use?
If they dedicated 100 Percent of revenues to fight Global Warming they would increase, even double, their effectiveness and their credibility.
MikeSar
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
You're a man of few words. You opened this thread, got any thing else to say about air pollution?