FROM-OC Register
By MARK LANDSBAUM
We recently offered tips on "What to say to a warmer" for when Al Gore or a fellow global warming alarmist comes to dinner. This week, we suggest: "What to say to a warmist named Schwarzenegger," in case the Terminator drops by.
California has the most destructive and costly global warming law in the nation, if not the world. In a perverse way, it's the governor's crowning achievement. That says a lot about a fellow who drove the state into virtual bankruptcy, accelerated unemployment to at least 12 percent, while dramatically increasing government spending, taxes and the government payroll. But those destructive acts pale next to what's in store if his preposterously titled Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is enforced as planned.
California is the pivotal battle in the global warming war. If the tax-and-cap crowd succeeds here, it's only a matter of time before their poisonous solution spreads coast to coast. We are, as warmists say, reaching a tipping point.
To give the debate a shove in the right direction, here are some global warming tipping-point, talking points to raise over dinner:
Minority rules?– Only 28 percent of the public thinks dealing with global warming is a high priority, says Pew Research Center pollsters. That ranked global warming dead last among 21 public issues polled. If the rest of us don't think it's a big deal, why should the governor?
What it boils down to – Global warming alarmism never was about temperature. It's about control and money – their control and your money. California's touted Global Warming Solutions Act – also known as Assembly Bill 32 or AB32 – requires bureaucrats to write detailed rules to cap greenhouse gas emissions, mandate reporting by emitters, plan what emission reductions must be achieved and how, provide "alternative compliance mechanisms" and mandates, come up with government-determined "equity between regulated entities," ensure rules don't "disproportionately impact low-income communities," among other things. They've been writing the regulations since 2006 and still are.
Ka-ching – Government stands to profit. State Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, says Loma Linda University, in his district, "could be forced to pay nearly $4 million each year." Larger schools, more. Dutton says businesses will be forced to pay $20 to $60 per ton of greenhouse gas emitted. Government bureaucrats will decide which businesses pay.
Tiny carbon footprints – All greenhouse gases worldwide make up 2 percent of the atmosphere. Only 3.6 percent of that 2 percent is carbon dioxide. Only 3.4 percent of that 3.6 percent is man-made. If California shut down every man-made CO2-emitting source the result would be atmospherically unnoticeable. In fact, even using their favorite government and U.N. computer calculations, warmists admit that if every nation on Earth had rolled back CO2 emissions to the economy-killing extent called for in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, there would have been no noticeable change in global temperatures.
Irrelevant carbon footprints – Increasingly, scientists openly challenge the presumption CO2 has anything to do with temperature. A recent survey of American meteorologists found fewer than one in four say it's "very likely" most warming since 1950 is human-induced. At last count, 31,486 U.S. scientists had signed a petition saying "there is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere." If they don't think so, why should we?
Warmists are wilting – Not long ago, denying man-made catastrophic global warming wasn't permitted in polite company. But even in Washington, D.C., where warmism rose to the level of presumed fact, the debate has changed from "What to do about it?" to what one environmental publication admitted is: "Whether it exists and is in any way driven by mankind?"
When warmists retort ... "The scientific consensus is that man causes catastrophic warming," remind them that, of 539 scientific papers published from January 2004 to February 2007 that contained the phrase "global climate change," not one provided any evidence that manmade influence on the climate would prove catastrophic in any way.
And, when warmists say... "Green jobs have grown faster than nongreen jobs," remind them it doesn't take much for tiny numbers to grow at impressive rates. Two is a 100-percent increase over one. It's true that the 36 percent increase in so-called "green jobs" in California from 1995-2008 is a larger percentage increase than the 13 percent growth in normal jobs. But those green jobs are much less than 1 percent of the state's 18 million jobs. Pass those small potatoes to your dinner guests.
The pain in Spain – Spain thought green jobs could replace regular jobs too. But the Spanish learned the hard way that every green job created meant more than two normal jobs were lost in the process. Spain is literally going bankrupt, in part because green jobs must be subsidized by taxpayers. Ask your guests if they'd like more taxes with their small potatoes.
What's the harm? – There are about 1.5 million California manufacturing jobs. The government estimates AB32 will increase electricity prices alone by 14 percent. (Has the government ever estimated costs on the low side?) Are manufacturing workers comfortable relying on an overnight flowering of windmills and solar panels to pick up the slack? Or, as most economists conclude, will higher prices simply mean fewer jobs?
Useless guesses– The Schwarzenegger administration promises AB32 will be cost-effective. Yeah, we remember his other promises, too. But what did Robert Stavins from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard say? "Even if one accepts the cost estimates that (Schwarzenegger's administration) produces, which I believe are significant understatements of the true costs, the estimates are still useless for identifying a cost-effective portfolio of policies to achieve the ambitious objectives."
Hurry up and stop – When warmists insist their Draconian regulations are needed immediately, remind them that even their own climate gurus concede there's been no statistically significant temperature rise in 15 years, which moved another of the alarmists' scientific high priests, Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, to lament: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
Friends – Who opposes AB32? A pair of pro-business, anti-tax types, Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, and U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Rocklin, back a ballot initiative to suspend the law until unemployment in the state drops to 5.5 percent. Candidates for governor Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, another Republican pair who each once headed billion-dollar private enterprises, promise to suspend the law if elected.
Foes –Who supports the law? The likely Democratic candidate for governor, Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose flaky, left-wing, "think-small" approach nearly demolished California's economy when he was governor in the 1970s, loves it. He already has sued local governments for not complying.
Did we mention control? – AB32 imposes a cap-and-trade market to force emitters to buy government-issued permits if they exceed arbitrary limits for greenhouse gas emissions. The governor says this is a "market solution." In a real market, supply and demand determine prices. In this phony market, the government will pluck prices out of thin air.
Did we mention money? – The governor says AB32's diktats are altruistic. We suggest you follow the money. The tentative language for the ballot measure to suspend the law says passage would mean: "Potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations." Yep, if AB32 is suspended, the government loses money. Guess whose money. Oh, by the way. Jerry Brown's office wrote that ballot language.
Dollars and common sense – If none of this is persuasive, with dessert serve your warmists dinner guests the conclusions of two Cal State University professors commissioned by the governor's office to calculate the law's economic implications. They concluded small businesses will pay on average $49,691 more per year, families will face $3,857 in increased costs, consumers will have to reduce discretionary spending 26 percent, and 1.1 million jobs will be lost.
Second helping– If that's not persuasive, remind them that even big corporate support that had signed on to warming alarmism to game the system and profit from new rules now is fleeing. Oil giants ConocoPhillips and BP and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar recently quit the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, apparently no longer fearing or seeing profit in federal cap-and-trade, mired in Congress.
By MARK LANDSBAUM
We recently offered tips on "What to say to a warmer" for when Al Gore or a fellow global warming alarmist comes to dinner. This week, we suggest: "What to say to a warmist named Schwarzenegger," in case the Terminator drops by.
California has the most destructive and costly global warming law in the nation, if not the world. In a perverse way, it's the governor's crowning achievement. That says a lot about a fellow who drove the state into virtual bankruptcy, accelerated unemployment to at least 12 percent, while dramatically increasing government spending, taxes and the government payroll. But those destructive acts pale next to what's in store if his preposterously titled Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is enforced as planned.
California is the pivotal battle in the global warming war. If the tax-and-cap crowd succeeds here, it's only a matter of time before their poisonous solution spreads coast to coast. We are, as warmists say, reaching a tipping point.
To give the debate a shove in the right direction, here are some global warming tipping-point, talking points to raise over dinner:
Minority rules?– Only 28 percent of the public thinks dealing with global warming is a high priority, says Pew Research Center pollsters. That ranked global warming dead last among 21 public issues polled. If the rest of us don't think it's a big deal, why should the governor?
What it boils down to – Global warming alarmism never was about temperature. It's about control and money – their control and your money. California's touted Global Warming Solutions Act – also known as Assembly Bill 32 or AB32 – requires bureaucrats to write detailed rules to cap greenhouse gas emissions, mandate reporting by emitters, plan what emission reductions must be achieved and how, provide "alternative compliance mechanisms" and mandates, come up with government-determined "equity between regulated entities," ensure rules don't "disproportionately impact low-income communities," among other things. They've been writing the regulations since 2006 and still are.
Ka-ching – Government stands to profit. State Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, says Loma Linda University, in his district, "could be forced to pay nearly $4 million each year." Larger schools, more. Dutton says businesses will be forced to pay $20 to $60 per ton of greenhouse gas emitted. Government bureaucrats will decide which businesses pay.
Tiny carbon footprints – All greenhouse gases worldwide make up 2 percent of the atmosphere. Only 3.6 percent of that 2 percent is carbon dioxide. Only 3.4 percent of that 3.6 percent is man-made. If California shut down every man-made CO2-emitting source the result would be atmospherically unnoticeable. In fact, even using their favorite government and U.N. computer calculations, warmists admit that if every nation on Earth had rolled back CO2 emissions to the economy-killing extent called for in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, there would have been no noticeable change in global temperatures.
