Studies predict AB 32 will crash Calif. economy

July 17, 2012

By Dave Roberts

Two new studies are predicting economic devastation in California as the myriad regulations and costs resulting from AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, take effect in the next eight years. The hit to state residents will total $35 billion in 2020 —  exceeding California’s combined revenue from sales taxes, corporation taxes, insurance taxes, estate taxes, liquor taxes, tobacco taxes and vehicle fees, according to a study by Andrew Chang & Company for the California Manufacturers & Technology Association. The average family will pay an extra $2,500 by 2020 due to increased energy prices.

The total cumulative cost to consumers will be $136 billion by 2020, according to the report. California’s gross state product will be reduced by $153 billion, representing a 5.6 percent decrease. That is roughly equivalent to California’s GSP loss in the Great Recession from December 2007 to June 2009. In addition, the state will have 262,000 fewer jobs in 2020 than if AB 32 had not been enacted. Total state and local tax revenues will be reduced by more than $7.4 billion annually in 2020.

These figures are based on an “optimistic” scenario, assuming a lower range for fuel price hikes and a higher range for energy efficiency the reduction in vehicle miles traveled. The actual costs could be much higher: California families could be paying an extra $4,500 annually, while state and local tax revenue could drop $39 billion by 2020.

“These policies will create a large but hidden tax on families and will add new burdens to a fragile state economy,” said CMTA President Jack Stewart. “This new tax is not what we need while Californians struggle to find jobs, meet mortgage payments and maintain a reasonable quality of life. This poses great risks to manufacturers and other firms competing in regional and global markets. Current data shows that California already is lagging the nation in new manufacturing investment because of other cost pressures and uncertainties. The Legislature must use this critical data to get control of AB 32 costs.”

Hardest hit may be the state’s businesses, particularly those in energy-intensive areas like manufacturing, transportation and petroleum refinement. But all will feel the pain, according to National Federation of Independent Business/California Executive Director John Kabateck.

“For the past five years, small business owners have been concerned about their ability to operate under the potential costs of a complicated AB 32 regulatory scheme,” said Kabateck. “This comprehensive report tells us that small business will get hit from all sides. Consumers will have less money to buy our products, employers will be forced to purchase more affordable products outside of California and our own energy costs will make it nearly impossible to stay in business.”

‘Optimistic’ scenario

Under the “optimistic” scenario, California’s local governments will lose $1.9 billion in revenue by 2020 and face an additional annual cost increase of $2.3 billion in 2020, according to the report. The Los Angeles Unified School District will face cumulative costs of $27.3 million, with an annual impact of $5.5 million in 2020.

“Municipalities are struggling everywhere in California,” said Diamond Bar Mayor Ling-Ling Chang. “This is a double hit in both lost revenues and substantial new costs. I’m in favor of greenhouse gas reductions, but there must be a cheaper way to do this.”

On the plus side, the state is expected to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. On the down side, one-quarter of those reductions “will be due to the economic slowdown resulting from AB 32 and the decrease in transportation fuel consumption due to increased costs and decreased earnings,” the report states.

The state’s outlook is not much better in the other report, which was prepared by The Boston Consulting Group for the Western States Petroleum Association. It’s key findings include:

* Gas prices could increase by $2.70 per gallon in California, depending on the cost of carbon.
* Due to refinery closures, California could lose 28,000-51,000 jobs, including many high-paying skilled manufacturing jobs, as well as indirect job losses due to multiplier effects.
* California could lose up to $ 4.4 billion of tax revenue per year by 2020.
* There will be a wealth transfer of at least $3.7 billion per year by 2020 from refineries and fuel suppliers to the California Air Resources Board as a result of purchasing allowances.
* California’s climate-change regulations will discourage energy intensive industries from locating in the state, and existing industry will have an incentive to leave the state.

“The findings of this research are sobering,” wrote WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd in a June 18 letter to Gov. Jerry Brown. “Californians know all too well that, no matter how well intended, innovative energy policies may result in unintended consequences. CARB’s climate change regulations for fuel providers and fuels are exactly these innovative, first-of-their-kind policies that may result in serious and unintended consequences.

