California NOT “fighting climate change”, climate change NOT driving wildfires – claims are propaganda

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The L A Times is at it again making completely idiotic claims that California is “fighting climate change” and alleging that wildfires and blackouts will hurt this purely politically contrived, monumentally costly and globally meaningless state “fight”.

clip_image002

“The state’s electric grid was experiencing rapid and unprecedented changes even before Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison began shutting off power to millions of people in a desperate scramble to prevent their transmission lines from sparking wildfires.

Solar and wind power were booming. Gas-fired power plants were shutting down. Investor-owned utility companies such as PG&E and Edison were being replaced by city-run alternatives. And the falling cost of lithium-ion batteries was making some households less reliant on the grid than ever before.

The changes will only accelerate in the coming years, as California ramps up efforts to fight climate change by cleaning up its energy supply.

But the state’s plans for slashing climate emissions depend on a stable electric grid delivering clean electricity to the cars, homes and businesses of the world’s fifth-largest economy. The jarring new reality of preemptive blackouts could frustrate those plans by throwing the grid’s reliability into doubt.”

Additionally an Orange County Register article is also hyping the same flawed California wildfire climate change claims as the Times with its own article touting climate change political opportunist Tom Steyer and his screwball and economically destructive energy ideas for our state and nation.

clip_image004

“With California’s wildfires drawing attention to climate change’s role in the blazes, presidential candidate Tom Steyer is especially vigorous in touting the need to reduce carbon emissions and overcome the corporate influence that contributes to the environmental status quo.

“You prevent wildfires by not having a climate that creates the environment for them,” the Democratic billionaire said in a Tuesday interview.

“My first day in office, I would declare climate change a national emergency. It would entail rules about renewable energy, miles per gallon for new cars, building codes requiring energy efficiency and stopping oil drilling in national parks and on federal government land.”.

The reality however is that no matter what California does about reducing at great cost its own emissions while at the same time ruining its energy reliability and economy the impact on the world stage is completely irrelevant.

Additionally the state’s targeted emissions reductions have no impact whatsoever on California’s wildfire debacle that is driven solely by government forest management failure and incompetence.

These energy and emissions realities were addressed in the WUWT article noted below which exposed how inept a prior Times article was that attempted to make the same point with this newest Times article equally inept.

clip_image006

The bottom line from the WUWT article is summarized as:

“What California government officials and L A Times completely hide from view and leave totally unaddressed is the unequivocal fact that the state’s climate change campaign is immensely irrelevant regarding any impact whatsoever on reducing global emissions ever increasing outcomes. This reality is driven by the huge and increasing use of energy and related emissions by the world’s developing nations that completely control global energy use and emissions trends and results.”

Additionally because the state so badly bungled its responsibilities in failing to properly fulfill its forest management responsibilities over a period of many decades the resulting wildfire outcomes have added more emissions to the states tracking assessments that when properly accounted for will preclude California from even meeting its modest year 2020 AB 32 emissions targets as noted in another WUWT article presented below.

clip_image008

The article notes that originally the state assumed that wildfire emissions would be carbon neutral but that assumption has proven to be wrong as shown in the chart below that estimates the net increased emissions from the state wildfires.

When these emissions are accounted for as being the responsibility of the state the AB 32 emissions reduction target for year 2020 is unachievable.

clip_image010

Also addressed in the article is the fact that the state should be held accountable for its forest management responsibility failures that have led to the wildfire debacle with this significant issue as usual left unaddressed and concealed by the Times.     

“The state is clearly responsible for creating significantly increased wildfire risks and outcomes as a consequence of decades long poor forest management decisions, practices and priorities by responsible government, regulatory and political leaders as presented in detail at WUWT.

