I’m proud to say that Dan Logue is my assemblyman. – Anthony
Economic initiative makes the ballot
In a phone interview, Logue said he found out Tuesday the initiative had enough valid signatures.
He said the initiative needed 440,000 signatures and it got 800,000. The names were collected by volunteers and paid “signature gatherers,” he said.
AB32 became law in 2006. It provides that between 2012 and 2020, greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced to the levels they were in 1990.
Logue’s initiative would postpone the implementation of AB32 until the state’s unemployment rate stands at 5.5 percent for a year. Now the jobless rate is around 12 percent.
Suspending AB32 only makes sense, Logue said. “We can’t afford it. We’ll lose another million jobs. It will drive business out of the state.”
Robin Huffman, advocacy director for the Chico-based Butte Environmental Council, expressed the opposite view.
Suspending AB32 is not necessary, she said. The law “is the very encouragement and incentive that is needed to create the jobs that we need for the new green economy.”
She called AB32 “a very, very reasonable law” and “a step in the right direction.”
“I’m sad that it’s gotten on the ballot,” she said of Logue’s initiative.
Logue said he’s long been disturbed by what he called a regulatory climate in the state that discourages business.
“Economic recovery begins by suspending AB32,” he said.
more here
The law “is the very encouragement and incentive that is needed to create the jobs that we need for the new green economy.”
I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but these people are insane, completely mad, as in lost any marbles they may have had rattling around in their tiny fevered minds.
“the new green economy” is dreamland with other peoples money.
I am torn on the AB32 initiative. The Left-Coast’s Eco-policies are not only idealistic but irresponsible. On the other hand, it seems to me that California should serve as an example to the rest of the country, demonstrating what happens to a state when it keeps digging itself a deeper hole.
From the linked article:
“Logue’s initiative campaign has been criticized because out-of-state oil companies have donated a lot of money to it.”
That’s interesting. By that measure GreenPeace and WWF campaigns could always be classified as foreign interference by any business affected. It’s only bad when the others do it.
“the new green economy” is code talk for centralized governmental planning.
Green Tech is only competitive with the aid of governmental subsidies. If California forces a large enough chunk of their power to come from Green Tech, then they will need huge subsidies and the government can then tell the consumers how they may use their heavily subsidized power. If California is NOT forced into using a ton of Green Tech, then more competitive energy sources will be used instead.
I would imagine if California had their “New Green Economy”, there would be some sort of convoluted plan like “you can only have either one TV or one computer on in a household so as to conserve energy.”
Yeh, because the “new green economy” has worked so well in other countries like Spain. I can’t decide it the greenies are incapable to learn from observation or unwilling?
The New Green Economy is Perpetual Motion by edict.
There are only 4 forces in the Universe able to supply energy.
Green idealistic utopianism is not one of them.
“Paul says:
June 24, 2010 at 12:59 am
I am torn on the AB32 initiative. The Left-Coast’s Eco-policies are not only idealistic but irresponsible. On the other hand, it seems to me that California should serve as an example to the rest of the country, demonstrating what happens to a state when it keeps digging itself a deeper hole.”
Paul,
The only problem with this is that people watch it and think “Well…that’s just California, they’ve ALWAYS been crazy out there.” I hear that in Massachusetts, and in many cases they’re as bad or worse here. When I talk to neighbors about it, they think that we’re nothing like that around here…guess they never heard of that little EPA ruling the state court handed down a few years ago…
JimB
The tide is finally turning….and about time.
Just the thought of turning tax dollars into mulch to sequester carbon makes me ill.
Thanks, gentlemen, for your honest and forthright efforts. We all need to follow your lead and look closely at every bromide and agenda that involves belief and not the rational analysis of the facts.
Green jobs. Growing greeen unicorns.
How did the Eutopican endeavor work for Spain?
The green stuff is a farce. Most of us protect and prefer a clean environment. We also want lights a/c and food.
I am convinced at the very least, it will make some extremists begin thinking.
I note from the wsj that an italian windfarm subsidy amounted to about 180euros/MWH, equating to at least 720euros per tonne of carbon, probably significantly more. This is the low hanging fruit, and renewables are supposed to get less efficient the larger percentage on the grid. How on earth can these lawmakers make such bold claims – they are in effect betting the economy on a technological revolution which if it happens will make these investments (i use the term in the loosest possible sense) look like money down the toilet and if the revolution does not come will cripple the economy. The MSM just swallows it whole, and never even does the maths. Whenever the beaurocrats calculate the cost of their initiatives they use a far cheaper cost of carbon reduction than they currently pay, and yet the economic case is based on Stern’s review that claimed cutting now is cheaper than cutting in the future (and capital is almost free for projects he approves of). Spend money on stuff that I approve of and the money goes around the system so should not be accounted at full price. Spend money on stuff I don’t approve of – well that is just spent. How anybody can choose an artificial amount of carbon to be emitted 10 years from now and with a straight face claim they know it will good for the economy beggars belief.
@ Paul says: June 24, 2010 at 12:59 am
“I am torn on the AB32 initiative. The Left-Coast’s Eco-policies are not only idealistic but irresponsible. On the other hand, it seems to me that California should serve as an example to the rest of the country, demonstrating what happens to a state when it keeps digging itself a deeper hole.”
Well, I understand your point. But if you want a paradigm for a country putting itself into a power dive with NO obvious mechanism for changing the lunatic policies that are gripping the controls, then look at the UK. I think the mess that California is likely to get itself into will look like party time compared to the crash landing we are heading towards. ALL the significant political parties here think this is all a jolly good idea! There aren’t enough sceptical MPs to make up a soccer team.
Paul, there is no reason for you to be conflicted at all, support this measure wholeheartedly! This will be a blow struck at the heart of the enemy’s stronghold, and it will demoralize and demotivate AGW supporters worldwide.
If they cannot hold the line in California, they will know they cannot hold the line in the US Congress. And this has always been about forcing the US, more than anyone else, into self-limiting it’s economy for everyone else’s benefit. Once it is clear to all that the US is out of the game (and I believe we are now just about 6 months from that point, the date the new Congress will be seated) then this AGW scam is over for good.
We have total victory within out grasp!!! AB32 is the Death Star; destroying it will mortally wound the entire Evil Empire of Warmism!
Emporer Gore will be highly annoyed, of course.
Suspending AB32 is not necessary, she said. The law “is the very encouragement and incentive that is needed to create the jobs that we need for the new green economy.”
This concept of creating jobs is very dangerous. Economic power is created by separating human needs from their fulfillment in the same way as electical power generation separates positive charge from negative charge. As in the electrical analogue the release of this potential generates an energy flow which can be used to do useful work (plus a varying amount of wasted energy depending on the efficiency of the system). So economic power is dependent on the motivational power of the need and the efficiency of the system that satisfies it. If the need is strong people will work hard and long to satisfy it but if the need is weak the economic power is weak. Because of the complexity of the economy we often lose sight of this very simple conservation of energy concept. You can no more create jobs from satisfying a need that does not motivate anyone than you can generate “free” power by driving a generator from a battery. It is not a question of free market versus government spending. This is political argument which I find distracting. If everyone agrees that money should be spent on roads or eductation or even sending someone to the moon it can become a source of motivation and as long as it is well sold it will create real economic power just as successfully as the more directly commercially satisfied needs. The decisive question is whether something is going to motivate society. If AGW were real then the situation would be that of a war that threatened our very existence and that almost always stimulates enormous economic output (even if much of it is destroyed in the conflict). However if AGW is not a real threat it is analogous to the Vietnam war. Certainly many people did make a lot of money out of the Vietnam war but I am sure the global economic impact was negative overall because the motivation for individuals was negative. So we have with these stupid green jobs. I know of few people who are motivated by these concepts so the jobs are not generating power but bleeding energy from the real economic power sources like health, enertainment, communications, education etc. I do not mind paying tax to fund worthwhile activities best carried out by government. I do care if that money is spent on commercial subsidies for something that no one really wants, because that is unsustainable, as Spain has found out.