“From possible fuel shortages to an increase in global emissions to market disruptions reminiscent of the California energy crisis, the BCG study has highlighted some warning signs that require immediate attention by California policymakers. In order to safeguard Californians and fuel providers from the unintended but almost certain disruption of our state’s fuel supplies, it is essential that we begin a serious and constructive discussion on California’s fuels policies.”

Fuel supplies disrupted

Brad VanTassel, the lead researcher for the BCG study, said, “California’s current climate change policies pose some really impossible challenges for refiners in California that have the potential to disrupt fuel markets and fuel supplies in very serious ways. In addition to forcing the closure of a significant number of California’s petroleum refineries, those disruptions are likely to manifest themselves economy-wide in terms of lost jobs, higher costs for fuel, food and other necessities, and loss of tax revenues to state and local governments.”

With the AB 32 horse having left the barn — an anti-AB 32 proposition, Proposition 23, was defeated easily two years ago — state officials have largely ignored the studies in the belief that all will be well. They argue that additional energy costs will be offset by savings from increased energy efficiency, and that “green” jobs will be created to offset other job losses. CARB spokesman David Clegern estimates the state will save about $4.3 billion in health care costs from cleaner air by 2020, according to Green Supply Chain News. A CARB study in March 2010 concluded that AB 32 will reduce GSP (Gross State Product) by just 0.2 percent.

If the new studies are accurate, the economic pain from AB 32 will begin to be felt next year, and then will slowly ratchet up for the rest of the decade. In effect, Californians are the frog that’s been placed in a pot of warm water and the burner has just been turned on. In eight years the water will be at full boil. But by then it may be much too late to jump out of the pot.


Write a comment
  1. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 July, 2012, 09:53

    LOL There is NO –REPEAT—No man created global warming!

    All of the scientists are wrong, all of the other nations are wrong…

    Beck and El Rushbo and the new Mitt Willard are correct!

    American Exxxxceptionalism at it’s finest!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  2. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 17 July, 2012, 10:43

    All the scientists are claim global warming is right ARE wrong must still be reeling from your 1%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% baby!

    Reply this comment
  3. Queeg
    Queeg 17 July, 2012, 10:58

    The debate continues while the corn price for your Abertson’s corn flakes goes to the moon.

    75% of products in grocery store have some form of corn in them.

    Poor 99%’ers get ripped a good one this time!

    Reply this comment
  4. Tom Becker
    Tom Becker 17 July, 2012, 11:00

    Ted – I take it that your verbal flagellation is based on some scientific study – is that right?

    Reply this comment
  5. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 July, 2012, 11:14

    Tommy B.– Based on the massive consensus of reports/experts etc— YOU are way in the minority— discuss–

    7.5 over 20 baaaaaaaaby !!!!!

    Reply this comment
  6. warren duffy
    warren duffy 17 July, 2012, 11:45

    Without name calling, please, may I present a few factoids that will add to the discussion?

    First, the science is not settled on Global Warming, Climate Change or even Green House Gases. Click onto the Oregon Petition and note that 31,487 scientists and 9,029 PhDs have considered the evidence and don’t see the connection between man made pollution and global warming. NASA scientist, Dr James Lovelock who promoted climate change from 2006 to 2011 “walks away”. Google him. And then there’s the UN’s IPPC that has been totally discredited along with all of the “scare stats” they provided to the governments of the planet for two decades.

    It is the foolhardy man who won’t step back from an opinion and examine it a second time or even a third time. Please examine the other evidence in this important discussion with an open mind from time to time and admit you might be wrong.

    Science is never settled – economics can be settled quite easily. If any government program is going to impose taxes, fees, new and costly standards that must be met or fines must be paid, those costs can be projected. The report in the preceeding story is only one of a dozen I have received – and carefully studied – for the past six months as businesses and trade groups (and cities and universities) examine the costs of the AB 32 program in California.

    Look – to say the government is going to auction off carbon credits to businesses and that those businesses aren’t going to pass those costs along to customers is a joke. Not matter how noble the cause, no matter the problem that cries out to be solved, government programs that cost businesses money eventually wind up getting paid by customers/taxpayers.

    When low carbon fuel has to be produced in CA at the level AB 32 requires, slam dunk the price at the pump is going up. Matter of fact, BP Oil in Carson Calif near LAX is selling off their big refinery and storage area (along with their brand name ARCO) because the hassel with CA government to retail gasoline in our state is simply too costly. They’re investing in the shale oil boom in the northwest. So say goodbye to all of the tax dollars they generate, all the jobs they produce for blue collar, union workers, and be prepared to see a few empty gas stations in your community. Blame it on The 2006 CA Global Warming Solutions ACT – AB 32.

    That’s just one example. Twitter is gone. Adobe, eBay and Oracle have all moved across the border to Salt Lake City and taken jobs and tax payments to CA with them when they left. Apple is building a $304-M campus in Austin and hiring 3600 people there who might have been hired in CA without the ornerous laws Sacramento has passed – many of them connected to AB 32. Heck – Facebook and eBay moved to Austin last year and the parade of exiting businesses will continue as the “stuck in the 60’s” Governor, his environmental-activist chairman of CARB (you know, California’s Arbitrary Rules for Bankruptcy) Mary Nichols continues her high handed development of the cap and trade scheme that she is ill-equipped and ill-educated to operate, and our one-party legislature kicks over every rock in the state to raise money to pay for …. “the bullet train to nowhere”.

    Please be intelligent and revue past assumptions with the benefit of new information. Smart people are moving out of our state. Blue and white collar jobs – taxpayers – are leaving too. Who’s going to pay for all thienvironmental madness?

    You and I – all of us – are going to be paying more for electricity, gasoline, water, food, everything delivered by trucks, wine and beer (yep, they’re messing with your wine, too) once cap and trade starts with the first carbon credit auction on 11/14. When the money starts rolling into Sacramento, we’ll need a bunker buster bomb to get the ill-conceived program stopped.

    By the way, come join our protest rally on the steps of the state capitol on 8/15 – the day CARB will hold their dry run cap and trade auction. You’ll learn the truth about AB 32 and what it will cost our state from our great list of speakers and you’ll be able to express your frustation with your State Legislators and the folks at CARB. Rally time – 11 to 1 – info at

    California CAN be Green and Golden – but Golden must come first.

    Reply this comment
  7. Queeg
    Queeg 17 July, 2012, 12:14

    Who cares about nerd boring science…..get lots of supersize petro jelly and assume the familar tax extraction position.

    Govenor Brown wins. You always lose. Until you win, please go light on science; we are into your current reality!

    Reply this comment
  8. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 17 July, 2012, 13:26

    Yes, lets go light on science… and reason and facts and reality based observation and skepticism. They are, like you know, such a total bummer dude.

    Isn’t it interesting how all of the Silicon Valley crony capitalist billionaires have put their big fat hypocritical mouths behind Jerryatric Clowns Anthropogenic Global Warming scare while they put there corporate money every place but Kalifornia.

    Warren Duffy, you hit a screaming 500 foot line drive out of the park with that one baby.

    Reply this comment
  9. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 July, 2012, 14:09

    Sure it’s real…

    The world will continue to experience longer droughts, stronger storms and rising temperatures according to a report released by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday.

    After meeting in Kampala, Uganda, the IPCC issued a 29-page summary of a forthcoming report that outlines to the world’s nations specific weather patterns and climate changes to expect, while urging leaders to begin planning for the events.

    “We need to be worried,” Maarten van Aalst, one of the study’s lead authors, said to the AP. “And our response needs to anticipate disasters and reduce risk before they happen rather than wait until after they happen and clean up afterward.”

    “Risk has already increased dramatically,” Aalst said.

    The IPCC report does not specify the cause of climate change. The U.N. however, who funds the IPCC, defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere.”

    The IPCC report did, however, attribute certain climate changes to humans. Greenhouse gasses caused by human consumption have lead to more record high temperatures, fewer low temperatures and an increase in coastal flooding.

    Follow us

    That the report did not specify what other changes in the climate could be attributed to humans does not mean that humans aren’t responsible for many other effects of global warming.

    The study highlighted potentially dangerous weather developments for specific regions of the world.

    The U.S. and Caribbean was warned to expect hurricanes of greater force – higher wind speed, greater volume and larger mass. The increase in strength is due mainly to rising ocean levels.

    The hurricanes are not expected to increase in quantity, and the panel found that there is not evidence to suggest that the number of annual hurricanes has increased over the last 50 years.

    The IPCC recommends that U.S. and Caribbean governments update building codes and enact better warning systems.

    The panel found that the most worldwide damage is not done by large storms, but by smaller instances of flooding. The increase in storms, along with rising sea levels, puts much of North America in danger of flood-related catastrophes.

    Heat waves in Europe have increased over the last 50 years, and will increase in length, intensity and frequency the panel found.

    The panel suggests that European leaders implement early-warning systems, recognize particularly vulnerable areas, inform the public about what to do in a heat wave and use social care networks to reach particularly vulnerable groups.

    Reply this comment
  10. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 17 July, 2012, 15:02

    Very hopeful after reading these posts….40% high school drop outs have no clue…..probably 20% struggled over six years and got a degree in collectivism….10% looking for a career job pumping gas or stuffing Happy Meals for the masses….the rest assorted left over producers who are too challenged to move on.

    AB32 is a start….you’ll learn to like it lots when you find out what is in the bill!

    Reply this comment
  11. us citizen
    us citizen 17 July, 2012, 15:18

    Global warming is a bunch of BS. This good ol’ earth has been going through climate changes since it was born. It has nothing, ya hear, nothing to do with man. The glaciers melted in the US LONGGGGGGGGG before we were even around. Do some studying on ice cores brought up from the arctic. Or how about the mini ice age that Gore conveniently left out of his report because it didnt fit his criteria. Or what about the book he wrote in the 80’s on the coming ICE age. Or check out solar flares! Solar flares cause alllll planets to get warmer. Do you actually think that man affects Venus, Mars or Neptune? We go through cycles and this is one of them and nothing more and we will go through other ones also. We are not the cause of this! The sun is.

    Reply this comment
  12. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 July, 2012, 16:04

    Mr. Haul— You continue to inspire us !

    Reply this comment
  13. NorCalSaint
    NorCalSaint 17 July, 2012, 17:40

    It’s obvious that AB 32 has been designed to impoverish the middle class so that they will leave CA rather than deal with real pollution problems and conservation. The pseudo-science surrounding global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever you want to call it has already been proven fraudulent. Environmental alarmists and pseudo-scientists are the ones who adjust, homogenize or cherry-pick data to support their hypothesis of global warming. Yes, it is a hypothesis; not a theory.
    And the costs to CA middle class I would expect to be much higher than reported in this article.
    Check out the costs for Australia: (

    Reply this comment
  14. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 July, 2012, 18:45

    us Cit–

    Certain facts about Earth’s climate are not in dispute:

    The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
    Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
    The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

    Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise
    Sea level rise

    Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

    Global temperature rise

    All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 7

    Warming oceans

    The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

    Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet
    Shrinking ice sheets

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

    Visualization of the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum
    Declining Arctic sea ice

    Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 9

    The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.
    Glacial retreat

    Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10

    Extreme events

    The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11

    Ocean acidification

    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

    1 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5

    B.D. Santer, “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

    Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

    V. Ramaswamy, “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

    B.D. Santer, “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

    2 In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

    3 National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    4 Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

    The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded
    from the CSIRO website.

    5 anomalies/index.html

    6 T.C. Peterson, “State of the Climate in 2008,” Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

    7 I. Allison, The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

    8 Levitus, et al, “Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

    9 L. Polyak,, “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

    R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

    10 National Snow and Ice Data Center

    World Glacier Monitoring Service


    12 (Note: The pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.)


    14 C. L. Sabine, “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

    15 Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

    Global Climate Change is produced by the Earth Science Communications Team at

    NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology

    Ted Steele— Scientist

    Reply this comment
  15. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 17 July, 2012, 21:24

    Yed- stop your “cut and paste” jobs or I am going to start calling you stevefromsacto…………….

    Reply this comment
  16. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 July, 2012, 21:45

    I HAD to do it Poodle— did you see the cut n paste job on the nonsense denying manmade global warming above mine?

    Even a person as limited as you understands this stuff, right?

    Reply this comment
  17. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 17 July, 2012, 22:36

    1%%%%%%%%%%%%% baby!

    Reply this comment
  18. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 July, 2012, 22:40

    LOL– That’s what I thought!

    Reply this comment
  19. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 17 July, 2012, 22:53

    So Ted, what science degree do you have? A GED in phrenology or Lamarckism? You can cut and paste all the politicized pseudoscience you want and it still won’t prove a thing about global warming as a man made event. I notice that unlike Mr. Duffy you compile no actual facts from memmory in your tiresome cut and paste snow job. You just refer incoherently to outside sources many of which reach disputed conlusions. Also, I noticed you only site the policymakers summary of the IPCC “report”, not the actual report produced by scientists like Richard Lindzen who have had their contributions distorted by the U.N. bureaucratic hacks for political purposes. If your side is so right then your climate models should have predictive ability. In fact, modern climate science has a terrible track record, just as bad as Keynesian economics. Climate models are no more accurate at prognostication than economic models. They can’t even be used for backcasting much less forecasting. Keynesian Econometrics and Global Warming Science – two of the greatest intellectual con jobs of all time.

    Here’s a fact for you Luddite reactionaries. You can cripple California’s already distressed economy trying to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels and it will have next to no effect on world carbon dioxide output. AB 32 will have no significant effect on atmospheric greenhouse gases or world climate trends (which haven’t warmed in 12 years now despite your dire predictions) even if the stated goals are met, which I guarantee will not happen. AB32 is nothing more than an eco-socialist tax increase scam. You are tilting at windmills and playing with fire just so you can feel morally smug about your particular brand of environmental sanctimony. Have you bothered to research the economic costs of your enviro-fantasies? Do you care about cost benefit analysis at all or are you so fanatical that you believe the costs and risks of your schemes don’t matter? An intellectually honest scientist would admit that they could be wrong or that the benefits of Global Warming might outweigh the detrimental effects. All I see from you AGP fanatics is hand wringing, finger pointing, sleazy science and scare tactics. Save the cut and paste job for the suckers, you don’t impress me at all.

    Reply this comment
  20. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 17 July, 2012, 23:03

    Lets cut the personal attacks….bunker fever is foregiveable but grade school name calling is pathetic!

    By the way what is cut and paste????

    Reply this comment
  21. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 July, 2012, 23:28

    Das septic— So I am a Ludite because I gave you a peer reviewed well cited paper? Yikes…did you read it? IOt’s short little buddy.– Ted

    Reply this comment
  22. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 July, 2012, 23:31

    If you need more proof or evidence of major scientific consensus, just let me know. I am smug. — Ted

    Reply this comment
  23. Donkey
    Donkey 18 July, 2012, 05:48

    Ted, you or no one you know can control the atmosphere of our planet. Just one volcanoe produces more of the GW gases you so fear. How are you going to stop the volcanoes that go off every year wizbang? 🙂

    Reply this comment
  24. Donkey
    Donkey 18 July, 2012, 05:49

    Dyspeptic, you are right!! 🙂

    Reply this comment
  25. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 18 July, 2012, 07:25

    School is out and the gloomsday bunker is full!

    Reply this comment
  26. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 18 July, 2012, 08:46

    @Empty head Ted, The Janitor,

    I noticed you didn’t address any of my points about cost benefit analysis or the economic risks/costs of AB32. I realize this requires more thought than just a cut and paste job but you could try it anyway. Also, you didn’t address my observation that AB32 will do little or nothing about global CO2 levels even if it’s goals are met. So then what is it’s purpose? Taxing the Kalifornia economy back to the stone age perhaps? Also, the IPCC reports are not peer reviewed science and the IPCC itself has admitted that it’s policy maker summary is not scientifically valid and has become too political in nature. One final point which even your scientifically ignorant hero Al Gore should be able to understand – Consensus has no bearing on scientific validity. Science isn’t some democratic process like legislating. You would understand this if you had any real scientific training.

    Reply this comment
  27. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 18 July, 2012, 09:07

    Dis septic–No– Of course I didn’t address the cost benefit or the econ/risk parts of your looooooooooong post. Why would I ? The 500 pound gorilla in the front room among the nations is that we are almost alone in the modern scientific world in our primitive and ignorant lack of understanding about mans involvement in climate. You points are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Have at it!


    Reply this comment
  28. Tom in SoCal
    Tom in SoCal 18 July, 2012, 09:17

    You can boil all the weather science down to one simple fact.

    Right now scientists cannot accurately predict the weather more than 5 days in advance and even with that they have a poor track record.

    How can they then with any degree of certainty predict the weather 100 or even 10 years in advance?

    Reply this comment
  29. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 18 July, 2012, 09:34

    Dys. Don’t care about boring nerd science…Brown in charge…CARB is in…win an election or learn to breathe cleaner cooler air….

    Reply this comment
  30. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 18 July, 2012, 11:05

    Ted Steal, PhD from the Al Gore Institute For Quack Science said
    “No– Of course I didn’t address the cost benefit or the econ/risk parts of your looooooooooong post. Why would I ?”

    So your attention span and knowledge base aren’t sufficient to deal with the real issues then? Since this whole discussion is in regards to a specific policy i.e. AB 32, there is no point in discussing the dubious Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Instability hypothesis in a vacuum (no Ted, I’m not referring to what’s between your ears). Public policies have real costs and risks. Honest discussions of such policies require some attempt to determine whether costs and risks outweigh alleged benefits. If there is no net benefit from the policy then it is harmful and wasteful. Too bad you don’t care about economic harm and waste Ted but that’s not surprising since this is a hallmark of environmental fanatics everywhere.

    Your hysterical reference to the Titanic is typical of the overblown doomsday rhetoric from the Gaia worshipping crowd. Calm down, breath deeply and try to think rationally. If what you say is true then any public policy is doomed to fail because the earth ship has already struck the iceberg and all that is left is finding a life vest and hoping for the best. Letting the Gauleiters in Sacramento tax and regulate us into a permanent depression won’t make the earth cooler but it’s nice to know that you don’t care about the economic destruction it will bring to the state. Your concern for the common folk who have to work for a living is truly touching Ted.

    Here is another question you can’t answer Ted. Exactly what is the Earth’s ideal temperature and what scientific process leads you to believe that?

    Reply this comment
  31. bobaran
    bobaran 18 July, 2012, 11:06

    The ALGORE Psalm

    ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.
    He maketh me lie down with green fascists:
    He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters.
    He selleth my soul:
    He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake.
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason,
    I will fear no logic: for thou art with me;
    Thy family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square foot home, they comfort me.
    Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence:
    Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my fear runneth over.
    Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of my life:
    and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever.

    Reply this comment
  32. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 18 July, 2012, 12:21

    Teddy-time for another meltdown Troll Elite-Compton will be filing BK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The sky is STILL falling on Teddy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  33. Donkey
    Donkey 18 July, 2012, 15:41

    Bobaran, nice!! 🙂

    Reply this comment
  34. Donkey
    Donkey 18 July, 2012, 15:43

    Rex, and the BK’s just keep on coming!! The RAGWUS feeders just don’t understand, and they wont until they are hit in the face with the letter that tells them the well has run dry. 😉

    Reply this comment
  35. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 18 July, 2012, 16:20

    Yes Rex, the bankruptcy dominoes continue to fall while the Gaia worshippers do everything they can to speed up the process with economy killing tax and regulation schemes. Things just keep getting uglier in the land of the lotus eaters.

    Bobaran, nice reworking of psalm 23. It fits the topic perfectly 🙂

    Reply this comment
  36. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 18 July, 2012, 16:26

    LOL— Alot of fake scientists out here !!! Have at it boys !!!!! I guess the vast majority of PhD’s are incorrect—I will alert the media!

    Reply this comment
  37. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 18 July, 2012, 16:26

    Are any of you gloomers ever happy.

    Reply this comment
  38. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 18 July, 2012, 16:27

    Poodle and Duncey—– Another BK city? Only 32,000 American cities left! Keep dreaming !!


