the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Draconian and dumb climate law to face referendum.

Posted by Jeff Id on May 4, 2010

By SAMANTHA YOUNG (AP) – 13 hours ago

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A coalition of business groups turned in signature petitions Monday for a ballot initiative that would unravel Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s top environmental priority.

If the California Jobs Initiative qualifies for the November ballot, as expected, voters will be asked to consider putting the brakes on the nation’s most far-reaching global warming law.

Schwarzenegger immediately blasted “greedy oil companies” for trying to set back his sweeping environmental policy.

The 2006 law, known as AB32, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California and imposes new requirements on power plants, manufacturers and other businesses.

———-

Unilateral action on CO2, while brave, is dumb.  All the law does is push more businesses over the edge (both financially and the border) while doing exactly zero for global warming. Let’s see if Cali’s Mexicans voters  get one right.

Here’s a great quote from Schwarzenegger who’s is to Conservatism as I am to Marxism.

“The effort to suspend AB 32 is the work of greedy oil companies who want to keep polluting our state and making profits,”

Oops!!  Think the media will catch that one?   It would be a shame if a company made a profit  — wouldn’t it Arnie!  He never was a great actor, I still enjoy a good explosion and like his movies though.


21 Responses to “Draconian and dumb climate law to face referendum.”

  1. sod said

    Unilateral action on CO2, while brave, is dumb. All the law does is push more businesses over the edge (both financially and the border) while doing exactly zero for global warming.

    Jeff, you are completely wrong again. basically all real progress of alternative energy (apart from hydro) came from unilateral action in countries.

    and beyond all of us profiting from those developments now, the countries and states involved also benefit from a technological advantage.

  2. JAE said

    Jeff: You are right on, as usual. Sod: you are an idiot, as usual, like Arnie. The people of CA are FINALLY waking up. There is no doubt in my mind that the initiative will pass by a very wide majority. So sorry, Sod.

  3. Jeff Id said

    #1, I often tell people that blogging is great. Where else can you be wrong hundreds of times in the same day.

  4. Chuckles said

    #3 Jeff,
    ‘Where else can you be wrong hundreds of times in the same day.’

    Perhaps we should ask Mrs.Id that question?

    Remember, one of the fundamental questions of the universe is, ‘If a man speaks in a forest, and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?’

  5. Jeff Id said

    #4, My wife will tell you the fundamental answer is – you’re(I’m) wrong all the time. haha

  6. Scott B said

    “The effort to suspend AB 32 is the work of greedy oil companies who want to keep polluting hiring workers in our state and making profits,”

    Fixed for truthiness. If that HTML code works…

  7. Paul said

    It is encouraging that the petition delaying the implementation of AB32 has been filed. However, at this point in time IMHO AB32 should be enacted so that California can be an example to all other states.

    What they sow, so shall they reap and what they reap they must eat. Let us all hope the federal tax payers will not be asked to administer the Heimlich maneuver for the fools on the Left Coast.

  8. timetochooseagain said

    4-This fundamental question seems to require an application of the lesser known cousin of the Shrodinger wave equation, namely, the Ms. Shrodinger truth equation. Since, much like an electron, the truth/falsehood of a man’s words can only be judge by being observed by a woman, but the presence of a woman would change the outcome of the observation, Ms. Shrodinger invented an equation to determine the probability distribution of the truth or falsehood of a man’s statements when he is not in the presence of a woman.

    I recommend consulting a basic physics text to familiarize yourself with this stuff.

  9. Jeremy said

    #2 Jeff, you are completely wrong again. basically all real progress of alternative energy (apart from hydro) came from unilateral action in countries…and beyond all of us profiting from those developments now, the countries and states involved also benefit from a technological advantage.

    Nuclear power came in large part from The Manhattan Project, a wartime expenditure unrelated to any desire for clean energy.

    Geothermal is essentially steam power.

    Wind power is essentially something the Dutch have been doing for centuries.

    Solar power is the only real new kid on the block, and it has been in slow development for decades. The only reason it has become viable recently is because of materials science advances that were made without any kind of special government outlay for alternative energy. Most of the money for this materials science research comes from the gigantic coffers of the U.S. Department of Defense or the Department of Energy which have been nearly the same percentage of U.S. GDP for decades.

    This competitive advantage you speak of sounds made up.

  10. Howard said

    Jeff: I agree that this law needs to be trashed.

    Your comment (with strikeout) about Mexican voters in California is more spot on than you might think. Us natives to the southern 2/3 of California were born in what was once Mexico, therefore I consider myself to be Mexican American even though my blood came from Vikings and Celts. The biggest immigrant group that has f__ked up Cali and the west six ways from Sunday are from the northeast US who came out here to smoke dope in the ’60’s then continued on with their big city notions and pushy attitudes.

    I sure hope the Mexicans of Cali rise up to vote against the eastern elite naboobs that have been running this state into the ground.

  11. Paul said

    If instead of an end product of social change and redistribution of wealth the end research product was regarding a course of drug therapy or product safety, I wonder how many here would defend the publicly funded researcher?

  12. Layman Lurker said

    #9

    I do not doubt that government incentives can stimulate the advance of alternative energy technology. Is such policy sound in terms of cost vs. benefit considerations? Is it possible – even with great efficiency gains – for alternative sources to compete with fossil fuels without carbon taxes, etc. For an industry to be dependent on such a scenario is risky to say the least.

    Furthermore, even if economies like CA are succesful using public money to create a competetive advantage in alternative energy, other economies which they trade with invariably gain a comparative advantage over CA in other sectors without having to spend a nickel of public money.

  13. co2fan said

    Howard
    “Us natives …of California were born in what was once Mexico. ”

    You consider the 27 years of Mexican “non-rule” of Alta California (1821-1848) the most important heritage?

    It was occupied by native americans, albeit close to stone-age cultures,for 1000s of years, then the Spanish for over 100 years. None of these cultures did anything with the fabulous land, until gold was found and it became part of the US.

    Although Mexico is trying to reacquire it, through the backdoor: Los Angeles is the city with the second highest population of Mexicans on the continent, after Mexico City.

    When I grew up in LA in the 60’s, Spanish was not spoken much, compared to today.

    Hal

  14. Retired Engineer said

    Niven & Pournelle wrote The Mote in God’s Eye back in ’74. Key point was the Crazy Eddie effect, in that someone always messes things up just when they seem to go well. So the Left Coast has decided to totally trash what was a solid economy and generally nice place (lived there many years ago) and turn it into a third world disaster.

    And they expect the rest of the country to bail them out.

    #7 is right. Let them face plant.

    As for #1? My Third Law says: “If it were that easy or practical, someone whould have done it by now.” “Alternative” energy will make sense when it can show a profit, without massive subsidies or taxes on the competition.

    Solar and wind make sense only if we, or at least as our peerless leader said, bankrupt conventional power generation.

    Good intentions and squiggily light bulbs are not the path to prosperity.

  15. Sam said

    Part of the law states:

    “Identify the statewide level of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 to serve as the emissions limit to be achieved by 2020 (HSC §38550).

    Adopt a regulation requiring the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions (HSC §38530).”

    Why would Californians disapprove? Who wouldn’t want to report their own emissions to the government every year, risking fines and penalties in order to roll back emissions to the completely arbitrary year of 1990?

    If AGW is real then limiting your own emissions is like using a spray bottle to put out a bonfire, while someone else is adding more wood. Even if the rest of the world went back to 1990 emissions, we’d still have warming in the future and the poor polar bears would die anyways.

  16. sod said

    Sod: you are an idiot, as usual, like Arnie.

    very good argument. i bow to your superior knowledge and understanding.

    #1, I often tell people that blogging is great. Where else can you be wrong hundreds of times in the same day.

    there is a real danger, as the people who like to read you, often don t tell you when you are wrong.

    Wind power is essentially something the Dutch have been doing for centuries.

    essentially. yes. here is the history of recent wind power in Denmark:

    As concerns over global warming grew in the 1980s, Denmark found itself with relatively high carbon dioxide emissions per capita, primarily due to the coal-fired electrical power plants that had become the norm after the 1973 and 1979 energy crises of the 1970s.[4] Renewable energy became the natural choice for Denmark, decreasing both dependence on other countries for energy and global warming pollution. Denmark adopted a target of cutting carbon emissions by 22% from 1988 levels by 2005.[4] In 1988, two years after the Chernobyl disaster, the Danes passed a law forbidding the construction of nuclear power plants.[5]

    To encourage investment in wind power, families were offered a tax exemption for generating their own electricity within their own or an adjoining commune.[17] While this could involve purchasing a turbine outright, more often families purchased shares in wind turbine cooperatives which in turn invested in community wind turbines. By 1996 there were around 2,100 such cooperatives in the country.[17] Opinion polls show that this direct involvement has helped the popularity of wind turbines, with some 86% of Danes supporting wind energy when compared with existing fuel sources.[3]

    The Danish wind turbine industry is the world’s largest. Around 90 percent of the national output is exported, and Danish companies accounted for 38% of the world turbine market in 2003, when the industry employed some 20,000 people and had a turnover of around 3 billion euro.[3]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

    like most people, i don t see nuclear as an alternative energy. you are wrong on all accounts. the dutch did no just stumble over off-shore wind parks. they had to be developted and brought into mass production.

  17. Jeff Id said

    Sod 16,

    there is a real danger, as the people who like to read you, often don t tell you when you are wrong.

    I don’t think you read the last thread where people who are regulars here basically hammered me all the way through. I realize that not everyone wants to disagree all the time, but plenty do.

    What I don’t understand is the personality that always disagrees.

  18. michel said

    Global warming is a crock, and CO2 is not a pollutant, and we should take no action whatever to limit it.

    All the same, anyone who has lived in CA knows perfectly well that the automobile and associated noise, pollution and degradation of the urban and rural environment is a quality of life disaster. No one in their right minds would choose this over the alternatives in a free vote.

    The situation in CA is a consequence of the paradox of choice: that what people choose individually may add up to something that would be their least favored alternative. That is because what is best for them in the individual choices leads to a disastrous overall situation.

    So, is Arnie right? I don’t know, but I think its a lot more complicated than ‘Yeeeh to cars!’

    And yes, people move to CA, I know. Its not because they like the noise and the pollution and the degradation of the urban environment, its because they put up with it to get other things they want. Though now, as those things wither on the vine, they are leaving. And quite right too.

  19. Geoff Sherrington said

    1. Sod. Quote “….basically all real progress of alternative energy (apart from hydro) came from unilateral action in countries.

    and beyond all of us profiting from those developments now, the countries and states involved also benefit from a technological advantage.”

    Well, you are basically correct, but it all depends on your definitions of “benefit” and “who benefits”. What be your reaction if you were in charge of power supply for a country and you red the following?

    “Denmark trades power in Nord Pool, which has announced that from October 2009 the
    spot floor price for surplus power will drop from zero to minus EUR 20 cents/kWh. In other
    words, wind generators producing power in periods of low demand will have to pay the
    network to take it. Nord Pool said that “A negative price floor has been in demand for some
    time – especially from participants trading Elspot in the Danish bidding areas. … Curtailment
    of sales may give an imbalance cost for the affected seller and thus creates a willingness to
    pay in order to deliver power in the market.” This is likely to have a negative effect on the
    economics of wind power in the region, since a significant amount of Denmark’s wind power
    production is affected”
    Source: World Nuclear News 1/04/09, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org – UK ISSN 1326-4907

    Yes, Denmark has learned of new technology, but has it done Norway good? Was there a better new technology target? Norway certainly seems to benefit adjacent countries, who nonetheless have to keep spinning capacity running to waste for when the wind falls.

    I suggest that a comprehensive, cradle-to-grave economic analysis of Norway’s brave communistic experiment would show a decidely negative economic result for all concerned. That is, the funds should have been spent on better than “eco-friendly” machinery.

    p.s. Is there truth to the rumour that you wanted your blog name to be DOS, but you got that backwards also?

  20. Geoff Sherrington said

    16. Sod. See how the story in my 19 gets all confusing when I put bits in backwards? I think, though, that when you insert the correct countries in the correct places and corrext the typos, the message is clear enough. So do try to avoid obfuscation.

    What measured reduction in GHG emissions has the Danish windmill game produced? What has been the cost in $ per tonne of CO2 produced? In my country, nuclear would cost about $20 to avoid a tonne of CO2, but wind about $1000 for the same power output. Ref Peter Lang http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/peter-lang-wind-power.pdf

    If you don’t know the Danish figure, you should not be so assertive.

  21. STEPHEN PARKERuk said

    In the production of electricity, how do we get benifits and progress when the said energy is more expensive?. The true wonder of our western countries is the lifting of the working man ( 98%) of us out of abject poverty toiling in the fields for the land owner. At the start of the industrial revolution in england, when they set up the mills and factorys that made britain the greatest super power ever, do you think it was with energy or factories that were less efficiant than existing technologies?. Our politicians have become our masters not servants and its madness. All current energy policy will do is make the poor poorer
    Rant over- for now!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: