The Left demands we stop using coal and oil based energy sources. At the same time the Leftists NIMBY's demand the solar panel farms in the desert be stopped, windmills (the Left calls them bird killers--why does the Left want to protect birds but abort the babies?) be closed and due to the lack of energy, jobs lost to others States and nations.
"In 2002, the legislature passed a bill requiring the investor-owned utilities to produce 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2017. In 2003, the California Energy Commission moved it to 20 percent by 2010.
Two years later they got even more aggressive and came out with a new plan that said it should be 33 percent by 2020. In 2006, the Legislature put the 20 percent by 2010 into law and in 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger waved his mighty pen and signed an Executive Order requiring 33 percent by 2020.
So come January 1, 2011, almost exactly four months from now, the 20 percent by 2010 goal is supposed to have been reached. Unfortunately the utilities are likely to fall short of that goal."
This is the Leftist two step. First pass legislation mandating alternative energy. Then stop the permitting, to allow alternative energy.
"To paraphrase Senator John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential Election campaign, "They were for it before they were against it."
A perfect example of this is unfolding along windy WalkerRidge that encompasses parts of Lake and Colusa counties on BLM land.
The wind on WalkerRidge makes it a prime spot for wind energy development.
In its Resource Management Plan for the area in 2006, the federal BLM identified this site as having the potential for wind power development.
AltaGas, a Canadian company, has been working since early 2008 to get the project permitted and built. They are doing exhaustive studies on environmental issues and are developing mitigation plans to meet concerns.
But as has happened so many times before with other renewable projects in other locales, efforts being undertaken by AltaGas may not be good enough for some in the environmental community."
Why do we listen to the sick Left? We are paying the price in higher energy costs and lower employment rates--we deserve what we get--we voted for the politicians that give this to us.
For years, the California Legislature, Governor Schwarzenegger and environmentalists have been pushing for California's investor-owned utilities to get more of the power they generate and sell to their customers from renewable energy such as wind, solar and biomass.
On paper, the efforts have produced great fanfare in the media but on the ground they are falling short.
In 2002, the legislature passed a bill requiring the investor-owned utilities to produce 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2017. In 2003, the California Energy Commission moved it to 20 percent by 2010.
Two years later they got even more aggressive and came out with a new plan that said it should be 33 percent by 2020. In 2006, the Legislature put the 20 percent by 2010 into law and in 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger waved his mighty pen and signed an Executive Order requiring 33 percent by 2020.
So come January 1, 2011, almost exactly four months from now, the 20 percent by 2010 goal is supposed to have been reached. Unfortunately the utilities are likely to fall short of that goal.
In July, California Energy Commissioner James Boyd told the Los Angeles Times, "I hate to be a naysayer but even though many contracts have been entered, the actual construction and thus the delivery of electricity have lagged."
Part of the problem is the need for new transmission to get the energy from the remote areas where it is produced to the population centers where it is needed. Tight credit market conditions in this uncertain and volatile economy have put a damper on financing some of these projects.
But one of the biggest problems has been in permitting and siting renewable energy as some environmentalists have suddenly discovered their "inner NIMBY" and fought against some of the very projects they have been advocating for lo these many years.
To paraphrase Senator John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential Election campaign, "They were for it before they were against it."
A perfect example of this is unfolding along windy WalkerRidge that encompasses parts of Lake and Colusa counties on BLM land.
The wind on WalkerRidge makes it a prime spot for wind energy development.
In its Resource Management Plan for the area in 2006, the federal BLM identified this site as having the potential for wind power development.
AltaGas, a Canadian company, has been working since early 2008 to get the project permitted and built. They are doing exhaustive studies on environmental issues and are developing mitigation plans to meet concerns.
But as has happened so many times before with other renewable projects in other locales, efforts being undertaken by AltaGas may not be good enough for some in the environmental community.
The local Sierra Club Redwood Chapter and another group, Tuleyome, have voiced their concerns; these concerns could delay or doom this worthwhile project that will meet California's worthwhile goals.
They both say they steadfastly support renewable energy-just not on WalkerRidge. Sierra Club, Redwood Chapter Vice-Chair Victoria Brandon said, "Of course the Sierra Club favors renewable energy in the abstract, but each project has to be assessed individually to see how green power balances against ecological damage."
NIMBYism was never so beautifully and deceptively expressed.
The fact is that wind projects need to be sited where the winds are strong and can produce the maximum megawatts they are capable of, just like solar projects need to be sited where the sun's rays are the most intense like the Mojave Desert. This keeps renewable power prices to California purchasers as low as possible.
Sometimes the debate on siting renewable energy projects reminds me of the arguments for building more prisons. The "lock'em up law and order" groups demand more prisons be built to house the bad guys. But try building one in their community and they use the same NIMBY excuses that environmentalists use over renewable energy projects.
Everyone needs to understand that there is no pristine way to develop renewable energy resources. Even with the mitigation efforts like those that AltaGas is developing, there will be changes to the landscape. There is no other way. But if California wants more renewable energy then it will have to make the hard choices of where to put these new facilities. Environmentalists have been pushing renewable energy for years and they are being confronted with the practical aspects of what they have been preaching. Passing laws is one thing but putting them into practice is quite another.
There is a great disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions and they need to be called on it.
Progress is never easy but if California is ever to meet the ambitious goals that they have set into law, necessary and difficult choices will have to be made.
WalkerRidge is one of those necessary and difficult choices.
The people of California can stop some of the insanity of government in Sacramento.
"A bill that would have effectively ended use of throw-away plastic bags in California grocery stores has gone down to defeat in the state Legislature amid a massive lobbying campaign against it by the chemical industry.
The California Grocers Association is denouncing the failure of the state Senate to pass Assembly Bill 1998, which it terms a historic compromise between business and the environmental community that would have prohibited the distribution of single-use plastic bags at checkout."
The Leftist special interests (The Al Gore Syndrome disease sufferers) are complaining that those who produce the plastic bags fought back. These same Leftists have no problem with unions and ACORN using money and physical bully tactics to win a vote.
Our rights as consumers have been protected--no one forces you to use or take a plastic bag--that is a choice. Democrats do not like free people having a choice. In fact, they do not like free people. This was a minor victory against the totalitarian impulses of the Democrats.
A bill that would have effectively ended use of throw-away plastic bags in California grocery stores has gone down to defeat in the state Legislature amid a massive lobbying campaign against it by the chemical industry.
The California Grocers Association is denouncing the failure of the state Senate to pass Assembly Bill 1998, which it terms a historic compromise between business and the environmental community that would have prohibited the distribution of single-use plastic bags at checkout.
The American Chemistry Council flooded Sacramento television airwaves with commercials ridiculing the bill and the lawmakers attention to it while the state has no budget. But the grocers say the powerful lobby did more than that.
Its clear that the Senate felt pressure by the American Chemistry Councils hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions; misinformation campaign and radio, television, and print ads designed to kill this historic compromise, says Ronald Fong, president of the California Grocers Association.
But if its true that campaign contributions buy votes, then California lawmakers come cheap. According to the nonpartisan MAPLight.org, the American Chemistry Council shelled out just $23,600 to nine Assembly members and seven state senators in the election cycles of 2008 and 2010.
MAPlights figures are only through March 17, however.
For its part, the chemical company lobby argues that the bill would have eliminated several hundred California manufacturing jobs and dismantles the existing plastic bag recycling programs.
Enhanced recycling programs are a more effective solution to reducing bag litter and increasing proper disposal, the chemical lobby says.
The ACC is the same chemical conglomerate that has fought every reasonable effort to prevent and rid our neighborhoods and waterways from plastic pollution. The ACC has a history of big spending in pursuit of stopping bag bans, say the grocers.
AB 1998 would have created a statewide standard that would have treated all stores equally. Currently 75 municipalities around the state are considering local ordinances that will ban plastic bags and place fees of 25 cents or more on paper bags.
California has laws and Arnold has mandated--no coal caused energy is to be brought into California. This is part of the reason the cost of energy has been going up for Californians--as we use more "green" energy and less coal, prices go up.
How is that really working? British Columbia is our main source of energy from outside the State.
"The irony gets even deeper, though. British Columbia, perhaps due to Premier Campbells business-friendly tax and regulatory policies, is growing. That, combined with a severe drought (yes, when California gets a good water year, British Columbia often sees a drought) means that BC Hydro will be importing $220 million more electricity than it did last year. You read it correctly, hydro energy colossus British Columbia will be importing almost a quarter billion dollars more electricity this year than last. In fact, BC Hydro has imported more energy than it has exported in 10 out of 11 years. And, from where does this energy come? WashingtonState and AlbertaCanada. And, what is the source of this electricity? Brace yourself. Coal and gas-fired plants.....
Electrons in a grid, like dollars in an account, are fungible, meaning that clean green electrons cannot be separated from dirty coal electrons and both are mixed in with electrons from nuclear power plants. So, when the Premier of British Columbia comes to California to urge us to continue to make our state even more dependent on his province for electricity as we strive to make the planet better we shouldn't fool ourselves. The fact is, BC Hydro is buying dirty power and then, in an act I'll dub electron laundering is repackaging it for the silly, naive, environmental-minded Californians as pristine green hydro powerwith a nice mark up, of course (Canadians have to pay for their national healthcare after all).
We are buying, at a higher price, coal created energy. We do not deserve to be ripped off--Arnold and the Democrats need to pay us back for this fraud. It makes them feel good and it makes us poorer.
Total scam, created by radical politicians and an ego driven amateur.
California and the International Green Energy Racket
Last week, the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, paid a visit to the California State Legislature. He spoke at length about his provinces green energy partnership with California in supplying California with electricity while helping the state meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals.
I listened to the leader of the Western Canadian province of 4.4 million people and I found myself asking, What is he selling? So, I decided to follow the money. What follows is a summary of an international green energy scam that costs California taxpayers millions while robbing California of jobs due to higher electricity costs and electricity imports.