    Reply this comment
  39. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 18 July, 2012, 16:29

    1%%%%%%%%%%%5 return BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  40. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 18 July, 2012, 16:31

    Teddy. Call the Adelanto Bugle. They are always on the lookout for stories on Area 51, bunker energy saving tips and posting etiquette when desecrating conspiracy sites.

    Reply this comment
  41. JLSeagull
    JLSeagull 18 July, 2012, 17:22

    Ted Steele, While I completely disagree with your arguments “justifying” climate change I will not bore you with a heavily annotated counter-argument when you can figure it out using simple math. Instead I ask that you take a couple of minutes to work through the following exercise. You can even use a calculator to do the math yourself.

    CO2 is currently 385 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Move the decimal point and it becomes .000385, less than 4/100s of 1 percent! (In millennia past it has been as high as 1700 ppm.) Of that .000385 ppm less than one quarter is generated by human activity. Now picture a football field, 300 yards – 3600 inches. Multiply 3600 by .000385 and you come up with just under 1.4 inches. Painting a 1.4 inch stripe across the field would represent the total amount of CO2 over the football field. Now if the sun comes up and warms up the air temperature over the field by 1 degree, how much would you have to lower the temperature over the 1.4” stripe to offset that 1 degree of warming? Answer. 3600 degrees BELOW ZERO. Now if absolute zero is -459 degrees F, you would have to lower the temperature 7.84 times below absolute zero. Not much chance of life existing at that temperature. The hard numbers just don’t support the human activity Global Warming fraud. Is the climate changing? Yes, all the time. Conservation of our natural resources is good public policy in any case but not driven by the junk science put forward by the AGW crowd. I DEFY you to find any scientist, anywhere, to refute these figures. It doesn’t take any advanced degrees to do the math. Anybody with a decent elementary school education could run the numbers. I only have an AAS in Data Processing, plus 29 years as a Systems Analyst.

    How about another simple math exercise? Since 1960 the world population has more than doubled, increasing by 3.5 billion people. With each breath we inhale about one pint of air containing 4/100 of 1% of CO2, exhaling 4% CO2. At 12-15 breaths a minute, within two minutes we have exhaled one pint of CO2 (25 breaths times 4% CO2 = 100% of 1 pint). In 15 minutes we have exhaled one gallon (eight pints) of CO2 into the atmosphere! Multiply that by the population increase since 1960 and every 15 minutes humans are generating an additional 3.5 billion gallons of CO2 more than 51 years ago; 14 billion gallons each hour! Human beings, just by living, are veritable CO2 gas generators!

    Now factor in the methane generated disposing of the waste from these additional 3.5 billion people. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. The livestock we raise for food and clothing also contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, accounting for around 20% of global methane emissions. Livestock in New Zealand account for 60% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

    Or how about this little factoid? Over the past ten years NASA photographs have documented the shrinking southern polar ice cap – on Mars. Mars is 141 million miles from the sun; Earth is 93 million miles – two thirds of the distance. Even Stone Age caveman figured out that the closer you stood to a heat source the warmer it was. Maybe we can convince Martians to park their SUV’s, not use coal to heat their homes and to adopt “green” technology. Of course, if they did, we wouldn’t be able to call Mars the “red planet” anymore, would we?

    Oh yes, one last tidbit. The largest heat retaining gas on earth, by quantity is…… water vapor.

    Liberals and Democrats are firm believers in AGW based on junk science. They accuse the skeptics, Republicans and Conservatives, of being “deniers”. So in summary, then, it could be said that Liberals and Democrats believe in junk science and Republicans and Conservatives deny junk science.

    Reply this comment
  42. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 18 July, 2012, 17:25

    Yawn. Politics and chrony capitalism trump psuedo/detailed/boring science!

    Reply this comment
  43. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 18 July, 2012, 17:50

    Seakill— LOL—- Like I would bother to do the psuedo math from your psuedo formulas! I only cut n pasted as a joke— these ignorance blogs are a classic American exxxxxceptionalism display case! I could cut n paste pro climate change papers for you til you begged me to stop! And the point is? Like you’d change your mind??? LOL…I don’t think so little buddy !

    I guess if you want I would paste up a few like you have? Should I?

    We remain the joke of the world re global warming. I’m ok with that.

