Discuss Tim Rutten's Nov. 26 Op-Ed column
Comments will close after two days.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
The Latest | news as it happens
- Football: Los Alamitos needs a win tonight - Varsity Times Insider 11/12/2009, 6:35 p.m.
- UCLA football: Stan Hasiak returns to the team - The Fabulous Forum 11/12/2009, 6:27 p.m.
- Two potential buyers closing in on Playboy - Company Town 11/12/2009, 6:20 p.m.
- Fox confirms Emma Watts as production president - Company Town 11/12/2009, 6:19 p.m.
- Theater review: 'The Trojan Women' at City Garage - Culture Monster 11/12/2009, 6:00 p.m.
Save more than
5. To the above four readers: Besides your cynical resignation to special interest money in government, most of you also seem to believe that only Government can solve the "green" problem. Sorry, Green will only grow if its competitive in the marketplace. How 'bout one of those DWP panels on YOUR roof? - like it or not!
Jim Nash, Studio City @ 2:00 PM PST, Nov 26, 2008
"The panels will belong to the DWP and must be installed by the agency's employees, who are the city's best-paid unionized workers." How derisive you are of that agency's workers, the same workers that made the DWP the best-run power utility in the state during the 2001 California energy crisis, while the private companies totally fell apart. That agency and its workers deserve our goodwill for years go come.
PierreSD @ 12:31 PM PST, Nov 26, 2008
Mr. Rutten commits a common fallacy regarding solar power. The ROI (Return on Investment) associated with an installation of a solar grid is calculated in the same time frame as that of a coal or NG power plant, usually 7-10 years. Both coal and NG plants usually require additional substantial capital expenditures within the timeframe that ROI is calculated, but solar does not. Solar panels also work effectively for 20-25 years without substantial degradation in power production.
Kurt Overmeyer @ 10:55 AM PST, Nov 26, 2008
Voters have plenty of time to hear both sides (the rush to put it on ballot had to do with that being the last date.) Tho it's true, voters stupidly passed 2 bad measures with most PR behind them -- billions in school AND Community college bonds, even tho both wasted billions on previous bonds. LAUSD on huge schools they now want to replace with small ones, payroll debacle etc., while stiffing charters, while CC blew billions on almost nothing just a few years ago.
jane @ 10:09 AM PST, Nov 26, 2008
I don't know why anyone is surprised about this. The politicians in California, whether in Sacramento, our counties, our cities or our districts are all bought and paid for my unions or other special interest groups. Additionally, the electorate in California are generally "green" idiots. Draft a proposal that sounds "green" or is "for the children" and it will pass regardless of its costs or viability. The California electorate gets what it deserves.
Don @ 9:44 AM PST, Nov 26, 2008
Wow - thanks for the article. I think this perspective and information is what used to be called, um, jernalasm, or jurnalissim, or something like that. It sure as hell is appreciated, though. The flaws and governance and ethical breakdowns in this proposal are consistent with other practices these days.
angeleno @ 9:29 AM PST, Nov 26, 2008
So you're saying politics as usual right? Still, I say put the people to work installing solar panels, it's better than them sitting around on unemployment.
Aviking @ 8:09 AM PST, Nov 26, 2008
Of course there are money and votes in the balance. But if the government doesn't show initiative in this type of long-term investment, who will? If we wait for the market to produce results in green energy, it will never occur. The market is so integrated with big oil and big energy that green alternatives are simply channel competition.
LKM @ 7:50 AM PST, Nov 26, 2008