California Climate Secession Threat

Protest against Proposition 23
Protest against Proposition 23 (2010), calling on California to suspend emissions targets until unemployment dropped below 5.5%. The measure was defeated by a wide margin.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A small but vocal group of Californians want to secede from the Union, to avoid President-elect Trump’s climate policies.

Climate Change Secession

Some private citizen groups in California, distraught at the prospect of an America under President Donald Trump, are advocating that the state secede from the union.

Constitutional scholars (and most Californians) assure us the separation is not going to happen. But is there any instance in which California could go its own way? What if Trump withdraws the nation from the United Nations Climate Change Accord and rejects the validity of the global warming threat altogether?

Could and should that set the stage for environmentally precocious California to break ranks with the president and join the Climate Change Treaty as a separate entity? It is not all that outlandish, considering California would not be declaring itself a sovereign state. It would simply be using its existing progressive greenhouse gas emission reduction policies to directly participate in a worldwide crusade to slow the rate of human-induced global warming. That shouldn’t exclude it from being a member of the United States in good standing.

California’s unilateral action could arguably be justified as a legitimate manifestation of States’ Rights that would serve as an inspiration at home and abroad. We are talking about policies aimed at having 33 percent of the state’s electricity come from clean, renewable energy by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.

Read more:

Other voices urge that California remain part of the Union, so they can oppose President-elect Donald Trump’s policies from within.

California must lead, not secede

In the Trump era, California must do what it does best — lead

More than a month after the presidential election, many Californians are still stunned by the results. Admittedly #CalExit is a great rallying cry, but secession is not the answer. #CalLeads is a better solution.

Rather than secede, we can do what California does best — lead.

It’s possible the Trump administration will find bipartisan common ground on solutions to our nation’s problems, but it’s equally possible Washington will continue to merely seethe in its dysfunctional swamp. We shouldn’t wait to find out.

Obviously, California still has its share of challenges — from housing costs to education to water — but we’re working on them, not waiting for answers from Washington.

Read more:

California’s ambitions to be a leading example of renewable energy success are a fantasy.

Last year (2015) California imported 99,210 GWh (33%) of their electricity from out of state, mostly from the South West, up from 25% in 2010. If California seceded they would have to negotiate some fossil fuel electricity import deals real quick, or the lights would go out.

But look on the bright side – if California secedes, Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown finally gets to be President of somewhere.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 20, 2016 12:08 am

The inhabitants in the so-called 7th wealthiest economy in the world should read John Donne.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Perry
December 20, 2016 1:50 am

By the same token,
if a clod be washed away by his own empty headed arrogance
the rest of us are the better,
toll the bells, away the clods.

Reply to  Perry
December 20, 2016 3:02 am

Could and should that set the stage for environmentally precocious California to break ranks with the president and join the Climate Change Treaty as a separate entity?

That is a policy that could draw wide support outside California.
Let them bear the brunt of this stupidity instead of trying to impose it on the whole nation.
We will then see in a much quicker time frame what the results of that policy is and judge its ‘social costs’ in an informed way.

Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 4:09 am

Article I, section 10 of the constitution prohibits that outright.

Jason Calley
Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 5:28 am

Hey Archer! Certainly California cannot both remain a state and legally agree to a treaty as a separate entity. Still, if California seceded, they could agree to any treaty they wished. Most people will tell you that a state may NOT secede — but the only strong argument in support of that position is brute force, such as was the argument during the Civil War.
(Sadly, what the US Constitution allows or forbids is a moot point. The Constitution has not been seriously enforced for a very long time now. Legal “scholars” and judges can (and do) make it support whatever they wish.)

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 6:16 am

While California can’t form treaties with any foreign body as a separate entity, nothing stops them from trying to go greener as a state. Where a state elects to get it’s energy isn’t a function of federal legislation.

Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 6:22 am

Archer is right:
Article 10. “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;”
It’s hard to imaging what could be clearer than that.
OTOH, Jason is right, too: The liberal government, including the courts, rarely pay much attention to the actual words and meaning of the U.S. Constitution. For instance, they’ve long since effectively deleted “interstate” from the Interstate Commerce Clause, the entire Tenth Amendment is trampled with serene regularity, and they keep finding “constitutional rights” to do things which were universally criminal when the actual Constitution was written.
Consider the “Constitutional” basis for EPA regulation of farm ponds. It goes something like this:
Section 8. “The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;…”
Yes, it’s the Interstate Commerce Clause. So how does that have anything to do with farm ponds?
Well, to begin with, Congress stretched that authority to the breaking point and beyond with the Clean Water Act, which authorized the EPA to regulate “navigable waters” of the United States, under the flimsy legal theory that anything which affects navigable waters can also affect interstate commerce which utilizes those navigable waters.
In fact, the “cleanliness” of water rarely affects navigation upon it, but that didn’t stop Congress, and, so far, neither the courts nor subsequent Congresses have been inclined to interfere.
Quoting from the least reliable but most convenient source: “Navigable waters, as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as codified under 33 CFR 329, are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and those inland waters that are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce while the waterway is in its ordinary condition…”
That obviously doesn’t cover farm ponds and creeks, though. Nobody uses farm ponds to transport goods in interstate or foreign commerce (with the possible extremely rare exception of a farm pond which straddles a State border).
But, more recently, the EPA has advanced the legal theory that anything which affects any water which drains into any tributary of any navigable waterway is subject to their regulation. That’s wildly beyond the scope of even the Clean Water Act, but it is the supposed legal basis for them to crush farmers and ranchers who have the audacity to build farm ponds without first bowing and scraping before federal authorities,

george e. smith
Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 7:01 am

Well where would California get its water and electricity from. It doesn’t have near enough of either by itself.
And some of us don’t want to be seceded.

Bob Hoye
Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 7:47 am

Secession of CA would help with the popular vote. Perhaps when California leaves, it could take Quebec with it.
Now, that would be a combination!!!

Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 8:34 am

Archer: Article I, section 10 of the constitution prohibits that outright.
It prevents the state of CA from signing the treaty. It does not prevent the CA Assembly from passing laws applicable to itself in line with the goals stated in the treaty.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if CA tried to restrict emissions caused by the economic activity of the docks.

Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 9:13 am

California can’t ratify a foreign treaty, they may chose to adhere to the treaty without being a signatory.

Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 7:39 pm

Some Californians act like spoiled children who threaten to leave their parents if they don’t get what they want.
One in eight live in California but the other seven live in other states. So they think they have the right to dictate policies to the other seven.

Reply to  Greg
December 20, 2016 8:39 pm

California and Quebec have worked together to get Cap-and-Trade into Canada. This goes back several years.

Reply to  Greg
December 22, 2016 4:42 am

. . . they could simply implement the actions required by the treaty ( vague and unenforceable as they are ) without actually signing up. In fact we should ask them to do so in the interests of experimentation. Of course we would have to deny them access to fossil fueled power from out of state sources.

Reply to  Perry
December 20, 2016 4:05 am

>No man is an island entire of itself;
Unless his name is Madagascar.

Reply to  Perry
December 20, 2016 5:44 am

No man is an island….
He is a peninsula.
— Jefferson Airplane, After Bathing At Baxter’s

Reply to  ShrNfr
December 21, 2016 11:44 pm

Heh. Giggles.

Reply to  Perry
December 20, 2016 6:50 am

Ultimately, isn’t that the same as … “You didn’t build that !”

December 20, 2016 12:15 am

One suspects that it could take more than four (eight???) years to secede.

Reply to  stuartlynne
December 20, 2016 1:08 am

that would be my point. Presumably if it ever happened it would be a process that would take decades and keep thousands of lawyers in a well paid job.
. I don’t know California’s imports and exports but assume most are within America so presumably it would need to set up trade deals?
Looks very unlikely. Is this a serious proposition or a fit of pique by a small number of disgruntled voters?

Bryan A
Reply to  climatereason
December 20, 2016 6:23 am

Hasn’t history taught you anything? While secession is folly, just remember the Confederate States of America, it also isn’t a process that takes decades. It only takes an act of state congress and a statewide vote

Bryan A
Reply to  climatereason
December 20, 2016 6:24 am

Oh, and a potential war

Reply to  climatereason
December 20, 2016 6:47 am

And an Army. People haven’t studied the American Civil War usually don’t know that over half of the serving West Point graduates at the time joined the Confederacy – that’s one of the reasons they were so confident of victory.

Reply to  climatereason
December 20, 2016 8:49 am

Bryan A: It only take a war if people don’t want the state to secede. Not sure there are that many people outside of California who oppose the idea.

Tom O
Reply to  climatereason
December 20, 2016 8:55 am

For Bryan A –
“Oh, and a potential war”
Who in the rest of the states would fight to keep them? Seriously! As far I as know, Washington and Oregon were saying the same thing, I can see the tariffs on their products now! One way to get out of the debt hole the liberal policies, “led” by California, got us into.

Reply to  climatereason
December 20, 2016 11:50 am

Reality Check.
+ a bunch
I’m not joining the South Osceola regiment to prevent CA from leaving. (I can’t believe I’m saying this) but I might go to CA to help them secede. In the (not civil war) but the war to prevent southern succession, I think the North had a very economic reason to keep the south attached. With CA; any more; maybe not so much. Particularly if CA is going to continue to play the king of hearts card.
Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

Bryan A
Reply to  climatereason
December 20, 2016 12:09 pm

Just as an aside…Today, every Californian that wishes to own one, are out buying assault rifles because new laws going into effect makes today the last possible day to buy one and pick it up after the 10 day waiting period and before the end of the year when they will no longer be available for purchase

Terrance O'Grady
Reply to  climatereason
December 20, 2016 9:46 pm

I think we are all missing the point here. Isn’t the real issue here whether there is a way for the other 49 states to vote California out of the Union if it doesn’t secede?

Reply to  climatereason
December 21, 2016 7:36 am

“vote California out of the Union”
Kind of a these United States reality show. Well there you go, Trump’s the man

Peter MacFarlane
December 20, 2016 12:18 am

All the best to them.
Just make sure they’re not allowed back in for the next presidential election.
Job done.

December 20, 2016 12:20 am

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
California can secede from the Union if that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. But, if that is the virtuous “save the planet” path they want to take, they must secede/divest 100% from all fossil fuel use and live in the ‘Green’ bubble they yearn for so hysterically.
See how long that warm and fuzzy feeling lasts.
“Last year (2015) California imported 99,210 GWh (33%) of their electricity from out of state, mostly from the South West, up from 25% in 2010. ”
Cheap, reliable, life-saving fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere soon, no matter how many petroleum-based plastic placards are waved around.

December 20, 2016 12:21 am

See you later, as an AZ resident, I would have no issues never having to see another California plate driving entirely too slow and clogging up our freeways.

Reply to  David
December 20, 2016 2:30 am

lol, David, you would see the biggest exodus from California ever.

Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 20, 2016 5:43 am

Only of people worth keeping around.

Bryan A
Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 20, 2016 10:13 am

Given how the vote went, over 80% of Ca Counties could see a mass exodus

Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 24, 2016 11:21 am

Or a succession from California to join Nevada and Arizona… leaving a ‘rump State of California’ as the L.A. basin, a thin coastal strip up to SillyCon Valley, plus the San Francisco Peninsula and Marin….
Pretty much everything inland from the Coast Range and north of SF / Marin would love to escaps the domination by the LaLa Landers and SF Freakshow… (I say that as a native of California who grew up inland and north of SF. Folks there are generally rural conservative farmers, at least outside the college towns like Chico, Davis, etc.)

Reply to  David
December 20, 2016 6:39 am

We drive too slow in AZ, because AZ highway patrol have a bad habit of tagging out of state cars. I tend to drive 3-4 miles above the speed limit on AZ highways, no more.

Reply to  marque2
December 20, 2016 6:49 am

I’m in Texas, and you can tell out of state drivers here because they’re the only ones that drive at less than 85 mph anymore.
You probably think I’m joking. Nope.

Reply to  marque2
December 24, 2016 11:38 am

Having just crossed Texas, I can confirm that. In the 80 MPH speed limit places, I did 85 as that was about tops for my car ( 2 ton 1979 Mercedes wagon, loaded, with a 4 cyl carbureted engine…) and the locals did about 95… on the 75 MPH sections, I did 80 to 84 (limited to +9 over as that seems to be the point where tickets are issued to out of State plates…). The locals seemed about 90 mph…but some faster…
In California, the limit dropped to 65 MPH. Oddly, I still did about 75 and occasionally 80 (violating my general rule) but only because I was being passed by loads of folks doing 85 to 95+ and figured that was pretty good ‘cover’… I-10 and I-5. From Orlando (I-75) Florida to SillyCon Valley… about 68 elapsed hours… Pretty much everywhere was flying fast and low…
BTW, bypassed Phoenix and their “speed camera every mile” trap on I-10 west of town via I-8 / 85. If you want out of State drivers to not clog the road by doing the speed limit, take out the camera speed traps…

December 20, 2016 12:28 am

“What if Trump withdraws the nation from the United Nations Climate Change Accord and rejects the validity of the global warming threat altogether?
The United States never ratified any U.N climate change accord. Obama had no legal authority to approve the Paris agreement in the first place.

Reply to  skepticgonewild
December 20, 2016 2:15 am

President Trump should submit the Paris Agreement to the usa senate and let them vote. He could suggest a no vote is preferable, but that he intends to renegotiate the deal as a multilateral treaty with the 10 largest co2 emitters (China, EU, India, Russia, etc).

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
December 20, 2016 2:44 am

India is not a large emitter of co2. India’s yearly emissions are just one third of the world average emissions of about 5 T. per person and has a long long way to go !

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
December 20, 2016 3:12 am

Only the emissions per person count for the global warming? Well then, I guess Trump will be able sway the citizens in countries like Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to accept global warming eventually. At least worth a shot if you ask me.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
December 20, 2016 3:17 am

India is the third largest emitter after China and the United States. Per capita emission may be low, but there is a lot of indians.

Bryan A
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
December 20, 2016 6:31 am

India is #4 worldwide“CO2+emissions+by+coun”&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.0i7i30k1l5.11198.17226.0.21004.….0……0j0i8i7i30k1j0i10k1j0i67k1.7cVbHG1IAyg#imgrc=kubx1xPC7ZicaM%3A

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
December 20, 2016 7:28 am

“there is a lot of indians”
But so many of today’s problems can be correctly attributed to too many chiefs. Elected and unelected.
Sorry, I’ll get my hat.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
December 20, 2016 9:40 am

Ashok Patel, India is the number three emitter, and both China and India are Increasing Emissions while the rest of the world is reducing.

Owen in GA
Reply to  skepticgonewild
December 20, 2016 4:19 am

I am very sorry to inform you that the US is a signatory to the UNFCCC. George H. W. Bush signed it and the Senate approved it in 1992. If you are referring to the Paris agreement, then no, that can only be considered a presidential agreement that in no way binds the US to any of its provisions. The green blob is attempting to say we are bound to Paris by the UNFCCC because Paris is just an accord within that framework agreement, but as it is a change to the ratified text, it can not have effect on US law without ratification.

Jason Calley
Reply to  Owen in GA
December 20, 2016 5:35 am

Hey Owen! I suspect you know more about the UNFCCC than I do, so correct me if I am mistaken. I was under the impression that the UNFCCC sets goals but is not binding on signatores. It is more of a framework for what is desirable and for how future negotiations may be structured. Is that correct?

Reply to  Owen in GA
December 20, 2016 6:42 am

Anything that can be signed by executive order, can be removed by executive order.

Reply to  Owen in GA
December 20, 2016 6:51 am

A picture is worth a thousand words.
The best answer to the claims that the US is bound by the Paris Accord will be Donald Trump dropping his pants, bending over, and showing them his backside.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Owen in GA
December 20, 2016 7:54 am

The full text is available online, but I am by no means an expert on it. I just went to the US State Department’s list of active treaties and saw that the UNFCCC was listed and what date it went into effect.
It is a matter of international law that any agreement which is changed must be ratified in the same manner as the original agreement. So, any accord negotiated under the framework agreement must be ratified in the same manner as the framework.

Reply to  Owen in GA
December 20, 2016 9:23 am

The UNFCCC has a one year opt out. It is a congressionaly approved Pact, not a Treaty. The Paris accord is an executive agreement under the Pact with a three year opt out after 1 year. Signed under one of three narrow executive agreement constitutional presidential powers: certain foreign policy actions (recognizing nations and ambassadors, commander in chief, faithfully uphold laws). Faster cleaner, and less reversible to drop out of UNFCCC.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  skepticgonewild
December 20, 2016 6:13 am

This is the question that every American should be asking, to wit:

“What if Trump withdraws the nation from the United Nations?”

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 20, 2016 6:54 am

What happens if the US withdraws from the UN???
Hmm, maybe it means we won’t be complicit anymore in killing 10,000 starving Haitians by giving them cholera? We won’t be complicit in turning a blind eye while tens of thousands are butchered, like happened in Rwanda?
Name me one spot of conflict anywhere in the world where the UN is actually doing some good. I can’t think of any.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 20, 2016 8:05 am

The US doesn’t need to withdraw from the UN: Just require that all countries pay fairly and the organization will dry up and blow away.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 20, 2016 8:35 am

R Road is correct.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 20, 2016 4:10 pm

Hallelujah! We will be in the good company of Switzerland, that notorious land of backwardness, inelegance, and brutal behavior! (Full disclosure: I am a quarter Swiss.)

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 22, 2016 5:20 am

Now that would be a glorious day indeed. Both WWS and RockyRoad below make great points too.
The UN is a horrible thing that really is The Vampire Squid sucking the life out of our world. Defund it and it will be gone within a decade.

charles nelson
December 20, 2016 12:28 am

Imagine a modern ‘Sherman’ cutting a ‘swathe’ through California!

Reply to  charles nelson
December 20, 2016 1:13 am

There are quite a number of us here who would prefer to continue to fish, farm, ranch, log, build rockets and electronics. As long as you keep your swathe south of the Tehachapis and west of the San Gabriles many would not mind a bit.

Reply to  Duster
December 20, 2016 1:15 am

That actually ought to “south of the Transverse Ranges” since they run more or less east west.

December 20, 2016 12:34 am

We in the top third of California have been trying to secede from the lower two thirds for many decades now.
They steal our water and overtax us. We have a drought tax and our lakes are overflowing with water. California dreamin’ is becoming a reality. Or the results of it are pretty real.

Jason Calley
Reply to  Poems of Our Climate
December 20, 2016 5:47 am

Good luck — and I do mean that sincerely. It is not right that a group of people be held within a government which they do not agree to and do not approve of. I seem to remember a certain Mr. Jefferson saying (correctly) that people have a right to form the type of government which they desire.

Reply to  Jason Calley
December 20, 2016 6:28 am

Indeed. I’m a Brexiteer, and I believe that the people should have whatever they vote for and desire. Good luck to California in its endeavour to break from the rest of the U.S. I believe the way forward for us all is smaller collective societies, not multicultural continents of diverse beliefs.

Reply to  Jason Calley
December 20, 2016 8:07 am

California should be careful–there might be two states as a results: Northern California and Southern California. That would further isolate those in the south half that think they’re so indispensable.

Kelvin Duncan
Reply to  Jason Calley
December 20, 2016 2:20 pm

I thought only Texas had the right to secede?

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Jason Calley
December 20, 2016 6:55 pm

Texas has the right to divide itself into five separate states, not secede. We gave up that right when we annexed the U. S.

Reply to  Poems of Our Climate
December 20, 2016 6:29 am

For a long time people have wanted to get away from Southern California. Perhaps the answer is Cascadia.
There have been “Don’t Californicate Oregon” bumper stickers. Do those still exist?

Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2016 6:46 am

Not exactly, the people causing all the problems for the state are in the San Fran bay area. They come up with Eco rules and pay to get them enacted with Silicon Valley money, the mostly manufacturing southern CA then gets the brunt of the damage, because those Eco rules cause all our factories to shut down and move to other states. Don’t blame Socal for your troubles. This is why the state of “Jefferson” is usually defined as Santa Rosa North.

Bryan A
Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2016 10:26 am

But a Santa Rosa North state (x-ing through the GG bridge) would still include ultra liberal SFO in the same state as Socal. A better split would be the Tehachapi ranges and would assist LA and the remaining half of SO CAL (population 17M of 34M) to have a state unaffected by those northerners.

Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2016 12:33 pm

A % of Northern Californians and Southern Oregonians would like to form the State of Jefferson. That concept has been around for awhile. …

Bryan A
Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2016 8:27 pm

Should be called Califoregon

M Courtney
December 20, 2016 12:48 am

Isn’t the point of your constitution that individual states can run their own affairs?
If California wants to comply with the United Nations Climate Change Accord then they may.
They just can’t sign anything internationally.

Reply to  M Courtney
December 20, 2016 1:17 am

I fear you miss the point, M Courtney.. it’s not good enough to just do something – you have to be a PART of it all, must be seen. Loud and Proud. laws must be passed, meetings held, there must be much nodding and smiling. Heck, if it were enough just to do something then we’d see those convinced of their AGW righteousness walking everywhere and holding their breaths to keep the CO2 from escaping.

Reply to  M Courtney
December 20, 2016 2:45 am

Exactly! Nothing is stopping them from preceding with their dream…and paying for it in the various ways both understood and overlooked.

Reply to  falconized
December 20, 2016 5:27 am

Right. They’re involved in that stupid carbon trading scam with Quebec and Ontario. We in Quebec are blessed with abundant hydro power, so we generate less CO2 than they do, and they can buy credits from us, eh? Please don’t stand in their way. We need the $$$.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  falconized
December 20, 2016 7:43 am

Yep! I’ve never understood why the practice of consuming less needs any government involvement. The Left clammer for tyrannical powers to enforce their programs, then complain when they have a tyrannical government doing things they don’t like!!
When will the Left finally understand that real change and “social justice” only occur through voluntary action and association?

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  falconized
December 20, 2016 5:04 pm

Unfortunately, you are right. Much like the Federal Government, California is spending huge bucks it doesn’t have. They expect Californians will submit to more taxes to pay for bullet train and renewable energy forever – and more likely, big bailouts from the Feds. In neither case does anyone believe that either can operate without massive subsidies even after installation.
You can see from my name where I hail from, but God willing, come February I’ll be out of here – and hoping my new neighbors in Nevada don’t think I’m going to Californicate Nevada. I like the individualism they mostly espouse. Well, except for Las Vegas….

Just some guy
December 20, 2016 1:10 am

My wife and I recently drove up interstate five from Los Angeles to Spokane Washington. Once we passed Frasier Park all we saw the entire rest of the way were Trump signs. I take that back. We did see a very large “Hillary” sign once near Stockton, but when we were close enough to read the small print at the bottom it said “for prison 2017.” If the wack jobs that live along the coast think they’re going to secede from the union, I’m afraid the eastern half of the state will rebel and stay with the U.S., and if “Poems for our climate” is right (see post above) they’ll lose the entire upper third as well.

Reply to  Just some guy
December 20, 2016 10:22 am

Correct. The divide is not north-south but coastal v inland, i.e. east-west. There used to be a few coastal counties less Leftwing but even Orange voted for Clinton in 2016. IIRC only Del Norte among coastal counties voted for Trump but it also went for Obama.
So I favor the saltwater counties seceding to form a mini-Chile-shaped nation and letting the interior counties remain in the Union as two or three states.

Reply to  Chimp
December 20, 2016 11:47 am

Exactly, and there is precedent with West Virginia for the inner counties to secede from the rest of California.

Reply to  Chimp
December 20, 2016 3:10 pm

I guess that will provide a nice separation for damage assessment/relief when the San Andreas Fault finally lets loose

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Chimp
December 20, 2016 5:12 pm

I think Orange Co voted for Hillary because so many didn’t think their vote would matter. The big cities (not so much the burbs) are extremely leftist. And we changed the rules so that the two contenders for the Senate were bot Democrats. GOP need not apply. Here on the coast, the anti-Trump sentiment was a tidal wave. e have lots and lots of universities, and those snowflakes have an out-sized influence on their parents. I have seen many of my friends change their viewpoints because of the silliness their kids bring home. Somehow, they’ve become convinced that fantasy is the new reality. What else would you expect from an area that supports Hollywood? It takes a strong mind to think for itself instead of just following the crowd… or their children, apparently.

December 20, 2016 1:17 am

Brit Nigel Farage has proven record in organising exit out of an even larger Union, now he is looking for a new assignment. He’s done Brexit with population 64M for the world’s 5th largest economy, doing the Calexit would be no problem for our Nige.

Reply to  vukcevic
December 20, 2016 3:50 am

Sure, but what is your Nigel’s impact on the rest of the 7 billion? For this reason in my opinion the more Theresa and Boris can occupy Nigel within the new English assignment, the quicker the rest of the world is liberated from cAGW.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
December 20, 2016 4:03 am

(un)fortunately st.Teresa instructed blundering Boris not to be on speaking terms with Nigel.

Reply to  vukcevic
December 20, 2016 4:17 am

Farage had very little to do with organising anything. He wasn’t part of the leave campaign (which was also spectacularly terrible, to the point where one wonders if they were trying to lose) and his contributions to the debate amounted to riding a bus up and down the country and drinking a pint in front of photographers every few days.
He makes a pretty speech, but UKIP under his tenure turned from a reasonably well-organised party into a Nigel Farage publicity wagon. He doesn’t care about getting out of the EU so much as getting in the papers.
The real campaign took place over many years in the background, at places like EU Referendum, and succeeded in spite of people like Farage and the inept shower that was the leave campaign. In fact I’d go as far as to say that the reason leave won was more out of resentment at the political class than as a result of the efforts of any exit campaign.
But certainly no credit should be given to Nigel Farage.

Reply to  Archer
December 20, 2016 4:36 am

Wow. No credit given to the guy who entered politics only to get the UK out of the EU, and was the world figure most associated with that effort You should work for Hillary, finding ways to blame her loss on anything but her own terrible personality and campaign.

Reply to  Archer
December 20, 2016 4:41 am

As a strongly convinced ‘Remainer’, I see a bit of ‘humour’ as the means of exit from the whole fiasco.

Reply to  Archer
December 20, 2016 5:59 am

Farage is associated by dint of flinging himself in front of the cameras whenever the topic comes up.
And you assume a great deal about me. I voted out, and I consigning voted ukip since it first appeared on the ballot and up until 2008, when it became clear that nigel was turning the party into his personal publicity machine.
If anything, his grandstanding set back the effort to get us out off the eu.

Reply to  Archer
December 20, 2016 6:00 am

Vuk, I’d let california have him. He fit right in.

Reply to  Archer
December 20, 2016 6:40 am

Have you lost it?!? If it wasn’t for Mr Farage, the UK would NEVER have even got the idea of leaving the EU talked about!!! He built a political force that, although small, touched the nerves of many, including many serving MPs in the Conservative Party. It was the threat (behind closed doors) of them leaping ship and joining Ukip that had Mr Cameron promise a referendum – that he never thought he would lose. Mr Farage hasn’t just changed UK history from what it would have been, he has changed the course of EU history, of Europe itself. He has stunned the beliefs of complete idiots like Nick Clegg and Tony Blair – that the British people would act like sheep. He saw that there was still a glimmer of democracy here despite the f@ascism of messrs Clegg and Blair. Whether you like or loathe him, he is STILL the only man who will stand up and say it exactly as it is, and never lie – that’s why, despite countless TV appearances, no interviewer can ever pull him up on an untruth. He may exaggerate, but he never tells a lie, and the British people can see that.
“But certainly no credit should be given to Nigel Farage” Jesus, talk about ignorance!

Horace Jason Oxboggle
December 20, 2016 1:17 am

California does what it does best – lead.
In what sense does California lead? In numbers of homeless people sleeping in the streets of major cities? In departures of non-loony residents to states with viable economies? In having a trifecta of Pelosi, Boxer and Jerry Brown? In leftist celebrities making fatuous entreaties for us Deplorable Flyoverstan residents to reject the election outcome? Get real!

Steve T
Reply to  Horace Jason Oxboggle
December 20, 2016 4:00 am

Horace Jason Oxboggle
December 20, 2016 at 1:17 am
California does what it does best – lead.
In what sense does California lead?

In hypocrisy, as they get other states to emit their CO2 for them by importing 33% of their electricity.

Reply to  Steve T
December 20, 2016 4:21 am

Hypocrisy is the capital funding the Democratic Party’s ideological engine. It runs on unicorn flatulance.

Reply to  Steve T
December 20, 2016 12:40 pm

Also, without water from the Colorado Southern California would not have the population which it now has.

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Horace Jason Oxboggle
December 20, 2016 5:31 pm

You left out exporting our power generation to other states. And a bullet train from nowhere to … nowhere. And proposing satellites that ‘hover’ over California. And trying to coax salmon to an area they’ve never been, while protecting California Spotted Owls (which are genetically the same as Oregon Spotted Owls, among others). Or protect mountain lions to the extent that they now have one-tenth the territory their pre-European era ancestors had to hunt in.
On the other hand, the other 49 states (and many countries) will pay absolutely anything to watch whatever crap comes out of Hollywood – our one resource other than just having a coastline. You all travel here to enjoy our beaches and amusement parks (more fantasy). Hm. I guess we do lead. Except I have to change ‘we’ to ‘they’ as I’m out of here come February. This place is a loony bin.

December 20, 2016 1:18 am

maybe the feds could just get out of the climate business and leave it up to the states. let them compete. we’ll see who wins and who loses.

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  chaamjamal
December 20, 2016 5:32 pm

+1 !

Dodgy Geezer
December 20, 2016 1:21 am

The UK has much the same issue with Scotland.
The problem for Scotland is that it WAS rich enough to secede through oil, but this is now running out…

Smart Rock
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 20, 2016 5:47 am

Scotland has lots of coal, lots of coal-bed methane and lots of shale oil and shale gas. lots of shale oil and (most probably) lots of shale gas. It’s an energy rich country with a small population.
If they choose to exploit their resources………………………….

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 20, 2016 12:31 pm

They won’t,their green politicians won’t let that happen.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
December 20, 2016 1:23 am

What exactly would this secession entail? After all, the most convincing rejector of the validity of the global warming threat is mother nature.

December 20, 2016 1:33 am

Is the San Andreas fault line emitting some kind of brain altering fumes…?

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
December 20, 2016 5:06 am

The fumes come from an entirely different source. But it is biological, no worries.
IMO, California, as The United Kingdom, has all rights to choose independence. It is fair thing to do and a fair thing to support. I have no problem with that. Everybody becomes happy in their own way.

December 20, 2016 1:33 am

Article I, Section X – “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” This would seem to preclude the People’s Republic of California joining the climate change agreement unless they leave the union. They could voluntarily follow it, in theory, but they can’t sign anything. Of course, its not a treaty since the Senate didn’t ratify it. Of course “voluntarily’ in this case is a bit unclear since the Paris “Accord” is simply a collection of promises from nations. So, the PRC would have to submit a promise in order to then follow it. But, that would run afoul of the Constitution.

Reply to  Steven James Piet
December 20, 2016 2:17 am

I assume those counties of California that prefer to remain in the USA could do so. This may lead to half of California leaving, and half staying.

Reply to  Steven James Piet
December 20, 2016 5:32 am

We used to joke that global warming is a religion to those nuts.. It’s no joke anymore, global warming really is a religion to them. Infringe on their religion and they’ll go loopy and are capable of anything.
Amendment 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

Reply to  Scott
December 20, 2016 6:02 am

The Church of Warming is just a sect of the Government created religion of Secular Socialism. The founders left out a clause that should have prohibited the government from creating its own religion.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scott
December 20, 2016 12:12 pm

In many ways it is similar to Scientology

Reply to  Steven James Piet
December 20, 2016 5:35 am

We tried that secession gambut here in Quebec. Twice. It didn’t go over, but unlike the Scots who posed a direct, clear Yes or No question, we’re pretty good at creating confusing, garbled, tricky and misleading referendum questions, so we’d be happy to help Gov. Brown fool his own populace with a whopper.

December 20, 2016 1:36 am

What ‘California does best’ is to sink deeper and deeper into debt, while lousing up the lives of everyone stuck there. Every friend I have in CA is in pain financially, physically (health care is in a shambles)….. if they could afford it I would and Have advise(d) LEAVING.

December 20, 2016 1:39 am

The California idiots should pay attention to OBVIOUS evidence like this:comment image:large
And this:comment image

Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 20, 2016 1:41 am

Hmm. This is just a test as I don’t know why that first image didn’t show. Is it because of the “:large” at the end of it? I’ll try it without that.
Test:comment image

Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 20, 2016 3:48 am

Surf over to the WUWT Test page for this sort of thing. Also, there a lot of helpful tips and HowTo information.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 20, 2016 4:55 am

Err, no.
They should “pay attention to OBVIOUS evidence like this:” …
(using the correct scaling so that the slope is matched THROUGHOUT the record and not missing off a chunk and deceptively picked to be skewed for the latter part).
From a study with Richard Muller (former sceptic) as a lead scientist.
Or this that shows the fit of the empirical 5.35xln(400/280) forcing equ….
Also:comment image
The bit (surface) that the IPCC was projecting for – not for a large slice of the troposphere that has a cooling trend at the top (an AGW outcome), and using a now *adjusted* sat temp data products that still don’t agree with sonde data.
Oh, BTW: Do you have the 95% conf limits for that graph?

Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 20, 2016 8:54 am

Toneb: Not obvious at all.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 20, 2016 10:28 am

Muller was never a skeptic and BEST is a pack of lies.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 20, 2016 12:18 pm

The only thing missing from those 3 graphics is the CO2 scale. Or is the RED BAR representative of CO2

Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 20, 2016 9:03 am

Nice curve fit by Muller and Mosh. Where the actual data do not “match the slope throughout”, you pull the “natural logarithm” out of hindquarters.
“The natural logarithm of a number is its logarithm to the base of the mathematical constant e, where e is an irrational and transcendental approximately equal to 2.718281828459”
I particularly like the irrational and transcendental part. Please explain what this constant has to do with the relationship between CO2 and temperature?
Actually, California might be described as a natural logarithm. With a few billion in unfunded pension liability,
succession and tilting at Carbon windmills are positively irrational and transcendental.

December 20, 2016 1:48 am

Um nope
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;…” (Article I, Section 10)
Sorry, to make it own Paris treaty California would have to secede.

Reply to  bobl
December 20, 2016 1:52 am

OH, and I suspect water, electricity and debt may be a problem if they secede from the union

Reply to  bobl
December 20, 2016 5:08 am

I’m sure they’d accept import and export. I’m also sure their marvellous economy would survive well.

December 20, 2016 1:49 am

Obviously, California still has its share of challenges — from housing costs to education to water — but we’re working on them, not waiting for answers from Washington.

The obvious problem being, that most of California’s ‘challenges’ are caused by California’s ‘solutions’ to non-problems.
Secede or don’t, I really don’t care, but understand that California is heading towards the same end as Detroit, and the rest of the US isn’t going to support them once they get there.

Reply to  schitzree
December 20, 2016 9:36 am

“The obvious problem being, that most of California’s ‘challenges’ are caused by California’s ‘solutions’ to non-problems.”
Yes, California’s “fixes” are what cause them problems. They will figure it out one of these days. But they will probably have to crash and burn first.

December 20, 2016 1:51 am

This is the best idea the left has had yet, the green / socialist mental illness will be banished from these gullible minds pretty quickly

Steve T
Reply to  Owen Martin
December 20, 2016 4:06 am

Owen Martin
December 20, 2016 at 1:51 am
This is the best idea the left has had yet, the green / socialist mental illness will be banished from these gullible minds pretty quickly

As long as you don’t let those affected leave for other states and restart an infection elsewhere.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Steve T
December 20, 2016 6:57 am

Considering California’s treatment of “Oakies” in the ’30’s, what goes around comes around.

Reply to  Steve T
December 20, 2016 10:32 am

Californication has already ruined Oregon and Colorado. ID, UT & MT are threatened by refugees from CA who didn’t learn what wrecked the state they fled.

December 20, 2016 1:58 am

Under Constitutional law, California has every right to adopt any environmental standards they wish, however, they do not have the the right to unilaterally make a treaty between any foreign entity, as only the Executive Branch is constitutionally empowered to do so, with the proviso the treaty receives 2/3rds Senate approval.
I think it would be a great idea for California to secede and form a seperate country, as It would virtually guarantee the Democrats would never win another presidential election…. ever…
Any intelligent corporation would soon leave the People’s Republic of Kalifornia, and move to Texas, which has no state business tax and minimal business rules, regulations and mandates…

December 20, 2016 2:05 am

Perhaps this is a co-incidence only, but the protesting climate seems to correlate with the global warming threat: this time the photo-op attracted only a couple of protestors from the activist minority. And yet only ready printed signs were provided, no white coats. The faces were concealed only by turning away from the camera, instead of buried in sand, smothered in paint or something similar requiring more investment.

Robin Hewitt
December 20, 2016 2:08 am

It is hard not to draw parallels to our EU referendum in the UK. Strangely, nobody hoping to overturn the EU vote is calling for a re-run because the polls now suggest the Leave campaign would increase their lead from 52% to 60%. The scare stories are confirmed as bogus and are no longer scary. Maybe when the American electorate have had a taste of DJT and there is no WW3, his second term will be viewed as a good thing.
We also have the Scottish independence debate, but the Scots are an usual case. Universally loathed for having the world’s biggest chip on their shoulders they were pushed back as civilisation spread across Europe. Eventually with their backs to the sea they had to turn and fight, but they still seem to hate everyone apart from the French.

Reply to  Robin Hewitt
December 20, 2016 2:12 am

Presumably you mean ‘unusual’ case?
What mystifies me is that no one mentions that Scotland has no money as the already illusory wealth from north sea oil has faded to a dribble.

Reply to  Robin Hewitt
December 20, 2016 2:27 am

Funny Robin. Replace ‘Scottish/Scotts’ with ‘English’ in the second paragraph and then think what should ‘French’ at the end be replaced with.

Robin Hewitt
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
December 20, 2016 3:40 am

I did rather borrow that from T H White who had a glorious rant about the Scotti, “the race which had been expelled by the volcano of history into the far quarters of the globe, where with a venemous sense of grievance and inferiority, they even nowadays proclaim their ancient megalomania…”.
Currently represented in Parliament by the Jock Block. The SNP Members who sit there muttering and voting against anything and everything that does not mean more money or devolved power for Scotland.

Reply to  Robin Hewitt
December 20, 2016 4:40 am

We also have the Scottish independence debate, but the Scots are an usual case. Universally loathed for having the world’s biggest chip on their shoulders they were pushed back as civilisation spread across Europe. Eventually with their backs to the sea they had to turn and fight, but they still seem to hate everyone apart from the French.

P. J. O’Rourke couldn’t have said it better.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
December 20, 2016 5:20 am

This is just rubbish, you can’t define Scots like that. Many Scots want to be independent, and many are stupidly afraid of that. Europe has lots of countries with under ten million inhabitants doing well. Look at Denmark, the smørreøyn i kanelbulle. Or something. I don’t think we should give up independence to the big-government Eusoviet Union. Europeans need strong and common army, but not bureaucrats thinking how a measure a cucumber, or how to completely open external borders.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
December 23, 2016 4:24 pm

I was actually referring to O’Rourke’s classic piece for the National Lampoon back in the late 70s, Foreigners Around the World. It’s a VERY non-PC look at other races and nationalities; here’s one of the least offensive descriptions:

Racial Characteristics:
Violently loud alcoholic roughnecks whose idea of fun is to throw up on your car. The national
sport is breaking furniture and the average daily consumption of beer in Sydney is ten and three
quarters Imperial gallons for children under the age of nine. “Making a Shambles” is required
study in the primary schools and all Australians are bilingual, speaking both English and Sheep.
Possibly as a result of their country’s being upside down, the local dialect has over 400 terms for
vomit. These include “technicolor yawn” “talking to the toilet,” “round-trip meal ticket,” and
“singing lunch.” It is illegal to employ the aboriginal inhabitants as anything but toilets, and
some of the peculiar forms of native wildlife have up to nine assholes. The recent destruction of
Darwin by a hurricane was actually a cover story for the regrettable coincidence of paydays on
three separate sheep stations.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
December 23, 2016 4:26 pm

Actually, he did do one for the Scots:

Racial Characteristics:
Sour, stingy, depressing beggars who parade around in schoolgirl skirts with nothing on
underneath. Their fumbled attempt at speaking the English language has been a source of
amusement for five centuries, and their idiot music has been dreaded by those not blessed with
deafness for at least as long. The latter is produced on a device resembling five flutes that have
grown a piss bladder. Formerly, the Scots painted themselves blue and ranged far and wide over
the British Isles, but good fortune prevailed and they were conquered by their betters. What
passes for an alcoholic beverage in the dreary province to which the Scots have been driven has
enjoyed a short vogue among fairies and advertising types, but this appears to be giving way to

James Bull
December 20, 2016 2:22 am

I think it’s a brilliant idea given the last para.
But look on the bright side – if California secedes, Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown finally gets to be President of somewhere.
James Bull

December 20, 2016 2:40 am

Delegates left Paris ecstatic because they realized that sequestering carbon in the soil as organic matter is DOABLE. This would increase soil fertility, reduce droughts, and increase the carrying capacity of the Earth for Life. This does NOT require Trump or any other politicians, just education of the general populace about where food comes from. It is based on FACTS not fancies, though you will have a hard time taking that line with alarmists. Just tell them that the temperature controversy no longer matters. Everyone wants vitality and health and lets work together for it.

Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 20, 2016 2:51 am

If you were a delegate and left Paris ecstatic because soil carbon sequestration is doable, you might be in a majority of one. Enjoy the accolade. I hope you have two hands because the clapping might be subtle otherwise. The bigger majorities left ecstatic because they thought they were on track to destroy the west’s industrial advantage.

Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 20, 2016 5:16 am

Warmth melts ice in Antarctica and Canada and this, in turns, increases humidity. Higher oceans means more humidity, too. Ice Ages=desertfication of vast areas of the earth, the creation of the Sahara desert which didn’t exist before the Ice Ages, etc.

December 20, 2016 2:46 am

I think you mean California Climate Secession Offer don’t you.
Take them up on it – what have you got to lose.

December 20, 2016 2:48 am

The more activist a government is, the more problems the people have.
Look at Belgium, they had no government for nearly 2 years – problems – none.
Just let the peple get on with their lives and only intervene under extreme circumstances.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  steverichards1984
December 20, 2016 3:17 am

“steverichards1984 December 20, 2016 at 2:48 am
Look at Belgium, they had no government for nearly 2 years – problems – none.”
What, still? It was like that in 1981.

December 20, 2016 3:00 am

Personally, I agree. states rights all the way. My caveat would be that if they do that, I had better not see a cent of my Maryland money go to their California no-pipes dream. That was the whole point of the states – if they make it work then great, maybe others follow suit. If (read when) they fail, it’s their own mistake to swallow, not the rest of us. My two cents

Johann Wundersamer
December 20, 2016 3:07 am

“Climate Change Secession
Some private citizen groups in California, distraught at the prospect of an America under President Donald Trump, are advocating that the state secede from the union.”
insinuating to comply with an
undeclared forthcoming civil war.
Better for that ‘climate refugees’ to migrate to Christmas Islands.

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
December 20, 2016 4:32 am

No! We have had enough of boat-loads of so-called refugees. If they want to come to Australia, they should come the proper way – with a visa and a return air ticket, and sufficient funds to support them for a holiday in Gods Own Country. So there!~

December 20, 2016 3:09 am

I really don’t think those people should be allowed to govern their own state anymore.
They seem to have no clue about how reality works. Their power, fuel and some of their water comes from the rest of the country.
I’ve seen Califlowers with degrees misuse words like it’s an absolute necessity to destroy the integrity of the English language just to talk about a movie and their inability to write in a precise and limited manner makes me question even their literacy.
Their entire set of laws shows the state as nothing more than a knee-jerk away from voting themselves to godhood and banning bread and homeless people out of the expectation of making autism extinct.
As much as I’d like to see the US Army roll over the state and put it under marshal law for two decades in response to a treasonous act, I think most of us would rather build a wall and let them go as long as their over-entitled retarded asses don’t swim around it but die where they are.
There are many good and many great Californians, but predominantly those aren’t simply exceptions but six sigma outliers

Juan Slayton
Reply to  prjindigo
December 20, 2016 4:22 am

…Califlowers with degrees misuse words…

I’d like to see the US Army roll over the state and put it under marshal law… (my bold)
I see you agree with President Jackson that it’s a poor mind that can think of but one way to spell a word. Or maybe you suggest that California will need a Marshall Plan in the near future.
: > )

Reply to  Juan Slayton
December 20, 2016 5:18 am

But they ARE ‘Califlowers’ aren’t they?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  prjindigo
December 20, 2016 5:18 am

It would be much better to divide the State in half and give the southern portion back to Mexico.

December 20, 2016 3:23 am

33 percent of the state’s electricity come from clean, renewable energy by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050

I’m tired of this „XX% of energy“ slogan.
Energy isn’t only about KWh. As any other product, it has also many other qualities like:
1. physical quality ( phase shift, voltage, harmonics )
2. timing as business quality ( availability and reliability )
3. geographical position
1KWh of solar power isn’t comparable to 1KWh of traditional power.
1 BMW car in my garage isn’t comparable to 1 Tata in New Delhi.
Additional pain is an (hopefully) unintended over-investment in solving problems caused by renewables, they are:
1. backup natural gas power stations (it’s all Putin’s fault )
2. private backup generators

Patrick MJD
Reply to  radzimir
December 20, 2016 3:28 am

“radzimir December 20, 2016 at 3:23 am
1 BMW car in my garage isn’t comparable to 1 Tata in New Delhi.”
IIRC, the Mk6 VW Golf is made in South Africa. China outstrips car making output in the EU zone by millions. And, when I worked for Honda in 1994, there was over capacity then where fields in the Channel Islands were covered in cars not sold. I have no idea what the situation is like now.

Steve from Rockwood
December 20, 2016 3:31 am

California continues to pull the wool over the eyes of most Americans. By embracing green energy and clean technology California is able to borrow at the state level and receive massive federal loans and grants to subsidize its economy.
Apple CEO Tim Cook boasts that Apple operates 100% on clean energy (which, as a global company, is impossible). Apple also keeps massive amounts of money offshore and out-of-state (such as in tax free Nevada). Apple is milking California. Elon Musk is milking America.
California is milking America. Why would it leave?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
December 20, 2016 3:35 am

And Ireland.

Nigel S
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 20, 2016 4:19 am

And Ireland are fighting EU to keep it that way which brings us back to Brexit (or the Russians, whichever you prefer as the cause of all the world’s woes).

Nigel S
December 20, 2016 3:37 am

Maybe they could follow all this to its logical conclusion (in their eyes) and hitchhike off planet.

December 20, 2016 3:39 am

There is a way forward for them. They may actually get it whether they like it or not.
There is a proposal which concerns states which spend way more than they have. In particular, it concerns states which borrow more than they can ever repay. Eventually those states must go insolvent and then formally bankrupt. At such time there will be overwhelming pressure for the rest of the country to bail out the failed state.
The bailout plan could proceed as follows:
A) The state looses its statehood
B) State government is dissolved
C) The ex-state is administered as a territory
D) The territory has no federal representation, its residents do not vote in federal elections
E) The territory may regain statehood only after all bailout monies have been repaid.
Perfect! California does not quite leave the Union, but is not a state, either. Everybody is happy!
Without federal representation or voting, the ability of California to impose its lunacy (financial and otherwise) is greatly restricted.
For Californians, there is some thought about whether reckless spending and borrowing is truly free of consequences.
For everybody else, there is at least some small assurance that the irresponsible government which caused the disaster has been done away with.

Reply to  TonyL
December 20, 2016 5:19 am

Like Greece and the EU?

Reply to  TonyL
December 20, 2016 5:22 am
Jim G1
Reply to  TonyL
December 20, 2016 6:34 am

I like it.

December 20, 2016 3:40 am

What is remarkable is that California insists that every other state adopt its liberal policies often at great cost and job loss. There’s nothing stopping the state of California from continuing on its own path by itself but they want to secceed? That would be a tragedy for the middle class and working class who would find it more difficult to emigrate to other states looking for better jobs and a lower cost of living.

Reply to  sean2829
December 20, 2016 8:55 am

Perhaps they should leave now, before things get worse.

December 20, 2016 3:47 am

The ‘No’ state leads only in BS. Doing something after others have done it is not leadership.
While back California was boasting about new renewable energy capacity. It was all BS. I found the spread sheet listing the projects. Almost all was built in other states. Some was existing projects renamed.
I not sure why California think wind turbines in the Pacific Northwest is an accomplishment of Cali.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 20, 2016 10:43 am

Maybe because Oregon and Washington provide CA with so much energy. The windmills interfere with proper use of hydro and rely on coal backup, but they can feel holy.

Reply to  Chimp
December 21, 2016 7:14 am

BPA does not have a problem balancing wind, nor is coal used as backup.

December 20, 2016 4:25 am

Climate Witch Hunt Update:
Lawyer with Cape ties fights Exxon Mobil subpoenas
BOSTON — A Newton-based environmental attorney who lives part-time in Brewster has been subpoenaed in a Texas-based federal civil rights case filed by Exxon Mobil against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey in a high stakes tit for tat over climate change.
Matthew Pawa, of the Pawa Law Group, filed a motion to quash the two nonparty subpoenas issued to him and his firm last month requiring the firm to disclose privileged information, arguing that the information requested was irrelevant to the case and citing a violation of freedom of association, which is protected under the First Amendment, according to federal court documents.
Last week, a Texas judge ordered Healey to appear to answer questions in the civil rights case. But on Tuesday Judge Ed Kinkeade canceled the deposition and on Thursday he stayed discovery in the case after Healey filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, calling on the court to correct Kinkeade’s alleged abuse of discretion.
On Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston, Judge William Young administratively closed Pawa’s case until discovery in the case brought by Exxon Mobil against the attorneys general resumes.
Pawa’s firm initially objected to closing the subpoena case, stating the corporation would still be able to enforce their subpoenas even if discovery is stayed.
Young disagreed, saying that, while he isn’t making any ruling on the subpoenas, he didn’t believe the corporation could act on his subpoenas during the stay.
“That’s my understanding,” he said, adding that he will make himself available to both parties if there are changes in the underlying case.
Pawa declined to immediately comment on the pending subpoena case.
Pawa’s work includes representing the pro-Cape Wind group Clean Power Now and three other legal cases based on the theory that there is a connection between the country’s top polluters and climate change.
Healey’s office declined to comment on the case Friday. Exxon Mobil did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

December 20, 2016 4:35 am

Weren’t there a group of Texans who want to succeed from the union not too long ago?

Reply to  Ryan
December 20, 2016 7:06 am

“secede”. The media made a big deal out of it, even though in Texas they were a big joke. Their proposed “new state capitol” was a mobil home in a rundown trailer park somewhere. They finally fizzled out after most of them ended up in jail for the usual bs those types are usually up to.
Btw, Texas looks like it is going to do very well in the new administration, after being shut out for 8 years. Tillerson, Sec of State, Texan, Perry, Sec of Energy, Texan, Pruitt, EPA, an Oklahoman but very close to Gov. Abbot and the Texas GOP.
The left is whining non stop about Trump’s appointments, but from a Texas point of view they couldn’t be more wonderful!

Scottish Sceptic
December 20, 2016 4:43 am

Come on if we can Brexit, California and Cexit Calexit? Californexit – Caleforniacate?
Maybe it’s just too hard!

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
December 20, 2016 5:26 am

Califortify? Depends on if they’d build barbed wire borders and at which directions :- )

Reply to  Hugs
December 20, 2016 8:56 am

I thought California was for open borders.

December 20, 2016 4:50 am

The secessionists might want to read this (and similar reports):
Some parts of CA do get cold, and all parts need artificial light at some time of the day.

December 20, 2016 4:58 am

Amazing transformation from ‘the science is settled’ and ‘we will not dignify deni*rs with a conversation’ to campaigning about how best they should now try to face down Trump. Already they know they’re in for the kicking of their activist lives. The Green Blob’s well-earned rinsing is going to be a sight to behold. 🙂 🙂

December 20, 2016 5:01 am

If California wants to follow its climate beliefs, why can it not be allowed to proceed on its own? I don’t see the need to secede.
California has access to lots of the sunshine required for solar energy, wind from the ocean for wind turbines and mountains for hydroelectric schemes. Why don’t they just set a target time by which they will be self-sufficient in energy?
They have a willing government, governor, all the Hollywood glitterati and some of the richest corporations who place great store by virtue signalling over climate. If California can’t make a go of renewable energy then who can?
OK, the relevant Federal loans should be withdrawn over time, California should stop selling its oil, they should stop using electricity from out of state and oil imports should be reduced to zero etc but if California can make renewables work then they will truly be leading by example and the world will have learnt something. If they cannot then, perhaps, Californians will have learnt something.
What is not t like?

December 20, 2016 5:07 am

Oh, moar snowflakes holding bits of cardboard. Just like they’ve utterly destroyed the meaning of the words racist, sexist, homophobe, misogynist, bigot and so forth they have, through egregious overuse, just as surely destroyed the meaning of people holding bits of cardboard.
Years ago I used to actually read the bits of cardboard to see what the holders were upset about but now the words no longer even register on my retinas. Probably shouldn’t but all I see now is an idle daydream vision of high pressure water cannon reducing them and their bits of cardboard into a homogeneous and probably quite useful pulp.

December 20, 2016 5:09 am

California is in a position very similar to the Confederate States on the eve of the Civil War.
Few people today realize that King Cotton was a high technology stack which led to a huge market and high profit margins. The stack included a superior product (long staple cotton), vastly improved productivity (the cotton gin, mechanical balers and steam-powered transport), superior logistics (the standardized bale and boats and rail cars built around them), branding which allowed mills around the world to buy with confidence, a breakthrough in communications (the telegraph) which allowed brokers to sell cotton worldwide within days of it being pressed into bales, and slave labor (similar to employment conditions in modern China). This stack also required the use of modern financial systems to meet the huge capital requirements before the first harvest.
As a result of the “stack” southern cotton was very profitable, the market was worldwide and huge. The confederate states were directly responsible for about 70% of federal revenue and indirectly responsible for a large chunk of federal revenue generated from the remaining states due to the profits generated by mills and slave trading. And then came the fall.
Fast forward to today. A geographically small portion of California is riding high on a technology stack based on much good work and ingenuity, and cheap (almost slave-like) labor. These high profits have allowed it to prosper and pay for many poor decisions, but as in the days of the Confederacy, the citizens of that state will eventually discover that no goose will lay golden eggs forever. Hopefully they will survive after the bubble bursts and will not have to suffer a long Federal takeover and “reconstruction”.

Reply to  sciguy54
December 20, 2016 10:53 am

The CSA lost because of underdevelopment in railroads and manufacturing industry. They did make superior gunpowder but relied on rivers for transport, so couldn’t shift army corps from Eastern to Western Theaters quickly over the rickety, inadequate rail net.
They also shot themselves in the foot by not selling all the cotton they could before the blockade set in. They hoped that cotton famine in British mills would bring the UK in on their side, but hate-brained scheme backfired.

Reply to  Chimp
December 20, 2016 10:55 am

Hare-brained. But autocorrected hate also works.

Vlad the Impaler
December 20, 2016 5:35 am

My half-pfennig:
Good riddance. Let us cut off the rest of the States monies that end up in the California black-hole, let us cut off the power the rest of us send to them, let us build a wall so that no Californicator can leave and pollute any other place (that had the sense to vote [for Trump/against Hitllery]). I’m OK with the whole state being cut off from the ones that have some sense. Let’s not pussy-foot around; JUST DO IT! Get this done and finished within the next six months. It will go a long way to ‘draining the swamp’.
Regards to all,
Vlad the Deplorable Impaler

December 20, 2016 5:57 am

History shows that competition between states, whether in the USA or elsewhere, is essential to an improving economy and lifestyle. It is how parts Europe became the world leaders after the Middle Ages. It is also why Brexit is a good idea, why Europe should break up again, and why, in the long run, California and the rest of USA would be better separated.

Reply to  Harold
December 20, 2016 6:04 am

I strongly agree that competition and 50 ongoing experiments are the key to a vital and healthy economy. But there are also some essential functions which are facilitated by strong ties to neighbors we may not always agree with, but are willing to learn from. As always, the devil is in the details.

December 20, 2016 6:01 am

Update: The electors that did not vote according to their pledged oath were Dems casting votes for all manner of picks other than Hillary. Democracy gets Berned.

December 20, 2016 6:18 am

‘Some private citizen groups in California, distraught at the prospect of an America under President Donald Trump, are advocating that the state secede from the union.’
I read the article to find out where to send money to help them. He doesn’t list any. I assume now that ‘Some private citizen groups in California’ is a straw man.

Tom Halla
December 20, 2016 6:22 am

Jefferson Davis and friends settled the issue of secession over 150 years ago. Democrats that time, too. I just hope the Reconstruction is handled better than after that Civil War.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 20, 2016 7:16 am

Had Jefferson Davis not started the Civil War by ordering the firing on Fort Sumter there would be two countries now. The seceded states merely withdrew from the U.S. prior to that, removing their Congressional delegations, stopped sending taxes to Washington and stopped cooperating with the United States, in a sort non-violent civil disobedience movement. At that time the Federal government did not have the wherewithal to enforce federal laws that the States decided to ignore. Nearly all federal forts and Courthouses and other Federal property had been non-violently taken by the Confederacy. Only the firing on Fort Sumter gave Lincoln an overriding excuse to use power in response.

Reply to  BobM
December 20, 2016 7:46 am

Agreed. Had PGT Beauregard just had his troops takes sandwiches out to Major Anderson’s troops, and thank them for guarding the Harbor, Lincoln would never have had a publicly acceptable reason for sending troops south.
The Japanese repeated history 80 years later. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto knew it, but was overruled.

Tom Halla
Reply to  BobM
December 20, 2016 8:17 am

Not quite. The “peaceful” secession of the South was a matter of President Buchanan taking the position that the South had no right to secede, but he had no power to stop them. Sumpter happened after Lincoln took office.

Reply to  BobM
December 20, 2016 11:01 am

Lincoln suckered SC fire breathers into firing on Sumter. He wanted the war.
He knew his call for troops would lead VA, NC and TN to secede but felt he could hold onto MD, KY and MO.
He famously said that he hoped God was on his side but he absolutely needed Kentucky.
He was a scheming, statist tyrant but something of a sacred monster.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 20, 2016 10:08 am

Difference are,
1) I am pretty sure lots of Americans would gladly push California away rather than be angry at them leaving.
2) Calexiters and friends obviously don’t know S* about how troublesome such move would be. There are so many hard questions to solve : federal debts, federal lands and military bases, new citizenship , new borders issues with new “aliens”, treaties to establish to deal with commerce, waters, etc.
Brexit is just childplay to Calexit on that matter
2 bis) on the other hand, Britain does have military, European Union doesn’t, while Cal national guard is no match for US army. Feds have “ultima ratio regis”, calexiters don’t: quite the opposite of Brexit. Then Calexit is just childplay

Jim G1
December 20, 2016 6:26 am

Where can I send a donation to the California secession cause? It would be money well spent if they would really do it. Mexico might take them but would very quickly want to give them back. The northern California folks need to step up their secessionist time table for leaving southern California behind and becoming a real US state, on the condition that they leave governor moon beam with the south.

December 20, 2016 6:47 am

We should repurpose discarded “Stronger Together” signs for a secession counter-protest.

Javert Chip
December 20, 2016 6:52 am

California succeeding from the union – this is the very definition of “fake news”.

Caligula Jones
December 20, 2016 6:56 am

A friend of mine who has lived in California for decades (working in Hollywierd as he puts it) was of the conclusion that the continent is slanted a bit, and all the nuts rolls westward until the ocean stops them.
He’s not saying that all the people there are nuts, mind you. Just that most of the nuts tend to wind up there (I imagine that the Mississippi and Rockies act as a bit of a filter).

Doug Bunge
December 20, 2016 7:04 am

It’s quite simple, if a Trump Presidency is that big of a threat, then their position is clearly untenable.

December 20, 2016 7:07 am

Even if the Calexit referendum were to be successful, there is no way the Democrats in the rest of the country are going to allow California to secede. Without California it is hard to see how the Democrats win any future national elections without the 55 gimme Electoral College votes . Remove their Congressional delegation (House – 38 Democrats, 14 Republicans, 1 seat vacant, Senate – 2 Democrats) and the House might be permanently Republican.
I support the Calexit attempt, so long as it is done fairly and democratically, and allows individual California counties to decide to remain in the Union. i suspect a substantial part of California would vote to stay, and let the liberal rump “state” go on its own.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  BobM
December 20, 2016 7:11 am

“Without California it is hard to see how the Democrats win any future national elections ”
Which is why I support CA Exiting Now.
And one reason CA has to pay all back Fed Taxes plus 50% surcharge. Don’t really want CA coming back.

Dems B. Dcvrs
December 20, 2016 7:09 am

“Californians want to secede from the Union”
If they want to leave, they can leave for Free.
If they want back in, it will cost them all back Federal Taxes with 50% surcharge.
Buh Bye CA!

December 20, 2016 7:11 am

Green California is giving up clean nuclear power by closing Diablo Canyon and will end up importing more power generated by “fosil” fuels. That make sense, only here in LALA Land.
I will enlist with the Union if they try to secede.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  WBrowning
December 20, 2016 7:13 am

Encourage CA Exit.
If CA want’s any U.S. goods, supplies, or services – Charge substantial export Fee$.

Curious George
December 20, 2016 7:12 am

A secession is a nice display of a bipartisanship – at lease, of a progressive variety. It would remove any divisions, leaving nothing to heal.

Randy in Ridgecrest
December 20, 2016 7:17 am

Lovely to once again see all of the comments from the outside about the state I and a lot of other people feel a prisoner of. Unless you live here I doubt you’d understand the ambivalence. In the end this is a media puffed non-issue, just hot air.
Anyway, I skimmed the comments and I was surprised to not see any about Gov Brown. There is an internal feeling (and I share this feeling) that the man is half off his rocker and getting worse.I listened to some of his commentary from the AGU and he is sounding pretty disconnected. Possibly he was just drunk. I don’t really follow Brown so I can’t compare to other recent public statements, but compared to say a year ago he sounded like he’s struggling to even talk in sentence fragments. His obsession with Climate and the Train is well known, and it might be all he can think about.

Curious George
Reply to  Randy in Ridgecrest
December 20, 2016 7:40 am

Look for moonbeam.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Randy in Ridgecrest
December 20, 2016 9:24 am

When you see Brown, you are seeing equal amounts of green and red.

December 20, 2016 7:29 am

I can start the Go Fund Me page, think they’ll take wooden nickels?

December 20, 2016 7:32 am

Since when has California paid any attention to Federal laws anyway? And exactly how would Washington act to prevent them from engaging in their favorite pastime : pretending to be saviors of the nation (and the world – think big, think California!) while importing murderers and welfare-cheating illegals from their Southern border? The major California export to the nation these days is Mexican murderers and thieves. A separate California would be a wonderful thing. Imagine the number of undesirables that would be eliminated from our country in one fell swoop. Push on, push on, California!! We’re rooting for your secessionist movement. No mass murdering Abe Lincolns in the White house to invade your state and murder half your people to restore “our glorious Union” . The ultimate safe space for Liberal kooks. Of course, you may have to slightly rewrite your fictitious American history texts so that secessionists are no longer characterized as traitors (Abe Lincoln’s big lie) .

December 20, 2016 7:39 am
Steve Oregon
December 20, 2016 7:54 am

Great news. This kind of behavior is precisely what is needed to bend the curve of progressive losses steeper and purge the left wing stalwarts states of resistance. These holdout states humiliate themselves into the sea change already underway.
We don’t want the left to change what they are doing.
It’s all going swimmingly.

Walter Sobchak
December 20, 2016 8:04 am

I am in favor of letting California secede. The rest of the Country could then extend the wall on the Mexican border to the California border. California could then be cut off from imports of fossil fuels, and of electricity. The US could then impose a 45% tariff on imports from California. And, lock out the culture destroying garbage imported from Hollywood. Within ten years, California would be just like Venezuela, except that it would have no fossil fuel industry to support the remnants of its economy. California would descend into gang warfare like Mexico.

Steve Oregon
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 20, 2016 8:21 am

They won’t be seceding. Their worsening rabid left will only embarrass the state into following the rest of the country. There are millions of “normal” Californians who take only take so much of the insanit. They’ll come along into the progress like everyone else.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Steve Oregon
December 20, 2016 10:41 am

If they don’t want to secede, we should throw them out.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 20, 2016 8:48 am

In fact, I think California would have a surplus of fossil energy. Lots of oil wells. And more, if things get tight and they wise up to the inanity of ecological restrictions.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  texasjimbrock
December 20, 2016 10:44 am

“if … they wise up”
They would have to have open minds to wise up. But, they are all part of the leftist hive-mind and can no longer think.

December 20, 2016 8:19 am

California secession? What can I do to help expedite?

Larry Hamlin
December 20, 2016 8:29 am

California receives about $55 billion per year from the Federal Government to support healthcare, education and other state programs which are not funded by the state. California’s share of the national debt is about $2 trillion. California has to import vast amounts of its energy including 1/3 of its electricity and a significant amount of its natural gas.
California is in no financial or energy position to leave the United States.
Additionally there is no provision in the Constitution for secession by states and a civil war was fought to establish that position.
The people trying to push for California secession are idiots.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
December 21, 2016 8:26 am

We will send them on their merry way without asking for any money. Our economy will grow so much more quickly without their “environmentalism” that we will laugh all the way to the bank.

Reply to  Larry Hamlin
December 21, 2016 11:07 am

‘Additionally there is no provision in the Constitution for secession by states and a civil war was fought to establish that position.’
Then give West Virginia back to Virginia.
If they want it.

Reply to  Gamecock
December 21, 2016 2:51 pm

WV would not want back together with a state increasingly dominated by public employee unions opposed to mining coal. Also opposed to God and guns.

December 20, 2016 8:46 am

Oh, please, Please, PLEASE DO!!! And don’t let the door hit your butt on your way out, CA. We will miss you. NOT.

December 20, 2016 8:49 am

The last time anyone tried to secede from the U.S., it caused a civil war. And this is only one state.

Reply to  littlepeaks
December 20, 2016 9:00 am

It’s not the same thing. No one is telling California they can’t follow whatever climate nonsense they want to. The Southern states were being told they could not keep slaves. They wanted to secede in order to be able to continue with their ideals, not subjected to Northern aggression. No one is trying to outlaw following climate nonsense in any state. It’s not the same thing. Plus, many people seem fine with California leaving.

Reply to  Reality check
December 20, 2016 11:10 am

Abolitionists were few in the North. Southern planters feared loss of slaves, but the Republican platform was only to stop the expansion of slavery into the territories, not abolition.
And Northern Democrats favored slavery, since their immigrant voters didn’t want to compete with free blacks.

December 20, 2016 8:54 am

The weather must be REALLY nice in CA for so many people to continue to put up with the insanity.

December 20, 2016 8:57 am

California secede? Only west of San Andreas Fault, a Limerick.
Should California be divided into 2 states?
I have been thinking about the merit of dividing California into 2 states. It really makes sense on so many fronts.
The name of the states should be California and Pacifis – after Atlantis that sank into the ocean.
Pacifis should include all territory west of San Andreas Fault, and also including the whole southern portion of the San Francisco Bay up to San Pablo following the Hayward fault. The Northern portion of the bay will remain in California.
California already have inspection stations for agriculture goods and it would be relatively easy to set up more along the Fault lines. Then as the area west of the San Andreas fault physically secedes from the mainland it is logical to allow Pacifis to politically secede from the United States.
The Limerick:
Can part California secede?
Droughts, earthquakes all make it recede.
For west of the fault line
Decline is the byline.
From Bay to LA all agreed.
Over 3/4 of all people of California live west of the San Andreas Fault and nearly 70% of them voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. There is a movement to have California secede. That is not fair, the part east of the Fault line is really part of America, the whole Central Valley is really flyover Country, much like real America. The language may be Spanish in part, but that too is real America.

Reply to  lenbilen
December 20, 2016 9:03 am

I wondered too if part of California could secede. It would much more difficult for the part that seceded since they would basically be their own country, a very, very small country.

December 20, 2016 8:59 am

Where do I send my check to help them make their deram a reality?

Robert Monical
December 20, 2016 9:08 am

Just a thought experiment if the entire left coast and Hawii left to form Ectopia then the USA would no longer be a Pacific power. So the cost of maintaining the Pacific force structure that preserves the peace and ensures safe trade would presumably fall to Ectopia.
Be careful what you wish for. When considering the cost of the Pacific forces, the left coast may well be the net beneficiary of federal spending.

Reply to  Robert Monical
December 20, 2016 9:37 am

the idiots here think the military is an unnecessary waste of resources and money, that would be better used elsewhere.
we’re a special kind of st00pid out here in #Failifornia.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Robert Monical
December 20, 2016 4:17 pm

I misread for “Ectoplasmia.” Please feel free to unwrap that one.
Perhaps they uphold “climate seance”?

Scott T
December 20, 2016 9:10 am

I liked this opinion piece by Dan Walters, who actually writes very sensibly about California politics. He surely is reviled in Sacramento. My own opinion is that it breaks my heart to see possibly the finest piece of real estate in the world going down the tubes, taken over by people that don’t deserve it.

Caligula Jones
December 20, 2016 9:15 am

Well, as a Canadian, I know a little bit about separatists (i.e., Quebec, and sometimes Alberta [only when oil is over $100 a barrel, though]).
Two things to look out for:
1) saying California can go if they pay $ for whatever reason. Unfortunately, when we try that on Quebec, they say “yeah, but we actually LOST money when we became part of Canada way back in 1867”. Good luck disproving THAT logic.
2) Montreal (and Natives) threaten to separate from a separate Quebec. Basically the idea is that if there are no legal grounds to keep Quebec in Canada, Quebec can’t use legal grounds to keep them IN.
Fun times…

December 20, 2016 9:35 am

The funny thing is, I believed Secession was the ultimate alt-right, State precedes over Union, “I don’t want DC swamp ruling me”, and “don’t mess with the constitution” move. I believed this to be so “lone-star state”, confederate nostalgist state of mind…
I cannot stop laughing seeing moonbats proving me wrong.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  paqyfelyc
December 20, 2016 9:48 am

Rather amazing, isn’t it, that there are people who now want to act like the very Rebels they condemn so often.

December 20, 2016 9:40 am

if #Failifornia manages to secede, two things will happen for sure:
1. it will be just like Venezuela in <10 years
2. Resident Evil and i will be Texas residents before secession is a reality.

Neil Jordan
December 20, 2016 9:41 am

Maybe California can join the long-ago failed attempt of eastern Oregon and northern Nevada to form a new state. The attempt collapsed into laughter when some pundit suggested a name for the new state: NevOre- NevOre Land.

Gary Pearse
December 20, 2016 9:43 am

I think after the first term, California will end up coming out to vote for Trump. He did get 30% of the vote. A better economy, immigration fixed and lower taxes will attract more Hispanics, all the libertarian votes, fence-sitting Democrats and non-entitled folks. The hard core selfish, self leathers, guilt ridden rich movie actors and neomarxbrothers who felt the Bernie’d of course are beyond reason.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 20, 2016 9:45 am

Darn! Spell Helper:felt the Bern and self loathers

amos farrell
December 20, 2016 9:48 am

What can we, as concered citizens, do to help prevent the door from hitting their ass on the way out?

Joel O’Bryan
December 20, 2016 9:52 am

I’m still waiting for that exodus of Hollywood-moonbats who promised to self-deport to Canada or NZ. Until that exodus happens, I’ll just believe this seccession talk is more of the same puffery.

Jim G1
December 20, 2016 10:03 am

I’d say give it back to Mexico but there’s no way we could build a wall long enough or high enough, for that matter, to keep some of those with wings from flying over.

Reply to  Jim G1
December 20, 2016 11:05 am

I have occasionally entertained the idea of EXPELLING California.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jim G1
December 20, 2016 11:37 am

I’d be happy to build a border at the edge of Oregon – unfortunately too many Californians have already moved up. That’s how we lost our forestry industry – they brought their votes with them.

Mickey Reno
December 20, 2016 10:13 am

My advice to the Immature lefties and closeted misanthropes in California is to kick back, smoke some homegrown weed, put on some Eagles tunes, eat some Cheetos and relax. Before you know it, you’ll get another chance to elect a different president.
Indeed, this is goes for anti-Trump crybabies across the whole country (unless smoking marijuana is illegal in your state, you’re overweight, have gluten, dairy or orange food allergies, or you hate the f**king Eagles, man).

Will Nelson
December 20, 2016 10:32 am

A little encouragement:

December 20, 2016 10:36 am

Never happen. The Democrats would lose too many electoral votes for the remaining US. It would turn US into a lop sided Conservative country and the Marx Brothers wouldn’t allow it. California will continue its’ Climate Change support regardless of what Trump does or says and be very vocal about it. Unless there’s a concentrated effort in debunking the AGW scam there will always be followers. Only when the followers realize the price they’re paying economically, socially, and personally for no gain will the scam cease.

December 20, 2016 12:40 pm

I propose that we only allow the part of the state west of the San Andreas faultline to secede. The rest of us voted red, please don’t make us go! Have mercy on the sane people left in this state.

December 20, 2016 12:56 pm

San Bernardino and Riverside Counties outside of their eponymous capital cities would be pink.comment image
So, inland CA could be the States of Jefferson (northern CA and Sacto Valley), Sierra (San Joaquin Valley) and Alta California (interior southern CA, less Imperial County, which is really Mexico).
Orange and San Diego Counties might possibly vote to stay in the Union, along with Central Coast counties, splitting the seceded state into two enclaves, but I’m not sure I’d want them. Except maybe for the US Navy and Marines.
SF would be screwed, as its water comes from the very un-PC, man-made Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite NP. Maybe they could haul icebergs from Antarctica via wind and solar-powered ships.

Reply to  Chimp
December 20, 2016 1:04 pm

Compared with 2012 (I was wrong about Del Norte). Main difference is wealthy Orange County found fat cat Romney acceptable:comment image

Reply to  Chimp
December 20, 2016 1:09 pm

Placer County also switched for Clinton in 2016, but has only 375,000 people, many of whom work in Sacramento and others in the ski industry. Orange has about 3.2 million.

Jayne McGhee-Turnock
December 20, 2016 1:04 pm

If the citizens of California are so bent on the CO2 issue, Trump could give then an option. Have a referendum and should 75% agree then: no fossil fuels of any kind will be transported to the state; no electricity produced from any fossil fuels will be provided; no products of any kind that use fossil fuel as an ingredient or during manufacture will be provided. The state can go fossil fuel free and lets see how long they last before we have refugees or worse.

Reply to  Jayne McGhee-Turnock
December 20, 2016 1:13 pm

What about wind power with coal backup, as CA receives from OR and WA?
Also, environmental purists don’t consider hydropower to be a “renewable”. CA would be toast in the summer without hydroelectrical power from the PNW.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Jayne McGhee-Turnock
December 21, 2016 8:31 am

Works for me. +1

December 20, 2016 1:39 pm

One should first and foremost recognize the voices behind such an ill-conceived concept. They by definition are low-information individuals. The knee-jerk cry for secession is all the evidence needed. These are the proverbial tree surgeons who are standing out on the limb they desire to detach. They seem to not have noticed that when you cut off the branch its not the tree that falls.

December 20, 2016 2:06 pm

Greetings from Paradise [lost]
If you add up the imported power and the non-dispatchable wind and solar CA production, all CA needs for energy independence is an additional 15GW dispatchable capacity, a mere 15 1-GW nuclear power plants or 15 1-GW flex-fuel (coal, gas, diesel) power plants, or you know any mix of these. I mean, a state that has Google and Facebook can certainly find the will to build a mere fifteen 1-GW plants, can’t they?
(Actually, that’s “we” since I live in CA. We could always ask China or India for help, since they are bringing a plant online what, every 3,4 days or so?)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Jose Camoes Silva (@josecamoessilva)
December 20, 2016 2:35 pm

Of course, there’s also the question of just where Southern CA would its water.
Maybe letting So Cal go off into LA LA land would stop Lake Meade’s water level issues?

Reply to  Jose Camoes Silva (@josecamoessilva)
December 20, 2016 4:31 pm

You all could, but you can’t or won’t build such capacity. Even before Fukushima, CA had given up on nuclear due to irrational fear of radiation, the China Syndrome and earthquakes on fault lines. And of course in a state where beach fires are considered pollution, fossil fuel plants are out of the question.
Even 40 years ago, CA considered banning the internal combustion engine.
The sooner it slides into the sea, the better. Except for all the refugees from the land of fruits and nuts.

December 20, 2016 2:52 pm

That’s a good idea. Without CA Trump would have won the popular vote too…

December 20, 2016 3:11 pm

If those Californians think that fossil fuels are so bad then they should just stop making use of them and all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels. It is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. It is not necessary for California to leave the union. The federal government is not forcing and cannot force people to use fossil fuel or any goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels. If you are one of these people then go out and shutoff the main breaker to your home and leave it off. Shut off the gas and the water too. Water companies make use of fossil fuels to bring people the water that they sell. Do not use your car or public transportation. Food at your local market is harvested and transported using fossil fuels so do nto buy any from them but grow and raise your own with water you collect on your own property. Do not buy any products whose manufacture and transport involved the use of fossil fuels.
We must all understand is that even if we could somehow stop the climate change which has been going on for eons, extreme weather events and sea level rise will continue for they are part of our current climate. There is no known climate that will cause extreme weather events to not happen any more. The next ice age will reverse sea level rise as it has done so many times in the past. Colder ocean temperatures and the build up of new ice sheets on land will cause sea levels to lower.

Reply to  willhaas
December 20, 2016 8:39 pm

One should know that here in CA collecting water on your own property is now forbidden. Water belongs to the state, collecting it for your own use, like in a rain barrel, is prohibited.

Reply to  John_C
December 20, 2016 10:13 pm

Not where I live here in Orange County. The city will even provide rain berrels if you need them. I collect rainwater that comes off my roof and I can use that water anyway I see fit. The city has restrictions on my use of city water but not rain water. There is also nothing that prevents me from going down to the beach and collecting as much sea water as I can take home. At home I am free to convert the sea water to fresh water and then return the salt to the sea. In our town, the city collects all the rainwater that flows along the streets in an underground network of pipes. The water is pumped up to a channel and then dumped outside of the city limits, The pool of water is now enormous and neither the city nor the EPA has taken any action to prevent this liquid greenhouse gas from evaporating back into the atmosphere.
I have been doing my part to conserve on water usage by using rain water to water my garden for as long as possible.

Michael J. Dunn
December 20, 2016 4:12 pm

(I didn’t have time to read the whole thread, so if I am repeating a previous comment, I apologize.)
Does this mean they believe they can secede from the atmosphere?