CARB: The Gremlin in California’s garage

Dec. 11, 2012

By Katy Grimes

The California Air Resources Board’s first cap and trade auction in November is yet more proof that CARB is responsible for making people cough, snort and wheeze in California. While trying to convince everyone that the carbon credit auction was a success, CARB officials have blown more smog around the state than an oil-burning AMC Gremlin.

Mary Nichols, CARB’s director, refuses to talk about losing jobs and the painful state of the economy. And she’s getting away with it.

California’s radical global warming legislation

AB 32, the California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was supposed to lower the state’s carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But since the legislation was passed, CARB has myopically insisted that Californians need to go on a carbon diet — despite evidence of fraud, refutations of the junk science behind AB 32, the exorbitant cost to the state’s economy, and no standard climate change measurements.

The state claims that it will accomplish lowering greenhouse gas levels by “capping” the carbon emissions of oil refineries, utilities and power generators and other manufacturing and industrial businesses.

However, in doing so, the agency also stubbornly has refused to answer why California should go it alone when the rest of the country, and most of the nations in the world, have pulled out of cap and trade, or were never participants in the first place.

It looks like what actually will be capped is production and productivity in the state.

Could cap and trade be the Gremlin driving the California economy off the cliff?

Faux impact

The carbon intensity of the United States is only one-quarter of China’s and is already well below the average of the world.

But the real result will be in the near future, as California’s unrealistically strict carbon emission rules will discourage in-state manufacturing and production, as businesses are financially penalized with the carbon tax.

Many climate scientists have reported that achieving zero carbon emissions from the United States will have no impact on future temperatures. This also applies to CARB’s cap and trade as well as AB 32.

If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions in order to stop global warming, taxing businesses accomplishes nothing of the sort.

But first, is there really dangerous global warming looming ahead?

Meteorologist debunks warming theory

“Not only are temperatures not increasing faster than was predicted 10 years ago, temperatures have not increased at all since the late 1990’s,” said Joe Bastardi, the Chief Long Range Forecaster at Accuweather for 32 years.

Bastardi, a meteorologist and now the Chief Forecaster at WeatherBELL, says that private companies make more accurate forecasts than the government.

Bastardi has been an outspoken skeptic of human-induced global warming.

“Furthermore, when you compare the observed temperatures of the past 10 years against all the climate model predictions, the result should do more than raise eyebrows about how much taxpayer money is being wasted on climate science that is proving to be wrong.”

The argument that global warming is causing more extreme weather is problematic, Bastardi said, “because it presumes the globe is warming.”

In a recent article, Bastardi explained:

“In fact, the global temperature trend line has been stable for more than a dozen years, while carbon dioxide has increased 7%. If CO2 was the driver, then why have global temperatures stopped increasing?

“Keep in mind that CO2 represents 0.0395 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere. Arguing that CO2 is driving the small temperature variations in our climate as opposed to the oceans, which cover 70 percent of the planet and have 1,000 times the heat capacity of air, or the output of our sun, is scientifically disturbing.

“Weather is more publicized nowadays because of its impact on society and the constant push of the global warming agenda. Increases in population result in more people being in the path of Mother Nature’s fury.”

Global Warming alarmists and activists

Bastardi asked:

“How do these people have any credibility? How do they get away with this?  It’s mind boggling that it’s gotten to a point where the EPA is dictating policy based on what is an obvious fraud, or if you want to be gentle about it, creates enough doubt to back off.”

Bastardi said that if the U.S. is sincere about economic recovery, we need to “get rid of the EPA running roughshod over factory owners, and lower the corporate tax rate to below China’s  (it is so hard to believe that Chinese tax rates are lower) and you will find that companies will stay here and pay a decent wage to build air conditioners. But not if you are clamping down on people based on questionable, don’t-have-a-leg-to-stand-on ideas about CO2 warming the planet.”

Bastardi goes on to explain, “Global warming activists attribute every major weather event to man because they are either uninformed about history, or choose to ignore it. They own every answer. It could snow cheese in New York tomorrow morning and that would be from global warming.

“All the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections for our climate have proved to be wrong. Global temperatures have stopped increasing and are nowhere near estimates made a decade ago. The IPCC incorrectly predicted Arctic sea ice would disappear by now.”

Faux goals

But don’t let the facts, data, and history get in the way of a revenue-producing, controlling government program.

Instead of actually reducing carbon emissions, in California a business can merely purchase get-out-of-jail carbon credits. But this nullifies the goals of AB 32.

Another problematic area is that AB 32 does not provide CARB the authority to withhold allowances from businesses to sell at auction for the benefit of the State. This taxing function was not included in the authorizing legislation and was never discussed at the committee hearings while the bill was progressing through the legislative process.

Interestingly, the legislative committee videos held during 2005 and 2006 have disappeared. The California Channel, the official videographer of the California Legislature, recently pulled all videos prior to 2009. I have made several written requests and phone calls to the California Channel for access to these videos, but have never received a response.

Additionally, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and many others, have concluded that an auction is not necessary to reach the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals in AB 32.

Flaws and faux reporting

The AB 32 Implementation Group, comprised of employers and taxpayer groups concerned about protecting jobs and the California economy, while implementing the state’s policies to meet AB 32 goals, has been trying to deal with CARB since implementation began. The group’s members acknowledge that AB 32 is law, and have tried to work with CARB to reasonably implement the law.

“CARB announced, prior to the November auction, significant changes would be made to the allowance obligations of certain entities in 2013 and unspecified changes to adjust the assistance factor for energy-intensive trade-exposed industries for the allocation rules in 2015 and beyond,” the AB 32 Implementation Group reported last week.

“This unfinished work creates uncertainty and makes it impossible for the employers subject to the regulation to account for future costs increasing the chances of leakage.  CARB has also not developed the tools to monitor, much less solve, the problem of emissions leakage and job loss that from a new multi-billion-dollar energy tax on the state’s economy,” the group said.

Put that in your Gremlin and drive it.

6 comments

Write a comment
  1. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 11 December, 2012, 17:23

    OK..I hate to admit this, but I LOVED the “Gremlin” when it came out. An AMC car as I revall….

    Reply this comment
  2. Ron Kilmartin
    Ron Kilmartin 11 December, 2012, 19:04

    The AB 32 Implementation Group should quit dickering compliantly with this out-of-control agency run by a tyrant and instead sue them. Cap and trade should be stalled in the courts since it and AB32 are scientific frauds.

    Reply this comment
  3. dltravers
    dltravers 11 December, 2012, 19:14

    They are predicting what the weather will be like 100 years from now. Imagine that! Try getting it right in a shorter timeframe first. The arrogance is incredible.

    The natural variability of climate is completely ignored in their models. Glaciers were rolling of Yosemite about 10 or 12 thousand years ago. The Pleistocene aged ended cira that timeframe; the earth warmed and mankind flourished.

    Global warming is why we are here in such numbers!

    They blame the hurricanes. The word hurricane is of Indian origin and predates Anglo settlement of North America thousands of years.

    Then they outsource our jobs and production to the worst climate and labor violators on the planet. How do they get away with it?

    These are sick people, in charge and running us into the ground…for what?

    Reply this comment
  4. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 12 December, 2012, 07:13

    Cap and Trade— The Reagan admins one great idea? LOL—–

    Reply this comment
  5. Ronald Stein
    Ronald Stein 13 December, 2012, 06:30

    AB32: The cost to go it alone
    In 2006 California wanted to lead the way on the global warming hype and attempted to establish that leadership role with the Global Warming Initiative AB32, with the expectation other States and the Federal Government would follow. Now, 6 years later everyone has abandoned a clone to AB32, letting California to go it alone, and watch its 37 million citizens pay a premium for energy and transportation fuels that no one else in the USA will pay, just those in California, for a minuscule impact on the world’s greenhouse gases.

    California transportation fuels are already at the highest cost in the country and our California fuel taxes are the second highest and to begin in November, the “energy” auction of AB32 that CARB refers to as the Cap and Trade auction, will start increases in the cost of energy and transportation fuels never seen in California. Two of the most recent and comprehensive studies ever published – analyzed the cumulative market impacts of AB 32 on California’s fuel industry and, by association, the state’s economy. Both reached sobering conclusions for the California economy.

    • The Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) “Understanding the Impact of AB 32 (www.cafuelfacts.com)
    • The study by Andrew Chang & Company for the California Manufacturers & Technology Association. http://cmta.net/page/AB32.php#AB32report

    AB32 may result in an additional $2.00 or more cost per gallon over the next few years to our already high cost of transportation fuels.

    If we eliminated the 34 million cars, trucks, busses and motorcycles and all rode zero emission vehicles or rode bicycles, we could only improve the world’s greenhouse gasses by1%. Solar and wind may be attractive alternative sources for electricity, but neither can manufacture the transportation fuels, chemicals and by products out of crude oil that drives the majority of industries that are the foundation of our quality of life and our economy. Californians will incur additional costs, mostly by those that can least afford it for a minuscule fraction of 1% reduction in the worlds greenhouse gasses.

    The public has spoken with their support for slightly cleaner air, and defeating Proposition 23 that attempted to stay the economic disaster from AB32, without knowing the cost impact on the California economy. In the event the public sees that the costs associated with their decision is too much to bear, the public can speak up again and give the Governor an opportunity to issue an executive order to stay AB32 and prevent economic disaster for the California economy.

    With California unemployment among the highest in the country, and Californian experiencing a net out migration of businesses and citizens, and the deficiit continuing to grow, the Governor has the sole power as written into AB32 to issue an executive order under dire economic conditions, to stay its implementation. Interestingly, it’s the LCFS that was a last minute executive order by Governor Swartz egger, which Governor Brown can stay with his own executive order.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Post-Stockton, Democrat job-retention myth certain to be exposed

Both parties have bogus canards that they trot out when convenient. The worst example of this among Republicans is the

Best chroniclers of bullet-train follies miss obvious angle on self-driving cars

Sept. 26, 2012 By Chris Reed Mike Rosenberg of the San Jose Mercury-News — the newspaper reporter and the California

Shakedown threatens nursing homes

AUGUST 11, 2010 A Humboldt County jury recently awarded $677 million in a class-action lawsuit against a nursing home operator