According to a press release sent  out Friday by his office, “In recognition of Sacramento’s leadership in preparing for the impacts of climate change, Mayor Kevin Johnson was selected as a member of President Obama’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.”

Mr. Arena, shown at right with activist Van Jones, is also Mr. Green.

Scientific data be damned

Despite recent scientific data which contradict government claims that carbon energy and emissions cause climate change, Obama continues with climate alarmism.

Titled “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change,” the new executive order was issued at a strange  time — much of the rest of the world has finally caught up to the fact that global warming is a fraud, and based on a myth.

“Average temperatures have leveled for more than a decade, despite the sharply rising use of carbon energy in China and other countries,” the Daily Caller reported. “U.S. use of carbon energy has stabilized with increasing market-driven efficiency and tightening regulations.”

Bypassing Congress once again, the executive order will be implemented by Obama’s czars and appointees.

The council is officially intended “to prepare the nation for the impacts of climate change by undertaking actions to enhance climate preparedness and resilience.”

KJ the Green Czar

First example: It was completely predictable that allowing companies to not provide health insurance to employees who worked less than 30 hours a week would lead companies to broadly shift to part-time employment. In any industry in which advanced or even moderate job skills aren’t necessary — in which employee turnover is no big deal — it makes far more financial sense to have 80 workers at 25 hours a week than 50 workers at 40 hours a week. None of the 80 workers would have employer-paid health insurance in the former scenario; in the latter, 50 would. Duh.

The result, per NBC News, is stunning: the Labor Department says 97 percent of the jobs created in the U.S. over the last six months were for part-time work. The disincentive to provide full-time jobs is so huge that the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers and other labor union leaders recently wrote in a letter to the White House that it was a threat to “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the middle class.”

Obama expects ‘enormous success’ in Golden State

Now we see another example of a simple lack of common sense with more than a touch of delusion. This is from a Politico story about Obamacare’s implementation and how it’s been resisted by some states and embraced by others:

“[T]he political mood is very different in the states that are trying to implement it, [an administration] official said, and there will be ‘enormous successes’ in the states that give the law a genuine effort — ‘and there will be many of those,’ citing California, Maryland, New York and Nevada.”

Yeah, sure, Californians are going to love Obamacare. Avik Roy of Forbes’ number-crunching shows how hard-hit one economically vulnerable group is going to be:

“If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That’s the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)

“The next cheapest plan, the ‘bronze’ comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

“Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.

“For both 25-year-olds and 40-year-olds, then, Californians under Obamacare who buy insurance for themselves will see their insurance premiums double.”

A $2,000 deductible? That will be embraced? Really?

Oh, this is just going to be HUGELY popular.

Wait — there’s more. Under California’s Silver Obamacare option, which officials expect to be one of the most used, the annual deductible is $2,000.

So young, healthy Californians who average a trip or two or three a year to the doctor will have to cover all the costs — and also pay premiums that are way higher than they used to have to pay.

They are just going to LOVE the Affordable Care Act.

No, they’re not. Duh.

But this hasn’t cooled the White House push for the project — even though the boondoggle violates plainly written federal regulations.

On another such project, however, is common sense finally sinking in? Not really. But there is an obstacle. This is from KPCC/PBS:

“You can cancel that high speed train trip to Las Vegas — at last for now. The Department of Transportation has decided to ‘suspend further consideration’ of a $5 billion federal loan application from a private company that wants to link Southern California with the gambling and entertainment mecca.

“The Department of Transportation put the XpressWest high speed train project on pause because the company couldn’t come up with enough U.S. manufacturers for rail cars and tracks. The department prioritizes projects that use American-made products.”

“The XpressWest train would take passengers to Las Vegas from Victorville — a connection point with California’s proposed high speed train running from Southern California to the Bay Area.”

“Both projects are subject to a ‘Made in the U.S.’ standard.

