I don't think the two are remotely comparable. Romneycare was something that had a quick, direct, visible, and measurable impact on peoples' lives. The rest of the country could look at Massachusetts and see how low its uninsured rate was. With climate change initiatives, the rest of the country will look at Massachusetts and see higher gas prices, higher electricity prices, and higher costs all around due to increased costs to transport goods while climate change marches on. It's not going to look like an attractive course of action.
California could impact emissions on cars nationwide in the same way Texas influences school textbooks. They are such a large portion of the US population that when they change standards, it's easier for manufacturers to implement the change for everyone than to have different products for different states. Massachusetts doesn't have that kind of clout. If we had been the ones who raised emissions standards, we would have just have to pay a lot more money for special cars and aftermarket solutions.
While I don't like psychohist's style of argument I think they are essentially right. If you enact strict regulations in Massachusetts, it's going to make things expensive here while not even touching climate change since we are 0.09% of the world's population. It will lead to less residents and businesses wanting to reside in Massachusetts. Change has to come at the national and worldwide level. I'm optimistic that as the younger generations comes into power, it will.
If we're talking about preparing Massachusetts for the impact of climate change, then that's great. If we're talking about incentives to bring the companies building tomorrow's energy solutions, that's great, too. But I get the feeling that this candidate is mostly talking about reducing emissions, and it's a ploy to get votes from people who feel strongly about this issue (which I'm sure we all do here). There are a lot of issues impacting the state that the governor can actually impact, and I'm personally going to vote based on those.
no subject
California could impact emissions on cars nationwide in the same way Texas influences school textbooks. They are such a large portion of the US population that when they change standards, it's easier for manufacturers to implement the change for everyone than to have different products for different states. Massachusetts doesn't have that kind of clout. If we had been the ones who raised emissions standards, we would have just have to pay a lot more money for special cars and aftermarket solutions.
While I don't like psychohist's style of argument I think they are essentially right. If you enact strict regulations in Massachusetts, it's going to make things expensive here while not even touching climate change since we are 0.09% of the world's population. It will lead to less residents and businesses wanting to reside in Massachusetts. Change has to come at the national and worldwide level. I'm optimistic that as the younger generations comes into power, it will.
If we're talking about preparing Massachusetts for the impact of climate change, then that's great. If we're talking about incentives to bring the companies building tomorrow's energy solutions, that's great, too. But I get the feeling that this candidate is mostly talking about reducing emissions, and it's a ploy to get votes from people who feel strongly about this issue (which I'm sure we all do here). There are a lot of issues impacting the state that the governor can actually impact, and I'm personally going to vote based on those.