Irrelevant carbon footprints – Increasingly, scientists openly challenge the presumption CO2 has anything to do with temperature. A recent survey of American meteorologists found fewer than one in four say it's "very likely" most warming since 1950 is human-induced. At last count, 31,486 U.S. scientists had signed a petition saying "there is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere." If they don't think so, why should we?
Warmists are wilting – Not long ago, denying man-made catastrophic global warming wasn't permitted in polite company. But even in Washington, D.C., where warmism rose to the level of presumed fact, the debate has changed from "What to do about it?" to what one environmental publication admitted is: "Whether it exists and is in any way driven by mankind?"
When warmists retort ... "The scientific consensus is that man causes catastrophic warming," remind them that, of 539 scientific papers published from January 2004 to February 2007 that contained the phrase "global climate change," not one provided any evidence that manmade influence on the climate would prove catastrophic in any way.
And, when warmists say... "Green jobs have grown faster than nongreen jobs," remind them it doesn't take much for tiny numbers to grow at impressive rates. Two is a 100-percent increase over one. It's true that the 36 percent increase in so-called "green jobs" in California from 1995-2008 is a larger percentage increase than the 13 percent growth in normal jobs. But those green jobs are much less than 1 percent of the state's 18 million jobs. Pass those small potatoes to your dinner guests.
The pain in Spain – Spain thought green jobs could replace regular jobs too. But the Spanish learned the hard way that every green job created meant more than two normal jobs were lost in the process. Spain is literally going bankrupt, in part because green jobs must be subsidized by taxpayers. Ask your guests if they'd like more taxes with their small potatoes.
What's the harm? – There are about 1.5 million California manufacturing jobs. The government estimates AB32 will increase electricity prices alone by 14 percent. (Has the government ever estimated costs on the low side?) Are manufacturing workers comfortable relying on an overnight flowering of windmills and solar panels to pick up the slack? Or, as most economists conclude, will higher prices simply mean fewer jobs?
Useless guesses– The Schwarzenegger administration promises AB32 will be cost-effective. Yeah, we remember his other promises, too. But what did Robert Stavins from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard say? "Even if one accepts the cost estimates that (Schwarzenegger's administration) produces, which I believe are significant understatements of the true costs, the estimates are still useless for identifying a cost-effective portfolio of policies to achieve the ambitious objectives."
Hurry up and stop – When warmists insist their Draconian regulations are needed immediately, remind them that even their own climate gurus concede there's been no statistically significant temperature rise in 15 years, which moved another of the alarmists' scientific high priests, Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, to lament: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
Friends – Who opposes AB32? A pair of pro-business, anti-tax types, Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, and U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Rocklin, back a ballot initiative to suspend the law until unemployment in the state drops to 5.5 percent. Candidates for governor Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, another Republican pair who each once headed billion-dollar private enterprises, promise to suspend the law if elected.
Foes –Who supports the law? The likely Democratic candidate for governor, Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose flaky, left-wing, "think-small" approach nearly demolished California's economy when he was governor in the 1970s, loves it. He already has sued local governments for not complying.
Did we mention control? – AB32 imposes a cap-and-trade market to force emitters to buy government-issued permits if they exceed arbitrary limits for greenhouse gas emissions. The governor says this is a "market solution." In a real market, supply and demand determine prices. In this phony market, the government will pluck prices out of thin air.
Did we mention money? – The governor says AB32's diktats are altruistic. We suggest you follow the money. The tentative language for the ballot measure to suspend the law says passage would mean: "Potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations." Yep, if AB32 is suspended, the government loses money. Guess whose money. Oh, by the way. Jerry Brown's office wrote that ballot language.
Dollars and common sense – If none of this is persuasive, with dessert serve your warmists dinner guests the conclusions of two Cal State University professors commissioned by the governor's office to calculate the law's economic implications. They concluded small businesses will pay on average $49,691 more per year, families will face $3,857 in increased costs, consumers will have to reduce discretionary spending 26 percent, and 1.1 million jobs will be lost.
Second helping– If that's not persuasive, remind them that even big corporate support that had signed on to warming alarmism to game the system and profit from new rules now is fleeing. Oil giants ConocoPhillips and BP and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar recently quit the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, apparently no longer fearing or seeing profit in federal cap-and-trade, mired in Congress.
Retort – When Gov. Warmist says his chief CO2 bureaucrat, Mary Nichols at the Air Resources Board, insists suspending AB32 will "put all our efforts at energy efficiency and renewable energy in the deep freezer for a long time," you can say, "With efficiency and renewables like that, we certainly hope so."
More...
No comments:
Post a Comment