The Regional Climate Protection Authority

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I live in Sonoma County, one of the more “woke” counties in that “woker than you could ever hope to be” state, California. So of course, having solved all other problems, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has declared a “climate emergency”.

Here’s their justification for saying it is an EMERGENCY!!!

“Climate change is the most critical issue we face today and we universally are not acting fast enough to avert substantial damage to the economy, environment, and human health in the coming decades,” said Board of Supervisors Chair David Rabbitt. “On a local level, we continue to experience extreme climate-related events, including six years of recent droughts, devastating wildfires, and severe flooding. 

Oh, please. The weather is NOT the most critical issue we face in Sonoma County, that’s political bloviating. For one example, the county is approaching bankruptcy from paying the salaries and pensions of the ever-multiplying host of pluted bloatocrats holding government sinecures. Let’s see, which is more critical? Going bankrupt tomorrow OR maybe warming by a degree by 2050? Tough choice, I know.

Here’s another critical issue. The county seat is the town of Santa Rosa. It is on the list of the top five cities for total number of homeless—LA, San Francisco, Seattle, San Jose, and Santa Rosa. Seems kinda like a “critical issue” to me, our piss-ant town making the top five in the homelessness sweepstakes …

And in any case, the Supervisors are acting as if California has never had droughts, floods, or wildfires before. This is a joke, as any long-time resident can tell you. California is the home of all of the above in spades and always has been. Geologically, hundred-year droughts are not uncommon, so the whining of the Supes about “six years of recent droughts” merely reveals their ignorance of the subject.

The story continues:

The adopted resolution includes a directive to partner with Sonoma County’s Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) to fight climate change by developing and implementing the 2030 Climate Emergency Mobilization Strategy. The Strategy will identify key local actions, including a list of the most impactful local policies to drive system changes and identify key areas for state level advocacy.

RCPA? Regional Climate Protection Authority? Say what? Never heard of it. But the authors explain it:

Sonoma County remains the only county in the United States to create a regional authority to coordinate and support climate action countywide. Formed in 2009, RCPA collaborates with local agencies on setting goals, pooling resources, and formalizing partnerships to create local solutions that complement state, federal, and private sector actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

They say Sonoma is the “only county in the United States” to engage in this kind of feelgood insanity as if that were a good thing …

However, we can’t have unformalized partnerships in Sonoma County, I guess. Here are their mission and vision statements


RCPA leads a local government coalition to mobilize regional climate action in Sonoma County.


Sonoma County is united in taking bold action to fight the climate crisis.

Whoa, hang on, keep your hands and feet inside the car, we’re taking “bold action” against the “climate crisis” now!

In passing, I do love how “global warming” morphed into “climate change” and then a totally imaginary “climate crisis” and a “climate emergency” … but in any case, here’s a reasonable response for those who believe in such things as a current “climate emergency”:

Data quoted in the graphic above is from “Assessing ICT [Information and Communication Technology] global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations” Available on Sci-Hub here.

But I digress, let me return to Sonoma County. From everything I’ve been able to read about the RCPA, it doesn’t actually PRODUCE anything. Instead, it “coordinates”. It “supports”. It “collaborates”. It “enables”. It “mobilizes”. It “develops strategies”. It “engages in dialog”. 

In short, near as I can tell, it’s the usual infinitely expandable bureaucratic climate wankfest, with no measurable deliverables of any kind. The RCPA’s activities seem mostly to be enabling and supporting the predictably endless string of multi-organization quackathons, those get-togethers where everyone drones on interminably, nobody says anything real, people surreptitiously check the time, goals are agreed on that will never be met, the date for the next meeting is chosen, congratulations are solemnly exchanged, and on to the next one.

I foolishly figured that I couldn’t get more depressed or aggravated, so I might as well soldier on to look at the RCPA funding. Ha. Mistake.  The RCPA is funded by a combination of money taken from electric ratepayers plus taxpayer dollars and a few private grants. I got to thinking about how much this RCPA was costing me and all of my taxpaying, ratepaying amigos, us local poor schlubs expected to cough up the $ for all of this. So I looked up the RCPA salaries … YIKES!

I find out that the RCPA is made up of twelve people who have obviously been very successful in getting on the government gravy train. Their average total compensation is just under $140,000 per year. That’s $70 per hour. And the RCPA Executive Director is drawing a cool quarter million bucks per year to be in charge of all of that difficult coordination, support, mobilization, and collaboration.

Seems like it’s all Chiefs and no Indians Native Americans, though. There’s an Executive Director, three Directors, two Senior Planners, one Planner, one Analyst, two Specialists, and two Assistants. The lowest-paid is one of the Assistants, who has to struggle along on $22 per hour.

