Posted on 11/05/2010 8:57:51 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
You and I know it was never about facts, it was about hyping the green dream. Just look at the numbers. First from the opposition:
Of course they don’t dare mention the amount of money their side has put into it, because, well, that would look imbalanced. Now have a look at the other side of the issue from the legislator who spearheaded the effort:
Logue: Big money beat Proposition 23
Logue spearheaded the Proposition 23 campaign.
AB32 was passed and signed by the governor in 2006. It provides that between 2012 and 2020 greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced to 1990 levels.
Proposition 23 would have postponed implementing major parts of AB32 until the state’s unemployment rate stood at 5.5 percent for a year. Now the jobless rate is around 12 percent.
In June, when Proposition 23 qualified for the ballot, the Enterprise-Record interviewed Logue and Robin Huffman of the Chico-based Butte Environmental Council. At that time, Logue was thrilled, and Huffman expressed concern.
Full story here at the Chico Enterprise Record
Here’s the REAL “dirty secret”, from the LA Times:
But it was pure spin. As they say in the movie, “Follow the money.”
Two Texas-based oil refiners, along with California business trade associations and anti-tax activists thought they could halt the nation’s most ambitious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But they were able to raise only $10.6 million. Most of California’s biggest companies, including Chevron, Pacific Gas & Electric and Sempra Energy, stayed neutral or actively opposed the initiative.
Backers were steamrolled by a $31.2 million campaign funded by such wealthy philanthropists as San Francisco hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, such big environmental groups as the National Wildlife Federation and the ClimateWorks Foundation, and such Silicon Valley green-tech moguls as John Doerr and Vinod Khosla.
10.6 million from “big oil”
31.2 million from “big green”
Yep, that’s some dirty secret alright. But you won’t see this reported on one side news outlets or green blogs.
There’s lot of hype about green jobs, but read this from a man who actually created some of them:
I know firsthand about green jobs. SunPower Corp., a company I chair and the second-largest U.S. producer of solar cells, has produced about 800 green jobs in California. But that’s just a fraction of the 4,700 jobs lost when Toyota pulled the plug on its local Nummi automotive plant due to the high cost of doing business in California.
That “pull the plug” meme will be repeated again and again in the coming months.
And then there’s this absolute rubbish:
Here’s why, when you look at California’s energy supply…
…and you see all that hydro, nuclear, natural gas, and renewables, you have to ask yourself: “where’s the dirty energy problem?”
With coal making up only 18.2%, “dirty energy” and up to 40% of the electricity coming from out of state (remember Enron’s manipulation of California?) “dirty energy” was really a non-issue.
But when we are talking green jobs, green energy, green money, green envy or just about anything else “green”, such facts don’t matter.
Congratulations to California, you got the government and legislation you deserve.
Maybe Kieth Olberman of MSNBC will name me the “worst person in the world” for writing this fact check. Oh, wait.
Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, said big money defeated Proposition 23, which would have put the brakes on Assembly Bill 32, the state's clean-air act."We were outspent three-to-one," Logue said in a phone interview Tuesday night. Logue spearheaded the Proposition 23 campaign.
Hubby was just saying the other day that we made it out of California in the nick of time.
My son was educated in the Boy Scouts...acting as Senior Patrol leader for a troop over a 100.
He says the Best training he ever had was with a great project for his Eagle .
We moved a stacked limestone fence to the North West Shawnee Mission High School grounds for the beginning of an ecological area that a teacher was organizing...
I had a Chevy Blazer with a trailer Hitch and made many trips with a truck full of young scouts as we moved all of those slabs ....
Some young boys improved their muscles greatly out of that effort.
“Much of the “industry” you are thinking about has already left. Unless there is some sort of welfare system for power, this one may chase out the riffraff too, a common liberal tactic employed in wealthy counties such as Marin.
BTW, 20% of the power used in California is for moving and treating water. A lot of that is not going away under any circumstances.”
You are certainly correct about power for water treatment. I suspect that some reasonable level of power generation supports irrigation efforts that the rats would like to curtail.
I am not sure if you are correct about business movement. I do not doubt that much business has already fled but I think there are plenty of energy intensive businesses that will move in the coming 10 years if AB32 is not derailed in some way. In addition, there are many reasonably energy intensive businesses (such as a typical restaurant) that cannot flee. The only choices for these businesses is raise prices or close.
I was not serious about meeting the goals. The goals cannot be met even with wrecking the state’s economy. California is hoping that the EPA will impose similar costs on the rest of the country so that California does not become even less competitive to the rest of the country. I hope that the Republican House can somehow stop the EPA from imposing this terrible cost on the entire country.
They've got the Delta Smelt for that, but yes, they're out to steal dirt.
I am not sure if you are correct about business movement.
As of 2008, it was about 3X agriculture, but considering how much of it is for lighting, I don't think that is such a substantial fraction of TCOS that it would make anybody move. The energy intensive businesses have been relocating for a long time at a steady clip.
BTW, consider how much of our gas bill in this state is for oxidation of emissions. It's a big co-gen opportunity.
The goals cannot be met even with wrecking the state’s economy.
If they can chase people out of the suburbs to buy their inflated Sustainable Tenements they might. At least, that's the plan.
I hope that the Republican House can somehow stop the EPA from imposing this terrible cost on the entire country.
There's so much big money behind the RINOcRats demanding this, I don't see how with Barry-O sitting atop his veto pen.
Global Warming on Free Republic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
