The No on I-920 campaign just hit the air today with its first TV ad, and I really wanted to share it with you… but Sandeep can’t seem to get into YouTube. So instead, here’s the Yes on I-937 campaign’s new ad:
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
This is a great ad. It’s nice to have something progressively positive on the ballot. Progressives created the initiative process. And, we need to take it back from the conservatives.
Sorry, I think Timmy’s proven the initiative process is broken- maybe not as badly as California and Oregon, but pretty badly. I vote “No” on everything now, until we have a way to get paid signature gatherers and other crap out of the process, even if I think the initiative’s a good idea.
Nice and flowery and I’m all about conservation, but this initiatve will badger PUDs into wind and solar while ignoring that hydro is a renewable source. It will distort a market that is already whacky and further raise your and my already expensive home electric bill.
Ignoring that hydropower is a renewable resource was lame on the part of the initiative makers and hope that fact doesn’t get ignored.
I’m also pretty sure it’s going to hurt us in Washington more and help out-of-state interests like California. Let the market sort this one out.
3 Matty
“Let the market sort this one out.”
Energy is not a free market—it’s a highly regulated one. There is no prospect of letting the “market” sort this out. I addition, as I understand it, for a free market to operate the buyers must have information symmetric to that of the sellers, and I don’t think in energy markets that is true. Anyway, I am not an economist nor an energy expert, but the amount of energy regulation should keep you wary of expecting “free market” behaviors from that area of economic activity.
It’s bullshit to say I-937 ignores hydro as a renewable resource. Hydro already supplies nearly 70% of our power and the initiative won’t change that. What it does ensure is that utilities choose wind, solar and other renewables- along with conservation- instead of coal or other fossil fuels to meet new demand. No utility is talking about building new dams because there aren’t any new rivers to dam. Hydro is not an option for new demand because all the rivers that can be dammed have already been dammed.
Matty @3,
You’re wrong, I-937 does not ignore hydro. It counts any increase in efficiency at existing hydro facilities towards the 15 percent target… for example, replacing older turbines with newer, more efficient ones.
“Energy is not a free market—it’s a highly regulated one.” And good thing too. Every state that deregulated their power markets saw rates skyrocket, while states like Washington that maintained a regulated market maintained comparatively stable rates. See the story on the cover of last Sunday’s NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10.....ref=slogin
People are worried that it’s going to cost too much. If projects costs more than 4%, the utilities can back down from them. There are already 20 states that have similar legislation in place. (These inclued Texas and Colorado). A recent report on these 20 states says that the cost for these programs has cost plus or minus 1%. We also have 14 years to do this so it’s not as if it all has to be done by next year.
“You’re wrong, I-937 does not ignore hydro. It counts any increase in efficiency at existing hydro facilities towards the 15 percent target…”
You’re missing my point. I-937 is saying that is hydro is NOT renewable to begin with. That’s crap. It’s absolutely a renewable resource everytime it rains or snows. Now, if I-937 proponents had said, ‘Newer technology renewable….and old hydro systems doesn’t count’ then I not be so skeptical. But if a PUD is say 90% hydro right now and they have to go to 15% new definition renewable–then they either have to shift to wind/solar or by Goldy’s suggestion show efficiency improvements by upgrading turbines. OK, how will either way not increase consumer costs? Is anybody here saying that electric rate payer’s bills aren’t going to go up because of I-937?
As for energy markets being free I’ll concur to the point that we’ve said we want it a free market, but then add the cap BS. y. We’re in a middle ground that’s worse than probably either a purely regulated market or a purely free market. I guess my point is that we’d probably be better off it wasn’t half-assed and was all the way a free market.
Matty…
I937 ignores NEW hydro because it is not expandable in this state. No one is going to propose new dams considering the state of our rivers and salmon. I think it also ignores hydro because as you note there are some utilities that are 90-100% hydro and would not have to participate in creating new alternatives if it were written otherwise. I think it is good that all the large utilities and therefore all ratepayers will be able to participate in this… it shares the “work” equally. There are instruments out there like greentags where utilities with 90% hydro could purchase the rights to that 15% of renewables and sell some of their hydro elsewhere. It allows each utility to come up with a plan of new renewables and conservation that best fit thier particular situation
I don’t discount the possiblity that some of these renewable solutions may in the short-term cost a bit more for the ratepayer (keep in mind that 4% cap–they won’t go up too much), but in the longer term picture they will not. This seems to be a very complicated idea for some people to grasp, that doing right now what is not dicated by the “free market” is in fact the best and cheapest solution. Any additional power generation in this state is going to come from two places… one COAL or two RENEWABLES. Does the “free market” take the true costs of coal: climate change, worker safety, and the destruction of ecosystems into account? NO. If we do nothing about climate change, it is going to cost an extraordinary amount of money in lost agriculture, fishing, forests, health, and lost coastlines. Furthermore, coal has been rising in cost the last decade and renewables have been falling. In the not too distant future thier paths will cross and coal will be more expensive. At that time, the ratepayer will not want to be stuck with a “stranded asset”– a 10 year old coal plant that has functional life left but is a financial and environmental liablity. I would suggest you check out the website “Ilovemountains.org” if you want to understand how horrible coal really is.
I937 pushes us in the proper energy path, perhaps a bit artificially, but the it is the only sustainable energy future out there. We need to vote yes on this initiative and get working on our future… before we don’t have one.
3
You’ll find out how renewable hydropower is when global warming dries up the Cascade snowpack.
And, renewable or not, hydropower does significant damage to other environmental resources — such as fish. The dam-building era in America is over. Dams aren’t being built now, they’re been torn down. There are better ways to get electricity than by impounding free-flowing rivers.
Matty’s argument fails to take into consideration the potential costs to consumers of having to rely on oil, natural gas, and coal suppliers for the fuel to make electricity.
“We need to vote yes on this initiative and get working on our future… before we don’t have one.” Washington is going to save the world and we won’t be subsidizing states and places like China by jacking our own rates? That’s naive I think. And I’m still stuck on the notion that hydro is not a renewable resource. We may not have additional capacity, but to selectively omit it is still disingenuous. I know I’m a minority here, but I am trying to communicate the typical Eastern Washington discontent with initiatives from the west side that screw the dry side. Whom here should I send the bill for my increased PUD bill?
And, renewable or not, hydropower does significant damage to other environmental resources – such as fish. The dam-building era in America is over. Dams aren’t being built now, they’re been torn down. There are better ways to get electricity than by impounding free-flowing rivers. Commentby Roger Rabbit— 10/18/06@ 9:23 pm
So furball what would those be?
Moonbats are against oil powered plants even with hydrocarbon scrubbers installed.
Moonbats are against nuclear energy when even the French see iallt as a viable means
Moonbats are against dams because the poor fish will have a hard time getting to their spawning grounds.
Moonbats are against windmills. Just ask Ted The Killer Kennedy about Martha’s Vineyard
What energy source are moonbats for Furball?
The “Religion of Peace” strikes again……
Afghan kidnappers ‘want convert’
The kidnappers of an Italian journalist in Afghanistan have offered to free him in exchange for a Christian convert who fled the country, an aid agency says.
Photojournalist Gabriele Torsello was seized last week while travelling on a bus in southern Afghanistan.
The kidnappers will free Mr Torsello, a Muslim convert, if Abdul Rahman returns from Italy where he was granted asylum earlier this year, the aid agency says.
Mr Rahman had escaped a possible death sentence for becoming a Christian. He had been charged with rejecting Islam and released this March after being deemed mentally unfit to stand trial on a charge of apostasy.
‘Not a spy’
Mr Torsello’s kidnappers placed their demand in a phone call to the head of security at a hospital in southern Afghanistan run by Italian aid agency Emergency, said the Italian-based PeaceReporter website which is linked to the agency.
The kidnappers demanded the exchange of the two men should take place before the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan which falls early next week, the website added.
The foreign ministry in Rome has not commented on the demands, but an Italian politician who helped obtain asylum for Abdul Rahman ruled out any exchange. “It is not a demand that a decent human being would ever consider,” the politician, Rocco Buttiglione, told the BBC. “We are not ready to offer one human life for another human life… It is barbarian, inhuman, and it grinds against any accepted convention on human rights.”
Media rights body Reporters Without Borders said it was “very concerned” about the fate of Mr Torsello. “He is not a spy or a bargaining chip, but a courageous journalist,” a statement said.
Taleban link?
It is still unclear whether the kidnappers belong to any group.
Mr Torsello, himself a Muslim convert who is based in London, was reportedly kidnapped while travelling in a bus between the restive provinces of Helmand and Kandahar. He phoned a local hospital to say he had been kidnapped on Thursday and did not know where he was, an Italian newspaper reported. An Afghan news agency says it called his mobile phone and was answered by a man claiming to be from the Taleban.
Helmand and Kandahar have seen fierce fighting between Taleban militants and Nato-led foreign troops. The Pajhwok news agency quoted Mr Torsello’s travelling companion Gholam Mohammad as saying that he had been seized by five gunmen. A Taleban representative who spoke to Reuters news agency distanced himself from the kidnapping, blaming it on criminals.
Gabriele Torsello says in his online CV that he is a “photojournalist specialising in war zones and hostile environments, mainly in Jammu and Kashmir and Islamic countries/areas”.
Two German journalists were shot dead by unknown attackers in northern Afghanistan earlier this month. Karen Fischer and Christian Struwe, two freelances working for Deutsche Welle, are believed to have been the first foreign reporters to be killed in the country since 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6061236.stm
Matty–
You just do not “get” what I-937 is about. Sometimes I fret that I937 does not do a good job of communicating what it is about. Frankly, it still astounds me that something that is a matter of consensus to scientists as a tremendous threat to us all (climate change) must be tip-toed around by the I-937 campaign– but that just reflects the ignorance of the voting community to the extent of the problem. (and by this I mean that few, if any of I937s media speak about climate change directly) Scientists estimate that must reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere by 50%-80% in the coming decades because of climate change. You may not think so, but the reality is that American’s are A) Rich, compared with the rest of the world and B)already put more carbon into the atmosphere per-capita than anyone else. For us, it is not about what the Chinese do… as global citizens it is our moral imperative to do what we can on a local level to “decarbonize” the grid, NOW. we personally spend 2000$ plus a year as taxpayers to support the Iraq war and we can’t stand to spend a fraction of a penny more (and soon less) in the future per KWatt hour for our energy in order to do this thing?
Jay Inslee speaks quite well on this topic and I would suggest that you watch him on the public affairs TV station when he speaks to the PI editorial board on this weekend.
9:00pm on Friday Oct. 20th and then again on Saturday Oct 21 at 5 am and 1pm on TVW (channel 23 in seattle)
we should come back to this blog and exchange notes at that point.
15 jaybo
Umm, so?
Headline: “Hostile actions continue in invaded and occupied countries”
Talk about news!
I am Republican – I lie, steal and cheat, when I’m not being a family man.
“I-937 campaign– but that just reflects the ignorance of the voting community to the extent of the problem.” I believe in Global Warming. I just hate the idea of Washington trying to fit a national and global problem. Just because Bush bailed on Kyoto I resent you wanting to spend money via my electric bill to pay for a much larger problem. I-937 remains disingenous and I voted against it this evening. I encourage others to do so as well.