|
GrumpyDoctor posted:This is almost a week old by now, but vaccine "personal belief exemptions" are no longer a thing Hey just like energy! http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article24913978.html quote:In addition, the industry donated more than $500,000 to outside campaign spending groups that helped elect some current members last year. quote:Conclusions. There was actually a good political argument against another "mandate" to hand citizen funds to a private group for their coffers. The political problems with the motivations of the industry are separate from the science, but get drowned out again and again. Blah blah socialism.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:There was actually a good political argument against another "mandate" to hand citizen funds to a private group for their coffers. If they're freely available and paid for by public funds, won't pharmaceutical companies still get paid?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
LMAO Tom Selleck sends trucks to a neighboring town to fill up with water from a fire hydrant and take it back to his private ranch. http://time.com/3949275/tom-selleck-drought-shaming/ What a fucker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:If they're freely available and paid for by public funds, won't pharmaceutical companies still get paid?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Looks like we're getting a big rear end el niño. Check your flood insurance. http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_28458401/california-drought-el-nino-weather-event-is-biggest
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
quote:"The potential for runoff in the watersheds is larger than the storage capacity of the reservoirs," he said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Looks like we're getting a big rear end el niño. Check your flood insurance. The problem is that the timing is wrong. It's a few months too early to really help the drought fully. While the Nino3.4 anomaly is forecast by one model to be up to 2.5K (as high as it was during the 97-98 El Niño), it looks like it may peak up to a month earlier (Octoberish, rather than Novemberish). Still, it's worth keeping in mind that the 97-98 El Niño brought twice as much rain as normal to San Francisco that winter. But uh, given that we're down MULTIPLE years' worth of water (and El Niños tend to be warm, and thus have a propensity to not leave as much snow) and, well, we're not out of the woods yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:But uh, given that we're down MULTIPLE years' worth of water (and El Niños tend to be warm, and thus have a propensity to not leave as much snow) and, well, we're not out of the woods yet.  Yeah, this drought's pretty intense.  El Niño is nice, but unless it brings in 80 additional inches of rainfall on top of the normally expected 2015-2016 levels, we're still going to end up behind. Don't get me wrong - rain is rain and we loving need any we can get, but we're not exactly home free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Actually, the most the el nino can do is refill reservoirs: extra beyond that will have to be allowed to run off. Meanwhile we'll need snowpack, which isn't guaranteed with warmer el nino rainfall, and groundwater replenishment, which takes years of steady wet years rather than one year of flooding to accomplish. A heavy el nino winter will definitely bring drought relief, don't get me wrong. But if we go on to more dry years immediately after, we'll quickly drain those reservoirs and be right back to where we are now. Especially since the state's population is still rising. Systemic change in water allocation and use is necessary no matter what. A wet winter will make that harder to accomplish politically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
If someone is farming over a groundwater recharge zone, should they get credit for that? Or maybe only if it's organic? I would love a data-driven remapping of where to farm based on recharge. Also: Leperflesh posted:Especially since the state's population is still rising. Would sign and vote for 2016 version of Prop 187 prohibiting government service and water from anyone who moved here from the East Coast, Texas, Oklahoma or Arizona.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
That sounds blatantly unconstitutional, although off the top of my head I can't recall which part exactly it'd violate. And now I think about it, I'm not sure why it's acceptable for publicly-funded colleges and universities to charge more for out-of-state tuition to non-residents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That sounds blatantly unconstitutional, although off the top of my head I can't recall which part exactly it'd violate. And now I think about it, I'm not sure why it's acceptable for publicly-funded colleges and universities to charge more for out-of-state tuition to non-residents. Alright, we'll let Zonies in and call a Constitutional Convention. Okay, Mr. Founding Fathers? Or are you talking about the groundwater recharge farming credit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Naw, I'm talking about blatantly penalizing American citizens for being from another state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Naw, I'm talking about blatantly penalizing American citizens for being from another state. Because it's piling on?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Because it's piling on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." ... Wikipedia posted:For example, the Supreme Court overturned state prohibitions on welfare payments to individuals who had not resided within the jurisdiction for at least one year as an impermissible burden on the right to travel (Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)). The Court has also struck down one-year residency requirements for voting in state elections (Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)), one-year waiting periods before receiving state-provided medical care (Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974)), civil service preferences for state veterans (Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986)), but upheld higher fishing and hunting license fees for out-of-state residents (Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)).[11][12][13]
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Naw, I'm talking about blatantly penalizing American citizens for being from another state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That sounds blatantly unconstitutional, although off the top of my head I can't recall which part exactly it'd violate. And now I think about it, I'm not sure why it's acceptable for publicly-funded colleges and universities to charge more for out-of-state tuition to non-residents. Presumably because those residents (or their parents, rather) pay for that tuition subsidy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
