What Would Proposition 23 Cost Us?

September 2, 2010

Opinion By Andrew Christie

In its August 30 edition, The Tribune gave space to Pismo Beach City Councilman Ed Waage to list his reasons why California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, should be suspended by the oil industry-supported ballot initiative known as Proposition 23 (“Boost
economy by voting for Proposition 23”).

Mr. Waage’s reasoning went something like this:

Global warming isn’t really a problem and there isn’t sufficient proof that human actions are a significant contributor. A professor from Princeton told Congress that he thinks the consequences of increasing carbon emissions are “wildly exaggerated.” Environmental organizations that oppose Proposition 23 also oppose renewable energy project proposals that cause needless environmental destruction. (His point here wasn’t clear.)

Let’s set aside the fact that Mr. Waage made his not enough proof of global warming and it’s no big deal anyway arguments just after the six consecutive hottest months on record, and as ice loss in both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is accelerating, and despite the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence amassed over the last three decades and reviewed by thousands of climate scientists from 194 countries, which says that Mr. Waage and the gentleman from Princeton are wrong.

Also set aside the fact that the professor Mr. Waage cites, one William Happer, has also said that “We evolved as a species when CO2 concentrations were three or four times what they are now,” a statement that could only be true if our species had evolved 200 million years ago. Set aside the fact that Dr. Happer is the director of the right-wing George C. Marshall Institute, which receives nearly half its funding from the oil industry. Set aside the fact that the oil industry has fought every clean air law California has ever considered or passed, and is throwing millions of dollars into the campaign to pass Proposition 23.

And set aside the fact that environmental groups have not actually “opposed efforts to develop solar power in the Mojave desert,” but have advocated for less environmentally damaging alternative siting and configuration of proposed solar power plants.

Rather, let’s look at the problem in Mr. Waage’s argument wherein he states that Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 only until “the unemployment rate in California drops back to the rate it was when AB 32 was passed” in 2006.

In fact, Proposition 23 requires the suspension of AB 32 until unemployment has fallen to 5.5 percent for a full year – something that has happened only three times in the last 30 years. The passage of Proposition 23 would kill California’s premier clean air and clean energy law. That’s what it is designed to do.

And let’s note that last June the Los Angeles Times reported that Eric Schmidt, the head of Google, said “AB 32 is an incubator of innovation” that will create jobs as “business responds to the need for energy-efficient buildings, transportation and a growing portfolio of renewable energy resources.”

It is also worth noting that each year, according to the American Lung Association, California’s air pollution contributes to thousands of premature deaths, and more than 9,000 hospitalizations and 300,000 respiratory illnesses. AB 32, as stated in the text of the bill, was created to address the “exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems” that accompany rising greenhouse gas
emissions.

In championing Proposition 23, Mr. Waage wants to roll back the law that was passed to combat these problems and serve as our “incubator of innovation.” Nowhere does Mr. Waage mention what California would save in medical costs by keeping AB 32 in place, or how much we would lose of what we’ve gained in green jobs and investment if AB 32 were suspended. How much would striking down this law cost the people of California in lives and treasure, while protecting oil companies from clean energy competition and relieving them of the responsibility of dealing with the problems caused by their product?

That’s a question Proposition 23’s supporters would rather you do not ask, and a calculation they do not make. Paradoxically, their silence on this point should make the calculations of voters much easier as they decide whether to vote yes or no on Proposition 23.

Andrew Christie is the director, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club


Loading...
RFryer

Christie says:


>just after the six consecutive hottest months on record


But wait – NOAA reports higher temperatures whether it’s the surface temps or the satellites that are higher. One always is. In fact, the oceans have been cooling lately, while satellites have been increasing. They aren’t sure why. Did they also splash that story over the media?


When temperatures are gradually increasing over hundreds of years, OF COURSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE NEW HIGHS FREQUENTLY. The issue is whether the rise is unexpected. What the statisticians have been saying for about 10 years now is that the rise over the last 30 years is NOT EXCEPTIONAL. Of course that is going to melt ice. But that human-caused CO2 is causing exceptional increases – is just a theory – there is no conclusive evidence that human CO2 emissions are adding even 0.1C increase over the last 100 years that we’ve been pumping it out in volume.


I don’t think coal plants are a good idea – nuclear plants ARE – but it’s obvious that the Sierra Club doesn’t want clean inexpensive energy. They want something else – either very expensive power to hurt poor people or something else – I wish they’d think it through and make a reasonable recommendation. ‘Green energy?’ It’s cheap NOW if the government pays enough (BTW thanks to all of you for helping you buy my solar panels). Maybe I should say – thanks to your grandkids, who will be paying for this subsidy stupidity.


But – AB32 was a silly idea and it would be a very good idea to put it on – er – ice – for a decade while the scientists collect enough data to figure out what is REALLY going on with CO2.


moderator


SLOJOHN

The dollars stated in news print are never regarded with the same weight as money from our own wallet. I also recognize that my opinion is not always the best solution.


What I do know – the equity in a fleet of equipment that our family has been building upon for 30-years diminished by almost 50% in a 9-month period between January to September 2009. This is largely due to the new California regulations of AB 32.


How much of the public sentiment is driven by true knowledge? Everything carries a cost; politics is just the concept of who pays for the experiment.


Many people fail to recognize the mortgage crisis was one of those political experiments.


srichison

Government regulations do not save money – they cost money. Eliminating government regulations saves money. This state is awash in useless regulation. While this is only a tiny first step, we need to take that step some time, so we can the next and the next after that. Only when a significant amount of burdensome regulation is lifted can the state’s economy rebound.


monkscrew

Is the earth warming? Yes, I think we can agree that it is. Is it due to human production of CO2? I haven’t seen any studies that indicate that this is the case. The earth is primarily heated and cooled by the sun. Volcanoes emit more CO2 per year than humans and animals combined. There is clearly an agenda here and we should demand proof before we take any action. Check out “The great Global warming swindle” it is interesting to see a counterpoint to the kool-aid that has been accepted as scientific “fact.”


zaphod

Volcanoes emit more CO2 per year than humans and animals combined.

Not even close: “The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.”


rferris

1/150 of human emissions??/ ONLY if their are no active eruptions! There is not one actual FACT that can be shown that would prove human activity has any significant role in our climate.

There is also not one single FACT to show co2 plays a significant role in warming.

To believe that a gas that there is less than 4/100 of 1% of our atmosphere could have the effects claimed is to believe any nonsense that is repeatedly put in your face.

In order to claim consensus the IPCC refuses to let anyone participate who in advance doesn’t agree to promote their propaganda. Therefor NO geologists or other specialties who study the past climate of the earth. NO astrophysicists who actually study the suns output and no studies of any kind that contradict the dogma. If you believe humans cause the planet to warm then you are responding as programmed and are not researching the actual science! In past times you would have believed the earth is flat and in the center of the universe…………….


zaphod

Do you have links to actual research to back up your claims or are you pulling your facts out of yer own atmosphere ? The moderator has kindly posted animated graph that shows the global CO2 levels overtime, the CO2 levels have never been higher, the past decade hottest yet. so put up some facts or shut up. * show us your science* WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE ?


rferris

The point is there are no facts that support human caused warming! PLEEAASE show me the facts! P>S> Computer models are not facts, theories are not facts,and lastly things that show the planet has warmed are not facts that can be used to show humans caused it.

To start your education in science go to geocraft.com, look hard and you will find a section about planetary warming. Take their test on warming and see how you do….

also :junk science.com, Heritage institute. Cato , and many more.

Their is a 500,000.00 dollar prize if you can prove either that man made emissions cause warming or that the effects of the warming are more negitive than positive.


GO CLAIM YOUR HALF MILLION DOLLARS IF YOU ARE CORRECT!


zaphod

Joint statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research


Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

so yeah some petroleum geologists think we should overlook overwhelming recent data for the long view of “natural cycles”

did you look at the data the moderator posted it is not a model it is actual measurement over time I googled your geologist claim look what turned up:”Having “debated” with a number of sceptical geologists on forums, the following is a characterisation of a sceptical geologist’s view:


The climate has always changed in the past due to natural variability, and life on earth has survived very well. In fact, life proliferates more during warm spells.


Since the climate has always been variable, recent warming is not unusual and therefore probably natural. Life will benefit, as it has in the past, from the warming.


Climate scientists have their heads stuck in models and observations of the last few decades and don’t look at the bigger picture.”


Active volcanoes * cosmic rays* and just maybe Secretary of the Interior JamesWatt( who said that when Christ returns “do you think he will care how many trees we have?) will turn out right all along, me? I love SCIENCE !


rferris

AAhhhh So you have no facts only lists of other foolish people. I am sorry the geocraft site was over your head scientifically, but when your mind is made up without real facts it would be hard for you to see facts when they stare you in the face.

Their is no “claim” being made at geocraft.com, just facts, science and information, sorry you can not process knowledge that comes from any source that the people you look to for your opinions have not spoon fed you. I do not know of any scientists that study the past climate of the earth who “believe” and have your religion of “humans cause climate change”

Please provide any FACTS that support your views ( 2nd request ) and remember all the stuff you believe is produced by people paid to produce only the results you believe in.

Please show me ANY actual factual evidence for in all my searching I have found ZERO!!!


zaphod

The geocraft page:Last revised: January 10, 2003

The Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: July 28, 2010

how do you spell consensus? the moderators graph is plain as a clock on the wall have you seen it?

I simply use google to check out assertions that are presented as fact and update information, humans are part of the scene no need to prove the obvious .


moderator
rferris

Both the previous epochs with dinosaurs had much higher co2 levels than today ( approximately 8 times and 16 times our levels if I remember correctly ) yet the temperatures were only a bit higher. This completely destroys the validity of ALL the computer model that blame co2 for warming as none of them can match temperature with C02 concentrations from these times. This is one of the reasons that geologist and fossil experts are not allowed to participate in the IPCC farce.

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, all ice core studies ( 3) show CO2 follows temperature change by 200 to 500 years. These studies have never been refuted, just ignored. Since humans were not around when dinosaurs were, how do we blame humans for all the other hot periods ( halcyon periods) the planet has experienced and why would any reasoning person not believe the past history of the planet more than computer MODELS that produce the results they are programmed to produce and nothing more.


racket

Couldn’t read the whole thing … Andrew Christie has positioned himself so far into the wackiness that his opinion doesn’t mean anything.


ThomasPaine

Well written article Mr. Christie.


easymoney

” It’s all about $$$$$”

No crisis, no book deal or movie, no new funding source, no new taxes, no oversight committee, no new regulations… “Can’t let a crisis go to waste”.

I wonder if Andrew Christie has ever taken any science classes or read about solar flares, sun spots, or the change of polar axis that all planets experience?


Mr. Holly

I would urge everyone to to go wikpedia and type in “ice age.” It’s a very interesting article regarding the melting of ice in artic regions and its cause. One of the aspects of global warming can be caused by the slightest movement of the earth’s axis. This topic has been commented on by scientist as having possibly occurred during the horrific earthquakes and volcano eruptions that have happened in the last couple of years. Any slight movement will cause warming and/or cooling of the planet.

The financial consequences are devastating to the economy and the private citizen,although these government experts don’t care as they still get their paychecks and benefits every 2 weeks. It has been reported that the implementation of AB32 could cost every household anywhere from $4000 to $6400 per year when new “laws” are put in place. The end result would probably be that someone can buy another $10,000,000 house next door to Al Gore.

Another point of discussion regarding AB 32 is that the GOVERNMENT could require that should you want to sell your house it would have to be certified compliant with AB32. The estimated costs for that range as high as $50,000 should the house be older with no current upgrades. There are some that think that this is such a good idea that everyone should have their homes certified every 2 years. Just another new tax and the formation of another layer of governement.

I think everyone needs to care for the environment, as most people do, without BIG BROTHER watching over us for financial gain. It’s all about $$$$$


taxpayer

Cut and paste copyrighted article pretending to be a comment deleted.

Please do not cut and paste other peoples work as comments, excerpt and a link is good, whole thing not ok.

Contact moderator@calcoastnews.com if this is not clear.