Consider. Just between just the twelve of them, not counting any other costs, just the salaries and benefits of the twelve RCPA personnel, we’re spending $1,670,000 per year. One million six hundred and seventy thousand dollars spent on people to do coordination, mobilization, support, and collaboration.

PER YEAR! Not just once, but every year!

Not only that, but there is another $ megabuck plus in their annual budget for projects, meetings, computers and office equipment, transportation and the like. Total is about two million seven per year for the entire circus including salaries.

On my planet, that’s not a “Climate Protection Authority”. That’s a “Climate Protection Racket”, as in:

Hey, that’s a real nice climate ya got there!. It’d sure be a shame if something should happen to it. Yeah, that would be a tragedy. But for just a mere few million a year, we can keep that from happening …

I’m sorry, but this is nothing other than the expiation of some liberal guilt allied with the usual financial concupiscence of government rent-seekers. Because one thing is undeniably true:

There’s no way that those twelve people are giving us back anywhere near $2,700,000 in value each and every year … 

… and meanwhile, Sonoma County doesn’t even have enough money to fill the potholes. Seriously. A now-retired Sonoma County Supervisor famously said: “We can’t fill the potholes because all the money is going to pay the pensions of one generation of government workers” … doesn’t bode well for the future. 

One thing is for sure:

People around here can’t afford to keep spending twenty-seven million hard-earned taxpayer and ratepayer dollars per decade to engage in climate virtue signaling. 

And that’s all it is, climate virtue signaling. Here’s why.

Assume for the moment that the whole “CO2 Roolz Temperature!” hypothesis is true, as mainstream climate scientists assume. Using their calculations, if the entire US went to zero CO2 emissions tomorrow, it would only make a difference of a tenth of a degree in 2050.

Sonoma County emissions of CO2 are about 0.05% of US emissions. So if Sonoma County went to zero emissions today, it MIGHT, I repeat might, make the world five ten-thousandths of one degree C (0.0005°C) cooler in the year 2050. 

But Sonoma County isn’t going to zero emissions any time soon. The RCPA’s goal is to get local emissions down to 25% of their 1990 values by 2050. That would only produce cooling of about a ten-thousandth of one degree (0.0001°C, or 0.0002°F).

Since governmental bodies never die, we can assume that just on this one climate boondoggle we’ll be paying the $2.7 million per year until 2050. Three decades, 27 million per decade, call it $81 million for a POSSIBLE cooling of 0.0001°C. And the money for the RCPA is only a small fraction of the expense to the common citizen of achieving that CO2-free future fantasy …

Folks say “But we need to be an example for the rest of the world!” Most countries aren’t that stupid. The Chinese and the Indians are gonna do what is best for their people, and more power to them. But they won’t spend $81 million dollars to maybe get 0.0005°C of cooling in 30 years.

Folks also say “Think of it as an insurance policy” … but an insurance policy actually pays off. In this case, the maximum possible return for our $81 million “insurance premium” is a cooling too small to even measure. What kind of “insurance” is that, huge premium, tiny payout?

The ugly news is, in Sonoma County, we’re stuck spending $ twenty-seven million dollars per decade $ for … well … nothing.

Madness … we have plenty of real problems today here in Sonoma County, and not enough money, time, or human resources to engage in this foolish waste.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 21, 2019 10:14 am

Regional Climate Protection Authority

How many new employees does that work out to?

Reply to  MarkW
September 21, 2019 10:51 am

How many of them are actually “new”? How many of them are already siphoning off more blood from some other supervisory board, tackling another “important” issue like keeping giraffes out of CA.

Social Parasites

If you want to actually help that area from wildfires, for goodness sake get rid of the Eucalyptus trees!

September 21, 2019 10:15 am

12 people, it was further down in the article.

September 21, 2019 10:16 am

Let the Vitners and farmers of Sonoma county go Horse power as in giddyup!
outlaw all internal combustion. Trains only inside Sonoma borders.
No fossil fuel generated electricty-no atomic either.
come on put your greenie money where your moth is.

Reply to  4EDouglas
September 21, 2019 11:04 am

Yes. People need to understand the sacrifices being demanded of them. I’m guessing the greenies know but they’re willing to let the population stay ignorant.

Hey folks, everything you have and everything you need involves fossil fuels in some way shape or form.

Reply to  4EDouglas
September 21, 2019 12:10 pm

Trains will, in all probability, have diesel-electric locomotives, generating tractive effort as well as electric head-end power.

