[Sosfbay-discuss] Green Party Voting Positions?

[TNHarter at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/8/05 1:09:51 PM, cls at truffula.sj.ca.us writes:


> Sorry, Andrea, no on 80.  "Direct access" is only for huge
> industrial users.  The PUC is corrupt, no better than the
> legislature, so giving them more power is not an improvement.
> "Green energy" sounds good, but in power marketing it was
> a no-effect branding gimmic.  
> 
The very fact that it sounded good made it perfect for me.
I didn't have to carry additional stuff to believe in it. I could
point out that companies selling sugar water in disposable
packaging with green on the lable were getting more from 
selling green power than I was. Now people have to buy solar
cells to get green power. You can still get green stickers from
me, and they still say the same thing, but you have to use
your imagination to connect my cause to the electic grid.

> Green Mountain Energy was an Enron brand 
> and buying your power from Enron instead
> of PG&E didn't erect a single windmill.
> 
> 
Yeah, but there were other brands that really were green power.
One of them even gave the first TASC talk of the new millenium:

http://tian.greens.org/TASC/TASCleenNGreen.html

Assuming of course you consider the miliinium to have started on
1/1/2000. For the rest of us it was about the 25th to last talk of
the previous millinium. In either case, it was four days after the 
"millenium bug rollover" for computer software. Nice juxtaposition. :-)

--
Tian
Most recent change to my website:
Added pictures from the 2000th casualty in Iraq mark march.
http://tian.greens.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20051108/ab87106e/attachment.html>