Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

The Patriot’s Corner In California, we fix it — even if it’s not broken

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Ed Miller

Ed Miller

“The unions, the city management and the council all have an understanding of this item, but nobody else does. Frankly, this proposal should have seen the light of day via a public hearing, instead of appearing to be slipped under the radar.”

Ed Miller, Citizens In Action

“They say they’re going to be trans- parent then they’re not. Short of running for office myself, I don’t know how to get them to change other than have people stand up and be counted.”

Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 5:47 am, Sat Mar 1, 2014.

In the last installment, we reviewed the history of the man-driven global warming argument, both as a political agenda created in Great Britain in the 1970s and as a scientific theory whose plausibility is in decline.

On the News-Sentinel’s website, we debunked the premise that a scientific consensus is a validation of any scientific theory.

Nevertheless, California’s politicians, in their wisdom, approved a bipartisan bill to fight climate change with The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The voters reaffirmed it in 2010 with the defeat of California Proposition 23, which proposed suspension of AB32.

Briefly, AB32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state’s most notorious agency, to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which represents a 25 percent reduction statewide. Mandatory caps on emissions begin in 2012, with gradual reductions until 2020. The bill grants the governor the authority to suspend these emissions caps for up to one year in the case of an emergency or significant economic harm.

The primary “mechanism” of control is a cap-and-trade program that provides each greenhouse gas emitter “carbon credits” equivalent to its emission limit (“cap”). If a greenhouse gas emitter stays below the limit, it can sell (“trade”) its extra carbon credit allocation to another emitter who is exceeding its limits. These trades will be transacted in trading markets so the cost will be market-driven. This is where the corruption in CARB starts.

AB32 authorizes CARB to fund its own administration costs through the carbon credit program. However, CARB has retained carbon credits far beyond its costs, approximately $1 billion worth. The funds derived from these credits are to be redirected to fund the high-speed rail, not an action authorized by AB32. There will likely be court challenges because this is transforming a “fee” to a “tax” in violation of Proposition 26. In addition, $3.7 billion will transfer from fuel producers to CARB.

Furthermore, CARB has formed a company called Western Climate Initiative Inc. (WCI) to manage its upcoming cap-and-trade auction. Interestingly, WCI is registered in Delaware, not California. Why? Because Delaware is a state not subject to California’s open meeting law. Additionally, a trailer bill titled SB1018 was approved this summer that exempts California cap-and-trade auctions from state open meeting rules. Smell the corruption yet?

What does AB32 mean to us? Businesses are paying the bill, but the costs will be passed on to us in the form of lost jobs, higher gas prices and higher cost of goods for anything transported. Electric energy will also be impacted because the majority of it is generated by fossil fuels. In short, the cost of operating and living in California will be significantly higher.

According to a Boston Consulting Group (BCG) study, CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) are expected to force California refineries to export fuel out of the state, reducing our local fuel supplies and driving costs up at the pump. Additionally, California will lose up to 51,000 manufacturing jobs and $4.4 billion in revenues per year by 2020.

The bottom line is that every Californian, including all men, women, and children, will pay an additional $210 to $780 per year for fuel-dependent products (almost everything). For those who drive cars, the increased cost will be $350 to $1,300 per year. That is a total of $560 to $2,080 per person per year, excluding increased electrical costs.

The cost of carbon credits are market-driven. Therefore, the cost passed on to us will fluctuate with the market. For our area, it takes nearly a gallon of gasoline/oil equivalent to produce a liter of wine. Question is, will Lodi-area wineries be able to compete nationally and internationally as fuel prices rise?

In conclusion, the only winners in this scam to solve a non-problem are CARB and the carbon trading markets. People and businesses will be forced out of the state, reducing the state’s already sagging revenues. The rest of us will have a lower standard of living. Will California survive this assault on its economy, or will it become the next Michigan?

Find out more by attending the Lodi Tea Party general meeting Monday, September 24 at 6:30 p.m. in the United Congregational Christian Church, 701 S. Hutchins St., Lodi.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

4 comments:

  • Ed Miller posted at 12:41 am on Fri, Aug 31, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    OK, you win, the earth is the center of the solar system because that was the consensus counter to Galileo's evidence to the contrary.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 4:04 pm on Thu, Aug 30, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1343

    Mr Miller,

    I wouldn’t dream of trying again to change your mind on this topic but to claim you debunked the theory that, consensus among scientist should not be used to shape policy, is incorrect. To debunk something you would have to of proven your point or convinced another your argument was sound and that you did not do.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 9:57 am on Thu, Aug 30, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Barrow,

    Yes, I am guilty of stubbornly NOT accepting a falsehood and substantively refuting the claim that a consensus is a proof of a scientific theory. No one substantively proved otherwise in response. Political rhetoric or UN IPCC talking points are NOT a factual proof.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:39 am on Wed, Aug 29, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1343

    Stubbornly refusing to accept facts is not debunking

     

Recent Comments

Posted 3 hours ago by Jeff Hood.

article: Students’ behavior at dances raises con…

The Lodi Youth Commission also holds teen dances during the school year. These events have City staff and adult volunteers as chaperones to…

More...

Posted 4 hours ago by the old dog.

article: Letter: It is now time for honest change

J. Bobin, here is a refresher course on our government, the government and everything in DC has been bought, and a deal made for another de…

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: It is now time for honest change

"I taught Constitutional Law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now h…

More...

Posted 6 hours ago by the old dog.

article: Letter: Technical skills are often as i…

I agree, some if not all young people have the impression that they must go to college if they want to make something of themselves. I fo…

More...

Posted 6 hours ago by nth degree wise.

article: Letter: Liberal policies damage our ind…

OK Brian, you go first.

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Should graduations return to the Grape Bowl?

Lodi Unified leaders are moving Lodi and Tokay high school graduations from the Grape Bowl to the Spanos Center at UOP in Stockton. They cite limited seating, costs and unpredictable weather at the Grape Bowl. But others say graduations at the Grape Bowl are an important Lodi tradition, and one reason many supported renovating the stadium. What do you think?

Total Votes: 216

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists