Environmental news from California and beyond

« Previous | Greenspace Home | Next »

Jerry Brown's global warming revenge?

Backers of a proposed ballot initiative to suspend California's landmark global warming initiative are threatening to sue Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown over the cumbersome title and summary his office attached to their "California Jobs Initiative," reports our sister blog, PolitiCal.

Rather than adopt the sponsor's catchy title, Brown has dubbed it: “Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.”

A report by the state's legislative analyst last week described the measure, designed for the November ballot, as crippling, but not completely dismantling the state's efforts to slash its carbon footprint.

--Margot Roosevelt

Comments () | Archives (7)

The comments to this entry are closed.

"Cap and trade" proponents gnerally seem to assume that the market value that attaches to emission allowances comes out of free air. It does not.

"Cap and trade" is a modern name for simple old quota-based supply management--the system that was once used to inflate food prices and protect market for domestic producers. 100% of any real market value that attaches to the allowances/quota is deducted from the residual market value of the plants and equipment the operation of which must be covered by quota.

So, by definition, the government decision to implement a "cap and trade" system as described in the article is a decision to expropriate market value from regulated plant owners/operators and to transfer that value to the recipients of the revenues from quota sales.

State legislators must anticipate that after they (1) rule that existing plants and fleets cannot operate unless they hold quota and then (2) auction that quota, that the operators who have financed the scheme through asset devaluations will likely sue the state for compensation.

This is typical Conservative propaganda, and these straggling Teabaggers are merely the more extreme washouts of the GOP. They're politically homeless due to the GOP's implosion, and they're clearly terrified.

These people tend to be low information voters who don't understand any of the complexities within the political world.

Of course, titling their initiatives with propaganda style misdirections is an age old Conservative tactic: "Creation Science;" "The Patriot Act;" "Compassionate Conservatism;" "The Jobs Bill," etc. etc.

This is how the modern Conservative movement functions. They can't win the intellectual arguments, nor do they care to learn them. Their goals can be much more easily accomplished by actually veiling the purpose of their initiative. In other words, they actively lie to secure power.

They know that their constituency is sensitive to fire and brimstone narratives, and they have to do very little to galvanize those fears.

It's to the point where it's not even controversial. Conservatives have simply abandoned the rules of the game, and they want, and have succeeded in creating a culture war that they are almost guaranteed to lose in the long run.

It's a kind of a "If I can't have you, then no one can have you" attitude. Conservatives have almost become nihilistic in their approach to the future of this country. This is attitude is similar to that expressed by Reagan, who felt that environmental issues were of little importance because the world was going to end soon anyway.

To most Conservatives, any major catastrophe is merely God's hint of unhappiness, or some impending march toward the gates of Heaven.

It is pretty rare that I agree with Jerry Brown, the con-artist formerly known as Governor Moonbeam. But this is one of those cases. This Proposition deserves to die, the original title is the fraudulent one, and Brown's title is much more accurate.

When the 1990 Clean Air Act was passed, doom-and-gloomers predicted it would cause the loss of up to 2 million jobs. That turned out to be only ~ 9,000 mining jobs. California once led the world in wind and solar power, but government policies in China, Germany, Denmark and Spain to support clean energy mean that those countries are the new leaders.

For some reason I find Jerry's creative editing habit quite amusing.

Before the economic downturn, Californians naively approved the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) that mandates 2012 reductions of greenhouse gases through carbon taxes, alternative fuels and renewable replacements. All new climate laws increase the unit production costs and corresponding consumer prices of goods and services. A study by the Governor's Small Business Advocate reports that small businesses pay more than $134,000 each in annual California regulatory costs. Estimates are that the total cost of California regulations is about $493 billion annually – the equivalent of 3.8 million jobs. Environmental regulatory costs are a significant embedded cost in all of California’s products, services and enterprise.

California voters can stop climate laws like the California Global Warming Solutions Act (A.B. 32), if State Assemblyman Dan Logue succeeds in collecting signatures for a November 2010 ballot initiative. Simply put, Logue’s initiative would block implementation of A.B. 32 until the state’s unemployment rate is reduced to below 5.5%. As a Central Valley Republican, Logue estimates that A.B. 32 could cost the state an additional 1million in job losses with its cap-and –trade system to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels.

It should be called the "Fry Your Grandchildren Act of 2010."


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


Recent News
Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |  December 12, 2013, 9:58 am »
New Cook Islands Shark Sanctuary proposed |  December 8, 2011, 8:00 am »