“South Bay Democrat Janice Hahn, who sits on the House railroads subcommittee, explains the dearth of U.S.-based manufacturers: ‘That’s one of the problems with our economy, is that we’re not growing up enough businesses to build these transportation projects in the future.'”

But if the Vegas-to-Victorville project is in danger on these grounds, how is the Central Valley project proceeding? Curious stuff.

By Chris Reed

As hard left as it can seem, even the Obama administration isn’t as doctrinaire as the leftists who dominate Sacramento.

As I have written about several times for Cal Watchdog, state Democrats and even many of their allies in California’s media refuse to acknowledge that the White House sees fracking as just another heavy industry, not hell on Earth. To quote Obama’s secretary of the interior, Sally Jewell …

“I know there are those who say fracking is dangerous and should be curtailed, full stop. That ignores the reality that it has been done for decades and has the potential for developing significant domestic resources and strengthening our economy and will be done for decades to come.”

Who does President Obama tap as his top economist? Wal-Mart’s top defender

Now we see another entertaining contrast between the Obama White House and Democrats inside the Capitol. Both the following items were reported this week.

This is from Capital Public Radio on Monday:

“Big-box stores like Walmart may be known for low prices, but, increasingly, they’re also known for generating controversy. A bill up for a vote in the State Assembly this week brings that controversy front and center. It would require some big-box stores to pay for an economic impact report before moving into an area.”

This is from Slate on Wednesday:

“People are reporting today that Jason Furman, a longtime Obama administration official currently serving as a deputy on the National Economic Council, will be tapped to chair the Council of Economic Advisors.”

So just who is the academic tapped by the president to be his point man on economic policy? A guy who thinks critics of Wal-Mart are deluded. What follows is a recycled, slightly modified take on Furman that I posted previously.

Big-box king ‘especially important to poor and moderate-income’ families

Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post wrote about Furman and Wal-Mart in 2005:

“Furman advised [John] Kerry in the 2004 campaign and has never received any payment from Wal-Mart; he is no corporate apologist. But he points out that Wal-Mart’s discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year. The savings are possibly five times that much if you count all of Wal-Mart’s products.

“These gains are especially important to poor and moderate-income families. The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco.

“Moreover, Wal-Mart’s ‘every day low prices’ make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics. As a force for poverty relief, Wal-Mart’s $200 billion-plus assistance to consumers may rival many federal programs. Those programs are better targeted at the needy, but they are dramatically smaller. Food stamps were worth $33 billion in 2005, and the earned-income tax credit was worth $40 billion.”

Furman’s and Mallaby’s anti-anti-Wal-Mart case doesn’t end there:

“Wal-Mart’s critics also paint the company as a parasite on taxpayers, because 5 percent of its workers are on Medicaid. Actually that’s a typical level for large retail firms, and the national average for all firms is 4 percent.

“Moreover, it’s ironic that Wal-Mart’s enemies, who are mainly progressives, should even raise this issue. In the 1990s progressives argued loudly for the reform that allowed poor Americans to keep Medicaid benefits even if they had a job. Now that this policy is helping workers at Wal-Mart, progressives shouldn’t blame the company.”

Anyone who doubts Wal-Mart is good for poor people should go to one and compare the cars in the parking lot with the cars one sees at Ralphs, Vons or Albertsons. Poor people believe Wal-Mart is good for them.

Assemblyman Roger Hernandez puts bull’s eye on ‘ordinary families’

More from Mallaby with specific pertinence to the efforts to block Wal-Mart “Supercenters” in California:

“Companies like Wal-Mart are not run by saints. They can treat workers and competitors roughly. They may be poor stewards of the environment. When they break the law they must be punished. Wal-Mart is at the center of the globalized, technology-driven economy that’s radically increased American inequality, so it’s not surprising that it has critics.

“But globalization and business innovation are nonetheless the engines of progress; and if that sounds too abstract, think of the $200 billion-plus that Wal-Mart consumers gain annually.

“If critics prevent the firm from opening new branches, they will prevent ordinary families from sharing in those gains. Poor Americans will be chief among the casualties.”

Yet this is just what Democrats in the Legislature, led by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, hope to do. But a single Wal-Mart store in an impoverished area does more to truly help the poor than all the Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento combined.

By Chris Reed

In much of Europe and in California, greens wield such power in politics and the media that the debate over whether a nation or state should pursue hydraulic fracturing of energy reserves seems like a fight over a new and unproven process. But in the rest of the world, there’s an acceptance that times have changed. that fracking’s nothing new, and that fossil fuels are still the big dog in town. Read this New York Times article from April 24. to get a sense of the real-world view of fracking and other energy developments. It is headlined “By 2023, a Changed World in Energy” and cites the “miraculous change” in the U.S. energy outlook because of fracking.

Yet in California, the real world does not intrude. And so the Ventura County Star, which offered the first coverage of measures blocking fracking being approved by a legislative committee, never offered this minor detail: The Obama administration sees fracking as just another heavy industry. Isn’t that, yunno, news? Duh!

Fracking sanity chapter No. 8: Mexico

This media sloth and ineptitude is why that every morning for a week I’ve been blogging about the nations around the world that think it’s a good thing to have cheap energy and have embraced fracking. So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Canada and Argentina. Now it’s the turn of our neighbor to the south, which has the fourth largest shale reserves in the world, according to the U.S. government.

What’s my point? The fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in the Golden State and Europe want, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind.

This is from an April 21 Inter Press Service report that lays out the determination of PEMEX, the government-owned oil giant, and Mexican leaders to get on the fracking bandwagon:

“Since 2011, PEMEX has drilled at least six wells for shale gas in the northern states of Nuevo León and Coahuila. And it is preparing for further exploration in the southeastern state of Veracruz, at a cost of 245 million dollars over the space of 18 months, in conjunction with the Mexican Petroleum Institute (IMP), a state institution. …

“In a 2011 report, ‘World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States,’ the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) assessed 48 shale gas basins in 32 countries, including Mexico, and estimated that there were 6,622 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in the United States and the other 32 countries studied. … For Mexico, it calculated 681 TCF — the fourth largest reserves in the world. ….

“The National Hydrocarbons Commission (CNH), in charge of technical permits for PEMEX projects, will analyse and approve regulations for fracking this year.

“Mexico’s oil giant plans to drill 20 wells by 2016, with a total investment of over two billion dollars. It projects operating 6,500 commercial wells over the next 50 years.”

Will CA media heed green or The New York Times? Character test time

Quite the contrast. Mexico will “analyze and approve” fracking regulations this year. In California, the Legislature will just ignore fracking’s long history and what the rest of the world is doing and ban it. And the state’s media and its corrupt environmental reporters will never point out this long history or what the New York Times — THE NEW YORK TIMES — says about the brown energy revolution.

Sheesh.

Fracking watch: Previous posts

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

No. 4: Saudi Arabia

No. 5: Brazil

No. 6: Canada

No. 7: Argentina

By Chris Reed

The “brown energy” revolution is under way and nothing is going to prevent it from transforming world energy markets — especially not childish denial and petulance by California greens. Fossil fuels will be the dominant source of energy around the planet for decades to come, and while renewable sources of energy will be part of the picture, even The New York Times regularly acknowledges the folly and stupidity of “peak oil” rhetoric — at least implicitly — with articles such as this April 24 piece.

Yet in California, this big-picture perspective is almost completely missing. Incredibly enough, the first coverage of the committee-level approval in the state Legislature of measures blocking hydraulic fracturing did not note that the Obama administration considers fracking just another heavy industry, not the devil incarnate.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 7: Argentina

But this is the norm. And this is why that starting last Saturday, every morning I’ve been blogging about the nations around the world that are embracing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as a way to create jobs and wealth and on economic competitiveness grounds. Shockingly enough, they think that it’s a good thing to have cheap energy. So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Canada. Today it’s the turn of Argentina, the eighth-largest nation by land mass in the world. As I have written on several occasions, the point of this series of blog posts is that the fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in the Golden State want, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind.

This is from an NPR report last year:

“As the wind whips across the scrub grass in southern Argentina, a crane unloads huge bags of artificial sand for oil workers preparing for the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of a well.

“Water mixed with chemicals and tiny ceramic beads are then blasted underground at high pressure. This mixture helps create fissures, allowing oil and natural gas to flow.

“Energy analysts believe there are billions of barrels of oil and gas buried in a desert-like patch in Patagonia.”

This is from UPI last month:

By Chris Reed

Hydraulic fracturing has been around for decades in our northern neighbor, just as it has been in the U.S. And what do you know? Canadian enviros only began complaining about fracking in recent years when its new IT-driven efficiency suddenly made it a threat to their push for a dreamy pure green energy future — just like with the enviros in the United States. Oh, what a strange coincidence.

Alas, the Legislature has taken initial steps to block fracking in California. On Monday, AB 1301 and two other anti-fracking bills passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Lawmakers simply don’t care that the Obama administration sees fracking as just another heavy industry.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 6: Canada

This indifference to reason is why starting last Saturday, every morning I’ve been blogging about the nations around the world that are embracing fracking. So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. Today it’s Canada’s turn.

My point: The fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in the newsrooms of the L.A. Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee want, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind. This is from the Montreal Gazette:

“As Canadians expect a transition to a less carbon-intensive energy future, partnering becomes an essential piece of the renewable picture.

“Natural gas is the cleanest-burning hydrocarbons, making it an ideal partner to intermittent renewable options. It offers a reliable energy source during periods when intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, are unable to provide adequate capacity, and it can be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a variety of ways, including transportation and electricity generation. …

“Canada is the world’s third-largest producer of natural gas, and natural gas provides almost one-third of the energy used by Canadians. …

“Natural gas trapped in unconventional formations is typically located two to three kilometres below the Earth’s surface and thousands of metres below drinking water aquifers. Drinking water aquifers are typically found less than 300 metres below the surface.

“Available technologies, including hydraulic fracturing, are continually adapted to safely and economically produce natural gas from these challenging geological formations. … Over the course of the past 60-years-plus, more than 175,000 wells have been hydraulically fractured in Canada, including in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec and New Brunswick.  ‘About 85% of current oil and gas activity in British Columbia, and 70% in Alberta, involves hydraulic fracturing. It is a common practice in the industry,’ Mr. Heffernan says.”

Fracking is evil! Proof? Picky, picky, picky!

And what is the Canadian consensus? That it’s just another manageable heavy industry, not the devil — the same conclusion as the Obama administration.

“The Canadian natural gas industry is one of the most regulated in the world. In addition to regulations specific to individual provinces, all have laws to minimize impact, protect freshwater aquifers and ensure responsible development.”

But none of this seemingly matters to Democrats in the Legislature. Fracking is new (no), a huge threat to groundwater (no), a huge causer of dangerous earthquakes (no).

If only the media addressed and then debunked these claims with one-millionth the effort they do with factually challenged claims on most high-profile issues.

Fracking watch: Previous posts

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

No. 4: Saudi Arabia

No. 5: Brazil

By Chris Reed

The passage of anti-fracking legislation by an Assembly committee Monday could lead to a showdown between green Dem lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown, who’s struck a measured tone so far on hyrdaulic fracturing, the radically improved energy extraction technology that’s touched off an economic boom in the Dakotas, Montana, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

But what’s really needed is a showdown between the U.S. environmental movement and reality. Fracking is not new. It occurs thousands of feet below the groundwater table and the Obama administration has concluded it’s just another heavy industry, not the devil. And if California doesn’t exploit its huge energy reserves, that won’t stop the rest of the world from joining the brown energy revolution, leaving the Golden State at a huge competitive disadvantage and killing manufacturing as a noticeable source of jobs.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 5: Brazil

This is why that starting last Saturday, every morning I’ve been blogging about the nations around the world that are embracing fracking. So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Today I’m writing about Brazil, which is on track to be an economic superpower in coming decades because of its immense natural resources. My point: The fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in Brentwood, Santa Barbara and San Francisco think, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind.

“From the shale underlying Western Pennsylvania to the deep-sea oil off the coast of Brazil, emerging energy sources have policymakers and entrepreneurs from both hemispheres talking business. … oil fields off the coast here — and shale formations in the country’s south — have Brazilian companies keen on drilling, and Pennsylvania’s experiences exploring and extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale have been a central point of discussion since a trade delegation began meetings in Sao Paulo this week.

“‘They have a very similar balance of energy portfolio,’ [Pennsylvania] Gov. Tom Corbett said in an interview. … On a one-day visit here Wednesday, Mr. Corbett met with Sergio Cabral, governor of Rio de Janeiro state, in his office at the Palacio Guanabara, the seat of state government. In addition to discussing conditions for business and systems of education in their states, Mr. Corbett said, the governors signed an agreement to collaborate, particularly on issues related to oil and natural gas. … ‘He’s very interested in the shale gas because they do have shale gas.’

“Mr. Corbett said he discussed a similar agreement during an earlier meeting with the vice governor of Sao Paulo. …

“Braskem America has five U.S. plants, a research and development center in Pittsburgh and last year acquired a portion of the Sunoco refinery at Marcus Hook, outside of Philadelphia. …”

“‘We are all aware of the shale gas revolution in the United States since the start of this century,’ said Carlos Mariani, vice president of the Federation of Industries of the State of Rio de Janeiro.”

Who bragged about gains from U.S. fracking? His initials are BHO

That’s from an April 12 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story. Thirty-one fracking companies, many from the U.S., have set up shop in Brazil. That reflects an important point that doesn’t get brought up much. America’s fracking expertise means the rest of the world will have to rely on our firms for years to come — another direct boon for our economy besides the cheap energy resulting from fracking on U.S. land.

And I would like to once again point out that the White House is OK with fracking. Who bragged about the U.S. becoming the “Saudi Arabia of natural gas” — thanks entirely to fracking — on the campaign trail?

A fellow named Barack Obama. Here’s the video clip for green propagandists. Not that it will stop them.

Greenpeace hinted at the truth in a 2012 policy statement.

“Greenpeace opposes fracking because it diverts from real solutions (including energy efficiency and renewables), and the full effects on the environment and health has not been fully investigated or addressed.”

Reason no. 1 is what drives the myths. The greens were so close to having their worldview be the only accepted alternative going forward on energy issues. Then fracking changed the world.

Fracking watch: Previous posts

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

No. 4: Saudi Arabia

By Chris Reed

A House committee hearing Thursday at which Republicans vowed to use their majority to block new federal funding for California’s bullet-train train wreck produced this astounding passage in The Washington Post:

“We’re not giving up on high-speed rail,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood testified before a congressional committee. “The president will include funding in his budget. I think we’ll get there with public money, but in the absence of that we’ll get there with private money.”

Oh, yeah, private investors are salivating at the chance to be part of California’s grand experiment. That’s why they’ve been lining up to help Sacramento for four years.

Not!

What is it about trains that so deludes people on the left?

They talk themselves into thinking inflexible, costly light-rail is what poor people want, not flexible, cheap buses.

They talk themselves into believing a bullet train that by necessity has to have few stops (or it won’t be a bullet train) can be akin to a mass-transit subway in its level of use.

And now they think that private investors will look at their fantasies and see vast substance to them.

George Will is right. LaHood “should take a high-speed train into retirement.”