California Governor Brown imposing massive regulations for meaningless climate goals

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%).

clip_image002

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.

clip_image004

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.

clip_image006

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.

clip_image008

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.

clip_image010

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:

clip_image011

Serious concerns about the economic damage the states emissions goals could create were noted in the Times articles as well:

clip_image012

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.

clip_image013

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.

clip_image014

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.

clip_image015

The states agricultural industry will also be dramatically impacted by SB 32 mandates as noted in the Times articles.

clip_image016

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:

clip_image017

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.

clip_image019

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.

clip_image021

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.

clip_image023

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
339 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
a_generalist
May 19, 2017 6:58 pm

I’ve watched all this unfold, and find these developments deeply frightening. Now, when I read an article about the latest riots in Venezuela, I wonder if that is California’s future.

Mike Schlamby
Reply to  a_generalist
May 20, 2017 6:28 am

It is.

Dave Fair
Reply to  a_generalist
May 20, 2017 1:13 pm

When the Dems lose their 2/3 majority in the CA statehouse and can no longer impose new taxes, these costly mandates will chew up more and more of a limited pie; such pie additionally shrinking due to economic impacts of said mandates.
The funding battle royal between 1) Traditional state endeavors (education, infrastructure, public safety, etc.); 2) Welfare; and 3) Eco-loonies’ fantasies will commence. Venezuela, anyone?

willhaas
May 19, 2017 7:05 pm

The best way for Gov. Brown to achieve his goals would be to do all that can be done to reduce the states population to 40% less than the state’s population in 1990. Gov. Brown should stop all government activity in the state because such activity causes CO2 polution. The legislature should raise taxes on businesses so high that they are forced to leave the state. With no jobs and related services, most of the population will have to leave as well. The government should the cost of car registrations so high that no one can afford to register their cars in California. The addition of impounding of all unregistered cars in the state would force most to leave the state. The state should extend their anti methane polution laws to humans and not allow people to eat any food that might cause methane release. People wanting to eat would have to leave the state. The idea would be to turn the entire state into a wilderness park, devoid of human beings. Such an action would definitely cut down on human caused CO2 emisions but it would have no real effect on climate because the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science.

Mike Schlamby
Reply to  willhaas
May 20, 2017 6:29 am

And, by progressive math, the higher taxes and fees will see the CA gov’t ROLLING in dough.

May 19, 2017 7:41 pm

Things are changing!
Mega $
Mega oil and gas production
Last year in Texas this time 150 drilling rigs active now 450 active
some wells with horizontal drilling producing 5,000 bpd
Huge production comming on line
http://www.pboilandgasmagazine.com/

Michael Carter
May 19, 2017 8:08 pm

“California accounts for 1% of global emissions”
Really? I would like to see the calcs behind this claim. I doubt that it would be more than 1/10th of that

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Michael Carter
May 20, 2017 4:28 am

IIRC, CA is (Was?) the 8th largest economy in the world so it would surely be higher than 1%.

fhsiv
May 19, 2017 8:24 pm

The “technology” they want to export is how to force a return to good old fashioned serfdom.

CD in Wisconsin
May 19, 2017 8:43 pm

Given the fact that we humans have a tendency to emit climate changing methane out of our posteriors at times when we eat certain foods, I am left wondering if the information below should be passed on to the California Air Resources Board in its battle to win the war with the climate. It is obvious to me anyway that the cultivation and consumption of the foods below will need to be banned in California. Either that, or lay in a really BIG supply of Beano:
http://www.everydayhealth.com/hs/gas-and-bloating/top-gas-producing-foods/
“…….Among the top gas-producing foods are beans and other legumes as well as cruciferous vegetables, such as:
Cabbages
Turnips
Kale
Broccoli
Brussels sprouts
Arugula
Cauliflower
Other high-fiber foods, like whole grains, may also cause gas or bloating, particularly if you’ve recently increased your fiber intake. The body tends to acclimate to a high-fiber diet over time, Lemond says. “Increased or excessive gas usually gets better,” she says.
Lactose, or milk sugar, may also cause gas in some people. If you have trouble digesting milk or dairy products like ice cream and cheese, your body may not be making enough of the enzyme lactase, which is needed to break down the lactose in dairy foods……”.
The problem here is that the legumes, whole grains and cruciferous veggies referenced above are part of a healthy diet, and we all know how govt is always telling us about the need to eat a healthier one. No matter though, nothing must stand in the way of implementing SB 32 and fighting climate change.
BTW, I didn’t know the veggies listed above were known as cruciferous ones. I’m still learning, even after all these years……

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 19, 2017 8:57 pm

Since California already requires the capture/regulation of bovine methane emissions, doing the same for human methane emissions from our posteriors is the next obvious and logical step, is it not?

KT
May 19, 2017 9:34 pm

It’s a shame, because I love living in this state. It’s way better than other states I’ve lived such as Texas, Utah, Illinois, Washington. Still i’ll have to leave this abusive relationship. Don’t worry, I’m one person who will not vote commie.

Mark Stephens
May 19, 2017 10:05 pm

California is a big aviation State. It has two of the largest skydiving dropzones on the planet, where people burn fossil fuel just for fun. Its also a hub of car/bike racing and hot rodding industries. I guess all that is heading East? No space in Moonbeams world for these sorts of actvities I guess.

May 19, 2017 10:14 pm

And the gangs, of course, will switch to electric bikes.
https://www.google.at/search?q=hells+angels&oq=hells&aqs=chrome.

May 20, 2017 12:10 am

The best characterization of Christian Doppler was made by Harald Lesch when he said:
Today everyone knows the Doppler effect from the signal horns of emergency cars, police cars etc.
But Doppler made this discovery in 1842 when there were no road vehicles that were fast enough to make this effect audible or visible.

Patrick Meagher
May 20, 2017 12:20 am

Back in the 70s, when I was a clueless teenager, the State of California mandated catalytic converters on cars. I remember discussing it with a teacher at high school who informed us, “It converts the pollution into harmless CO2.”
I wrote an essay and concluded, “That’s great! Until government scientists decide that CO2 is not harmless 20 or 30 years from now and people will have to take drastic economic measures to mitigate the disastrous effects of ‘clean’ car exhaust.”
I received a D and was warned about questioning established science. I ran into the recently retired teacher some months ago she was adamant about CO2 being a threat our planet, just as I had predicted.
I was mightily tempted to say, “I told you so!”

Stephen Richards
May 20, 2017 2:03 am

Here, in Europe, we regularly get adverts from Cali asking us to visit., I wonder when they will say dont forget to bring your bike and to land in Oregan.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Stephen Richards
May 20, 2017 4:25 am

Same here in Australia.

Kurt in Switzerland
May 20, 2017 3:21 am

Just curious, do the CA state legislature and/or His Moonbeamness plan to reimburse those hit hardest economically by the anti-carbon measures? This would be anyone who travels long distances for a living (truckers, airlines, shipping companies) or who consumes large quantities of energy (smelting ore, steel-making, cement-making)?
BTW, do virtue travel (junkets to climate conferences, doing climate field research or viewing the disappearing arctic or antarctic via cruise ship) and/or virtue construction (wind and solar plant manufacturing and installation) get free passes?
I feel sorry for the ordinary, hard-working Californians who have to watch their state go down a steep and painful spiral. But sanity will set in at some point, once the would-be planet-saviors realize that ‘sustainability’ measures must be economically so as well. Until then, enjoy the luxury of virtue-signalling with what remains of your disposable income. For ‘Climate Mitigation’ is a bottomless pit, but the state or federal economies are not.

Griff
May 20, 2017 3:29 am

The graphic on Indian coal is out of date… India is of course cancelling new coal plants.
This huge new plant cancelled this week:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-cancels-huge-coal-power-station-renewable-energy-solar-power-gujarat-a7741801.html
and these also cancelled (some only having been raised as tenders late last year):
http://asian-power.com/power-utility/news/are-indias-coal-fired-power-plants-struggling-keep-competition-alive
and it seems both India and China are cutting back faster:
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/15/india-china-track-exceed-paris-climate-pledges/

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
May 20, 2017 7:45 am

That’s not what Australian exporters are experiencing. I dunno Griif, maybe YOU are wrong, huh?

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Griff
May 20, 2017 8:23 am

Ha! I went looking for your name specifically, Griff, because I knew you’d be posting that China was cancelling coal plants! They are, but I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they’ve overbuilt – massively. NY Times (a rag you would respect) calls it a ‘glut’ of capacity. Electrical energy capacity is 200% of demand. When you have that much over capacity, it is not a huge surprise that a few plants will be cancelled.
So, keep spouting your propaganda, and we’ll all keep laughing at you! This is the wrong site to expect to reach a large audience of dimwits.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/world/asia/china-coal-power-energy-policy.html?_r=0

Griff
Reply to  Kalifornia Kook
May 21, 2017 10:15 am

And if you look back, I’ve posted before that Chinese over capacity means that they won’t be building the planned coal plant… no more than India will, with their coal plants running at only 55% capacity (India cancelled one off their planned ‘ultra mega’ plants this week).
But I still see people posting about how it will make no difference if California cuts CO2 because the Indians and Chinese will be building hundreds of new coal plants…
And no, they won’t.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Griff
May 21, 2017 5:17 pm

Coal provides inexpensive base load power, Griffie. Africa will build coal-fired electric generation and India really has no other option. The Chinese will look to their own interests, not yours.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Griff
May 22, 2017 7:42 am

Two words from China…..methane hydrate

Ten
May 20, 2017 4:03 am

massive regulations
Do they weigh a lot? Excuse me; do they amazingly weigh a lot?
If you’re going to write, kindly don’t write clickbait-style.

Ten
Reply to  Ten
May 20, 2017 4:08 am

massive regulations
massive escalation
massive numbers
massive regulatory and policy change impacts
massive economic consequences
massive sacrifice
massive damage

Thesaurus ever?
[Opinions differ. .mod]

Ten
Reply to  Ten
May 20, 2017 10:22 am

I’m glad something does.

Ten
Reply to  Ten
May 20, 2017 1:20 pm

I suppose would censor my remarks if I were you too, mod…
[if it were censure, they wouldn’t appear, consult a dictionary much? -mod]

Ten
Reply to  Ten
May 20, 2017 4:02 pm

[snip – besides being a rude comment, “ten” is using a fake email address, policy violation -mod]

Butch
Reply to  Ten
May 20, 2017 4:03 pm

…D’OH !!

Jay Dee
May 20, 2017 4:29 am

Has anyone ever studied greenhouse gas emissions of government bureaucracies? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

MS
May 20, 2017 8:06 am

The hasty assignment of cause and effect I see every day, not only in this area, but also in areas like economics always makes me think back to witch doctors and priests assigning the behavior of this or that person to events like bad weather or earthquakes or diseases, purportedly because the spirits were angered. Of course this is made much worse when it plays into the hands of power hungry politicians—after all, regulating and taxing CO2 (or any other natural product) has the potential to generate both excuses for far more regulation of individual’s lives and a lot of cash to help them hold onto power.
It’s easy to see the abuse, and no matter what the problem, the “solution” is always the same—more power and resources for political control.

TCE
May 20, 2017 8:18 am

Anthony or Mod
Can I post this on my blog?

Chuck L
May 20, 2017 8:58 am

Every bad social and economic program originates in Kalifornia and spreads like a virus across the rest of the country. The sooner Komrade Moonbeam and his Nomenklatura crash the state’s economy, the sooner their folly will be displayed for all to see and the sooner that saner people will have an opportunity to get elected.

Mr Charles William Raisbeck Phillips
May 20, 2017 10:19 am

The flaw in that pie chart is that the only import it includes is electricity.
If they included all the imported good, manufactured in the third world with coal, and then shipped to them, using oil, their own emissions would be a lot less significant.

JP
May 21, 2017 7:21 am

I really love this site!!! You are all awesome! This place keeps me sane in a wacky west coast world!!

Retired Kit P
May 21, 2017 8:20 am

“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.”
Perfect example of lie and the reason California is no longer a nice place to live. Pollution is deviation from good air quality and not measured at the tail pipe.
The basic problem is there is too many people and too many cars. Half the people want to tell how to live and 90% are driving someplace.
My father moved to the Santa Clara in 1960. It was a beautiful place back then. Thirty years later he had retired to the foothills. We had just moved from Michigan and were building a house in the foothill. We had a house in Michigan on an inlet in Lake Erie.
With a certain amount of irony, I pointed out his grandchildren could again swim in Lake Erie. The Santa Clara Valley had become Los Angles.
My first observation about California and ghg is do not worry. It is all show (image) and no action. They love to drive. Emissions could be cut over night with fuel rationing. It worked in WWII.
I am an expert on reducing ghg. Build nuke plants and ration fuel are two examples of very effective solutions. I course I am not taking a popularity pole. Taking children to the doctor for vaccine shots is not popular either.
We move from California in 1993 but still have friends and family there. Our conclusion is not California is not child friendly. You are not a bad parent for thinking vaccines are good and recreational drugs/alcohol are bad in most parts of the country.
So what have we experienced the two places we lived since 1993. Good schools, clean air, no crime, low taxes, affordable housing, and good government.

Kalashnikat
May 21, 2017 11:06 am

California is leading the way….over the cliff and into the abyss.

This JimG not the other JimG
May 21, 2017 1:13 pm

Actually it is a brilliant plan.
The goal is not to reduce emissions, but increase revenue.
How?
Set a goal that is impossible to reach.
Fine those who fail to reach this unrealistic goal.
Tantamount to paying indulgences so that you can continue to exceed the carbon limits.
They are some really scary psychopaths.