California’s Prop 23, if defeated, will further depress CA’s economy, while Illinois faces its own economic Armageddon given its mandates for green energy sources

October 25, 2010

Joe Bast, CEO of the Heartland Institute first alerted me to California’s Prop 23, an initiative that will be appearing on the November 2nd ballot in California.

As Illinois has its own mandates where power companies must get at least 10 percent of their electricity from green sources by 2015 and 25 percent by 2025, and likewise has a mandate in place restricting that no new nuclear power plants can be built in Illinois until there is a place to store radioactive waste (This brings to mind the issue I have been championing for two years about the decommissioning by Exelon of the Dual Zion Nuclear Plant with its massive potential capacity of 2,100 megawatts of energy.), I decided to investigate the energy situation in California. Why? Because it is often said that how goes California, so goes the rest of the nation.

About AB 32: The California Global Warming Solutions, also know as AB (Assembly Bill) 32, was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger into law on September 27th 2006. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) appointed a board to act as the state’s air quality regulators, the first in the nation to be charged with designing and enforcing a program to control emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other “greenhouse gases (GHG) thought to be responsible for increasing global temperature.

AB 32 does the following:

1. Orders the reduction of GHG emissions that would return them to 1990 levels by 2020.

2. Calls for producing one-third of the state’s electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2020.

CARB intends to use direct controls to achieve over 80 percent of its emissions reduction goal. It should be noted that once direct control is established by CARB, it would be difficult for California to reverse course. Most likely additional initiative would be added to AB 32 under the guise of improving existing legislation.

About California’s Prop 23: It would suspend (delay) the implementation of AB 32 until CA unemployment drops to 5.5 or less over four consecutive quarter.

If passed Prop 23 would abandon the implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction programs which includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting, and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension ends

California already has the toughest environmental laws in the country. Prop 23 doesn’t weaken or repeal California’s hundreds of laws that protect the environment, reduce air pollution, keep our water clean or protect public health.

It is not surprising that President Barack Obama, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore have come out against Prop 23. Al Gore’s doomsday scenario is know to all, how the world will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.

Working hard to defeat Prop 23 are officials in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area. This consortium has already given more than $28 million to defeat Prop 23. For them it involves profit and business ventures. It’s all about inventing, manufacturing and installing in an attempt to capture international resources in the green sector. Business ventures include solar power to electric cars and efficient home lighting.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43923.html

I was surprised to learn that George Shultz, who served as secretary of state during the Reagan administration, is the honorary co-chairman of a group formed to oppose Prop 23, “Californians for Clean energy and Jobs.”

“Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs” lists the following in its support for AB 32:

1. AB 32 will create “Clean-tech jobs.”

2. Prop 23 is a polluter’s dream that will kill a clean energy economy for California and lead to more air pollution and increased health risks, and Global Warming.

3. Prop 23 will reduce incentives to find alternatives to oil to limit dependence of Middle Eastern countries.

The above reasons set forth by “Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs” deserve examination as they as beset with flaws.

Will Prop 23 will really reduce incentives too find alternatives to oil? According to a U.S. Geological Survey assessment released in April of this year, the report shows a 25-fold increase in the amoujnt of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency’s 1995 estimate of 151 millions barrels of oil.

This nation has plenty of recoverable oil to meet its needs, but it is has been declared off-limits to drilling by a government that is pushing green sources of power in its ploy to gain control over the lives of its citizens, all in the name of Global Warming.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

What about the creation of “Clean-tech jobs”? Michelle Malkin on April 13, 2009, posted remarks about the creation of green jobs titled, Spain’s green jobs boondoggle, in which she relates a study by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economic professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid. According to Dr. Calzada: “Every ‘green job’ with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job.”

Calzada’s study also related “that the U.S. should expect results similar to those in Spain.” Yet Obama’s economic stimulus package, which Congress passed in February, used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the U.S. should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. It allocated billions of dollars to the green jobs industry! http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/13/spains-green-jobs-boondoggle/

Regarding air pollution and the claim that CO2 pollutes the air and leads to increased health risks and Global Warming, hear the words of Kevin Obrien as published in The Plain Dealer, Reducing U.S. CO2 emissions would have little global impact:

“The idea that reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the United States will affect the climate of the entire planet is absurd. It is truly a tragedy that so many people, including our president, have been brainwashed into believing this exo-hoax. Thousands of real scientists have rejected the greenhouse-gas theory but receive little coverage in the media.” http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2009/06/reducing_us_co2-emissions…

Joe Bast, CEO of the Heartland Institute, which operates Freedom Pub, had this to say about Global Warming in a publication in Heartlander on 02/01/2007, Global Warming Madness and How to Stop It” :

“Public policies being proposed at the international, national, and state levels in the name of “stopping global warming” would result in a massive increase in the size and power of the state. To reduce emissions, governments must raise energy costs directly, with taxes or indirectly, with mandates and subsidies.”
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20549/Global_Warming_Mad…

Now hear the words of Lord Christopher Mockton, chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute, also a policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. I had the honor of hearing Lord Mockton speak at the final luncheon gathering at The Heartland’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago on May 18th of this year. Lord Mockton now travels the world, all for the sake of sound science (Mockton spoke in front of the U.S. Congress to warn legislators about the disastrous impact of “Cap and Trade” should such legislation pass.).

“Even if all economic activity were closed down to forestall global warming for a period of 100 years, the temperature reduction would only amount to 1 degree Fahrenheit. This would be the height of folly and cruelty.” https://nancyjthorner.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/report-of-heartland-i…

The obvious conclusion from Mockton’s above statement, and one which is held by thousands of scientists world-wide, is that the influence of CO2 is so small; it’s at a noise level. If temperatures can’t be projected for a week, how is it possible to project temperature to 2050 and beyond?

Given that the implementation of AB 32 will not create jobs, and that the GHG emissions AB 32 seeks to eliminate as the cause of Global Warming will instead create economic hardship, why the campaign to convince Californians to vote “no” on Prop 23?

Although some of the push for a “no” vote on Prop 23 can be ascribed to those who would profit with their money-making business ventures, might there be other reasons?

Dr. Robert J. Michaels, Professor of Economics at California State University at Fullerton, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute and an independent consultant, had this to say in a recently published sixty-five page document entitled, “California’s Climate Policy: The Present and Future of AB 32”

According to Dr. Michaels, political promises are being made by politicians to convince Californians that the defeat of Prop 23 would give California the moral and economic high ground in the battle against carbon.

Further stated by Dr. Michaels: “By the state’s own estimates, the market for green workers is negligible, and California’s historically aggressive environmental politics have left it with no greener a job picture than most other states.”

Hopefully Californians will overwhelmingly vote “yes” on Prop 23, which is necessary to save California from further financial ruin and job losses.

As for Illinois, the state is in no better shape than California. It’s green energy policies will likewise affect the future economic development and growth of Illinois.

If Illinois legislators persists on promoting green energy as the way of the future, Illinois will continue to be mired in massive and unsustainable debt and will remain, when compared to other states (according to “A Policy Point” issued by the Illinois Policy Institute in June 24, 2009), 48th in economic performance, 48th in employment growth, 44th in economic outlook, and 44th in personal income growth.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s