Parallels between Australia, Assembly AB 32 revolt are obvious

Parallels between Australia, Assembly AB 32 revolt are obvious

AB-32One of the most universal findings in the social sciences has been the uniform way that humans at all stages of history have been for something that they think reflects well on them until they perceive that it costs them a dime.

This axiom is playing out right now in Australia, where the government has repealed a carbon tax adopted in 2012 when another regime was in power. Here’s some analysis from the liberal Vox site:

The repeal is a big blow for climate policy. Economists have long argued that carbon pricing is one of the most effective ways to tackle global warming. The premise is simple: People should pay for the damage they cause by emitting carbon. And making fossil fuels more expensive will spur companies to seek out cleaner alternatives.

But the major weakness of a price on carbon has always been politics. So many daily activities depend on fossil fuels — from driving to home heating to industry — and the pinch from any tax is likely to be more noticeable than, say, that from more complex regulations. …

And so Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party made repeal of the carbon tax a major issue in the run-up to the 2013 elections. Abbott argued that the tax was costing the Australian economy some $9 billion per year and had little climate benefit so long as other countries weren’t also enacting their own carbon taxes.

Hilarious that Vox labels concern about how much something costs a “politics” problem.  But still.

Same populism in Melbourne and Fresno

Now of course AB 32 isn’t the same thing as a carbon tax, but both California’s and Australia’s initiatives build on the idea that families and businesses should pay more for energy that isn’t renewable. Subtext: Fossil fuels are evil.

But when believing in this truth began to have a price-tag — and especially when it seemed pointless, because most of the world wasn’t into symbolic masochism — Aussie voters bailed.

And in California, so did 16 Assembly Democrats.

Assembly Bill 69 by Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, would delay for three years [an AB 32] rule requiring the energy industry to purchase permits for transportation fuels. Lawmakers and critics have been warning for months about a resulting price bump. …

In a show of broad discontent, 16 Democrats last week sent a letter to the Air Resources Board urging the air quality regulator to delay implementing the new rule. …

Perea said he still supports AB 32’s overarching goal of reducing emissions but does not believe consumers have been adequately prepared.

That’s from the Sac Bee earlier this month.

Notice the parallel between Perea’s double-talk and Vox’s? The liberal website likens concern about higher costs of energy to playing “politics” with the issue. Perea suggests the public won’t mind paying more for energy — so long as it’s “prepared” for the pain.

Somehow, I don’t think the Fresno pol actually believes that.


Write a comment
  1. Ronald Stein
    Ronald Stein 18 July, 2014, 09:09

    Fossil fuels are NOT evil, as the American economy, and the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed is being challenged by our need for oil.

    Oil is the foundation of the California economy and its mobility for 38 million citizens. More than 97% of California’s 32,000,000 vehicles DO NOT run on electricity or other alternative fuels.

    The current California vehicle registration in 2012 was 32,000,000 (2,662 billion miles driven) and the consumption of transportation fuels was 50,000,000 gallons EVERY DAY, or an average of about 1.5 gallons per day per vehicle.

    Vehicle registration is projected to grow 37% from 32,000,000 to 44,000,000 vehicles by 2030 and 3,138 billion miles projected to be driven (18% increase). The fuel demand is projected to decrease slightly from the current 50,000,000 gallons per DAY mostly as a result of more fuel efficiencies, and a slight impact by the small number of vehicles run on electricity or other alternative fuels.

    EVERY CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY is dependent on energy from the petrochemical sector as well as the by-products from oil for their existence to support the lifestyle and standard of living that we have become accustomed.

    Oil supply from California and Alaska is now less than 50%. To support the California economy, in state oil would be less expensive and more environmentally effective than meeting our needs with crude oil by trucks or rail into California.

    We definitely need safe, economical, and reliable sources of energy to maintain our lifestyle and economy, but beating up on the ONE industry that supports all the other industries appears to be a way of shooting ourselves in the foot.

    Reply this comment
  2. Robert S. Allen
    Robert S. Allen 18 July, 2014, 10:22

    Senator Perea, good luck writing CARB. They didn’t even acknowledge receiving an email I sent that would have transformed travel between the Bay Area and Sacramento, and within the Bay Area: a BART/Capitol Corridor transfer station at the BART overhead in Oakland (at the I-880/7th Street interchange.) A Bay Area Rail Hub station there would make Bay-Sac rail trips much more viable than the time-consuming and awkward transfer rail buffs now must make at Richmond.

    Reply this comment
  3. Queeg
    Queeg 18 July, 2014, 16:50

    Doomers a naive lot superficially skimming articles and miscalculating evil among us.

    Globalists, Enviro Nutcakes and Chamber of Commerce want your being…..indenture you upper middle class teabagger believers while you’re busy personallly accumulating and coveting assets……for them!

    You have been Facebooked out of your privacy….what sots….they own you… Alinsky knew….the globalists will come for you and clean you out.

    Reply this comment
  4. Donkey
    Donkey 19 July, 2014, 11:29

    The Aussies have used logic and reason the reject an imaginary enemy. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  5. Hondo
    Hondo 20 July, 2014, 19:52

    You are the doomer, saying the earth is about to catch fire. This after the coldest winter in recorded history in North Amerika.
    The carbon tax is a drop kick in the nuts to small business and poooor people in Kali, most of those being people of color. All to help Al gore buy even more earth destroying houses with the profits from his phony crisis.

    Reply this comment
  6. bob
    bob 21 July, 2014, 18:49

    Dang, gas is already over 4 bucks a gallon. How much harder do the Demoncrats who are still for this want to hammer the poor and middle class?

    Reply this comment
  7. wildbill
    wildbill 22 July, 2014, 07:01

    Please do not let your state backtrack on the value of fossil fuels in your energy mix. It is important that California stand as an example of what stringent laws that make fossil fuels much more expensive will do to the economy.

    If you are a business owner or CEO reading this post, I hope you will consider that Texas is in the midst of an economic boom fueled by new development of gas and oil and the future of fuel costs in our state is on a downward trend.

    We’re not only energy friendly, we have no state income tax and far fewer laws and regulations that would impede our economy.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Is a notorious loophole about to close?

Shameless plug time: There are few revelations in my bosses’ new book Plunder!: How public employee unions are raiding treasuries,

New analysis ranks California nearly last in liberty

When it comes to liberty, California is one of the most restrictive states on its citizens, according to a new study. The

Lobbyist organizes second legislative junket to Cuba

An influential Sacramento lobbyist — who paid out a $500,000 settlement for allegedly engaging in “pay-to-play” behavior — has organized