Green at what cost?
Original post made by Tim Hunt on Mar 6, 2012
Inevitability these are positive speeches, citing accomplishments during the past yearor in this caseover the past seven-plus years.
There certainly have been completed capital projectsa favorite of politiciansto cite.
Throughout her public life, Jennifer has proclaimed the environmentalMother Earthmessage. So, naturally, she pointed out the city's climate change plan and the electric vehicle charging stations as great progress.
What was missingnot surprisinglywas just what it would be required to meet the AB 32 goals. The bill, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, may prove to be the single worst piece of legislation for California's economy that was ever signed into law.
Just to remind you: To meet the goals would take a vehicle fleet that is entirely electric by 2050. What will it take to convert all of the diesel-powered 18-wheelers to electricity? It may well make sense if they are powered by natural gas, which America has in abundance and will export.
In addition, Gov. Brown, ever zealous in things green, has decreed that one-third of California's power be generated from renewable sources. Conveniently and stunninglyhydro power from dams does not count. Don't ask me for the logic behind that policyjust remember that manufacturing works in Washington state because of inexpensive hydro-generated electricity compared with much more expensive renewable power required in our state.
The bottom line to comply with AB 32 was that a new nuclearyes nuclearpower plant would have to come on line every other year between now and 2050. Just imagine how folks will swallow all of those nuclear plants after the Japanese tsunami.
That's how absurd these goals are and how removed from economic reality. (Did you notice what Chevy did with the Volt at government-owned motors? A five-week shutdown for oversupply because the vehicles are not working in the marketplace)
California has lost numerous industries because of its oppressive regulation (air and water come readily to mind). And now politicians wonder why the unemployment rate remains in double digits at 11.1 percent, one of the highest in the country.
Certainly, we have a cluster of talented innovators in the Bay Area that drive areas of the economy with fresh ideas and products. But building things, with housing remaining very slow, does not happen in many of the coastal counties.
Given the composition of the Legislature, it is likely is asking too much to subject regulation to a simple cost/benefit analysis that includes the economic impact. It's unfortunate that the protracted recession has no resulted in some common sense being injected into the Capitol.
on Mar 8, 2012 at 3:55 pm
LEW is a registered user.
The assertion that decisions around regulations that address serious problems of climate change and our dependency on (a diminishing supply of) fossil fuels, can be reduced to a simple cost-benefit analysis -- just shows how out of touch you (or our government leaders) are/would be with our environmental reality. I'm glad that our state and local leaders take the long view on initiatives such as environmental regulations, energy-reduction goals and high speed rail, because these decisions are critical to ensuring a healthy and sustainable environment for our children,and their children.
on Mar 9, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Can't wait to share your vision of our country as just another third world hovel. How arrogant of you to dictate what you refer to as our environmental reality. While you are praying at the altar of man-bear-pig (al gore), think about how you hypocrites get around now. Your man made climate change is the next oppressive religion used to control people's lives and thoughts. Ironic, for such godless arrogant creatures.