Lawmakers Push Backdoor Climate Change

JUNE 29, 2010

By KATY GRIMES

Just in case California’s global warming legislation is suspended in November with passage of California Jobs Initiative 2010, California’s Democratic legislators are leaving nothing to chance. They’ve been busy pushing through plenty of other climate change and green legislation through the Capitol’s backdoor.

SB 1006, currently traveling through legislative committees at the capitol, would further expand the subsidized greening of California through local governments and state agencies, by requiring the Strategic Growth Council to address climate change impacts in its” coordination role” and to “provide information” to local and regional government agencies on climate adaptation strategies.

Legislators continually reference the council as an information-only council, but what information is the group imparting on state agencies?

The purpose of the Strategic Growth Council, (a cabinet level committee), is to “improve air and water quality, improve natural resource protection, increase the availability of affordable housing, improve transportation, meet the goals of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, encourage sustainable land use planning, and revitalize urban and community centers in a sustainable manner,” according to the council’s website. “Existing law requires the council to support the planning and development of sustainable communities, to manage and award financial assistance to a city, county, or nonprofit organization for the preparation, planning, and implementation of a specified urban greening project.”

This goes way beyond mere “information.”

Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, the author of SB 1006, referenced the need for more California “sustainability” in her testimony. Her bill would require the council to take actions to coordinate programs to address the various list of climate change impacts. One bill summary reads, “The bill would require the council additionally to provide, fund, and distribute information to local governments and regional agencies regarding climate change adaptation strategies, projects, or activities, as described.”

With Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s global warming legislation (AB 32) in 2006, together with the passage of Proposition 84 the same year, the push for green legislation since then has been non-stop.

Proposition 84 provided $90 million for urban projects that “reduce energy consumption, conserve water, improve air and water quality and provide other community benefits,” and another $90 million in grants and incentives for land use regarding green projects.

The additional and increased responsibility for the council displeases Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, the author of the California Jobs Initiative. At the Assembly Local Government committee hearing Monday, Logue said, “This is just not needed. California’s greenhouse gas emission is the third lowest in the nation.” Logue implored committee members to “listen to the people who create jobs.”

With 12.6 percent unemployment, Logue said, “we can’t afford to lose more jobs” to increasingly strict global warming legislation. “Whether global warming is real or not, I’m not a scientist, but I’ve got 31,000 scientists who say it’s not,” offered Logue.

“This legislation has put a dagger in the heart of California – there has to be an end to this,” he said. “We are the only state in the country that’s doing this to its people. We can’t go it alone.”

Differing with Logue, Assemblyman Juan Arambula, I-Fresno, said he represents an area of the state affected by the early snow pack, and offered that he supported Pavely’s legislation “for jobs.”

Pavely’s legislation would also add special districts and joint powers authorities to the list of eligible applicants for urban greening projects.

There are 35 bills about Green Legislation (enacted or currently proposed) — last updated in a November 2009 Employment Development Department webpage — requiring  California to adopt alternative fuels, green building standards and green technology. One bill even created the California Climate Change Institute. The Governor’s Green Action Team was created, as well as the California Green Chemistry Initiative which resides under the Toxic Substances department. AB 3018 – the California Green Jobs Act of 2008 — was the first green jobs legislation.

And there have been numerous additions to the green legislation list: AB 2398, (Perez) Product Stewardship for Carpet; SB 1100, (Corbett), the Battery Stewardship Act; AB 1343, (Huffman), Architectural Paint Recycling; SB 346, (Kehoe), Brake Pad Partnership Legislation; AB 2139, (Chesbro), the California Product Stewardship Act; and AB 2176, (Blumenfield), California Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction. A couple of the bills have already died in committee.

As for Pavley’s bill, that passed and was voted out of the local government committee on June 28, as well as the natural resources committee. The remaining question now is whether or not the governor will sign it.

4 comments

Write a comment
  1. EastBayLarry
    EastBayLarry 30 June, 2010, 06:07

    It’s no coincidence that Californias’ unemployment rate is so high. The trend to over regulate everything is a California tradition that started way back in the 1960s.
    To those who want ever more regulations I ask: “How has that worked out for you?”
    And for the rest of California of course. It seems that our once fine state has been controlled by people who believe that regulating the actions of ‘the people’, for their ‘own good’ is more important than maintaining a prosperous economy where ‘the people’ can prosper and thrive.

    Why do voters keep electing these power hungry socialist?

    Reply this comment
  2. TruthSquad
    TruthSquad 30 June, 2010, 09:28

    Uh, “back door”? You mean all bills that are up for public discussion and comment?

    Californians strongly support AB 32. See the new Reuters poll out today.

    And EastBayLarry, Nevada’s unemployment rate is higher than ours — and they have little in the way of regulation. So much for that theory.

    Reply this comment
  3. Tylerle13
    Tylerle13 30 June, 2010, 10:55

    What the hell is wrong with these morons? It’s obvious that they have never worked in the private sector, but these idiotic, pointless, and ineffective regulations make me wonder if they have ever even read a book on economics. Do they just sit around in the congressional chambers stroking each others “ego’s” (or 2nd chakra’s) and talk about how enlightened they are?

    The people of California do not want this crap, and we have made that perfectly clear, they just change a few words and think it makes it all better. This is not a damn shell game, these moronic regulations have real world consequences. These environmental sheep never have to worry about suffering from the consequences of these regulations because they all work in the public sector or in public relations, so they just continue to leech off of the general fund and enjoy the fact that people are leaving the state in record numbers.

    No wonder they cannot balance a budget. We already have a $19 Billion deficit, and these geniuses are trying to pass legislation that would create yet another environmental agency that will do nothing more than oversee the already ineffective clown agencies that we already waste money on. How does Fran plan to pay for this tragic joke of an agency? Let me guess, she is going to add a tax for every baby born to people who make $50K or more, since it is a fact that those babies will leave a carbon footprint throughout their lives.

    I swear, it seems like these air heads in our government have been eating lead paint chips and sucking in car exhaust their entire lives. They have the mental capacity of a goldfish. This crap has to change right now. This joke of a state is not sustainable as it is right now, and it is regulator like Pavley, Perez, that socialist guy from Long Beach, & Jerry Brown who have gotten us into this mess. There is no way our state will survive if they keep passing job killing reguations like this. We absolutely must stop sending these Clowns to Sacramento.

    Reply this comment
  4. Tylerle13
    Tylerle13 1 July, 2010, 08:13

    Hey Fraudsquad, that report asked an ambiguous question about environmental regulations, it never mentioned AB 32, so once again your peddling crap to try and fool the public.

    And Nevada is going to be hit much harder by a recession because their economy is extremely dependant on the tourism & gaming industries, which require other people to be making money so they can go spend it in Nevada.

    And it is a backdoor tactic because they are passing duplicate AB 32 laws to hedge against the California Jobs Initiative. Prop 23 will only suspend AB32, it wont have any impact on any other moronic regulations they pass. Are you just trying to distract from the truth because its your job or are you honestly that brainwashed? How much are you being paid? I’m just curious what the market value for a soul is now days.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*


Related Articles

Hertzberg proposes $10 billion sales tax on services

An influential state lawmaker is proposing a $10 billion sales tax on services that would include everything from accounting to

Flawed study tries to link smog with childhood cancer

April 26, 2013 By Wayne Lusvardi     Anyone who remembers the choking smog of 1960s Los Angeles knows of

Bill removing tampon sales tax advances in Legislature

A bill to eliminate sales tax on feminine hygiene products came one step closer to becoming law on Thursday, ok’d