Someone needs to teach Governor Kulongoski a little economics.
He was speaking yesterday to the Oregon Business Association and the Northwest Environmental Business Council Climate Conference (you can imagine what a mind-numbing confab that must have been.)
In the Governor's press release issued about his remarks, he put his utter ignorance of all-things-economic on display for all to see. This was a press-release, mind you, not some off the cuff mistake in wording.
He says:
“Any system we implement can’t be cap or trade – it must be cap and trade. That’s the only way we’ll meet our emission reduction goals and create a new economic market in Oregon,”
A "new economic market?" What does that mean? Is an "economic market" different than some different kind of market? Does putting the word "economic" as a modifier make all the numbskulls at the pretend Oregon Business Association (which has, as its fearless leader, someone who has ZERO experience with business of any type) nod in silent agreement with the wisdom of his words?
Plus: why does he make the distinction between "cap AND trade" vs "cap OR trade?" There is no one anywhere saying we should cap CO2 but not trade it, nor are they saying we should trade it but not cap it. It is completely superfluous, serving only as some phony tough guy statement to show how serious he is.
Instead, it shows troubling ignorance of this specific issue, and, more generally, economics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The scariest part is that he goes in front of a business organization and calls for making energy more expensive, and the audience no doubt AGREES!
What a joke the Oregon Business Association is!
There is one little question that those fools will not answer:
*How will this affect the price Oregonians pay for electricity, natural gas and gasoline?*
When the people realize the true answer, they will toss his sorry butt out of office.
(Anyone who thinks our energy costs will go down, is a bigger fool than K.)
We need regime change here in Oregon.
Anonymous wrote:
> (Anyone who thinks our energy
> costs will go down, is a bigger
> fool than K.)
Unlike, for example, the last 7 years under a Republican administration, where energy prices have tanked so low they're practically giving it away.
Good to see David Appell coming drueling out his absurdities here.
Unlike, for example, the last 7 years under a Republican administration, where energy prices have tanked so low they're practically giving it away.
I see you are still into politics, instead of facts.
Last two anonymous posters:
In the summer of 2000, gas in our area was selling for about $1 a gallon. Now it's over $4. Are you seriously contending that David Appell is WRONG about gas prices going up? What planet are you two living on?
No, but the question is whether the cause is policies that liberals supported or conservatives supported.
Who is standing in the way of the US taking advantage of its own natural resources?
Post a Comment