Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart; California has committed to moving forward with its job destroying climate policies, regardless of vocal complaints from business leaders.
California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won’t Back Down to Trump
…
“California can make a significant contribution to advancing the cause of dealing with climate change, irrespective of what goes on in Washington,” Mr. Brown said in an interview. “I wouldn’t underestimate California’s resolve if everything moves in this extreme climate denial direction. Yes, we will take action.”
…
When California enacted its climate reduction standards last year, it drew fierce criticism from state business leaders.
The bills “impose very severe caps on the emission of greenhouse gases in California, without requiring the regulatory agencies to give any consideration to the impacts on our economy, disruptions in everyone’s daily lives or the fact that California’s population will grow almost 50 percent between 1990 and 2030,” the California Chamber of Commerce said.
…
“California more than ever is strongly committed to moving forward on our climate leadership,” said Kevin de Leon, the leader of the State Senate. “We will not deviate from our leadership because of one election.”
…
“If the president-elect and his administration work to undermine our climate leadership, they will hurt our economy, “ Mr. de Leon said. “They will kill jobs. And ultimately, they will hurt the economy of the United States. We are 13 percent of the overall G.D.P.”
Still, California officials and environmentalists said climate measures in place here will undoubtedly be undercut if the Trump administration rolls back environmental policies put in place by President Obama.
“Our system works better — our cap-and-trade system and other ways of addressing climate change — if we have more company,” said Anthony Rendon, the speaker of the Assembly. “The more company we have, the better.”
…
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/us/california-climate-change-jerry-brown-donald-trump.html
Who do you think knows more about running a business and creating jobs, politicians or business leaders? Business leaders are sometimes happy to indulge in populist green washing, but Californian political plans go far beyond a little window dressing.
The desire for “more company” to join California’s job destroying climate plan is telling – if Californian political leaders really thought their plan made economic sense, they wouldn’t have to beg for company, other people would flock to join their climate crusade – probably all riding their eco-friendly flying pigs.
Update (EW): Fixed the link to the New York Times article
Sorry Anthony you live in LA LA Land.
To make more sense, I exchanged the word “Company” for Money in the last paragraph
If green solutions made economic sense for the individual user, as opposed to economic sense for the air breathing community (like regulation against air pollution, f.ex. NOx), or sea fishing community (like regulations against over fishing), or pesticide using community (think evolution to glyphosate tolerance of weeds, regulation against destruction of weed genetic susceptibility to glyphosate)… then why would you need a mandate?
You need to force people to add electrostatic catchers to their smoke piles, because they have little interest in making their coal plants more complex and costly for the community. You don’t need to force people to burn coal at the highest possible temperature, as it makes the conversion to motive power more efficient, and the overall plant more economical.
Business doesn’t exist to provide jobs. That’s a byproduct. If business can create a profit without creating jobs, so much the better. On the other hand, the politicians do have a vested interest in job creation.
Having a vested interest and being able to do something about it are two entirely different things.
Exactly so. Clinton and Obama both promised to help the workers and didn’t deliver. Trump has promised to bring back the jobs. We’ll see.
Tesla, Panasonic will produce solar cells together in Buffalo
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/27/tesla-panasonic-will-produce-solar-cells-together-in-buffalo/
They don’t have to do business in California, there is plenty of room in Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma, etc. Let Calif. rot it its’ own juices of insanity.
What a plonker. Business is a deal between two parties. Politics is a party between two deals.
Business exists on trust. It is 99.9% of the time, fair and equitable. Politics exists on distrust. 99% of the time it’s a painful compromise.
Business generates money. Politicians spend money that doesn’t belong to them, but invariably profit from it anyway.
The business partnership operates between employees, employers, suppliers, customers and the taxman. Politics has no customers to satisfy, no suppliers it can’t screw, no employees it can’t persecute and it doesn’t answer to the taxman.
Businesses exist to generate profit. Successful businesses distribute that profit fairly between employees, suppliers, customers and the taxman.
We are a long, long way off from dispensing with employees. Indeed, automated businesses provide self-employment opportunities for the industrious individual that conventional 9-5 employees could never offer.
And business is the lifeblood of the free, capitalist society we live in. The alternatives are, fully Communist N. Korea, partially Communist China, or former Communist Russia.
If you don’t like western business, on which civilised society was built, take your pick.
You make it sound as if you don’t like democracy.
Straw man response commiebob.
Believing or assuming job creation is political is patently absurd.
Businesses are centered around job creation. Businesses do not exist without employees.
Politicians are technically the employees of citizens. The same goes for government agencies and departments.
Obama’s regime has made much of service industry jobs, since his administration has been crushing career production or industrial jobs.
HotScot you left out a few locales on this side of the pond, Venezuela and Cuba come to mind.
commieBob,
You have a funny idea of what democracy is. It does not mean that 51% get to oppress the other 49%. It means freedom from excessive government, and free enterprise is the hallmark of a real democracy. Unlike businesses, government produces nothing. It is a cost to society, but it is also a necessary evil. Just like fire – used in the right way it is indispensable, but if you let it get out of control it will consume everything leaving only destruction in it’s wake.
Nice analogy Mr Penrose
Mr. Penrose
my comment addressed to you ended here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/27/californian-climate-madness-committed-to-moving-forward-ignoring-warnings-from-business/comment-page-1/#comment-2383953
HotScot: Businesses exist to generate profit. Successful businesses distribute that profit fairly between employees, suppliers, customers and the taxman. I think you forgot the SARC comment off your entry. How about Apple and the other”successful companies hiding their profits in compex schemes so that they don’t pay tax in the country where the monoey is earned. How about looking after employees by shipping out to work to Asia so that they can make a few extra bucks. I think you are living in a dreamworld
Find me a dictionary definition that matches yours. 🙂
One of the problems of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. The writers of the constitution foresaw that which is why they created the electoral college.
Germany was one of the most civilized countries on the face of the planet and yet it democratically voted Hitler to be dictator.
It could happen here. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” link
Wow, sign me up, North Korea is the place to go (sarc).
. . . Communist China, Russia, and N. Korea
The former haven’t changed, but their fronts have.
Russia’s Berlin Wall “came down” because the façade was bad PR and no longer needed.
After Nixon’s administration sent a couple plane loads of gold to China showing his “good faith” prior to his visit, China phased out their “. . .roto running capitalist dogs” . . . and other cold war hold-over rhetoric.
Gorbachev, hailed a “hero for ending the cold war”, and his chic wife Raisa made the cocktail circuit in America with fellow socialists/Marxists/democrats aft er the wall came down. Russia has a democratic party, but their communist party still has a hand on the reins.
China “saw the light” and turned their entrepreneurs ‘loose’, but hardline communists still run the country.
China and Russia are looming as a couple of Trojan horses rolled into one.
Given the level of ” . . .Putin hacked the election nonsense”, it would appear the curtain is being pulled back on Act III.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Pure Democracy is nothing more than the majority enslaving the minority.
Harrowsceptic: What’s not fair about doing what every you can to legally avoid taxes? Do you take advantage of every deduction available? If so, why do you consider it evil when others do the same.
As to wages, when you hire a plumber, do you look for the least expensive, or most expensive?
If you don’t go out of your way to hire the most expensive plumber, why do you condemn others for also looking for the lowest price workers?
The job does not belong to the worker, or to a country. It is the companies money, to spend how it pleases.
You are the perfect example of why democracy often leads to evil.
If a politician could get funded by big business and get elected without creating, ever, a single job, they would do it. Politicians take care of themselves. Idealists care about jobs, oh and the unemployed care about jobs.
The Democrat party just discovered the limits of that system.
Almost all politicians want to keep their positions of wealth and power which logically leads to… Progressive Democrats do not really want to create jobs. They all CLAIM they do, but they all pursue policies to do away with jobs? Why you may ask? Well, because people without jobs and reliant on government handouts vote overwhelmingly for democrats. Democrats want to stay in power, however you can’t stay in power if you tell everyone you are going to do away with their jobs, soooo…. wallah. Progressives have no problem in lying if it furthers the cause and keeps them in power. Look at Hillary…. she lied so much that she even tended to lie when the truth would have been more beneficial,
“ Democrats do not really want to create jobs. They all CLAIM they do, but they all pursue policies to do away with jobs? Why you may ask? Well, because people without jobs and reliant on government handouts vote overwhelmingly for democrats.”
The State of West Virginia is “proof positive” of the above accusation.
Up until two (2) years ago, the West Virginia State Legislature had been overwhelming controlled by Democrats for the previous seventy (70) years ….. and all during that time the population of West Virginia remained stagnated at approximately 1.8 million residents.
# of coal mining jobs in Appalachia:
When the coal mines were automated in the 1950’s, tens of thousands of WV’s coal miners lost their jobs ….. and most took their families and headed down “Hillbilly Highway” to the Carolinas to find work. And for every coal job lost, ……. there was like 4 or 5 “service sector” jobs also lost, and many of those people out-migrated also.
And the WV Democrats Politicians remained a happy, elated bunch because the “troughfeeders” left behind were loyal partisan that voted a “straight Democrat ticket”.
Alcheson – the word you are looking for is “voila” (with a grave accent over the a) – not “wallah”. It’s a French word that has been borrowed by English, and is pronounced “vwa-lah”.
Government cannot create jobs other than govt jobs to do paperwork, etc. The economy creates jobs. If the govt creates “green jobs” they do so by spending consumer money, money which could have been spent creating or maintaining jobs. The product of those green energy jobs is to build essentially duplicate power generating capacity, since green power generators are unreliable (even with battery storage). Duplicating generation power capacity can almost double the cost of power, less the costs of fuel , which is pretty cheap these days. All that extra money to buy the same amount of power means that money cannot be used elsewhere, creating and maintaining jobs. The green jobs created to build the capacity are over and gone very shortly. The extra costs lasts forever. Even if those green power generators were reliable, it makes no economic sense to replace expensive equipment that doesn’t need replacing. Green unreliable energy capacity makes zero economic sense, no matter how it is viewed. If one wants to reduce emissions in an intelligent manner, one needs to understand current power technology, about which Gov Brown and the California govt is apparently ignorant. Molten salt reactors is what they should be aiming for.
Their propensity for earthquakes is no problem for these reactors. Their current program makes NO sense. They are rushing hysterically to install power generation crap, rather than thoghtfully waiting a few years for a revolutionary power technology. And California prides itself on its “technological expertise.” Yeah, right. A govt that can’t shoot straight, or think straight, either.
While power production might be guaranteed, the delivery of that power can not be guaranteed.
Maybe the public is confused about these two different issues?
The Greens of California are not building green power. They force the close of Caifornia power plants and destroy damns, creating power and water crisises They are buying all they can get from Oregon, Washington, Montana, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and even Third World Mexico, They drain the reserves of all these States, When any single State PUC. decides it cannot safely sell any more reserve power, the whole teetering house of cards will collapse as all are at the edge of this jury rigged, house of cards, and cannot replace any single states reserves. Meanwhile, California continues to hemorage jobs and businesses.
Governments excel at creating “government” jobs with salaries that are ultimately paid for by the private sector. Government does very poorly at creating private sector jobs compared to free enterprise in a free and open market.
Many government jobs are parasitic they rely on wealth creation which they then syphon off to continue to exist but put nothing of use back into society. The best a government worker can do is be symbiotic putting back as much into the community as has been taken. Government jobs are never wealth creators.
Whose gonna buy those iPhones if no one has a job?
err, “Who is”.
( hate when I do that “post comment” without proofing.
Type. Enter. Proofread.
I find it easier to proofread after I’ve submitted something, because then the errors stand out so much better.
I use the Real-time HTML Editor to proof posts prior to upload. It’s very worthwhile.
Governments are almost never able or willing to create jobs. This is because jobs are regulated by taxation. Taxation usually poorly spent by the government – partly because it is not their money and therefore has no personal value to the spenders – but mainly on government projects which few people really need or intend to use. These join the ranks of monuments which may be nice but suck up scarce resoiurces from tax payers.
The best way to increase employment – cant claim it is creating employment because taxation has destroyed the potential employment already – is to cut taxation – preferably by a large percentage. It means that many services must be carried out by the tax payer themselves but it will cost less – much less – to do these things for oneself because the bureaucracy does not need to be fed.
Ironical isnt it. Suggest the reading of Milton Friedman to see how the above can be done.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
“Taxation usually poorly spent by the government –but mainly on government projects which few people really need or intend to use.”
Now that was a “bell ringer” …. fer shur.
“The more company we have, the better.”
===========
misery loves company
And manufacturers are leaving California in droves, not fond of the misery, I suppose.
I wonder how many jobs California is going to create when they start imitating South Australia. SOUTH AUSTRALIA JUST HAD ANOTHER MAJOR, MAJOR BLACKOUT. The mod might want to point this out to Anthony.
If you mean the blackout which hit SA on Xmas eve/day. Apparently it was caused by a lightning strike and some commenters in the “Australian ” newspaper reject the inference that it is related to that state’s green energy policies . however a comment from a person called “brad” seems very sensible and relevant:
“A lightning strike causing a blackout is not unusual anywhere but if there is enough capacity in the local grid then power should not only be restored very quickly, it should also be automatic. The issue that has plagued SA for months is that without adequate base-load power feeding the grid, the current generating capacity cannot support a single point of failure from any power source. It all must work, all the time or Jay Weatherill’s power policies will just keep adversely affecting consumers.”
mikewaite,
Updated: 6:53 pm, Wednesday, 28 December 2016
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/12/28/storms-cut-power-in-south-australia.html
Xmas eve and day (both very hot) had exceptionally low wind power in South Australia (around 50 MW on Xmas day), so paradoxically that appalling outcome for the main driver of the glorious “Transition” (pause for ritual prostration) probably exonerates it from any blame for that power outage. As the heatwave fell during a demand lull there cannot have been a shortage of firm capacity.
Lightning snd wind turnines
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD020225/full
More here:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/lightning-bolts-love-wind-turbines-a-little-too-much/
RenewableEnergy World, Mar.29, 2016
“Lightning damage accounts for nearly a quarter of the reported insurance claims in the U.S. wind sector…”
The lightning prone area extends from Texas to Ontario, Canada.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/03/lightning-strike-data-to-support-pattern-energy-wind-farm-operations.html
CommieBob —
The whole point of the O’Bummer years in office was to ship jobs overseas; making treaties that encouraged globalization. Democrats had a vested ideological interest that decreased jobs in America. Republicans are interested in creating jobs. Democrats have not been. So your statement that “politicians do have a vested interest in job creation” is wrong.
Your statement that “business doesn’t exist to create jobs” is perfectly correct.
Eugene WR Gallun
The Democrat party was willing to throw the working people into the garbage heap because they thought the workers had no alternative. Surprise. If people have no jobs, they will blame the politicians.
Politicians do not have a ‘vested’ interest in jobs. If they could get elected and remain in office without creating a single job, they’d do it. The American political system does not have a vested interest in creating jobs, politicians ‘concern’ for jobs is a byproduct of telling the people what they want to hear to get them elected. There are multiple examples of political entities creating jobs, in fact most ancient political systems created lots of ‘jobs’, but it wasn’t because they felt the responsibility to provide ‘living wages’ to their people. It was to create the monuments (Pyramids), military works (Grand Canal in China) , etc. I doubt that any ancient ruler worried a bit about whether he was creating jobs for his people or not.
In theory our elected representatives ‘should’ care about creating jobs for the good of the people, in reality they do not any more than all people are ‘equal’ in a communist society. It’s lip service.
Who do you think knows more about running a business and creating jobs……community organizers
Businesses exist to create a profit, no one starts a business to break even, or lose money. A business creates or sells a product or service which people value enough to pay for. A product must be designed and manufactured. Materials and ingredients must be procured, labor must be employed. Materials and finished products must be transported, goods and services must be advertised, packaging or literature must be produced. A building and/or factory must be bought or leased, machinery, furniture, computers, etc purchased. Electricity, gas, and water must be paid for, as well as telephone and internet service. Lawyers must be hired to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s”, accountants must figure out payroll, taxes, etc. A huge number of people are involved in the production and selling of any product or service, however small. And the profit which a company earns is either spent to buy other products, which others produce, invested back into the company itself, or deposited in a bank, where it is loaned out to others who buy or create products or services.
The private sector economy creates value, which is distributed into profits, wages, investments, and taxes. The state does not exist to create jobs or value, but merely to facilitate the private sector in doing so.
Most people seem to have only a faint understanding of economics. To be economical in something is to get the greatest effect for the least amount of effort. A company earns as much profit as it can for the goods it sells, while consumers pay as little as they can for the goods they buy. An employer pays his staff as little as he can for the work they do, the staff do as little work as they can for the money they are paid. Left alone, or nearly alone, a local or national economy exists in a self-perpetuating balance.
Things go wrong with economies when unnatural forces try to push the balance in their favor. Greed, in moderation, is not a bad thing; most people satisfy their greed by working harder, thinking of new products or services to sell. People go to university or learn a trade in order to earn more than they otherwise would, and though they might not like to admit it, wanting to earn more is a form of greed. But some people are too greedy. They want more value than what selling their products and services in an open marketplace can produce. The best way for them to get this added value is with the help of the state.
A larger business can make deals with the state for contracts, or enacting rules and regulations which hinder competition. Anyone ever wonder why almost no new large industries have been created in developed countries in recent years? How many new car, aircraft, or ship building companies have been created in the last 50 years? How many were created a century ago before countless thousands of pages of rules and regulations were legislated and printed? Rules and regulations are often less about keeping people, products, and the environment safe than they are about protecting vested interests from competition.
With no new large industries, and fewer smaller industries and businesses being created, less value is being added to the economy. The state does not create value, it consumes value. When the state consumes for value than the economy can produce, things don’t end well. In the private sector, as little as possible is spent to create a product or service, in the public sector, as much as possible is spent to pay for a product or service. In the private sector, workers are paid according to the value they add. In the public sector workers are simply paid according to seniority, most are paid more than the value of the services they provide.
As the owner of a company myself, my biggest expense is tax, followed by payroll. When my tax bill is increased, I must compensate for it somehow. I must either reduce my own pay, and spending, which affects the businesses I buy things from. Or I can cut the pay of my workers, or reduce my workforce. Or I can raise prices, and then my customers end up paying the increase in my taxes. If I cannot earn enough profit for the rather large amount of effort it takes to run a business, I might as well not bother. If my workers will not work for me for lower wages, or fewer hours, and customers refuse to pay higher prices for my goods, the only options are to shut down, or outsource.
One of the fundamental things about taxation that most people realize is that it is never progressive. Most people believe that those who earn more should pay more in tax, and because of this, tax rates are progressive. But it impossible to isolate the effect of any tax to any particular income group. A rich person will pay a large amount of tax every year. But the cost of this tax is compensated for by the methods i previously mentioned. A tax on any part of the economy is tax on every part of the economy, and it is as simple as that.
If your own tax was raised by 10%, what would you do? You would either spend 10% less, or save 10% less. In either case, you are passing on the cost of your tax to the people you buy goods and services from, or your bank, which then has that much less to lend or invest.
The greediest of people are those who make their money without producing anything at all, or providing any labor which adds value. Jerry Brown and his friends in the state and national governments are these kind of people. They and their friends earn their bread by the sweat of another person’s brow. They spend vast amounts of money, but the value they get in return is universally less than what they spend.
The most interesting thing about the balance in economics is that no matter how hard or how far one tries to push the balance in one’s favor, the economy eventually forces itself back into balance. Unfortunately, the more it is pushed one way, the further it will swing toward the negative as it seeks balance. If California cannot create the value it needs to fund the state, the state will borrow the difference, and put the screws to businesses and taxpayers. This will push things more and more out of balance, and when that “invisible hand” pushes back, it’s going to hurt.
But, but, but… wealthy people have these big vaults of money and gold and all they do with it in roll around in it! I’ve seen pictures! The purpose of government is to take that unused money and give it to people who don’t have enough! Duh!
No they have a vested interested in passing laws that control the masses and generate more taxes so they can stay in power. CommieBob needs to move to a Communist paradise like Cuba or North Korea and see just how many jobs those fellow ruling Communists have created, as well as how great their freedoms are.
In CA, a vote for Brown was a vote for equal applications of ‘Green’ and ‘Red’.
Mr Penrose
You should visit UK. 51.8% is imposing dictatorship on remaining on 48.2%, depriving them of the multitude of rights and freedoms, you might say way of life, they enjoyed for 40 years, rights and freedom that anyone below age of 50 can’t remember any other. Those rights will be taken apparently away overnight sometime in the early or mid 2019. That can’t be democracy. Democracy should be not curtailing but expanding on the freedoms of individuals.
vukevic
What ‘rights’ will those 48.2% be deprived of? What, precisely, will they lose? Indeed, what did they ‘have’ that wasn’t derived by pure deception over those 40 years? I don’t recall being asked to consent to being ruled by a foreign power. Did you?
How did people manage pre the EU? What were they ‘deprived’ of prior to EU membership?
Claims that leaving the EU will seriously affect anyone in any material way are vastly over stated. If people love the EU so much then they have plenty of opportunity to go where it best serves them – conversely those that don’t like Britain or the British way of life shouldn’t come to Britain.
Strange how so many people still flock to the UK despite our voting to leave the EU, isn’t it?
Hi Dave
Just for a start freedom to travel through Europe without applying for visa every time, to work without restriction anywhere in an area with a half billion people, to purchase or sell goods anywhere including property in that huge market without any restrictions. Academic institutions have worries of their own.
Rich people will be able to do whatever they did as before, but it is ones on the bottom half of the social scale that will be hit hardest. But all these you could dismiss as material concerns. As I see it, there is far more important matter,
The first half of 20th century Europe was a continent of tensions conflicts, it caused two world wars with millions of people killed, among them possibly hundreds of thousands of British. Most of countries, soon remaining members of EU (except Sweden, Spain and Portugal, may be someone else) have suffered hostile foreign invasions, but since the UK didn’t, I often find talking to my friends and neighbours in the UK that thought never enters their mind. The EEC (W. Churchill contemplated the United States of Europe) was formed to create cooperation instead of conflicts and combats of the past. As a result the second half of the 20th century was characterised by peace and prosperity.
Now you might say that it is other European countries, and not the UK’s business how they are going to treat each other. I don’t have anything about repatriating laws and regulations to the UK parliament, but my fear is, since the UK has become a corner stone of the past European project, that once that crucial stone is pulled out the whole edifice might crumble.
I lived in the UK for 40 years, my kids were born and grown up here, so I’m attached to it far more than to my ex fatherland (ex Yugoslavia), which at one time was a union not dissimilar to the EU.
That union was much older (formed in 1918-19) than the EU, constituent parts were much closer than the EU countries, people were of same race, spoke dialects of the same language, to any less informed outsider they were the same people for all means and purposes. Then economically the most advanced Slovenia decided to pull out for mostly economic (budgetary) and some political reasons, then whole country disintegrated through conflicts and in some areas civil war, out of six members of federation only two (Croatia and Bosnia/Hercegovina) had war on their territory, the other four dissolved rest of the union peacefully.
No I am not saying that will happen to EU, or that Germany and France will have yet another go at each other, but wars in the continental Europe are not strangers.
After all that long rumble you are free ignore all of the above as a sour grapes of an immigrant ‘remoaner’ but still paying substantial income tax (as do the other three remaining members of my family) and never have been unemployed or hospitalised.
Have a Happy New Year.
vukcevic,
Being from the US, I don’t have a dog in that race. But I don’t see the EU as a particularly democratic institution. I can understand why there is a large number of Britons that don’t like the idea of being ruled by an unelected group of bureaucrats with little voice themselves. I’m not up on all the subtle ins and outs, but to this outsider looking in, it seems that leaving the EU will produce a net increase in real freedom for the Brits. I’m sure there will be some costs and disadvantages, but freedom is never free.
Mr. Penrose
If EU was created after the WWI rather than the afterWWII with or without Britons, we don’t know what Europe or even the world would look like, but for sure it would have been a very different place.
For decade or two British unsuccessfully applied to join the then EEC but general De Gaul used a veto to stop it.
As far as I can see it the EU has greatly benefited from British presence, but the post Brexit EU might have been safer and more stable proposition if Britain never joined.
I believe that dismissing the European historic perspective is a big mistake.
Happy New Year
Re unelected bureaucrats:
All of those bureaucrats are appointed by the elected presidents and prime ministers of the member countries.
Would you say that most of the Trump’s cabinet as appointed by the president-elect from outside political echelons are unelected bureaucrats?
I don’t see great deal of difference.
If the EU is such a successful and compelling model, why has no-one else in the world copied it? Can you imagine Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam etc. submitting to rules on written by a faceless committee in Taiwan or Macao. Is it impossible to trade and interact with neighborsing countries without being part of an empire. Of course not. The EU is a reincarnated chimera of the third Reich and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the war France punished Britain for saving them from the Na3is because they never wanted to be saved – they were Na3is themselves. It’s high time we told the French where to go.
“The EU is a reincarnated chimera of the third Reich and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.”
False: these were created by military conquests, the EEC i.e. EU is a voluntary and peacefully created union.
No, the EU is not hugely successful or very compelling model but kept its member states for 60 years not only out of conflict but in a close cooperation. For the for ever squabbling, quarrelling and often warring nations of Europe that is more than good enough. The irony is that on March 25, 2017 when the Article 50 maybe invoked the EU will be 60 years old to the day.
Continental Europe is far better and a safer place with than without the EU. When something better is proposed I certainly would be in favour of it. Europeans are at their greatest when they come together, btw. they shown that by creating the United States of America possibly the most successful model politically, economically, military etc, etc, but again not many are in any great urgency to copy it.
He found that, had the EU referendum been carried out on a constituency level, then the Leave camp would have triumphed in 401 of 632 British constituencies
What does “the then” European Economic Community (EEC) have to with “the now” Brexit?
Hi Clipe
It appears to me that the number of the WUWT readers who commented on the Brexit have come to a 97% consensus that Brexit is good and the EU is bad. My attitude is to oppose consensus of any kind.
Anthropogenic global warming is nonsense, any warming is good, CO2 is great, solar and the Earth’s magnetic cycles are synchronised and drive the global climate’s natural variability.
Keep well and a Happy New Year
ptolemy2 December 28, 2016 at 12:30 pm
“It’s high time we told the French where to go.”
I say, keep away from Eiffel tower
Politicians don’t create jobs. They take money from people who do, give it to people who didn’t earn it, and then point to the guy that actually made it and say, ‘See? HE wasn’t going to give it to you.’
A successful entrepreneur, on the other hand, DOES create jobs. And good ones cultivate a healthy business climate, that works well for everybody.
The greedy miser (while they do exist) is actually a rarity, although it’s a popular fiction among those who prey upon business.
Businesses use work – ie jobs – to create things that sell. Each transaction creates wealth from those things which were made, Jobs are the means, not the end and business does those things necessary to generate and maximize wealth..Under whatever conditions exist.
These days we have businesses that are raking in profits by the giga dollars and they don’t make any kind of product. They do get some customers to walk under trains and off cliffs, but who cares so long as they make a profit doing it.
G
Not so fast….we provide funding for jobs and job training…
“California more than ever is strongly committed to moving forward on our climate leadership,”
climate leadership = be the first to set an example on how to commit economic suicide. it is based on the belief that the rest of world will follow.
Hardly the first. Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela, the entire Soviet Block.
They’ve already blazed that trail.
I believe Spain already captured “the lead” in such matters when it became “Solar Capital of the World”. The result has been catastrophic for all parties as Spain staggers toward national bankruptcy.
To the extent that California has already gone up this blind alley of eco-freako-nonsense, I would encourage them in a fiendish way to do so even more diligently. The sooner California’s economy triggers a 10-pointer on the Richter Scale, the sooner a more sane approach can be implemented.
Thank you, thank you all.
“Climate leadership”
A new monastic chant for my Climate cr@p file. Keep ’em coming:
Climate action
Climate action plan
Climate advocate
Climate agenda
Climate agreement
Climate anxiety counseling
Climate blueprint
Climate budget
Climate catastrophe
Climate challenge
Climate change action plan
Climate change training
Climate chaos
Climate consciousness
Climate coyness
Climate crisis
Climate danger
Climate d*nier
Climate disruption
Climate election
Climate enthusiast
Climate fatigue
Climate finance
Climate hawk
Climate interference
Climate justice
Climate leadership
Climate literacy
Climate loss
Climate mitigation
Climate mitigation services
Climate movement
Climate opposition
Climate plan
Climate policy
Climate premature ejaculation (TM)
Climate preparedness
Climate proponents
Climate protagonists
Climate punishment
Climate questions
Climate refugees
Climate resilience
Climate risk
Climate scenarios
Climate talks
Climate thwarting
Climate timeline
Climate wars
Climate weirding
“They’ve gone all in on climate zaniness, …”
https://www.cfact.org/2014/12/10/trust-and-verification-at-the-peru-climate-summit/
That’s a good start but you’re going to need a database and some memory, kid.
In the NYT article referenced, they talk of “climate reduction.” Obviously they want less climate.
+10000
Thanks JFH and Neil, I’ll use Climate summit and Climate reduction.
Probably won’t use Climate zaniness except in my “rebuttal” list. Which reminds me, I must also take out my own invention “Climate premature ejaculation” – an article or comment that has the messily splurted “overwhelming evidence” phrase which is then followed by zero evidence.
A very fine list, might I suggest you add: “Climate Engineering”.
Used to be I couldn’t even spell enginear…. Now I are one……
Cheers, KevinK
How about Climate non-ejaculation no matter how long and how hard they try. 😉
I don’t see climate surprise on that list. A lot of you cats is goin’ be very surprised.
chaamjamal,
Perhaps California knows that their current policies will chase citizens from the state of California. This will help towards another policy imbedded in Agenda 21 which instructs that populations must be limited because of the effect on Gaia. Also as people move out, the land left behind can be reverted to its natural state thus making the wilf flora and fauna increasingly “sustainable”. Fortunately California citizens do not need to jump into the sea – well except for the current governor maybe.
Think Im crazy? Well read my blog about my home town where these things are happening while we speak.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
thank you, roger
California Democrat politicians really don‘t give a hoot if their current policies will chase citizens and businesses from the state of California ….. simply because they know for-a-fact that …… “California is too big to fail”.
“…as people move out, the land left behind can be reverted to its natural state…..”. Much of Southern California can revert to its natural desert condition from its artificial state. ”Tis what happens when politicians don’t support infrastructure growth to match the demand.
And the ousted citizens move up to Oregon, bringing their votes, and locking up port states with fossil fuel bans, from the local level on up – it’s what I would call a conspiracy to destroy a vital industry and deprive the country of an essential resource.
I’ve read that the movement to separate CA from the rest of the union is gaining strength.
Anyone know the address so I can send them a check?
Well the more citizens they chase out of California, the more illegal aliens swarm in to fill the space, and eventually to pay for Moonbeam’s strokes of genius.
G
George,
Good point. I don’t think any illegal immigrants care anything about global warming and “sustainability” .
Swamping by illegal aliens may be the ultimate antidote to California’s experiment.
A nuke would be kinder though I suspect 🙁
Cheers
Lemmings
The issue of sabotage of renewable energy project infrastructures has been raised again by Larry Bell. Might this also extend to renewable energy storage projects?
California just keeps digging the hole wider and deeper.
Often forgotten with regard to energy storage is the result of its catastrophic release, whether by sabotage or accident. 10 GWh of storage would be the equivalent of almost half a Hiroshima.
CFact, Dec.27, 2016
‘U.S. must invest in anti-terror power grid infrastructure’
“The great mystery is why terrorists have not already systematically attacked the power grid.”
http://www.cfact.org > All Posts
No need. California’s politicians are doing their work for them.
The Province of Ontario is just as deluded about electrical power as is California, But much more in debt on a per capita basis.
Correct, and it’s not just the Liberals (who initiated the Green Energy Act), along with the two other political parties and the majority of the educated class they all believe. If you don’t believe you are nothing but an irrelevant denier. The alarmist narrative has legs.
Sorry to hear this Anthony, it seems that California like Scotland is a hotbed of climate madness and that both these areas will be dragged kicking and screaming behind the science – until some unknown date in the future, when they finally realise there is no choice but to accept it.
It won’t be long.
When the Scot’s realise the SNP can’t deliver on their insane promise of independence, they will be kicked out, never to return. The tragedy is, I like the concept of an independent Scotland. It was just led by the madman Salmond and his hangers on. He promoted it in the wrong way, at the wrong time and Screwed it up for several lifetimes.
The loony left SNP had one shot, and they blew it. Thankfully. Salmond turned a peaceful conversion into a combative war, amongst the people of Scotland and failed to win the hearts of the true Scot’s.
Withdraw with dignity, self-appointed King of Scotland Salmond! But you won’t.
Wallace lives on and you will be forgotten, as will your political spawn. Your days are numbered, but Scotland will survive your treachery.
Scotland = Greece – Sunshine
Aye!
Ahah! This is a rare beast indeed. An actual example of the “true Scotsman” fallacy. 🙂
Tragically, Scotland is rich in on-land fossil fuels quite apart from the North Sea. Coal, shale oil (was once a leading producer of oil from shale by mining), shale gas, coal-bed methane. With a small population. an independent Scotland that allowed exploitation of those resources would be a rich country. What a shame that it won’t be happening as long as the madness rules.
Salmon (d) & Sturgeon; both are fishy politicians, clamped onto power like parasitic lampreys on trout.
The Scottish National Party does not want independence. The Scottish National Party wants Scotland to become an integrated part of the North Sea Region of the European Union. This is due to the large salaries paid to politicians becoming Eurocrats who are selected not elected (no worrying about voters), and the huge tax free pensions paid to those politicians. At no stage has Sturgeon said she wants independence for Scotland without linking it to being part of the EU and the Euro-zone.
Hey, lay off California. What, with all the multi-billion software and hardware companies, there’s loads of money for us to pretend we’re socialists, ner ner.
Do I need a sarc tag ?
I’ll give cal about 5 more years and it will be forced to change directions on all fronts.
Nope. Actually, yes, but not in the way you’re thinking, as “climate change” policy will soon become pretty much an incidental thing that they don’t care much about as the new immigrants and their plenitude of grown up anchor babies take over the CA political system with one goal: redistribution of wealth to themselves. Their plans for seizing property and assets won’t be constitutional, so there may be a bit of a conflict with the feds. Or maybe CA will just become its own nation.
I’m praying for them to secede. And the Socialist State of California goes the way of Venezuela.
Having lived in California for a while I have always said the state motto should be — Party Till The Lights Go Out. It won’t be long now till that happens.
Eugene WR Gallun
The best way for the state of California to minimize human caused climate change within the borders of the state is to ban all human beings from the state including those who might fly over the state or be in waters controled by the state Everyone must remember tc shut off all utilities to their property before leaving the state for good. By brething all humans are net emmiters of CO2 and since governor Brown thinks that CO2 is bad for the state. all sources of CO2 should be eliminated ASAP. Please help governor Brown in his quest to rid his state of all people.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
The eco-militant EPA’s own figures note that slashing America’s CO2 emissions, will prevent less than 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming 85 years from now!
All that pain – destroying jobs and impairing human welfare – for such little gain!
Virtue-signalling politicians “riding their eco-friendly flying pigs” – a far more dangerous threat to life on earth than any minuscule and arguably beneficial, ‘global warming’ would ever do!
Eco-insanity on stilts.
California madness isn’t limited to CACA.
California Dreamin’ has been replaced by Dementia:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-california-fighting-caffeine-dui-192312988.html
DUIC. What’s next, DUI sugar? Chocolate? Anything to fund services for illegal immigrant murderers, fat cats and cops.
Nicotine, obviously.
Driving Under the Influence of CO2?
That defense might work in a CA court.
Chimp , thanks, LOL I guess moonbeam would be the first one charged
Remember the song “California Dreamin’?” This one will end in a nightmare!
“Welcome to the Hotel California…”
Now that’s interesting. Politifact examnined a recent statement of Jerry Brown’s, where he says that PARTLY BECAUSE of their climate regulations, their state is enjoying a better business environment than Texas.
Politifact calls it “partly true,:” based solely on a couple of quarters of economic data without every addressing the claim it’s “partly due to climate regulation.”
According to this, though, the businesses of California aren’t in step with Gov Moonbeam!
Getting to where you don’t know WHOM to trust anymore!
California to become the liberal democrat commie’s final solution to make California into one giant Detroit gang ruined combat zone!
If Trump manages to eliminate most of the regulations which kill business development, and California retains or adds business and job killing environmental regulations while increasing taxes and energy cost companies will leave California. It may take a few years, but hopefully somebody will wake up before it is too lake. If electricity and transportation fuels cost much more in one state than nearby states business migration will happen, it always does.
I bear California no ill will. I hope they manage to reduce their CO2 emissions to zero.
Crispin, I hope they do it soon so other people can re-populate it and revive it. It is hard to grasp the fact that Cal is run by just three population centers, and the rest is actually very conservative . It must be frustrating as all heck for them.
“ It is hard to grasp the fact that Cal is run by just three population centers, ”
And now you know why the Democrat leaders are all wanting to do away with the Electoral College?
Zero? I don’t believe that is physically possible. Not a scientist though. Could be wrong. Doubt it.
Other people are repopulating it, and trying to turn it into the same mess they just escaped from to get here.
You have to remember that people from the third world view California as a vast unpopulated land area, compared to where they came from, so they continue their over breeding habits once they get here.
g
The problem is that Californians leave California too, and take their insane policy demands with them. Trump doesn’t just need to build a wall around Mexico, he needs to build one around California, too.
I thought Moonbeam was going to build a wall around California.
MarkG, so true. Californians leave their state to live in neighboring states without California’s problems. Then starts the downfall of the neighboring states. Californians tend to bring their problems with them. The try to make their new home just like California. They remember everything about California except how to get back there.
“The try to make their new home just like California. ”
Sounds just like Islamics fleeing the 3rd world hell-holes their religion created.
That’s a sensational idea!
The problem with California is that is full of Californians.
“Still, California officials and environmentalists said climate measures in place here will undoubtedly be undercut if the Trump administration rolls back environmental policies put in place by President Obama.”
I’m under the impression States still have the authority to enact rules, regulations and policies regardless of what the federal government does. Wait a second, hasn’t California legalized the sale and possession of Marijuana even though it’s strictly prohibited by the federal government? I’m sure they can carry on with their climate policies with no problems…
“I’m sure they can carry on with their climate policies with no problems…”
The sad part is California’s efforts to reduce CO2 won’t make a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things, as far as atmospheric temperature is concerned. California is cutting while China and India are building more coal-fired powerplants.
If Brown is successful, he will kill the California economy, and not accomplish anything as far as reducing world CO2 levels. They could accomplish much more for California by doing nothing. But you can’t tell Democrats anything.
California is free to do what it wants. They will realize the errors of their ways eventually. Probably about the time California drops from producing 13 percent of US GDP to about six percent after they have run all their businesses off.
The year 2017 is going to be very exciting and entertaining for some of us. 🙂
I’m not a fan of California’s vision of climate control or whatever it is they’re proposing. I have family in California and I don’t want their policies to negatively impact their lives. My comment was meant to highlight the power states have in governing things in their best interest. This attack on Trump and what his administration may do is nothing more than fear mongering and a distraction from what states can do to undermine the prosperity of the citizens. I live in upstate New York, aka Nannie State Central.
Repeal The Safe Act!
I do agree, 2017 will be very interesting…
During the Obama years, more small businesses failed than were created.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the same can be said of California during that same period.
“During the Obama years, more small businesses failed than were created.”
..
However, facts seem to make this statement laughable………
…
…
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/obamas-numbers-july-2015-update/
…
…
“Business Start-ups — New business establishments are opening at an accelerating pace. The Bureau of Labor Statistics counted 224,000 “births” of new establishments in the three months ending last September, the most recent period on record. That’s an increase of just under 20 percent compared with the quarter prior to Obama’s first inauguration.
Meanwhile the number of business establishments shutting down permanently — business “deaths” — has gone down by just over 20 percent. The most recent figure is for the third quarter of 2013, because the BLS must wait a year before counting any shutdown as a permanent closing. Establishment birth and death figures are adjusted to compensate for seasonal variations.
Galloping, I wonder how many of those small businesses were tied into the solar/ wind programs that have not delivered? Do you have a link there?
I see lots of new start-ups:
Vape-shops (?), gently used clothing stores, used cars, 2-person eateries, pet sitting, craft brews, other crafts, and stores for crafters, selling in Amazon, tutoring college students, teach kids (piano, violin, how to start a business), exercise rooms, lawn car, cupcakes (1 person baker), …
These have lots of things in common, mostly they don’t make much money and they don’t last long.
factcheck.org is a foundation-funded left-wing disinformation site.
“factcheck.org is a foundation-funded left-wing disinformation site.”
OK, so what is an accurate source for this information?
John F. Hultquist,
Nail/manicure shops and cell phone stores have opened all over the place, as well as small, sketchily maintained and poorly lit convenience stores, staffed mostly by immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and South Asia.
Taco trucks are quickly reaching saturation levels throughout the Southwest, but the better ones could be ranked as a boon to mankind.
It doesn’t make sense to look at raw economic numbers, especially when making comparisons. You need to look at them on a per capita basis. If you do, I think you’ll find the business creation/loss numbers not nearly as rosy.
On your own State side ( secretary of Labor) you can read:
“NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Quelle: Bureau of Labor Statistics” https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
The true number of unemployed in the US at the end of 2014 was not 5.6 per cent, but 11.2 per cent. A figure higher than in Germany and the northern EU, but lower than in Spain, Italy and Greece. The United States is a state in which, to a large extent, there is no obligation to report. Any migratory movements of job seekers can not be quantified, as in red China. So that the true number of job seekers or those who have already given up this search can be much higher. Any figures that override the number of successes exceeding the number of jobs or alarms are therefore to be viewed with a large portion of skepticism, since the detection shows very great deficiencies. One might almost say that the similarities to climate research can not be overlooked. Its a huge different between the “U3” and the “U6” number.
Eight years ago, 25% of new businesses failed the first year. Now, after an atrocious attack policy-wise on small businesses (regulations and Obamacare being the primary factors), 50% of small businesses fail the first year.
Add to that the fact that during Obama’s dismal administration, US GDP has never risen above 3%, galloping.
And neither of those numbers are laughable.
But the bottom line is that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 94,000,000 people in the US are out of the labor force. This Labor Participation and is lower than it’s been since the 70’s (When the next-worst president in history, Jimmy Carter, got involved with the economy and destroyed it).
The worst president in history? Why, that would be Obama, of course.
And that isn’t laughable, either. (He’s completely off his nut.)
Note the starting point of the comparison–the quarter just prior to Obama’s first inauguration. In the midst of the financial melt-down. I would wish for a more robust comparison.
By “accurate”, do you mean Dan Rather accurate?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/08/obamas_lost_annenberg_years_co.html
https://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/07/11/obama-bill-ayers-and-factcheck-org-all-have-ties-to-the-british-annenberg-brain-washing-foundation/
“staffed mostly by immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and South Asia.”
Of course those businesses are staffed mostly by the above said immigrants …… and that is because the US Government provided the money for those immigrants to purchase those businesses.
Thus the US Government is the actual creator of those NEW “small businesses” which are not actually NEW businesses, but actually OLD businesses with NEW owners.
There is a small Motel here in the town where I live and during the past 15+- years, me thinks there has been at least five (5) different Asian immigrant families that were/are the proprietors of said Motel business.
Unfortunately, the madness is not confined to the golden state. Ontario is also pursuing policies resulting in a new form of climate migration: jobs moving to places with rational energy markets.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/ontario-climate-policy-refugees/
Which is resulting in many liberals moving to the conservative provinces out West that still have viable economies, and voting to ruin them, too.
Yeah, those liberal provinces and states are just job killers. Lol – that’s where much of the job growth is occurring. Tell me about all the great new companies formed in the last 30-40 years in red states? I’ll give you Chik-a-Fil. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Costco – all in blue states.
chris lists no manufacturers whose energy costs are make or break.
Bingo.
> Google,
Advertising.
> Microsoft,
Don’t even know what they do these days. They can’t even give away the latest version of Windows. I heard they got into spyware and advertising?
> Facebook,
Advertising and cat pictures.
> Amazon, Costco
Cut-price retail.
Just imagine what we could have had if some of the talent that’s gone into selling advertising and cheap books or sending cat pictures around the world had gone into something innovative instead. But that’s what twenty years of artificially low interest rates gets you.
Chris,
Texas and the new oil producing states produced most of the new jobs in the US not the blue states. And most of these were well paying jobs.
Progressives and liberals take another step into the twilight zone. The Profits (sic) will not be denied.
(Source: December 26, 2016 By Stephen Frank http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/california-to-pay-billions-more-after-calpers-cuts-assumed-rate/ )
(Source: Romy Varghese December 23, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-23/california-to-pay-billions-more-after-calpers-cuts-assumed-rate )
Does Brown think business investors do not read??
“The Caine Mutiny” comes to mind…
http://media.washtimes.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/image/2012/08/16/20120816-164706-pic-216502841.jpg
http://latitudenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jerrby-brown.jpg
http://latitudenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jerrby-brown.jpg
I understood that they were putting their employee pension funds into green industries.
The current estimates of underfunding have been blind to errors of all their eggs in the wrong basket.
This is why we have a federal system with state sovereignty — so not everyone has to jump off the same cliff at the same time. The rest of us just have to pay to clean up the mess California makes of itself.
I don’t want any of my tax money going to pay off Jerry Brown’s delusional California boondooggle. Californians should pay their own bills. A good start at paying their bills would be for them to deport about 4 million of the illegal aliens living there and feasting of the largesse of California and U.S. taxpayers.
The problem is that now CA is illegals.
Illegals and their millions of anchor baby offspring, as well as those amnestied in 1986, have taken over the state. Asking CA to deport “4 million illegals” is asking them to deport themselves. Not going to happen.
They’ll self-deport: conditions will continue to decline until everybody leaves. Someday California will be just that much western desert.
Rocky Road “They’ll self-deport…”
My worry is that they’ll self-deport to the other 49 states.
Alan, why should the rest of us pay to get Ca out of the mess it made for itself? All that will do is encourage them to continue with their same destructive policies.
For the same reason the rest of us paid to bail out Wall Street after the housing bubble — to big to fail. I agree it’s obnoxious, but it’s still better than all the states destroying their industrial bases with stupid energy policies at the same time. Think of California as the US “defense in depth” against liberal/progressive rot. It is better that all the crazy ideas be tried in California, to spare the rest of us and provide a reminder of why those ideas are crazy. But we will end up with the bill. I suspect Jerry Brown will end up the a Nobel Peace Prize.
I say we let them rot. We certainly can’t stop them laying waste to their business environment, so why would we bail it out, after the fact?
‘Climate Reduction Standards” If we could somehow stop the global climate from changing then we would still have extreme weather events and sea level rise because that is part of the world’s current climate. If we could somehow, we could reverse sea level rise by bringing on the next ice age before Mother Nature had planned but that would cause a new buildup of ice sheets on land. It is hard to grow crops on land that is covered with thousands of feet of ice. To date Mankind has been unable to stop one weather event let alone change global climate.
Considering which models have been able to predict today’s global climate and which models have been unsuccessful, it is evident that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. If CO2 really affected climate then the change in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the torposphere but such has not happened. The AGW conjecture cliams that the surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer because of our atmosphere because of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by LWIR absorbing heat trapping gasses. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of such heat trapping gases but because the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse. So too on Earth. As derived from first principals, the surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer because gravity limits cooling by convection. 33 degrees C is what is calculated and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. There is no room for an additonal radiant greenhouse effect. A radiant greenhouse effect has yet to be observed in a greenhouse, on Earth, on Venus, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect does not exist which renders the AGW conjecture as unsupported science fiction.
The governor’s efforts may serve to help to reduce California’s population by devistating the economy but it will not serve to modify our climate in any way or protect California from the raveges of extreme weather events
Governor Moonbeam is entitled to his own climate. How about Mars? Not too hot. He should take a plenty of acolytes.
Settle down now. Facts have no place in politics.
Increased CO2 is aiding CA agriculture especially because it reduces water needs.
13. “No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.”
Thomas Sowell
(from an Glenn Reynolds post)
And even if they were interested in solving our problems, it’s not something the government is equipped to do. It would be like trying to use a sledge hammer to thread a needle; it is the wrong tool for the job. WE need to solve our own problems, both individually and as a society. But make no mistake, since we are a flawed species, we will never have a perfect system. Paradise will always be out of our reach. The best we can achieve is a system where everybody has an opportunity to go as far as they can with the skills, abilities, and ambition they were born with. And the primary thing that system requires is a removal of artificial barriers to such opportunity. Yes, there will be unequal outcomes, but that is because although we are all born with the same rights, we are not in fact, identical.
If California wants to impose these rules they should be able to do so. They should not expect other states to accept the same methods the operation their states. I believe and hope that the Trump administration will reduce the EPA’s authority, roll back its rules, and return much of its activities to the states where it rightly belongs. Then California can prove the value of their actions to enlist other states and countries to join them.
California’s loss will be other states gain. I meet many people here in Las Vegas who have migrated away from the insanity that is California. As long as the rest of the nation does not have to bailout the California’s stupidity, I’m fine with them doing whatever they want. That is why our federated republic must remain. New York State bans fracking. That’s OK, because it gives the other states more opportunity. The Left is absolutely great at wealth destruction. Just think what the NYS fracking ban has done to real estate values for those properties that contain the potential for hydrocarbon extraction. That is wealth destruction writ large.
P.S. Please leave behind your liberal ideology.
Dear California Businesses:
We Love You! You will find our arms open for you, our business climate friendly, our government supportive, our agencies helpful, and most of all our people welcoming, friendly, and eager to work.
Once you come here, you’ll wonder what the heck made you hesitate so long! Don’t need to look for the end of the rainbow anymore, it’s right here! Come on and git you some!!!
Signed, Texas
*********************************
Dear Texas,
Thank you for your kind invitation! Boy, howdy! We accept.
Sincerely yours,
Many California Businesses
*****************************************
(Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426974/businesses-leave-california-texas )
Good one, wws.
A lot of Californians have already taken Texas up on that invitation. It’s like the Okies moving to California to escape the 1930’s Dust Bowl in the central U.S., only in reverse. Now, the people are escaping the expensive wilderness of California for the greener pastures back East.
I checked out 3 years ago. Now I live in SEIU (formerly the state of Nevada). SEIU approved Bloomberg’s gun law on 8 Nov. Thinking about Utah or Arizona now. Unfortunately Commierado is not an option.
Texas should rethink its invitation. Relocating Californians will try to bring their politics with them.
William McClenney:
I assume you are aware of Paul Laxalt’s opion voiding the new law: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/28/nevada-ag-bloomberg-backed-background-checks-cannot-implemented/
Before my retirement, I was an employee of a California based oil company. About three years ago that company’s CEO saw the handwriting on the wall. He decided to spin off all of the company’s California assets, and move its headquarters to Texas. The California spin-off company promptly lost 90% of its value. The parent company, now with most of its assets in Texas and overseas is doing well, despite the currently depressed oil prices. The stock price of the California spin-off company has never recovered.
The insane anti energy/anti business policies of the California loonies will ensure that many more companies will make similar moves. My heart breaks for the rural and industrial areas of California that are out-voted by the lunatics in San Fransico and LA. These delusional people don’t care that they are destroying the livelihood millions of their fellow citizens. Even if the CO2 theory of “climate change” were true, the anti business policies that they are pushing would have no measurable effect. The fact that these voters, and the policy makers whom they elect, know that their policies are both destructive to modern civilization, and ineffective in their supposed intent, indicates that these voters and policy makers are either incredibly stupid, or just plain bonkers. I fear for the future of the formerly great state of California.
Texas, on the other hand, is a great state for business. The difference between Texas and California is that the crazy progressives in Houston and Austin do not yet outnumber the sane working class people in the vast interior of the state. During my most recent residence in Texas, I was unfortunate enough to live in the congressional district of Shiela Jackson Lee, so I know that Texas is vulnerable to the insanity that infects California. I hope every good Texan fights this infection to his, or her last breath, and I am confident that the Texas spirit will prevail.
Occidental or Chevron?? I ended up with some stranded “California” shares from the break up, can’t recall which one.
I spent a good deal of my youth and adult life in California. Although the state has a great climate, it is a terrible place to work and raise children.
California has become the ‘no’ state.
Since retiring I have loved the time we spent in Texas. Friday we will be driving our motor home down the beach on the Gulf of Mexico until we decide to stop for the night.