Guest essay by Eric Worrall
At a recent public hearing, some Californians demanded EPA head Scott Pruitt reimpose Obama era climate policies on the rest of the United States. In my opinion, people who support Governor Brown’s green policies or re-imposition of Obama era energy policies are ignoring the hardship green policies create for poor people.
Trump’s plan to ease climate change rules riles Californians
By ELLEN KNICKMEYER, ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO — Feb 28, 2018, 7:34 PM ET
California officials, schoolchildren and at least one billionaire denounced the Trump administration’s plan to scrap Obama-era limits on emissions from power plants in blistering comments Wednesday to U.S. officials visiting a state that’s helping lead the fight against climate change.
Hundreds spoke in defense of the Clean Power Plan at a hearing in San Francisco, the latest in a series of nationwide “listening sessions” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on its effort to repeal the restrictions. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has described them as part of former President Barack Obama’s “war on coal.”
…
“I know this is a listening session, and I’m asking you, who are you listening to? The voices of outdated technology of the past?” Mary Nichols, chairwoman of California’s Air Resources Board, asked EPA officials.
“California is in complete opposition to the EPA’s proposal,” said Nichols, one of a half-dozen officials speaking from Brown’s administration.
…
“Now more than ever is the time for the United States to be a leader and a partner on this,” Nichols said. “Not to walk away from this.”
…
Why do I suggest California’s green policies are causing hardship?
As WUWT reported last year, rising costs are forcing ordinary Californians out of their homes.
While soaring rental costs are the greatest burden on poor people in California, there is no doubt Governor Brown’s expensive green energy policies are substantially contributing to the pain.
… Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor. By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, author of a 2015 Manhattan Institute study, “Less Carbon, Higher Prices,” found that “in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced … energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15% of all households.” A Pacific Research Institute study by Wayne Winegarden found that the rate could exceed 17% of median income in some areas. …
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html
Anthropogenic CO2 might cause problems in 20 years, or 50 years or whatever. But California’s misguided attempts to address a predicted future problem which might never occur is causing very real problems right now, contributing to the ruin of tens of thousands of lives.
If Californians want the rest of the USA to reduce CO2 emissions, they need to stop pushing and start leading. California needs to use some of their legendary ingenuity to find a way of reducing CO2 emissions which doesn’t hurt people, rather than trying to impose their failed green energy ideas on people who can’t afford the price.
Individual Californians are absolutely free to act like fruit loops. What they are not entitled to do are to impose it on their fellow citizens. Especially those who cannot afford it.
This presumption that these people speak for all Californians is hogwash. Dems have a 15 to 20% majority in the state at best, most of that majority is contained in a narrow strip of land along the coast between S. F. and S.D. Most of the rest of the state disagrees with this groupthink.
So get off your high horse thinking you carry the weight of the entire population of the state. If Sacremento decided to secede from the US, 3/4 of the counties in the state would revolt.
Tom,
Cali is much more Democrat than for which you give them credit! To wit:
From: Public Policy Institute of California
Source: http://www.ppic.org/publication/california-voter-and-party-profiles/
Voter registration is up slightly; the share of independents has increased.
California’s 19.4 million registered voters constitute 77.9% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2013 (75.7%), the year preceding the last midterm election. The share of registered voters who are Democrats (44.8%) is up slightly from 2013 (43.9%), while the share of Republicans (25.9%) has declined since 2013 (28.9%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (formerly called “decline to state” and now called “no party preference”) has been increasing; it is now 24.5%, up from 20.9% in 2013. Our surveys indicate that 46% of those we consider most likely to vote are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 21% are independents.
Most independent likely voters lean toward a major party.
In our surveys over the past year, independent likely voters have been more likely to lean Democratic (43%) than Republican (29%); 28% did not lean toward either major party. This is similar to 2013, when 41% leaned Democratic, 29% leaned Republican, and 30% did not lean toward either party. Independent likely voters are slightly more likely to be moderate (37%) than liberal (33%) or conservative (30%).
But they are entitled to impose it on their fellow citizens – that is the definition of a Green politician
The endless stupidity of liberals knows no bounds. You can dismiss the crumb-crunchers (schoolchildren) as they are being used by the stupid ones. California is circling the drain with their lunacy but we do not have to follow – let them die.
Yea, the school children probably wouldn’t even consider global warming issues if not told to do so by leftists teachers. Again our education system is being used to indoctrinate not educate.
The problem with Californian stupidity regarding energy and economics is that IT DOES AFFECT THE REST OF US in saner regions.
California’s population and market share distorts the national (and international) markets
Green car mandates, blended fuel mandates, energy “efficiency” mandates, and hosts of other ineffective policies in CA force manufacturers and suppliers to cater to the lunacy
Oh, and then of course we get all the Hollywood/Lib/Socialist virtue signaling and hypocrisy
Sheesh!
The Framers of the Constitution realized that untrammeled democracy had problems. link That’s why we have things like the Electoral College. The whole point is to prevent various forms of tyranny.
In a democracy, any individual government action will discomfort someone. In fact, if someone gets everything their own way, that person is probably a tyrant of some sort. Everything is a compromise.
The greenies who want to impose their will on the rest of us should be grateful that they live in America. In the Soviet Union they would probably have ended up in a gulag. They should remember:
“The greenies who want to impose their will on the rest of us should be grateful that they live in America. In the Soviet Union they would probably have ended up in a gulag.”
No, in the Soviet Union they probably would have gotten what they wanted and ended up like, well, the Soviet Union.
I have talked to former citizens of the Soviet Union. They are very clear that the population was very careful to not appear radical or activist. When The Gulag Archipelago was published in the west, it became very clear what happened to any dissident.
The old Marxists are still subverting western civilization. Nobody will buy their Marxist crap any more so they have disguised themselves as environmentalists and post-modern ‘scholars’.
It’s really important that people understand how bad was the Soviet Union. It will innoculate the population against the forces that conspire against us.
I thought CA wanted to secede.
Oops! Wait a minute, they realized they get way too much US taxpayers money:
aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders, bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, ‘affirmative action monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for ‘mass transportation’, monies to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the iceberg
BTW, 45% of CA is federal land.
BTW, a huge section of CA want’s no part the Moonbeam Brown CA schemes.
Maybe we can just let the coastal regions go their own way, and keep the sane portions.
Its the way of the totalitarians, they arent motivated to do good things on their own, they want the state to impose laws on everyone.
Just like turkeys voting for Christmas or Thanksgiving.
nr 1 question in every energy discussion should be: “is this xxx technology capable of generating sufficient energy”? My conclusion: wind and solar never can. Burning biomass wrecks nature. Best guess is the fossil fuel era will last some more centuries thanks to methane hydrates and better mining technology. If the lights go off nobody cares where the power comes from.
“Some Californians…”???
You mean the usual bunch of over-excitable, media-attention-w***es that get far more press lineage than they deserve?
has anyone asked the WHOLE population of California? Maybe they need a referendum on it?
Agreed, the title implies that all Californians are morons, which I think is unlikely.
Oh, I dunno…
Look at the politicians they keep electing.
It’s a safe bet that the majority of voters are morons. And those who aren’t voters aren’t upset enough at the damage being done to become voters.
Not all, but I am dismayed by the large number of them.
As George Carlin reminded us: half the population is more stupid than the average man.
I’m intrigued by the dropping population of Republicans in California. Then again, I left ONLY because of the state government, following many of my friends, and a couple more who say they are following suit within the year (which probably means three). We all lived in Orange County, a former bastion of conservatism in California.
It may be that a lousy government, despite the protection of a a Federal Bill of Rights, may still encourage hard-working people to leave.
Yeah, a referendum would be a very good idea.
A referendum would be a good idea, if results were not determined district-by-district in a state that’s been gerrymandered to a fare-thee-well to make it a Democrat-safe state. As long as the ‘nanny state’ exists, we’ll continue to see an endless series of legislation out of Sacramento to ‘protect’ California’s environment and its citizens (in that order), no matter what the cost, as long as the government can pry the costs out of the residents for their own good.
Cali had a referendum on same sex marriage, the vast majority voted No. How did that work out?
A case of the people showing sense, only to be overruled by a few dictators in black robes.
Perhaps an organised rebellion on the streets might make these thickheads listen to common sense.
I was reading one commenter who was praising the fact that “renewables” required 5.5 times the staffing per unit output than fossil fuels. I pointed out that this didn’t seem like a positive to me and he said more people with jobs is always a good thing.
So renewables are just another tax on us all to pay for a dole. Sustainable? Not so much.
“said more people with jobs is always a good thing” — then ban farm equipment. At one time over 90% of the population worked in agriculture.
Pssssssssst. Not so loud.
If the eco-fascists hear you, they will call for a ban of farm equipment and bring in more Mexicans.
The old and lovely story professional economists hear during their degree studies, has an observer being shown a dam under construction in China many years ago. The guide pointed out the many peasants working with wheelbarrows (instead of efficient machinery) to do the required earth moving, and said that this was providing much needed employment. To which the economist replied, why don’t you issue them with teaspoons, then?
Tony.
I believe that was Milton Friedman.
https://tarpon.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/milton-friedman-shovels-vs-spoons/
Alfred Sauvy (1898 – 1990), for sure said that to some minister before WWII (and before western economists went to China). As the story goes:
Now, for this dialog to happen you just need a man with common sense and humor, and some minister worrying about unemployment. It looks very Bastiat-ish, and certainly could have been said by someone else before, and after (and for sure Friedman could)
This was a time when socialists (as he was) were conscious that, whether the boss is a capitalist or “we the People”, wealth is a good thing (not some Earth destroying, sinful, abomination), you need to produce wealth before enjoying it, and this need as much machinery as possible, and this machinery won’t create unemployment as you need workers to produce the excavator and there is plenty of work to be done by men with excavators.
Sauvy was anti-malthusian, optimistic, and opposed regulation of work duration as a mean to fight unemployment.
Very interesting man, whose ideas are totally at odd with current “progressives”.
Here are some quotes, a few of which obviously belongs in the current climate debate.
“The goal of the economy is not work [and employment], but consumption.”
“Well informed, men are citizens; misinformed they become subjects.”
“Democracy is not about uniting, as the belated conservatives constantly announce. On the contrary, it is the art of dividing ourselves. ”
“In any statistics, the inaccuracy of the number is balanced by the precision of the decimals.”
“One woman is faithful to her husband, another is unfaithful to hers twice a week, and on average, these two women cheat on their husbands once a week.”
“Technical progress does not suffer a halt: any slowdown is equivalent to a setback, humanity is condemned to progress in perpetuity.”
“Charity has always relieved the conscience of the rich, long before relieving the poor man’s stomach.”
“There is no human problem that cannot find its solution, since this solution is in us.”
“Just as the administrations would work satisfactorily if there were not the public, so the economic theories would be relatively easy to settle without the presence of this unbearable embarrassment that is man.”
(about public service) “The operation is, in general, to charge the taxpayer instead of the user.”
“If capitalism survives in spite of its imperfections and injustices, it is because there is no presentable substitute.”
I surmise that should the californians wish to maintain their standard of living by means of renewables; then the jobs created will be greater than the population of California.
Umm! Not sure how to square that circle!!!?
When automation destroys jobs, it results in the products made being cheaper.
The result of that is that the consumers have more money to spend on other things.
When demand for those “other things” goes up, the amount of labor needed to make those other things goes up.
In the long run, for every job destroyed, at least one new job is created. And consumers get more stuff in the process.
Alasdair, that’s shapist.
@MarkW
“In the long run”, we are all dead.Trouble is, in the short run you have to deal with people losing their current job and out-competed to get a new one, and other fearing they will go through the same. Your words, as true as they are, wont bring them any more relief or comfort than if you told them “don’t worry, you’re losing your life-earning, but someone else will get an even better job than you, and stuff you now cannot afford to buy will be cheaper”.
some politician telling them “don’t worry, I will protect your job” is far more sexy.
It may be sexier, but it never works.
Trying to “protect” jobs always ends up destroying more jobs than just letting the economy work.
The average crew on a windjammer was 20, for an average cruising speed of about 4 knots, and a carrying capacity of 3,000 tonnes.
A big container ship has an average crew of around 20, for an average cruising speed of at least 15mph and a carrying capacity of 30,000 tonnes
If you want to increase employment go back to renewable powered sailing ships.
If you want to increase wealth, stay with modern ships
you may add that the crew of wind sailor shared 10 cold, wet, banks, and often got injured.
Indeed Leo: The whole debate on fossil v renewables was sorted out by the maritime industry many moons ago.
Why it is back on the agenda beats me; particularly as the reasons given to discuss it are so obviously nonsense.
A parcel of atmosphere containing 1667 molecules has one CO2 molecule (at 600ppm). How this one molecule controls the other 1667 beats me.
This is what a lot of people are getting upset about, wealth inequality.
The 0.1% is even worse.
http://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wages.png
Skilled positions are becoming more valuable.
Non-skilled positions are becoming less so.
The solution is to help those without skills to learn skills.
The worst thing you can do is punish those who have taken the efforts to improve themselves so that those who haven’t taken such efforts can be subsidized.
One word. Trade. Schools. OK, two words. Majority of people do not need to go to college, they need to learn a trade. They can pursue secondary education after they establish themselves in a productive career and build some equity/financial security for themselves and their family. This insanity to push everyone through college for no other reason than pushing them through college and saddling them with massive debt is insane.
@MarkW
Good point. The extreme example is Zimbabwe and the upcoming civil war in South Africa.
See https://laurensouthern.net/farmlands/
If nothing else, the niche market for hand-made goods will continue to grow, to cater to those well-to-do consumers who’re willing to pay extra for a non-APP (Automaton-Produced Product).
So capitalism will win again.
I’ve read several sci-fi books, where the masses go to restaurants, it’s automated service.
However the rich people go to restaurants where they are waited on by humans.
The gripe from CA politicians is that if CA imposes draconian rules by itself then industry will just leave to other states without those rules. They want universal draconian rules where there is no escape.
They want everyone to be as miserable as they are.
Apparently Canada is starting to realize that with President Trump’s economic improvements, we Canadians are going to have to do something to stay competitive, or our businesses are all going to flee to the US. This was on the CBC! Of course they stopped short of actually *praising* Trump for improving the US economy… I guess they figure it was just an accident. They have to think that. 🙂
Justin is going to put on a brave face and budget for now but work on reforms in the back room to stay competitive. The pace of change might surprise him though and end up forcing embarrassing admissions of faster adjustment to keep up.
+100
That is rule no. 1 of the scheme, universal misery even if it takes top down rules to force it on the other jurisdictions.
The constant socialist lament. It can’t work unless everyone is forced to participate.
And ultimately doesn’t work even then.
But it’s easier to hide the fact that it isn’t working.
Victor Davis Hanson has several great talks where he describes, among other things, how poor immigrants in central California flood into Walmart all day when it gets too hot, because they can’t afford air conditioning.
VDH is “the voice” which SHOULD BE “listened to” by the EPA’s “listening tour”. My winter month PGE bills have been spiraling out of control … my home is well insulated, modern, and my NEST thermostat is set at a Jimmy Carter-approved 65deg.F. for most of the day, and never higher than 68deg.F. Yet my winter bills are $400.00/month for my compact 3k sq.ft. two story home. The CA PUC has let me down by siding with “green” special interests instead of the energy Consumer. The entire State “green” bureaucracy is STEALING $$$ from the poor. The elites are LOOTING from the poor. Robin Hood in reverse.
3000 sq. ft. is compact?
and the poor are called poor because they are rich prizes to loot? i don’t think you have a clear concept of the nature of poverty.
the socialists’ justification for stealing (from the non.poor, who actually have stuff to redistribute) is to help the poor?
it’s the socialist party line drivel.
Actually socialists always start by stealing from the poor. Once they are armed up they go after everyone else.
Rob the middle class and “bad” rich, line the pockets of the “good” rich, give just enough of a pittance to the poor to keep them voting the racket back into office. Constantly set the “good” poor against the “bad” rich. Conveniently ignore the “bad” poor whenever you aren’t insulting them at parties.
It is the socialist way.
3000 sq ft and two story and you are surprised it costs a bit to heat?
Two story costs less to heat then the equivalent square footage ranch style.
Pretty much the same amount of siding, but half the roof area.
From the article: “Hundreds spoke in defense of the Clean Power Plan at a hearing in San Francisco”
Hundreds? I’m skeptical.
I bet that other than the Brown administration officials and a few Greens, most Californians have no idea what the Clean Power Plan proposes to do. I guess that doesn’t rule out there being hundreds of Brown administration officials and Greens at the meeting speaking but that just doesn’t sound logical. Methinks the reporter is exaggerating the numbers.
Don’t forget “at least one billionaire”. The schoolchildren have been indoctrinated in the schools, and were dragged to the meeting (skipping school?) by their indoctrinated parents. Wonder who the billionaire was. Oh, it was Tom Steyer – quelle surprise. Will we see his name on the presidential ballot in 2020?
I live in CA but work remotely. I can tell you CA power costs are approximately double TX, OK, MO, and IA.
It mainly riles the AP.
And how well did the fleet of CSP’s generators operate in December- 9% capacity factor(1). Crescent Dunes generated nothing in December.
How much more did CA’s business pay for a kWh of energy last year then the year before- a lot(2)
1) http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_07_b
2) https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=0,1&geo=g00000000004&endsec=e&linechart=ELEC.PRICE.US-RES.M~ELEC.PRICE.CA-RES.M~ELEC.PRICE.CA-COM.M~ELEC.PRICE.CA-IND.M~ELEC.PRICE.US-COM.M~ELEC.PRICE.US-IND.M&columnchart=ELEC.PRICE.US-RES.M&map=ELEC.PRICE.US-RES.M&freq=M&start=200101&end=201712&chartindexed=1&ctype=linechart<ype=pin&rtype=s&rse=0&maptype=0&pin=
Trump’s plan to ease climate change rules riles Californians
Evidence that he’s right over the target.
Some Calikooknians actually liked the Climate Inquisition, and want it imposed on everyone? Why am I not surprised? The imposition of “green energy” not only causes energy prices to skyrocket, but is also unreliable, hurting businesses, especially energy-intensive ones. The overall effect could be a recession, or worse. It forces standards of living down, which of course hurts those in the lower income rungs the most.
A new report (survey?)by US News ranked California LAST in quality of life. I wonder why.
Here in PA we have a screeching minority that are trying to re-close coal mining, so stupidity is still as universal as hydrogen. Funniest part? None of these screechers have jobs, they spend all day standing around screeching and waving little paper signs. I signed onto a letter requesting PABSI investigate where their financing comes from.
Vegetarians consume vegetation
vegetation consumes Carbon Dioxide
California farmers are likely aware of this, any other Californians?
Why do science climatologists hate poor people?
They don’t, they hate people.
It’s just that when it comes to drastically trimming the size of the population, the poor are low hanging fruit.
The problem is the poor, though long suffering, turn into vicious and cold blooded animals when pushed too far. That pendulum, it just keeps swingin’!
For the radical Left, the death of a few (hundred / thousand / million / billion) is an acceptable price to establish their socialist utopia.
Especially if it means the best beaches are no longer crowded.
Whoa!
The entire premise of this article is incorrect!
CO2 BENEFITS humanity through additional foodstuff production (up 15-25% w/ current CO2 increases), while trees are now growing from 30-70% faster, depending on the species.
Where is the downside?
The earth isn’t on some catastrophic “global warming” trajectory due to the increase in CO2!
How do I know?
Because even the CAGW crowd admits it: They have changed their “Global Warming” meme to “Climate Change”!
And the reason they did that implies just one thing: increased atmospheric CO2 doesn’t cause warming, hence the increase in CO2 is beneficial!
California should certainly lead, but by contributing more CO2 to the atmosphere rather than working to reduce it.
Certainly the millions upon millions of Californians consume enough food and use other materials produced by photosynthesis that their goal would be to augment critical support for their consumption.
Too many Californians choose to follow Jerry Brown off the insane sustainability cliff when what they’re doing isn’t sustainable at all.
Would you buy stock in a company that has had to change the brand name of its only product at least 5 times, and it is still not selling?
Nope!
(Good point!)
So far, I’ve read here more of the standard stuff about California and their misguided green policies. Let’s look at some specifics. If I’m way off base I’m sure others here will let me know:
1. What is the range of residential electricity charges in CA? In my state Duke Energy charges me about 10c./kWh. This includes a charge for the renewal energy portfolio. NC is about in the middle among the 50 states. In California the average rate is about 15c./kWh. At an average usage of 900 kWh per month the average charge in CA would be $135 – in NC it’s $90.
California’s rates are in the upper half of the 50 states but are by no means the highest. Most northeastern states are higher. CA is an expensive state, but I doubt that an extra $45 in the electricity bill by itself would keep me from moving to CA. The same could be said about the northeastern states. I would guess that the cost of living in northeastern states is about the same as in CA. Of course, if you like great weather and beautiful scenery, CA is more attractive – that’s one reason there are 45 million people there.
Now if you’re poor an extra $45/month is significant. Does CA provide any sort of relief for people in lower income ranges? If they don’t then should they? Electricity costs are high but not outrageous by any comparative standard.
The poor in CA will certainly not care much about the green-ness they’re getting for an extra $15/month. But many people with higher incomes will think it’s worth the extra charge. For the poor, charges for electricity are one regressive charge of many, including sales taxes which costs consumers much more and is invisible. At least people get a bill for the electricity charge, and of course that raises the profile. And CA has a truly progressive income tax that addresses the “fairness” issue.
But overall I would say that this concern for the poor over electricity charges is a red herring. If you’re poor you wouldn’t move to Nevada to save 4c.kWr, or about $36/ month.
There are plenty of reasons to question a wholesale move to renewable energy. It will be more expensive particularly in the short run. Most people vote with their pocketbook and my sense is that California energy charges have not approached the level that will cause a taxpayer revolt, though I’m sure many people don’t like it. I’d like to see a quantification of the incremental charge per kWr Californians pay for their renewable energy focus. In NC (which admittedly has a much modest renewable portfolio), that charge is less than 1c. per kWr, though it will probably go higher.
You’re overlooking a couple things; 1) the greenie sickness is everywhere, not just Cali, albeit in varying degrees and 2) the greenie sickness is still being subsidized, despite Trump. It will take time to undo all the damage.
He doesn’t consider it “damage”. He calls it “progress”.
Business on the other hand consumes lots of electricity. For them, it’s a major expense. It all factors into where they site their new plants, and which old plants get closed first.
Of course business pays a lot for energy, but compared to what? How much more than the average? How much of what they pay is attributable to the renewable portfolio. What businesses have left CA because of high energy prices?
I’m trying to quantify some of the platitudes that are endlessly repeated without any supporting facts. No one likes to pay more for anything when there’s no clear value received. What sort of extra costs are we really talking about?
A lot of businesses are leaving CA. Many of them cite the high cost of doing business.
If everything else in CA cost the same as the US average, would companies be leaving just because of energy costs? Probably not.
However high energy costs are real, and they do have an impact.
PS: Raising taxes so that the poor can be subsidized is another one of those costs that are driving people and employers out of CA.
Why not go find out yourself? Or do you want the other side to do the research so you can attack the sources, ala the argument from invincible ignorance?
drednicolson. “Why not go find out yourself”. Because I’m trying to get commenters here to offer some concrete support for some vague statements that seems based on ideology rather than facts, and because I’m not writing a PhD dissertation and don’t claim infallibility.
Are you not interested in learning something about these claims -e.g. “renewable energy projects victimize the poor”? Based on some quick research, I say that claim is b.s. What do you say other than you’re not interested?
And when you talk about “the other side” why do you assume that I’m on the opposite side? You know nothing about my politics or world view, other than my interest in seeking facts to back up a lot of vague claims.
So increasing everyone’s electricity costs doesn’t impact the poor.
So you think the policy effect can be denominated in some dollars on the electric bill. What do you think happens to the middle class when new housing becomes rare and the impact fee per lot is greater than what affordable housing can support? That’s not even getting to the requirement that all new units have rooftop solar in SF.
I’m saying that the claim that the poor are victimized by renewable energy appears to be without concrete support – I’ve certainly seen no such support here. As to the middle class and impact fees, I don’t know. Maybe you can tell us specifically what you mean.
It’s amazing what you don’t find when you refuse to look.
MarkW – took the words right out of my mouth.
The evidence has been provided, over and over again. Is it my fault that you refuse to see it?
Regardless, your belief that the poor can handle increases in energy cost as easily as everyone else is quaint.
Stupid, but quaint.
Leftists never lead, they push others, are very generous with other peoples’ money and never apply their stupidity to themselves.
This is not true. They sometime apply their stupidity to themselves. And fail. And either stop being lefties, as they learned and grow up, or turn into paranoid lefties, blaming their failure onsome big oil illuminati
The ‘notches’ in graphics of TOA radiation flux demonstrate that energy absorbed by ghg at low altitude has been redirected for emission to lower energy wavelengths of water vapor molecules. Thermalization allows the redirection. This explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com/
Good food for thought . . thanks, Dan.
You’re not the first to point at this, aka “saturated GHE”.
An interesting point is, it is very easy(*) to test in the lab. All you need is plot the same graph, for different mixture of gas with CO2 ranging from 0 to {whatever you think} ppm, and test if total emission energy stay the same (then you would have full redirection, saturated GHE), is reduced in the exact same proportion as the ‘notch’ develops (no redirection at all), or anything in between.
I am pretty sure this was done; I just have no reference.
(*) with proper apparatus, of course, not a DIY home-made experiment
paqy – IMO this is antithesis to ‘saturated GHE’ which ignores thermalization. The process of redirection of the energy absorbed by CO2 takes place over the range of altitude at which CO2 significantly absorbs radiation. I expect this range is at least tens, perhaps hundreds, of meters making a useful lab test difficult.
Down-looking radiation flux measured at several altitudes up to about 10 km at the same time and geo position as a measured TOA radiation flux (which contains the ‘notch’) should be revealing. I have been unsuccessful in finding where that has been done.
TOA over the Antarctic (very low water vapor) shows, instead of a ‘notch’, a bulge at the CO2 band (Fig 9 in Ref 8 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com ). With low WV the redirection does not take place, corroborating the Theory.
Under California’s safety labeling law, Californians themselves should be labeled as a danger…..to the rest of the country.
And now they’re being driven out of their home state… like locusts, they will ruin their new domiciles just like they ruined their old one.
Yes, I know. I’ve seen that from observing change over the years in Colorado as it went from a concern to obviously bad today. It’s sad. At least in states like Idaho and Utah it will take some time to get that bad.
At least for awhile, the Mormons will be able to out breed them.
The natural advantages of warm climate, productive land, natural resources, and excellent coastal ports in California are being strangled by the regressive regulations and policies of the Cali socialist democrats. Their states economic and social ‘wounds’ are self-inflicted. Their environmental and ‘dreamer’ delusions are so firmly seated they feel compelled to deride the less afflicted 49 United States of America for not joining them on their path to state suicide.
Here is as good a place as any to put this story
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/01/big-freeze-stretches-uk-gas-supplies-snow-forecast/
Alarmists must be celebrating gleefully over so much cold in the NH 🙂
“Gas supply fears as cold snap continues”
A cold snap lasting a week or so.(at the moment.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43229297
Just imagine a month or more cold snap (maybe next year). Lets hope they keep on fracking.
We are not allowed to frack in UK. Freeze- yes- permitted . Freeze to death- yes- permitted, probably desired . Frack – no.
Sounds like you need to have a revolution, just make sure the real human beings win, not the socialist scumbags or muslims, not to be redundantly repetitive.
So, we go from “Californians” to “SOME Californians” to “California LEADERS.” Aha! So it’s just the usual climate fascists who are blathering on about this, not the (largely unfortunate) residents of the State of California.
Let those “California leaders” disconnect the state from the power grid and go “all in” on their “renewable” “clean power” plans. Let’s see first hand the brownouts, blackouts, skyrocketing electric prices (finally! Obama’s “vision” realized!), and face-planting economy. Then maybe “Californians” (you know, the population, not the elected eco-fascists) will finally figure out that they need to vote in people with a different mindset about “climate change.”
It’ll be a great illustration for the rest of the nation (and the world, for that matter) too. Come on California, put your money where your mouth is and “lead by example.” Don’t be disappointed though, when everyone else stops short of “following” you off the cliff.
AGW is not science – I see a lot of words in your comment but not a single fact that can be verified or falsified.
These kinds of rants are a dime a dozen and do not make interesting reading. “Come on California, put your money where your mouth is and ‘lead by example’ “. I think that’s what they’re doing , isn’t it? They’ve actually made a commitment, are paying for it and we haven’t seen a grand exodus from CA, have we? If the voting populace disagrees with what Jerry Brown and the legislators have done, then we will see that in future election results – though we haven’t yet.
This doesn’t mean that you or I have to like it. But we haven’t been asked. If Californians don’t like it, we’ll find out soon enough. It’s a free country, folks.
We haven’t seen a grand exodus?
We must be looking in different places.
What place are you looking at, MarkW? Give me some numbers.
Note that large (over 80MW) hydroelectric is not considered “renewable” in California. Now note the huge north- South electrical line from the dams on the Columbia in Oregon to LA, and envision the effect when all that dirt-cheap large hydroelectric is taken out of the California market during the relevant season(s).
California officials, schoolchildren and at least one billionaire… Strange sentence… And there you have but one more reason why I no longer live in the land of fruits and nuts – State “officials”, schoolchildren and one (or maybe more, we’re not quite sure?) “billionaire” are California’s climate and power production experts.
Lots of hippies moved to CA in the ’60s. They were not known for being drug free.
They are now old. But before they grew old, they reproduced and raised children. Both, can vote. https://youtu.be/dk9XY8Nrs0A
When life started 500 million years ago we had Carbon Dioxide to thank for it. We had 4,500ppm…great stuff.
Grow?..certainly…!
Nowadays it is called “Carbon”….
Clearly that is where the problem comes from.
You have the got the wrong guy.
Life started less than four hundred million years after the Earth and moon were formed About 3.7- 3.9 billion years ago. The Great oxygenation by photosynthesis was over 2.2 Billion years ago. About 530 million years ago, a major radial explosion of animal life forms occurred and is termed the Cambrian Explosion by paleo-biologists and paleo geologists. It was a stupendous and sudden appearance of many new orders of animal life in the fossil records with different body plans.
Fingers in ears. Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala…
As a Californian, I don’t recall my state (or any news media) asking my opinion or that of anyone I know. I’m sure “SOME” Californians want the EPA rules of Obama. “SOME” Californians think that it’s fine to have all kinds of idiocy — most of them living in the two liberal cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. But please, don’t assume that because these folk dominate the media that they in any way speak for “all” (or even the majority) of Californians.
Mmmm, no, go pound sand!
Who needs carbon limits?….according to the Left’s historical hero, Soviet agrobiologist Trofim Lysenko, plants and animals will quickly adjust to any new temperatures due to global warming….who needs to confuse the issue with experimental science?