These extensive failures are fully addressed and documented in a comprehensive report by the California Legislative Analyst Office issued in April 2018. This significant report and its detailed assessments and findings are unaddressed by the L A Times.”

clip_image012

Year 2018 global emissions of CO2 total about 37.9 billion metric tons and have climbed ever higher for decades as a consequence of unrelenting increased energy use by the developing nations. In 2018 the developing nations accounted for about 60 percent of global energy use and two thirds of all global CO2 emissions.

California’s misguided, useless and expensive emissions reduction schemes that impose tens of billions of dollars in costs may achieve about 50 million metric tons of CO2 emissions reductions IF wildfire emissions are NOT counted. This California reduction is completely indistinguishable and irrelevant compared to the total global CO2 emissions shown below that have grown by 8 billion metric tons since 2005.

clip_image014

The world’s developing nations led by China and India whose emissions growth profiles are shown below continue to charge ahead with increased energy use that relies heavily on fossil fuels.

clip_image016

clip_image018

Furthermore the southeast Asia nations are not going to spend any effort listening to climate alarmist propagandist Tom Steyer and his economy destroying energy schemes as demonstrated by these nations continuing and growing even larger commitment to increased use of fossil fuels as noted in a recent Bloomberg world energy article update.

clip_image020

California needs to stop spending tens of billions of dollars on climate alarmist irrelevant emissions reduction shenanigans and instead reallocate this spending to addressing the huge work backlog needed to deal with the state’s decades long failure to properly manage its forests that has resulted in the wildfire debacle.

Until California starts to deal with its failed responsibilities in forest management the state’s citizens will continue to experience increasing property damage, destroyed housing and loss of lives.

Additionally the ability of property owners to obtain future fire insurance to protect their property will continue to decline as insurance companies refuse to offer coverage or increase rates to exorbitant and unaffordable levels.

clip_image022

California is already experiencing significant increases in outflow of its residents to other states as a consequence of its very high living costs, huge governmental bureaucracy, the imposition of ever growing regulations upon citizens lives and failure of leaders to address real world issues.

clip_image024

The state’s badly misguided campaigns regarding the irrelevant and phony “fighting climate change” idiocy and failure to deal with its decades long forest management failures will only lead to further misery for California citizens and drive even greater outmigration.

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “California NOT “fighting climate change”, climate change NOT driving wildfires – claims are propaganda

  1. I’m boggled….a first world country/state…whatever….is supposed to reduce their CO2 emissions….so other countries…third world…whatever…who would give anything to have the emissions and prosperity of that first world country…can increase their emissions as fast as then can

    I wonder how many people would fall for this if it were something else?…like say food…some life saving medicine….money

    • What boggles my mind is the magical, superstitious beliefs of supposedly intelligent adult human beings, who actually write and print and center political campaigns around the idea that bad weather can be prevented by offering up sacrifices, having the proper set of faith-based beliefs, all the while actively suppressing actual knowledge, for example the knowledge that California has always had the weather it has now, always had vegetation that will burn in fires large and small on a periodic basis, and in fact this condition has existed for so long that entire ecosystems have evolved to rely on fire.
      Or the knowledge that having trees and other vegetation come into contact with power lines will start a fire, or at the very least caused problems with the grid. Personally, I find it nearly inconceivable that there are actual state laws and regulations that prevent maintaining power line clearances and clearing overgrowth that impinges on electrical equipment.
      People that believe in magic and ignore reality are running a state and causing the destruction of the infrastructure in that state.
      Wishful thinking and bullshit rhetoric have never changed a single thing, and nothing anyone can do will change the weather of the planet, let alone dial in some set of conditions for an entire geographic region in some controlled and knowable way.
      The writing is on the wall for California, or so it seems.
      The people in charge, and those in critical oversight roles, are nowhere near close to recognizing what needs to be done to actually solve the problems there. Their solution is to double down on the very policies causing the problem.
      My advice for anyone intelligent enough to understand what is going on, is to bite the bullet and leave the state, no matter what is holding you there. There are plenty of very nice places to live, and things in CA are gonna get a whole lot worse before they get better.

