According to a FC article titled “Is California Sacrificing Green for Green?” California is fast-tracking several big alternative-energy projects in the southernmost quarter of the state. The proposal to build power lines, substations, and transmission towers has provoked the ire of environmental groups given that the infrastructure such as substations and transmission towers need to be built through national forest and wildlife preserves.
According to authorities given the location of resources and that existing corridors are too narrow to accommodate the new lines, people are going to have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of going green.
What is interesting is that Green has taken on a whole new meaning in the last year. It used to convey values of preservation, naturalism–less is more. Today it essentially means ecologically responsible consumption (without clearly defining responsible or limiting consumption). California has an opportunity to merge these two value systems into one true green.
Arnold’s message on the whole issue is as follows:
“People say, ‘You can’t get everything done,” Arnold told Fast Company. “But the only way to know if you can lift 500 pounds is if you put 500 pounds on the bar.”
Maybe it’s time to pump it up to 1,000 pounds, Arnold.
The last three or four reps is what makes the muscle grow. This area of pain divides the champion from someone else who is not a champion. That’s what most people lack, having the guts to go on and just say they’ll go through the pain no matter what happens.
It’ll be interesting who wins out in this attempt to kill out the use of coal and inspire the growth of renewable energy for Californians (ergo, Americans) who have products that are necessary for everyday life – from lighting, to air conditioning, to pool pumps.
Stay tuned for further developments on the Green for Green issue.
