I wouldn’t have believed it if it were in any other newspaper but the very liberal San Francisco Chronicle – h/t to WUWT reader “crosspatch” who writes:
Was AB32 based on any data provided by the Air Resources Board?
According to various articles:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-carb-economic-analysis-ab32-0362.html
CARB had a lot of input in this legislation. They have a history if politics interfering with science and I have no confidence that this law is based on sound findings.
Here’s the story from the Chron:
(10-07) 16:36 PDT Sacramento – —
California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.
The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.
The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates in the Air Board’s work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation – not the economic downturn.
The overestimate, which comes after another bad calculation by the Air Board on diesel-related deaths that made headlines in 2009, prompted the board to suspend the regulation earlier this year while officials decided whether to weaken the rule.
Today, after months of work, the Air Board and construction industry officials announced they agreed on a major scale-back of the rule – a proposal that includes delaying the start of the requirements until 2014 and exempting more vehicles from the rule. The announcement was made as The Chronicle was preparing to publish this report, which had been in the works for several weeks.
The setbacks in the Air Board’s research – and the proposed softening of a landmark regulation – raise questions about the performance of the agency as it is in the midst of implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 – or AB32 as it is commonly called, one of the state’s and nation’s most ambitious environmental policies to date.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11iqEfuN9
A better way of looking at this:
Look at the air quality studies CARB did when it first came into existence. What percentage of the air pollution that existed THEN are these regulations going to eliminate? If we have already removed 90% of the pollution (random number picked for illustration) that we had in the 1960’s, and if this regulation removes 1% of that yet is more expensive than the than the things that removed amounts in the double digits, then maybe it is nuts. But they attempt to shift the focus by moving the baseline to today’s levels. So every time you clean the air, they move the baseline to now and act as if no improvement has been made. These improvements must be looked at in context with what things originally looked like and what has already been done.
Great, anything that points to a waning of the Attention Deficit Disorder paid to the Agenda Driven Disorder gets me to whistle a happier tune!
Now let’s get the enviro-loon costs down and get this show back on the road!
CARB is the same group of hubristic imbeciles who decided that they knew more about physics and engineering than the professionals (a.k.a. evil auto corporations if you’re inclined to reflexively assume corporations are evil, especially industrial ones) and ordained from on high that cars would be electric by some idiot date, which is now in the past.
CARB is the very picture of the worst case beauracracy imaginable: corrupt, politically oriented apparatchiks who are barely qualified operate a TV set and can’t otherwise outwit fruit are pressed into dubious service making SCIENCE and ENGINEERING decisions by their political masters.
If only I were King; CARB would not only be disbanded, but those responsible would be drawn and quartered on pay per view. CARB is another agency responsible for turning CA into the hellhole of unemployment and ridiculous taxes that it is today.
OK, so much for praising them… I also have bad things to say about them.
Heh, check this out:
So you might say “its only 439 cars, that’s not so bad”. But they have only sold 1,300 of those vehicles … globally … ever. That 439 is probably this year’s entire production run. And it costs >$100,000 a copy. Sounds like an expensive Car-B-Que (my apologies to Gigsville).
Chris says:
October 7, 2010 at 7:30 pm
AB32 and the CARB are laggards! The AQMB in Southern California has over the past several years mandated trucks in the LA and Long Beach harbor area to convert over to very expensive hybrid/electric trucks, forcing the retirement of older trucks. Because of the economic downturn, these new trucks are killing independent drivers, who are quitting the business. California state agencies are not as aggressive as the local agencies and the duplication of regulations is truely astounding.
Sorry for the typo s/b “AQMD”
I assume that the were 340% off due to the precautionary principle.
crosspatch says: October 7, 2010 at 5:48 pm
The real problem is that CARB is part of a larger philosophy to extract the elected government from the business of governing and handing more of that to unelected bureaucrats. CARB approves its own regulations and does not require the governor or the legislature to sign off on them.
CARB does not stand before the voters. They are beholden to nobody but themselves. No other state that I am aware of has an “Air Resources Board” and they get along just fine. They are a waste of the taxpayer’s money and they are what amounts to regulatory bullies. If you wish to appeal a regulation’s impact on you, you take your appeal back to them. We must eliminate this agency.
_______________________________________________
I strongly agree with this, but it’s far worse. When I moved to CA in 1996, my car was fined $700 to be registered in CA because it didn’t have a sticker saying “complies with California…..” Biennial smog checks showed it DID comply, but the state is more interested in stickers and revenue than actual emissions. Back then, there were 49 state cars and California cars. Since then, 7 other states automatically follow California rules, and most automakers don’t bother to sell high mileage diesel cars in the US market.
CARB is single-handedly keeping high mileage, low CO2 emissions cars out of the US because of CARB’s obsessive hatred for diesels. European countries are politically greener than the US and diesels make up about 1/2 of all new car sales in Europe. They get about 30% better mileage and 30% lower CO2 emissions than the same cars with spark ignited engines. Go to http://www.edmunds.com/ and check out the mileage rating for the SAME CAR Mercedes E class or VW Jetta with the two types of engines.
CARB is the organization most responsible for CO2 emissions in the US.
It’s NOT as bad as we thought!
@jim:
@Peter Miller:
Socialist, Socialism ? You Americans do NOT have socialism; you have nothing close to Socialism. Don’t blame your problems on socialism when you Do NOT have socialism. Oh wait a minute I was in error you DO have socialism for Wall St. (Billions for investment bankers on hard times) but NOT for Main St , Main St. gets Uber Capitalism !!
California has been exhibiting a lack of intelligence. They developed an adaptation strategy to adapt to … nothing. There is no warming (and temperature correlates to PDO) and most of the state has no sea level rise.
See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/California_Adaptation.htm
@Dan in California: I disagree with your position: diesels emit particulates which are actual air pollution causing health problems – CO2 is not air pollution.
Alan Cheetham says: October 8, 2010 at 1:00 pm
@Dan in California: I disagree with your position: diesels emit particulates which are actual air pollution causing health problems – CO2 is not air pollution.
______________________________
Federal EPA regulations already address the particulates. We don’t need an additional State agency second guessing the federal agency. And I only mentioned CO2 reduction because many laws in many jurisdictions already mandate its reduction. Of course it’s not a pollutant.
From the linked article:
“Meanwhile, the estimate of premature deaths linked to diesel engine particulate matter has been downsized to 9,200 from the previous study of 18,000.”
This had the effect of causing over 8,000 zombies to rise up from their graves and go staggering down the street, grateful for their reanimation.
Aint California great? LOL!
@Alan Cheetham: Tell me how CARB can prove how many deaths are caused from diesel particulates in California? Especially since they lifted their data from Kentucky’s pollution numbers. These bureaucrats are not only dishonest, but lack the basic background to do this type of work. Anyone working for CARB is tied to politics and their opinions should be discounted!
Stuart Varney (standing in for Neil Cavuto) gave this story prominent coverage on Fox News this afternoon.
First, when is CARB done? Hasn’t CARB done enough? CARB has already stated that the biggest threat to air quality is dairy cattle flatulence, not cars and trucks. These environmental agencies need to find ways to grow their power. They can never actually finish. We need to cut them to maintenance of what we already have. The low-hanging fruit is done. The new mandates will be marginal improvements and very expensive. STOP already!
Second, when CARB states the risk is around 10,000 deaths (out of a population of 38 million), that amount is in the noise and cannot be statistically significant. I used to live in New York City. Diesel particulates were a way of life. Who died early? Of what? Diesel? Who could tell? What a waste of resources. The vehicle replacement costs are passed on to tax payers, rate payers, and in prices paid for goods and services. Don’t imagine that somebody else pays for new regulations. It isn’t big corporations or county governments. You are the one who pays.
AB32 was based on what Enviro Studies students were reading back in the 1980s, namely, “The Monkeywrench Gang” and “Ecotopia.”
“Around” 10K deaths per year should be compared with around 250K annual deaths in California, which is not trivial It says that one out of 25 people who die in California does so prematurely as a result of particulate pollution. That’s a huge number, and hardly noise.
What I find odd is that nobody notes that the statement is misleading, whether it’s 18K or 9K per year. The scientific measure of premature mortality is years lost, not lives lost. If somebody with weak lungs would have died at 64 and instead, due to breathing diesel exhaust, dies at 63.9, that’s a premature death but not very significant. If pollution is killing people in their 30’s, we should worry, but no evidence has been presented.
Josh says:
October 8, 2010 at 9:10 am
“[…] DDT might affect to some point, but the reason we use it here often is because it is similar to CO2. It is claimed as the main reason for egg thinning, but often it is such a small factor in the process of building an egg the justification for removing it from our lives, and hence the large number of deaths from malaria, doesn’t seem to make sense.”
I know; but i got interested myself in the link between “Silent Spring”, DDT, raptor egg shell thinning etc.. BTW here in N Germany, raptors were nearly extinct in the 70ies; they made a great recovery, last year i had the pleasure to see a huge Red Milan flying right beside my car as i was driving through the countryside at Hildesheim. In a valley not afflicted by wind turbines…
The unsatisfactory fact remains that by now no physiological mechanism has been identified to explain a possible link between DDT and egg shell thinning…
This pertains to Cows, Cars, Ships and more CARB type BS from CARB’s evil little snotmonster the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
From an Article posted on the Fresnonewsblog….my comments follow:
http://fresnobeehive.com/news/2010/06/did_you_know_there_are_22_mill.html#comments
What makes more sense?
1-scrub 80% of the emissions from 1 cargo ship.
2-Chase after the emissions of 40 million car emissions equivalents (cars or trucks)
3-Cork the asses of 65 million cows?
Enjoy the link to my “Mad Cow Math” and testament to the magnitude of the incompetence or outright FRAUD being perpetrated upon the state and federal programs funding these ‘misCOWculations’.
Didn’t these guys get a big Grant or award from the Feds back in 2009 for meeting some imaginary emissions reduction targets?
An Article from the Bee Blog concerning Carb, Cows, Cars and Cargo emissions…
http://fresnobeehive.com/news/2010/06/did_you_know_there_are_22_mill.html#comments
In Australia we went one better.
The Diesel Fuel Rebate Amendment Bill 2002 used the Excise Act 1901 (+ Customs Act of same era) to extend the eligibility for rebates on the exercise of diesel fuels.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2001-02/02bd147.htm
Then we went to an Energy Grants Credit System (discussion) http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/986/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=fuel_tax_credit_revised020605-01.asp
where any business with AUS$3 million fuel tax credits MUST be part of the Greenhouse Challenge Program.
Reasonable overview here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia
What was disgraceful though, were the social sciences and their use of extensive lobbying, using the remote communities and youth petrol sniffers (volatile substance abusers) to force mining to develop fuels specific to the regional population. The social sciences did this AFTER they had published academic report after report condemning mining and its effect on the environment (and people as an after-thought), though assisted key persons to collect royalties from the same mining ventures.
Volatile substance abuse studies since 1985, have all omitted to properly count the actual number of youth, fuel type and amount inhaled and omitted other important factors in their studies eg the extensive use of marijuana, complete absence of primary and secondary education and employment, gross human abuses, including lack of rule of law etc. Australia even had a Royal Commission (1991) that commented upon the volatile substance and a Senate Inquiry (2008) directly related to the matter.
BP Australia kindly rolled out OPAL (unleaded petrol) fuel across three states in Australia in remedy of the lobbying. Though unleaded petrol and then Avgas, the latter being quite successful, had all been trialled for decades. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/Committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/petrol_sniffing/submissions/sub03.pdf
As such all the wilderness area and small communities of central Australia have a fuel that is NOT used for vehicles any where else in Australia and that reportedly is kinder to the environment. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2006-ta-abb010.htm?OpenDocument
The benefits analysed to roll out the fuel were estimated to be AUS$50-70 million
http://www.waru.org/organisations/npywc/Opal%20Report%20FINAL%2006_02_23.pdf
The saga certainly gives Ayers Rock (Uluru), the tourists and that hot desert climate a whole new meaning. Let alone the deaths of young people and those young people who live in the region.
So the AGW-discussion has now reduced to a policital mud party. A warning to ‘skeptics’: keep to the subject of climate (change), otherwise you are lost within the year and forgotten within the next.
RR Kampen,
You should know better than to make predictions like that.
And stop misrepresenting the issue: It is CO2=CAGW, not “climate change.” Folks here know the climate always changes. Naturally.