    Yawn……U Haul is right……crony capitalism………..and on another note……do you think Willard is hiding something with those hidden tax returns and off shore bank accounts?

    Teddy Boy, Janitor

    Reply this comment
  44. Donkey
    Donkey 18 July, 2012, 21:21

    We know you can’t do math Teddy Steals, or you would know your RAGWUS is coming to an end! 🙂

    Reply this comment
  45. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 18 July, 2012, 21:31

    Teddy thinks 2+2= million dollar pensions 😉

    Reply this comment
  46. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 18 July, 2012, 21:39

    Are you high again in the Beck bunker little Poodle? Are you and Duncey and ocODDball Beezyboob spooning? ….again?


    Reply this comment
  47. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 18 July, 2012, 22:54

    Hot sun in Adelanto affecting the Ragwus doomers!

    Reply this comment
  48. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 19 July, 2012, 00:14

    Us Adelnto dwellers all have pools to cool us from the hot sun!

    Reply this comment
  49. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 19 July, 2012, 07:51

    In Adelanto doomers use swimming pools to boil scorpions….local favorite called DESERT POT!

    Reply this comment
  50. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 19 July, 2012, 09:01

    In Adelanto all locals must where tin foil hats—the local supermarket can barely keep enough tin foil stocked on the shelves !!

    Reply this comment
  51. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 19 July, 2012, 10:54

    You mean truck stops with a wine shelf, spam shelf, paper plate shelf? The grocery store is in Ridgecrest…..

    Reply this comment
  52. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 19 July, 2012, 12:30

    LOL– but I think they shop in Trona.

    Reply this comment
  53. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 19 July, 2012, 16:35

    They will travel far for S&H Green Stamps!

    Reply this comment
  54. Richard Rider
    Richard Rider 20 July, 2012, 10:51

    For all the name calling and cutting and pasting, all commenters seem to be ignoring the reality of AB32.

    And that reality is this: NO ONE thinks its implementation will have ANY effect on “man made global warming” (now “climate change,” of course). Even proponents see it as “setting a good example” — ignoring the fact that no state is following our example.

    But doubtless the other states support our AB32 efforts — and are busy setting up attractive “refugee centers” to accept our departing businesses and productive people.

    California IS the engine of prosperity — for the other 49 states.

    Reply this comment
  55. us citizen
    us citizen 21 July, 2012, 08:16

    You got that right Richard. And who is going to be left to pay for this rot? The over abundance of illegals? Good luck with that.

    Reply this comment
  56. oldcarpenter
    oldcarpenter 21 July, 2012, 21:04

    remember when we were all to bake to death over the ozone. russia would be gassing massively to have warming if it were true. its all bad. we are a ship of fools and we know it but we keep sail on into our third world collective harmonious peoples. look at our poor huddled masses. we are loosing our shame.
    we look at politicians and they look at themselves as superheros. ill take my dog over the whole mess even if this mess came with eternal life. im glad im old and wont be around to witness this foolishness of lawmakers and there laws bringing my labor to a bread and water diet.

    Reply this comment
  57. 2nd class citizen
    2nd class citizen 22 July, 2012, 15:38

    I’ve concluded the only solution to save California will be complete bankruptcy. At that time we can rewrite all public union contracts which will destroy the stronghold that Unions have on the legislature. At that time we will get rid of AB 32 as well. Till then keep on spending Jerry and for the second class citizens of California (taxpayers who are non union) vote no on all tax hikes.

    Reply this comment
  58. Bust it
    Bust it 6 February, 2013, 19:37

    @ us citizen, “…And who is going to be left to pay for this rot?” when the jobs have left and the productive class have left all that will be left is whats left…the left and their gang of economic slave laborers the illegals.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Contested family leave bill on governor’s desk

Since 1997 the California Chamber of Commerce has prevented more than three-quarters of bills that it calls “job killers” from

Can Business Recovery Be Legislated?

Katy Grimes: It’s so exciting that fast food giant Carl’s Jr. plans on opening 300 new fast food restaurants! Wow. That’s such

Nurse practitioner bill on life support in Assembly

SACRAMENTO – With Obamacare set to go into effect in January, state lawmakers anticipate millions of residents with newly obtained