California Nonsense Climate Policy
California is off of the rails again. Regulation to control CO2 emissions is seeking totalitarian status, no matter that it makes no sense.
The drive for the high-speed train also continues despite the data accumulating that negates any benefits. But there is more. CA legislature is focused on having a single payer system for Calif. Again data does not matter.
And in classic elitist form Gov Brown declared that people that complain about Calif taxes, of which he continues to increase, are “freeloaders.” Apparently anyone who would complain against the regulations in the article below would receive perhaps even more of a negative label than freeloader.
The bent of the State towards progressivism and all of the bigger government causes is reaching towards the absurd. With Kamela Harris and Nancy Pelosi making up headlines, it is becoming apparent to even the casual observer that this makes no sense in a free society.
Guest Blogger / 1 hour ago May 19, 2017
California Governor Brown’s SB 32 law requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels 40% below levels measured in 1990 is necessitating the development of massive numbers of new regulations and policy that will allow the state government to control and dictate virtually every aspect of Californian’s lives including:
etc, etc.
The AB 32 year 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (year 2020 levels reduced to year 1990 measured levels) could be achieved by primarily addressing electricity generation and industrial sector greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts through increased use of renewable energy, energy efficiency and fuel substitution efforts.
But the SB 32 emission targets are so absurdly set that every aspect of Californian’s lives must be dictated and controlled to achieve Governor Brown’s ludicrous climate alarmist driven goals.
The largest single source of the states greenhouse gas emissions by far and away is the transportation sector (37%) with the industrial sector second (24%) , instate electricity generation third (12%) and import electricity generation and agriculture tied at fourth (8%).
The massive escalation in the states greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets between SB 32 versus AB 32 is huge with the reduced emissions target level declining from AB 32 levels of 431 million metric tons in 2020 to SB 32 levels of 259 million metric tons in 2030.
This huge escalation in emissions reduction as well as the shorter time period for accomplishing the reduction to achieve California’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions goal means that every sector of the states economic activity will be mandated to undertake unprecedented, hugely costly and far reaching measures to contribute toward trying to meet these politically contrived requirements.
But what does the impact of California’s massive new government bureaucracy and costly effort to achieve its SB 32 emissions reduction goals mean relative to the global greenhouse gas emissions levels?
The 2016 EIA IEO report documents that global CO2 emissions in 2030 are forecast to be 39,103 million metric tons of CO2 with these emissions levels dominated by the developing nations lead by China and India.
California’s greenhouse gas emissions are comprised of about 84% CO2 which means that the reduction of CO2 between SB32 and AB 32 is about 144 million metric tons of CO2 by year 2030.
Thus the California SB 32 CO2 reduction target is less than 0.4% of the global CO2 emissions EIA forecasts for year 2030 which is truly trivial and insignificant. This level of reduced emissions has no meaningful impact whatsoever at a global scale.
Those attempting to argue that other countries will follow California’s lead in emissions reduction are completely out of touch with reality with what the world’s largest and fastest growing emissions countries are now doing regarding the increased use of coal fuel on a global basis.
China is now generating electricity using coal fuel at record high levels and in addition is engaging in efforts with other countries such as Pakistan to build large numbers of coal plants in that country.
China also has an on-going global strategy based on building coal power and was involved in 240 coal power projects in 65 countries between 2001 and 2016.
India is going forward with large numbers of new coal plants and completely ignoring any voluntary emissions reduction commitment discussed under the Paris agreement.
A new paper concludes that India will rely upon use of coal fuel as its energy mainstay for the next 30 years.
Additionally both China and India increasingly dominate ownership of coal reserves with 117 companies identified producing 3 billion tons of coal a year with 150 billion tons of coal in reserves.
Africa has announced plans for building more than 100 new coal plants to address its severe energy shortages that are contributing to the dismal economic condition of many of its countries.
The idea that many other world countries that desire high energy growth using coal fuel regardless of the greenhouse gas emission levels are going to abandon their enormous existing use and future growth of coal fuel because of California’s ridiculous climate alarmist driven schemes is totally absurd.
A recent series of articles in the L. A. Times outlined the massive regulatory and policy change impacts that SB 32 will impose upon the people of California here, here, and here.
In these articles extraordinary admissions are noted from the states leaders about the complete lack of knowledge, expertise and experience of the state government needed to achieve these escalated emissions goals demonstrating that these leaders are cavalierly plunging ahead with SB 32 politically driven emissions reduction mandates:
The state governments monumental arrogance in moving forward with SB 32 is characterized in the following observations contained in the Times articles:
…
How can any rational person credibly claim that China, India and other energy hungry developing nations of the world are going to “export” the folly of California’s climate alarmist policies to their countries?
California has now created a world where Governor Brown, Senate leader Kevin de Leon and Air Board Chairwomen Mary Nichols will determine at huge cost and without the appropriate knowledge, expertise, planning and communication how everyone of the 37 million people of the state must live every aspect of their lives to meet meaningless climate goals with the resulting massive sacrifices that will impact California citizens having no consequence on the global emissions stage.
California is proceeding down this absurd emissions reduction path while the “science” supposedly supporting climate alarmism claims is crumbling with global climate models shown to be flawed/a> and failed by climate scientist testimony before Congress and UN IPCC acknowledgements of the undeniable truth that it is impossible to create credible global climate models which, in fact, has been the case for the last 25 years.
…
Finally NOAA 2016 updated coastal sea level rise tide gauge data shows no acceleration in sea level rise along the California coastline or anywhere else despite false claims by the UN IPCC that man made emissions have been increasing rates of sea level rise since the 1970’s.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased
Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues. What is driving this? And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.
Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?
At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.
