Posted on 04/22/2006 5:11:58 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Listen to state Treasurer Phil Angelides, who proposes a plan to cut gasoline consumption in the state by 25 percent over the next 10 years, principally by forcing automakers to sell cars that can also run on “biofuels” derived from agricultural waste - things such as fruit pits, corn husks and cobs, and more.
“The governor says he wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but then he promotes his ‘strategic growth initiative,' which does nothing to ensure cutting anything,” Angelides said.
In fact, the Schwarzenegger “strategic growth” plan would widen freeways, build new toll roads and truck lanes, retrofit bridges to make them safer, and modernize ports. Everything there figures to increase automobile miles driven. Meanwhile, improved mass transit in big cities remains only a minor part of the governor's plan. And he's equivocated of late on his support of tough standards for greenhouse gas emissions.
“I want to clarify that Gov. Schwarzenegger has not proposed nor does he support an increase to the gas tax. ... The governor is prepared to ... review their recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Meanwhile, Angelides' chief primary election opponent, state Controller Steve Westly, touts his efforts as a member of the state Lands Commission to keep ocean water clean, prevent offshore oil drilling, and expand wetlands protection.
He (Westly) backs Schwarzenegger's moves to promote solar energy, while going further than the governor on greenhouse gases by promising to put California in “full compliance” with the Kyoto global warming treaty, even though the United States never ratified it.
(Excerpt) Read more at thevalleychronicle.com ...
Note that Westly wants CA to fully comply with the Kyoto treaty, expand wetland protection and prevent offshore drilling.
Note the positions of Angelides and Westly.
Do you honestly think their extreme environmental policies would be better for CA, than Arnold's moderate ones?
A pox on all their houses and on you!!! Hasta La Vista, Baybee!!!
Just as soon as he can borrow the money. And stick us with the bill.
nothing wrong with borrowing money for capital spending
And use tax revenues to fund waste and corruption, unhindered by vetoes.
Within affordability limits, maybe. And that assumes that taxpayer dollars were not already established to pay for most of such things (which they were). Borrowing more funds to pay for this pork filled proposal just frees up money for more of the liberal's social programs.
You realize that not a single Republican legislator voted for this monstrous Mega-bond, don't you? And, that the "Strategic Growth Plan" includes very little of what qualifies as "capital spending"? I thought not, otherwise you wouldn't have posted what you did.
Differences emerge over governor's public works spending plan (snip)And this out of a $222 Billion proposal. Taxpayers beware!Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico, said he was concerned the governor's plan would eat up the state's ability to sell other bond proposals for as long as 40 years. He also complained it provided too little in bond funds for transportation, flood control and water storage. "We've got only $13 billion going into what I think California thinks infrastructure is," he said.
A great response to the above:
Who is greener? Ask this question any other day but earth day and the answer is much different. They are both career politicians and when you ask me who is greener, I would refer to their campaign holding chests to see who raised the most money.
hmmmm...let's talk about global warming, forget about illegals (CA of all places)
Doogle
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.