The Scam
Decades ago, the West Coast began exchanging electricity. During the summer, when air conditioning use spiked in California, WashingtonState and British Columbia would ship hydropower down to the GoldenState. Later in the year, during California’s mild winters, when rivers levels were low in the Northwest, California would return the favor. The power exchange worked well for everyone.
During California’s 2000-2001 energy crisis, our northern neighbors took Enron-like advantage of us. BC Hydro, a state-owned utility, through its marketing and trading subsidiary, Powerex, aided in the rampant market manipulation that ended up costing California consumers millions. Bill Lockyer, then California Attorney General, sued. In March 2005, Powerex settled and refunded a fraction of the profits they made at the expense of California ratepayers.
The current version of this energy scam is breathtaking in its scope. Further, the victim, California, actually knows most of what’s going on and either doesn’t care or doesn’t want to know the messy details.
California has become Americas largest electricity importer. With 37 million people producing about 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, California imports about 23 percent of its electricity. This situation is compounded by the states environmental laws which, if a power plant can be built at all, typically consume seven years for permitting and construction vs. three years in competing Texas.
Complicating matters are a trio of California energy policy laws passed in 2006: AB 32, SB 1368, and SB 107. AB 32 mandates a 30 percent reduction in California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (BC Premier Campbell was particularly enthusiastic about this law). SB 1368 outlaws the renewal of coal-fired electricity contracts imported coal energy powered about 16 percent of Californias grid in 2008. While SB 107 accelerated the requirement that California derive 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources this year, renewable being defined as small hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, and biomass (we missed the target, meaning utilities, read ratepayers, get dinged).
Enter government-owned BC Hydro and its Powerex subsidiary. With abundant hydro power potential, British Columbia is seeking to become the Saudi Arabia of green energy. California environmentalists don’t see the irony in British Columbia damming rivers to provide power to California, while in California, environmentalists fight to demolish dams as unsightly threats to salmon.
The irony gets even deeper, though. British Columbia, perhaps due to Premier Campbells business-friendly tax and regulatory policies, is growing. That, combined with a severe drought (yes, when California gets a good water year, British Columbia often sees a drought) means that BC Hydro will be importing $220 million more electricity than it did last year. You read it correctly, hydro energy colossus British Columbia will be importing almost a quarter billion dollars more electricity this year than last. In fact, BC Hydro has imported more energy than it has exported in 10 out of 11 years. And, from where does this energy come? WashingtonState and AlbertaCanada. And, what is the source of this electricity? Brace yourself. Coal and gas-fired plants.
Electrons in a grid, like dollars in an account, are fungible, meaning that clean green electrons cannot be separated from dirty coal electrons and both are mixed in with electrons from nuclear power plants. So, when the Premier of British Columbia comes to California to urge us to continue to make our state even more dependent on his province for electricity as we strive to make the planet better we shouldn't fool ourselves. The fact is, BC Hydro is buying dirty power and then, in an act Ill dub electron laundering is repackaging it for the silly, naive, environmental-minded Californians as pristine green hydro power with a nice mark up, of course (Canadians have to pay for their national healthcare after all).
If Canadian reselling of coal power to California wasn't enough of an insult to common sense and the environment, then heres one more. Many British Columbians oppose their governments push to make their province an energy colony of California by submerging more tree-lined river valleys. From a greenhouse gas perspective, they’re probably right. Some studies suggest that hydro electric dams built in forested valleys aren't a great way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is because the dams drown carbon-impounding trees, which, in turn, rot when they are submerged, releasing large amounts of methane, a gas that is 80 times stronger than carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect.
The Solution
Rather than practice electrical grid colonialism, simply importing power while sending jobs and emissions elsewhere, Californians need to get serious about generating more of their own affordable and reliable power. In many places around the world, this means modern nuclear power. California needs to lift the state moratorium on building new nuclear power plants signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 1976.
dhg2
1
I can't decide who is dumber. The governor Girly Man or the Community Organizer. Unfortunately, I live in California so I get screwed by two incompetent.
What is SB 375 by Steinberg and supported by Arnold about?
"Walkable communities, improved air quality, reduced emissions, less time spent in a car and a strong economy can all become reality through sustainable development, and I look forward to seeing how these projects develop, she says.
The designated projects must remove barriers to development, demonstrate a high level of transferability, promote effective jobs and housing relationships, enhance multimodal transportation options, integrate sustainability and economic development plans, demonstrate significant resource, economic, and environmental benefits, and provide opportunities for community engagement and cross-sector collaboration."
This is the companion to AB 32, supported by folks who claimed to be "conservative" like Guy Houston. AB 32 and SB 375 is killing jobs and revenues and Houston continues to be proud of his vote for SB 375.
This means that the STATE will decide if you can build a home, SELL a home, build on private property based on location of government transportation (not close enough, you will not be allowed to build). Want to sell your house? In the future as the SB 375 regulations come into full blown form, you will have to have solar panels, the "right" windows, composting availability and much more.
May help implement SB 375 for the rest of California
The California Department of Housing and Community Development says two Central Valley communities have been named Catalyst Projects as part of the Catalyst Projects for California Sustainable Strategies Pilot Program.
Funded by Proposition 1C, the program embodies the goals of SB 375, the state law that requires regional planning and promotes denser and greener urban growth.
At least one Catalyst Projects was designated in each of the four major Metropolitan Planning Agency regions to support the regions efforts to develop the sustainable strategies required by SB 375.
This pilot program will provide valuable insights to allow the state to implement best practices and strategies as we move forward with our sustainable development goals in California, says Lynn Jacobs, director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Walkable communities, improved air quality, reduced emissions, less time spent in a car and a strong economy can all become reality through sustainable development, and I look forward to seeing how these projects develop, she says.
The designated projects must remove barriers to development, demonstrate a high level of transferability, promote effective jobs and housing relationships, enhance multimodal transportation options, integrate sustainability and economic development plans, demonstrate significant resource, economic, and environmental benefits, and provide opportunities for community engagement and cross-sector collaboration.
The projects will be required to collect data and measure the effectiveness of their sustainable community strategies and develop and outline of how strategies and tools can be used across the state.
The city of Sacramento’s Township Nine and ChicosMeriamPark are the Central Valley projects getting the nod.
California Air Resources Board is caught using false theories to kill jobs and economy.
"While those of us at the California Ethanol Vehicle Coalition appreciate that CARB is convening this group in order to better refine its regulations, we still feel that it is clinging too closely to discredited ILUC theories. According to the bizarre ILUC theory, corn used for ethanol follows a hypothetical chain of events that ultimately ends in Amazonian deforestation. Because it is indirect it cant be tracked, so CARB uses an economic model to hold American biofuel producers responsible for carbon emissions they have no control over the carbon emitted from a Brazilian farmer clearing a rainforest. Under these flawed calculations, corn ethanol has a carbon score similar to gasoline and would be shut out of California."
The bottom-line is that government is the cause of misuse of resources, finances and labor. The Free Market will solve the problem--the government will continue the problem, just to show why it is "needed".
We have had a Department of Energy since the mid-1970's that has not produce any energy--we import more oil than we did 35 years ago. CARB has killed as many jobs as NAFTA.
Get government out of the way and the people will have better and cheaper energy.
This week, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) convened a group of experts to discuss issues related to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that was approved last year. The Expert Working Group has been working to examine the gaps in the original research produced by CARB staff which was used as the basis for fuel regulation, including the highly disputed indirect land use change (ILUC) theory which threatens the future of biofuels in California and across the country. The group has been meeting every few weeks over the course of this year and will provide regulatory amendments to CARB in September.
While those of us at the California Ethanol Vehicle Coalition appreciate that CARB is convening this group in order to better refine its regulations, we still feel that it is clinging too closely to discredited ILUC theories. According to the bizarre ILUC theory, corn used for ethanol follows a hypothetical chain of events that ultimately ends in Amazonian deforestation. Because it is indirect it cant be tracked, so CARB uses an economic model to hold American biofuel producers responsible for carbon emissions they have no control over the carbon emitted from a Brazilian farmer clearing a rainforest. Under these flawed calculations, corn ethanol has a carbon score similar to gasoline and would be shut out of California.
There is now new scientific evidence that undermines the entire concept of ILUC theory. Although CARB was warned about this prior to adopting the LCFS, it moved forward with approving the regulation anyway. Even worse, CARB now has been presented with new data showing far less indirect effects than their estimate by PurdueUniversity's Dr. Wally Tyner the same researcher that developed the original model adopted by CARB yet has failed to move forward in adopting it. This new modeling raises the question of whether CARB should revisit ILUC penalties on grain ethanol. This is something we urge them to do today. Why would we not use the best science available in determining our fuel regulations?
Today's grain ethanol fuel is a finely-developed, low-carbon alternative to oil. A recent peer-reviewed study published in Yales Journal of Industrial Ecology found that grain ethanol is 59 percent cleaner than conventional gasoline. With such a significant reduction in greenhouse gasses, there is no doubt that grain ethanol is a low-carbon fuel. Additionally, the production of grain ethanol is becoming cleaner and more efficient. Our nations ethanol makers are constantly driving the development of new bio-refinery technology, whether it is the recycling of energy in ethanol plants, or reducing water u se in plants. They are also working to create second-generation ethanol, like cellulosic, a product even cleaner and more efficient than grain ethanol. It would be silly to put this practical technology at a competitive disadvantage because of CARBs insistence on using discredited science.
We encourage CARB to work with the ethanol industry to allocate resources for a thorough research deployment plan that is capable of looking at the ILUC theory from all angles, across all fuel types, in as transparent a way as possible. Applying controversial indirect penalties against ethanol, and not other fuels including fossil fuels - puts our only commercially-viable alternative to oil at a disadvantage, and places additional obstacles in our nations path to carbon neutrality and fuel independence.
The stakes of this policy are too high to not get it right the first time around. CARB can and should do the right thing here and take the time needed to review this new research before moving forward with the LCFS. This is too important a regulation to get wrong we hope they make the right decision.
dhg2
1
I believe all those folks from CARB come out of the same Al Gore "I know what is right and I don't have to show any stinking date to prove it" school of science. They do have tons of data that has been butchered to prove it. Working backwards from their idiology to their data to their conclusions.
