Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A small but vocal group of Californians want to secede from the Union, to avoid President-elect Trump’s climate policies.
Climate Change Secession
Some private citizen groups in California, distraught at the prospect of an America under President Donald Trump, are advocating that the state secede from the union.
Constitutional scholars (and most Californians) assure us the separation is not going to happen. But is there any instance in which California could go its own way? What if Trump withdraws the nation from the United Nations Climate Change Accord and rejects the validity of the global warming threat altogether?
Could and should that set the stage for environmentally precocious California to break ranks with the president and join the Climate Change Treaty as a separate entity? It is not all that outlandish, considering California would not be declaring itself a sovereign state. It would simply be using its existing progressive greenhouse gas emission reduction policies to directly participate in a worldwide crusade to slow the rate of human-induced global warming. That shouldn’t exclude it from being a member of the United States in good standing.
California’s unilateral action could arguably be justified as a legitimate manifestation of States’ Rights that would serve as an inspiration at home and abroad. We are talking about policies aimed at having 33 percent of the state’s electricity come from clean, renewable energy by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.
…
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-flattau/climate-change-secession_b_13497438.html
Other voices urge that California remain part of the Union, so they can oppose President-elect Donald Trump’s policies from within.
California must lead, not secede
In the Trump era, California must do what it does best — lead
More than a month after the presidential election, many Californians are still stunned by the results. Admittedly #CalExit is a great rallying cry, but secession is not the answer. #CalLeads is a better solution.
Rather than secede, we can do what California does best — lead.
It’s possible the Trump administration will find bipartisan common ground on solutions to our nation’s problems, but it’s equally possible Washington will continue to merely seethe in its dysfunctional swamp. We shouldn’t wait to find out.
Obviously, California still has its share of challenges — from housing costs to education to water — but we’re working on them, not waiting for answers from Washington.
…
Read more: http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/California-must-lead-not-secede-10804752.php
California’s ambitions to be a leading example of renewable energy success are a fantasy.
Last year (2015) California imported 99,210 GWh (33%) of their electricity from out of state, mostly from the South West, up from 25% in 2010. If California seceded they would have to negotiate some fossil fuel electricity import deals real quick, or the lights would go out.
But look on the bright side – if California secedes, Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown finally gets to be President of somewhere.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The inhabitants in the so-called 7th wealthiest economy in the world should read John Donne.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
By the same token,
if a clod be washed away by his own empty headed arrogance
the rest of us are the better,
toll the bells, away the clods.
That is a policy that could draw wide support outside California.
Let them bear the brunt of this stupidity instead of trying to impose it on the whole nation.
We will then see in a much quicker time frame what the results of that policy is and judge its ‘social costs’ in an informed way.
Article I, section 10 of the constitution prohibits that outright.
Hey Archer! Certainly California cannot both remain a state and legally agree to a treaty as a separate entity. Still, if California seceded, they could agree to any treaty they wished. Most people will tell you that a state may NOT secede — but the only strong argument in support of that position is brute force, such as was the argument during the Civil War.
(Sadly, what the US Constitution allows or forbids is a moot point. The Constitution has not been seriously enforced for a very long time now. Legal “scholars” and judges can (and do) make it support whatever they wish.)
While California can’t form treaties with any foreign body as a separate entity, nothing stops them from trying to go greener as a state. Where a state elects to get it’s energy isn’t a function of federal legislation.
Archer is right:
Article 10. “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;”
It’s hard to imaging what could be clearer than that.
OTOH, Jason is right, too: The liberal government, including the courts, rarely pay much attention to the actual words and meaning of the U.S. Constitution. For instance, they’ve long since effectively deleted “interstate” from the Interstate Commerce Clause, the entire Tenth Amendment is trampled with serene regularity, and they keep finding “constitutional rights” to do things which were universally criminal when the actual Constitution was written.
Consider the “Constitutional” basis for EPA regulation of farm ponds. It goes something like this:
Section 8. “The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;…”
Yes, it’s the Interstate Commerce Clause. So how does that have anything to do with farm ponds?
Well, to begin with, Congress stretched that authority to the breaking point and beyond with the Clean Water Act, which authorized the EPA to regulate “navigable waters” of the United States, under the flimsy legal theory that anything which affects navigable waters can also affect interstate commerce which utilizes those navigable waters.
