Prop 23 Update: AB32 will drive up food prices

Russ Steele

I spotted the paragraphs below in an article by Steven Greenhut in The City Journal:

. . . members of the California Assembly’s rural caucus and a California Air Resources Board member met with San Joaquin Valley food processors regarding implementation of AB 32, California’s anti-global-warming law. The law will impose a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions—something the assembled farmers and food processors said could put them out of business. Eventually all manufacturers will have to purchase emissions credits, but CARB is rolling out the program slowly to minimize damage to employers. Using typical bureaucratic language, CARB placed various industries into categories based on their risk of “leakage”—a euphemism for job losses. The food processors, who depend heavily on natural gas to dehydrate and can vegetables, were put in the “medium-leakage” category, to which they objected: they’ll have to pay for credits sooner than businesses in the high-leakage category. Because their products are traded globally, the food processors argued, there’s little chance that consumers will absorb the extra costs.

It seems clear that Central Valley jobs and businesses are being sacrificed as part of a utopian environmental scheme to lower worldwide temperatures. Reducing carbon-dioxide emissions will not clean up pollution in the bad-air areas of Fresno County, given that global-warming gases are not—despite President Obama’s insistence—a pollutant. But more land will go fallow as farm-based industries shift south of the Mexican border and even to China.

CARB attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. There is no proven case for human caused global warming. As we discovered in Climategate I and II the CO2 science is flawed and a small group of UN IPCC climate scientist rigged the data to continues to get grants to study the problem.

For readers truly interested in understanding the the problem the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) has series of links to commentators who have analyzed the Climategate II emails:


About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

8 Responses to Prop 23 Update: AB32 will drive up food prices

  1. stevefrisch says:

    “Leakage”, in the greenhouse gas emission world, is defined as an increase in emissions in one place as a result of a reduction in another place. It is not a “euphemism ” for anything, it is a clearly defined term.

  2. Sean says:

    Steve Frisch is right. CARB does not concern itself about job losses, only CO2 emissions created in another place when it becomes too expensive to produce a product locally because of emissions restrictions in the state of California. On another note, at Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog, there is a discussion about California’s CO2 emissions goals. The short summary is, the technology does not exist to meet the stated objectives. In addition, one of the most effective solutions, nuclear power, could not be built out fast enough even if environmentalists supported its implementation.

  3. Bob W says:

    Thank you Steve F for the clarification. This “leakage” could then be described as being comparable to flight from one area to another during an irresistible attack or offensive by a predatory invading enemy.

  4. stevefrisch says:

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

  5. gjrebane says:

    Facts are many, and their judicious selection to support a point of view is an entitled and long-practiced art.

  6. Bob W says:

    Facts? And what facts were I getting wrong?

  7. stevefrisch says:

    The fact that was wrong was the definition of leakage in a climate context.

  8. Bob W says:

    OH! So I must have been right on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: