Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The L A Times published a story on May 24th entitled “Gov. Brown tours polluted L.A. neighborhoods to see firsthand where progress lags” which described his clandestine visit with activists who have been critical of the state doing too little to protect the health of people living in these communities.
The Times article explained that:
The visit exposed the large disconnect between Brown’s penchant for prioritizing state resources toward globally directed state climate regulation versus the real world of needs for environmental actions that actually benefit California’s local communities health and living conditions. The Times article notes:
Brown has always claimed that revenues from the states cap and trade (tax) program targeting reduced greenhouse gas emissions would be used to help disadvantaged low-income communities.
Instead the Times article indicated:
Given the unprecedented number of new regulations and policy along with the many tens of billions in expense required for attempting to meet the SB 32 greenhouse gas emissions goals and in view of the trivial global significance of SB 32 emission reductions the justification for the states priorities toward greenhouse gas emissions versus dealing with California’s real front-line pollution issues clearly deserves to be openly challenged and discussed.
As Assemblywoman Garcia noted:
For far too long now Governor Brown has been allowed to misdirect and misallocate the state priorities, resources and expenditures toward globally irrelevant greenhouse gas emissions reductions while ignoring the plight of tens of millions of Californians who receive no benefit at all from the states elitist climate alarmist political agenda.
Its time for California’s climate alarmist elitism to stop and for the state government to instead address and use its resources to deal with the many real and significant issues that are impacting millions of our citizens.
Governor Brown will probably get over his dose of reality pretty quickly. Those inconvenient poor people wont sway him from further virtue signalling and “saving” the world.
Those poor people don’t contribute to political campaign funds.
So many confounding factors…
Poor people – why do so many (in my experience) smoke? Cigarettes and other 5hit
How are they heating their homes – are they burning wood, esp stuff that may have been chemically treated or full of glue like chipboard/laminate/plywood or unseasoned wood cut from trees. Is it ‘The Particles’ that cause upset or what they may be coated with, such as creosote, tar, dioxin, aromatics & cyclics and god knows what organic chemical nasties,. Aren’t we always told that (even) cigarette smoke contains 4000 such things.
What about other stuff off the road – tyre & brake dust, pollen & other stuff the trucks have picked up elsewhere – see how plants travelled England along the railways as they were built.
Then there’s fine (tar encrusted) dust off the road surface itself. Not just trucks make that. There’s tar again, THE major baddy in cigarette smoke…
Finally for now, why were (poor) East German kids, living in a smoke filled h3ll-hole of pollution, so much less asthma prone that their clean living (rich) West German. How’s about that Christina, maybe you’re not so badly off as you make out. And I’m sorry for this but, girls always do that don’t they? They always want more. And boys, in the hope of getting their ends away, will (try) to deliver that ‘more’
Its actually the definition of ‘romance’ = the giving (by boys) of gifts (=stuff) in exchange for babies. Or at least the attempt at making babies.
Maybe, just maybe, all those rich & clean-living West German kids had a ‘good & balanced diet’ = one containing many different fruits and esp vegetables. All the myriad chemicals plants use to defend themselves are what sets off asthma. Its an affliction of rich people.
“Garcia said it was too soon to proclaim Brown’s visit a success.
“It went well,” she said, “if we get something in the budget or we get some bills signed.” “
gov. Brown. And no Teslas distributed. Freely.
One way for Gov. Brown to meet his CO2 emission goals is to cause a drastic reduction in the population of California so that it is at least 40% less than it was in 1990. Making it almost impossible for businesses to make a profit in this state will help. Eliminating all transport by truck woild make life virtually impossible for most Californians and they would be forced to move to more livable states. If all CO2 emissions were totally eliminated in California it would have little effect on the total of greenhouse gases in the state which is dominated by H2O. The governor needs to pay more attention to science. From an evaluation of the paleocliamte record and the work that has done with climate models, on can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind, even Gov. Brown, has no contorl..There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on science and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. Hence an effort to cut CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate and is a total waste of money. Even if Gov. Brown could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing it would have no effect upon extreme weather conditions and sea level rise because such is part of our current climate. So there is nothing to be gained by Gov. Brown’s efforts.
Out of curiosity, if the other states selling california power simply stopped doing so, would that impact Moonbeams targets much ?
States can’t refuse to sell electricity to CA. Something in the Constitution about not establishing trade barriers between states. How that plays out with limited resources can get tricky though.
If Calexit ever became reality, the Interstate Commerce Clause would no longer apply. A good reason why Calexit is unlikely to become reality.
It does not matter where the power is created because climate is a global climate. Most of the greenhouse gases in the atmopshere over California originally came from out of state. The Gov. needs to find a way to close California’s borders to the flow of greenhouse gases the majoriety of which is H2O. The Gov. also needs to find a way of keeping the greenhouse gases in California that condense out of the atmosphere from reintering the global atmopshere again.
https://youtu.be/Jx3PzJp8mf8
Isn’t it interesting that the Tesla Gigafactory did NOT get built in California!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Tesla+Gigafactory/@39.5399574,-119.4376746,3393m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80991fc240ba30b9:0x7e66b0fa4fe55cd8!8m2!3d39.5380042!4d-119.43904?hl=en
https://youtu.be/U1lQJ4Oc_VY
Offenbach wrote that to warn Napoléon before to attack Russia. And to fail.
Napoléon did not listen.
Power must roughly balance economics, reliability and environmental concerns. If the balance gets to far out of whack as regards any of these components feedback loops will work against the original aims. If you develop a costly electric system that “over values” the environment over economics, less costly and less clean options to electrical consumption will take root. In much of the third world building an expansive “dirty” electric supply would be vastly superior from an environmental perspective than building a limited “green” supply accompanied by the poor burning massive amounts of dung, cardboard and twigs.
“Diesel exhaust contributes to asthma, heart disease, cancer…”
…as “proven” to the state’s satisfaction with one fraudulent study by a fake PhD who happened to be a state employee under orders by the Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols.
Credibility abounds.
The rules imposed by the CAGW crowd always end up attacking the poor and working poor.
Speaking of trailer parks abutting industrial sites, that is easy to explain. The that is where the people in the trailer park work. If you force the trailer parks away from the industrial sites, the result will be that people who have been getting by walking to work, will have to buy cars, or have to start paying for bus passes.
+2
Indeed. It’s increasing the “cost of employment”. And transportation is just part of it.
Instead of minimum wage hikes, which just make it harder for businesses to offer jobs, there should be pushes for policies that reduce the cost of employment, so the working poor keep more money from the same wage.
On topic(ish): Bike lanes are racist
https://www.amazon.ca/Bike-Lanes-Are-White-Advocacy/dp/0803276788
“The number of bicyclists is increasing in the United States, especially among the working class and people of color. In contrast to the demographics of bicyclists in the United States, advocacy for bicycling has focused mainly on the interests of white upwardly mobile bicyclists, leading to neighborhood conflicts and accusations of racist planning.
In Bike Lanes Are White Lanes, scholar Melody L. Hoffmann argues that the bicycle has varied cultural meaning as a “rolling signifier.” That is, the bicycle’s meaning changes in different spaces, with different people, and in different cultures. The rolling signification of the bicycle contributes to building community, influences gentrifying urban planning, and upholds systemic race and class barriers.
In this study of three prominent U.S. cities—Milwaukee, Portland, and Minneapolis—Hoffmann examines how the burgeoning popularity of urban bicycling is trailed by systemic issues of racism, classism, and displacement. From a pro-cycling perspective, Bike Lanes Are White Lanes highlights many problematic aspects of urban bicycling culture and its advocacy as well as positive examples of people trying earnestly to bring their community together through bicycling.”
“The visit exposed the large disconnect between Brown’s penchant for prioritizing state resources toward globally directed state climate regulation versus the real world of needs for environmental actions that actually benefit California’s local communities health and living conditions.”
Why does this disconnect need to be exposed. It is as intended. Being a world leader for globally directed climate policies by necessity means that Californians are paying money to help the world in their own small way. The benefit to Californians, rich or poor is to help people across the globe in 50+ years. Will the poor of California suffer disproportionately? Only if the State government does not ease their burden, so yes they will.
Having high morals can be costly you know, perhaps not so much for the rich, but absolutely for the poor.
Meanwhile China builds artificial islands with weapons in the so called rising seas of the South China Sea.
Probably going to try to inforce Their Perceived Rights to the Methane Calthrate energy sources in that vast area
Wow, poor people are forced to live in substandard homes within the less desirable areas… who could have guessed?
Governor Moonbeam is (again), demonstrating that he holds the American people of California in disdain. My company has approached the Governor offering truly world-class green energy production technology capable of actually satisfying the green fuels mandates that he championed. The response was rather tepid. No help with acquiring any capital, from ANY source public or private. Site selection and permitting assistance was the only help available because the state is so broke.
For Governor Brown to have recently spent tens of millions of state tax money paying those millions for the Attorney’s fees for any illegal aliens who want to fight federal deportation in federal court is felonious on it’s face. To be too broke for Governor Brown’s office to substantively help us create an ongoing supply of good paying, renewable fuels mandate satisfying, and income tax paying jobs for Californians, yet somehow think that through taxes I am going to pay illegal aliens legal bills to enable them to continue breaking the law means that Governor Brown is mentally and psychologically unfit to remain in office.
This betrayal cuts deeply.