Reply to  4EDouglas
September 21, 2019 12:40 pm


You are so right about the wokeness of Sonoma County! We have a new place there, a horse property run by my daughter. When I visit, I have learned to keep my thoughts to myself. There is a universal groupthink on so many issues, not just climate, that an outsider speaks at his peril. I fear it is going to have to get much worse before it gets better.

Btw, this autumn I am in the UK. Woeness is just as bad this side of the pond.

September 21, 2019 10:24 am

Top post Willis!

Reply to  HotScot
September 22, 2019 3:42 am

I agree – an excellent post Willis!

Environmental hysteria has been growing exponentially since about 1970.

There is no scientific basis for the global warming/climate change scare – it was disproved decades ago – it is a false crisis.

My question for all of you is this:

“Can all these climate hysterics really have been this stupid for this long?”

I leave you with a quotation from a famous Canadian:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme, Rio Climate Summit, 1992

Mike Bryant
September 21, 2019 10:24 am

The sad part of this mindlessness… it’s only a tiny part of the waste and malfeasance of our bettors…
This is what the new worlders think about us:
We are better than you.
We are right.
We are tolerant.
We are diverse.
We are intelligent.
We are destroying your memorials.
We are rewriting your history.
We are the future.
We are in lockstep.
You are misogynists.
You are xenophobes.
You are racists.
You are white supremacists.
You are Uncle Toms.
Your flag is offensive.
Your laws are meaningless.
You are uneducated.
You are unwashed.
You stink.
You are less than an animal
You are wrong.
You are guilty.
You are rape apologists.
You are planet polluters.
You are climate deniers.
You are patriarchal dictators.
You deserve incivility.
You deserve to be silenced.
Your opinion is a hate crime
You deserve death.

Mike Smith
September 21, 2019 10:28 am

Outstanding exposure of the climate scam.

September 21, 2019 10:33 am

There you go again, trying to make sense out of nonsense.

Dave Day
September 21, 2019 10:38 am

Willis –
Good to hear from you.

I was thinking we might get the benefit of your comments on Pat Frank’s recent posts…..


Roger Knights
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 22, 2019 10:26 pm

Willis: “That’s the reason I pay no attention to the models—not because they have errors, but because they do not include the host of overlapping, interacting emergent climate phenomena that control the global temperature.”

The best short skeptical summary yet.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Knights
September 23, 2019 1:06 am

PS: Those “emergent climate phenomena” are all “outside-the-box” factors. The conformist consensus is dedicated to staying inside the box, where such unknowns have been swept under the carpet. This deliberately blinkered scope has been behind big by-the-book blunders in the past—e.g., stones cannot fall from the sky. The insistence that the “box’s” dimensions are known is also behind scientism.

September 21, 2019 10:40 am

In short, near as I can tell, it’s the usual infinitely expandable bureaucratic climate wankfest, with no measurable deliverables of any kind.

I think the people of the county would count themselves lucky for the money if indeed, all this council did was to bloviate endlessly.
What is the chance that this Emergency Declaration by this council ultimately confers greater Emergency Powers upon this council so this council may take Emergency Actions as deemed required by this council to combat this Crisis.
At that point, the people of the county will sore wish the council had restricted itself to endless bloviating.

John Tillman
September 21, 2019 10:41 am

Your WX is too good there. Hence the many homeless.

Kevin kilty
September 21, 2019 10:41 am

Great sarcasm for a Saturday morning read, Willis. Born of frustration. I know you are mocking gaseous pronouncements like “bold action”, but just look at the nearby photograph and then tell me Greta ain’t taking the bull by the horn, so to speak.

September 21, 2019 10:44 am

The new, fashionable term “woke”, like all word-revisions done nowadays by the cultural marxists, is opposite to its real meaning (1984-style), in this case “brainwashed”.

Ron Long
September 21, 2019 10:49 am

just a wild guess here, Willis, but when Sonoma County says “the county is united to fight the climate crisis” they have somehow overlooked you? This is virtue signaling run amok!

September 21, 2019 10:55 am

They gonna change and control the climate and weather there in your county are they? Naive leftist pigs all.

Gary Wescom
September 21, 2019 10:55 am

The most frightening part of this is that the people associated with establishing and staffing the RCPA actually believe they are doing the right thing. It would actually be better if they were just in it for the money. Thieves limit their theft to avoid being caught. Crusaders such as the Sanoma County Board of Supervisors have no limit.

Steve Richards
September 21, 2019 11:02 am

Any bureaucrat worth his salt would grow his department each year. By year 10, it will be a 50 plus headcount, new buildings, other counties will copy its success (at growing).

Joel O'Bryan
September 21, 2019 11:04 am

Bernie talks about population control, seemingly in love a One Child Policy like the Chicomms have (had?).
And reducing and then eliminating meat consumption is a top priority for the Watermelons.
And saving birds, even as they build more bird choppers, is a stated priority for the Econutters.
And since the Lunatic Left loves the Chinese model of being able to direct the economy in such matters, then it follows Fluffy and Fido will end up on the menu like they do in many places in China. After all cats are carnivores and feral cats eat lots of birds. And I know my two big dogs eat lots of animal protein and freeze-dried raw meat chunks in their dog food I buy.

So Willis, you should go to one of the Sonoma Regional Climate meetings and propose to the Lunatic Left Climate Nutters the need to get in bed with the PETA-nutjobs and declare that pet ownership is harmful to the climate, and thus people need to give up their dogs and cats and put them on the menu instead like the Chinese. We need to help them alienate the entire population of sane people, because that is where their policies ultimately lead.

On a related note:
Bernie the Commie mentioned in his CNN Climate Town Hall that people might need to be paid not to have children. How does that square with the fact we have for a long time incentivized low-income families to have 3 (or more) children via the tax code with cash payments when they file their annual IRS 1040?
The Congressionally-mandated Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) pays more money to families with 1, 2 or 3 children and less than $49,194 joint income, and EITC cash payment goes up if with each child up to 3 kids. A single person with no kids can’t qualify for the EITC unless they make less than $15,720/yr and then its only $529.
The EITC cash payment:
The maximum credit amounts for 2019 are:
$6,557 with three or more qualifying children
$5,828 with two qualifying children
$3,526 with one qualifying child
$529 with no qualifying children.

Just in case you don’t know: The EITC is a cash payment in the annual tax return check on top of whatever tax refund you are due. (My 78 yr old mother didn’t know that, she thought the EITC was a deduction on income to reduce taxes. It is not. It is a pure cash payment as long as the family made any money for the year.)

I wonder if Bernie would propose eliminating that EITC incentive for low income families to have 3 children to help meet his population control goals? Let’s see how that proposal would go over with the Left in love of government hand-outs.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 21, 2019 12:46 pm

“then it follows Fluffy and Fido will end up on the menu like they do in many places in China.”

Gives Hot Dog a whole new meaning. Meow Fried Rice? Would you like some GreenSlime on that? All for climate change.

September 21, 2019 11:05 am

scamming [deleted per Sunny’s request]!!! Its all about the new green money!! They don’t give two shits about the planet… if local people found out about the big wages, I’m sure They would have some to say about it I hate seeing the co2 seeing child.

I find out that the RCPA is made up of twelve people who have obviously been very successful in getting on the government gravy train. Their average total compensation is just under $140,000 per year. That’s $70 per hour. And the RCPA Executive Director is drawing a cool quarter million bucks per year to be in charge of all of that difficult coordination, support, mobilization, and collaboration.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Sunny
September 21, 2019 12:05 pm

I’m not a Puritan by any means. But IMO the “c” word has no place here or in any conversation I want to be a part of Sunny. If I were a moderator (I’m not), I’d put you on permanent moderation for that.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 21, 2019 1:20 pm

Joel o’bryan. Full apologises sir, I am so tired of the constant “world is ending” and today climate people glued themselves to a road near dover In England… But its no excuse for bad language. If a moderator can delete the comment then please do so

Reply to  Sunny
September 21, 2019 2:17 pm

Sunny, I deleted the word I assumed was being discussed, though I’m not a moderator.


Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
September 21, 2019 6:12 pm

Thanks Bob.
As someone who posts with their real name, I won’t hang around a blog that allows those words in comments. Using the F word or calling someone an Ahole (or such) are equal opportunity without discrimination curses, so those don’t bother me.

Curious George
Reply to  Sunny
September 22, 2019 11:25 am

It would be a nice project in sociology to map relationships between RCPA employees and county officials.

Why don’t we borrow a trick from Climate Protectionists? There are 3,141 counties in the U.S., if everybody follows the good folks of Sonoma at $2.7M per year, it is $8.48 billion a year, spent on sinecures. Forget a border fence. Aren’t sinecures for friends and family more important?

Coeur de Lion
September 21, 2019 11:09 am

Exactly mirrored in the UK where the lunatic Climate Change Committee under the financially-to-be-examined- by -the-House of Lords Lord Gummer tries to wreck our economy for about one per cent of global CO2 emissions. Supported by the corrupt BBC which criticised itself (wow!) for failing to call Gummer out over a couple of straight lies but seems incapable of mentioning the ONE PER CENT trope. What are we to do? Sometimes I despair

September 21, 2019 11:14 am

Perhaps it is time to join the bandwagon. Go to meetings and propose bold changes to save the climate. Then challenge them to make the changes, then demand them.

I’m sure we could offer some proposals. I would suggest:
Ban the sale of gasoline and diesel in the county.
Require all electricity to be provided only by renewables.
Ban the use of barbecues and fireplaces
Ban the sale of both new and used internal combustion vehicles.
Ban the sale of meat.

If they attempt any of this, you need do nothing. Others will quickly put an end to it. If they fail to take action, raise a complaint to either replace or disband the council for refusing to fulfill their charter.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  jtom
September 21, 2019 8:47 pm

Ban the sale – you mean meat will be free?

Mayor of Venus
September 21, 2019 11:14 am

Great write-up, Willis! My first question is, why are YOU not on the RCPA? You’re probably the most climate-knowledgeable person in Sonoma County. Second question, what are the qualifications and backgrounds of the top people at RCPA, and how did they get these jobs (my presumption it was on a who-knows-who basis). Your presumption that the RCPA people are actually WORKING a standard 2000 hour work-year for those salaries may be a gross over-estimate. It probably takes only a small fraction of that time to achieve all the non-deliverables required, and have plenty of time left for other political activities.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Mayor of Venus
September 21, 2019 3:33 pm

RCPA and bureaucratic bloat are the inevitable outcome of a Leftist “big government good” political monoculture and by extension 1 party rule that exists in most places in Cal.

September 21, 2019 11:19 am

There’s a climate emergency!


We want more of your money.

September 21, 2019 11:33 am

“Let’s see, which is more critical? Going bankrupt tomorrow OR maybe warming by a degree by 2050? Tough choice, I know.“

Willis, I think this is the key to understanding the long game being played. If using energy is a necessity, it’s immoral to charge exorbitant taxes on it. If using energy is a vice it’s fair game to charge onerous taxes on it (I.e. cigarettes). Nothing they do will change the climate but making energy a vice allows them to charge a hefty fee for it.

Master of the Obvious
Reply to  Sean
September 21, 2019 12:53 pm

Ah, but what is the emergency?

Many CA municipalities (and the state itself) will likely go bankrupt come the next ecomonic downturn (economist have predicted five of the last three recessions…). Consequently, it is imperative to milk the cash cow before it goes to slaughter.

Did you think this was about warming?

September 21, 2019 11:41 am

“top five cities for total number of homeless—LA, San Francisco, Seattle, San Jose, and Santa Rosa”

Seattle isn’t in Calif.

Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
September 21, 2019 12:34 pm

At the city level, four of the five cities with the highest rate of unsheltered homelessness are in California: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Rosa and San Jose. Seattle joins the California municipalities in the top five.

Presumably “rate” means percent of population, not “total number of homeless.”

September 21, 2019 11:49 am

I see ‘2030’ slyly inserted into one of RCPA paras above. ‘Slyly’, because they left off the Agenda part, as in Agenda 2030. Cities and municipalities across the land are declaring ‘climate emergencies’ on paper, which allows them to enact new regulations – or tighten old ones – around energy use, land development, consumerism, and so on, to ‘fight climate change’. This is Agenda 2030 implementation from the bottom up, right under our noses.

Clyde Spencer
September 21, 2019 11:55 am

“… it’s the usual infinitely expandable bureaucratic climate wankfest, with no measurable deliverables of any kind.”

They are being groomed for a comfortable retirement at the public’s expense.

A C Osborn
September 21, 2019 12:22 pm

Mr Eschenbach, you are showing the tip of an absolutely massive Financial iceberg.
Have a quick read of this from Jabuary

We are talking about over 2Billion Euros for controlling “Climate Charity” money.

Green & Climate are probably one of the biggest “businesses” in the world

September 21, 2019 12:22 pm

It is on the list of the top five cities for total number of homeless—LA, San Francisco, Seattle, San Jose, and Santa Rosa.

I believe Seattle is trying for number one on that list. At least Seattle leaders can claim one thing they’re competent in–more homelessness.


September 21, 2019 12:25 pm

Regional Climate Protection Authority? The climate doesn’t need protecting.

BTW, I’d like to go on the record as being totally on board with Climate Change so long as they can change my climate to a tropical paradise. Otherwise I’ll have to pay good money to relocate to a tropical paradise.

Hey, wait! Maybe I could get some Climate Refugee money to help with the move.

September 21, 2019 12:25 pm

I really liked the Climate Emergency: children must give up mobile phones message. That should be a big hit with the kids, and I am sure they will toss out the phones so they can do their bit for the climate. What hypocrites those little kiddies would be if they kept on using their cell phones. That message should be preached far and wide across the planet.

The other interesting point in this post was the retirement extortion paid to the retired county workers. When you extrapolate that across every Gov’t bureaucracy and agency across the land, it is obvious those retirement benefits can’t last without raising taxes so high as to bankrupt the nation. And we think it is only little shithole countries like the Philippines for example, that is corrupt. Our corruption is legalized and sanctioned in law by the very people who benefit the most. In terms of dollar amounts, we are by orders of magnitude more corrupt per capita than most third world despot countries. We have been living very well off the fat of the land for a few centuries, but that is soon coming to an end with unlimited corruption such as this. And the whole climate charade is the most corrupt of all. The climate is about the last thing we need to be worried about.

HD Hoese
September 21, 2019 12:35 pm

Incompetent counties are not rare, but that’s a big and diverse habitat county with a weird eastern border. Do you have navigation district that can’t handle mountains? Or do they not know about the water?

September 21, 2019 12:51 pm

I liked the part about the green jobs. Rake in the green without even having to rake.

September 21, 2019 1:14 pm

Great article, many years ago I used to work for a State highway DOT as well as regional and federal planning agencies. At least the state DOT occasionally built something.
The planning agencies spent a lot of time in meetings and producing reports, where generally the forecasts were wrong.

Bureaucratic costs typically inflate about 4-8% per year. Somehow, the budgets are ALWAYS spent.
So it’s not like $2.7M/year, but more like $4M/year after the first decade and by 2050 almost $9M/year.
That’s at only 4%/year, turf expansion would add another couple of percent/year, pretty soon you’re talking real money.


September 21, 2019 1:25 pm

Great post, Willis. This is a clear case of Cranial-Rectal-Inversion!

old engineer
September 21, 2019 1:25 pm


I was amazed that the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority was 10 years old! The county is certainly on the forefront of Climate Bureaucracy. However, since Trump got the U.S. out of the Paris Accord, every local jurisdiction in the U.S. is forming it’s own “Climate Action Plan,” so I doubt that Sonoma County is currently the only county in the U.S. with a county-wide plan. Note that the Sonoma County plan calls for an 80% reduction in county CO2 emission by 2050. You are lucky. The San Antonio, Tx plan calls for being “carbon neutral’ (which I assume means net carbon emissions = 0) by 2050.

There is apparently nothing that can be done to stem this tide. Time will tell whether the U.S. will be come a third world failed state by following these “Climate Action Plans”, or people will come to their senses and vote out any elected official who supports the plans.

Matthew R Marler
September 21, 2019 1:51 pm

more power to them.

Just so.

Alastair Brickell
September 21, 2019 2:02 pm

“Using their calculations, if the entire US went to zero CO2 emissions tomorrow, it would only make a difference of a tenth of a degree in 2050. ”

Willis, presumably they base their gloomy predictions on climate models.

These have been extensively discussed recently here at WUWT after Pat Frank’s and Roy Spencer’s interesting posts on uncertainty propagation. A lot of your posts deal with statistics and I for one know very little about this field…do you have any comments on the discussions and points that Frank and Spencer have raised recently?

I’m sure I’m not the only one here who would be interested in your take on this…if you have the time or interest to get involved that is!

John in Oz
September 21, 2019 2:25 pm

This is the rationale for my local council (sunny South Australia where I am still running the heating) voting ‘aye’ on declaring a climate emergency. My seething level has almost reached a sufficient level for me to demand an audience with the Mayor in order to point out the inaccuracies, false rhetoric and outright lies.

As farmers and graziers our family has experienced climate change/global
warming and have observed that the situation is accelerating and clearly we are
not on track to limit the temperature increase to 1C-1.5C as promised by higher
levels of government.
From 2007-2009 I returned to full time study at University and studied climate
change in depth as part of an Environmental Management Degree. It is very
clear and the consensus of more than 97% of scientists and experts have
warned that the time window is shrinking for applying measures to mitigate
warming and attempt to offset human accelerated climate change (via
increasing greenhouse emissions due to not only population growth but
increased consumption and waste).
Governments have failed to act despite the escalating environmental problems
and scientific evidence of accelerating rate of species extinction and mass
migration of species, including millions of humans. We are currently on track for
6C increase in temperature – few species will be able to ‘adapt’ to this. Action is
therefore required from those representing people working at the front line of
climate change, those not spending the majority of their time in air conditioning
where the situation is less apparent. With recent losses of livestock, mass losses
of bee-hives and poultry in our own District it is time for Council to consider
climate change in policies and lobby higher levels of government for urgent
action in what is now a climate emergency.
Councillor Carol Bailey
29 January 2019
I move that the Ordinary General Meeting requests Councils and the LGA accord the climate emergency high priority, seek to endorse policies and actions which
support mitigation as well as adaptation to climate change and actively lobby
state and federal governments to move rapidly to adopt and fund a climate
emergency response.

