Calif. initiative a test for national climate law
By: CATHY BUSSEWITZ
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. — If the supporters of Proposition 23 prevail in the Nov. 2 election, California’s landmark global warming law would be suspended indefinitely.
But the out-of-state oil companies funding the initiative appear to have their sights set higher. Success in halting California’s climate-change law by showing the public doesn’t support it would give momentum to the opponents of similar legislation that has stalled in Congress.
The ballot initiative also has the power to reverse one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature environmental accomplishments. In 2006, he signed the Global Warming Solutions Act, a Democratic bill that requires reduction of greenhouse gas emissions statewide to 1990 levels over the next decade.
The law, AB32, is a cornerstone of the environmental legacy the Republican governor is trying to leave and is scheduled to take effect in 2012. The California agency overseeing air regulations has already started working on the rules to implement it.
Proposition 23 calls for a postponement of AB32 until the state’s unemployment rate, now at 12.4 percent, falls to 5.5 percent and stays there for a year — a feat that has happened just three times over the last 30 years, according to state statistics.
…
AB32 calls for limits on emissions generated by industry, transportation, electricity generation and natural gas consumption. The law also calls for a third of the state’s electricity and energy to come from renewable resources by 2020. The new mandates would reduce consumption of fossil fuels.
Supporters of Prop. 23 say that increased regulations and fees on industrial greenhouse gas emitters would prompt companies to leave the state or expand elsewhere, taking sorely needed jobs with them.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breaking/calif-initiative-a-test-for-national-climate-law-104367163.html#ixzz11eDgU6Yh
There is a lot of money being thrown into both sides of the lobbying on this bill, and it is going to come to a head on November 2nd.
California unemployment is high, and the electricity users of this state just got hit with a double whammy of public relations stupidity from the Public Utilities Commission with a rate hike for PG&E, plus the simultaneous installation of Smart Meters that are getting the blame from users that don’t understand why their electricity bills went up.
People in California are hopping mad about this, and I suspect some of that anger will get transferred to the ballot box. A recent Sacramento Bee poll showed likely voters to be split on the measure, but given the palpable anger out there, I don’t think that is a representative sample.
Read about AB32 here
Read about prop 23 to repeal it here
Re: The 1/3 energy from renewables:
I read recently that CA had cancelled a contract to buy power from Utah (which they were consigned to likely due to their self destructive refusal to build power plants in CA). And the reason? Because Utah is largely coal fired power. So, the Auto-Regression into self destruction has been worsening… In common vernacular we might refer to this as: “Cutting your own n$ts off” Brilliant!
Chuck, getting all that green energy is easy. Up north in Oregon our smart legislature has decided hydro power is not green. CA can say hydro is green and buy up all our dirty hydro power.
Meanwhile we will shut down the coal fired Boardman plant and get 100% of our energy from solar and windmills. This will be sustainable amount of energy becasue we are also in the process of chasing out all the businesses with taxes, land use laws and higher energy cost. The remaining population will move out of state to follow the jobs (hello Texas). Also, ODFW will then let the Wallowa wolves eat all our methane emitting cows and other herbivores. We will then be a zero emitting GHG state park in short order.
You Californians think you have it bad?
Doug says:
October 7, 2010 at 7:27 am
“Hey, thats my federal land in Wallowa County too, and I would rather have it covered with wolves than a bunch of sacred cows at the public trough. Of course, I’m just an elitist from Bend. Why don’t we stay on topic here?”
Denzel Ferguson reader I see- Vegan,too? don’t shop at Safeway? Grow your own?
Wolves don’t just stay on federal land. These aren’t the native wolf. the native wolf was more like a Half-breed Coyote. Probably was. These things are a human induced
invasive species. The are decimating Elk and Deer herds. and Cattle-even behind their
own fences. While I do think Wolves can be intergrated in to an ecosystem, the Gray Wolf of the north is not it. It isn’t just Federal land. Yes this is on topic as it is an example of the intentions of well meaning people going awry.. Just like the California law.
Anthony, Roger Sowell’s reply here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/07/californias-ab32-a-litmus-test-for-climate-law/#comment-501929 is so full of well reasoned and common sense arguments that you might like to invite him to turn it into a blog posting.
REPLY: It’s already in the publishing que – Anthony
I will vote for 23. I signed the petition to get it on the ballot. I would happier if it was an outright repeal of AB32 instead of a suspension. However, the suspension may be an easier political sell.
Roger Sowell says:
October 7, 2010 at 11:00 am
Pro-AB 32 arguments:
====
Well balanced and insightful.
You forgot to point out, this is the new Nonlinear Derivative Financial Scheme that will ultimately Bankrupt the World for the “benefit of the few” while the kids play video games.
Haven’t “we” had enough of financial Bubbles created from Nonlinear Derivative Schemes; 1980-present?
RogerSowell:
Very good analysis! As a venture capitalist, my firm does not invest in California for any so called ‘green energy’ opportunities. For example, solar manufacturing cannot be done in California because it is dirty manufacturing. Crystal growing and casting are metallurgical processes which are relatively energy intensive since they are processing molten silicon at around 1600°C. Consequently, most if not all such manufacturing are done in Mexico and China, which then ship the end product to California for final assembly. So someone, somewhere will have to pollute the atmosphere. Thin film or other solar manufacturing is a very, very dirty business.
As far as I can see, installing solar panels is not a “green job”, it’s a make work program for illegals. On-demand, cash pay, short term. It’s perfect!
I am truly in awe at the level of “stupid” required to even want AB32. Every day I see more evidence that California truly is the land of fruits, nuts, and the logic-challenged. Too bad, it’s so beautiful!
In the US, per capita emissions of CO2 peaked in the early 70s at about 23 tons and have been flat to slightly declining since 1990 at about 19 tons. The most current numbers I could find were for 2007, but preliminary figures for more recent times indicate a downward trend. Population growth in California from 1990 to the present has been on the order of 7-8 million. The illegal immigrant population of California is estimated at around 3 million. Rounding them up and deporting them could potentially get the state almost 40% of the way to matching the total emissions level of 1990. This is admittedly a slightly draconian proposal but if, as seems to the case, we are at the point where we need to be blowing up people who aren’t willing to do their part in fighting this deadly menace, everything should be on the table. Some may argue that we need these folks to do jobs that others will not do, but recent stories about Meg Whitman’s domestic employee getting $23/hr suggest we may need to reexamine that proposition in the light of an entirely different wage standard than what most people imagine as the going rate.
To finish the job all that would be required is enacting enough of these environmental restrictions to create a net exodus of another 4-5 million citizens, which could completely close the gap with the 90s. If the restrictions were scary enough to accomplish this quickly, they wouldn’t ever actually have to be implemented and Californians could continue down their path to financial and social oblivion while enjoying carbon footprints that are pretty much status quo.
Given recent events in the PR realm, I feel compelled to add that I’m sort of kidding.
I suspect that AB32 will do more than reduce CO2 emissions to the 1990 levels – it will probably reduce them a LOT further just by the massive emigration of businesses and people out of the state.
Darrin is correct. The cleanest power source we have, hydro, is not considered “green.” Of course the greenies would love to rip out the dams that produce the hydro power in order to increase water for the fish. They don’t reckon with the fact that those same dams that provide power protect populated areas from catastrophic floods. In the 1850s the fellow doing the geo survey for Calif. noted that after heavy rains in the mountains the Sacramento River was 25 miles wide and up to the 2nd floors in Sacramento. Maybe that would clean out the state government!!!! Here in N. Cal. we don’t get enough sunshine in the winter for solar panels to produce. Everyone I know on solar has to use generator backup during the winter. They also usually use propane for refrigeration and cooking.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 7, 2010 at 6:03 am
Gore & Blood?
Sorry but given what’s gone on, I would definitely have put it the right way round! Founders of G.I.M.. Blood & Gore!
DaveE,
I am totally on topic. California is our test case. What happens there will visit each of us in our states unless we rise up and put a stop to it.
First Point: Restrictions on manufacturing, agricultural production, and use of public federal lands (these lands being another issue for another day) for productive purposes by burdensome taxes and over-zealous rules and regulations, will harm economic stability. Which in turn will harm environmental stability. If you want to see a polluted country, visit a de-stabilized one. Better yet, just to drive home the point, have a drink of water in that country. Then wait a few hours.
Environmental improvement comes when economic engines are running, not when they are not running. Ah. But maybe that is the end game.
Second Point: In an empty county like Wallowa County is becoming, it might as well be filled with wolves. However, be careful what you wish for, or vote for. This “animal loving” direction will go around to bite greenies in the arse. Eventually, “they” will come after you and you will scream bloody murder. But then, you have done that before. Remember field burning? You didn’t want to live in a valley that was invaded by smoke in the fall (did you know that it used to be worse PRIOR to modern agriculture?). So you worked to end it. Welcome to the world of not wanting to live next to something that makes you uncomfortable. Wolves make me very uncomfortable. What is worse, we didn’t vote this in. It was forced on us. Greenies are all hyped about voting in the animals. They will change their tune when their right to vote is removed.
But it’s all good. No pressure.
Please vote “No”; we can use the jobs you’re still sending to Texas (sarc).
Pamela Gray
exactly-as the son and grandson (gr. grandson,for that matter) of NE Oregon SW
Washngton, and Central Idaho, Cattle and Wheat Ranchers, this will, indeed rise up and bite those who have no idea what making a living off the land is like. Here is a wiki on what was called “The Big Burn of 1910″ for those of us who yearn for”The good old days.” My Granpa and Granma on my father’s side were in Wallace,ID when they evacuated the town. My railroader Granpa stayed, and help load the Passengers, and did not get out when they started the backfire, 2/3rds of the town was saved.
The Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_1910
scroll down for the story of the Great Pulaski.
I see the fight in Kalifornia over their right to self-imposed irrelevance continues.
The citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania salute your noble efforts, sometimes with more than one finger.
Carry on.