In fact, the “cleanliness” of water rarely affects navigation upon it, but that didn’t stop Congress, and, so far, neither the courts nor subsequent Congresses have been inclined to interfere.
Quoting from the least reliable but most convenient source: “Navigable waters, as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as codified under 33 CFR 329, are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and those inland waters that are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce while the waterway is in its ordinary condition…”
That obviously doesn’t cover farm ponds and creeks, though. Nobody uses farm ponds to transport goods in interstate or foreign commerce (with the possible extremely rare exception of a farm pond which straddles a State border).
But, more recently, the EPA has advanced the legal theory that anything which affects any water which drains into any tributary of any navigable waterway is subject to their regulation. That’s wildly beyond the scope of even the Clean Water Act, but it is the supposed legal basis for them to crush farmers and ranchers who have the audacity to build farm ponds without first bowing and scraping before federal authorities,
Well where would California get its water and electricity from. It doesn’t have near enough of either by itself.
And some of us don’t want to be seceded.
g
Secession of CA would help with the popular vote. Perhaps when California leaves, it could take Quebec with it.
Now, that would be a combination!!!
Archer: Article I, section 10 of the constitution prohibits that outright.
It prevents the state of CA from signing the treaty. It does not prevent the CA Assembly from passing laws applicable to itself in line with the goals stated in the treaty.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if CA tried to restrict emissions caused by the economic activity of the docks.
California can’t ratify a foreign treaty, they may chose to adhere to the treaty without being a signatory.
Some Californians act like spoiled children who threaten to leave their parents if they don’t get what they want.
One in eight live in California but the other seven live in other states. So they think they have the right to dictate policies to the other seven.
California and Quebec have worked together to get Cap-and-Trade into Canada. This goes back several years.
@Archer . . . they could simply implement the actions required by the treaty ( vague and unenforceable as they are ) without actually signing up. In fact we should ask them to do so in the interests of experimentation. Of course we would have to deny them access to fossil fueled power from out of state sources.
>No man is an island entire of itself;
Unless his name is Madagascar.
No man is an island….
He is a peninsula.
— Jefferson Airplane, After Bathing At Baxter’s
Heh. Giggles.
Ultimately, isn’t that the same as … “You didn’t build that !”
One suspects that it could take more than four (eight???) years to secede.
stuartlynne
that would be my point. Presumably if it ever happened it would be a process that would take decades and keep thousands of lawyers in a well paid job.
. I don’t know California’s imports and exports but assume most are within America so presumably it would need to set up trade deals?
Looks very unlikely. Is this a serious proposition or a fit of pique by a small number of disgruntled voters?
tonyb
Hasn’t history taught you anything? While secession is folly, just remember the Confederate States of America, it also isn’t a process that takes decades. It only takes an act of state congress and a statewide vote
Oh, and a potential war
And an Army. People haven’t studied the American Civil War usually don’t know that over half of the serving West Point graduates at the time joined the Confederacy – that’s one of the reasons they were so confident of victory.
Bryan A: It only take a war if people don’t want the state to secede. Not sure there are that many people outside of California who oppose the idea.
For Bryan A –
“Oh, and a potential war”
Who in the rest of the states would fight to keep them? Seriously! As far I as know, Washington and Oregon were saying the same thing, I can see the tariffs on their products now! One way to get out of the debt hole the liberal policies, “led” by California, got us into.
Reality Check.
+ a bunch
I’m not joining the South Osceola regiment to prevent CA from leaving. (I can’t believe I’m saying this) but I might go to CA to help them secede. In the (not civil war) but the war to prevent southern succession, I think the North had a very economic reason to keep the south attached. With CA; any more; maybe not so much. Particularly if CA is going to continue to play the king of hearts card.
From http://www.thomhartmann.com:
Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”
Just as an aside…Today, every Californian that wishes to own one, are out buying assault rifles because new laws going into effect makes today the last possible day to buy one and pick it up after the 10 day waiting period and before the end of the year when they will no longer be available for purchase
I think we are all missing the point here. Isn’t the real issue here whether there is a way for the other 49 states to vote California out of the Union if it doesn’t secede?
