The Secretary of State’s website is overloaded, this according to the LA Times, with 3.5 million votes counted statewide:
source: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/election/#props
Oh, and Jerry Brown. Ah, moonbeams and business exodus, the combo that killed the golden state goose.
Strangely, the first symptom seems to be dyslexia, as this odd Google ad showed up right after I hit publish: (screencap)
Maybe by morning they’ll have that fixed….
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
BTW Roger, the solar panel manufacturing will probably be exported. The sales, installation and transportation will of course be local, all subsidized by additional taxes, coorporate and private.
A business relocation coach is needed in California?
http://www.businessrelocationcoach.com/Sacramento_Speech.html
Often, California business people feel like Rodney Dangerfield – “I get no respect!”
I offer you Los Angeles as an example. The company is Creators Syndicate and Rick Newcombe is its president. He met with Los Angeles officials about an outrageous business tax reclassification, which by the way is a speech in and of itself. When Mr. Newcombe and his wife walked into a meeting with city officials, an employee greeted them as “The enemy!” The enemy? The city employees in the room laughed.
End
Of course they can laugh,it is never their salary or retirement that is affected.
david said on November 3, 2010 at 10:34 pm:
I await the development of “Solar Trailers”, photovoltaic panel systems assembled in more economically-friendly areas on road-legal trailer bases, wheeled to the location and parked at the right orientation, which will get plugged in with the same connector used for portable home generators. “In theory” with the inverter and other electronics installed on the trailer there will only be minor electrical work needed on site, especially if you’re skipping special metering and just sending the excess generated current through the normal meter to the grid. Being portable they’ll also duck certain permitting and zoning requirements, as well as frustrating the “homeowners associations,” unless the authorities get really picky. Assembled in Texas or perhaps even Mexico, transported to and sold in California. Should be significantly cheaper than a permanent installation, great for residential use, and also for companies wanting clean green “carbon offsets” and such as they can be deployed on vacant lots with cheap leases and quickly moved to even-cheaper land or to where they’re paying even higher rates for green electricity.
They’ll also transport well to their new locations when their owners decide it’s time to evacuate California, for whatever very good reason pops up. Just latch the trailer to the hitch ball on the Prius, and take your free energy with you to wherever you go. Heck, hitch a solar trailer to a plug-in electric car, and you could drive clear across the country without using any fossil fuels at all! ☺
The US needs to prepare to SELL California to Mexico in exchange for a few multi-trillion dollar payment for, say, three decades. (The US can repossess for non-payment, of course.) A far-sighted win-win arrangement, what with the entitlement’s crisis coming, I say.
Green jobs are an important part of the recovery of California. Not surprisingly, Californians would like to cut down on the air pollution that causes ashma and other health problems among their children.
BillD says:
November 4, 2010 at 3:28 am
“Green jobs are an important part of the recovery of California. Not surprisingly, Californians would like to cut down on the air pollution that causes ashma and other health problems among their children.”
Bill, can you show me the research that shows anything but particulates is affecting children with ashma. Certainly CO2 is not. Also have you heard of misallocation of resources?
@ur momisugly david, re solar panels manufacturing sites,
Please see Solyndra in the news, New York Times article below, which states the California solar panel plant is reducing capacity due to overseas competition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/energy-environment/03solar.html?_r=2&nl=&emc=a25
Man the lifeboats . . .
“”””” Roger Sowell says:
November 4, 2010 at 10:18 am
@ur momisugly david, re solar panels manufacturing sites,
Please see Solyndra in the news, New York Times article below, which states the California solar panel plant is reducing capacity due to overseas competition. “””””
Well that may be what Solyndra says; they should have added that so far, since opening their doors; they haven’t made a brass razoo in real profits; and they likely never will.
More efficient solar technologies is more likely the reason they are shutting down plants and laying off workers. Now didn’t Californians just vote themselves a whole slew of “Green ” Jobs.
Currently there’s maybe 50 “black” oil jobs in California for every “green” job and Californians just voted to chase those black oil jobs (along with their energy) out of the state, and replace every 50 of them with one green job. The difference is that the black oil jobs atually provide a net energy, AND make a profit. It’s not likely those green jobs will do either of those things.
Solyndra is just the latest player (and I use the term advisedly) to face the economic realities of free clean green renewable alternative energy.
“”””” david says:
November 4, 2010 at 4:16 am
BillD says:
November 4, 2010 at 3:28 am
“Green jobs are an important part of the recovery of California. Not surprisingly, Californians would like to cut down on the air pollution that causes ashma and other health problems among their children.”
Bill, can you show me the research that shows anything but particulates is affecting children with ashma. Certainly CO2 is not. Also have you heard of misallocation of resources? “””””
As a life long Asthmatic, I can assure Bill D, that CO2 DOES NOT cause or induce asthma. Enough of it, may eventually asphyxiate one; whether asthmatic or not; but it won’t bring on an asthma attack.
MTBE used as a fuel “Oxygenate” most certainly DOES bring on asthma attacks; and my childhood asthma returned as an adult for the duration of California’s CARB and that moron Mary Nichols experiment on us with MTBE laced gasoline; until we fought them to get rid of it. (my first foray, into grass roots activism); and that bunch of dummies; none of whom is a scientist simply replaced the MTBE with an equally unneeded Oxygenate, in the form of ETHANOL.
My car; and every one I have ever owned contains a machine whose purpose it to “Oxygenate” the fuel, to create heat with which to operate my car; they call it “The Engine”, and it does a wonderful job of Oxygenating gasoline.
Lemme guess Bill; you also don’t have a problem with THE STATE adding a poison in the form of Calcium Fluoride to ALL of California’s water so that 0.0000000001% of it can be used by the candy inebriated rug rats who can’t be bothered to brush their teeth. Why not add cough mixture; and Omega-3 fish oil; and say Aspirin or Tylenol to the water to take care of the little kiddies.
But be sure to tell us exactly what all your do put in out water for compulsory medication because industry will need to know that so they can remove all your crap out of 99.999999999% of the water so it is fit to use in their profit making enterprises to provide taxable jobs to keep Mary Nichols and other idiots like her off the dole.
Unfortunately; some of our gasoline now get oxygenated in the refinery or cocktail mixing plant; which results in some of the energy being lost there; so I have to use even more gasoline; with even more of that destructive ethanol in it.
Roger Sowell says:
November 3, 2010 at 7:43 pm
“It doesn’t take much in the way of intelligence to realize that AB 32 will make the business environment worse, much worse than it is presently. Unless, of course, one’s business is making or selling any of the products or services mandated by AB 32. Solar panels come to mind. I hope this helps.”
No, not really, since your post was essentially a reiteration of what I already said. AB 32 will focus consumer dollars from one business sector into another – that is a given. My specific question was to how AB 32 has been shown (in data, or reports) to have specifically been the cause of a loss of California business and whether there is any good analysis showing that the net change is a drop in California’s GDP. A study is available to the public, which claims the exact opposite, but it is beyond my ability to peer review it. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm, specifically the appendices for the “science”. I am looking for a peer review report that contradicts the scoping plan report findings, not more rhetoric.
david says:
November 3, 2010 at 10:28 pm
“Steve let me try this simply. If you raise the cost of energy, you raise the cost of business. If you also raise the cost of the state administrating business you must raise taxes. Some of those taxes will be direct business costs, some will be employee paid. Employees also consider this (net salary) when considering where to work, as well as the cost of living, thus demanding higher salries in some states, further increasing business costs. A question for you, do you think this legislation will not raise the cost of energy?”
You left out “most will be consumer paid.” I have no doubt that AB 32 will raise energy costs in the short term, but I have no idea what this rise will be compared to the rise in energy costs that was going to happen anyway (supply/demand). For the long term it may reduce energy costs – that’s the goal, anyway. For a detailed economic analysis of energy cost reductions by 2020 (full implementation), see Appendix G of the scoping plan I referenced above.
david says:
November 4, 2010 at 4:16 am
“Bill, can you show me the research that shows anything but particulates is affecting children with ashma. Certainly CO2 is not. Also have you heard of misallocation of resources?”
Anthony’s article on AB 32 misrepresented the science when he stated “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!” It is generally correct to say that AB 32 is not “about” limiting particulates, but the fact is that limiting GHG emissions will limit particulates. It’s damn near impossible, in the current industrial market, to reduce one without reducing the other. Again, see the report I referenced above. To contradict Anthony’s claim, the study specifically states (page 16 of the PDF) “Almost 12,000 incidences of asthma and lower respiratory symptoms will be avoided.” Anthony went on to say,”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.” He should have read the science before he criticized them so vehemently. They based their ad off of someone else’s science, so if there was any slime involved it wasn’t theirs.
In general I agree that the claim of AB 32 reducing “global warming side effects” is based on half-assed science. Supporters take a very simple proposition, that a GHG increase will result in increased temperatures, and then run with it, blaming any possible effect on said cause (the shotgun approach). Simple logic is used to make a reasonable hypothesis, but to prove the hypothesis you have to carry the science all the way through. As to how AB 32 will affect California, I see that Anthony and others are guilty of the same error they deride others for. At least read the science before you make the opposite claim with nothing but pure rhetoric on your side!
@ur momisugly Steve,
“I am looking for a peer review report that contradicts the scoping plan report findings, not more rhetoric.”
The Scoping Plan you refer to has been widely criticized by many experts, yet CARB plowed right ahead with their regulations. The economic peer review found that the Scoping Plan’s claims were wildly wrong.
For the energy predictions in the Scoping Plan, again they are hopelessly optimistic. Homeowners will use 40 percent less electricity compared to 1990? Really? Power prices will increase “only” 13 percent by 2020? Really? Future prices of oil and natural gas will increase so much that renewable power will be cheap in comparison? Really? Given the very low cost of natural gas (due to a world-wide glut), and the fact that crude oil futures are not expensive (indicating no sign of a shortage), there is no basis for the claim.
Next, you assert that “but the fact is that limiting GHG emissions will limit particulates. It’s damn near impossible, in the current industrial market, to reduce one without reducing the other.”
No, that is simply not true. Particulate emissions have been reduced over the decades while CO2 emissions have increased. Many industrial processes were forced to install particulate traps of various designs to meet requirements of the Clean Air Act. Fuel selection, burner selection, combustion box attributes, stack scrubbers, even ambient air temperature and quality all impact CO2 emissions and, separately, particulate emissions.
It appears that you read then blindly trust the “science” in CARB’s Scoping Plan. It is not science, it is agenda-driven bunkum. All CARB must do is find peer-reviewed science – any peer-reviewed science will do. They are not required to use the best science, i.e. that which most closely follows known laws of physics. Their “science” is very, very shaky at best.
Re reading the science, we do read the science, or what is trotted out all dressed up as science. It is mainly Bad Science, or BS.
Nice try Steve, but Roger Sowell is right. AB32 has no redeeming features, and it is based on pseudoscience that says carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It isn’t. Without the pollution argument there is no reason to hobble the state economically with AB32.
Other than the loss of Prop 23, the election was on balance a good one, with one big loser.
Roger Sowell says:
November 4, 2010 at 1:27 pm
“The Scoping Plan you refer to has been widely criticized by many experts, yet CARB plowed right ahead with their regulations. The economic peer review found that the Scoping Plan’s claims were wildly wrong.”
Well that refers to peer review, but you don’t actually point me towards any peer review. Am I supposed to accept your word blindly? And for someone who already stated that little of AB 32 has actually kicked in, what regulations, exactly has CARB “plowed right ahead with?”
“No, that is simply not true. Particulate emissions have been reduced over the decades while CO2 emissions have increased.”
Yes, reducing particulates without reducing GHG emissions is relatively simple – a filter will do. In the context of AB 32, it should have been fairly obvious that I was referring to the process of lowering GHG emissions without also lowering particulates.
“It appears that you read then blindly trust the “science” in CARB’s Scoping Plan.”