      • Sadly, I think you’re right. California is a beautiful place to visit, but leftists have made it impossible to live there.

      • “magical, superstitious beliefs of supposedly intelligent adult human beings”

        Well, I don’t know about the last part, but for proof of the first:

        on my local neighbourhood’s Facebook page, just after the announcement for the “climate strike”, there was a posting for “animal Reiki” sessions.

        Many of the same people who said they were going to the “climate strike” because the “science is settled” will actually now pay money for someone to wave her hands over their pets to “cure” them.

        Wish I was making this up…

  2. Steyer is greedily protecting his huge investments in unreliable solar, wind, ‘renewable’ et.al. energy schemes. His conflicts of interest should be the lede in any article that includes his opinions.

  3. And today the LAT reported Gov Newsome was not oppposed to The State stepping in to make the bankrupt PG&E make the “correct” choices.

    • Just as the Venezuelan Socialist government did to their oil and energy industries…..
      What could go wrong????

  4. Scrap local power production and rely on long haul transmission from the grid in other states… yeah, that’s the ticket.

  5. californicate

    1. verb – The act of migration from California to other states in search of cheaper housing, better morals, and lack of gangs, drugs, prostitution, etc. Instead, they drive up house prices whereever they move to, and bring their low morals, gangs, drugs, and prostitution to the other states. link

    Silicon Valley is starting to bleed people and businesses.

    There was a time when the great American cities began to rot. Their welfare bill drove up taxes and those taxpayers who could fled to the suburbs. I see no reason why a similar process couldn’t happen to the state of California. The flight of startups from Silicon Valley could be the canary in the coal mine.

  6. California state government does not have general responsibility for “forest management” and fire fuel load reduction. That responsibility falls mostly to private landowners where many of the fires burned, and/or the federal government, which owns about 50% of the land in California (almost all national forest, desert, and other marginal lands).

    Perhaps you put blame on the state for allowing hundreds of thousands of people to sprawl into high fire risk areas, but then it has had help from people who love the “country lifestyle,” real estate developers, realtors, and others who pushed it all along. California has had massive wildfires similar in size to the last three seasons, but far fewer damage due to much lighter settlement in the past.

    I make these points as a survivor of the Atlas Fire of 2017.

    • It is well known that the largest contributor to the intensity and damage of a fire is the presence of large amounts of fuel on the ground. The blame is on the state which prevented hazard reduction burning and prevented the power company from taking line remediation measures to prevent starting these fires.

    • Private property owners’ options are limited by local, state, and federal restrictions, so you really can’t blame them. The blame lies mostly with the environmental lobby, state government, and the uniparty BCBO administration (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama). Change is in the works, but, of course, when Trump tries to implement common sense forest management policies, Democrats and environmentalists portray him as a villain trying to enrich his buddies. Fortunately, he doesn’t care.

      https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/16/misguided-environmentalism-blame-californias-wildfires/

  7. Yep, I have lived in Los Angeles my entire 56 years and I haven’t seen anything out of the ordinary weather-wise or fire-wise. I remember at least two times I was out trick-or-treating as a kid while the whole San Gabriel mountain range was on fire. Florida had hurricane season and we have fire season, and always have. It only seems more common because people have forgotten most of the fires from the past. If there is any increase, I’m sure it follows the increase in population.

    • But remember there used to be wide firebreaks in those San Gabriel mountains. Now those firebreaks are gone. Because the Sierra Club sued, because .. they didn’t like the looks of them. So now do they like better the looks of totally charred barren mountain sides?

  8. “You prevent wildfires by not having a climate that creates the environment for them” has to be about the dumbest, and most asinine statement about climate ever made.

    • Most learned in elementary school that fire needs three things to occur: fuel, oxygen and an ignition source. In forests, fuel and oxygen are always present.

      • California has a uniquely bad fire weather set of conditions.
        The same things that cause small fires anywhere else or at other times of the year cause large and quickly spreading fires in parts of CA.
        Months of weather with zero rain, much of it very hot weather, vegetation with high content of highly flammable substances which help plants survive hot dry weather, and then roaring high winds with shockingly low humidity levels. Levels of RH that most places in the US or even the world will either never or almost never see. You can drop a cigarette on gasoline and it will not ignite it. But that same cigarette will quickly start a huge fire in chaparral vegetation with Santa Ana winds blowing.

  9. I read that California changed shoplifting so it is no longer a felony but a misdemeanor. What has since happened is a spike in shoplifting. This of course drives up the price of goods for the middle class. But the voters just don’t seem to understand.

  10. I agree with Mr. Cobb: dumbest statement ever made!
    Can we not have a climate that creates the environment for hurricanes, tornadoes, thunder and snow storms, or “bad” weather????
    Can Mr. Steyer’s policies guarantee me perfect weather for my grandkids weddings?
    He seems to be promising a bit too much, don’t you think.

  11. Tom Steyer is central key financier in the GreenSlime buying Democrat politician’s loyalty with campaign cash contributions, both their committees and to their PACs. Committee contributions are capped by Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules at $35.5K/year per donor. Busting that gets people in big trouble if they are caught. The Obama Admin went after Dinesh D’Souuza and convicted him of a felony for giving money to family to then donate to by-pass the limits. (As an aside: Trump has since pardoned D’Souza because it was flagrant abuse of prosecutor’s discretion to go after just Dinesh as a politcal foe of Obama and ignore thousands of other similar instances by democrats.)
    Contribution limits are here:
    https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/

    Now Steyer’s Presidential candidacy as a registered Democrat running for the Democratic Party’s nomination is a complete sham. He and everyone elese knows he has zero chance of even winning one primary, much less get the party nomination. It is actually a scam, an end-around play on the FEC rules on what happens to a candidate’s “left-over” campaign funds after he/she formally withdraws.

    FEC rules allow “unlimited transfers” to the candidate’s party committees –national, state and local committees, where normally individual contributions are capped at $35,500/year. Thus when Tom Seteyer ultimately withdraws, he can transfer whatever unlimited tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars to to his Democrat lackeys to directly fund candidate campaigns from his campaign committee’s accounts — that is his own money he put in there.
    You have to remember Steyer is a mostly self-funded campaign committee. His own quarterly campaign contributions of July-September 2019 showed he “contributed” $47,597,697.36 of his own money, which was ~96% of his total contributions.
    see here for details: https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P00012716/?cycle=2020&election_full=true

    One thing the US Senate Democrats are doing right now is holding up FEC committee nominations to block a quorum at the FEC. In order for the FEC to close this loop-hole that Steyer is about to exploit, the FEC has to have a quorum on the committee. So no quorum – No new rules. They would need new rules about self-fianced campaign contributions and unlimited transfers to block what Steyer is about to do. And once he has done it, there will be no way that any after-the-fact rules change would matter.

    The Congressional Democrats know what is going on. Steyer is The Driving Money source for the Trump Impeachment. Steyer has been promoting and paying for impeachment advocacy since day 1 of Trump’s presidency via his “Need to Impeach” committee.
    https://www.needtoimpeach.com/

    So right now Steyer is probably holding out a HUGE carrot of many tens of millions of dollars to his Democrat’s party campaign committees if the House Democrats impeach Trump. He’ll then withdraw from the race and pay them back with many millions of dollars to the Democrat’s campaign committees.

    Imagine what would be happening if a Republican were trying this scam. Media investigative reporters would be going nuts. Democrats would be screaming and calling for jail time.

    So the Democrat’s and their GreenSlime funders and media lackeys are a complete set of liars and fraudsters.

    • I, for one, am pleased to see Steyer in the dem’s race. He is driving them further toward unelectable policies, just as the AOC/Tlaib/Omar gang is doing.

    • Thank you for this post, Joel. I was thinking yesterday that Beto’s failed campaign would allow him to keep his “leftovers” for personal enrichment, until I heard how filthy rich his wife was, and wondered about the end game he was playing…this info about Steyer is startling and horrendous. These people are genuinely evil. We are up against a Mountain of serious corruption. I wrote your post down in my notebook and will be sharing it…Thanks again, and take care sir.

      • Beto’s presidential campaign committee, Beto for America, reported $3,255,729.87 cash on hand at the end of September.
        https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P00010793/

        He won’t have to report to the FEC how he closed out and/or transferred the remaining cash he had on 1 November 2019 (when he formally ended his candidacy) until January 15, 2020.

  12. When the scam collapses the litigation lawyers will have a field day going after the perpetrators and the facilitator. The perpetrators are the corrupt pseudos, so-called climatologlists, the facilitators are a sycophantic press and corrupt journal editors who act as gatekeepers against the voices of rationality.

    • You are wrong.
      Litigation lawyers (aka ambulance chasers) only go after deep pockets, where there is money to be pick pocketed.
      The climate fraudsters will close whatever front facades they have and disappear.

      • Perhaps. But them disappearing would be a result. And maybe it is not lawyers but prosecutors who go after them. After all, the scam has defrauded many governments out of billions of dollars.

      • Maybe “Litigation lawyers” should go after the State with a Class Action law suite.

  13. “Climate change” is both the excuse for failed Progressive policy, and excuse for more bad Progressive policy.

  14. Look, there are trigger phrases that every editor wants in headlines or first sentences. They do not care what the long term effects are, all they care about is selling newspapers and driving web traffic.

    ‘Climate Change’ is one such trigger right now. ‘Russian meddling’ is another.

    You really must stop thinking that editors are the media priesthood. They are low level spivs.

  15. I see lodgepole pines rely on fire to reproduce:

    https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/lodgepole-pine-trees-love-forest-fires/

    Such a species would not have evolved unless fires were fairly common.

    I see that by SUPPRESSING fires, humans have messed up plant ecology:
    http://www.biologyreference.com/Ep-Fl/Fire-Ecology.html

    “Pine forests throughout the United States (ponderosa pine in the west, white pine in the east) were formerly kept in a parklike condition with open understories by the occurrence of surface fires. After several decades of fire suppression, these forests have accumulated a high density of trees, including the invasion of other species such as spruce and fir. The buildup of high fuel loads and smaller trees that can function as a ladder to carry fire into the crowns of large pines means that fires become more intense than in the past, possibly too intense to be controlled by fire fighters, and intense enough to kill the old pines.”

  16. Base load power of six nines reliability is absolutely essential to the server farms and other power demands of the technology based industries which have played such a prominent role in the economy and financing of government in California. Continued power disruption will drive many of these countries out of the state, or at the very least their expansion plans.

  17. From the article: ““With California’s wildfires drawing attention to climate change’s role in the blazes, presidential candidate Tom Steyer is especially vigorous in touting the need to reduce carbon emissions and overcome the corporate influence that contributes to the environmental status quo.

    “You prevent wildfires by not having a climate that creates the environment for them,” the Democratic billionaire said in a Tuesday interview.”

    I wonder how Tom Steyer proposes to stop high-pressure weather systems from coming near California? That’s the only way Steyer can prevent the high winds that fan the California flames. Reducing CO2 output will not have this effect. High-pressure systems will still move over California periodically.

    Human-caused climate change has no role in California burning because there is no evidence humans are causing the climate to “change”.

    California Governor Newsom doubled-down again today blaming human-caused climate change for the fires in California. He criticized Trump because Trump “doesn’t believe in climate change”.

    Somebody ought to ask Governor Newsom to connect the dots and explain to us how CO2 is causing the fires in his state. How does that work, Governor?

Comments are closed.