Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So the windmills wear out just as they pay for themselves. That might concern someone who is buying one to get ahead in an investment. But when you look at it as we will either spend money digging coal or building windmills, I choose to build windmills. If we manufacture and build enough windmills, the technology will advance, and the price will come down. Then they might become a good investment for the home owner. Right now it would be an investment in our future, the kind that we need the most to get where we need to be. The nay sayers have everyone so scared of these proposals none of them will pass. But I'm still going to use my head and vote for a better, cleaner, future. Maybe someday I'll put a windmill out back and have my roof full of solar panels. Digging coal isn't going to get us there. If you envision a clean future, where you can be proud of your renewable energy sources, then vote yes on 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not looking at what it costs to get to 25% T. If it were only so simple everyone would be for it.

 

thats the point. i'm willing to pay higher costs (if its even more expensive, i doubt it.) to get cleaner energy, and its mostly upfront costs, since the energy is provided by the planet.

 

you saw what happened to japan? you saw what happened in the gulf of mexico?

we're getting radiation from japan and contaminated fish from the gulf of mexico.

 

maybe windmills , hydro and solar arent so bad?

maybe michigan needs to be the first state to have 1/4th power provided by energy sources which wont kill us??

 

every time someone wants to build a windfarm theres always these NIMBY people that jump up and down talking about how 'ugly' they are. i'll look into buying a windmill, i think renewable energy is great. a proposal to force us into the NEW TREND IN TECHNOLOGY is a great idea for education, manufacturing jobs, maintenence jobs, research jobs, etc.

 

i've seen the new commercial for windmill repair school on tv already. theres gold in them there hills! invest in windmill companies.

 

the study they've released says this proposal would only raise rates by 50 cents per month.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/03/948551/report-25-percent-renewable-electricity-target-would-only-cost-michican-consumers-50-cents-per-month/

 

plus bill clinton just gave his support for it.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/10/31/proposal-3-in-michigan-for-renewable-energy-gets-bill-clinton-support/

 

but i am interested to see what problems it would cause, so if you have some good links to read, i'd like to read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the study they've released says this proposal would only raise rates by 50 cents per month.

http://thinkprogress...ents-per-month/

 

50 cents per month according to the group that is pushing the measure. Do you honestly believe that that rates would only rise that much? I suppose the infrastructure needed to support this measure will just magically appear?

 

In case you forgot, Michigan was the only state to LOSE population based on the last census. Michigan is one of the most economically devasted states right now. Yet you think it's time to boost what a Michigan family pays for electricity? This is no time to be experimenting with power production. You may be willing to pay more $ but that doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

I say vote NO on this proposal. If these environmental advocacy groups want us to rely on "green energy" then they should push for alternative billing plans. Some states/places have programs where you can CHOOSE to pay more to the utility company to support the production of green energy. Why not adopt a plan like that? Give people a genuine choice as to the power they want to use. If they choose to go green then require the utility to bill them for the cost of green energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 cents per month according to the group that is pushing the measure. Do you honestly believe that that rates would only rise that much? I suppose the infrastructure needed to support this measure will just magically appear?

 

In case you forgot, Michigan was the only state to LOSE population based on the last census. Michigan is one of the most economically devasted states right now. Yet you think it's time to boost what a Michigan family pays for electricity? This is no time to be experimenting with power production. You may be willing to pay more $ but that doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

I say vote NO on this proposal. If these environmental advocacy groups want us to rely on "green energy" then they should push for alternative billing plans. Some states/places have programs where you can CHOOSE to pay more to the utility company to support the production of green energy. Why not adopt a plan like that? Give people a genuine choice as to the power they want to use. If they choose to go green then require the utility to bill them for the cost of green energy.

The infrastructure is already in place. That's always been the beauty of alternative green sources of energy, they use the power grid that is already in place. Unless you have some real info about it costing families more than fifty cents a month, I don't see much substance here in your post. Do you have any back up?

Edited by Restorium2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The infrastructure is already in place. That's always been the beauty of alternative green sources of energy, they use the power grid that is already in place. Unless you have some real info about it costing families more than fifty cents a month, I don't see much substance here in your post. Do you have any back up?

The grid isn't the issue. Although, the grid itself needs major upgrading anyway which will likely raise utitlity bills itself. The infrastructure necessary for green energy is the turbines, solar panels, etc. That's where the real cost is going to come from.

 

I'd like to see real info that it will only cost 50 cents per month. There is nothing backing up that claim. Nothing. Where is the substance in that claim?

 

The article linked states:

In February, the Michigan Public Service Commission issued a progress report of the state’s current renewable electricity standard requiring 10 percent penetration by 2015, finding that the cost of wind, solar, and hydro “is cheaper than a new coal-fired generation” in the state.

 

So their study compared new green energy to NEW coal energy. Uhhh, last I checked we didn't need all NEW coal-fired plants. So why would someone compare the two and act as if they're equal. That's like saying everyone should be required to drive a prius since the cost of a new prius is the same as the cost of a new silverado. If you already own the silverado then that is a fallacious argument isn't it? We already have coal-fired plants. If green energy is really so inexpensive then why do we need to force it on people through the constitution? If it is so inexpensive then it seems as though the people would be willing to pay the $6/year and eliminate the coal plants entirely. Kind of like how people were willing to deal with returning cans for the deposit law.

 

Lastly, why put something like this into the state constitution? Why not pass it through initiative? The constitution isn't the place to regulate this type of thing. This proposal is on the ballot because of a bunch of squirrely enviromentalists. Now I'm not against enviromentalism but I am against being lied to in an effort to achieve a goal.

Edited by CaveatLector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grid is not ready for the windmills, I do not know who told you that BS Resto. They are in the process of building a powerline to the thumb windmills right now. Why don't you look up how great the windmills and solar have been for Germany. And the best part is you still need to keep the regular coal and gas powerplants up and running 24/7 regardless. 4th generation Nuclear is the absolute most environmentally responsible way we could ever make power. We have the technology to use all of them spent fuel rods left over from generation 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grid is not ready for the windmills, I do not know who told you that BS Resto. They are in the process of building a powerline to the thumb windmills right now. Why don't you look up how great the windmills and solar have been for Germany. And the best part is you still need to keep the regular coal and gas powerplants up and running 24/7 regardless. 4th generation Nuclear is the absolute most environmentally responsible way we could ever make power. We have the technology to use all of them spent fuel rods left over from generation 1.

I know for a fact I can send the power I would generate from a windmill right back out through the lines that come to my property. There are laws in place that cover this. How much did the extension of the existing power grid, you are talking about, cost us? I can image that with the lower population in that area, they had to send out a bigger line to connect to the grid. They picked that area because of the low population, so you take the good with the bad. A better grid isn't a bad thing. They probably would need the bigger line someday anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some nasty proposals on this years ballot. Number 1 disturbs me as it suspends the democratic process, number 5 is astoundingly bad as it would make raising taxes nearly impossible, and number 6 would restrict infrastructure building projects.

 

2 through 4 look good, I am all for collective bargaining and clean energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some nasty proposals on this years ballot. Number 1 disturbs me as it suspends the democratic process, number 5 is astoundingly bad as it would make raising taxes nearly impossible, and number 6 would restrict infrastructure building projects.

 

2 through 4 look good, I am all for collective bargaining and clean energy.

I don't like 4 because it sets up a state registry with background checks. We already know the extensive problems with that. They look back for decades and see if you have a felony. Until they get some sunset provisions for felons I'm not voting for any overly restrictive exclusive registry. There are a lot of good people doing good things in the communities that would be left out if this proposal passes. Good in theory, but the state is terrible at implementing things like this. They will snatch your $100 quick enough to make your head spin, but they aren't good at much else. Too bad they set such a bad example with the MM registry. It is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shelia johnson is listed as a friend, but is mentioned in another thread that she doesnt believe in medical use.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/41161-logic-and-common-sense/page__st__180

Let's see. I heard her say that marijuana causes lung cancer, destroys brain cells, and is addicting. She said it in open court.

 

if you have evidence otherwise that she is a 'friend' i'd like to see it.

 

btw, update Doug Dern (supreme court), i emailed him and hes for marijuana decrim/legalization. hes libertarian party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shelia johnson is listed as a friend, but is mentioned in another thread that she doesnt believe in medical use.

 

http://michiganmedic...e/page__st__180

 

 

if you have evidence otherwise that she is a 'friend' i'd like to see it.

 

btw, update Doug Dern (supreme court), i emailed him and hes for marijuana decrim/legalization. hes libertarian party.

It's the big picture. Some you can bend to your liking, others will always cut your throat. We need three new Dems on the Supreme Court. She will follow the other Dems on the court. This is a full court press. Strength in majority is where it's at. If we can get those 3 Dems on the court we will rule Michigan from the top, no matter what the clowns in the legisture pull on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan J Benishek R no 989-448-8811 info@benishek2012.com foe

He voted in favor for medical cannabis patients

 

 

Its time for the MMMA to endorse the correct candidate for MM and it is not Gary McDowell

 

 

 

 

Gary McDowell said in the past he was not in favor ,of MM

 

McDowell is also a strong advocate for a state-wide smoking ban, with exemptions carved out in very specific terms for businesses that sell tobacco products.

McDowell is also pro-life and opposed to both Proposal 1, which would permit medicinal marijuana, and Proposal 2, which would expand embryonic stem cell research.

 

The R is the correct choice for this,, unless gary flipped,,

 

http://articles.peto...h-care_24025975

 

Voting YES to protect Michigan

 

1 Benishek, Dan R

 

3 Amash, Justin R

 

6 Upton, Fred R

 

9 Peters, Gary D

 

13 Clarke, Hansen D

 

14 Conyers Jr., John D

 

 

 

Voting NO to let Federal Government Over-rule Michigan’s Voters

 

2 Huizenga, Bill R

 

4 Camp, Dave R

 

5 Kildee, Dale D

 

7 Walberg, Tim R

 

8 Rogers (MI), Mike R

 

10 Miller, Candice R

 

11 McCotter, Thaddeus R

 

12 Levin, Sander D

 

15 Dingell, John D

 

From: Representative Dan Benishek <MI01DBIMA@mail.house.gov>

Date: September 19, 2011 9:56:30 AM EDT

To: michigancertification@gmail.com [alternativesolutionsplus.com]

Subject: Responding to your message

 

 

September 19, 2011

 

Dear Alternative Solutions Plus:

 

Thank you for making the effort to contact me regarding marijuana regulation. As your elected representative, I appreciate the opportunity to learn your opinion on this matter.

 

As you may know, H.R. 2306, the "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011" was introduced with the stated intent to limit the application of federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marijuana. I realize that narcotic control policy is a very broad and complex issue. While I believe it is important that the U.S. does everything in its power to keep narcotics from harming our society, I believe it makes little sense to continue elements of this campaign that have failed to deliver results. Please know that I will continue to study this issue carefully with your views in mind.

 

I am in favor of using marijuana for medical purposes. As you may know, the "States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act" was introduced in the House. If enacted, this bill would prohibit any provision of the "Controlled Substances Act" from restricting state laws legalizing the use of medical marijuana. Additionally, this measure would provide for the reclassification of marijuana, recognizing the plant's accepted medical use. As a general surgeon, I am aware of the therapeutic benefits marijuana can provide to individuals suffering from a serious illness or chronic pain. In my opinion, state laws can regulate the use of marijuana for medical purposes, while ensuring that it is not used illegally. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expresses the principle of federalism: powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people. In my judgment, the federal government is prohibited from interfering with state health laws, which properly reflect the will of citizens of the various states.

 

Although I do not serve on the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over narcotics policy, should any legislation come to the floor of the House for a vote regarding drug enforcement, I will certainly keep your views in mind.

 

Again, thank you for taking the time to share with me your opinion — I value hearing from you.

 

Sincerely,

Dan Benishek M. D.

Member of Congress

Edited by cristinew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US rep District 1: Dan Benishek® and Gary McDowell(D) both support medical marijuana. (yea, we are one of the lucky ones)

 

Michigan House District 108th: Incumbant Ed McBroom® completely opposes Medical marijuana. Sharon Gray(D) supports medical marijuana.

 

Dickinson County Prosecuting Attorney: Lisa Richards® will convict. Daniel Anderson(D) will follow and protect the law.

 

Dickinson County SHeriff: Incumbant Scott Cellelo(D) is neutral. Steve Mulka(I) has said he could care less as long as you follow the law.

 

Since when has Gary McDowell supported MM? he has not in the past

 

McDowell is also a strong advocate for a state-wide smoking ban, with exemptions carved out in very specific terms for businesses that sell tobacco products.

McDowell is also pro-life and opposed to both Proposal 1, which would permit medicinal marijuana, and Proposal 2, which would expand embryonic stem cell research.

 

http://articles.petoskeynews.com/2008-10-27/health-care_24025975

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the comments. It was a lot of work, and a lot of people volunteered their time to get it done. We hope that it assisted our community in making the right choices this year. Our goal has been and will remain to build a solid voting block, so that the interest of this community play a significant role in the political system. Thanks to all that participated in getting this together, a special thanks to LEGACY for organizing much of the guide, and to everyone who excersiced their right to vote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...