Government, at its very nature, is corruption on steroids.
"A 34-year environmental health sciences professor at UCLA appears to be on the chopping block and headed for the unemployment line for speaking out against diesel vehicle regulations, according to Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda. But that is not where it will end if Logue gets his way.
In a CalWatchdog exclusive, Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, shared a letter he authored, signed by 25 other state legislators, addressed to University of California chancellor Gene Block and Vice Chancellor Scott Waugh, stating that legislators believe Dr. James Enstrom is being terminated on August 30, for his outspoken opposition to AB 32, California’s global warming initiative."
Worse then telling the scientific truth, he outed a corrupt "scientist" who help[ lead the phony global warming study.
"Logue said that Enstrom is also being terminated because of his discovery in 2009 of former CARB employee Hien Tran, who had falsified academic credentials, but was still allowed to write the health report that determined that CARB would forge ahead with drastic diesel regulations in the state."
I have an idea--fire the California Air Resources Board staff--all of them. Put Dr. Enstrom in charge and let him find honest scientists, instead of the politicians wanting jobs on the CARB staff?
A 34-year environmental health sciences professor at UCLA appears to be on the chopping block and headed for the unemployment line for speaking out against diesel vehicle regulations, according to Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda. But that is not where it will end if Logue gets his way.
In a CalWatchdog exclusive, Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, shared a letter he authored, signed by 25 other state legislators, addressed to University of California chancellor Gene Block and Vice Chancellor Scott Waugh, stating that legislators believe Dr. James Enstrom is being terminated on August 30, for his outspoken opposition to AB 32, Californias global warming initiative.
Logue said that Enstrom is also being terminated because of his discovery in 2009 of former CARB employee Hien Tran, who had falsified academic credentials, but was still allowed to write the health report that determined that CARB would forge ahead with drastic diesel regulations in the state.
Logues letter states that Enstrom is being terminated in order to silence scientific views on the health effects of fine particulate air pollution. In particular, we are concerned that he is being deprived of his academic freedom as a UCLA faculty member to speak out against draconian diesel regulations approved by the California Air Resources Board in 2007 and 2008.
The legislators ask the UCLA Chancellors in the letter for assurances that proper procedures have been followed by UCLA regarding Enstroms dismissal. They request that Enstrom be allowed to retain his current faculty position until his appeal has been fully evaluated.
In what turned out to be a mail order Ph.D., CARB employee Hien T. Tran was found to have lied about having a Ph.D. in statistics from University of California, Davis. But even with full knowledge of Trans phony credentials, in December 2008, CARB went ahead with the diesel emissions rules based on Trans report.
Logues letter identifies columnist Lois Henry as the source of Enstroms termination information only last weekend.
In the The Bakersfield Californian Saturday, Henry wrote, Now, despite his 34 years as a researcher at UCLA, hes being dumped by a secret vote of the faculty in the Environmental Health Sciences Department. According to Henry, the official reason for not reappointing him stated, Your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department. A July 29 letter notified Enstrom that his appeal of an earlier dismissal letter had been denied and his last day would be Aug. 30.
Henry wrote, The guy whos getting sacked, James Enstrom, was one of only a few scientists willing to stick his neck out and blow the whistle on an outright fraud and coverup at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) over regulations that will squeeze every wallet in this state once they’re implemented.
Enstrom has been relentless, if not successful, in his efforts to get the air board to acknowledge that the science on the health effects of air pollution is not closed. Moreover, he has demanded that the process of science-based regulation be honest, open and fair.
Logue agrees. As author of Proposition 23, the ballot initiative that would suspend Californias global warming legislation AB 32 from further implementation, Logue is going to put pressure on UCLA. If Dr. Enstrom is dismissed before his appeal has been fully evaluated, We plan to hold a hearing in Sacramento on this matter, wrote Logue. In particular, we will allow Dr. Enstrom and others the opportunity to present evidence regarding academic freedom and scientific integrity at UCLA, particularly regarding the circumstances surrounding his dismissal.
Want to bankrupt a home or business owner? Let government create silly regulations that cost a bundle and do no good.
"The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board has taken a monumental step backwards in their efforts to control pollution from rain water in VenturaCounty. Using a public policy strategy discarded by other public agencies decades ago, the Water Board has opted for a program that will require virtually every new property owner to become responsible for large pollution pits that will be constructed in the yards of every new home. We cannot afford to have this policy extend to Los AngelesCounty when they renew our Storm Sewer Permit next year."
Thanks to government, is you own a home you will be forced to put a poison pit in your backyard, no kidding.
"By adopting a policy that requires that all rain water be captured by all new development and that it be done on each parcel, rather that at larger regional facilities, we can expect to see every new home constructed with a pit at least six feet square and six feet deep. That is the size necessary to capture the expected rain water from a typical storm in VenturaCounty. Commercial projects will require even larger pits. A ten acre site will require a hole the size of an Olympic swimming pool.
Every storm will send soil, leaves, fertilizer, weed killer, doggie droppings, trash, copper from vehicle brake linings, bacteria and other debris into this six foot deep cavern in everyone’s driveway. The environmentalists applaud this solution by insisting that this rain water will infiltrate into the ground and recharge the groundwater aquifer. That assumes of course that the homeowner keeps the pit clean at all times and the water is not leaching through a poison soup of pollution collected from storms over a period of several years."
Who thought that government will demand you have a poison pit in your backyard. This is for new homes--but in a while old homes will be forced to do the same.
Poison anyone?This will come to your county, soon.
By Mike Lewis, San Gabriel Valley Business Journal, 7/20/10
Thousands of Poison Puddles Coming Soon to Ventura County And Maybe Los Angeles County as Well
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board has taken a monumental step backwards in their efforts to control pollution from rain water in Ventura County. Using a public policy strategy discarded by other public agencies decades ago, the Water Board has opted for a program that will require virtually every new property owner to become responsible for large pollution pits that will be constructed in the yards of every new home. We cannot afford to have this policy extend to Los AngelesCounty when they renew our Storm Sewer Permit next year.
We know from past experience that expecting homeowners to properly operate and maintain backyard incinerators and septic tanks, only leads to bigger environmental problems that ultimately require the development of a regional collection and treatment system. Why the Water Board would pursue a 1950s failed policy speaks to how little thought they have given to the long-term consequences of their decision.
By adopting a policy that requires that all rain water be captured by all new development and that it be done on each parcel, rather that at larger regional facilities, we can expect to see every new home constructed with a pit at least six feet square and six feet deep. That is the size necessary to capture the expected rain water from a typical storm in VenturaCounty. Commercial projects will require even larger pits. A ten acre site will require a hole the size of an Olympic swimming pool.
Every storm will send soil, leaves, fertilizer, weed killer, doggie droppings, trash, copper from vehicle brake linings, bacteria and other debris into this six foot deep cavern in everyones driveway. The environmentalists applaud this solution by insisting that this rain water will infiltrate into the ground and recharge the groundwater aquifer. That assumes of course that the homeowner keeps the pit clean at all times and the water is not leaching through a poison soup of pollution collected from storms over a period of several years.
Since there is no easy way to dispose of this hazardous material, one can expect that most homeowners will let the pit fill to the top or hope they sell the house before they have to deal with it. The consequence is a legacy of poison puddles scattered throughout the county, and growing in number with each new development. It will probably be too late before anyone realizes that the threat of those poison puddles to the purity of the groundwater is real and urgent.
The taxpayers have already invested billions of dollars in an extensive flood control system to convey rain water safely away from development. It would make much more sense to modify that system to divert the rain water carrying this pollution to areas where it can be retained and treated on a regional scale or within the local watershed, and the resulting hazardous debris disposed of properly.
The Water Boards parcel-by-parcel solution is doomed to fail just like those incinerators and septic tanks did. We can only hope that this approach isn’t extended to other areas of the state and that the policy makers come to their senses before they set-back our rain-water pollution control efforts another 20 years. Then we can chalk up VenturaCounty as just another failed pilot project.
Do you want to live in a population dense community, like New York?
Want to be forced to use government transportation to go to work, visit relatives, go to the mountains or the beach? SB 375 will give this to you.
SB 375, passed in 2008 was the companion to AB 32, passed in 2006. What will it do?
"California may take on a mass transit-centric, almost European, look in the future, now that the California Air Resources Board is about to adopt recommendations in SB 375, a 2008 law that dramatically reshapes how land use decisions are made.
CARB’s staff has issued a report that proposes targets to “guide” planning that will be more regional in nature and centered around mixed use developments along rail or express bus corridors.
It’s the first major milestone in implementing SB 375, authored by state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento and signed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Worse, Sacramento will starve the communities that did not meet the artificial goals. "Once the targets are finalized, cities within each planning region will be required to work together with their regional planning agency on developing a so-called “Sustainable Community Strategy” that outlines where growth and development will occur, and how the transportation system can support that growth, so that the region’s pollution reduction targets can be achieved. Cities and municipalities retain full local decision making and zoning authority, CARB says.
Regions that meet the targets will receive incentives in the form of easier access to federal funding and streamlined environmental review for development projects."
After all these words, what does it mean? ALL zoning decisions will have to go through the State of California NOT your city council. Build a housing project and the State will make the final decision.
Even worse, the people in Sacramento making the zoning decision in Chico or Tustin will be unelected folks--bureaucrats. Doesn’t this sound like a totalitarian State?
California may take on a mass transit-centric, almost European, look in the future, now that the California Air Resources Board is about to adopt recommendations in SB 375, a 2008 law that dramatically reshapes how land use decisions are made.
CARB’s staff has issued a report that proposes targets to “guide” planning that will be more regional in nature and centered around mixed use developments along rail or express bus corridors.
It’s the first major milestone in implementing SB 375, authored by state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento and signed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
CARB’s staff proposes targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 and 2035 associated with passenger vehicle travel in the state’s 18 “Metropolitan Planning Organizations,” including the four largest: Souachthern California, San Diego, the Bay Area, and the Sacramento region.