So what's with this latest spike in gas prices? It went up 18 cents where I live over the past two days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Presumably because those residents (or their parents, rather) pay for that tuition subsidy. I understand that reasoning, but that would imply that out-of-state people could be charged more for anything that state taxes helps to fund: including roads, agriculture, public transportation, even access to private businesses (since the taxpayers have to support the costs of regulating those businesses).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Oil and gas companies want more profits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I understand that reasoning, but that would imply that out-of-state people could be charged more for anything that state taxes helps to fund: including roads, agriculture, public transportation, even access to private businesses (since the taxpayers have to support the costs of regulating those businesses). They do regulate access to some businesses, like insurance companies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I understand that reasoning, but that would imply that out-of-state people could be charged more for anything that state taxes helps to fund: including roads, agriculture, public transportation, even access to private businesses (since the taxpayers have to support the costs of regulating those businesses). What you posted says that higher fishing fees for out of state was upheld. Since out of state students aren't having access penalized (sorta) that would seem to be the defining difference from the items struck down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Zachack posted:What you posted says that higher fishing fees for out of state was upheld. Since out of state students aren't having access penalized (sorta) that would seem to be the defining difference from the items struck down. Alright, so we don't cut off water to anyone who ever lived in New York, but we can charge them 10x as much? I'm cool with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Alright, so we don't cut off water to anyone who ever lived in New York, but we can charge them 10x as much? I'm cool with that. You can also adjust residency for college, so maybe not that extreme.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Alright, so we don't cut off water to anyone who ever lived in New York, but we can charge them 10x as much? I'm cool with that. TildeATH posted:Would sign and vote for 2016 version of Prop 187 prohibiting government service and water from anyone who moved here from the East Coast, Texas, Oklahoma or Arizona. Beatin' the hot old dusty way to the California line. 'Cross the desert sands they roll, gettin' out of that old dust bowl, They think they're goin' to a sugar bowl, but here's what they find Now, the police at the port of entry say, "You're number fourteen thousand for today." Oh, if you ain't got the do re mi, folks, you ain't got the do re mi, Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee. California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see; But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot If you ain't got the do re mi. You want to buy you a home or a farm, that can't deal nobody harm, Or take your vacation by the mountains or sea. Don't swap your old cow for a car, you better stay right where you are, Better take this little tip from me. 'Cause I look through the want ads every day But the headlines on the papers always say: If you ain't got the do re mi, boys, you ain't got the do re mi, Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee. California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see; But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot If you ain't got the do re mi. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Alright, so we don't cut off water to anyone who ever lived in New York, but we can charge them 10x as much? I'm cool with that. Maybe? Water rates may be governed separately to make that difficult, though. For the examples provided they seem to also revolve around things that a resident benefits from uniquely as a resident, while college and fishing wouldn't necessarily be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
withak posted:Oil and gas companies want more profits. Basically; the gas companies know they've been found out and are exporting as much gas as they can (and refusing to import any) to eke out profits before California fines them. This is the start of the third major gas hike this year, and they're planning on jacking prices up to $4 a gallon by next week. Orange County drivers just saw gas prices jump as much as a dollar overnight. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Looks like there's been some new opinion on the Almond issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
4 dollars? I had to pay 5 in a pinch, i was almost out of gas and hit a station at 4.99 and 9/10ths off the highway, I only filled two gallons to get me on my way until I could find one in the low 4s. Granted, it was 91 octane, but my wagon only play with 91. My Kia however, 87 all day every day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:18
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Trabisnikof posted:Looks like there's been some new opinion on the Almond issue. My friend's 80 year old father with Alzheimers just gave my friend letters to mail to both Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris demanding an immediate cessation and ban on almond growing. He also had two other letter in the bunch addressed to the Honorable John Roberts and Joe Biden although we weren't allowed to know what those were about. It was some straight-up Grampa Simpson poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Due to NIMBY complaints from citizens of Antelope Valley, LA County is banning commercial wind turbines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Basically; the gas companies know they've been found out and are exporting as much gas as they can (and refusing to import any) to eke out profits before California fines them. This is the start of the third major gas hike this year, and they're planning on jacking prices up to $4 a gallon by next week. Orange County drivers just saw gas prices jump as much as a dollar overnight. My understanding is that California has unique specs on the gasoline that can be sold there, with especially tight requirements in the summer. Presumably this is to help prevent smog which was rampant in the past and caused by the geography (mountains to the East), and huge driving populations in LA especially. The CA-specific specs aren't required anywhere else in the country so the gasoline sold in Cali needs to be refined specially for California. This obviously makes it difficult to import since why would a non-CA or foreign refinery design process units that could produce the California blend and then pay to ship it over to CA? If there was a predictable, long-term shortage of refining capacity in California, then yes I could see other refineries looking into generating the CA-blend but that's currently not the case. So what you have is a very tight market where a small decrease in supply will lead to a large increase in price in such a price-inelastic commodity. There were several unexpected shutdowns in Bay Area refineries this year. Relative to the rest of the country, there is less give and take between supply centers and demand centers in CA that causes higher price volatility. California actually has a relatively large refining capacity, second only to Texas and Louisiana (source) so I don't really buy the idea "that the state has a small group of companies able to set prices as they please". If that were the case, the prices in smaller markets with only one or two producers like Denver, for example, would have sky high prices all year because the one refinery in Denver has a monopoly on production. I could be wrong about any of the above, again, this is just my understanding. Reading those articles made me feel a little  but thinking about it, I suppose most people don't have a great understanding of the economics of transportation fuels. Again, I'd be happy to hear/read anything that suggests otherwise, always open to an informed discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
California has a large refining capacity, but the refineries are controlled by a few companies. It is interesting that at least the apparent rate of refinery shutdowns for mechanical issues seem to happen at a greater rate here than elsewhere and it happens are convienent times. Either they are doing poo poo maintence or there is some sort of price fixing. Whatever it is should be addressed. Also, when California refined fuels (with the same blend) are sold in AZ, for example, they are instantly much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
nm posted:California has a large refining capacity, but the refineries are controlled by a few companies. nm posted:It is interesting that at least the apparent rate of refinery shutdowns for mechanical issues seem to happen at a greater rate here than elsewhere and it happens are convienent times. Either they are doing poo poo maintence or there is some sort of price fixing. Whatever it is should be addressed. nm posted:Also, when California refined fuels (with the same blend) are sold in AZ, for example, they are instantly much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
nm posted:California has a large refining capacity, but the refineries are controlled by a few companies. Well, we know that Chevron Richmond is actually as lovely as Chevron might claim at least. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, we know that Chevron Richmond is actually as lovely as Chevron might claim at least. ComradeCosmobot posted:Due to NIMBY complaints from citizens of Antelope Valley, LA County is banning commercial wind turbines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Full disclosure, I'm an engineer who works in oil and gas, but I'm currently in Chicago and have no connections to the California market. Yeah, there's plenty of good reason for California fuel to be more expensive, but this gap has historically been on the order of 40-50¢ a gallon, not the $1+ we've seen in the past few days.  There's a problem when Southern California gas prices are higher than they were this time last year when elsewhere in the US they are 30% cheaper. And there are good reasons to believe that it's market manipulation. Right before the last spike, refineries announced a record-setting amount of exported gasoline from west coast refineries. (That spike, by the way, led to the biggest differential in 15 years) California only has a 10 day gasoline reserve instead of the 24 day reserve elsewhere in the country. Unbranded gas stations lately have had prices 30¢ higher than ranked ones. And of course now, a convenient low of 0 barrels of oil imports right before the recent price spike, Funny how this recent price spike and mysterious drawdown of oil happened right after Santa Barbara rejected an emergency request to truck oil while the pipeline is broken. Funnier still that this gas price hike seems particularly focused on Southern California too. But I'm sure it's just that recent spat of coincidences that have shut down all the refineries there for maintenance. It surely has nothing to do with getting angry about being shut out of Santa Barbara oil or about trying to gouge California and using the new carbon tax on gasoline instituted at the beginning of the year to eke out even more profits as long as oil prices are low! ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Funnier still that this gas price hike seems particularly focused on Southern California too. But I'm sure it's just that recent spat of coincidences that have shut down all the refineries there for maintenance. It surely has nothing to do with getting angry about being shut out of Santa Barbara oil or about trying to punish California for extending the carbon tax to gasoline at the beginning of the year! Don't confuse profit-making with malice there buddy. It can just be them trying to squeeze as much money out of California as they without it being a secret retaliation for anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Don't confuse profit-making with malice there buddy. It can just be them trying to squeeze as much money out of California as they without it being a secret retaliation for anything. Yeah the "angry at paying taxes" is less sane than "oh we have to pay taxes may as well double prices and blame the government while we make fat stacks!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Yeah, there's plenty of good reason for California fuel to be more expensive, but this gap has historically been on the order of 40-50¢ a gallon, not the $1+ we've seen in the past few days. ComradeCosmobot posted:And there are good reasons to believe that it's market manipulation. Right before the last spike, refineries announced a record-setting amount of exported gasoline from west coast refineries. I'd definitely like to read the responses from the CEOs outlined at the bottom of this article. But I can't really blame them for doing what is legally required of them: make as much money for the company and shareholders as possible. Not saying I agree with the evils of corporate America but why not charge what people are willing to pay? The consumer watchdog report cited in this article contains the following graph:  It doesn't look like profits per barrel are historically out of line. Valero profits are high, maybe the highest in the last 5 years but crude oil is the cheapest its been in the last 5 years. ComradeCosmobot posted:California only has a 10 day gasoline reserve instead of the 24 day reserve elsewhere in the country. "The assertion that California maintains a 10-day supply of fuel is not correct. The California Energy Commission reports on inventories of gasoline and diesel at refineries only and does not include products that are stored at the many fuel terminals in the state or is in the extensive intrastate pipeline system. National inventory data compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Service does include those facilities, making it impossible to compare the two sets of data." I'm not sure why this is. I'm not sure why it really matters that independent gas stations are charging a much higher price than branded stations. Just fill up at the cheaper ones? My guess is that the branded stations have longer contracts with the refineries than the independents. The branded stations are the first priority for products and independents have to buy their gas on the open market. ComradeCosmobot posted:And of course now, a convenient low of 0 barrels of oil imports right before the recent price spike, Trabisnikof posted:Don't confuse profit-making with malice there buddy. It can just be them trying to squeeze as much money out of California as they without it being a secret retaliation for anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 21:03
|
|