Climate change regulations, failure of green sector threaten California economic recovery

Global warming hysteria has turned into ineffective climate change regulations that now threaten economic recovery in California.

When AB 32 or, The Global Warming  Solutions Act, was passed in 2006 by the California legislature and signed into law by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it was hailed as the wave of the future.  According to its co-sponsor the Environmental Defense Fund, setting  statewide limits on greenhouse gasses would lead to a sustainable, clean energy economy that would set an example for the rest of the world to emulate.

As a result, draconian environmental goals were set to:

1. Achieve a 33% level of renewable energy  by 2020

2, Develop a cap and trade program to allow companies that produce high volumes of greenhouse emissions to buy energy from companies which produce lower ones.  The idea of this is to encourage the use of solar and wind sources even if they are not economically feasible.

3. Set standards for transportation and urban development to reduce greenhouse emissions and decrease the dependence on automobile travel.

4. Expand  and strengthen energy efficiency programs for everything from appliances to household  electricity use.

5. In the name of reducing global warming, it was hoped to improve air quality standards throughout the state to 1990 levels by 2020.

By a twist of fate, most of these objectives have already been achieved but primarily because of improving gas mileage and the lowering of emission levels by improvements made by automobile manufacturers. At the same time the theory of Global Warming has not stood up well to scientific scrutiny. The phenomena of higher temperatures throughout the world simply has not happened as doom sawyer’s predicted.

As it turned out Environmental-Union coalition behind the Global Warming movement were not about to denounce the government programs and regulatory powers they assumed.  Instead this lobby replaced Global warming with Climate Change regulations and attached all of their policies to less stringent scientific standards.

climate-change-regulations-from bad-scienceAccording to climate change theory, temperatures on the earth are constantly evolving and subject to variances of nature and to man. Anything they could do to neutralize this process would be a plus.  This meant continuing support AB 32, SB 375 which followed, along with the regulatory bells and whistles  could be justified.

As might be expected neither the news media nor political opposition thwarted the subtle bait and switch that had transpired. To make  citizens believe they were saving the planet, such terms as Coastal Protection, Spare the Air Day, Reduction of Carbon foot prints and Sustainable Communities were attached to sell new environmental policies and senseless climate change regulations.

No rational individual could oppose such lofty objectives. In fact arguing against climate change has become like contesting “point of information” in Robert’s Rule’s of order. Only a  lunatic would do such a thing or so it seemed. The State’s deficit-plagued check book was opened up to finance everything from subsidized public housing to mass transit at a cost of hundreds of  billions of tax payer dollars.

Climate change as a mechanism to propel government policy has proven to be a real winner for the elites but not the working Joe. Where global warming asserted that burning of fossil fuels had a direct effect on  weather, its successor modified this assertion to demote the world’s inhabitants to being only role players in this process. How great man’s influence actually might be cannot be measured one way or another. The State’s philosophy seems to be spend money first, measure the effects and disatrous impacts of these policies later with virtually no accountability.

Since Climate change occurs as an evolutionary process droughts, floods, and hurricanes occur no matter what bills are passed by legislature bodies or rulings handed down by regulatory agencies. In this way it can be argued that the government must intercede or nature will respond by punishing mankind by making life miserable for those who don’t follow the edicts of environmentalists.

Lost in this equation is the notion of  force majeure, which has been defined on the back of marine insurance policies for the last 3000 years as an act of God or nature for which there is no control.  This concept is being challenged by progressive types who feel they can influence the course of “mother nature” by regulating  climate change.

For the super majority in the California Legislature and the Environmental lobby in Washington  D.C., this is a marriage made in heaven. Additional climate change regulations ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency to the One Plan Bay Area now own the playing field not only where people live, but what they will be allowed to do with their lives.

A really big fly in the ointment is that not everyone is going along with the Global Warming-Climate change narrative as hockey sticks and questionable weather models fail to account for reality. While California concerns itself with cap and trade, high taxes, extensive governmental regulations, astronomic worker comp costs, and other job killer measures, businesses choose to move out of State where they can operate with less interference.

Indicative of this, Tesla Motors, the pride of Silicon Valley who manufacture electric cars, is planning to construct a plant to produce high tech batteries that will eventually employ over 6000 workers. Where will this new facility be built? Sites being considered are in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

California is not even on the list despite Tesla corporate being  located in Palo Alto.  Setting up a manufacturing facility there is simply too expensive.  With this scenario repeating itself over and over again one wonders when the Golden State  will realize  that they are losing  the battle every day to compete in the national and international marketplaces.

Meanwhile, oblivious to all of thisl, the California Legislature has continued to pass restrictive new laws which the California Chamber of Commerce has labeled “job killer” in nature. No one seems to care. The progressive coalition  are getting exactly what they want courtesy of climate change concerns.

Big government supports pay and benefits for its growing work force, craft unions are only able to supply labor for construction projects using any public  financing and environmentalists are able to find employment  (with  high self-esteem) to regulate the whole mess. This progressive formula serves the Super Majority in the legislature at the expense of a dwindling middle class and small business owners in California who pay for this  by being accessed stifling tax bills.

The problem today is that few understand the losing spiral  California is engaging in. The State still has immense natural and geographic resources that hide deficiencies of governmental policies. A climate producing ideal conditions for agriculture, ports which provide a window for international trade to Asia, and living conditions that most of the country envies are advantages inhabitants of the “Left Coast” still have.

How long it will take the residents of California to wake up and see they are out of touch with the rest of the world? When will they realize that these environmental policies and climate change regulations are wrecking the State’s economy and threatening future prosperity?

This is not to say that the State should go back to a complete cowboy mentality that existed back in the Gold Rush days. Protecting the environment should continue to play an important role in formulating governmental policy but it should not be used as a tool to build a socialistic utopia envisioned by the current elected officials in Sacramento.

Most importantly…where has all the nanny state laws and climate change regulations gotten us?

Writing today about California’s loss of its traditional energy employers to Texas, Joel Kotkin, in the Orange County Register asks:

What about “green jobs”? Overall, California leads in green jobs, simply by dint of size; but on a per-capita basis, notes a recent Brookings study, California is about average. In wind energy, in fact, California is not even in first place; that honor goes to, of all places, Texas, which boasts twice California’s level of production.

Ironically, one reason for this mediocre performance lies in environmental regulations that make California a tough place even for renewables. Even the New York Times has described Gov. Jerry Brown’s promise about creating a half-million new jobs as something of a “pipe dream.” Even though surviving solar firms are busy, in part to meet the state’s strict renewable mandates, solar firms acknowledge that they won’t be doing much of the manufacturing here, anyway.

The would-be visionaries who manage the state are selling Californians a lot of pixie dust. Barely 700,000 Americans work in green energy, including building retrofits, compared with 9 million in fossil fuels. Nationwide employment in solar and wind, meanwhile, is well under 200,000. Overall, officials with fossil-fuel-related companies predict 1.4 million jobs in the sector by 2030.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print Friendly

Comments

  1. Brian says

    People like me also believed in Eugenics? How does this even relate to my comment on your poorly written editorial? I’m shocked – but not really, considering that this must be the same logic that allows you to believe that the earth is still flat – I mean that global warming is myth. Does the sun rotate around the earth too? Wait, don’t answer that.

    I think we are confused by opinions and facts here. Your quote from Forbes, a right-wing publication funded by companies that have massive stakes in oil and coal, describe how the 97% consensus was falsified, but fails to actually show what they are talking about.

    Do you have any facts that can be cited by sources that aren’t stakeholders in this topic? IE independent studies that aren’t funded by the Koch Brothers? Here is an example of facts, from experts that are independently funded, with actual sources:

    “Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).
    The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching the search ‘global climate change’ found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010).” Source: iopscience.com

    You are probably thinking, well Oil giants like the Koch Brothers have funded independent research that disproves global warming. And lucky for you, you’re right! Only when said researcher did actual science, he came to the same conclusion that every other independent reasercher has shown: global warming is real. Source?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. If I’m wrong, please say so.

    As far as your assertation that global temperature data is corrupt – do you have any evidence? How did the NOAA fudge data for every organization gathering temperature data in the past few decades? Does that even make sense? And please tell me how the NOAA fudged data from hundreds of ice core samples taken by several different research teams from all over the globe that further prove global warming is real.

    My friend, the earth is not flat. And global warming is not a myth. What makes more sense – that thousands of scientists, research centers, and schools all over the world are being paid off by alternative energy companies to propagate the myth of global warming (without anyone getting caught), or big oil is trying to keep their stronghold on the energy sector by controlling the free energy market with lobbyists and propaganda (while getting caught)?

    The same exact thing happened with tobacco, why wouldn’t it happen with oil? Do you remember how long it took for tobacco companies to admit their product was harmful to human beings?

    Again, if you are going to spread lies, make sure your lies have actual facts that you can cite. Adding a quote from Forbes that says something is a myth, doesn’t actually make it a myth. (hint: find peer reviewed papers that verify your position).

    Lastly, regarding your graph that shows that the earth has not warmed over the past 17 years: I looked at your source, and found some interesting results. First of all, your graph does not show what you think it shows. Here is a graph of a linear 30 year trend of temperature:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend

    Listen, I don’t disagree with what you are saying about the politics of global warming. Its like any new diet craze – the science behind it could be legitimate, but then is bastardized into a get rich quick scheme. Politicians have been and always will be corrupt.

    • says

      It’s obvious that your approach to evidence as survey of surveys that always find what they want to find instead of looking out the window, or by defaming any science based argument with ridiculous charges about its slanted origins (that one can both ways) does not leave much room for true inquiry. So-called scientific institutions are of course not going to bite the hand that feeds them, while the hands, governments including Germany, Canada and Australia to name just a few of a growing list, are abandoning not only global warming hysteria but the insane costs that policies spawned by it create to wreck economies like California’s.

      BTW, here’s another Forbes article that cites a scientific peer reviewed study that finds that Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis.

      Here’s the study.

      By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

      The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

      According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

      The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

      The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

      Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

      The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

      The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

      Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

      One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

      Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

      People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

      The study from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society cited above found

      - Only 24 percent (less than 1 in 4) of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”

      - Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”

      - Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”

      - Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”

      In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents were AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight.

      For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons.

      Some Consensus

      Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.

  2. says

    FACT: the 97% consensus is a myth.

    According to Forbes:

    Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

    Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

    Was 2013 the hottest year ever?

    FACT: Only because NOAA fudged the numbers it a recent adjustment to the data. To assuage their paymasters, every time NOAA adjusts data it always gets warner. More reliable than weather itself.

    Feds have been caught altering past temperature data before: NOAA claims 1998 was previous ‘hottest on record’ on record — But in 1999, the same year was only the 5th warmest before ‘adjustments’ — ‘In an article which NASA published in 1999, Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year, after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953. In fact, 1998 was 0.6C cooler than 1934′ — ‘Over the past decade, NASA and NOAA have continuously altered the temperature record to cool the past and warm the present. Their claims are straight out Orwell’s 1984, and have nothing to do with science.” See the temperature data before and after global warming zealots screwed with the data.

    Is global warming on a pace 1,000 times great than it would be? How would we possibly know? You actually added a zero ’0′ to an illogical report that said Climate change was happening 10 times faster than ever, not 1000 times. See hyperbole above. Please get your own bad facts straight. Besides, now we are learning more about how oceans and solar cycles impact the Earth and your guys can’t quite explain now why rising CO2 does not necessarily lead to a corresponding rise in rate of warming when, IN FACT, there has not been ANY global warming for the past 17 years.

    FACT: people like you also believed in Eugenics as settled science in the late 19th century. And that only produced imperialistic colonialism, WW2, and Auschwitz because others did not meet the genetic standards dictated by the equally overwhelming consensus of the ruling (white) class. Now hysterical true believers like you would characterize as sub-human anyone that would disagree with your new-on-the-scene politically motivated pseudo science that is just as dangerous.

    Because the significant harm to the California economy caused by policies based on this pseudo science is indeed FACT.

    If you’re that put off by what you see here as irresponsible journalism, then there is an easy solution. Don’t come back or at least bring some real facts instead of uncritical acceptance of what you read from those most likely to gain from continuing the charade.

  3. Brian says

    I stopped reading when I saw “At the same time the theory of Global Warming has not stood up well to scientific scrutiny. nThe phenomena of higher temperatures throughout the world simply has not happened as doom sawyer’s predicted.”

    Fact: 97% of scientists agree that human accelerated global warming is occuring. It is the most peer-reviewed topic in all of science. The other 3% of scientists are funded by the Koch brothers, who are funding an anti global warming progaganda campaign.

    Fact: Higher temepratures have been recorded throughout the world. 2013 was THE HOTTEST year on record.

    Fact: temperatures at the poles have risen ten degrees over the past forty years

    Fact: The rate of global warming is 1,000 times faster than it should be right now – meaning if there were no human activity, yes the earth would still be warming, but it a significantly lower rate. The natural rate of warming allows for plants and animals to adapt and evelve with the changing climate.

    Once again, you are guilty of irresponsible journalism. You make some good points, but your efforts are marginilized by your inablility to report facts.

    Please, PLEASE use facts when writing and reporting – it seems like you honestly want to make the world a better place, right? Misinformation takes away from your effort.

    I’ll check in with you in a few weeks to see if you have changed your ways – lets hope so.