“vote California out of the Union”
Kind of a these United States reality show. Well there you go, Trump’s the man
All the best to them.
Just make sure they’re not allowed back in for the next presidential election.
Job done.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
California can secede from the Union if that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. But, if that is the virtuous “save the planet” path they want to take, they must secede/divest 100% from all fossil fuel use and live in the ‘Green’ bubble they yearn for so hysterically.
See how long that warm and fuzzy feeling lasts.
“Last year (2015) California imported 99,210 GWh (33%) of their electricity from out of state, mostly from the South West, up from 25% in 2010. ”
Cheap, reliable, life-saving fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere soon, no matter how many petroleum-based plastic placards are waved around.
See you later, as an AZ resident, I would have no issues never having to see another California plate driving entirely too slow and clogging up our freeways.
lol, David, you would see the biggest exodus from California ever.
Only of people worth keeping around.
Given how the vote went, over 80% of Ca Counties could see a mass exodus
Or a succession from California to join Nevada and Arizona… leaving a ‘rump State of California’ as the L.A. basin, a thin coastal strip up to SillyCon Valley, plus the San Francisco Peninsula and Marin….
Pretty much everything inland from the Coast Range and north of SF / Marin would love to escaps the domination by the LaLa Landers and SF Freakshow… (I say that as a native of California who grew up inland and north of SF. Folks there are generally rural conservative farmers, at least outside the college towns like Chico, Davis, etc.)
We drive too slow in AZ, because AZ highway patrol have a bad habit of tagging out of state cars. I tend to drive 3-4 miles above the speed limit on AZ highways, no more.
I’m in Texas, and you can tell out of state drivers here because they’re the only ones that drive at less than 85 mph anymore.
You probably think I’m joking. Nope.
Having just crossed Texas, I can confirm that. In the 80 MPH speed limit places, I did 85 as that was about tops for my car ( 2 ton 1979 Mercedes wagon, loaded, with a 4 cyl carbureted engine…) and the locals did about 95… on the 75 MPH sections, I did 80 to 84 (limited to +9 over as that seems to be the point where tickets are issued to out of State plates…). The locals seemed about 90 mph…but some faster…
In California, the limit dropped to 65 MPH. Oddly, I still did about 75 and occasionally 80 (violating my general rule) but only because I was being passed by loads of folks doing 85 to 95+ and figured that was pretty good ‘cover’… I-10 and I-5. From Orlando (I-75) Florida to SillyCon Valley… about 68 elapsed hours… Pretty much everywhere was flying fast and low…
BTW, bypassed Phoenix and their “speed camera every mile” trap on I-10 west of town via I-8 / 85. If you want out of State drivers to not clog the road by doing the speed limit, take out the camera speed traps…
“What if Trump withdraws the nation from the United Nations Climate Change Accord and rejects the validity of the global warming threat altogether?
The United States never ratified any U.N climate change accord. Obama had no legal authority to approve the Paris agreement in the first place.
President Trump should submit the Paris Agreement to the usa senate and let them vote. He could suggest a no vote is preferable, but that he intends to renegotiate the deal as a multilateral treaty with the 10 largest co2 emitters (China, EU, India, Russia, etc).
India is not a large emitter of co2. India’s yearly emissions are just one third of the world average emissions of about 5 T. per person and has a long long way to go !
Only the emissions per person count for the global warming? Well then, I guess Trump will be able sway the citizens in countries like Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to accept global warming eventually. At least worth a shot if you ask me.
India is the third largest emitter after China and the United States. Per capita emission may be low, but there is a lot of indians.
India is #4 worldwide
https://www.google.ca/search?lr=&as_qdr=all&ei=FkBZWKSlJeiD0gLwlriIBg&q=co2+emissions+by+country&oq=“CO2+emissions+by+coun”&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.0i7i30k1l5.11198.17226.0.21004.18.17.1.0.0.0.342.2611.4j9j2j2.17.0….0…1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..0.18.2643…0j0i8i7i30k1j0i10k1j0i67k1.7cVbHG1IAyg#imgrc=kubx1xPC7ZicaM%3A
Well that link busted
Try this
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2014/11/gw-graphic-pie-chart-co2-emissions-by-country-2011.jpg
“there is a lot of indians”
But so many of today’s problems can be correctly attributed to too many chiefs. Elected and unelected.
Sorry, I’ll get my hat.
Ashok Patel, India is the number three emitter, and both China and India are Increasing Emissions while the rest of the world is reducing.
skepticgonewild:
I am very sorry to inform you that the US is a signatory to the UNFCCC. George H. W. Bush signed it and the Senate approved it in 1992. If you are referring to the Paris agreement, then no, that can only be considered a presidential agreement that in no way binds the US to any of its provisions. The green blob is attempting to say we are bound to Paris by the UNFCCC because Paris is just an accord within that framework agreement, but as it is a change to the ratified text, it can not have effect on US law without ratification.
Hey Owen! I suspect you know more about the UNFCCC than I do, so correct me if I am mistaken. I was under the impression that the UNFCCC sets goals but is not binding on signatores. It is more of a framework for what is desirable and for how future negotiations may be structured. Is that correct?
Anything that can be signed by executive order, can be removed by executive order.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
The best answer to the claims that the US is bound by the Paris Accord will be Donald Trump dropping his pants, bending over, and showing them his backside.
Jason,
The full text is available online, but I am by no means an expert on it. I just went to the US State Department’s list of active treaties and saw that the UNFCCC was listed and what date it went into effect.
It is a matter of international law that any agreement which is changed must be ratified in the same manner as the original agreement. So, any accord negotiated under the framework agreement must be ratified in the same manner as the framework.
The UNFCCC has a one year opt out. It is a congressionaly approved Pact, not a Treaty. The Paris accord is an executive agreement under the Pact with a three year opt out after 1 year. Signed under one of three narrow executive agreement constitutional presidential powers: certain foreign policy actions (recognizing nations and ambassadors, commander in chief, faithfully uphold laws). Faster cleaner, and less reversible to drop out of UNFCCC.
This is the question that every American should be asking, to wit:
What happens if the US withdraws from the UN???
Hmm, maybe it means we won’t be complicit anymore in killing 10,000 starving Haitians by giving them cholera? We won’t be complicit in turning a blind eye while tens of thousands are butchered, like happened in Rwanda?
Name me one spot of conflict anywhere in the world where the UN is actually doing some good. I can’t think of any.
The US doesn’t need to withdraw from the UN: Just require that all countries pay fairly and the organization will dry up and blow away.
R Road is correct.
Hallelujah! We will be in the good company of Switzerland, that notorious land of backwardness, inelegance, and brutal behavior! (Full disclosure: I am a quarter Swiss.)
Now that would be a glorious day indeed. Both WWS and RockyRoad below make great points too.
The UN is a horrible thing that really is The Vampire Squid sucking the life out of our world. Defund it and it will be gone within a decade.
Imagine a modern ‘Sherman’ cutting a ‘swathe’ through California!
There are quite a number of us here who would prefer to continue to fish, farm, ranch, log, build rockets and electronics. As long as you keep your swathe south of the Tehachapis and west of the San Gabriles many would not mind a bit.
That actually ought to “south of the Transverse Ranges” since they run more or less east west.
We in the top third of California have been trying to secede from the lower two thirds for many decades now.
They steal our water and overtax us. We have a drought tax and our lakes are overflowing with water. California dreamin’ is becoming a reality. Or the results of it are pretty real.
Good luck — and I do mean that sincerely. It is not right that a group of people be held within a government which they do not agree to and do not approve of. I seem to remember a certain Mr. Jefferson saying (correctly) that people have a right to form the type of government which they desire.
Indeed. I’m a Brexiteer, and I believe that the people should have whatever they vote for and desire. Good luck to California in its endeavour to break from the rest of the U.S. I believe the way forward for us all is smaller collective societies, not multicultural continents of diverse beliefs.
California should be careful–there might be two states as a results: Northern California and Southern California. That would further isolate those in the south half that think they’re so indispensable.
I thought only Texas had the right to secede?
Texas has the right to divide itself into five separate states, not secede. We gave up that right when we annexed the U. S.
For a long time people have wanted to get away from Southern California. Perhaps the answer is Cascadia.
There have been “Don’t Californicate Oregon” bumper stickers. Do those still exist?
Not exactly, the people causing all the problems for the state are in the San Fran bay area. They come up with Eco rules and pay to get them enacted with Silicon Valley money, the mostly manufacturing southern CA then gets the brunt of the damage, because those Eco rules cause all our factories to shut down and move to other states. Don’t blame Socal for your troubles. This is why the state of “Jefferson” is usually defined as Santa Rosa North.
But a Santa Rosa North state (x-ing through the GG bridge) would still include ultra liberal SFO in the same state as Socal. A better split would be the Tehachapi ranges and would assist LA and the remaining half of SO CAL (population 17M of 34M) to have a state unaffected by those northerners.
A % of Northern Californians and Southern Oregonians would like to form the State of Jefferson. That concept has been around for awhile. …http://stateofjefferson.com/
Should be called Califoregon
Cali-fore-gon
Isn’t the point of your constitution that individual states can run their own affairs?
If California wants to comply with the United Nations Climate Change Accord then they may.
They just can’t sign anything internationally.
I fear you miss the point, M Courtney.. it’s not good enough to just do something – you have to be a PART of it all, must be seen. Loud and Proud. laws must be passed, meetings held, there must be much nodding and smiling. Heck, if it were enough just to do something then we’d see those convinced of their AGW righteousness walking everywhere and holding their breaths to keep the CO2 from escaping.
Exactly! Nothing is stopping them from preceding with their dream…and paying for it in the various ways both understood and overlooked.
Right. They’re involved in that stupid carbon trading scam with Quebec and Ontario. We in Quebec are blessed with abundant hydro power, so we generate less CO2 than they do, and they can buy credits from us, eh? Please don’t stand in their way. We need the $$$.
Yep! I’ve never understood why the practice of consuming less needs any government involvement. The Left clammer for tyrannical powers to enforce their programs, then complain when they have a tyrannical government doing things they don’t like!!
When will the Left finally understand that real change and “social justice” only occur through voluntary action and association?
Unfortunately, you are right. Much like the Federal Government, California is spending huge bucks it doesn’t have. They expect Californians will submit to more taxes to pay for bullet train and renewable energy forever – and more likely, big bailouts from the Feds. In neither case does anyone believe that either can operate without massive subsidies even after installation.
You can see from my name where I hail from, but God willing, come February I’ll be out of here – and hoping my new neighbors in Nevada don’t think I’m going to Californicate Nevada. I like the individualism they mostly espouse. Well, except for Las Vegas….
My wife and I recently drove up interstate five from Los Angeles to Spokane Washington. Once we passed Frasier Park all we saw the entire rest of the way were Trump signs. I take that back. We did see a very large “Hillary” sign once near Stockton, but when we were close enough to read the small print at the bottom it said “for prison 2017.” If the wack jobs that live along the coast think they’re going to secede from the union, I’m afraid the eastern half of the state will rebel and stay with the U.S., and if “Poems for our climate” is right (see post above) they’ll lose the entire upper third as well.
Correct. The divide is not north-south but coastal v inland, i.e. east-west. There used to be a few coastal counties less Leftwing but even Orange voted for Clinton in 2016. IIRC only Del Norte among coastal counties voted for Trump but it also went for Obama.
So I favor the saltwater counties seceding to form a mini-Chile-shaped nation and letting the interior counties remain in the Union as two or three states.
Exactly, and there is precedent with West Virginia for the inner counties to secede from the rest of California.
I guess that will provide a nice separation for damage assessment/relief when the San Andreas Fault finally lets loose
I think Orange Co voted for Hillary because so many didn’t think their vote would matter. The big cities (not so much the burbs) are extremely leftist. And we changed the rules so that the two contenders for the Senate were bot Democrats. GOP need not apply. Here on the coast, the anti-Trump sentiment was a tidal wave. e have lots and lots of universities, and those snowflakes have an out-sized influence on their parents. I have seen many of my friends change their viewpoints because of the silliness their kids bring home. Somehow, they’ve become convinced that fantasy is the new reality. What else would you expect from an area that supports Hollywood? It takes a strong mind to think for itself instead of just following the crowd… or their children, apparently.
Brit Nigel Farage has proven record in organising exit out of an even larger Union, now he is looking for a new assignment. He’s done Brexit with population 64M for the world’s 5th largest economy, doing the Calexit would be no problem for our Nige.
Sure, but what is your Nigel’s impact on the rest of the 7 billion? For this reason in my opinion the more Theresa and Boris can occupy Nigel within the new English assignment, the quicker the rest of the world is liberated from cAGW.
(un)fortunately st.Teresa instructed blundering Boris not to be on speaking terms with Nigel.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/18/nigel-farage-no-10-has-banned-ministers-from-talking-to-me
Farage had very little to do with organising anything. He wasn’t part of the leave campaign (which was also spectacularly terrible, to the point where one wonders if they were trying to lose) and his contributions to the debate amounted to riding a bus up and down the country and drinking a pint in front of photographers every few days.
He makes a pretty speech, but UKIP under his tenure turned from a reasonably well-organised party into a Nigel Farage publicity wagon. He doesn’t care about getting out of the EU so much as getting in the papers.
The real campaign took place over many years in the background, at places like EU Referendum, and succeeded in spite of people like Farage and the inept shower that was the leave campaign. In fact I’d go as far as to say that the reason leave won was more out of resentment at the political class than as a result of the efforts of any exit campaign.
But certainly no credit should be given to Nigel Farage.
Wow. No credit given to the guy who entered politics only to get the UK out of the EU, and was the world figure most associated with that effort You should work for Hillary, finding ways to blame her loss on anything but her own terrible personality and campaign.
As a strongly convinced ‘Remainer’, I see a bit of ‘humour’ as the means of exit from the whole fiasco.
Farage is associated by dint of flinging himself in front of the cameras whenever the topic comes up.
And you assume a great deal about me. I voted out, and I consigning voted ukip since it first appeared on the ballot and up until 2008, when it became clear that nigel was turning the party into his personal publicity machine.
If anything, his grandstanding set back the effort to get us out off the eu.
Vuk, I’d let california have him. He fit right in.
Have you lost it?!? If it wasn’t for Mr Farage, the UK would NEVER have even got the idea of leaving the EU talked about!!! He built a political force that, although small, touched the nerves of many, including many serving MPs in the Conservative Party. It was the threat (behind closed doors) of them leaping ship and joining Ukip that had Mr Cameron promise a referendum – that he never thought he would lose. Mr Farage hasn’t just changed UK history from what it would have been, he has changed the course of EU history, of Europe itself. He has stunned the beliefs of complete idiots like Nick Clegg and Tony Blair – that the British people would act like sheep. He saw that there was still a glimmer of democracy here despite the f@ascism of messrs Clegg and Blair. Whether you like or loathe him, he is STILL the only man who will stand up and say it exactly as it is, and never lie – that’s why, despite countless TV appearances, no interviewer can ever pull him up on an untruth. He may exaggerate, but he never tells a lie, and the British people can see that.
“But certainly no credit should be given to Nigel Farage” Jesus, talk about ignorance!
California does what it does best – lead.
In what sense does California lead? In numbers of homeless people sleeping in the streets of major cities? In departures of non-loony residents to states with viable economies? In having a trifecta of Pelosi, Boxer and Jerry Brown? In leftist celebrities making fatuous entreaties for us Deplorable Flyoverstan residents to reject the election outcome? Get real!
In hypocrisy, as they get other states to emit their CO2 for them by importing 33% of their electricity.
SteveT
+1
Hypocrisy is the capital funding the Democratic Party’s ideological engine. It runs on unicorn flatulance.
Also, without water from the Colorado Southern California would not have the population which it now has.
You left out exporting our power generation to other states. And a bullet train from nowhere to … nowhere. And proposing satellites that ‘hover’ over California. And trying to coax salmon to an area they’ve never been, while protecting California Spotted Owls (which are genetically the same as Oregon Spotted Owls, among others). Or protect mountain lions to the extent that they now have one-tenth the territory their pre-European era ancestors had to hunt in.
