How Do Voters Really Feel About Climate Change Legislation?

VotedWhen the greenhouse gases extension bill seemed to be stalled in the legislature, Gov. Jerry Brown’s Executive Secretary, Nancy McFadden, said that the administration would get its way on the climate change: Either the bill would pass the legislature or the governor would take his agenda to the ballot. He filed papers for a ballot measure committee as a first step.

Now the bill has jumped a difficult hurdle by passing the Assembly. However, new polling by the California Business Roundtable indicates that the voters might not be so supportive of new regulations if they heard a complete explanation of the law’s effects.

Maybe the climate change debate should go to voters.

The greenhouse gases extension bill, SB 32, which would require greenhouse gas levels to be reduced 40% of 1990 levels by 2030, made it out of the Assembly to face fairly clear sailing in the Senate. Expect it to land on the governor’s desk.

There could be a complication because SB 32 is joined to AB 197, which would give more power to the legislature to oversee the California Air Resources Board. An argument is made that AB 197 could undermine the cap-and-trade law, something the governor wants, especially to help fund his financially struggling bullet train.

The Assembly vote came on a day when the latest cap-and-trade auction results were announced and they continue to show poor results. Hanging over the head of the cap-and-trade law is a question of legitimacy. A lawsuit filed by the California Chamber of Commerce and other business interests presently sits with appellate court judges to determine if the cap-and-trade revenue is a tax. If so, the law requires a two-thirds vote, a standard that was not achieved in the legislature.

Business is particularly concerned with the costs to the economy and to workers if the climate change legislation passes. Tom Scott, president of the small business organization, National Federation of Independent Business/California, said after SB 32 passed the Assembly, “SB 32 will make California even more hostile to small businesses, increasing costs and making them less competitive, discouraging growth and expansion across the state.”

The California Business Roundtable poll showed strong support for the first greenhouse gases (GHG) law. By 66% to 18% the 1200 voters surveyed agreed with the goal of reducing GHG by 2020. The extension to 2030 also received strong support, 63% to 21%.

But when asked if voters knew that state regulations to combat global warming would increase the price of gasoline, electricity and groceries, support collapsed to 47%; opposition rose to 46%.

Opposition skied when the question of lost manufacturing jobs was tested. The potential loss of thousands of middle class jobs garnered only 24% support for the climate change regulations, 66% opposed.

Such arguments would be part of a campaign if the issue comes before voters.

The Business Roundtable poll asked who should enact tougher environmental regulations, the legislators or un-elected state bureaucrats. The legislators prevailed 42% to 28%. But the question seems incomplete. Given the poll results, it probably should have included the voters.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

How Gov’t Unions and Crony Capitalists Exploit Global Warming Concerns

Global WarmingIf anyone is looking for evidence that government unions use their immense influence to support the growth of an authoritarian state, look no further than their unequivocal support for global warming “mitigation,” and all attendant agencies and laws to support that goal.

In 2006 California’s union-controlled Legislature passed AB32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” a measure that was touted as a trailblazing breakthrough in the dire challenge to avoid catastrophic climate change. The premise behind AB32 is that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, and that eliminating CO2 emissions is necessary to prevent the planet’s climate from overheating, with all the apocalyptic consequences; rising oceans inundating coastal regions, epic droughts cascading through the world’s fragile forests and killing them, extreme storms, acidic oceans, collapsing agriculture – the end of life as we know it.

Maybe that’s true – and maybe not – but how it’s being managed is a corrupt, misanthropic, epic scam.

If anyone is looking for evidence that government unions and crony capitalists work together – contrary to the conventional wisdom that presents the appearance that they are in conflict – again look no further than their shared support for global warming mitigation, expressed in the legislative mandate to reduce CO2 emissions. AB32 implements this by forcing industrial entities to purchase permits to emit progressively smaller quantities of CO2, via an auction process that is expected to raise $20 billion per year to finance renewable energy investments.

Think about how government unions will benefit from all this money:

  • Transit workers will claim a share because they will be getting cars off the road.
  • Firefighters will claim more fires are because of global warming and demand more funds – when in reality most severe wildfires are the result of decades of forest mismanagement and unwarranted wildfire suppression.
  • Cities will qualify for proceeds when they zone extremely high density housing.
  • Code enforcement officers will declare that the percentage of their jobs oriented towards conservation and energy/water efficiency qualifies them for a share of the proceeds.
  • Teachers will declare that the percentage of their curricula oriented towards climate education qualifies them for a share of the proceeds.
  • More generally, municipalities will collect more property tax as restrictive zoning elevates the cost of housing.

Think about how crony corporations and corrupt financial special interests benefit from this money:

  • Wall Street traders will set up new subsidiaries to traffic in carbon emission auctions and take a cut.
  • “Green” entrepreneurs will manufacture devices calculated to save energy and water – despite the fact that the shortages are contrived.
  • Producers of energy and water will sell at higher prices since competitive development of these resources is restricted.
  • Utilities whose profits are “decoupled” from the quantity of energy and water they deliver will increase revenue and hence their profit margins which are pegged to revenue, without having to increase services.
  • Manufacturers of noncompetitive products with no natural demand – high speed rail is a perfect example – are enriched via hundreds of billions of investment for their supposedly greener and cleaner solutions.
  • More generally, artificial scarcity causes asset bubbles which benefits wealthy investors and pension funds, but impoverishes ordinary workers.

Even if CO2 is a threat to life on earth, there is an alternative that merits discussion:

Instead of investing in “green” energy infrastructure and embedded surveillance systems to micro-manage energy consumption, California should be investing in natural gas and 5th generation nuclear power stations, desalination plants along the coast, liquid natural gas terminals, efficiency upgrades to existing high-voltage transmission lines, run-off harvesting and aquifer storage systems, upgraded aqueducts, comprehensive waste-water treatment and aquifer recharge, offshore drilling for oil and gas, widened roads and freeways, more airport runways, and buses for mass transit. These steps will result in energy, water and transportation costing everyone in California less. This will benefit businesses and consumers, and make California a magnet for investors and entrepreneurs all over the world.

And even if CO2 is a threat to life on earth, vigorous debate on that topic should be encouraged, not outlawed.

If you are an informed skeptic – something the axis of government unions and powerful financial special interests are trying to outlaw – it becomes tiresome to recite the litany of legitimate reasons that debate regarding the actual impact of anthropogenic CO2 is of critical importance. The primacy of solar cycles, the multi-decadal oscillations of ocean currents, the dubious role of water vapor as a positive feedback mechanism, the improbability of positive climate feedback in general, the uncertain role (and diversity) of aerosols, the poorly understood impact of land use changes, the failure of the ice caps to melt on schedule, the failure of climate models to account for an actual cooling of the troposphere, the fact that just the annual fluctuations in natural sources of CO2 emissions eclipse estimated human CO2 emissions by an order of magnitude. And let’s not forget – California only is responsible for 1.7 percent of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Does any of this matter to the California Air Resources Board?

Apparently not. Nor does it matter to California’s Legislature, which recently stopped just short of passing Senate Bill 1161, the Orwellian California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016. SB1161 would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

What California’s legislature ran up against, of course, was the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps they believe time is on their side. After all, even the Scalia court ruled in 2007 that CO2 is pollution, in one of the most frightening inversions of reality in U.S. history. Imagine what a court packed with Clinton appointees will come up with.

The failure to deploy clean fossil fuel solutions in the developing world, much less here in California, condemns billions of humans to further decades of poverty, misery, and unchecked population growth. Cheap energy equals prosperity equals population stabilization. Until a few years ago that hopeful process was inexorable. But in recent years, somewhere on the shores of Africa, cost-effective industrial development ran into global warming’s global mafia and was stopped in its tracks.

The consolidation of power inherent in government suppression of energy development and micromanagement of energy consumption is not only a recipe for a corporate union police state in America. It is a recipe for systemic oppression of emerging societies across the world. At the very least, the debate must continue.

*   *   *

Ed Ring is the president of the California Policy Center.

State Senate Looks to End Climate Change Debate

With only 232 days left until Barack Obama leaves the White House we discussed three issues on the Brian Sussman Show this morning (KSFO 560–San Fran).
Global Warming1.  Senate bill 1161 by Sens. Hannah-Beth Jackson and Mark Leno would put Sussman in legal jeopardy: “Section 2(b) of the bill declares it the California Legislature’s policy to promote ‘redress for unfair competition practices committed by entities that have deceived, confused, or misled the public on the risks of climate change or financially supported activities that have deceived.”  Sussman has written a book and talks on his show about climate change and facts that show it is not all caused by humans and may not be as bad as Al Gore claims.
2.  Santa Monica College has a professor that “marries” students to the ocean and then has them put their toes in the water to consummate the marriage — the same professor asks trees “permission” before she hugs them.
3.  The students at UCI have had a rash of pro-Palestinian protesters break up speeches and meetings on campus, making the Jewish students fearful.  The chancellor has done nothing and will not suspend or expel the students promoting violence and the end of Free Speech on campus.

Gov. Brown’s Greenhouse-Gas Cuts Scrutinized

As reported by the Associated Press:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The top lawyer for the California Legislature says Gov. Jerry Brown exceeded his authority when he issued an executive order imposing what he called the most aggressive carbon-emission reductions in North America, aligning California with the European Union’s aggressive climate change standards.

The opinion by Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine does not curtail Brown’s authority to continue implementing the greenhouse gas reduction plan, but it suggests a lawsuit challenging them could be successful.

The Democratic governor issued the executive order last year setting a new target for cutting carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. …

Click here to read the full story

Gov. Brown’s War on Climate Only Making Things Worse

Global WarmingIn his quest to improve air quality locally, Gov. Jerry Brown actually risks pushing more greenhouse gasses into skies globally.

Last July, Brown issued an executive order commanding state agencies to develop “an integrated action plan by July 2016 that establishes clear targets to improve freight efficiency, transition to zero-emission technologies, and increase competitiveness of California’s freight system.”

The executive order is widely seen by industry as a prelude to the announcement later this year of more stringent air quality mandates that will pose costly new burdens on the state’s goods movement sector. 

The movement of freight is integral to the state’s economy. As the executive order acknowledged: “California’s complex freight transportation system is responsible for one-third of the State’s economy and jobs, with freight-dependent industries accounting for over $700 billion in revenue and over 5 million jobs in 2013.”

The state’s freight transportation system is also exceedingly complex, as multilayered as it is multifaceted. It involves activities as diverse of home pizza deliveries to the hauling of freshly-harvested produce in the Central Valley to the air cargo operations at LAX and SFO.

Perhaps because of its complexity, state policymakers have tended to fixate on the freight traffic associated with the state’s seaports, especially the three huge container ports at Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland.  (The cover of the California Freight Mobility Plan is tellingly dominated by a full-color photo of a large container ship.)

Maritime officials expect to see the California Air Quality Board impose new regulations that can be met only by investing tens of billions of dollars (according to new study by Moffat & Nichol, a leading infrastructure advisory firm) on new equipment and infrastructure.

The rub is how to finance compliance with these stiffer environmental mandates without driving a substantial volume of business away from California ports.

Terminal operators at ports here and around the world are financially stressed, as a new report from London-based Drewry Shipping Consultants attests. Only weeks ago, one major terminal operator unilaterally cancelled its lease at the Port of Oakland in order to focus its limited financial resources elsewhere.

Inevitably, new business costs get passed on. Saddled with huge new expenses, terminal operators at California ports will be obliged to charge higher fees. But the shipping lines and cargo owners they serve have choices, especially when the great majority of the cargoes passing through the Ports fof Los Angeles and Long Beach ports originate in or are destined for other regions of the U.S.

Even in the absence of costly new California-only air quality mandates, the state’s ports are already at risk of seeing an important share of the transpacific trade diverted to East or Gulf Coast ports through the expanded set of locks at the Panama Canal.

That’s good, you say. Fewer ships calling at California ports should mean cleaner air for California residents.

Perhaps, but there is a perversely ironic trade-off in diverting shipments away from some of the nation’s greenest ports and sending them off to ports on the East and Gulf coasts.

The fact is that diverting containers from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would add immeasurably to the CO2emissions from steamships carrying imported goods for American consumers and industry.

Consider that the sailing distance from Shanghai, Asia’s largest container port, to the Port of Los Angeles is about 5,810 nautical miles. A ship sailing from Shanghai to the Port of New York-New Jersey via the Panama Canal would cover approximately 10,600 nautical miles, a journey some 85% longer.

While in U.S. territorial waters, ships are obligated to burn low-sulfur fuels. On the high seas, however, they typically switch to a cheaper but infinitely more noxious bunker fuel, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

To compound the irony, cargoes diverted through the Panama Canal cargo often wind up at ports in states where the responsible parties are decidedly more cavalier about climate change.

In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott has reportedly banned state officials from referring to global warming or climate change or rising sea levels. The head of the South Carolina Port Authority recently disputed the need for ships to turn off their massive diesel engines while in port. The Port of New York/New Jersey lately rescinded a regulation calling for cleaner trucks to move containers.

So there you have it: The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Sacramento-based international trade economist who specializes in the logistics of foreign trade.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Wheel of Climate Change

Wheel of Climate Change

‘Nothing Historic’ About Paris Climate Deal

Global WarmingThe energy industry is already saying Saturday’s Paris global warming agreement is “unenforceable, underfunded, and non-binding.”

“There is nothing historic about this deal,” said American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle in an email to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The Obama administration clearly doesn’t have the support of Congress or the American people—making the agreement nothing more than a paper tiger. Unfortunately, this won’t stop the president from pursuing a domestic climate agenda that will raise energy prices on American families, but will have no impact on the climate.”

The Obama administration states that the deal will encourage nearly 200 countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, slowing global warming. Despite the doubt, President Obama is already celebrating the deal, as shown by this Tweet:

This is huge. Almost every country in the world just signed on to the #parisagreement on climate change — thanks to American leadership.

However, members of Obama’s own cabinet disagree. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and developed world will not help the environment or even slow down global warming at the Paris summit Wednesday.

Kerry previously stated that the talks would not deliver a “treaty” that legally requires countries to cut carbon dioxide emissions. However, European Union previously asserted that the deal will be a legally binding treaty, contradicting Kerry’s direct statements.

The current deal allows countries to set “non-binding” CO2 emissions targets for themselves, but contains no mechanism to enforce the agreement. The Obama administration seems to have gotten a deal that contains no legally-binding measures and is thus not a “treaty.” This weakens legal arguments that the agreement needs the approval of the hostile U.S. Senate, which must ratify all treaties.

Environmental groups were skeptical of the deal during the negotiation process, as it contains only voluntary, not mandatory, CO2 cuts. Many environmental groups blame the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Accords on the lack of mandatory CO2 cuts.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Follow Andrew on Twitter

Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Should EPA Prosecute Volkswagen to the Fullest Extent of the Law?

If the EPA chooses not to prosecute Volkswagen for its air toxins to the fullest extent of the law, then other automotive companies will violate the EPA’s standards continuously at the detriment of our health, Environment and morality.

Executive Summary & Background

Volkswagen has recently become a ubiquitous conversation topic across global business following its massive scandal.The company not only programmed its emission system deliberately to pass their car’s failed emission metrics; it had done so by carelessly allowing their cars to produce Nitrogen Oxide (NOx; a fairly harmful biohazard affecting respiratory function) by an astounding 40 times the legal limit, and has gone unseen dating back to 2009. Volkswagen has caused virtually irreparable harm to the automotive industry’s transparency, its reputation and to the trust of its “valued” consumers. The EPA should make an example of Volkswagen and fully prosecute them for their negligible actions in order to fully reconcile with the industry they brought much scorn and suspicion to in addition to bringing justice to the public and environment that were negatively affected. Volkswagen should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the EPA’s authoritative power to such a degree that this punishment serves as precedent that any company willing to pursue such deceptive and illegal measures will be deterred to do so by what VW will have to face. There is an abundance of compelling reasons that support the EPA to embark on these sanctions, penalties and lawsuits to ensure this never occurs again.

Widespread Current Trends of Eco-Awareness from the Public and Consumers Support this Action from the EPA

Often times it is emphasized in our world today that our generation (the youth), the millennial faction, represents and demonstrates the highest degree of activism and awareness in our country to battle and voice our opinions on the wrongdoings that should be brought to justice. We have an overwhelming amount of NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) currently ranging from a general petition-based group such as Change.org to RAN (Rainforest Action Network), which is spearheading the preservation and protection of our rainforests around the world.

With that said, there is a deeply ingrained prevalence of activism efforts in this nation that just so happens to involve a large ecological presence. If Volkswagen genuinely believes that in our current day in age with activism, their efforts won’t cause long-term sustained damage to their sales, reputation, brand-loyalty and stock price, they are surely mistaken because a majority of those aspects of their business have already been significantly impacted in the short-term and can potentially cause long-lasting implications to their bottom line among other negative effects. From a non-economic standpoint, the following intangibles will likely happen or have happened already.

  • Brand Loyalty is not only put into jeopardy, it can also cause deter prospective VW buyers from ever becoming a customer as well as use word of mouth to ensure others don’t buy as well.
  • Reputation not only was temporarily tarnished given that the executive management conspired to deceive the public and the EPA with its quality control of its emissions, but has likely been made to enable a cascading effect for generations to come hearing this story and seeing VW as a deceitful, negligent company.
  • Recall: VW has already publicly stated 500,000 cars will be recalled for further inspection and correction of the programming and emissions. This alone will cost staggering amounts of capital. Luckily, VW set aside $7.4 billion to cover the scandal’s overwhelming amount of financial damage. That number recently was adjusted to 800,000 cars for recall.
  • Stock Price: A substantial amount of investors reneged following the news of VW’s emission/programming scandals, and this will cause their market capitalization to decline greatly (dropped over 20 percent of its value directly after news came out), their stock price to suffer, and the likelihood of future investors to be deterred from investing.

This is a natural fact of life with how our civilization operates. Credibility is an integral part to our society and when that is compromised, it’s generally very difficult to regain that trust from whichever party or group was affected. The following elaborates on the financial aspect in greater detail of what their debacle has led to.

Economic Failures/Consequences

  • Volkswagen recorded its first quarterly net loss ($1.83 billion) for at least 15 years after making great strides to cover the cost of the lawsuits, and vehicle recall expenses following the emission scandal that include nearly 11 million cars worldwide allegedly containing the deceptive software.
  • $16.9 billion dollars according to the Economic Times was “wiped off the market value” of VW. Granted once the CEO, Martin Winterkorn, stepped down, the stock did recover incrementally, showing some positive signs.
  • The EPA has indicated through their reports that Volkswagen faces fines that could total “more than $18 billion.”

With how interconnected our society is, injustices like theirs that are eventually debunked never really end well, and have grave consequences that cause even an established, goliath firm like Volkswagen to derail into a turbulent chaos. This is due to an unrelenting force, which is the rejection, litigation and disgust brought forth by the public and the market that they have successfully sold their products to since 1937. Despite this, companies still continue to engage in deceptive activities to deliberately deceive the EPA time and time again, and if the EPA doesn’t decide to place the highest penalties possible on VW, other companies won’t feel inclined to take them seriously which will create a cascading effect of dissent with the EPA.

What the EPA has done Thus Far in Managing the Emissions Scandal

The EPA has officially issued two notices of violation against Volkswagen adding 10,000 additional affected cars under the Porsche and Audi family, which only escalates the scandal, further denoting that three car companies, all under VW, were affected by the scandal. Not surprisingly, VW officially refuted these claims that the scandal had proliferated to the other two car brands. An assistant administrator of the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance department by the name of Cynthia Giles commented, “VW has once again failed its obligation to comply with the law that protects clean air for all Americans.” This is clearly a current issue in our society that companies feel the right or need to cheat the system repeatedly. She goes on to say, “all companies should be playing by the same rules. EPA, with our state, and federal partners, will continue to investigate these serious matters, to secure the benefits of the Clean Air Act, ensure a level playing field for responsible businesses, and to ensure consumers get the environmental performance they expect.” Unfortunately, automotive companies like this that engage in highly illegal and immoral behavior show no remorse or shame in failing to satisfy our expectations and hopes, when we, the public, are the ones purchasing and supporting their company making it financially possible to continue their operations. All the second notice does is add the 10,000 affected vehicles to the massive list, which could spell subsequent fines for VW to pay. Is sending petty fines truly enough to resolve this issues reflecting the entire industry and beyond. It is not just VW that has been caught failing to comply with EPA emission standards and regulations. Regulators and NGOs fear European groups (BMW, GM) are doing the same kind of thing.

The EPA should make a concerted effort to publicly make an example out of VW by restricting their operations, fining them to the fullest extent allowed by law, and try to somehow prohibit them from releasing cars to the entire country if they continue to pollute excessively and defy all standards enacted to prevent health and environmental hazards in the first place. By doing this, the EPA will make a bold statement that they are a federal force not to be trifled with, and that those defectors of these regulations will face intense public scrutiny, enormous financial loss, a tarnished reputation, and endless legal battles that will ensue if companies in this industry follow VW’s example and try to deceive the system put in place. All it is meant to do is to ensure quality for our society and for our environment, and to make sure that we as a civilization are good stewards of the environment and its inhabitants along with genuinely caring about our actions reflecting our values. Unfortunately, this case is just another example of defiance to these basic human values that indicates the EPA must take greater, more drastic actions to mitigate these disasters created by companies like VW.

In contrast, The EPA might be asking too high of standards, making automotive companies feel tempted and even inclined to cheat

In our age, the environmental movement has taken off full steam ahead, leaving the companies that are unable to swiftly adapt to their regulations obsolete and unfit to perform their daily operations. The efficiency, fuel-economy, carbon emissions, and smog tests have been regulated stringently, leaving no room for added pollution in our time of a great anthropogenic crisis of global climate change. Critics of the EPA say the regulations are unrealistic and not generous enough with extending adequate time to these companies being forced to comply with their constantly changing legislation and pollution control mandates.

David Morotta from Forbes magazine argues that the EPA’s general solution to solving issues “must not only solve the problem at hand, but it also must not create a new problem as a result.” He argues that they shouldn’t try to solve the “original” problem, implying an ineffective solution. He goes on to say that “distributed natural systems respond faster, better and smarter than government regulations.” He ends his argument by saying that “further empowering the EPA is a move in the wrong direction. EPA’s nameless and faceless bureaucrats are completely disconnected from any dependence on the people. Delegating regulatory authority to a concept as legislatively vague as sustainability ensures no control can ever be exercised.”

However, what VW did was short-lived, and 6 years after they started this habit of cheating the system, they were eventually caught, exposed, brought to justice and faced numerous business, legal and environmental implications where they are paying a tremendous total amount (exceeding $30 billion) in order to mitigate and reconcile with those affected. These types of scandals in this industry at all costs must come to a screeching halt because if emissions are being mishandled that greatly, who’s to say the other companies aren’t doing this as we speak.

Going the cheating route does cut costs significantly and enhance the company’s main objective; maximize the bottom line. But what about the true external costs of this horrendous event that remain to be seen if they emitted their vehicle’s gases by 40 times the legal amount allowed? Global warming exacerbation, habitat loss due to increases in temperature, health defects, ecosystem contamination and so much more are the result of this irresponsible wasting/pollution. This action that the EPA can make against VW must be done in order to achieve some progress so that the industry doesn’t allow scandals like this to become normative and have the industry and the public become so incredibly used to this that we become desensitized. For the sake of our present and future generations, we cannot allow that to be the case. Forget the politics of it and think about the well-being of us, our children, and future generations, who will have to somehow endure this atrocity.

Citations:

  • “Volkswagen Pushed Into Loss By Emissions Scandal- BBC News.” BBC News. N.P., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
  • Marotta, David. “EPA: Green Gone Wild.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 13 Jan. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
  • Nasr, Reem. “Porsche, More Audi Models Pulled into VW Scandal.” CNBC. N.p., 02 Nov. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
  • Boston, William. “Volkswagen Emissions Investigation Zeroes In on Two Engineers.” WSJ. N.p., 05 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.

Brown marches California climate agenda to Paris

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

When Gov. Jerry Brown lands in Paris next week for international talks on climate, he’ll be preaching the need for action — and not to solve a hypothetical or future problem but something immediate.

The governor has increasingly tied California’s run-ins with nature, by way of drought, wildfire and rising seas, to human-caused warming. And he shares global concerns that havoc will ensue worldwide if the issue is put off any longer.

“I get that the majority in Congress, leaders in the House and Senate, half the governors, want to say, ‘No, there’s nothing going on.’ But that doesn’t change the science,” Brown said in an interview with The Chronicle this week. “If a building is burning down, you don’t sit there and get frustrated, you get a fire hose and put it out.”

Brown is scheduled to join leaders from more than 120 nations at …

Click here to read the full article

Brown Linked Climate Change to CA’s Wildfires. Scientists Disagree.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

The ash of the Rocky fire was still hot when Gov. Jerry Brown strode to a bank of television cameras beside a blackened ridge and, flanked by firefighters, delivered a battle cry against climate change.

The wilderness fire was “a real wake-up call” to reduce the carbon pollution “that is in many respects driving all of this,” he said.

“The fires are changing…. The way this fire performed, it’s not the way it usually has been. Going in lots of directions, moving fast, even without hot winds.”

“It’s a new normal,” he said in August. “California is burning.” …

Click here to read the full story