»
Discussion
»
pipTalk Lounge
»
If You Lived( or live ) In California............
| pipTalk Lounge |
|
If You Lived( or live ) In California............ |
|
SEA 
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you 
|
Hi all, If you lived in California, what would you do to help the energy crisis? Or.......what do you think "they" should be doing....( give some ideas on conserving or how the State should fix this problem ) I live here and we do so much........I keep one light on in the morning with an compact flourescent bulb that puts out 100 watts and uses 15 watts for the kids' school work....I dry our clothes on a clothes line......we BBQ more than we cook on the stove......we use wood heat......when it gets hot we have a swamp cooler that we use or we open windows.......(there's a no brainer) yes, I go on line often, but when I'm not on line, the computer is off....the tv is barely on....about 3 hours in the morning (5:30 -8:30) then again for the evening news... then it's only on on Thursday nights.NBC line up is the best!  So tell me.........what do you think........personally, I think Gray Davis is an idiot( and not just because of the energy thing) and he is screwing up California.......but that is just me SEA |
||
| © Copyright 2001 S.E. A - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
in a word-- move just kidding.. (well kind of) the easy answer which actually isnt easy is to increase the price so as to force even more conservation... and that awful word-- nuclear energy--- there is a nuclear plant about 50 miles from me--- makes cheap energy-- my electric bill avgs about $60.00 a month-- and I leave lights on,, the water heater is very hot..etc... it is a sad situation out there though--- i feel for you people.. Jamie |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
Thanks Jamie.... I'd actually like to move, but I really need to stay somewhat close to the ocean.........if I could only convince my husband to move to Washington........or maybe Texas....... You are lucky........we are dealing with rolling blackouts, even when we are conserving! Makes me so angry........anyway, I know a lot of people wanting to move out of the state........ SEA |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Hey little one...I did live in CA from 1951 to 1970 - lived in a house with no AC - we were confined to one TV but not until 1960 - LOL - and ALL of our drying of clothes was out on the line. There were no CD players, one telephone, and if you weren't in a room, the lights were out. Even back THEN my mother screamed if the electric bill was over [ready for this?] $25. It would take every Californian's part [including businesses] to become energy conscious before any real impact was felt. Bottom line, that isn't going to happen, because [and esp. companies] if nine out of 10 were to "cut back", you can bet your bottom kilowatt that the 10th is going to go gung ho and continue making a profit at whatever it took because s/he knew everyone was cutting back. I can gratefully say - I could never go home again - but you know you, and all the other friends I have in Californai, are in my prayers. |
||
|
dreamer1 12 5 24 Member
since 2000-12-11
Posts 150crossing between |
Oh, come on! Move to British Colombia! ....peace as a primary objective is dangerous because it implies that we would sacrifice any principle for the sake of it.... |
||
|
WhtDove Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-22
Posts 9245Illinois |
Oh man, I've said to my husband before, we have natural resources, why the heck don't they use the wide open ocean they live on for their "energy?" It is energy, that's where everyone else gets it from, so why are they buying it? |
||
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
I'd live in a tree and throw acorns at people. Sure, I'd be the "crazy guy who lives in a tree and throws acorns at people," but it would be worth it. I would save a lot of energy. If I had your eyes, I'd be blind. For I can only see out of my own. ~~Carly Van Dort |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
We live here in Cali (middle - northern) and are being hit with the same thing, though I think not as bad as down south. Right now, we live in a small area (don't ask) and keep the curtians open to let in light. We open the windows when it's warm and cover up when it's cold. We do have two computers which are on most of the time, but don't have a television at all! Our ultimate resolution? We're moving to Oregon in the beginning of next year! Peace, C |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
Christopher~ how close are you to Sacramento? I'm about an hour away.......the boat we are in is sinking and Gray Davis shot the hole in the bottom of the boat.........wish I was going to Oregon too........or BC SEA |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
This is going to be a little strange, but I'm going to post the same answer to two entirely different threads. One thread is about California and the fairly serious energy shortage there, while the other thread is about Napster and whether music should be free to all. These may seem unrelated, but I think both threads are actually talking about the same thing. There's a lot of talk in the California thread (and in California) about conservation, and even suggestions that lack of conservation is the real problem. It's not. There's no shortage of electricity in this here Universe, only a shortage of facilities to generate and control it. There are a LOT of reasons behind California's current problems, most seemingly tied to a deregulation that did nothing to encourage conservation or ensure construction of power plants. But, in truth, it goes back many years prior to deregulation. Here's the deal. If you invest $100 in plan X, there's a chance you'll lose all or some of it. But there's also the possibility you can turn your $100 into $200. You can lose all your money or you can double your money? What do you do? Well, of course it depends on the odds in either direction, but as long as the chance for success is above fifty percent, it's not a bad deal. Now suppose, the government steps in and says, well, you can still lose your $100, but the most we will let you make on the deal is $120. Now, you can lose all of your money or you can make twenty bucks. The risk has suddenly grown much larger than the potential gain, and most investors will probably find better places to put their money. Before there was deregulation in California, there was (duh) regulation. Which is just a fancy name for price-fixing. The effects may be recent, but the cause goes back many years - because that's how long it takes to build energy producing plants. And that is what is lacking in California. Why? Because for many years the government made if difficult to justify investing the billions (yea, that's a "b") of dollars necessary to upgrade the system. Businessmen will not invest their money when the risk isn't offset by suitable gain. And you really can't blame them. Deregulation was an attempt to fix this historical oversight, but it was poorly implemented and came a little too late. California needed a longer transition period, I think, where investors were encouraged to build new plants while still protecting current supplies of energy. But even if implementation had been perfect, there would still in all likelihood be an energy crisis in California today. Because, without incentives, people don't risk their money. What does this have to do with Napster? From a personal perspective, I strongly dislike copyright infringements. I suspect everyone already knew that. But from an economics standpoint, the issues go much deeper and relate directly to the problems in California.Music companies invest millions of dollars in building popular stars. They will lose money on twenty unknown artists in the hopes of recouping those losses on that one big-name personality. The result is good music for us and profits for them. And that system has worked pretty well for quite a few years. Then along comes something like Napster, making it very easy for hundreds of thousands of people to download free music and avoid paying for those CD's. You can argue all day long that free downloads will lead to increased sales, but that's obviously not the way the recording companies see it. And it's up to them to decide how best to market their product. Take away that freedom to run their own business, and few of them will continue to try. You may want music to be free, but that's not the reality of life. Someone, at some point, has to pay for nurturing the artists, building those sophisticated recording studios, launching those impressive branding campaigns, and distributing those millions of plastic discs. Companies have been willing to make those investments (in a very risky business model) because they believed they could make a profit. Remove that incentive - or even the perception of that incentive - and they're not going to risk their money. People simply do not invest in the future without suitable incentives. The state of California (and many other states, even now) believed that energy should be cheap. The result is today's energy shortage. If too many people insist that music (and other intellectual efforts) should be free, the result will eventually be a shortage of good music. You get what you pay for, if not now, then certainly eventually. |
||
|
Dopey Dope
Moderator
Member Patricius
since 2000-08-30
Posts 11132San Juan, Puerto Rico |
I'd live on the ground and throw rocks at the acorn throwing people.  |
||
|
DancinQueen
since 2000-07-29
Posts 1092Kokomo,IN,USA |
Indiana's nice ¤Sometimes the hardest thing to get over, is something you never really had¤ |
||
|
bsquirrel
since 2000-01-03
Posts 7855 |
Go to war.  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
