CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j4v3yxu wrote on January 18, 2023 at 1:55 PM

Reply to comment by JHolm915 in Republicans Outline Proposals to Reduce Energy Costs by IndicationOver

The Republican governor signed off on it. Could have vetoed. Didn’t. Meaning both parties are complicit. Lose your blinders too.

JHolm915 t1_j4v4hmi wrote on January 18, 2023 at 1:59 PM

You realize a governors veto can be overridden when sent back to the house so if they hold the majority and already passed it once it would just happen again. The governors position doesn't hold much power in those aspects. I don't have blinders because I'm independent and think for myself.

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j4v6aoh wrote on January 18, 2023 at 2:13 PM

So, no, Rowland didn’t veto it. Deregulation was an idea that simply didn’t work.

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j4v4woc wrote on January 18, 2023 at 2:03 PM

Sure do. Did the governor actually veto this and the legislature override it? If not, your comment is pointless. You think for yourself, but do you do it well?

JHolm915 t1_j4v6ies wrote on January 18, 2023 at 2:15 PM

So because one individual with little to no power in the situation chooses not to battle a house made up of over 100 legislators when they already showed their decision, it somehow passes all the blame to him and his party? Sounds like a pretty nonsensical standpoint to me, considering all the drafting and voting was overwhelmingly carried out by another party.

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j4v71rn wrote on January 18, 2023 at 2:19 PM

Both he and his party and the other party were all for it. It was a popular idea at the time. It has turned out to be a bad idea. This really isn’t difficult.

JHolm915 t1_j4v8znh wrote on January 18, 2023 at 2:33 PM

It's actually a much more complex issue which other policies have played a role in exacerbating. Most of which was done by one side under the guise of "Green" policy making and then after making several pushes towards certain technologies and fuel source which they reneged on later calling them bad after already implementing too many changes in one direction. Basically it was the reliance on natural gas being pushed then fighting any possible solution to increase the supply to our state after deciding it wasn't good. Then pushing policies for people towards newer technologies which are still in their infancy and not viable yet while punishing the very industry that they called the solution not long ago.

It's a whole lot of hypocrisy essentially and rush decisions without looking at long term side effects and failure to produce actual solutions.

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j4v9oge wrote on January 18, 2023 at 2:38 PM

You side with one party a lot. Strange for someone who claims to be an independent and a free thinker.

JHolm915 t1_j4vdok5 wrote on January 18, 2023 at 3:05 PM

That's where the facts lead to in this topic right now. Which side pushed natural gas as the ultimate solution, subsidized and expanded the industry, offered rebates to anyone switching, then changed their mind conveniently as the demand started to outweigh the supply. Now after all that pushing, fracking and pipelines which are necessary to that change, are suddenly the worst thing. Disregarding that crude oil reliance was still far worse and we have no other viable solution yet. I think pushing everyone to electric heat would be far worse given the amount of production needed and what that would entail for the environment, and that's basically the only other option than natural gas.

We could have more options but the way our houses are built and the land we have hinders geothermal heat or just building underground where there is a comfortable temperature with no heat production needed.