Bull. There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason
housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of
it in order to MAKE it expensive.
No, they preserve the land so that there will be nature there in the
future, like a national forest is preserved to keep the forest.
Both areas have adopted so much eco-nut regulation that it's next to
impossible to build or expand power plants. Thus it's a race to see
which area will outgrow its installed capacity first. Up to last
year I would have bet on CA, but now that Schwarzenegger (a Democrat
in sheep's clothing if there ever was one) has managed to ruin CA's
economy even more than Gray Davis did, New England may get there first.
Certainly, with so many companies making do with the technology they
have, the economic slowdown has greatly affected many companies in the
Silicon Valley area, causing many lay-offs. The state universities
have limited the number of students in attendance and cut budgets,
which affects the communities in which the universities are based. The
economic problems have limited biotech R&D as well as biotech and
technology IPOs as well as start-ups. Clearly, these problems were not
caused by the gubinator.
California has put off the problem for a few years by building wind
power plants (and forcing utilities to subsidize them), but the sites
where they'll work are pretty much exhausted (unlike New England, where
I hear Ted Kennedy still prevents them being built where they would
spoil the view from his beachfront house).
Not to mention by using other forms of solar energy (the winds are
created by energy from the sun).
Two things are nutty about the environmental movement. One is that it
is based on assertions of emergencies that just don't exist (and the
fact they don't exist is obvious to anyone who knows what he's talking
about).
I have to disagree with you here. There are major environmental
problems, like the lowering of thee water tables and water shortages
in many parts of the world, including US West, global heating,
disappearing forests, decrease ocean pH (as result of CO2, which is an
acid) and a generally degraded environment.
The other is that the movement explicitly rejects the only
two mechanisms that could solve such a problem if it did exist -- the
free market and new technology.
The free market system doesn't work properly unless the enviornmental
cost is included. I see what you mean. It is not like any
environmentalists are suggesting people use electric cars, hybrid
cars, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, power from waves,
improved computer efficiency, flourescent lights or anything like
that.
You need to read the works of Julian Simon, especially "The Ultimate
Resource 2".
Jeff