The Air Resources Board is expected to adopt the recommendations at its September board hearing.
The state says it wants Californians to live closer to one another and give up their cars to a greater extent. The mixed use developments, in theory, would put housing units close to employment and retail. Denizens would walk, bike or take mass transit to and from work, school and retail and recreation activities.
The CARB staff’s announcement includes a recommendation that the Sacramento region should reduce emissions related to transportation and growth by 16 percent by the year 2035.
The eight planning organizations that cover the San Joaquin Valley have a target of a 5 percent reduction in per capita emissions by 2020, and a 10 percent reduction by 2035.
Once the targets are finalized, cities within each planning region will be required to work together with their regional planning agency on developing a so-called “Sustainable Community Strategy” that outlines where growth and development will occur, and how the transportation system can support that growth, so that the region’s pollution reduction targets can be achieved. Cities and municipalities retain full local decision making and zoning authority, CARB says.
Regions that meet the targets will receive incentives in the form of easier access to federal funding and streamlined environmental review for development projects.
“SB 375 is an incredible opportunity to reverse skyrocketing trends in chronic illnesses and obesity and tackle a root cause of California’s worst-in-the-nation air pollution,” says Bonnie Holmes-Gen, senior policy director,?American Lung Association of California.
ONTIME, Greci girl
2
The first three things to remedy this upcoming situation is to eliminate some of the problem.
1) The RINO Ahhhhhnold needs to fade away.
2) The Deemer Steinberg needs to go, quickly.
3) CARB is a wasted money grubbing outfit that works on
political favor and has made more errors than the MLB
players combined.
This is obviously another long run drama developed by idiots delight composed mostly of Deemers and suck butts to siphon off tax money that cannot be found, it designed to run in tandem with the great water grab to keep attention diverted while other deceptive political schemes take place...Be alert tax payers and voters, the money they want is from your pocket.
This is all part of the United Nations plan, Agenda 21. Look it up on the net under Agenda 21, chapter 5. The above is all about "transitional towns" of "sustainable towns". Run for you life when you see the term, sustainable!!
Agriculture is a major part of the California economy, but you would not know it from the policies of Arnold, the Legislature or the Judges ruling the State.
"California's specialty crop industries largely fruits and vegetables add up to some $15.9 billion annually, or $43.5 million each day of the year, in so-called "ripple effect" business activity as a result of collective industry spending, according to new research paid for by the industries marketing arm, the Buy California Marketing Agreement, which runs the "California Grown" program.
It does not include figures from the states tree nut industry, where California dominates the nation in production of almonds and walnuts."
At the same time the Administration is putting in affect regulations on run off water that will either close down farms or cost a mint. Arnold has pushed AB 32 and SB 375, which forces farmers to buy new equipment that meets the artificial standards of those suffering from the deadly disease AGS (Al Gore Syndrome)--while good equipment is being used, government is forcing farmers to buy new equipment--though they do not have the money to pay for it.
It seems like the State and Arnold want only one crop in California and that is marijuana. When will government protect farmers and stop killing the State?
California's specialty crops touch every aspect of California life
California's specialty crop industries largely fruits and vegetables add up to some $15.9 billion annually, or $43.5 million each day of the year, in so-called "ripple effect" business activity as a result of collective industry spending, according to new research paid for by the industrys marketing arm, the Buy California Marketing Agreement, which runs the "California Grown" program.
It does not include figures from the states tree nut industry, where California dominates the nation in production of almonds and walnuts.
"The research clearly indicates that California's specialty crops touch every aspect of California life and positively impact the economic vitality of our state," says Maile Shanahan Geis, BCMA executive director in written comments Monday.
The "California Grown" campaign is an initiative to convince Californians to buy California-grown products.
The study examined the financial impact of 15 California specialty crops including the dairy and wine sectors, as well as asparagus, avocados, cherries, cut flowers, figs, kiwifruit, nectarines, olives, peaches, pears, plums, raisins and table grapes.
The study, conducted by Dennis Tootelian, director of the Center for Small Business at CaliforniaStateUniversity, Sacramento, indicates the expenditures by the state's specialty crop growers create a ripple effect spurring the growth of more than 137,435 jobs.
When it comes to labor income, more than $5.2 billion is generated as a result of industry spending, the study claims. Additionally, nearly $567.7 million in indirect business taxes, such as property taxes, excise taxes, fees, licenses and sales taxes, not including income taxes, are generated by these specialty crop industries.
"The goal of the study was to demonstrate the overall impact of the specialty crop industry under the 'Californian Grown' umbrella and its ability to generate business activity, employment, personal income and taxes for other industries and the state overall," says Mr. Tootelian. "Even though we took a conservative approach to measuring the data, the results showed a very sizeable impact to the financial health of California."
Methodology
The report is based on averages during a three year time span from 2005-2007. Because agricultural revenues and expenditures can fluctuate significantly from year-to-year depending on climate, pest, market and other conditions, an "average year" was created based on historical and industry operating statistics.
The study used industry statistics, facilitating grower surveys and interviews and analyzing the data through the IMPLAN model, which examines economic relationships between businesses and between businesses and consumers. This impact analysis then measures changes in economic variables on an entire economy.
Data provided through IMPLAN mainly comes from federal government sources. These include the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Cash income by commodity groups for 2005-2007 was obtained from the Agriculture Statistical Review, published in the California Agricultural Resource Directory 2008-2009.
It looks like San Diego is the first place in California to use "recycled" water as regular tap water.
"San Diego could become the first California city to use treated wastewater to augment its reservoirs after the City Council voted 6-2 in favor of a contract for a demonstration project last Tuesday.
The $6.6 million contract with Camp Dresser McKee includes the design, installation, testing and operation of a demonstration-scale Advanced Water Purification Facility at the North City Water Reclamation Plant.
San Diego currently imports over 80 percent of its water from sources that are steadily declining, such as the Colorado River and San Joaquin Delta. Proponents see this process, called indirect potable reuse (IPR), as a possible solution for San Diego's water problems."
Of course, if judges had not stopped the full use of delta water, along with other sources, we would not have to use toilet water for drinking.
And, we would save hundreds of millions of dollars! This is part of the affect of out of control judges--toilet water from the tap.
San Diego could become the first California city to use treated wastewater to augment its reservoirs after the City Council voted 6-2 in favor of a contract for a demonstration project last Tuesday.
The $6.6 million contract with Camp Dresser McKee includes the design, installation, testing and operation of a demonstration-scale Advanced Water Purification Facility at the North City Water Reclamation Plant.
San Diego currently imports over 80 percent of its water from sources that are steadily declining, such as the Colorado River and San Joaquin Delta. Proponents see this process, called indirect potable reuse (IPR), as a possible solution for San Diego's water problems.
"The more that we can develop local supplies, the more reliability we will have here in San Diego," said Toby Roy, a water resources manager with the San Diego County Water Authority who has been involved in the city's IPR effort.
The water recycling system has been supported by the IPR Coalition, an alliance of San Diego environmental, business, labor, economic growth, technical and ratepayer advocates. A press release from San Diego Coastkeeper, a member of the IPR Coaltion, stated that IPR could provide "a safe, reliable, drought-proof and cost effective supply of local water that will help reduce San Diegos reliance on imported drinking water while improving the environment by decreasing sewage discharges to the ocean."
Roy explained that the city of San Diego and other agencies currently treat water to tertiary levels, meaning it is put through filters and can then be used for irrigation. At the Advanced Water Purification Facility, instead of being used for irrigation at this stage, some of the water will be put through further treatments, which will include membrane filtration, reverse osmosis and disinfection. From here it will go to a reservoir before being put through a drinking water treatment plant.
"It gets multiple levels of treatment and by the time it gets put in the reservoir, any elements of wastewater have been removed from the water so you have a fairly pure water going into your raw water supply," Roy explained.
A similar process is used to augment water supplies in OrangeCounty. The only difference being the water in OrangeCounty is put in the ground and in San Diego it will go to a reservoir.
OrangeCounty has been safely reclaiming 70 MGD of wastewater to augment its water supplies through groundwater injection for several years, Coastkeepers Executive Director Bruce Reznik said. He added, The AWP (Advanced Water Purification) will bring San Diego one step closer to following their lead and realizing our goal of water independence.
Coastkeeper notes that Virginia has been safely augmenting their reservoirs since 1978.
So why hasn't San Diego been doing this all along? Roy suggested public perception. "In San Diego the public hadn't really accepted it," she said.
Advocates of the IPR hope this pilot facility will continue to change that. The plan is to run a pilot facility at the North City Plant that uses the advanced treatment technologies. This pilot will then be used to get approval for the project from the California Department of Public Health other agencies.
The project has been a couple years in the making, as the City Council voted to proceed with the project in October of 2007 and approved a rate increase to fund the project in November 2008. This put the budget for the project at just over $11.8 million, according to the City Council agenda.
The AWP is just the first step in pursuing water reclamation in the region, said Reznik. We must stay engaged in monitoring the demonstration project and, if the AWP proves successful, advocating for full-scale implementation if we are to achieve the goal of water security for San Diego.
Foglifter
1
It's about time SoCal woke up and realized the water bonanza is over. NorCal needs it's own. Bravo for reuse and desal. It's inevitable. The planet is dying and we can't continue to attempt solving it by stealing resources from our neighbors. There will be nothing left.
California farms are closing. The construction of new industries is on hold due to lack of water. Now we have the final straw.
"The Boards action acknowledges that diverting 50 percent of the Delta's freshwater flow is not sustainable, and that substantially more water is needed to maintain the health of the Delta estuary," says Cynthia Koehler, California water legislative director at the Environmental Defense Fund. "After surveying 30 years of science, the Board concluded the health of the Bay-Delta Estuary depends upon how much water is being left in the system."
A 50% cut in water supply from the delta is NOT ENOUGH? Our government has determined that more must be sustained.
This is a source of water for 23 million Californians. Cut the water, you cut the ability to farm, create jobs.
Years ago my Assemblyman was Bob Cline. While he was raised in San Francisco, he moved to the San Fernando Valley. He taught me a major lesson of California politics and the economy.
He told me, "Control the water and you control the economy".
Want to know why California will stay in a Depression for a generation? We have high taxes, AB 32, unions and other special interests and the final bullet to kill us off--government cutting us off from water.
Buy that bottle of Arrowhead water while you can. Eat that California corn, now. Get the number for U-Haul and make your reservation.
• State Water Board votes to uphold staff report based on scientific findings
• Could lead to statewide water conservation
Californians may be asked to conserve water more assiduously than ever, following a decision Tuesday by the state Water Resources Control Board.
That decision was to adopt a staff report that says too much water is being pumped out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for it to survive.
"The Board’s action acknowledges that diverting 50 percent of the Delta's freshwater flow is not sustainable, and that substantially more water is needed to maintain the health of the Delta estuary," says Cynthia Koehler, California water legislative director at the Environmental Defense Fund. "After surveying 30 years of science, the Board concluded the health of the Bay-Delta Estuary depends upon how much water is being left in the system."
But the vote is not the final chapter to the decades-long dispute over who gets how much water from the Delta.
Further policy decisions will be needed for the Board's flow criteria adopted in Tuesday’s vote to become the foundation for ongoing water policy planning in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and in the Delta Stewardship Council's Delta Plan.
The Delta is the largest estuary on the west coast of the Western Hemisphere and is the major source of fresh water for 23 million Californians plus some 750 different kinds of fish, birds and other wildlife that live in or spawn in the Delta.
Charles Benninghoff, GvO, Perchance, …
11
This, if carried out, will devastate California's economy.
The worst hit of all will be the Democratic base constituency - Hispanic laborers. Is that fitting? I think so.
It was just such a ploy that drove blacks to the Democratic party - JFK obtaining release for MLK.
Are there any conservative heroes out there who can release the water?
If you were to go back 100 years, before dams were built on the rivers that ultimately feed the delta, you would see very low fresh water flow during the summer and fall until the rainy season starts up again. I'm sure that there was significant salt water intrusion into the delta during that part of the year. Fish and other wildlife adapted and migrated on an annual cycle. What we have now is artificial and not the natural condition. Preserving this man-made environment based on wildlife considerations is silly at best.
Not sure, GvO, if you have a suggestion on how to approach
this water-problem situation in CA. Please explain.
Are "wildlife considerations" not in your solution?
California levees are already weakened. In 2006 we passed $10 billion in bonds, in part, to protect the levees and assure they would not fail.
Now the Feds are willing to strengthen the levees. But, environmentalists believe there is a possibility of harming some fish, birds and habitat if we protect the levees.
"The Center for Biological Diversity has begun the process of suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over a new policy that strips levees of vegetation.
The Corp says trees and bushes weaken the levees. Much of the Central Valley, including urban areas in Sacramento and Stockton are protected from flooding by a network of levees.
But the center says the trees and shrubs provide important habitat for imperiled fish, birds and other species in California."
Here is the issue--cut the trees and save farms and homes, maybe even lives. Don't cut the trees, you lose farms, homes and lives--then we will need billions, like New Orleans, to fix the damage.
The Feds want to protect us from being another New Orleans--the radicals would love it. Why, so they can say that we should never have farms or homes near a levee. In other words, they want tens of billions in private property to be destroyed and harm real people.
These folks who are suing need to take a mediation to gain common sense and respect for people. What do you think?
• Contends stripping trees destroys endangered species habitat
• ‘There’s little proof that trees threaten levees in California’
The Center for Biological Diversity has begun the process of suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over a new policy that strips levees of vegetation.
The Corp says trees and bushes weaken the levees. Much of the Central Valley, including urban areas in Sacramento and Stockton are protected from flooding by a network of levees.
But the center says the trees and shrubs provide important habitat for imperiled fish, birds and other species in California.
“Levee safety can be achieved without a scorched-earth policy that will destroy habitat for struggling species like salmon, steelhead trout, and willow flycatchers,” says Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Corps has failed to consult with federal wildlife agencies about the impacts of vegetation-free zones on California’s endangered species. It’s left too little time for levee operators to get new variances.”
After Hurricane Katrina, the Corps made major changes to its nationwide levee policies, including new standards in 2009 banning vegetation on or within 15 feet of levees. Earlier this year, the agency adopted a variance policy requiring trees and bushes to be removed by Sept. 30 unless a new variance was granted, forcing levee owners and operators to scramble to meet the deadline.
Although the Corps has extended the deadline by an additional year in parts of the Central Valley, the policy could affect many other levees throughout the state, the Center says.
The Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, giant garter snake, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher and Valley elderberry longhorn beetle are among the creatures depending on levee vegetation, the Center says. In many Southern California coastal streams, least vireos and flycatchers nest in riparian vegetation; longhorn beetles inhabit elderberry trees along Central Valley levees. Salmon and steelhead populations could suffer from clearing that reduces vegetation and shade along waterways that are confined within levees, it is argued.
“There’s little proof that trees threaten levees in California. In fact, research shows that trees can strengthen levees, and a scientific review by the Corps last year determined that some vegetation may help stabilize them,” says Mr. Miller. “The Corps’ own documents admit that removing vegetation may harm endangered species habitats, but instead of undertaking the necessary consultation with wildlife agencies, the Corps has tried to push that off onto local levee owners.”
Thanks to AB 32, our ports have used about $1 billion in transportation bond money to force new trucks on corporations and independent truckers to lose their trucks and forced to pay bribes to drive for union companies. Now the Feds want to make it worse.
"But the American Trucking Association and the Clean and Sustainable Transportation Coalition an association of more than 35 trade associations are opposed.
We support the current law that is in place right now, said Brandon Borgna, spokesman for the trucking association. We dont see a reason to change the Federal Motor Carriers Act to make environmental progress, because the ports have already shown they can do that without new legislation.
Indeed, since the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach instituted their landmark Clean Truck Program in 2008, more than 8,000 trucks have been replaced to meet or exceed 2007 EPA emissions rules. And air emissions have been cut by 80 percent."
Want to now why California is in a Depression--8,000 trucks were replaced--many in good shape but could not meet arbitrary government standards--oh, many of the truckers who lost their businesses are Hispanic--did Arnold and the Democrats profile Hispanics?
Unsustainable is how officials at the Port of Los Angeles describe their Clean Truck Program.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and 57 congressional co-sponsors want to fix that with a new bill.
On Thursday, Nadler introduced the "Clean Ports Act of 2010" that would amend the Federal Motor Carrier Act to allow ports to enact and enforce clean truck programs that exceed current federal requirements.
Current law preempts local and state regulation of trucking in foreign and interstate commerce, except when it comes to vehicle safety.
Were attempting to give power to ports and cities that would allow them to have the authority to control emissions," said Ilan Kayatasky, spokesman for Nadler. The legislation is designed to clarify the law and preempt further challenges to ports around the country to enact clean air programs.
In addition, the bill would grant cities and states the authority to regulate port air emissions, traffic congestion, issues related to highway safety and the efficient utilization of port facilities.
But the American Trucking Association and the Clean and Sustainable Transportation Coalition an association of more than 35 trade associations are opposed.
We support the current law that is in place right now, said Brandon Borgna, spokesman for the trucking association. We dont see a reason to change the Federal Motor Carriers Act to make environmental progress, because the ports have already shown they can do that without new legislation.
Indeed, since the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach instituted their landmark Clean Truck Program in 2008, more than 8,000 trucks have been replaced to meet or exceed 2007 EPA emissions rules. And air emissions have been cut by 80 percent.
The problem, say port officials, is that while the program has worked in terms of its clean air program, the program is unsustainable without new legislation. And they say other national ports may be reluctant to implement their own clean air programs without clear authority.
The Port of Los Angeles was sued in 2008 by the American Truckers Association. That suit is ongoing, and a ruling is expected to be announced later this month. Port officials declined to comment on the new bill while the case is under review.
California legislators supporting Nadlers bill include: Reps. Joe Baca, Howard Berman, Lois Capps, Judy Chu, Sam Farr, Bob Filner, John Garamendi, Jane Harman, Michael Honda, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Doris Matsui, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman, Jackie Speier, Fortney Pete Stark, Mike Thompson and Lynn Woolsey.
Brian Sussman is a no holds barred truth teller on KSFO radio in San Fran. He has written "Climategate" the book that fully exposes the Global Warming sham as an effort by academics and special interests to make money.
Here he is taking a look at the biggest American job killer in history, the Obama "Cap and Trade" effort--or as it is accurately known, Cap and Tax".
This is what the Obama bill would do as opposed to the Harry Reid version.:
"Unlike the 1,200-page House of Representatives energy bill, which passed last year, this scaled-down proposal does not call for an 83-percent reduction in greenhouse gases (or any reduction in greenhouse gases) and contains no mention of a cap-and-trade scheme. Also contrary to the House bill, this one does not provide a family of four earning up to $55,000 with a monthly stipend -- deposited directly into their bank accounts -- to offset higher energy costs. It also does not supply three years of unemployment benefits at 70 percent of former wages -- plus job retraining and relocation -- to those whose jobs are shipped overseas, as prescribed in the House bill."
But, what does it do? "For example, electric vehicles are pushed via the bill's "Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2010." No surprise here, particularly since the government has a 61% stake in General Motors and Chevy's electro-mobile, the Volt. Besides this Act allowing the feds to spend $25 million on new electric cars for their official fleet, there's an astounding electric car welfare program. Section 2116 explains that 400,000 such vehicles will be virtually given away at low cost -- or perhaps no cost -- to people living in "selected communities diverse in population" and "demographics."
Additionally, pages 264-265 require that any new construction or remodel of an existing structure must include the installation of proper hookups for charging an electric vehicle. So even if you have no intention of owning such a car, adding that extra bedroom will require you to spend additional money to install battery-charging infrastructure in your garage."
So, put up a new patio awning and spend thousand to completely re-do the electric system in your home. But the Feds will give you $8,000 for upgrades--that is money stolen from the poor and middle class to put a smile on the face of Al Gore--this is a sick way of bankrupting America.
Pass this Brian Sussman article to friends--they need to know how much poorer they will be.
The latest Senate energy bill, quietly unveiled last week, looks like sweet compromise on radical measures like cap and trade, but buried within is a bitter poison pill that will could be swallowed in a vote that may come this week.
Unlike the 1,200-page House of Representatives energy bill, which passed last year, this scaled-down proposal does not call for an 83-percent reduction in greenhouse gases (or any reduction in greenhouse gases) and contains no mention of a cap-and-trade scheme. Also contrary to the House bill, this one does not provide a family of four earning up to $55,000 with a monthly stipend -- deposited directly into their bank accounts -- to offset higher energy costs. It also does not supply three years of unemployment benefits at 70 percent of former wages -- plus job retraining and relocation -- to those whose jobs are shipped overseas, as prescribed in the House bill.
Instead, at a glance (which is the way most in Congress ever seem to examine legislation), this bill appears rather easy to take. Most of its 357 pages are devoted to sections entitled "Oil Spill Response," "Reducing Oil Consumption," "Improving Energy Security," and "Protecting the Environment." There's even a portion devoted to further grill BP via subpoena power. With sugar-coating like this, the sixty votes necessary to pass seem possible.
However, beneath the glaze, there's a clot of overpowering government spending and social engineering.
For example, electric vehicles are pushed via the bill's "Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2010." No surprise here, particularly since the government has a 61% stake in General Motors and Chevy's electro-mobile, the Volt. Besides this Act allowing the feds to spend $25 million on new electric cars for their official fleet, there's an astounding electric car welfare program. Section 2116 explains that 400,000 such vehicles will be virtually given away at low cost -- or perhaps no cost -- to people living in "selected communities diverse in population" and "demographics."
Additionally, pages 264-265 require that any new construction or remodel of an existing structure must include the installation of proper hookups for charging an electric vehicle. So even if you have no intention of owning such a car, adding that extra bedroom will require you to spend additional money to install battery-charging infrastructure in your garage.
The bill also heralds the coming of the "Batteries For Tomorrow Prize." The first person to build a car battery that runs 500 miles on a single charge will win a taxpayer-funded reward of $10 million.
And there's bait to entice truck owners to switch from traditional petroleum to natural gas. Section 2002 describes federal rebates, ranging from $8,000 for large pickups to $64,000 for heavy-duty Class 6 trucks weighing 26,000 pounds, available for those who install the equipment to make the fuel swap. And government grants (not loans) of up to $50,000 are available for gas stations to install natural gas refueling pumps.
And then there is the section of the Senate bill dedicated to the new federal building code. Originally rolled out in the House's energy plan, the code -- which supersedes all state and local measures and is thoroughly detailed in my book, Climategate -- now has a name: "The Home Star Retrofit Act of 2010." This Act places a hard squeeze on every property owner to spend thousands of dollars in environmental compliance upgrades in a time of economic stringency and falling home prices.
Federal dollars will be paid to those who decrease their energy usage. With the Smart Meters being installed across the country (mandated in the 2005 energy law and capable of recording your energy usage minute by minute), the government will be able to accurately determine your carbon footprint. To entice you to reduce your footprint, rewards of $3,000 will be given for a 25-percent reduction in energy consumption, and $1,000 more for each 5-percent reduction achieved -- up to a maximum of $8,000. A similar plan is proposed for water consumption.
Additionally, federal rebates of up to another $8,000 per home are available for upgrading doors, windows, insulation, roofs, water heaters, air conditioners, etc.
Even with the government kickbacks, if you're still unable to afford all of the upgrades, Section 3015 declares that Fannie Mae will be the official lender to provide you with a "Home Star Efficiency Loan." This means taxpayer sponsored Fannie will be taking on even more debt.
As one who has written extensively about the ideological machinations of the environmental movement and its leaders, I can tell you that this Senate bill is everything they wished could have been packed into the original House proposal.
If the Senate bites on this legislation, an airsickness bag will be required. The bill will go to committee, be conjoined with the massive House plan, and be presented to a lame duck Congress who will ram the bad medicine down our throats.
We need to hound the Senate now. Tell them to keep this poison pill away from their lips.
Brian Sussman is a former television meteorologist and the author of Climategate: a veteran meteorologist exposes the global warming scam. He hosts the morning show on KSFO, 560AM, in San Francisco.
ONTIME, ONTIME
2
This ought to be rich, this Volt needs 240vac to charge and uses premium gas for it's back-up engine....they ougt to give this inbred away.
This ought to be rich, this Volt needs 240vac to charge and uses premium gas for it's back-up engine....they ought to give this inbred away.
Oakland appears to be more concerned with the climate then they are the health of their citizens. "Cannabis is usually considered to be a "green" product, but when Oakland's four giant indoor medical marijuana growing operations receive permits early next year, they could become the largest energy consumers in the city. They also could become the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Oakland unless the city tightly regulates them."
Oakland thinks it can gain revenues by allowing major "pot farms" in the city. Of course the more greenhouse gases from pot, the more the city and State will stop legitimate businesses from operating, the higher the taxes on honest families.
What we need is Al Gore to denounce the growing of pot as a global killer. How is Berkeley handling this?
"Because solar panels are expected to have so little impact on energy use at the indoor farms, the Berkeley council decided to include in the ballot measure a mandate that the growing operations "provide for an energy offset" equal to the amount of extra electricity the farms consume compared to other similarly sized industrial uses. Bates explained that the farms will be required to pay into a fund that Berkeley will use to plant trees and finance energy-efficiency measures in low-income residences throughout the city."
It sounds like they have all been smoking too many funny cigarettes and can't think straight.
Will Oakland's Giant Pot Farms Be Green? The massive indoor medical cannabis grows will consume huge amounts of electricity. But will the city make sure they don't add to greenhouse-gas emissions?
By Robert Gammon, East Bay Express
Cannabis is usually considered to be a "green" product, but when Oakland's four giant indoor medical marijuana growing operations receive permits early next year, they could become the largest energy consumers in the city. They also could become the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Oakland unless the city tightly regulates them.
No one knows for sure precisely how much energy the four indoor facilities will use, because they've never before been constructed on such a massive scale in the United States. But the intense lighting required to grow marijuana indoors in an industrialized setting up to two football fields in size or larger is expected to use so much electricity that outfitting them with solar panels likely will do little to offset their total energy consumption.
In an interview, Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, the co-author of the large cannabis farm law, said the city plans to address the energy-consumption issue as it develops administrative guidelines in the months ahead. She said Oakland likely will mandate energy-efficient lighting, give preference to bidders who put solar panels on the roofs of their warehouses, and require that the farms offer "community benefits" packages to the city.
Kaplan said she did not include such mandates in the new law approved by the council last week because of a request by the Oakland City Attorney's Office. The city attorney noted that if the city decided to later adjust the mandates to either strengthen or weaken them or add new ones it would require a cumbersome process of getting the council to reapprove the law. As a result, the city plans to proffer a set of administrative regulations that will govern the pot farms.
The Berkeley City Council, by contrast, decided to include basic environmental mandates on its new large medical cannabis growing operations should voters approve them on the November ballot. The council has asked voters to approve six large medical cannabis growing operations in West Berkeley. Each would be up to 30,000 square-feet in size, or about two-thirds the size of a football field.
The farms, however, could become bigger if two or more of the growing operations combine into a single giant space, said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates. In that case, the industrialized grows could rival the ones coming to Oakland. "They're going to require a huge amount of energy," Bates noted. "They're going to be a huge drain on our electrical system."
Because solar panels are expected to have so little impact on energy use at the indoor farms, the Berkeley council decided to include in the ballot measure a mandate that the growing operations "provide for an energy offset" equal to the amount of extra electricity the farms consume compared to other similarly sized industrial uses. Bates explained that the farms will be required to pay into a fund that Berkeley will use to plant trees and finance energy-efficiency measures in low-income residences throughout the city. That way, the new pot farms won't increase Berkeley's overall greenhouse-gas emissions.
The Berkeley council also wrote into its ballot measure a provision requiring the large farms to "use organic methods in cultivation and processing to the maximum extent possible." It's a nasty little secret in the medical marijuana world that many growers spray their plants liberally with pesticides not unlike much the rest of the US agricultural industry.
Like Oakland, Berkeley plans to solicit bids for the new cultivation operations, and Bates said that the city will give preference to bidders who promise to employ organic growing methods. Kaplan said Oakland also plans to give preference to organic operations. The city also plans to require catchment systems for wastewater runoff, she said.
Jeff Wilcox, founder of AgraMed, a nonprofit that plans to bid to become one of Oakland's big growers, said his warehouse next to Interstate 880 will be LEED certified. He also plans to install solar panels, possibly use an onsite natural-gas generator, and stay away from pesticides. "The goal," he said, "should be to do as little damage as possible to the environment."
Berkeley, meanwhile, also plans to encourage bidders to consider outdoor growing operations that use virtually no energy at all. Bates believes that the rooftops of large warehouses could be suitable for big grows. Oakland, by contrast, plans to discourage outdoor grows because of crime concerns.
Many medical cannabis growers prefer cultivating indoors because they have much more control over growing operations. Nearly all Oakland producers grow indoors. They also believe it gives them a more marketable product, said Dale Gieringer of NORML, who supports outdoor growing. "Indoor growing uses a ton of energy," he said, "but everybody in the business tells me you can't sell outdoor pot that it doesn't look good enough; you can't get the little bud package that looks cute."
Did you think your water came from a dam, stream or lake? In the future, it may have had a previously life as sewage.
"As San Diego's City Council prepares Tuesday to consider spending $6.6 million on a purified sewage demonstration plant, new analysis from a nonpartisan local nonprofit concludes the new drinking water source would be "a strong, viable addition" to the region's water portfolio."
And the reason is money.
"The cost of getting drinking water from purified sewage is generally lower ($1,200 to $1,800 per acre-foot) than from expanding the purple-pipe system ($1,600-$2,600), which uses treated sewage for irrigation. Why? Because installing purple pipes throughout the city is expensive: $2 million per mile, the report notes. Purifying sewage is also cheaper than desalinating seawater ($1,800-$2,800).
By 2030, purifying sewage will cost as much as importing water, the report says. (An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, enough for two households for a year.) Today, most of our water is imported from hundreds of miles away; the energy and increasing amounts of infrastructure needed to get it here adds cost."
This is what happens when judges control our water for ideological reasons. We do not have a shortage of water, we have an excess of politically correct judges.
As San Diego's City Council prepares Tuesday to consider spending $6.6 million on a purified sewage demonstration plant, new analysis from a nonpartisan local nonprofit concludes the new drinking water source would be "a strong, viable addition" to the region's water portfolio.
The report from the Encinitas-based Equinox Center reinforces several key points about the often-politicized water source -- including how much it costs versus other sources:
The cost of getting drinking water from purified sewage is generally lower ($1,200 to $1,800 per acre-foot) than from expanding the purple-pipe system ($1,600-$2,600), which uses treated sewage for irrigation. Why? Because installing purple pipes throughout the city is expensive: $2 million per mile, the report notes. Purifying sewage is also cheaper than desalinating seawater ($1,800-$2,800).
By 2030, purifying sewage will cost as much as importing water, the report says. (An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, enough for two households for a year.) Today, most of our water is imported from hundreds of miles away; the energy and increasing amounts of infrastructure needed to get it here adds cost.
Purifying sewage produces water that's cleaner than what we're already drinking. Adding water from purified sewage into the city's current untreated supply would make our existing supplies cleaner. We're already drinking treated sewage -- about 350 sewage plants dump into our existing supplies, the report notes. The Colorado River, a major source, is estimated to be about 10 percent to 17 percent treated sewage.
Purified sewage is less vulnerable to interruption than imported water supplies from our major sources, the Colorado River and Sacramento Delta (though the report doesn't call it "drought-proof," the desirable label given to seawater desalination).
Diverting sewage from the city's main treatment plant in Point Loma would reduce ocean pollution, but only by a fraction (about 6 percent) unless the city's current plans for a sewage recycling plant were greatly expanded.
The report notes two downsides to recycled sewage: Public perception challenges and the source's high energy consumption. It's more energy-intense to make sewage drinkable than it is to treat it for the purple pipe system. But both use less electricity than importing the same amount of water or desalinating seawater.
The council's action Tuesday aims to address the perception issue. If approved, the million-gallon-per-day plant in University City would be used in tours to show the public how sewage gets recycled. And lab results from daily operations would be used to obtain state permits (and reassure the public it can be done safely). The water the plant creates would not be put in the city's drinking water supplies. That can't happen until the city gets those state permits.
An evolving council majority has supported other aspects of the city's recycled sewage study, so how the council votes next week will be another test of that shaky majority.
More than one third of California farms have either closed or severely cut back activities. Now an unelected agency wants you to leave the State--that would be the affect of the State Water Board demand. Without water more homes and commercial buildings will not be built--killing the construction industry.
"Californians need to take significantly less water from the state's single largest supply, according to a state report that could lay the foundation for more limits on water shipments to the Southland.
The State Water Board document provides new ammunition in the intensifying battle over the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a source of water for roughly two of three Californians and a long-time victim of the state's great thirst."
How do you kill an economy, without a single vote of elected people? Have an agency cut the water and wait--the uncertainly is why we will stay in a Depression for a generation in California.
Californians should use less delta water, report says The State Water Board study provides new ammunition in the battle over the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a source of water for roughly two of three Californians.
By Bettina Boxall, Los Angeles Times, 7/22/10
Californians need to take significantly less water from the state's single largest supply, according to a state report that could lay the foundation for more limits on water shipments to the Southland.
The State Water Board document provides new ammunition in the intensifying battle over the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a source of water for roughly two of three Californians and a long-time victim of the state's great thirst.
The draft report, released Wednesday, acknowledges that the delta's many environmental problems extend beyond water diversions. But it concludes that restoring the delta's collapsing fisheries and hydrologic rhythms are "fundamentally inconsistent with continuing to move large volumes of water through the delta for export."
The study, authorized by state legislation passed last year, outlines standards that, if adopted, would substantially reduce the amount of water that could be diverted from the Northern California delta in most years.
Exports to the San JoaquinValley and the Southland could drop 30% under the flow standards and diversions from the delta's northern tributaries could be slashed by 70%, according to board estimates.
But the report is just that. It carries no regulatory clout. To take effect, the flow standards would have to survive a long process that would inevitably be influenced by the same political pressures that have for decades contributed to the delta's decline.
"It would obviously devastate water supplies," said Roger Patterson, assistant general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a major importer of delta water. "Nobody is proposing this is what we're going to do because that clearly wouldn't work."
In a statement, Bob Nelson, executive director of a major Central Valley irrigation agency, the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, called the board report "a purely theoretical exercise with no application in the real world."
But delta advocates said the flow criteria would not be so easy to toss into a filing cabinet: They were drawn up by the water board at the Legislature's request and touch on the same legal doctrines that forced Los Angeles to take less water from the MonoLake basin in the Eastern Sierra.
"I think this is something that cannot be shelved. This has to have weight," said Cynthia Koehler, senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund.
Couched in repeated caveats that it was not a formal ruling and did not take into account the state's other water requirements the report focused on how much water is needed to protect the delta's "public trust resources," including fish, wildlife, and navigation. The answer: a lot more.
Diversions have altered the delta's salinity patterns, reversed the flow of some of its channels and contributed to environmental degradation that began in the Gold Rush era. Migrating salmon populations have plunged and the once bounteous delta smelt is teetering on the edge of extinction.
The fish decline has triggered federal Endangered Species Act protections that have reduced water exports and are being challenged in a series of lawsuits filed by water users who argue that other environmental stresses on the delta are being ignored or minimized.
The same criticism was leveled at the new flow standards. "They are premised on the erroneous assumption that all the ecosystem's deficiencies can be addressed through flow alone," Laura King Moon, assistant general manager of the State Water Contractors, said in a statement.
The flow report will factor into delta management plans now being drafted by state and federal agencies in conjunction with water users and conservation groups. Ultimately, the decision on any new flow standards would be made by the water board.
Environmentalists said that in the tug of war between ecological and human water use, the report is an important recognition of nature's needs.
"In the processes that will go forward, it's going to be harder to ignore that side of the equation," said Gary Bobker of the Bay Institute.
Arnold has been very proud of his creation of AB 32, the revenue and job killer bill based on smears, lies and one sided information. The Guv has been crowing that he will campaign against Prop. 23, the ballot measure that would put a moratorium on the job killer. He also issued a Executive Order demanding a large percentage of energy to be from renewable sources--a scientific impossibility and even if it was possible, would bankrupt thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of families.
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked the states air-quality enforcers to postpone a rule to require 33 percent of the power used by utilities to come from renewable sources such as wind and solar energy. Schwarzenegger asked the Air Resources Board to delay until September its adoption of the new regulation, which had been expected this month."
Now he thinks is so, so trying to stop what he did to the people.
How crazy is the Governor? First he vetoed a bill to demand a 33% renewable energy source, then he issues an Executive Order doing this.
"Legislation to boost the RPS to 33 percent, SB 14 by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, was approved last September by the Legislature but vetoed by the governor, who objected to limits place on the procurement of renewable energy from out-of-state sources.
As soon as he vetoed the bill, the governor issued an executive order requiring a 33 percent threshold, and authorized the ARB to develop an RPS rule."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked the states air-quality enforcers to postpone a rule to require 33 percent of the power used by utilities to come from renewable sources such as wind and solar energy. Schwarzenegger asked the Air Resources Board to delay until September its adoption of the new regulation, which had been expected this month.
The Republican governor said he made the request because of ongoing discussions with legislative leaders to develop a bill that I can sign. If those negotiations dont prove fruitful, the ARB will be ready and able to adopt the regulations at that time (in September), the governor wrote in a July 15 letter to ARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols. The letter in its entirety can be viewed here.
The governors action is the latest in a series of confusing twists and turns related to what is called the Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS, which sets a benchmark for the amount of clean-energy power used by Californias major utilities. The existing law requires a 20 percent RPS by this year a target that no utility has met.
The dispute is not over the 33 percent benchmark, although that figure has drawn the most public attention. Rather, it is over the source of the renewable energy, where it can be procured and to what extent Californias renewable companies will provide it.
Generally, the administration favored allowing a greater proportion of out-of-state renewable energy than do environmentalists, who contend it is harder to verify the out-of-state power as truly green.
Legislation to boost the RPS to 33 percent, SB 14 by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, was approved last September by the Legislature but vetoed by the governor, who objected to limits place on the procurement of renewable energy from out-of-state sources.
As soon as he vetoed the bill, the governor issued an executive order requiring a 33 percent threshold, and authorized the ARB to develop an RPS rule.
That action caught environmentalists by surprise, in part because the ARB deals with air pollution and greenhouse gas issues, but not with renewable energy, which is viewed as within the purview of the California Energy Commission, which licenses power plants, or the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates Californias investor-owned utilities.
Indeed, the PUC had developed a renewable energy policy and adopted it a policy that drew support from environmentalists but quickly rescinded it under pressure from the administration, which sought the ARB regulation.
The combination of two agencies working on a renewable energy rule, coupled with the governors executive order has led to some confusion about the states renewable energy policy.
New legislation authored by Simitian, SB 722, is intended to accommodate the issues raised by the governor in his veto of the earlier bill. Some in the negotiations over Simitians bill believe legislation is necessary to establish a permanent policy, noting that an executive order could be rescinded by the new governor who will take office next year.
There also is a clock ticking on the RPS: Some companies seeking to establish solar-power facilities in the Mojave Desert are hoping to obtain federal economic stimulus dollars, but that money may be threatened unless a state RPS policy is in place by the end of the year. By one estimate, the companies would provide about 14,000 megawatts of solar-generated power.
Scientists lied in order to get grants to study more lies.
Email was shredded; data "lost" scientists openly admitted they did not want all the evidence about "global warming" presented. Now, the folks who did this investigated themselves and found themselves innocent.
Yeah, sure.
"Five investigations into the "Climategate" scandal have now cleared a group of scientists accused of twisting data in an effort to prove the world is getting warmer.
But many environmentalists and climate researchers fear the damage has already been done.
The scandal spawned big headlines and heated blog posts when it erupted last fall after hackers released a stash of unflattering e-mails from a climate research lab in Britain. In one message, a scientist wrote of using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperature-proxy data from tree rings. Global warming doubters claimed vindication.
British and American investigations have now largely exonerated the scientists, saying they did not warp their studies to reach a pre-determined end. But the public may not buy it. Some polls show the public's belief in the reality of climate change has ebbed, although other surveys disagree."
More fraud--and politicians know that the people now know. "A Gallup poll released in March found that 48 percent of Americans believe the seriousness of climate change is usually exaggerated, up from 41 percent in 2009. But other recent polls say a majority of Americans still consider global warming a major problem and want the federal government to address it."
Yes, the damage has been done to the whole scientific community.
Five investigations into the "Climategate" scandal have now cleared a group of scientists accused of twisting data in an effort to prove the world is getting warmer.
But many environmentalists and climate researchers fear the damage has already been done.
The scandal spawned big headlines and heated blog posts when it erupted last fall after hackers released a stash of unflattering e-mails from a climate research lab in Britain. In one message, a scientist wrote of using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperature-proxy data from tree rings. Global warming doubters claimed vindication.
British and American investigations have now largely exonerated the scientists, saying they did not warp their studies to reach a pre-determined end. But the public may not buy it. Some polls show the public's belief in the reality of climate change has ebbed, although other surveys disagree.
"Despite multiple denials from people in the field, this has really hurt," said Daniel Kammen, a UC Berkeley professor who contributes to reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The accuracy of the IPCC's reports, long considered the most authoritative on global warming, came under fire during Climategate.
"Even though the science of climate change hasn't changed, the public perception of it has," Kammen said. "You have less than 50 percent of people strongly believing in something that 99.99 percent of climate scientists agree on." Exonerations downplayed
The exonerations haven't generated anything like the intense media coverage that the initial scandal did. Newspapers have typically covered them with small stories far removed from the front page - or ignored them altogether.
"The accusations were on A1, the exonerations are usually on A15," said Aaron Huertas, press secretary for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Climategate's lingering effects could play a role in the debate over global warming legislation, both in Congress and in California. The U.S. Senate is expected to take up an energy and climate change bill in the next two weeks. And in California, voters this fall will decide whether to suspend the state's landmark global warming law, AB32.
"In general, I think the scandal has made the opponents of energy-rationing legislation stronger and more confident," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank.
Ebell, who for years has been one of the fiercest critics of global warming science, doubts that Climategate by itself changed any votes in the Senate. But the scandal may have solidified skepticism about climate science among the public, he said. That would make any global warming bill harder for Senate Democrats to pass.
"The American public opposes policies that are going to raise their energy prices," Ebell said. "And I just don't see how they can get around that."
Climategate featured accusations that scientists were fudging data, colluding to silence critics and stonewalling public requests for information. The investigations to date have discounted the most serious charges. Scientists cleared, chided
Earlier this month, for example, a British panel found that the researchers at the center of the scandal, working at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, were not guilty of scientific malpractice, saying "their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." The panel found no evidence that the scientists' behavior had undermined the accuracy of the IPCC reports, which relied on their contributions.
The panel found nothing wrong with the "trick" referenced in the controversial e-mail, saying it was a valid technique for handling the data, which was used to produce a widely seen graph tracking temperature changes over the last millennium. But the panel criticized the scientists for not making clear, either in the graph or in its caption, that they were using that technique. Without the explanation, the panel said, the graph was "misleading."
The panel's findings, however, haven't drawn as much attention as the original charges. Tom Hollihan, who teaches media and politics at the University of Southern California, said that isn't unusual.
"The story that sticks is the first story out there that shapes the conversation," said Hollihan, who teaches in the university's Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism. "The story about a conspiracy to manipulate the data had a unique appeal to people who are drawn naturally to stories about conspiracies and being misled. The more you refute them, the more evidence those people see that the conspiracy is very pervasive."
Ebell and other critics call the investigations a farce, saying they represent an attempt by the academic community to defend their own. Affect on public opinion
"These establishment reports to whitewash this scandal - they have no credibility," Ebell said. "It's pretty obvious that they're not independent inquiries, that they were designed to come up with an exoneration. You need (an investigation with) people who don't have connections, who haven't written papers with the people who are accused or served on faculty with them."
How much the scandal affected public opinion isn't clear.
A Gallup poll released in March found that 48 percent of Americans believe the seriousness of climate change is usually exaggerated, up from 41 percent in 2009. But other recent polls say a majority of Americans still consider global warming a major problem and want the federal government to address it.
A survey released in June by Stanford University Professor Jon Krosnick found that 74 percent of Americans believe the climate probably grew warmer in the past century. While that figure is down from 84 percent in 2007, Krosnick attributed the decline to short-term changes in the weather, not Climategate. Indeed, only 9 percent of the people surveyed had heard about the hacked e-mail messages.
"At the end of the day, I feel people still see what's happening - they're seeing the heat waves, they're seeing the fires, they know the ice is thinning," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "The last decade, we know, is the warmest on record, and no e-mails are going to change that."
Still, environmentalists fear that Climategate will make passing federal global warming legislation, already a difficult task, that much tougher.
"If members of Congress believe that - because of the coverage of so-called Climategate - the public is less concerned about the impacts of global warming, some of the senators who are on the fence may feel less compelled to vote for legislation that curbs global warming pollution," said Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. "That's the real danger in this."
Robert C. Whitten
1
If an independent, honest investigation is the goal, I
suggest contracting it out to the Russian Academy of Science. Forget, the U.S. National Academy - they are political hacks. Similarly for the Royal Society.
/Research scientist, NASA-Retired.
Thanks to the state government, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will have to spend, and the consumers pay, $1.7 billion for a new water cooling system for its coastal power plants.
Currently they are using sea water as a coolant.
"In a revenue-strapped city that sweats tens of millions of dollars, Los Angeles faces a need for $1.7billion to resolve an issue none of the city's leaders wants to tackle. It is an arcane state water regulation banning the use of sea water to cool coastal power plants that provide nearly half of the state's and city's electricity.
Not only is this regulation hidden and unsexy, it carries the risk of going up against environmentalists and the current political push to fight global climate change."
Some say "green" is the color of envy. In California it is the color of waste and corruption--and poverty for the people.
Can not wait to see how this gets done and paid for without killing thousands of jobs. Government is based on policy, not common sense.
In a revenue-strapped city that sweats tens of millions of dollars, Los Angeles faces a need for $1.7billion to resolve an issue none of the city's leaders wants to tackle. It is an arcane state water regulation banning the use of sea water to cool coastal power plants that provide nearly half of the state's and city's electricity.
Not only is this regulation hidden and unsexy, it carries the risk of going up against environmentalists and the current political push to fight global climate change.
Depending on which side you are on, the chief antagonist or protagonist is the Department of Water and Power. The city's beleaguered $4 billion utility has been the target of pot shots by local elected officials this year over rate increases, renewable energy and basic bookkeeping snafus.
Unfortunately, with all this wrangling and ranting, City Hall leaders were missing in action when the California Water Resources Control Board in May adopted a federally driven set of rules to phase in a ban on water cooling for coastal electric generation plants, two of which are major, private-sector utility nuclear power facilities. The board's action had been coming for five years, and DWP knew it would have a major and expensive impact on the city's three coastal power plants.
One problem leading up to the current challenge is the fact that DWP had five different general managers over the last five years. No one advocate has been around to fire up support
on the City Council or among state legislators.
But the issue for DWP's interim general manager, Austin Beutner, is whether DWP can cut itself some slack from the state requirements like DWP's two private sector utility counterparts have done with their nuclear plants? It is tough to do when no one wants to talk about it at City Hall.
The California public sector utility association in Sacramento is no help either because DWP is the only of its members affected by the state water board's new rules.
"Whether or not they were active on the issue, we have to stand up for ourselves," said Beutner, who belatedly (he has been on the job less than two months) visited the governor and others in Sacramento recently to talk about the issue.
"They're delighted to see me, but we should have been up there five years ago and two years ago, so when we got to the final policy this spring it would be something we could afford."
Beutner and DWP have not come up with a more reasonable approach to having the city's three essential coastal power plants meet the new standards. But they are sure it has to be something way less than the $1.7 billion now staring the city in the face.
In presenting its annual budgets over the past five years to the City Council, DWP officials have called out hundreds of millions of dollars slated for basin power plant upgrades that relate to the now enacted water cooling ban. The budget items drew zero interest among the elected officials.
Separately, some of the DWP plants away from the coast face their own set of environmental hurdles from air emission regulations at the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
It is time for the City Council and the mayor to step up and lead regarding these admittedly complex and no-win issues. L.A. and its utility can do their part for climate change and for turning around decades of coastal harm from the electricity plants by negotiating something other than the $1.7 billion solution DWP now faces.
None of the 14 other coastal power plants - now owned by independent generators - face serious harm to their infrastructures as does DWP. There has to be a legislative or regulatory exception for the city's utility.
The City Council and mayor should work with DWP and state officials to find that solution. This city cannot take any more negative fiscal hits.
Richard Nemec is a Los Angeles writer who covers energy issues for several national trade publications. He can be reached at rnemec@ca.rr.com.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1410/ssp1101avithumbs2010072.jpg]
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/1273/student2wmvthumbs201007.jpg
