Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
California Governor Brown’s SB 32 law requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels 40% below levels measured in 1990 is necessitating the development of massive numbers of new regulations and policy that will allow the state government to control and dictate virtually every aspect of Californian’s lives including:
- where and how they can live,
- what kind of jobs and businesses they can work in,
- what kind of housing they can have,
- what kind of car they can drive (if any),
- how many miles can they drive,
- what kind of public transportation they must use,
- how many times they must walk and bicycle,
- how much and what kind of energy they can use,
- what kind and how food can be farmed,
etc, etc.
The AB 32 year 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (year 2020 levels reduced to year 1990 measured levels) could be achieved by primarily addressing electricity generation and industrial sector greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts through increased use of renewable energy, energy efficiency and fuel substitution efforts.
But the SB 32 emission targets are so absurdly set that every aspect of Californian’s lives must be dictated and controlled to achieve Governor Brown’s ludicrous climate alarmist driven goals.
The largest single source of the states greenhouse gas emissions by far and away is the transportation sector (37%) with the industrial sector second (24%) , instate electricity generation third (12%) and import electricity generation and agriculture tied at fourth (8%).
The massive escalation in the states greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets between SB 32 versus AB 32 is huge with the reduced emissions target level declining from AB 32 levels of 431 million metric tons in 2020 to SB 32 levels of 259 million metric tons in 2030.
This huge escalation in emissions reduction as well as the shorter time period for accomplishing the reduction to achieve California’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions goal means that every sector of the states economic activity will be mandated to undertake unprecedented, hugely costly and far reaching measures to contribute toward trying to meet these politically contrived requirements.
But what does the impact of California’s massive new government bureaucracy and costly effort to achieve its SB 32 emissions reduction goals mean relative to the global greenhouse gas emissions levels?
The 2016 EIA IEO report documents that global CO2 emissions in 2030 are forecast to be 39,103 million metric tons of CO2 with these emissions levels dominated by the developing nations lead by China and India.
California’s greenhouse gas emissions are comprised of about 84% CO2 which means that the reduction of CO2 between SB32 and AB 32 is about 144 million metric tons of CO2 by year 2030.
Thus the California SB 32 CO2 reduction target is less than 0.4% of the global CO2 emissions EIA forecasts for year 2030 which is truly trivial and insignificant. This level of reduced emissions has no meaningful impact whatsoever at a global scale.
Those attempting to argue that other countries will follow California’s lead in emissions reduction are completely out of touch with reality with what the world’s largest and fastest growing emissions countries are now doing regarding the increased use of coal fuel on a global basis.
China is now generating electricity using coal fuel at record high levels and in addition is engaging in efforts with other countries such as Pakistan to build large numbers of coal plants in that country.
China also has an on-going global strategy based on building coal power and was involved in 240 coal power projects in 65 countries between 2001 and 2016.
India is going forward with large numbers of new coal plants and completely ignoring any voluntary emissions reduction commitment discussed under the Paris agreement.
A new paper concludes that India will rely upon use of coal fuel as its energy mainstay for the next 30 years.
Additionally both China and India increasingly dominate ownership of coal reserves with 117 companies identified producing 3 billion tons of coal a year with 150 billion tons of coal in reserves.
Africa has announced plans for building more than 100 new coal plants to address its severe energy shortages that are contributing to the dismal economic condition of many of its countries.
The idea that many other world countries that desire high energy growth using coal fuel regardless of the greenhouse gas emission levels are going to abandon their enormous existing use and future growth of coal fuel because of California’s ridiculous climate alarmist driven schemes is totally absurd.
A recent series of articles in the L. A. Times outlined the massive regulatory and policy change impacts that SB 32 will impose upon the people of California here, here, and here.
In these articles extraordinary admissions are noted from the states leaders about the complete lack of knowledge, expertise and experience of the state government needed to achieve these escalated emissions goals demonstrating that these leaders are cavalierly plunging ahead with SB 32 politically driven emissions reduction mandates:
without regard to the massive economic consequences,
without clear understanding of how these emission levels can be achieved,
without comprehensive communication to the 37 million people of California whose existing lives and futures will be ripped apart by the demands imposed by these goals and
without any mention of the global irrelevance and meaningless of the outcome of achieving these state emission reduction goals.
The state governments monumental arrogance in moving forward with SB 32 is characterized in the following observations contained in the Times articles:
Serious concerns about the economic damage the states emissions goals could create were noted in the Times articles as well:
State Senate leader Kevin de Leon’s quote in a recent article captures an astounding display of climate alarmist elitism that shrugs off as unimportant the huge yet unknown impacts of the states emission mandates on its 37 million residents.
The state doesn’t know what it’s doing but Senate leader Kevin de Leon has decided “The debate is over”.
The Times articles address how SB 32 emissions goals will have dramatic impacts mandating increased housing density and significantly decreased motor vehicle use in California requiring many tens of billions of dollars in expenditures across the state to accomplish.
The Times articles further address the unknowns and uncertainty regarding how the huge reductions in driving miles and transportation emissions related required decreases can be achieved.
The states agricultural industry will also be dramatically impacted by SB 32 mandates as noted in the Times articles.
Perhaps the most ridiculous and absurd comment regarding the value of the SB 32 emission reduction mandates contained in the Times articles was the following:
How can any rational person credibly claim that China, India and other energy hungry developing nations of the world are going to “export” the folly of California’s climate alarmist policies to their countries?
California has now created a world where Governor Brown, Senate leader Kevin de Leon and Air Board Chairwomen Mary Nichols will determine at huge cost and without the appropriate knowledge, expertise, planning and communication how everyone of the 37 million people of the state must live every aspect of their lives to meet meaningless climate goals with the resulting massive sacrifices that will impact California citizens having no consequence on the global emissions stage.
California is proceeding down this absurd emissions reduction path while the “science” supposedly supporting climate alarmism claims is crumbling with global climate models shown to be flawed and failed by climate scientist testimony before Congress and UN IPCC acknowledgements of the undeniable truth that it is impossible to create credible global climate models which, in fact, has been the case for the last 25 years.
Additionally testimony before Congress also shows no connection between greenhouse gas emissions and increased severe weather, including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts, as falsely claimed by climate alarmists.
Finally NOAA 2016 updated coastal sea level rise tide gauge data shows no acceleration in sea level rise along the California coastline or anywhere else despite false claims by the UN IPCC that man made emissions have been increasing rates of sea level rise since the 1970’s.
California’s politically driven climate alarmist emissions reduction goals are meaningless and completely unnecessary and threaten to produce massive damage to the states economy and to the lives and freedoms of all of its 37 million citizens.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Greenhouse gases are not the only products of automotive transportation that creates real pollution. Reducing auto travel miles in cars and trucks will reduce other factors that really do affect the health and well being of humans and all species.
From http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health/cars-trucks-air-pollution
Particulate matter (PM). Fine particles — less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair — pose the most serious threat to human health, as they can penetrate deep into lungs. PM is a direct (primary) pollution and a secondary pollution from hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sulfer dioxides. Diesel exhaust is a major contributor to PM pollution.
Hydrocarbons (HC). These pollutants react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ground level ozone, a primary ingredient in smog. Though beneficial in the upper atmosphere, at the ground level this gas irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx). These pollutants cause lung irritation and weaken the body’s defenses against respiratory infections such as pneumonia and influenza. In addition, they assist in the formation of ground level ozone and particulate matter.
Carbon monoxide (CO). This odorless, colorless, and poisonous gas is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and is emitted primarily from cars and trucks. When inhaled, CO blocks oxygen from the brain, heart, and other vital organs. Fetuses, newborn children, and people with chronic illnesses are especially susceptible to the effects of CO.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2). Power plants and motor vehicles create this pollutant by burning sulfur-containing fuels, especially diesel. Sulfur dioxide can react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and poses the largest health risk to young children and asthmatics.
Hazardous air pollutants (toxics). These chemical compounds have been linked to birth defects, cancer, and other serious illnesses. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the air toxics emitted from cars and trucks — which include Benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene — account for half of all cancers caused by air pollution.
And…more bicycling? We seem to be killing off the bike riders wholesale here in Texas. Does that offset the savings in pollution?
Probably offsets a few vegans 🙂
There is no evidence that PM 2.5 has negative impacts on health.
HC, NOx, SOx and CO were all but removed from car exhausts decades ago.
Why don’t you rejoin the real world where we manage to keep up with evolving technology and stop fearing problems that were solved before you were born.
These are the kind of comments that make me question much of what appears on WUWT. Baseless assumptions, knee jerk reactions, snarky comments.
For your information, MarkW, When I was born, my father’s Studebaker was the height of automotive technology. No seat belts, no pollution controls, no computers, no fuel injection, just psitons jumping up in down in petroleum effulgence.
Michael yours is the type of answers one would expect from an extremist reactionary.
If participating in the daily process of government is extremist and reactionary then I wear that badge with pride!
‘If participating in the daily process of government is extremist and reactionary then I wear that badge with pride!’
Vanity. Definitely my favorite sin.
I notice that you don’t try to refute what I wrote. Just whine that I wasn’t nice enough to you.
These are the kind of comments that make me question much of what appears on WUWT.
odd, I was thinking something along that same line….as I read your post
Mike, what you fail to realize is that what you do while “participating” that defines you.
If you spread lies, such as your comments regarding pollution, then you are being reactionary.
If you support having the government steal from others so that you can have more free stuff, then you are reactionary.
“If you spread lies, such as your comments regarding pollution, then you are being reactionary.
If you support having the government steal from others so that you can have more free stuff, then you are reactionary.”
Pollution is not a lie. It is very real. When your car is running, step to the year by the tail pipe and take a deep breath.
I don’t support having a government steal from others. The people are the government. Who outside the people are there to steal from?
I don’t get free stuff. Do you?
“No seat belts”
And nowadays, stupid people survive car accidents, breed and become climate alarmists. Being stupid should have consequences but it doesn’t seem to much any more.
Michael A. Lewis, it’s an unfortunate effect of modern rightism that all it can find in itself to do is shriek at its leftist phantoms. It’s a reflex, un-thought and empty. It’s also a blow to sane ‘conservative’ sensibilities of the kind that correctly oppose climate Orwellianism.
Instead we see rightists taking shots at all sorts of projected, non-existent, supposedly leftist goons and villains, even if they have to invent them. The average rightist,is ignorant that conservatism owned conservationism until about a short half century ago when they allowed it to be co-opted by the lunatic left.
Today, rightists take extreme bacon-and-gasoline lifestyle posing as one of the highest virtues with which to oppose leftist virtue signalling. The sad thing is that these rightists don’t know the subject – they can’t defend it, can’t represent it, and can’t even identify it anymore.
And, naturally, the bad always drives out the good. Shouldn’t be any different here either, I suppose.
An internal combustion engine with a modern catalytic converter puts out only minute amounts of carbon monoxide (it is oxidized to CO2), hydrocarbons (gets oxidized to CO2 and water) and NOx.
These are at fractions of a ppm.
Fractions times billions equals significant. Plus the concern is not just with contributions to atmospheric concentrations. The greater concern for auto pollution (don’t forget particulates) is at the point of origin.
First off, it’s millions, not billions. Your penchant for irrational exaggeration remains intact.
Secondly, what you fail to mention is concentration. Those millions of cars are spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles. Plus nature does a very good job of processing the extremely small amounts of pollutants that do manage to escape the catalytic converter.
MAL,
What you and Moonbeam fail to recognize is that there is little alternative for the workers in places like Silicon Valley (aka Santa Clara Valley) but to commute 1 or 2 hours each way to their jobs because there is a fixed amount of land available between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range and those who got there first ripped out all the orchards and built houses. That leaves the workers little choice but to commute from the Sacramento Valley and the Delta. You both live in an alternative dream world with little connection to reality.
MAL wants to require everyone to live in high density housing.
“MAL wants to require everyone to live in high density housing.”
MarkW, since you can’t see into my head, you have no idea (maybe I should just stop here) what I want. Speaking in ignorance reveals the ignorant.
MarkW
May 19, 2017 at 3:07 pm
“MAL vants to lequire evelyone to live in high density husing.”
There corrected for you 🙂
Pleale I do not vant any tanks flom you……Al my plealule…
cheers
No one forces anyone to live in Silicon Valley where housing is exorbitantly expensive and they choose to drive instead of using public transit.
No one forces anyone to live in Silicon Valley where housing is exorbitantly expensive and they choose to drive instead of using public transit…….
Just as no one is forced to live where the work is. Like, why don’t farmers live in Chicago? You’re statement is bereft of common sense.
Most of the pollutants mentioned above have been largely reduced and/or eliminated from exhaust fumes. The jury is still out on Particulate Matter of small dimensions (2.5). Is it harmful or not? The EPA says yes if it wants to create regulations, but no if it being sued for immoral and illegal experiments on vulnerable people.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/222616/obama-epas-heinous-human-experiments-matthew-vadum
So, which is it?
SteveT
The continuing debate about California’s greenhouse gas emission legislation is a red herring. The core consideration is not climate change, it is human growth and development. California officials see continuing growth in California’s future, growth that cannot be sustained under the present model of community growth, such as suburban sprawl, low density neighborhoods and private car commuting at the expense of public transportation.
What is ignored are the real and immediate impacts of continued growth and development unrelated to climate change, such as automotive air pollution other than CO2, increasing consumption of natural resources, decreasing landfill capacity, declines in ground and surface water quality and availability, increasing crime and social problems, and decreasing economic capacity to fund maintenance of essential existing public infrastructure and community social services.
Communities are faced with the necessity of finding answers to the question: Do we want fewer residents in less dense development, or more people in increasingly dense development?
We can’t have both continued growth and continued low density development with private auto transportation. We must learn the realities of living in a world of finite resources and, based on this understanding, we can decide the future of the communities we live in.
And…you can live there, not I.
I have chosen to live in coastal California because here I use no petroleum fuel to heat and cool my passive solar, 850 sq. ft. house, I walk or ride my bicycle to any and all desired venues, I grow food around my house year round, I take part daily in city and county government, I need no income other than social security to provide for all of my needs, I invest my savings in a locally owned and operated bank that provides loans for local projects.
Why would I choose to live in locations that cost more and provide less?
MAL
Exactly where could you move that costs more than coastal CA?
Downtown Paris?
Everywhere else costs more than where I live now. I live simply so I don’t have to pay exorbitant rent, nor pay anything at all for heating or cooling. My expenses anywhere else would be double than they are here.
MAL, did you inherit the house or are you living in a closet?
Purchased a 1964 mobile home and paid for. No mortgage. No credit cards. No car payments. No debt.
As always with leftists, the only solution is to control what your neighbors are permitted to do.
I can’t control what my neighbors are permitted to do. However, I can work together with my neighbors to see that government works in the interest of the common good.
‘I can’t control what my neighbors are permitted to do. However, I can work together with my neighbors to see that government works in the interest of the common good.’
You mean you go through government to coerce others. How noble.
You can live your holier-than-thou life however you want, I don’t care, but you’re organizing to force it on everyone else. As always.
You collectivists are masters of rationalization.
Everyone is allowed to take part in government. The only ones coerced are those who refuse to step forward and defend their positions in public debate and decision making.
Thank you for proving my point about rationalization. No. What you are creating is focused pressure groups of minorities. Perhaps those that are not living on social security and don’t have time to ‘participate’ in your organization.
‘Strength through discipline, Strength through community, Strength through action!’
Where have I heard that kind of thing before.
MAL,
You can be self-congratulatory for being smart enough to minimize your costs. However, you can’t stuff 7 billion people into California! Someone has to live elsewhere. Consider yourself fortunate that you aren’t one of those who have to live in less desirable places.
However, having grown up in California in the 1950s, when I retired from a job in Ohio, I decided not to return to California because all the people had destroyed many of the things I most enjoyed about the state. The regulations have become oppressive and the congeniality has declined as the state has become a Tower of Babel. You have traded off a pleasant climate for all the other things that go along with crowding. Enjoy it while you can, because if it continues down the same path it has for the last 40 years, it will become intolerable everywhere, even to you.
“you can’t stuff 7 billion people into California! Someone has to live elsewhere. Consider yourself fortunate that you aren’t one of those who have to live in less desirable places.”
I chose to live here, on purpose, for the reasons stated. Nothing fortunate about that. I consider it wisdom.
in the interest of the common good.
roaring laughing!!….why you little dictator you
“in the interest of the common good. roaring laughing!!….why you little dictator you”
So the people, working within their government, are all dictators? How does that work?
Mike, are you a hypocrite, or merely that stupid.
You use government to control what your neighbors are permitted to do. That’s how all good fascists operate.
“You use government to control what your neighbors are permitted to do. ”
I don;t use government, I participate in government, along with my friends and neighbors.
Mark
I’m voting “all the above”
Ah, another acolyte. See my post at 9:47.
To whatever extent those are real problems, they are compounded exponentially by economically suidical climate change idiocy.
This is an exceedingly simplistic response to a complex issue. Climate change is not responsive to changes in human CO2 emissions. However, the health and well being of all life is responsive to the reduction of human resource depletion and pollution. This is, no matter what anyone “believes,” a finite world with only so much to go around.
‘Finite’. Another popular eco-nut fiction.
How you live your life is your business.
Your desire to force everyone else to live by your standards is mine.
I do have to congratulate you, you are one of only a tiny fraction of leftists who actually lives the lifestyle they want to force on everyone.
“How you live your life is your business.
Your desire to force everyone else to live by your standards is mine.
I do have to congratulate you, you are one of only a tiny fraction of leftists who actually lives the lifestyle they want to force on everyone.”
See my above post about ignorance. You do not know my desires. Speak for yourself, please.
One thing is for sure: you have guzzled the “Sustainability” koolade, much of which is based on Malthusian nonsense.
There are realities in this world. We ignore than at our own peril. Can one (dare I say it?) deny that there are limits to human consumption of natural resources.
Can one deny (I said it again!) that human growth and development destroys critical habitat for non-human species?
Can one continue to presuppose that humans can survive in a world depauperate of natural habitat and non-human species.
If this is the world one wants, count me out, please!
I would happily count you out, but you’re out there organizing for the rest of us, based on your perception of ‘reality’.
The strawman in your argument is pretty much every presumption you’ve made – over consumption, finite resources, non-human organisms. Complete crap, but perfectly in line with thirty years of activist propaganda.
You can make all the assumptions you want. The problem is that the science refutes your opinion.
MarkW. I doubt that MAL actually does those things consistently. Remember, once you be come a sanctimonious fascist. Things such as live and let live, tolerance, love for your fellow man, patriotism, decency, honesty, etc. are only useful words for the cause until they aren’t and then other virtues and their signaling become the accepted words and dialog. And where did the social security come from? A disability?
Oh well, no use arguing with a Fascist or Communist, they only want to destroy you in the end.
Now the big lie, “all can participate in government at all levels”. Try being a conservative patriot and speaking at Berkeley without being attacked and injured or killed. Same with most Universities in the country.
“I doubt that MAL actually does those things consistently.”
Hello Leonard: Since you don’t know me you have no idea how I live or don’t live. In fact, I have done all of those things for the past 17 years. No brag, just fact.
“And where did the social security come from? A disability?”
Nope, no disability. I earned my Social Security by working steadily for 47 years.
“Try being a conservative patriot and speaking at Berkeley without being attacked and injured or killed.”
Speaking at Berkeley is not participating in local government on a day to day basis.
“Michael A. Lewis May 19, 2017 at 2:06 pm
Can one XXXX (I said it again!) that human growth and development destroys critical habitat for non-human species?”
These non-human species (NHS) have no concept of what the human (HS), or any other species, is. Some NHS think we are food. Some NHS, such as parasites, think HS as life support systems. I like to call these NHS scientifically illiterate leaches, politicians, for sort. Brown seems to fit that definition perfectly. Lets not forget about the numerous newly discovered NHS in recent years.
MAL: Just wondering, what did you do for those 47 years?
The annual population growth in California has been less than 1% for a few years now.
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article69054977.html
The Madness Of King George’s Provinces
It ain’ only just California
At some point, I predict, Latinos in California will change parties. Let’s hope it doesn’t take as long as it did for the Rust Belt white working class.
Chris
Care to tell us why?
It’s all in accord with UN Agenda 21’s leftist grab for control of our lives. We’ve seen it at work for years. And, sadly, it has paid off in spades. In Canada, there’s hardly a single politician, federal, provincial or municipal, who hasn’t been captured by the alarmist “climate change” narrative, along with most corporate leaders. And Canada’s global climate change actions are truly meaningless, aside from virtue signalling, that is.
The new climate religion worships a greedy angry god.
It all comes down to the government ESTABLISHMENT. Trump got elected on a DISESTABLISHMENT
platform – his promise to oppose the establishment. The Press, the Never-Trumpers, and their Democrat infantry oppose this effort, making them all ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANS. We are living in a time of ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM.
[Sorry, but I’ve been waiting *decades* for the pedagogical opportunity to illustrate that term.]
+10
In grade school that word was “the longest word in the dictionary” in the banter of the day. In high school more evolved analytical skills deemed it “an imbedded double negative really stupid word”.
Full credit for reviving it, as the current situation richly deserves it. We can just substitute “antidisestablishmentarians” for “alarmists”, and have the would-be erudite Carbonist crowd scrambling for their dictionaries.
Ahhhh basking in the insanity that is moonbeam. Awesome. 🙂
Careful you don’t get moonburnt.
Please self identify the companies that want to relocate. Let the bidding war begin. California can keep the weed growers, paid protesters, craft brewers, and coffee shops.
This article is wrong. For those that believe in AGW, the primary greenhouse gas being emitted in California is not CO2 but H2O. Even if the state government could eliminate all CO2 from the atmosphere over California it would have virtually no effect on the radiant greenhouse effect which is dominated by H2O. Molecule per Molecule, H2O is a much stronger absorber of IR than is CO2 and there is so much more H2O in our atmosphere than there is CO2. If Gov. Brown really wants to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions in California he has got to start with H2O emissions. For starters the State should stop all public works including work on the high speed rail system between Fresno and Bakersfield because of all the CO2 and H2O being generated. The State should demand that all state agencies refrain from using any goods or services that involve the use of fossil fuels. Next the state should require that all bodies of water including all lakes, rivers, wet ground and the Pacific Ocean must be covered with a plastic film to prevent evaporation into the atmosphere of the state. It should be illegal for anyone in the state of California to possess any form of H2O for fear that any of that H2O could enter the atmosphere. A law should be passed making it illegal for water vapor from entering the state through the atmosphere but I doubt that such proclimations will have any effect on the weather. To really affect the total greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere such regulations need to be enforced over the entire world.
Another problem is that gases that absorb LWIR radation also emitt LWIR radiation. Such gases absrob heat energy through conduction and convection and then radiate the energy away, some of which is lost to space. It is the non-greenhouse gases that hold more heat energy in because they are such poor LWIR radiators. So in terms of heat trapping Gov. Brown should concentrating on reducing the non-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over CA, gases like N2, O2, and Ar because they trap more heat then the so called greenhouse gases. If Gov. Brown can some how significantly reduce the mass of the atmosphere over California the result will be significant cooling.
Another problem is that the work with models and an analysis of the paleoclimate reveals that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind, including Gov. Brown, have no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero so that Gov. Brown’s efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in California will not affect global climate. It is all a matter of science.
I fear New York State will try to follow this path aka death spiral. My questions to anyone who advocates this are how much will it cost and how much will it actually affect global warming? As far as I can tell the answers are a lot and not much. Symbolic virtue signaling springs to mind.
Thank gawd, California is taking action based on real science http://www.climatesignals.org/headlines/events/eastern-us-record-winter-heat-february-2017
rather than the complete bunk offered on here that the poorly educated lap up like it’s magic chocolate milk.
You, like many of your mentally-deficient warmunist brethren have no clue about either science or climate, confusing it with weather. But thanks for playing.
We here are “poorly educated?”
That’s a laugh given that the architect of obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, is on record saying that Obama and the DNC elite basically leveraged the collective stupidity of its base to pass obamacare.
You keep coming here to post mass insults,then you have the GALL to expect those whom you insult every comment take you seriously. Many here have either science degree or are active scientists.
You are hilarious.
You left off the “repent thy sinner” line Lisa and other religious attack phrases.
When the IRS puts a stop to the state income tax deduction from federal income tax it is going to be a riot, but not just in California. heh!
Yep
+10
Does SB 32 count as an earthquake ?
There should be “Brown Scale” (like the Richter Scale) to indicate the intensity of stupid surrounding government regulations CO2 “emissions”.
Notice that the first letters of Brown Scale are BS and “SB” spelled backwards is “BS”.
California has been too crowded for years anyhow. An exodus is long over due.
If I’m not mistaken, California has some very gun laws. Yet when Hollywood makes a movie, those laws don’t seem to apply to it’s fully functional “props”.
I suspect that these restrictions won’t apply to the to the CA “elite”.
Fewer and fewer movies are actually “shot” (so to speak) in CA.
Union labor (among other thing).
Surely California’s profoundly irrational administration is diametrically opposed to Trump’s agenda of industrial revival. In that case, to what extent can Federal intervention bring California to heel?
Graham
If the voters of CA want this madness, why should the rest of the USA try to stop them?
However, Trump’s proposal to disallow the state income tax deduction on Federal income tax will have a significant impact. For a $100,000 taxable CA income, it would mean about $3,500 more in total state & Fed taxes (equals about $10/day at Starbucks).
Javert Chip. “If the voters of CA want this madness, why should the rest of the USA try to stop them?”
Because when California goes under, the taxpayers in the rational states will have to bail them out, and it will cost much more to fix the bankruptcy than to have stopped it.
As a Brit, I do wonder how Brown gets elected. Is it that the people most affected by his policies (i,e,: the poor) are disenfranchised?
RCS
Your assumption is incorrect: the “poor” do not see themselves being damaged by all this. A lot come from Mexico (so CA looks like heaven), and a number of the rest are drunk/drugged or shooting at each other. Bunches of government workers are planning on lush retirement pensions. Probably most of the rest view the current problems as “transitory” and really believe things will soon return to normal (aka: the way they were in the 1980s).
If you’ve been born & raised in this environment, it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.
California is a cesspool of Liberal thinking because the Socialist/Marxists control the education and media. The state college system is immense and covers the state. It use to be so inexpensive to attend that anyone, anyone could earn a degree if they were conscientious and had the time. Same with any of the large population centers in America. No conspiracy theory. Fact. It turns out Joseph McCarthy was right.
[Please do not insult innocent and perfectly functional cesspools by comparing them to California legislatures on this site. We “do” have standards you know. .mod]
Perhaps to the contrary, RCS. It’s the “poor” and scientifically uninformed consituency on welfare that keep the loons in power.
Chris Chantrill commented: “…..At some point, I predict, Latinos in California will change parties. Let’s hope it doesn’t take as long as it did for the Rust Belt white working class….”
There are common misconceptions that voting Latinos are all Democrats, manual laborers, uneducated, and mostly illegal. Those with roots in Mexico, Central, and South America know what Socialism/Marxism produces. That’s why they came to the US to stay. The laborers here to work don’t vote and don’t care about politics because they understand it’s the life of the elites and beyond their control. Resident Latinos are more Conservative than most people realize.
Clinton won California by 4.2m popular votes.
Trump won the other 49 states by 1.2 million popular votes.
Could anyone seriously want a Brown/ Clinton dictatorship of the United States.
The writers of the Constitution exposure those 2 greedy capitalists as dough heads.
The collegiate system is an absolute necessity for democracy.
It’s not just Massachusetts New York and Philly people that are important.
The U.S had brilliant minds and visionary intelligence early.
I bet the governor won’t walk everywhere, ‘cos his work and associated social activities are just too important compared with other less important people. Of course private jets and gas guzzling limos will be banned, won’t they?
It’s all about the regulations and never about the climate.
Can we start a 401(c)(3) to help Kookafornia exit the union?
Michael Mann has fooled California politicians into running all their businesses out of the state.
This is a good thing. We will see an example of what happens when “green” theories are carried out, under complete control, to their fullest extent — and the resulting chaos needs to be documented so that the blame can be placed where it belongs.
Brown is just adopting the heritage of his great predecessor Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Brown et al are victims of shallow science.
The science that discovered that CO2 is a ghg just scratches the surface.
Delve deeper into the science and discover that thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy explain why CO2 (or any other ghg except water vapor) does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.