Reply to  John in Oz
September 22, 2019 3:52 am

would this be Mt Barker?
shes an utter dill
what poultry died? why? power cuts due to greenies scams made the water system for cooling inoperable Id guess?
if theyd stop aerial spraying of chem and the homeowners using the neonic bayer plant pills in home gardens it would help bees far more than her stupid ideas ever will.

John in Oz
Reply to  ozspeaksup
September 22, 2019 4:55 pm

Yes, Mt Barking mad

Richard Lambert
September 21, 2019 2:27 pm

Since Sonoma County is so worried about CO2 they should place a limit on the amount of grape juice that can be fermented in the county. They could also impose a CO2 capture and storage program or carbon tax on the wine producers.

Steven Fraser
September 21, 2019 3:11 pm

Now, if they actually wanted to mitigate drought, they might ‘collaborate! With other nearby wine-producing counties to put in a desal plant, output of which might help mitigate fire risk as well.

Fine article, Willis. I celebrated my birthday there several years ago, touring the wineries…

Andy Espersen
September 21, 2019 4:46 pm

Willis – it is not like you to become “more depressed or aggravated”. Courageous, intelligent human beings traditionally faced the multitudes of problems and challenges which life used to present to each helpless little human individual – here I mean before the Enlightenment in Europe which first awakened us to the fantastic possibility that human beings could actually understand and manipulate their existence through science.

This has changed our civilisation – but we must not delude ourselves that for an individual human being life’s challenges and unexpected problems are much different from those times, 500 years ago. Don’t become despondent, Willis. “Pack up your troubles in your old kitbag and smile, smile, smile”.

Mike Dubrasich
September 21, 2019 5:00 pm

For the last 100 years or so the pluted bloatocrats (indeed most all the residents) of Sonoma County sat on their fat cans while photosynthetic fuels built up to catastrophic levels — right in front of everyone’s faces, plain to see, barkingly obvious, you’d have to be a blind dummy not to notice.

But notice they did not. No one caught the clue, or if they did, didn’t act on it. Then two years ago the fuel caught fire and burned Santa Rosa to ashes in one of the most devastating and deadly suburban holocausts in history.

The dumbfounded bloatocrats and blind residents blamed the power company, but it wasn’t an electrical fire. A hundred years of accumulated plant biomass is what burned — the very same biomass that leered down on the braindead residents day after day after week after month after year.

So what have the (remaining) residents of Sonoma County learned from their experiences? Not a damn thing. Not one iota of a spark of a clue has crept into their foggy noggins. They carry on as if nothing at all happened.

People who are that stupid deserve whatever they get, including pluted arsonocrats tooling around in their chauffeured limousines not noticing the scrub oak and tick brush sprouting from the ashes.

September 21, 2019 5:05 pm

Thanks for an excellent article, Willis.
Here in Australia, local authorities are joining the “climate emergency” like lemmings.
Fortunately my home City, Brisbane, declined to join Sydney and Melbourne recently when a local Green BCC member moved such a motion.
So there is no climate emergency here but if you stray into Sydney or Melbourne, beware!
Knowing little about Santa Rosa, I searched online and found this question posed about Santa Rosa-
“Is Santa Rosa safe?”
A: The chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime in Santa Rosa is about 1 in 43.Based on FBI crime data, Santa Rosa is not one of the safest communities in America. Relative to California, Santa Rosa has a crime rate that is higher than 59% of the state’s cities and towns of all sizes.”
I am not qualified to advise Santa Rosa on where to direct its funding but the “ climate emergency” should be low on its priorities.

September 21, 2019 5:31 pm

Great article Willis and I’m sure your reduction in temp would be very accurate or Sweet F — All after WASTING all those millions for decades to come.
BTW I would also like to know your thoughts on Pat Frank’s paper and updates etc. Any chance? Just asking.
BTW have you read the Concordia Uni study apportioning blame for warming since the start of the Ind Rev? Australia is blamed for about 0.006 c over that period of time.
Study is known as Mathews et al.

September 21, 2019 7:40 pm

If you, Willis, know of any organization against this travesty, I’m ready to support it. Where are the ‘publicans?

Reply to  Poems of Our Climate
September 22, 2019 3:57 am

Willis, would it be possible to do a mass mailing/letterbox drop of the salient facts you list,
or even a letter to editor of a less woke, more sane local paper?
once people did realise whats being payed for sfa Id think theyd(hopefully) have some input TO the councils on the matter.

September 21, 2019 8:21 pm

Assuming one buys int the whole C-scam, how many minutes does it take the Chinese to negate Sonoma going to zero C?

With the US contributing 15% of total C, and we assume the US goes to zero C, same question.

Consider that the US has done more to reduce C than any other nation. Why do we continue to self-flagilate?

September 22, 2019 12:35 am

When I was a kid growing up in the Sonoma Valley, we were represented by Republicans, for the most part. Of course, all the Bay Area lefties hadn’t arrived yet.

William Haas
September 22, 2019 2:11 am

The climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control and that includes Sonoma County. The vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in Sonoma County is that of H2O which is in itself a much stronger absorber of IR than is CO2. Unless Sonoma County can significantly reduce H2O emissions they cannot significantly reduce over all greenhouse gas emissions. Even if Sonoma County eliminated all of their greenhouse gas emissions and hence turning the entire county into a lifeless, waterless desert, the effort would have virtually no effect on global greenhouse gas levels. Sonoma County would be far better off if instead of wasting more money they wasted less money.

September 22, 2019 5:03 am

Yes, all good points.

1) if the entire US went to zero CO2 emissions tomorrow, it would only make a difference of a tenth of a degree in 2050.

2) If.. Sonoma County went to zero emissions today, it MIGHT, I repeat might, make the world five ten-thousandths of one degree C (0.0005°C) cooler in the year 2050.

Whatever this is about, it is not about the global climate.

You notice that Ms Thunberg in Washington carefully avoided telling the lawmakers what they should do, what specific measures they need to do. There was a reason for that.

Its the doctrine of salvation by faith. Works are irrelevant…

John the Econ
September 22, 2019 5:23 am

It’s brilliant when you think about it: At tne same time, “Climate Change” is both the excuse for the results of bad Progressive policy, and the excuse for more bad Progressive policy.

September 22, 2019 7:12 am

” ….. In passing, I do love how “global warming” morphed into “climate change” and then a totally imaginary “climate crisis” and a “climate emergency” ……”

What’s next? ….. Climate Disaster? ….. maybe Climate Armageddon? ….. perhaps a new word needs to be invented to describe the worsening worser worst worse climate!

Maybe the same terms need to be applied to government bureaucratic expansion. It’s worse than we thought!

Brooks Hurd
September 22, 2019 9:33 am

Great article, Willis.

Here in San Luis Obispo where I live, the city has also incurred a large unfunded pension liability. The unfunded CALPERS pensions would be even larger were it not for the unrealistically high growth estimate that CALPERS uses in their projections.

The latest city council virtue signaling proposal is to ban natural gas in all new homes built in the city. The loonies in SLO’s city council want to boost the electric bills of anyone who would purchase a new home by demanding that they heat, cook, dry clothes and heat water with electricity rather than much less expensive natural gas. This lunacy in the a state which currently must import over 30% of its electricity from neighboring states. This means that every additional kW of electricity used in California must be imported. Most of the imported power is produced by burning something.

When Diablo Canyon closes in 2025, 9% of California’s power consumption will no longer be generated by carbon neutral nuclear reactors. It will instead be imported from fossil fuel powered generating plants in Nevada and elsewhere.

September 22, 2019 1:24 pm

Willis, Just north of you in “Mendonisa” (where one can re-invent their past at any given time) we have a new “Climate Cops” agency – a city government that is going to take the busiest road – State Street (the old 101 through Ukiah) on a “road diet” from 4 lanes down to two with a “suicide” lane in the middle.

September 22, 2019 1:58 pm

Attended Sonoma State University in the mid to late 80s. Was a member of the county GOP Central Committee at the time and we started a Republican student organization on campus. Bet that Willis and anyone else familiar with the area finds that difficult to imagine.

Had allot of fun handing far left professors and students their a$$es year after year. Good times fond memories.

Joe Crawford
September 22, 2019 2:34 pm

Boggles the mind, doesn’t it! Shame, but it’s probably a lot worst than we think when you include benefits and account for Parkinson’s Laws on the growth of bureaucracy. They, i.e., the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, sound like ‘true believers’ so you could never win an argument with them. However, using Herbert Simon’s theory of bounded rationality, an occasional discussion of actual real data that shreds one foundational belief at a time might be fun, an inquiry or a blog post or even a letter to the editor, anything requiring a thoughtful response. Years ago a friend and his family were camped out on my little mountain top in Colorado when his wife’s uncle, an avowed Communist, and his girlfriend came to visit for a month or so. Sitting around the camp fire 3 or 4 nights a week and throwing out one example/anecdote a night for discussion did the trick. Of course Russia cratering about that time helped a bit, but he still left the mountain trying hard to both justify and rationalize his way out of his ‘former’ beliefs.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights