A mass exodus of business and jobs out of California will be the likely result of this madness. From the San Franscisco Chronicle:
…
Free and paid credits
Businesses that emit more carbon dioxide than is allowed under the law will have to use “allowances” – or credits – to make up for the difference. The allowances will be mostly free when the program starts in a little more than two months, but eventually businesses will have to purchase credits in an auction – a sort of penalty for exceeding the limit. The board’s major action on Thursday was to finalize how credits will be allocated.
The opposition from the industrial sectors, like glass manufacturers and oil refineries, strongly objected to the initial requirement that forces these businesses to pay for 10 percent of their credits. They said paying for the allowances – one previous idea was that they be free – will be crippling as businesses in other states and countries will have a competitive advantage.
Higher water rates
Multiple representatives of water agencies, mainly in Southern California, also told the board that because the regulation covers their energy usage, water rates would increase.
The cost will be about $2.50 per year per household, said air board spokesman Stanley Young, explaining that utilities are covered by the law because of the electricity used in moving water from Northern California to Southern California.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Many yeaers ago I read the science fiction story, “The Marching Morons”, by Frederick Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23657356/The-Marching-Morons
With halloween coming up, the story is no longer science fiction, but a horrifyig, Freddy Krugeresque reality.
It’s fine by me. Australia has a new carbon tax and so now I will not buy Australian products wherever I can, like their wine. California has cap&Trade, I will stop buying prodicts from California like their oranges and wine.
Looks like I’ll be buying these products from other places like Florida.
oh well, no problem.
California has been committing economic suicide for a very long time, and has been losing businesses for a very long time as a result.
Partly it has been a long held atmosphere that CA is a place everyone wants to come to, no one wants to leave — this has kept an anti-business regulatory mentality in place.
Electricity prices have historically mattered more to businesses than individuals, since CA’s mild climate means relatively little electricity use for heating and cooling, vs. other parts of the US. This may explain the many stages by which CA went from a medium priced to a very high priced electricity state.
In the early 1980s, when a federal law introduced a form of competition in electricity, CA regulators mandated that “alternative” providers be paid exorbitant costs far above the actual costs avoided when a utility purchased from an “alternative” provider. An early version of what the UK is going through, not emulated elsewhere in the US. So businesses flooded out of the state — hard to believe that Los Angeles used to be an aerospace manufacturing hub, isn’t it?
Then, in response to these higher electricity prices, remaining CA businesses tried desperately to find a way to reduce them. The politicized answer was CA’s peculiar form of state level electricity deregulation, which depended upon plentiful electricity supplies to keep prices down. Unfortunately, due to the usual environmental constraints, there weren’t enough power plants in CA in the late 1990s, so electricity prices went through the roof — again. I suspect many readers remember CA’s electricity shortages, which led to Gray Davis’s much deserved demise, and to Ahnold’s election. Exeunt more businesses.
This short tale of anti-business behavior only addresses electricity issues, but I understand that the anti-business climate — you need us more than we need you — is long standing pretty much across the board in CA, with the exception of the coddling of the high tech industry, the golden tax revenue goose that is running out of eggs.
Carbon trading will not significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon trading is a tax that will transfer billions of dollars to third party scams.
Climate skeptics’ goal is to bring to logic and thoughtful discussion to the table. Reality is reality. There is a limited amount of tax payer dollars. Economists, engineers, and politicians do not have a magic wand.
A natural consequence of the AWG paradigm is panic and dogma leading to massive waste of tax payer dollars and high unemployment. This is no longer a theoretical problem.
As everyone is aware, billions of dollars were wasted on the created problem of Y2K. Now trillions of dollars will be wasted on fighting the war against atmospheric CO2.
We are carbon based life forms. Plants eat CO2. Life would not exist on this planet without CO2. The biosphere expands when atmospheric CO2 levels increases and when the planet warms, based on current temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. (We are at the end of an interglacial period the planet has cooled roughly 2C from the warmest period during this interglacial period. Atmospheric CO2 is currently 0.039%, 390 ppm. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse at 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to increase yield and reduce growing time.) The ice sheets will not rapidly melt, if the planet warms one or two degrees Celsius. Sea level rise is not accelerating and will not accelerate. Planetary cloud cover increases when the planet is warmer to resist forcing changes. Data and analysis in published papers supports these assertions.
Biofuels are an example of the lack of logic and thoughtful discussion. Biofuels are a scam that converts food to fuel, at 1.5 to 2 times the cost of fossil fuels, with a slight increase in carbon dioxide emission if the fertilizer, harvesting, and conversion energy is included in the calculation. As there is a limited amount of agricultural land, the biofuel scam will reduce the supply of basic food. Western Countries have more money so we can buy the missing food from third world countries which will result in malnutrition and starvation. To help make up for the loss of current agricultural land, vast regions of virgin forest are being cut down to grow food to convert to green biofuels.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
“Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’
“Massive production of biofuels is “a crime against humanity” because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. “Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity,” UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.”
http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsReleases/Biodiesel%20Energy%20Balance_v2a.pdf
Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood;Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower
“Energy outputs from ethanol produced using corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass were each less than the respective fossil energy inputs. The same was true for producing biodiesel using soybeans and sunflower, however, the energy cost for producing soybean biodiesel was only slightly negative compared with ethanol production. Findings in terms of energy outputs compared with the energy inputs were: • Ethanol production using corn grain required 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using switchgrass required 50% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using wood biomass required 57% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Biodiesel production using soybean required 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced (Note, the energy yield from soy oil per hectare is far lower than the ethanol yield from corn). • Biodiesel production using sunflower required 118% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
The Clean Energy Scam
The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil’s filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.
But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.
Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.’s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn’t exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.
Backed by billions in investment capital, this alarming phenomenon is replicating itself around the world. Indonesia has bulldozed and burned so much wilderness to grow palm oil trees for biodiesel that its ranking among the world’s top carbon emitters has surged from 21st to third according to a report by Wetlands International. Malaysia is converting forests into palm oil farms so rapidly that it’s running out of uncultivated land. But most of the damage created by biofuels will be less direct and less obvious. In Brazil, for instance, only a tiny portion of the Amazon is being torn down to grow the sugarcane that fuels most Brazilian cars. More deforestation results from a chain reaction so vast it’s subtle: U.S. farmers are selling one-fifth of their corn to ethanol production, so U.S. soybean farmers are switching to corn, so Brazilian soybean farmers are expanding into cattle pastures, so Brazilian cattlemen are displaced to the Amazon.
So they going to “limit the amount of carbon in fuel”.
I assume this can only mean switching to electric or hydrogen power, with nuclear used to generate the carbon or electricity.
As a Texan, this is the best news I’ve heard since the Rangers won last night! What’s left of silicon valley is gonna be moving to Austin, and the little bit of manufacturing Cal has got left is moving to either Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio – our continued economic boom is assured! Woo hoo!!!!!
I can’t believe the idiots we have to suffer to live in California.
I remember when the rolling brownouts hit California about a decade ago, after the disastrous (that is, completely half-assed) attempt to deregulate electricity in that state. The old Mojave Power Station in Laughlin, NV, was running 24*7 at full speed to generate power for California. Of course, that plant was too dirty to operate in California, but the electricity it generated was good enough.
This should be good news for Nevada. They need to jobs that will leave California as businesses close up. Of course, some of the jobs will go to China, but hey, that’s the price of progressivism.
Watch film production in California all but cease. Or…Watch creative accounting flourish.
Anyone even vaguely familiar with how Hollywood does business knows exactly what I mean.
Now, if California simple vanished from the face of the earth, leaving a void which is CO2 neutral, it wouldn’t change the global climate/weather to any statistically significant degree. What makes them think they matter so much?
…Whoops. Sorry, was going to write more, but Keeping Up With the Kardashians is on, gotta run…
I read the BBC article by Mr. Black. He genuinely seems to believe in his cause and makes the best of everything that supports his cause. We all do the same thing. None of us is independent of our world view, and science is clealry much more subjective than many people realise. Facts are facts, but it is the interpretation of the facts that causes the trouble. The only thing I saw in the report which was remotely troubling was the contention that BEST supports the Anthropogenic cause of the warming. I didn’t see any explanation about why they came to that conclusion.
I hope this decision will only remain in California. Never enter our state!
Agree with “David in Georiga” and “WWS” among other commenters. This is an important step toward clarity, but it may not achieve it. The big question is, how quickly will the folly and destruction be acknowledged? I have studied other stupid policies, in California and elsewhere, and am always impressed at how long they persist. First there will be the hoopla by its supporters. Ribbon cutting and vuvuzelas to drown out those who object. Then a quieter period while favors are bought and sold. Then various crashes and ruination, as this or that key business exits, and joblessness becomes “unexpectedly” worse. Then apparently-unrelated events will loom large: the continuing cancerous growth in state deficits, collapse of infrastructure and core services, etc. This will take time to develop. And the fingerpointing will make it hard to assign responsibility. The important –I think pivotal– role of this policy in destroying the state’s economy may get lost in the general cloud of dust as things implode.
To Richard Btriscoe – Many thanks for the link – that’s the very one.
MikeA
I lived in SoCal from 1976-1993. Got out just in time by my reckoning. Even so I lived in Orange County which was the only conservative county in the state AFAIK back then. Kind of makes you wonder how far the voters will go in running businesses out of the state. There are a lot of high-tech refugees from California in Austin area. It’s nicknamed Silicon Hills after Silicon Valley.
Give us your tired, your poor, your over-regulated businesses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your carbon-free shores. Send these, the jobless, environmentalist-tost to us, we lift our fossil fuel filled lamp beside the Interstate 10 golden door at El Paso.
The laws of unintended consequences.
The EU is unbearably green, and the intellectual giants who govern the UK passed the most draconian decarbonidation legislation in the world – more than California.
Now sanity is beginning to return. Politicians are discovering that their green aspirations may not be quite as practicable as they had had thought and they may be just slightly more expensive than their optimistic forecasts.
In the UK, people are beginning to catch on that rapidly rising energy prices isn’t to do with nasty energy companies making a profit but that renewable energy is very expensive and requires an eye watering amount of infrastructural investment.
Two years ago, we were told by our prime minister that anybody who didn’t believe in AGW was a dlat Earther. The energy secretary, who got a D grade in hig school physics told us that the science is settled.
Just recently, we are told that the massive discovery of shale gas in the UK is going to stay in the ground, because otherwise this will breach EU CO2 targets.
I predict that the politcal backlash is gathering pace, and the problems of the green agenda are only just beginning to bite. As political perceptions change, the science may change …..
I’m not sure the people implementing a carbon tax in California are that stupid. Such a tax is a good way for the State to raise additional money without appearing to raise taxes.
Also, look at California’s economy. It has diversified away from mining, agriculture, manufacturing and construction toward education, health, real estate and government. The government now accounts for more than 12% of California GDP.
So Californians can buy and sell real estate and go to the doctor and pay taxes to their hearts content .
This just in… news reports from California indicate that Atlas just Shrugged!
My apologies in advance to a minority of those living in CA but, over the past 20-30 years living in several areas east of the Rockys, it seems that those from CA are viewed as fruitcakes in almost all cases. An old stereotype applied when discussing someone’s odd behavior was to kind of wink and say they were probably from CA and that usually made the point. I have met several people from CA and they didn’t share mainstream values with the regional population.
That said, CA is a big and diverse state and the preceeding statement would not apply to everyone of course, but look at the way CA votes and acts. There is seriously a problem with the majority of the population.
I just hope that it will have the most profound effect on those that voted for it. Bring your business east of the Rockys. New England states would be risky ventures. The original Southern States will be your best bet. We welcome your business but leave your people behind.
I’m not sure they’re committing BUSINESS suicide. I just think they are limiting the types of businesses which can be globally competitive in California.
They’re also saying to residents: you will pay more here in energy and water bills than elsewhere.
I don’t know California’s economy that well, but it never came across to me that it was full of smelting plants, oil refineries, huge chemicals plants or the like?
How much carbon does it take to make a Hollywood movie? Build Google? Do medical research? Grow wine?
And with a huge La Nina predicted for this winter, just wait for AlGore (as a new Californian) to blame climate change for the nasty weather they are about to endure. Also, watch people begin to realize increased costs for energy to cope with the weather plus the CO2 tax. They are in for a treat!
Doesn’t mold on decadent rot exhibit a green color, too?
As the tide of expat Californians rolls inexorably into the NW United States, I caution the current residents of that area that they bring with them communicable elements of the disease that is destroying their home.
Soon you will hear, in restaurants, watering holes, civic meetings, churches and hunting camps former Californians ruing the fact that WA, OR, ID, MT, WY don’t have some of the progressive niceties that they enjoyed in their former homes. In time these items will find their way to the ballot and your state will be well set on the California path. At the first hearing of this sort of talk you might, to paraphrase Ring Lardner, explain to them “shut up”.
steveta_uk says:
October 21, 2011 at 6:40 am
So they going to “limit the amount of carbon in fuel”.
It will be called “gasoline lite”. Higher price, less calories.
Made using the same technique as “lite” foods. Cut the contents in half, add water and gum to fill the package, stir. Voila, half the calories, half the fat. Increase the price 20% because this is the new “improved” version.
What you will see in California is the same thing that has happened in BC. Public funds to schools and hospitals will be diverted to “carbon allowances”. Companies will cut back on production and claim “carbon credits” for CO2 they are not producing. Instead of financing improvements to schools and hospitals, taxpayer money originally designated for schools and hospitals will be siphoned off and given to businesses that successfully lobby for “carbon credits”.
In effect, taxpayers will be paying well connected businesses to do nothing. By doing nothing these businesses will reduce the amount of CO2 produced. As the price of carbon increases, it becomes more and more profitable for businesses to do nothing. The new business model then becomes to find existing businesses that are operating at a loss, shut them down, sell the assets, and generate a profit from the reduction in CO2. Sort of like buying up farmland on the cheap from unprofitable farmers, and then getting paid not to plant crops. But of course, that would never happen.
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don’t Farm
Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html
I hope this decision will only remain in California. Never enter our state! (2)
Caution: the State of California has determined that living in the State of California can be hazardous to your mental and fiscal health.