The people strike back. And they will strike back in the UK and the rest of Europe eventually.
Darn, I was wanting to see CA flop before the entire country did. Seriously, let the people decide.
I helped gather signatures to get that initiative on the ballot. I am not paid by Big Oil, I have to pay them.
I don’t understand why the initiative wants to suspend AB32. It should kill it and drive a stake through it’s heart. I support the initiative only because it’s a small step in the right direction and, at this point, I’ll take what I can get.
JimB says:
June 24, 2010 at 4:36 am
JimB,
same kind of nonsense goes on in New Jersey too. There is nothing anyone can do with people that are intentionally ignorant.
Jim Breeding says:
June 24, 2010 at 6:39 am
congratulations on getting it in front of the good folks. If you can get 2/3 of the vote to supend this time around, you can go for killing it later.
The current state of the green economy is so potentialed for INCREASED pollution that green idiots will rue the day they encouraged such a thing. Removing wind turbines will one day be the cry of the new movement beating the drum of efficient energy, and screamed at the same level as dam removal now is.
I am torn on the AB32 initiative. The Left-Coast’s Eco-policies are not only idealistic but irresponsible. On the other hand, it seems to me that California should serve as an example to the rest of the country, demonstrating what happens to a state when it keeps digging itself a deeper hole.
Jeez…. It’s already horrifically deep out here! California has an unemployment rate of 12.4 %, is 21 billion in the hole (which means closer to 41 billion), is raiding city funds to keep spending like the drunken democrats that they are, and our government is doing this and this. Seriously, How much deeper do you want it to go?????
Cal, the only problem with your argument is that you use logic. That means those on the left and certainly the warmists will never pay any attention to it at all.
The trouble with schadenfreude in this case, is that the cost of bailing out California will be paid by all Americans.
“Green jobs” only exist because they are hugely subsidized by government. Every one of them. Without those subsidies, there is no “investor” who/which would invest so much as a plugged nickel in these “renewable” energy schemes.
In case the residents of CA hadn’t noticed, CA not only doesn’t have tax dollars wherewith to subsidize the “green jobs”, but is on the verge of bankruptcy.
If it were only Californians who would do the hurting for the idiocy of their state legislature and governor, it wouldn’t bother me in the least. But I know full well that all of us citizens of the US, by way of our federal government, will end up having to pony up (in reality, go deeper into debt) to pay off California’s huge debt.
Jim,
Thank you for gathering signatures. I will be voting for the initiative in November. I would like for there to jobs for my children in California when they graduate college in a couple of years.
Fortunately I have a stable job in wastewater treatment. AB32 will cause us to spend much money on overpriced energy projects just to cut CO2, not treat wastewater. Work that will do nothing to help keep the environment clean but will cost our rate payers a lot.
MJP
I also gathered signatures for this but also realize that if the green measure gets functioning in 2012, my job will go with it. We have huge electrical motors driving hydraulic pumps and simply can’t afford the costs of doing business in California when the effects of AB32 kick-in. We have adjusted factory work schedule to avoid the peak rates already, but implementation of AB32 will force us to move out of state or possibly abandon US production. I am tired of California vying for bragging rights to be “The Leader” of such silliness that are the brainchildren of a few very vocal advocates and permitted by the apathy and ignorance of the consequences of most voters and politicos. Their egos should not be the motivation for others financial ruin.
What I don’t understand about the whole anti AGW argument is why more time and effort isn’t spent on showing that these so-called “greenhouse gas pollutants” are harmless. Plant food for God sakes! Essential plant food.
Its as if more people started wearing flip flops and some damn fool decided and convinced others that flip flops were dangerous and killing the environment. An immense and profitable movement was started to reduce the number of flip flops to 1990 levels for the good of the planet. New industries would produce enormous numbers of new jobs that produced planet safe alternative foot wear.
The whole greenie movement is simply insane. Is the air full of “stupid gas” that is especially effective on our politicians?
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=2895
Actually, the 5.5 employment figure does just about kill it. As long as the border remains open, and San Francisco and Los Angeles elect the quality of politician they have over the last fifteen years, this will be virtually permanent. As long as the status que remains in Sacramento, especially with California’s very large ag sector (the biggest money maker in the State BTW) the state will never achieve an unemployment rate below 6.5% anually.
Meanwhile Silicon Valley continues it’s own political death march as the big names, Google et. al. are contributing funds to oppose this measure. How’d all those big contribution $ to candidate Obame work out for the once flourishing, now moribund Venture Capital industry? Oh wait, I get it now. Once you’re an established company, e.g. Google, you don’t want potentially disruptive innovators funded. Check.
Very simple. Put some taxpayer’s money into development of fourth generation fast breeder reactors. They can run on present day nuclear waste, volume of waste left behind is one percent of that produced by old tech for same output, halflife a thousand times shorter, utterly unsuitable for bombs. Fuel (uranium and thorium) is plentiful, known reserves last for several tens of millennia, much longer than written history so far. As soon as basic design is approved, let business do the rest. You’ll have a New Green Economy in no time.
Collateral advantage is you can stay away from catfight over foreign oil.
Al Gore pushed for AB 32: Karma
‘Suspending AB32 is not necessary, she said. The law “is the very encouragement and incentive that is needed to create the jobs that we need for the new green economy.”’
Sounds a lot like what the lefty eurocrats do here in Europe, they create directives that dictate what people should work with, how, and in which field. Doesn’t matter that people might already have shoe’s aplenty, if they decided people should manufacture shoes like good sovs, then they go right a head and create a directive for an incentive for a choice you can’t resist. At least they go with subsidies instead of jail this time around.
Suspending AB32 is not necessary, she said. The law “is the very encouragement and incentive that is needed to create the jobs that we need for the new green economy.”
AB32 became law in 2006. After four years, it neither encouraged nor provided the initiatives for job creation, because jobs are only created when *business* needs create them, and laws such as AB32 have only succeeded in driving businesses out of California.
The “new green economy” exists solely in the minds of people like Mizz Huffman.
For an example of a working *green* economy, you don’t have to look any farther than a nomadic clan living in tents and armed solely with spears. If there are any still around…
We already have a “green” economy: Coal and petroleum fuels are burned, contributing to the CO2 level of the atmosphere, which plants use to grow and make the planet green. Anything else is not green; it is red, brown, or gray.
Next up: Go to bed an hour early to reduce your carbon footprint! Those Japanese sure are smart. 😕
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7851292/Japanese-told-to-go-to-bed-an-hour-early-to-cut-carbon-emissions.html
AB32 is the Death Star; destroying it will mortally wound the entire Evil Empire of Warmism!
Almost there….Almost there……Almost there….
well at least there will something on the ballot worth voting for.
@ Bill Tuttle says:
June 24, 2010 at 8:30 am
……………………………….
For an example of a working *green* economy, you don’t have to look any farther than a nomadic clan living in tents and armed solely with spears. If there are any still around…
Would these folks qualify? 🙂 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/30/brazil.conservation
Perhaps the Californians could send a team down to learn how they did it, and publish a peer reviewed paper on the benefits of a green economy.
Paul (June 24, 2010 at 12:59 am), if the initiative is defeated I’m afraid I won’t take any comfort in being a cautionary example for the rest of the country. We’re already a very bad example and nobody seems to notice. As a Californian I feel so…useless.
I plan to leave California in about a year. I just hope there’s somebody left who can buy my house, even at a big loss.
PS only a legislator can argue with a straight face that imposing fees (taxes) will create jobs.
Does anybody know where we can follow the betting on this initiative on one or more of those on-line forecasting sites where you “buy” shares in a notion, either with play money or real money? I got into that in the last election cycle (the play money way) but I’ve lost the thread of where those things are.
Sunny Spain suspends solar subsidy scam
€18bn flushed down the baño
“Dead broke Spain can’t afford to prop up renewables anymore…
Estimates put the investment in solar energy in Spain at €18bn – but the investment was predicated… on taxpayer subsidies… Incredibly, Spain pays more in subsidies for renewables than the total cost of energy production for the country. It leaves industry with bills 17 per cent higher than the EU average…
Spanish economist Professor Gabriel Calzada, at the University of Madrid estimated that each green job had cost the country $774,000.
Worse, a “green” job costs 2.2 jobs that might otherwise have been created… Industry, which can’t afford to pay the higher fuel bills, simply moves elsewhere.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/17/spain_sustainability_scam/
The problem has largely resulted from the death of neutral newspapers in California’s major cities. Even small newspapers are tied into the All Propaganda news service. People just aren’t aware how bad the situation is. If we lose this one, we may all be doomed, world-wide.
Energy Myths Can’t Replace Fossil Fuels
By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
Oil, coal and natural gas now supply about 85% of America’s energy needs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects energy consumption to grow only an average of 0.5% annually from 2008 to 2035, but that’s still a 14% cumulative increase. Fossil fuel usage would increase slightly in 2035, and its share would still account for 78% of the total.
Unless we shut down the economy, we need fossil fuels. More efficient light bulbs, energy-saving appliances, cars with higher gas mileage may all dampen energy use. But offsetting these savings are more people (391 million vs. 305 million), more households (147 million vs. 113 million), more vehicles (297 million vs. 231 million) and a bigger economy (almost double in size).
Although wind, solar and biomass are assumed to grow up to 10 times faster than overall energy use, they provide only 11% of supply in 2035, up from 5% in 2008.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/538287/201006231849/Energy-Myths-Cant-Replace-Fossil-Fuels.aspx
“Dead broke Spain can’t afford to prop up renewables anymore…
Estimates put the investment in solar energy in Spain at €18bn – but the investment was predicated… on taxpayer subsidies… Incredibly, Spain pays more in subsidies for renewables than the total cost of energy production for the country. It leaves industry with bills 17 per cent higher than the EU average…
Spanish economist Professor Gabriel Calzada, at the University of Madrid estimated that each green job had cost the country $774,000.
Worse, a “green” job costs 2.2 jobs that might otherwise have been created… Industry, which can’t afford to pay the higher fuel bills, simply moves elsewhere.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/17/spain_sustainability_scam/
I pray that this passes, otherwise, nearly all manufacturing will have to leave CA.
Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, admitted in a phone interview that manufacturing would take a big hit. However, she said, “There are some jobs we don’t need.” She said this in a state with a real unemployment rate of 20%, and in parts of the San Joaquin Valley it’s 50%.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/The-real-unemployment-rate.aspx
http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/james-kellogg/6883-true-impact-working-people-ab-32-no-mere-numbers-game
Oops. Sorry about the redundant post. Thought the first one had disappeared into the ether.
I’m against AB 32, and will vote for the initiative, and here’s why.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/problem-with-ab-32.html
I have had the privilege of making speeches to professional and non-professional audiences across the USA for a couple of years now on the perils of climate warming laws, especially AB 32 in California, and federal laws based on AB 32. Another speech is scheduled in September in Anaheim, California.
For anyone interested, I have also written extensively on the AB 32 issue on my blog, from the nuts and bolts to the grand scheme.
My summary of the AB 32 proponents’ position is that California can no longer compete economically, with the status quo. They are correct. The status quo includes burdensome environmental and business regulations, high costs of doing business and living in the state, chronic state budget deficits of roughly $2 billion per month, plus a voting populace that made all those things a reality. Municipal budgets’ deficits are also in the billion-dollar range per year. Los Angeles, alone, is facing a shortfall of several hundred million dollars. The economic downturn has hit California hard, much harder than most states. The recovery is not happening at all, instead, businesses are closing and people continue to lose their jobs.
In sheer desperation, the loonie lefties that govern this state have seized on AB 32 as their savior. They have bought the story that cutting CO2 and other greenhouse gases will create jobs, restore businesses, make California a leader in green and sustainable technology, while the air is crystal clear all day and night. All this, in a state that cannot compete due to high costs of doing business.