On the other hand, the other 49 states (and many countries) will pay absolutely anything to watch whatever crap comes out of Hollywood – our one resource other than just having a coastline. You all travel here to enjoy our beaches and amusement parks (more fantasy). Hm. I guess we do lead. Except I have to change ‘we’ to ‘they’ as I’m out of here come February. This place is a loony bin.
maybe the feds could just get out of the climate business and leave it up to the states. let them compete. we’ll see who wins and who loses.
+1 !
The UK has much the same issue with Scotland.
The problem for Scotland is that it WAS rich enough to secede through oil, but this is now running out…
Scotland has lots of coal, lots of coal-bed methane and lots of shale oil and shale gas. lots of shale oil and (most probably) lots of shale gas. It’s an energy rich country with a small population.
If they choose to exploit their resources………………………….
They won’t,their green politicians won’t let that happen.
What exactly would this secession entail? After all, the most convincing rejector of the validity of the global warming threat is mother nature.
Is the San Andreas fault line emitting some kind of brain altering fumes…?
The fumes come from an entirely different source. But it is biological, no worries.
IMO, California, as The United Kingdom, has all rights to choose independence. It is fair thing to do and a fair thing to support. I have no problem with that. Everybody becomes happy in their own way.
Article I, Section X – “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” This would seem to preclude the People’s Republic of California joining the climate change agreement unless they leave the union. They could voluntarily follow it, in theory, but they can’t sign anything. Of course, its not a treaty since the Senate didn’t ratify it. Of course “voluntarily’ in this case is a bit unclear since the Paris “Accord” is simply a collection of promises from nations. So, the PRC would have to submit a promise in order to then follow it. But, that would run afoul of the Constitution.
I assume those counties of California that prefer to remain in the USA could do so. This may lead to half of California leaving, and half staying.
We used to joke that global warming is a religion to those nuts.. It’s no joke anymore, global warming really is a religion to them. Infringe on their religion and they’ll go loopy and are capable of anything.
Amendment 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
The Church of Warming is just a sect of the Government created religion of Secular Socialism. The founders left out a clause that should have prohibited the government from creating its own religion.
In many ways it is similar to Scientology
We tried that secession gambut here in Quebec. Twice. It didn’t go over, but unlike the Scots who posed a direct, clear Yes or No question, we’re pretty good at creating confusing, garbled, tricky and misleading referendum questions, so we’d be happy to help Gov. Brown fool his own populace with a whopper.
What ‘California does best’ is to sink deeper and deeper into debt, while lousing up the lives of everyone stuck there. Every friend I have in CA is in pain financially, physically (health care is in a shambles)….. if they could afford it I would and Have advise(d) LEAVING.
The California idiots should pay attention to OBVIOUS evidence like this:
:large
And this:
Hmm. This is just a test as I don’t know why that first image didn’t show. Is it because of the “:large” at the end of it? I’ll try it without that.
Test:
Surf over to the WUWT Test page for this sort of thing. Also, there a lot of helpful tips and HowTo information.
Eric:
Err, no.
They should “pay attention to OBVIOUS evidence like this:” …
(using the correct scaling so that the slope is matched THROUGHOUT the record and not missing off a chunk and deceptively picked to be skewed for the latter part).
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/decadal-with-forcing-small.png
From a study with Richard Muller (former sceptic) as a lead scientist.
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf
Or this that shows the fit of the empirical 5.35xln(400/280) forcing equ….
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png
Also:
The bit (surface) that the IPCC was projecting for – not for a large slice of the troposphere that has a cooling trend at the top (an AGW outcome), and using a now *adjusted* sat temp data products that still don’t agree with sonde data.
Oh, BTW: Do you have the 95% conf limits for that graph?
Toneb: Not obvious at all.
Tone,
Muller was never a skeptic and BEST is a pack of lies.
The only thing missing from those 3 graphics is the CO2 scale. Or is the RED BAR representative of CO2
@toneb(flat)
Nice curve fit by Muller and Mosh. Where the actual data do not “match the slope throughout”, you pull the “natural logarithm” out of hindquarters.
“The natural logarithm of a number is its logarithm to the base of the mathematical constant e, where e is an irrational and transcendental approximately equal to 2.718281828459”
I particularly like the irrational and transcendental part. Please explain what this constant has to do with the relationship between CO2 and temperature?
Actually, California might be described as a natural logarithm. With a few billion in unfunded pension liability,
succession and tilting at Carbon windmills are positively irrational and transcendental.
Um nope
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;…” (Article I, Section 10)
Sorry, to make it own Paris treaty California would have to secede.
OH, and I suspect water, electricity and debt may be a problem if they secede from the union
I’m sure they’d accept import and export. I’m also sure their marvellous economy would survive well.
The obvious problem being, that most of California’s ‘challenges’ are caused by California’s ‘solutions’ to non-problems.
Secede or don’t, I really don’t care, but understand that California is heading towards the same end as Detroit, and the rest of the US isn’t going to support them once they get there.
“The obvious problem being, that most of California’s ‘challenges’ are caused by California’s ‘solutions’ to non-problems.”
Yes, California’s “fixes” are what cause them problems. They will figure it out one of these days. But they will probably have to crash and burn first.
This is the best idea the left has had yet, the green / socialist mental illness will be banished from these gullible minds pretty quickly
As long as you don’t let those affected leave for other states and restart an infection elsewhere.
SteveT
Considering California’s treatment of “Oakies” in the ’30’s, what goes around comes around.
Californication has already ruined Oregon and Colorado. ID, UT & MT are threatened by refugees from CA who didn’t learn what wrecked the state they fled.
Under Constitutional law, California has every right to adopt any environmental standards they wish, however, they do not have the the right to unilaterally make a treaty between any foreign entity, as only the Executive Branch is constitutionally empowered to do so, with the proviso the treaty receives 2/3rds Senate approval.
I think it would be a great idea for California to secede and form a seperate country, as It would virtually guarantee the Democrats would never win another presidential election…. ever…
Any intelligent corporation would soon leave the People’s Republic of Kalifornia, and move to Texas, which has no state business tax and minimal business rules, regulations and mandates…
Perhaps this is a co-incidence only, but the protesting climate seems to correlate with the global warming threat: this time the photo-op attracted only a couple of protestors from the activist minority. And yet only ready printed signs were provided, no white coats. The faces were concealed only by turning away from the camera, instead of buried in sand, smothered in paint or something similar requiring more investment.
It is hard not to draw parallels to our EU referendum in the UK. Strangely, nobody hoping to overturn the EU vote is calling for a re-run because the polls now suggest the Leave campaign would increase their lead from 52% to 60%. The scare stories are confirmed as bogus and are no longer scary. Maybe when the American electorate have had a taste of DJT and there is no WW3, his second term will be viewed as a good thing.
We also have the Scottish independence debate, but the Scots are an usual case. Universally loathed for having the world’s biggest chip on their shoulders they were pushed back as civilisation spread across Europe. Eventually with their backs to the sea they had to turn and fight, but they still seem to hate everyone apart from the French.
Robin
Presumably you mean ‘unusual’ case?
What mystifies me is that no one mentions that Scotland has no money as the already illusory wealth from north sea oil has faded to a dribble.
Tonyb
Funny Robin. Replace ‘Scottish/Scotts’ with ‘English’ in the second paragraph and then think what should ‘French’ at the end be replaced with.
I did rather borrow that from T H White who had a glorious rant about the Scotti, “the race which had been expelled by the volcano of history into the far quarters of the globe, where with a venemous sense of grievance and inferiority, they even nowadays proclaim their ancient megalomania…”.
Currently represented in Parliament by the Jock Block. The SNP Members who sit there muttering and voting against anything and everything that does not mean more money or devolved power for Scotland.
P. J. O’Rourke couldn’t have said it better.
This is just rubbish, you can’t define Scots like that. Many Scots want to be independent, and many are stupidly afraid of that. Europe has lots of countries with under ten million inhabitants doing well. Look at Denmark, the smørreøyn i kanelbulle. Or something. I don’t think we should give up independence to the big-government Eusoviet Union. Europeans need strong and common army, but not bureaucrats thinking how a measure a cucumber, or how to completely open external borders.
I was actually referring to O’Rourke’s classic piece for the National Lampoon back in the late 70s, Foreigners Around the World. It’s a VERY non-PC look at other races and nationalities; here’s one of the least offensive descriptions:
Actually, he did do one for the Scots: