A few thoughts on California's Proposition 23 "battle for the planet"

As we head to the polls November 2nd, one of the ugliest and most watched global warming battles will get a litmus test by the voters of California. First some background.

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act called AB32 was passed by the Legislature in  2006 and requires the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions (mostly CO2)  to 1990 levels by 2020. Proposition 23 on the ballot tomorrow would suspend the law temporarily, until the state unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters.

Proponents of AB23 say the suspension is needed because California is financially and figuratively broke, energy costs are already the highest in the nation (I paid 40 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity this summer in 100 degree heat), and it will drive more businesses out of California. Relocation has been on my mind as of late, that’s for sure. Many of my business friends are thinking similar thoughts. California is poised to kill the goose that laid the golden state egg.

Critics say the usual emotional talking points we hear regularly; we have to save the Earth and California has to set the example. I’ll point out that California has already set an example on the world stage, and has the toughest pollution restrictions in the USA. But, the greens here don’t know when to stop. For them, environmental legislation is like an addiction. They can’t seem to get enough to satisfy their cravings.

From my vantage point here in California, the battle has gotten pretty ugly and I can’t wait for November 2nd to be over. This is probably the fiercest state election I’ve ever seen. Virtually every nasty attack ad and dirty trick of all sorts have been hauled out of cold storage to be thrust on-air, onto the web, and into print media. The battle over Proposition 23 is particularly tiresome, since the greens have pulled out all the stops, and have reportedly outspent the backers of Prop 23 by a 2 to 1 margin. The New  York Times reported on October 11th that:

As of Monday, the No on 23 forces had raised $16.3 million to the Yes campaign’s $8.9 million, according to California Secretary of State records. Over the last two weeks, nearly $7 million has flowed into No campaign coffers while contributions to the Yes effort had fallen off strikingly.

A lot of that money has come from the Hollywood elite, with Titanic Chicken of the Sea director James Cameron donating a million dollars to the anti Prop 23 campaign.

The money is making the battle on television and web ads reach the supersaturation point. Amazingly, Prop 23 ads even made it into the World Series:

In fact, the anti prop 23 saturation is so bad,  I’ll bet that in the Google ads below this, you’ll see a Prop 23 “Dirty Energy” ad appear. Like this one:

Of course the premise of the web ad is a lie. Existing air pollution laws in California won’t change, and companies are still free to develop and sell clean energy solutions wherever the market leads them. And when you look at California’s energy supply…

Energy Generation in California: Source: Figure E-1 California Energy Commission - http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009_energypolicy/

…you have to ask yourself: “where’s the dirty energy problem?” With coal making up only 18.2%, “dirty energy” is really a non-issue.

“Dirty energy” wailing aside, all that will happen is that the Prop 23 (if passed) will put AB32 on hold until such time that California’s wrecked economy recovers and people are back to work and unemployment drops to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Critics say this is impossible, but when you look at California’s unemployment rate since 2000, you see it is not:

California's unemployment rate since 2000 - Data from Bureau of Labor Statistics

From the suspendab32.org fact sheet:

California produces only 1.4% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, so our efforts to address climate change cannot be successful alone. AB 32’s go-it-alone approach will impose massive costs on businesses that can be easily avoided by relocation across state or national boundaries. Other states and countries are postponing costly global warming regulations. Suspending AB 32 is common sense and protects businesses and families from cost increases that would result from moving forward with AB 32 now.

Of course I’ll probably be labeled an oil shill for even citing this website, but the only dog I have in this fight is one of my own business survival.

And while we are on the subject of money, I want to say that money has turned the Prop 23 issue into a veritable circus here. TV radio and web is being carpet bombed with anti prop 23 ads. It’s so bad that some other political candidates are complaining they can’t buy ad space on radio and TV.

But what is the worst, is the fact the the anti prop 23 crowd has abandoned all pretense of it being about science related to global warming. Instead, they are focusing on making the issues about pollution and what they call “dirty energy”. Then, they tug at emotional heartstrings. For example, have a look at this ad where the American Lung Association prostitutes itself for the anti prop 23 campaign. This ad has been getting constant airplay:

Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eEmXlJ-Gts

The kid with the inhaler is a nice touch, don’t you think? There’s no science here, AB32 it’s about limiting CO2 and other GHG’s, not particulates! Kids don’t need inhalers for 390 ppm of CO2! And I used to think the Lung Association was a straight shooter. With this ad, they’ve reached a slimy low. They are off my list of charities now. They should be off everyone’s.

And it gets worse. This screwball advertising focus on “dirty energy” and “dirty pollution”, problems that have already been mostly solved in California and have little to do with GHG’s like CO2, has been so intense that it’s illegally spilled over into the ballot language itself.

The Sacramento Bee reports:

Ballots printed for the county’s roughly 380,000 registered voters say Proposition 23 would suspend laws requiring “major polluters” to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That language was thrown out by a Sacramento superior court judge, who ordered several edits to the original language drafted by the attorney general’s office, including changing “major polluters” to “major sources of emissions.”

The Proposition 23 campaign has demanded that the county “take immediate steps to reprint the ballots remaining to be sent to vote by mail voters as well as ballots to be distributed on election day.”

“Fresno County is a county of significant size in California and in a close election, its vote, now tainted by this serious error, could call into question the state results and possibly give rise to an election contest and require a new statewide election on Proposition 23,” attorney Colleen C. McAndrews wrote in a letter to the Fresno elections officials.

According to Paul Chesser in the American Spectator:

Officials say it’s too late to do anything about the 140,000 mail-in ballots that have already been distributed, and that they will post signs with the correct language at polling places.

Well la dee dah, what if Prop 23 loses by about 100,000 votes? Do we get a do-over? A month ago, the LA Times reported Prop 23 was in a dead heat.

Now the LA Times says support for Prop 23 is slipping:

Education mattered more than income in the survey. Among likely voters with college degrees, 55% opposed Proposition 23, as opposed to 37% of those with a high school degree or less. But there was no significant difference between those earning more than $80,000 a year, or less than $40,000

But there’s that education issue again. and as pointed out in our recent WUWT profile of the thoughts of Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., the haves versus the have-nots of education are greatly outnumbered:

So it’s still a crapshoot in my book. And that’s why the legal battle over the ballot language could be very important.

There’s nothing good I can say about the debate surrounding Prop 23. There’s been a lot of dirty pool played. I was invited to be in a community leaders debate on Prop 23 by my local Chico State University, but they balked and I was disinvited when I said I wanted to show some slides, even though there were no caveats on presentation style in the invitation. Plus the student debate just a couple of hours before, in the very same room, organized by the very same people, used slides. But I couldn’t?

What would I have shown? Well, in additional to showing the unemployment slide (above) there’s really only two slides and one news story that matter to the faulty science behind California’s AB 32 global warming law.

Here’s what I would have talked about if I was allowed:

1. I would have shown a screencap of this story in the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sfochroncapture.png

And pointed out or read these pertinent passages:

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 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.

The 340% error really calls the regulatory authority of CARB into question.

2. This graph about CO2 being logarithmic along with this text.

The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions.

But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:

We’ve already gotten most of the warming CO2 will provide.

3. And finally this graph and map:

Goodrich (1996) showed the importance of urbanization to temperatures in his study of California counties in 1996. He found for counties with a million or more population the warming from 1910 to 1995 was 4F, for counties with 100,000 to 1 million it was 1F and for counties with less than 100,000 there was no change (0.1F).

I’d ask this question: How does a CO2 molecule know which county to heat the most?

ca_temp_trend_map.gif

But, as we’ve seen, the argument about global warming, AB32, and Prop 23 isn’t about science, it’s about emotions, icons, power, elitism, and money. Lots of money.

Whatever happens on election day, the issue is far from over. As I commented to Dr. Judith Curry recently, it is like the world’s longest Monopoly game.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Patrick Davis

Didn’t CA “outsource” it’s power generation, and therefore it’s emissions from energy use, to other states a few years back?

rbateman

You are brave to bring up the Dragon in the room (AB32). I haven’t looked to see what it’s set to eat next if Prop 23 fails, but I’m quite sure it will be a Freddy Krueger is in town for the Economy Smorgasbord special.

the_other_stevejobs

Steve,
head on out here to the Rocky Mountain High. The snow’s not so bad (global warming should end it in a few years), there’s no smog anywhere except Los Angeles East (Denver), and the mountains are just glorious.
I didn’t leave the the wonderful orange groves i used to ride my bike in when i was a kid- they left me. And now, every morning i look up and the most beautiful Pike’s Peak and can’t believe i get to drive to work looking at her every day.

Roger Carr

Will:

post signs with the correct language at polling places.

to correct an error in:

140,000 mail-in ballots that have already been distributed, and that they will

A whole new business model could be developed using this angle…

Paul in Sweden

Anthony, My heart continues to go out to you and the remaining clear thinking left-coasters. Sadly though, I think the die is cast and the Global Warming Industry has pushed to popular vote far-left of reality.
California may become the example the country needs each and every time Global Warming legislation is proposed in both houses in DC or in any state of the union. Anytime it happens all anyone will need to do is point to California, Spain, Denmark, the UK, Germany, etc, etc, etc…
I wish it were not so if for no other reason but you Anthony and your family but the votes seem to be following the massive far-left activist ad campaigns. They will reap what they sow and you will be mulched like the rest.
Maybe the incoming state representatives can set things right and stop AB 32 before it gets started?
BTW: Although to the best of my knowledge and although I am now soundly convinced publicly funded and subsidizes wind farms are a crime against the taxpayer… I so much want the state of Massachusetts to suffer the Mass Wind(Ted Kennedy Memorial) offshore wind farm! Only through pain and suffering will the USA(maybe even the EU one day) be vanquished of these Unicorn & Pixie dust far-left quests.

David Corcoran

I work for a mid-sized manufacturing firm. If Prop 23 fails, and Jerry Brown becomes governor, the first talk we’ll have Wednesday afternoon is about how to manage the move, and when. I can’t imagine any manufacturer staying in the state.
Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), when asked recently about the manufacturing jobs that were sure to be destroyed by AB32… she at first reassured her questioner that all of these jobs would be replaced by “green jobs”. Never mind that other countries that tried that have wound up in financial ruin (Spain, anyone?). The questioner asked again, saying even if there were green jobs, we would lose a tremendous amount of manufacturing jobs. Cornered, Ms. Nichols replied “Well, there are some jobs we don’t need.”
I almost drove off the road. She said this when parts of the Central Valley have 50% unemployment, and the state unemployment is near 15%. Environmentalists here are disgusting, hateful, rich, crazy, insufferably-smug eco-fascist tyrants. They’re determined to make working-class Californians live like North Korean peasantry. It’s like Earth Day every day there. The eco-fascist’s idea of paradise, I suppose.

David Corcoran

By “It’s like Earth Day every day there. ” I meant North Korea. Although it’s getting like that in the People’s Republic of California.

Adam

Anthony, it’s not nice to copy yourself.
And, yes, I did see a NO on 23 ad.

Layne Blanchard

Unfortunately, CA may just become the (US) poster child of failed socialist ideology, and green hysteria. Perhaps then the truth about Capitalism will be clear to Americans.

Phillip Bratby

I find it hard to believe how quickly California has trashed its economy. Except being in the UK you can see exactly the same thing over here. High taxes, high bureacracy, high regulation, high energy costs; in a never-ending loop.

Hee hee, some transportation (truck) companies have figured out that they can rebuild old, pre-emmissions laws trucks. As long as the frame and differential housing is used they keep the vin# and model year. So they’re putting in new motors (without the emissions cr*p) and new cabs and suspensions and making the old trucks new again.
With the cost of a new tractor exceeding $130k when 10 years ago they were $70k its a smart idea. Wonder how long it will go unnoticed by the soviet state?

John Trigge

It’s as bad in Oz:
(http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/minister/greg-combet/2010/media-releases/October/mr20101027.aspx)
The Hon Greg Combet AM MP
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee open for business
Media release
27 October 2010
An expert panel to assess proposed methods for developing and selling carbon credits has been announced by the Federal Government, delivering the first step under the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI).
“The Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee will assess the specific methods for measuring carbon credits,” the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, said.
“As we indicated during the election campaign, this will enable farmers, foresters and landholders to receive offset credits for actions that reduce or store carbon pollution. These credits can then be sold, providing opportunities for them to generate income as Australia moves towards a low-pollution future.
“The National Carbon Offsets Standard, introduced 1 July 2010, has established the rules for companies to become carbon neutral or to sell carbon neutral products. The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) will set out what farmers, foresters and landholders need to do to generate carbon credits and it will establish an independent regulator to verify carbon credit claims.”
Reforestation, capturing emissions from existing landfill (‘legacy waste’), and better management of livestock manure are some of the ways to generate carbon credits, he explained.
“Once the credits are verified, they can be traded on Australia’s voluntary carbon market and on overseas markets, generating revenue while reducing carbon pollution,” Mr Combet said.
“Offset credits can be purchased by individuals and corporations to compensate for their own carbon pollution. Buyers of offset credits will include businesses that choose to go carbon neutral, and companies that sell carbon neutral products.
“This is another example of Government action to tackle climate change and create new business opportunities in the low-pollution economy of the future.
“I am pleased to announce the appointment of six experts who will form an independent panel, the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee. They have the important responsibility of assessing the detailed methods which will provide a new income stream for farmers, foresters and landholders, and help the environment by reducing carbon pollution.
“After consultations with interested groups and a period for public submissions, the committee will provide independent advice to me on methodologies that can be approved in advance of the CFI legislation which we plan to bring before the Parliament in the first half of 2011. The committee I am announcing today is an interim body that will be replaced with a statutory committee when the legislation has passed.
“The sooner we get these rigorous measures in place, the sooner investment opportunities and measures to abate carbon pollution will be available.”
Mr Combet said the diverse range of skills and backgrounds represented on the Committee would ensure the methods recommended for approval were rigorous and would lead to verifiable abatement of carbon pollution.

David Davidovics

Patrick Davis,
Up here in BC, a huge reservoir is about to be flooded to provide power for export. Likely much of it will finds it’s way into socal. I know during the power crunch in California a few years ago, BC hydro was making a killing selling overpriced electricity down south.

Chuck

Once upon a time there were these idiots who believed the could warm up and cool down the Earth. They also believed the were born from an Ape.
Their ancestors use to worship a cow. Now they blame the cow for Global Warming.
They even controlled a mighty organization called the UN, NASA, THE EPA and The NOAA. They even brain washed the Democratic Party, Top research institutes and the educational system.
Then, one day they froze their backsides off.

Tim

Let’s not ignore the dragon in the room. If China is exporting its pollution, California is pushing CO2 uphill.
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=6843&l=en

Larry Fields

Being slightly dyslexic, I’m frequently confusing Prop 23 with AB 32. But I’ll sort them out when I vote yes later in the morning.

I’ve spent one year in California in total – half a year in Santa Cruz, half a year in Santa Barbara (besides a few visits elsewhere). So of course I have learned not only about its pleasant weather and sunny beaches but also about the vigorous political activists I met at parties, at universities, and so on.
The unemployment 12% is relatively high. We have around 8% in the Czech Republic – while I do remember that the numbers used to be lower in California.
However, if most of the voters want to support suicidal policies, it’s their right to decide No to 23. There are clearly many sectors of the economy that don’t care about the dropping “real” industry in California – or even benefit from it. The whole Silicon Valley and Hollywood may belong to the category. The whole nation or state obviously loses but those who benefit may prevail even though their overall profit won’t compensate the overall losses.
I still hope that Prop 23 will pass – as a symbol of the end of this hysteria.

Chris Thorne

The entirely terrifying thing to contemplate for those of us who live here is that the state of California is already on the brink of outright insolvency — and that is without the full rigor of AB32 driving away even more jobs, businesses and tax revenues.
Adding AB32 on top of the rest of California’s economic woes is like throwing a drowning man an anchor.

Chris Thorne

I will note as well that the dishonesty of the major press outlets in the state has been brazen and spectacular.
It has been quite common for those media mavens to mention the names of various prominent backers of the campaign against Proposition 23, without further identifying them as persons who are heavily invested in “alternative” energy companies.
In other words, 23 would force those companies to compete on their merits, rather than rigging the game in their favor by government fiat, and there’s nothing the investors in those firms want less than to be exposed to the harsh mercies of a competitive marketplace. Hence their lavish support for the campaign against 23, and, hence, the reticence of the media to point out that self-serving connection.

This is a vicious cycle. Once industry starts leaving an area because of the anti-industry rhetoric, the voice of sensible industry disappears allowing the anti-industry voices to predominate.
And as industry exits, the burden of paying to be “green” (whatever fad replaces making things for a living) falls on an ever smaller group of people in the real economy who have less and less say in how much they get taxed how little of the public purse is put into the transport infrastructure, schooling, etc. etc. that they need.
So get out before the rush!

Shevva

It’s amazing how a scientific fraud can take hold of rational people and destory everything around them?

Alan the Brit

Am I seeing a hockey stick in that employment graph or is it me. Also it’s not too different from a Solar activity Sunspot cycle plot in reverse. Is the Sun really able to drive human behaviour characteristics, including delusional politics?
Anyway, that’s by the by. I told you colonial chaps & chapesses some while ago you’d be next, & so it comes to pass. Fight it while you can before you go the way of Britain, in the UESR/PDRofEU. The latest lunatic policy is that the French & British armed forces are going to work together as a pre-cursor to the Eurpean Army, what a joke that will be. Now, what happened the last time the British Army fought alongside the French army on mainland Europe, against who was it now? I forget these days, like everyone else in the asylum! As Churchill said, European integration was a good idea so long as Britain remained outside it! Oh for that ever so “special relationship” to return some sanity to these lost shores.

H.R.

Will the last person to leave California please turn out the lights?
Oh, wait… no would be able to afford to turn them on in the first place. Nevermind.
.
.
.
.
Today will be an interesting day across the U.S. of A.

Vargs

I’m a great fan of your site, Anthony, it’s reasonable, balanced and well-informed. I can imagine how frustrating the political scene must be with this mass of misinformation and heart-tugging populism.
I would disagree with Paul in Sweden’s, amongst others, characterisation of the environmental movement as “left-wing”. The only justification for this view is their anti-capitalist posture. They are in fact deeply reactionary. Their Tolkien-esque desire to return to a pre-industrial state (campaigned for vigorously on their iPhones, computers, and digital cameras — all products of advanced industrialisation) would set back human progress 300 years. Our ancestors had an average life-expectancy of 18 years at that time.
This is not progressive in any way. It’s classic utopianism which would leave the 30% of the world’s population abandoned by capitalism in want and squalor.

As part of the AB32, California is coping to adapt with imaginary threats — the “California Adaptation Strategy”. Or, as Holdren calls it: de-development.
See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/California_Adaptation.htm
California’s temperatures correlate with the PDO not CO2.

UK Sceptic

Let’s hope that California has woken up to the fact that warmists are rabid Malthusians.

Michael D Smith

Relocation has been on my mind as of late, that’s for sure.
If you leave, I hope you do it soon enough that your property is still worth something. Real estate prices are going to accelerate downwards as more business and industry takes shelter elsewhere. It isn’t the arctic that’s in a death spiral, it’s California. I really don’t see much hope for the place, the infection far too advanced. It’s a damn shame, there is so much that is worth saving, but total collapse seems inevitable. I just hope it doesn’t drag down the entire USA with it. The rest of us need to isolate ourselves from the California Effect, in other words, let it happen strictly without federal assistance. Not so much to use California as an example, but to contain it and limit the spread of the disease. The state must be allowed to crash and burn if the destructive path has been chosen and all other alternatives have been rejected. There’s really not much point in infusing the patient with more perfectly good medicine if he insists on treatment by Dr Kevorkian at every conscious moment, however brief. It’s like watching a slow motion train wreck. And it was 100% avoidable.
49 states, anyone? Ugh. We might not have a choice.

Ern Matthews

I have mixed feelings, on one side I hope the good guys win, but on the other side I don’t. Reason, what better lesson on the evils of Environmental-socialism than watching California implode.
Well not my country but good luck on the good fight.

Jimmy

Celebrity Ideology is an ever changing religion. The weakest of all religions, where the celebrity preacher says whatever is popular to suit their stature in Hollywood. Constantly changing ideology, meaningless diatribe of the worst kind.

Alex Heyworth

California is broke for just one reason. To quote Margaret Thatcher “They’ve got the usual Socialist disease — they’ve run out of other people’s money.”
Unfortunately, that contagion now seems to be widespread. Half of Europe, the UK, even the US Federal Government is not far off that state. (In the US, the disease seems to have been compounded by a very bad case of cronyism.)

Hans Henrik Hansen

Last night the Danish (public) tv entertained its audience with a Californian debate on legalizing cannabis [or ‘marihuana’ as you call it ‘over there’ :)]. It has been claimed that such a step could reduce the state budget deficit by more than 1 G$/year!
The Danish ‘expert’, however, found that figure ‘somewhat optimistic’.

cedarhill

Go vote today. Get your friends to vote. Hey! Even get your pets to vote. It IS CA isn’t it?

Its quite obvious that some jobs are considered expendable, as was commented on earlier.
Here is what will happen to cement production.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/8100211/Green-tax-burden-could-see-cement-firms-quit-the-UK.html
If anyone would like to google ‘redcar UK steel mills’ they will see the UK is busy shutting dow its steel production as well. Both require a great deal of carbon credits or heavily taxed fuel to make and in order to reach its legal targets (the only country in the world stupid enough to have them) we need to get rid of our heavy industry.
The irony-as in the case of the UK Steel industry is that production was switched to India where the Govt get carbon credits for locating production there.
tonyb

Glenn

I think para 3, 1st sentence should refer to proponents of Prop 32, not “AB23”.
I’d like to think that a similar cause to Prop 23 could attract several million $ worth of support in Australia, but I fear we are a long way behind on such things. By throwing their lot in with the Greens, the current Labor Government has surrendered climate policy to the will of the watermelons for the foreseeable future. Forget climb-downs for now, we have a long way to go. More power to you and your kin, Anthony.

Glenn

Beg pardon, “Prop 23”, not “Prop 32”. My bad!

DaveF

tonyb 2:42:
Hi, Tony. As regards to not having heavy industry: Down here in Cornwall a company wanted to restart the defunct South Crofty tin mine. The South West Regional Development Agency objected to planning permission on the grounds that “it is not how we see the future of Cornwall.” (For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with Cornwall it’s a county that’s absolutely full of old tin-mines.) Sometimes you just want to bang your head against a wall.

Mr Green Genes

Phillip Bratby says:
November 2, 2010 at 12:10 am
I find it hard to believe how quickly California has trashed its economy. Except being in the UK you can see exactly the same thing over here. High taxes, high bureacracy, high regulation, high energy costs; in a never-ending loop.
============================================================
Not forgetting the Climate Change Act (2008) pushed through parliament by the new leader of the Labour Party (Ed Milliband) and passed almost without dissent.
This is the most expensive law ever passed in the UK. It commits us to reducing our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, at a cost estimated, on the website of his old Department for Energy and Climate Change, at up to £18.3 billion every year for the next four decades. In cash terms this amounts to £734 billion (around $1.1 trillion), which equates to more than £700 (around $1100) a year for every household in the land.
We can’t afford that and nor, I suspect, can California afford AB32.

Hans Henrik Hansen

The Danish (public) radio just informed [sorry to bother you again with more ‘Danish stuff’! :)] that 11 out of 12 GOP Senate Candidates are ‘(A)GW sceptical’.

Sean

In the Sacramento Bee over the weekend, they were analyzing the GHG limits set by CARB. Since the recesion cut the amount of economic activity quite sharply, the good folks at CARB decided the limit on CO2 emissions had to be reduced by an additional 5% as it AB32 provisions went into effect.. http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/30/3144519/recession-cut-level-of-californias.html
I wrote the following in the comments section in the online paper.
When I hear about this cap, how come all I can think about is a boa contrictor tightening around its victim’s chest, ratcheting tighter and tighter every time the victim exhales making it impossible to inhale again, leading to death of the victim from asphixiation.

RexAlan

I can’t get over the American Lung Assoc. ad, it’s unbelievable.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/carbon-dioxide-in-blood.html
Low blood+lung Co2 levels = (Hypocapnia) = possible death!
Equaly too much blood+lung Co2 = (Hypercapnia) = possible death!
The normal concentration of CO2 in the bloodstream is 40 mm of Hg.
I don’t think 389 ppm by volume is or ever could be a health problem.

JimB

“Shevva says:
November 2, 2010 at 1:42 am
It’s amazing how a scientific fraud can take hold of rational people and destory everything around them?”
It’s not the fraud that’s taken hold of them. The fraud is simply a tool used for justification of an ideology, one that says “I get to exert control over XXX”.
That’s why this infection is so hard to kill. If it were simply fraudulent science driving it, it would have been over and done with by now.
We have our own “infection” here near Boston, in the town of Cambridge. As close to Cal as you can get on the East coast. Some wonderful things come out of Cambridge…excellent bio/pharma research, for example, much of which was probably centered in Cal at one point?…not sure on that one, but they really speak a different language there, to the point that it’s difficult to even have a conversation at times.
Get out, Anthony, while you still can, IF you still can. This will have to burn itself out, and there’s no need to be part of that process if you don’t have to.
A favorite quote: “Argue for your limitations…and they’re yours.”
Best to you and yours,
JimB

CIS2

Well, it’s fairly obvious why the the opponents of proposition avoided the whole CO2 and global warming issue during the latter stages of this campaign, while instead focusing on the fraudulent pollution angle…..
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/10/california-dreamin-destroyed-by-big-government-politicians-and-bureaucrats.html

RexAlan

oops: too much Co2 is refered to an hypercapnea

Brian Johnson uk

Whichever way Jim Cameron says you should vote, I would suggest you all do the opposite. I think/hope/know I am preaching to the converted. 🙂

Steve Keohane

This state of affairs is absurd. The notion of a ‘green’ economy is B.S. The only way it can compete, is to destroy the old economy first. The old economy is based on cheap energy, we’re still at 8¢/KWH in western Colorado. There is no way a business in California dependent on energy can compete with the same sort of business in Colorado in the national market, and the global market is out of the question.

Leon Brozyna

The new advice:
Go west young man … but not too far west.
Or, alternatively:
Go south young man.

Stefan

@tonyb “If anyone would like to google ‘redcar UK steel mills’ they will see the UK is busy shutting dow its steel production as well.”
It is as if the Western greenies don’t like the sight of factories and would rather all production was NIMBY, along with high-flying business people who would rather outsource it all overseas anyway, and just reap the profits from IP and high flying financial instruments. Meanwhile the working classes can look forward to generational unemployment and ASBO collecting.

John Cooper

@ Patrick Davis

Didn’t CA “outsource” it’s power generation, and therefore it’s emissions from energy use, to other states a few years back?

Exactly so. California imports much of it’s power from coal-fired plants in Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico, as well as the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Phoenix, Hoover Dam, and Glen Canyon Dam. Just off the top of my head, the large coal-fired plants are the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, NV, Navajo Generating Station in Page, AZ, Four Corners Power Plant near Farmington, NM.

In medieval times, angry mob went into mayor´s house in Prague and threw some clerks out of the windows. Just sayin’.

RexAlan

A better explanation of Blood Lung Co2 Levels:
http://www.buteykocan.com/about_buteyko/scientific.htm