Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1148)	2/27/2002 7:31:35 PM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1715

As you state, that's from the petrochemical industry located from Freeport to Baytown. The vast majority of the population lives to the north and west, and is generally not exposed to the pollution. I've lived here over 40 years, and rarely have experienced significant pollution. Nonetheless, I'm perfectly content to let myth stand since it keeps down the influx of northeastern liberals looking for a place to thaw. Interesting how folks can sneer at the pollution created by the Gulf Coast petro industry while at the same time utilizing and benefiting from the products produced by it. "Not in my back yard!", they chant. I made a business trip to Fontana last year, and the pollution was worse than anything I have ever experienced here. >There never was a moratorium on plant construction in California. So? The issue is whether plants were built or not. It's ridiculous to assume that generation capacity could stagnate while demand grew. Or, is it assumed that the laws of "supply vs. demand" don't apply there, or perhaps an arrogant assumption that the California environment deserves more protection that others areas? >They [Enron] are to blame. Entirely? I think not. We'll have to agree to disagree.