As one example, which involves the Mayor of Los Angeles and renewable power, the city’s power department must replace the existing imported power with renewable power. The city imports approximately 40 percent of its power from coal-fired power plants in Utah, 500 miles away. A new state law will prohibit such high-CO2-producing imports in roughly 2020 and 2022, but provides that the power can be replaced with power from gas-fired CCGT, combined cycle gas turbine plants. (The law is worded a bit differently, but that is the net result). The Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, took this a step further and decreed that the replacement power shall all be renewable. As discussed elsewhere on WUWT and my blog, the present versions of intermittent renewable (wind and solar) must have full backup power plants to achieve reliability on the grid. Thus, the Mayor’s decree will force DWP (the city’s Department of Water and Power) to spend far more money than they would if they simply complied with the state law. The increase in the average power bill is not yet known, but should be revealed later this summer. DWP must present their plan to the city on how this will be accomplished, and how much it will cost.
This is but a small part of the green nuttiness in California.
I am happy to make speeches to any organization on this AB 32 law, and what it truly means. The proponents, including California’s Air Resources Board, have this to say on their website about the “myths” of AB 32.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cleanenergy/clean_fs.htm
The environmental movement has been taken over by the socialists and communists. Nothing they do makes any economical or logical sense unless you recognize that their primary intent is to destroy capitalism. It is not about green energy or jobs or protecting the environment; it is ALL about eliminating cheap energy, the latter being the backbone that built America. Without cheap energy, America rapidly becomes a Third World country.
@Al Gored
‘Oil, coal and natural gas now supply about 85% of America’s energy needs.’
Right, so is that the Americas or the USA? I’m guessing the USA, lol. US hydro and nuclear deliver some 40% of the energy produced. But sure maybe they do like Denmark: sell the surplus of clean energy to other countries, but alas as far as I can tell US don’t, although some states seem to do it…to other states
Actually if one is to be picky one can state that energy need is a bit different from energy produced. And I bet America’s energy need is preferably as clean as possible. :p
Here is a key reason why AB 32 must be defeated, and the ballot initiative must pass in November. This refers to the “80 by 50” rule, in which CO2-equivalent emissions in 2050 must be reduced to 80 percent below the quantity emitted in 1990. The net effect is a 93 percent reduction in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Simply put, it cannot be done.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/80-by-50-under-california-ab-32.html
1DandyTroll –
Good point. I just quickly copied and pasted that. Indeed, where is nuclear and hydro? Still, I do wonder about your 40%… seems rather high unless you are just talking about electricity production.
Roger Sowell:
“Simply put, it cannot be done.”
Right you are, which sets up companies for a shakedown: for a payment, exceptions can be granted.
AKA: extortion.
If this passes and leads to more positive steps California will be the best possible example. After all if the inmates of the worlds largest looney bin can pull themselves up out of the abyss, then the rest of us will know we can pull back from its edge.
Dave L says:
June 24, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Dave, you are exactly correct. There may be many useful idiots for the cause, but we need to recognize the green movement for what it is: An attempt to destroy this country.
Life is not all beer and skittles, this research was discussed in an article earlier?
what is the story with the methane release in the Gulf of Mexico – I mean with relation to global warming????
Methane being released in the Gulf of Mexico could precipitate Global Warming – very very fast:
In an article on Methane Hydrate Ice you find that: Recent discoveries about the existence of a vast band of Methane Hydrate Ice along the world’s continental Slopes, at approx. 500 meters depth, have revolutionized the theories of the Ice Age and Global Warming Cycles. The accumulation of Methane Ice leads to Ice Ages and the rapid melting and effervescence of this ice and gas leads to an equally rapid Global Warming.
http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/
Vast amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas 23-25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, are locked in the deep sea and in the frozen soils of Siberia, Northern Europe, and North America, but warming could trigger rapid thawing that would release billions of tons into the atmosphere.
“The potential consequences of large amounts of methane entering the atmosphere, from thawing permafrost or destabilized ocean hydrates, would lead to abrupt changes in the climate that would likely be irreversible. We must not cross that threshold.