Well I actually pointed you to the science, which is a hell of a lot more than you are doing for me. It appears that you blindly disagree with the science. I am willing to question it if you can point me to a comparably exhaustive peer reviewed report. I am certainly not going to believe blindly in your rhetoric. How am I supposed to counter such comprehensive analysis such as “hopelessly optimistic”, “really?” and “pure bunkum”?
“Re reading the science, we do read the science, or what is trotted out all dressed up as science. It is mainly Bad Science, or BS.”
Your comments didn’t make any mention of the allegedly faulty science before I brought it up, nor who debunked it and how. Your additional failure to provide links pointing to helpful analysis that debunks the report gives your tirade the reek of BS.
Thank you California for voting down prop23. The coming year would have been a lean laughter year in the WUWT community if we didn’t have wacky Califorina to laugh at. We now get to watch CA self destruct as it tries to impliment it’s short sighted plans to save the planet and bankrupt itself. I think they call what we in the community are about to experienc; shadenfrenfreude.
P.S.
The planet doesn’t need saving, the people do.
@ur momisugly Steve,
Not a tirade, but an accurate analysis of the junk that is AB 32.
You ask for links to peer review. No, since you are too lazy to go find it yourself, I won’t do it for you. However, I will suggest that you use an internet browser, Google has one of those, and input the words scoping plan peer review. Have a good read on those links you will find there.
For peer-reviewed articles that debunk the idea that man-made CO2 causes the earth to heat catastrophically, I suggest you look around here on WUWT, as there have been a number of posts on that very topic. I seem to remember that there are more than 400 such articles, or papers, on that list.
For good, solid evidence that I used and still use, to show that adjusting CO2 in the atmosphere will not and cannot change the earth’s temperature, I refer you to my own blog, and the most-viewed post on that blog – most by a long shot. This refers to, and explains the recent letter of Dr. Pierre R. Latour, PhD in Chemical Engineering, P.E. in chemical engineering and control system engineering. Dr. Latour explains why adjusting CO2 cannot be used to control the earth’s temperature, because to do so would violate several requisites of process control engineering. By the way, Dr. Latour is world-renowned as an expert, and no one ever violates the fundamentals of process control. Never. It cannot be done. With that short introduction, here is the website: (and no, I get zero funds from that website).
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
Dr. Latour later wrote another letter about one year later on the same topic, and I again featured that in a blog post, which you may want to also read:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/chemical-engineer-slams-global-warming.html
Finally, it is quite clear that the scientists who maintain that CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming cannot explain why some cities have zero warming over more than a century, yet others have some apparent warming. One of the fundamental tenets of process control is that if a system is controllable, it must behave consistently and reliably. In the context of CO2 and global warming, it is not possible for CO2 to cause warming in some cities yet no warming at all in nearby cities. I investigated this and posted results on my blog. See this entry, and other entries near that time.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/usa-cities-hadcrut3-temperatures.html
You may remain convinced that the world will soon overheat from an excess of CO2, and that is your right to believe whatever you choose. I also wanted to believe that, because if there is a problem, it will be the chemical engineers who fix it. My clients are chemical engineers, primarily. I investigated deeply and found that no problem exists. None at all.
Michael,
The problem is that you [if you are an American taxpayer] will have to pay for California’s failure. Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he is president only of Democrats by taking sides, for example his arbitrary shutting down of hundreds of GM dealerships located in Republican districts – while keeping those in Democrat districts open. [And IANAR.]
When California requires a bailout caused by AB32’s ridiculous mandate to radically reduce “carbon” emissions, it will be bailed out by all Federal taxpayers. Meaning you and everyone else. California is way far Left; Obama’s kind of people. If it were Texas they wouldn’t get a dime.
Steve:
The issue is not particulates like soot [although that should be the issue]. AB32 is mainly about GHG’s, specifically, carbon dioxide.
However, you will notice that the current climate was seriously warmer than now numerous times over the past 10,000 years. In fact, today’s climate is right in the middle of normal. With a 40% increase in CO2, nothing unusual is occurring; there is no global warming out of the ordinary, but agricultural productivity is rising due to the added trace gas. Observations show conclusively that the added CO2 is harmless and beneficial.
The onus is not on scientific skeptics to prove anything; the onus is on alarmists, who believe that the climate is outside its past parameters due to added CO2. It is not, as anyone can see.
The alarmists have failed miserably to falsify the null hypothesis of natural climate variability. But the alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis – based on models – has been repeatedly falsified.
According to the scientific method, you need to start over. But alarmists have no use for the scientific method, since it falsifies their belief system and doesn’t give them the answers they want. So they ignore science and turn to politics.
Pretty reprehensible, eh?
Mods, thanks, y’all.
No need to post this. Just wanted to say thanks for the assist in my post just above. Appreciate all you do, all of you! — Roger
[You’re welcome. ~dbs]
M.A.DeLuca II says:
November 3, 2010 at 1:26 am
“….. Now they get to prove to themselves and the world just how bad their plans really are. Unfortunately, California’s economy is a sizable fraction of North America’s, but at least some of the lost productivity will shift to other states. Then, after everything in California crashes and burns under the regulatory weight, the Greens will have been discredited and the western world will be able to get back to being productive again.
I’m such an idealist.”
===========================================================
No M.A….. You’re a realist. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head….
The sad part of all of this is that the other side kept promising that AB32 would generate all sorts of “Green Jobs”; however this is based on a study that makes a number of assumptions. What if the assumptions are wrong? Well, California is screwed.
California voters need to look at the cold hard facts: “State Unemployment Rate Stagnates At 12.4%”, Daily Breeze 10/23/2010. The other border states are far better off; Arizona is 10%, New Mexico is 8.4%, and Texas is only 8.4%. Our high unemployment rate can’t be blamed on illegals from Mexico.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST480000&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+in+texas#met=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST480000
It might be poetic justice if this turns out to be one of those unusual winters when it snows in San Francisco…. Of course that usually coincides with a strong, brrr, arctic outbreak over Washington and Oregon.
OK, so the responses to my comments are:
– go find the reports/data that support arguments against the AB 32 scoping plan yourself
– AB 32 doesn’t reduce particulate emissions
and my favorite
– CO2 doesn’t cause global warming
Regarding the first… weak. And this come from someone accusing me of “blindly” believing in the AB 32 scope report. I did Google for alternative views, and using the same Google search I found detailed data/reports refuting every single one. If you have the balls to quote any of the reports you believe in, we could discuss. But as to essentially calling me a gullible idiot for taking someones word on the science, and then giving me nothing but words to back up your claims… hypocrite.
Regarding the 2nd, the commenters should read my comments and go to the report that clarifies AB 32 will reduce both GHG emissions AND particulate emissions. The report even details the assumptions regarding reductions in asthma.
As to the last… well that just makes me seriously question the reading comprehension of all of the commenters. How would you interpret my previous statement,”It is rhetoric, and without some hard backup it isn’t compelling enough for me to admit that it’s true. Kinda like global warming.”? And,”So they used BS science to support taxes/fees on certain types of businesses – such is politics.” I do not believe in AGW. Arguing against AGW is neither an argument against me nor an argument for AB 32 causing a reduction in California GDP.
Steve,
I don’t recall anyone saying that CO2 doesn’t cause any warming. But the effect is so minuscule that it cannot be measured. If it could be quantified and reliably measured, there would be no debate about the sensitivity number.
You say there are three responses to your comments. There are actually more than that, because you never answered my own comment:
“The onus is not on scientific skeptics to prove anything; the onus is on alarmists, who believe that the climate is outside its past parameters due to added CO2. It is not, as anyone can see.”
There is no observed difference between an atmosphere with .00028 CO2, and one with .00039. Therefore, any minor effect from CO2 can be disregarded for all practical purposes, and we should stop wasting money on endless “studies” of this non-problem. AB32 is hugely more problematic than the rise in a very small, harmless and beneficial trace gas.
I’ve left three negative comments there.
There were some interesting people who contributed to the No on Prop 23 campaign, including Bill Gates who gave $700,000:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1272754&view=late2
The others can be found here:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Detail.aspx?id=1324800&session=2009
California billionaires and venture capitalists gave millions to the No on Prop 23 effort.