Guest post by Lorraine Yapps Cohen
California Air Resources Board (CARB) met on Thursday, May 24. On the agenda was discussion toward deciding where and how to spend the billions raised from cap-and-trade carbon trading in the state.
At the public meeting was Betty Plowman, who attended the meeting to present a letter on behalf of the industries that CARB calls polluters, the California Construction Trucking Association (CCTA) and California Dump Truck Owners Association. The letter describes CARB’s threats to these industries, induced by the Board’s regulations that are, in turn, based on junk science. The letter’s signatories indicate intention to seek reparations for the regulated class under CARB’s repression in California.
CARB Chairman Mary Nichols let the clock conduct the agenda and closed the meeting at 5 p.m. before Plowman could present the letter. The world according to CARB disallows any voicing of concerns.
“It was just another day in paradise, wasn’t it?” said Plowman in her personal communications on the meeting. “I thought of ‘The Price is Right’ announcer saying ‘come on down.’ Everyone get their hands out; decide where this windfall should go.”
CARB disallowed the presentation of public concerns. Mary Nichols, in her authoritative overreach, simply adjourned the meeting when dissenting perspective tried to be heard, as seen in this video:
Despite that the letter received no air time at the CARB meeting, the matter is not likely to go away. The tyranny of Mary Nichols and CARB wears thin on the regulated. Their letter seeking reparations follows.
RE: Reparations to the Regulatory Class in California
Dear Governor Brown | Mary Nichols:
Recently, Robert Jenne, Assistant Counsel to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a written statement that we in the specific industries that CARB recognizes as polluters are hereby branded as the “Regulated Class” in California and subject to the rule and regulation of the agency and are bound to accept their rule at any cost. The class includes those who live and work productively in the transportation, manufacturing, construction and agriculture/forestry sectors of the California economy.
In this letter we inform you of the first action we are taking to meet this threat to our livelihood and our freedom, enacted by unelected bureaucrats without the due process guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
We the undersigned reject the classification by CARB. In the state of California we represent a minority of the population and have been singled out by regulators simply because we produce the goods and services required to build and maintain a modern society. We request Governor Jerry Brown, Chairman Mary Nichols and the State of California make payment as reparations, to those individuals and commercial entities who have been severely damaged by laws and regulations. These laws and regulations are based on junk science, sometimes conducted by individuals without valid credentials, contrived to achieve the control now shown to be the objective behind the charade.
Certain California state employees, board members, members of certain scientific review panels, and members of the California legislature and bureaucracy pushed these laws through the Legislature and its agencies without concern for the well being of its citizens, the public health, and the economic well being of the regulated class. Under the guise of a moral crusade to protect the environment, these agents of California government have generated an accumulating residue of economic damage, unintended consequences, bureaucracy and repression. Indeed agents of California government have learned to manufacture hypothetical threats in order to cement and expand state power and to enable the collection of funds needed to sustain and expand its grip.
California is unique in its extremism and excesses in the ruthless pursuit of societal control. The collapse of the Western Climate Initiative gives evidence that California stands alone in North Americain its activism and agenda. In the same way that the 19th century Confederacy rationalized and defended keeping a large segment of its productive population under extreme exploitive control, today the state government of California takes for granted its ability to control the backbone of its productive population. As Americans we are reclaiming our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Hundreds of thousands of California citizens and businesses have been displaced and/or lost their jobs, careers and homes over agendas borne by radical agents in the California legislature, executive offices, and its supporting cast of NGOs and academics. We as citizens of California can no longer bear the brunt of this attack on our freedoms and exercise our right to protect ourselves from these excessive regulations designed to end our livelihoods and our well being.
The losses borne by this “Regulated Class” are immense. Details will be provided to you in the form of actual losses from regulations borne by the California Air Resource Board that have no benefit to Man or the environment. We will base our demand for reparations on this accounting.
Signatories,
==============================================================
The reality is that the state will find a way to grab the money to support its continuing out of control spending, now in the red to the tune of over 16 billion dollars. In effect, this just becomes a backdoor tax scheme. See http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/01/11/brown-wants-cap-trade-for-pensions/
The letter’s signatories indicate the intention to seek reparations for damages to the “regulated class” as defined by CARB. In so doing the class placed itself as a new example of minority exploitation by a repressive state government.
Related articles
- Can market for clean-air credits resist profiteers? (sacbee.com)
- Areas of Concern Remain for Regulated Industries with Regard to Carb’s Cap-and-Trade Regulation (prweb.com)
- California counting its carbon tax riches (junkscience.com)
- The Many Moving Pieces of California’s Cap and Trade Program (junkscience.com)
- Cap and Trade protest petition in California (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Quebec to Join California’s Cap-and-Trade Program (sustainablebusiness.com)
If you read “Ecotopia” and “Ecotopia Emerging” the portrait which emerges of the Ecotopian leader is one that obviously took a page from Allende. Callenbach clearly modeled his utopia after short lived Allende era Chile. Is it any surprise that we now have people who are just like that running the “Eco-bureaucracy?”
and australia is going down the same drain we start our carbon tax $23 a ton 7/1/2012 ? to Nichols and Gillard why do you hate us so much
In the end, when all is said, there is nothing like a well placed offer politicians can’t refuse.
Someone forgot to put a Finger in the Dike of Bureaucracy- might have gotten a friendlier hearing.
To; Richard Courtney
The meeting was pro forma — a regulatory requirement that the state get “input” on what to do with its windfall of funds that will be coming its way under Cap-and_Trade. So all manner of characters showed up with ideas for spending and with hands out for a piece of the action. In reality the State will use it to help close its well known shortfall in government worker pension funds http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/01/11/brown-wants-cap-trade-for-pensions/ and for various boondoggles http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/05/18/will-cap-and-trade-cure-california%E2%80%99s-deficit-100-billion-in-ten-years-for-govt/ That is, it is the backdoor tax to allow California to continue its descent to Greek or Spanish status.
With this in mind, Chairman Nichols was ill prepared and did not take kindly to the floor challenge to the very premise of the whole business: A shake down of the wealth-generating sector of the economy, under the guise of saving the planet. Everyone knows that climate has nothing to do with it, but in the one-party state of California, too few can or do pay attention to what is really going on.
As for a written Constitution, it helps to have one, but you have to sign on to adhering to it. Her Majesty’s government does not have a written one, but it has not done badly, by and large.
These dirty old capitalist regulated class MUST purchase carbon offsets from the government.
I wonder who sells them to the gov’t. Horses & buggies and electric car owners, Maybe. Or is this a subsidy for solar/wind money losers.
Dan in California said:
May 31, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Cal EPA (yes, the state has their own EPA because the federal version isn’t draconian enough)
———————————–
Why hasn’t obama launched a lawsuit against California like he did against Arizona when, in its struggle against illegal-alienism, it attempted to abet Fed authority?
Eric “Fast & Furious” Holder said: “”Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility…”
But California has its own EPA, setting environmental policy and enforcing – are they not usurping Federal powers like Arizona tried to do?
I guess it suits obama to have a state-based shadow of his Fed politburo so he can govern by fiat through his barackracy.
I wannna get outa California before the green-curtain becomes as inescapably strong as the iron one was.
This meeting was to discuss disposition of the C&T funds already mandated by CA law – not to discuss the merits of C&T. The letter and dissenting comments were misplaced.
The CA legislature is the only place where this madness can be stopped.
Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet?.
If California weren’t so far left, it could take Greece’s place in the Euro Zone.
A true Commissar. What is it about the modern US “Democrats” that so like playing Czars and Commissars. Hmmm… could be the name of a political board-game, a kind of inverse Monopoly.
for all of you in California, all I can say is…
Come to Texas!!! Texas is open for business, and we want you!
You want to feel appreciated for creating jobs rather than punished?
COME TO TEXAS!!!
(Please!!!)
Fat malignant spider
I’ve lived in this state for far too long…
This was released today. The weird part of all this, the general public doesn’t support cap-and-trade and 2/3rds feel California is on the wrong track.
NEW: Cap & Trade parasite bill signals civil war on business
May 31, 2012
source: http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/05/31/cap-trade-parasite-bill-signals-civil-war-on-business/
By Wayne Lusvardi
Speaker John A. Perez’s push of Assembly Bill 1532 through the State Assembly on Tuesday, May 29, signals a shift from regulation of air pollution to an outright civil war on business and industry in California.
AB 1532 is not content with just using pollution taxes collected under California’s Cap and Trade emissions trading program to lower water, power, and natural gas bills for ratepayers, due to the looming higher price of green power. Rather, AB 1532 will directly use Cap and Trade taxes to parasitically transfer jobs taken from the private sector, to political pork jobs in the public sector. It could also end up circumventing the limitation of new taxes of Propositions 13 and 26. The passage of AB 1532 is a provocative act that crosses the line between regulation and outright plunder of the private sector for public sector make work green jobs programs.
Link to the AB 32 Poll results:
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/05/03/the-speculative-game-with-cap-and-trade/
The poll, authored by the AB 32 Implementation Group, submitted the polling information to the CARB, but it appears that CARB has turned a deaf ear on Californians.
Several decades ago I participated in a CARB hearing on dealing with airborne asbestos in California. Early in the meeting a presenter described a relatively short gravel road in California made from asbestos containing rocks. He suggested that this road alone was responsible for 30 percent of the airborne asbestos in the state.
Later, several of us from the auto industry discussed asbestos brake linings. There was significant debate whether or not asbestos in brakes were responsible for 0.01 percent of the asbestos exposure in the state, or 0.0001 percent. Debate centered on a presentation showing data that 99 percent of the asbestos in brake linings is transformed into Forsterite (dirt) during braking. CARB, of course, declared that ALL of the asbestos in linings ended up in California air, even that in junk yards.
I made a suggestion that we turn our attention to finding a method of paving the asbestos roadway rather than arguing about how much of brake linings turn into Forsterite. A CARB member curtly shut off all further discussion with the curt reply: “We don’t regulate roads. We regulate YOU because we already have a process in place for regulating you.”
Okay guys; you gotta go read up on this – California established ‘CARB’ (or its predecessor) BEFORE the passage of the Clean Air Act (which in 1970 addressed/established requirements for air pollution controls):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Clean_Air_Act
.
Wow. This is similar to what happened in Australia with our legislation for CO2 tax and Emissions Trading Scheme (i.e. Cap and Trader). The Government called for submissions to a Join Parliamentary Committee on “Australia Clean Energy Future Legislation” Over 4500 submissions were received. The Committee, under control of the Government and the Greens, decided only 70 submissions were acceptable. The others were classified as correspondence, not submissions, and were not published. Some of the 70 that were accepted were dated and received after the closing date. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jscacefl/subs.htm
What a fiasco. That’s how democracy works under the current “down under” government.
Tom Johnson says:
May 31, 2012 at 6:21 pm
“We don’t regulate roads. We regulate YOU because we already have a process in place for regulating you.”
=========
My wife and I moved out here a couple of years ago from the East Coast. We’re convinced there has to be something to explain the attitude in California but haven’t discovered it yet. Maybe its a missing gene.
I estimate the costs for the Australian CO2 tax and Cap and Trade legislation at nine times the benefits, and that is if the assumptions of an optimal system are implemented by the world, in unison, starting July 1, 2012! Explanation below.
Benefit to cost ratio of the Australian CO2 pricing scheme to 2050
In an interesting exchange between Roger W. Cohen, William Happer and Richard Lindzen, and reply by William D. Nordhaus on “The New York Review of Books” here Professor William Nordhaus (hereafter WN) said:
”
Particularly note this bit:
I am surprised that WN says the $3.5 trillion is a significant number, given that it is cumulative to 2050 and is for the whole world. I am also surprised that WN says skeptics “should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” I consider the Australian situation and calculate the costs to achieve the Australian share of the $3.5 trillion reduction in climate damages would be around nine times greater than Australia’s share of the estimated $3.5 trillion saving. Here is how I did my calculations.
I converted the estimated $3.5 trillion world damages avoided to the Australian proportion on the basis of Australia’s share of world GDP, i.e. 1.17%. So Australia’s share of damages avoided is 1.17% x $3.5 trillion = $41 billion. That is the cumulative damages avoided by Australia to 2050. It assumes an optimal CO2 price, the whole world implements the CO2 price in unison, and an economically efficient system is implemented across the whole world. It also assumes Australia’s share of world GDP remains constant.
The Australian Treasury estimated the loss of GDP that our legislated CO2 tax and ETS will cause. [ However, it seems they may have underestimated because they, apparently, have not estimated the compliance cost]. The cumulative loss of GDP to 2050 is $1,345 billion (undiscounted) (Chart 5:13), or $390 billion discounted at 4.34%, which I believe is the discount rate that is the default in RICE (2012) and gives the value of $3.5 trillion quoted by WN.
If my calculations are correct, the benefit, to Australia, of the optimum CO2 tax rate (if the world implements an economically efficient CO2 pricing scheme in unison) would be $41 billion and the cost (reduced GDP) would be $390 billion. Therefore, the benefit to cost ratio is 0.11. [benefit/cost should be greater than 1 for the policy to be justified] .
Therefore, I do not understand WN’s statement that “[sceptics] should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” My calculations suggest we would spend nine times greater sums, not smaller sums, to achieve the benefits estimated by WN.
There is a remedy avaialble. It’s time for a ‘Hokey Pokey Election’ in Greater California!
“You put the right ones in. You take the left ones out…..That’s what it’s all about!”
_Jim says:
May 31, 2012 at 6:28 pm
“Okay guys; you gotta go read up on this –….”
============
To what end.
The weak minded, want the short story.
wws says:
May 31, 2012 at 5:23 pm
for all of you in California, all I can say is…
Come to Texas!!! Texas is open for business, and we want you!
You want to feel appreciated for creating jobs rather than punished?
COME TO TEXAS!!!
(Please!!!)
—
And in doing so, they will also bring their ELECTORAL VOTES to Texas… [hee, hee]
Mods, a re-do por favor due to a formatting muff …
If you had been sharp in your first cursory read, you would have noticed that I included the vital Cliff’s Notes ‘takeaway’/sound bite version … right? (Who, what, where/location and when/dates/times, relevant jurisdictional authority etc … right?) and taking note of those ‘vitals’ their argument and ensuing discussion re: Cal EPA vs Fed EPA jurisdiction (here is a quiz for you) is:
a) sublime or
b) moot?
.
Peter Lang says:
May 31, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Nordhaus slipped the argument from the likelihood of any climate damage at all to … is X trillion dollars signficant. As usual with the advocates, you have to keep your eye on the pea. Cohen, Lindzen and Happer simply pointed out that it is silly to quote computed benefits to three signficant figures when we don’t know the climate sensitivity to even one signficant figure. And it is very likely that the sensitivity is much smaller than assumed by WN.
Econs like Nordhaus either don’t understand the simplest concepts of uncertainty or they are simply disingenuous.