Prop 23 Update: Voters Remorse over AB-32 — Discovered it Means Higher Energy Costs

Russ Steele

John Kabateck,  CA Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business, writes in Fox & Hounds.

Folks at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) are fond of saying that with the defeat of Prop. 23 a few years ago voters made it clear they supported the agency’s plan for implementation of AB 32, the state’s global warming law.

Under that presumption, CARB has charged full speed ahead with the development of an astonishing array of regulations designed to re-invent California’s energy platform and reduce global warming, with an equally astonishing price tag.

A new poll just released by the AB 32 Implementation Group should serve as a reality check for what is arguably the most powerful state agency in the nation, and the least inhibited by strict legislative oversight.

While a slim majority of voters surveyed indicated they support AB 32 itself, they sang quite a different tune when asked if they were willing to pay higher prices for electricity, gas, food and other essential commodities in order to fund CARB’s greenhouse gas reduction policies, such as its proposed cap and trade auction.

Two-thirds of poll respondents expressed unflinchingly intense opposition to the cap and trade auction, viewing it as a hidden energy tax costly to consumers and vulnerable to market manipulation by Wall Street bankers.

Only 39% said they were willing to pay more for a gallon of gas, and most of those were unwilling to go higher than 50 cents a gallon at most.

And they feel strongly that Californians alone in all the country should not be forced to pay higher prices for energy, goods and services while citizens elsewhere are free of this burden since their states have not adopted climate change policies remotely as ambitious as ours.

You can read the rest of the article HERE. The author concludes:

. . . that as currently planned regulations such as the cap and trade auction will cost billions of dollars, displace workers and drive productive, tax-paying businesses out of the state in search of a regulatory environment in which they actually have a chance of staying in the black.

One of the reasons that Prop 23 failed was that CARB crafted a clever campaign to portray saving AB32 as an ozone health issue. Even though there was no mention of ozone in the whole regulation.  CARB, their grant whore supporters, and going green VCs out spend the opposition 3 to 1. Millions to bamboozle Prop 23 voters into thinking that AB32 was about clean air issues, such as ozone.  Now those bamboozled voters are learning the truth. It was not about ozone, it was all about collecting cap and trade $billions for CARBs going green slush fund.  Now the Governor is trying to figure out how to get his hands on that slush fund to save his budget.


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.

66 Responses to Prop 23 Update: Voters Remorse over AB-32 — Discovered it Means Higher Energy Costs

  1. ggoodknight says:

    Russ, while it was a flawed proposition to begin with, the No campaign was dishonest to the core, epitomized by the following award winning advertisement:

  2. ggoodknight says:

  3. Brad Croul says:

    Someone forgot to tell Kabateck that gas prices are dependent upon the economy, not CARB.

  4. sean2829 says:

    I think Californians are going to discover what Australians did; its easy to lend your moral support behind the green movement until the true costs (and who pays for them) become apparent. People suddenly become more analytical when the dollars are coming out of their pockets. When they realize that the cost of all the everyday necessities like food, transportaion and heating wil be more expensive they demand to know what they will get for their sacrifice. It won’t take them long to realize it isn’t much nor is it a shared sacrifice.

    • D. King says:

      But Sean, are you trying to tell us that these two guys are not going to share in our sacrifice? That, that they’re not going to suffer with us?

  5. stevefrisch says:

    A couple of gems form the poll conducted by EMC research, which I have sitting in front of me.

    When asked if they knew about “California’s climate change law, which is known as California Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act?” 69% of the respondents said NO.

    When told what it is, using the following language, support remains above a majority.

    “In 2006, California enacted Assembly Bill 32, known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% percent by the year 2020. Based on what you know today, do you favor or oppose the state’s plan to implement the Global Warming Solutions Act?”

    Support 54% Oppose 33% 2012
    Support 58% Oppose 27% 2009

    This change is within the margin of error, which is +/- 2.8% on each question.

    When the CAP and TRADE program is explained using the following language,

    “The cap and trade program for California would apply to large businesses in the state that use a lot of energy, such as power plants, universities, refineries, and food processors. The California Air Resources Board will set an emissions cap and distribute permits to each entity in the program. Companies will have to reduce their emissions each year to levels below the cap, or purchase additional permits from other entities that did not use their entire allotment. Total greenhouse gas emissions are expected to go down, even if some companies have emissions above the cap, since other companies would be below the cap.
    Based on what you’ve heard, would you say you favor or oppose the cap and trade program?”

    the numbers are:

    Support 56% Oppose 39%

    Considering the fact that these are very similar to the numbers before Prop 23 I think it bodes poorly for another ballot challenge.

    • ggoodknight says:

      That description from Frisch is fundamentally dishonest, saying nothing about the underlying economics… Let’s try truth in advertising:

      “Energy use will be heavily taxed. If you use a lot less energy, and the products and services you need don’t take a lot of energy, you won’t pay more than you are paying now. If your employer uses a lot of energy, they may not thrive if they can’t pass their costs to their customers, and your food will cost more because transportation and fertilizer costs will increase greatly. Once carbon fuels are expensive enough, solar and wind will be competitive.

      And the original justification is a coming climate catastrophe that even James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia theory, no longer thinks is imminent.”

      What would the numbers be for this one?

  6. sean2829 says:

    That’s an interesting way to put the questions to the general public particularly when 7 out of 10 respondents don’t know what AB32 is. I wonder how people would respond if it was made clear that the “large businesses in the state” were their utility suppliers, the oil companies they buy gas from, the schools they send their kids to and the grocery stores and food processers they buy food from and that all the costs for all those permits would be passed along to them in the form of higher prices? Add those things up and you are likely looking at $1500 to $3000 when the bill is fully implemented. Then throw in the a simple calculation that shows if CA is successful in its implementation it will have no impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or the average global temperature assuming the climate models are correct. In other words, a median income Californian may lose up to 5% of his after tax income to increased prices as a result of AB32 and other than being poorer, the climate will not be changed.

    • stevefrisch says:

      If those things were true (which they are not), and if those messages could be brought to the voters, and if that message were brought to the voters by someone other than Valero/Tesaro & the California Manufacturers Association, and if there we no counter message, you might have the makings of an initiative, which would then have to sway about 18% of California voters to switch their position. All pretty high hurdles in California electoral politics.

      You can look for yourself here:

      • ggoodknight says:

        And here

        In short
         Support for cap and trade is initially at or above a majority, but after more information is provided
        support erodes significantly.
         Most voters oppose the cap and trade auction.
         Bottom line: Many voters are concerned about potential job loss and higher consumer costs with new
        regulations. Most continue to support a balanced, “mend‐it‐don’t‐end‐it” strategy for addressing global
        warming, but oppose regulations that would negatively impact jobs, consumer costs, and the economy.

      • SteveF does in fact cherry pick as Greg has alleged. Here is the summary of the poll link.

        Voters are in a generally pessimistic mood about the direction of
        the state. The budget is still a top concern, along with
        unemployment, the economy, and education.
         Un‐aided awareness of AB 32 is quite low. When told what it is,
        overall support for the law has declined, although it remains above
        a majority.
         Most voters continue to support a “balanced” strategy for
        addressing global warming. Many are concerned about potential
        job loss and higher consumer costs with new regulations.
         For Cap & Trade in general, support is initially at or above a
        majority, but after more information is provided, support erodes
         Most oters oppose the Cap & Trade PermitA ction
        EMC Research #12‐4604 California Likely Voters.

        I read the poll findings and I interpret them as a huge swing towrds getting rid of the AB32 monster. I chuckled at some of the questions because they were push poll questions. One was that AB32 would only apply to “big business” and big oil”. While we know the rules are affecting every Californian down to their lightbulbs. So once again SteveF tries to pull a fast one. I would hope this poll wuld be published all over the state in every media since it shows the overarching trend towards repeal.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Todd, the poll was commissioned by the CMA and NFIB….are you saying they push polled to get a pro-AB32 response? I don’t think so. I was actually on the conference call they held when they released the poll. Their messaging was decidedly anti-AB 32. Heck, even I would answer yes to supporting a “balanced approach”.

        I have stated here, and on other venues, quite clearly, that I support a gradual weaning from fossil fuels. I have stated here that it will likely take us 50 years or more to advance the technologies necessary, and diversify our portfolio. You guys just are not hearing what other people are saying, intentionally I would posit. You paint your opponents as the radicals, when in reality you are the radicals that want to keep us dependent upon a single source.

        Support for AB 32 has slightly declined, but only within the margin of error of the poll. Those are the facts.

        And clearly you don’t actually know how to read a poll, the questions you refer to where pro and con argument questions, to demonstrate how voters would react to specific messages (although I do wish the cross-tabs by sub group were publicly available because that is where you would find the info on which specific demographic one would need to shift to make your case).

        Finally, how could I be cherry picking when I am the only one here who posted the actual data for all to see?

      • The poll was conducted FOR the AB32 Working Group per the first page. Would that not be an indicator of the bias? Regardless of who the background sponsors are it would seem to me the poll is a good indicator of the direction the Arnie overreach is going. I though it quite informative the poll said 69% or so had not heard of the AB32 so the results were narrowed down to answers within the 31% who did know a bit about. It will be thrown out when the “little people” start getting inflated electric and gasoline prices and we can educate them theat AB32 is the reason. Soon.

      • stevefrisch says:

        The poll was done for the AB 32 Implementation Group. Perhaps you should go look at who they are before you ASSume what their bias is.

        Once again you prove that you don;t know how to read a poll. The responses are not limited to the 31% who responded that they did know about AB32. The FIRST question is have you heard of AB 32, the next questions are designed to define and frame the issue, the next set provide arguments for and against to test messages.

        For someone that posts polls on their own web site you sure don’t know how to read one. Perhaps you should pay attention?

  7. stevefrisch says:

    Oh, and IF you chose to say the poll is biased, please remember that it was commissioned by the California Manufacturers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business, both staunch opponents of AB 32.

  8. stevefrisch says:

    Lets be clear here, I posted the actual poll findings. What Greg posted was the interpretation of the poll as presented by the CMA and NFIB. I would challenge readers to read the poll itself and ask the question, “Is this strong enough to go to the ballot on?” The answer, in any sane and rational political world, would be hell no.

    • ggoodknight says:

      You cherrypicked some actual poll findings, there is a difference.

      The longer the charade continues, the weaker the support for AB32 will be. It’s only a matter of time.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Greg, you are shameless. I POSTED THE LINK TO THE POLL AND THE SOURCE PAGE. I pointed to it, not Russ or anyone else here. That’s not cherry picking, that is pointing to your sources.

      • ggoodknight says:

        You may have pointed to your source, but your representations of the content was pure cherry pie.

        Shameless, indeed.

        How’s that science essay going, Steve? That science you claimed to be your #1 priority sure seems to take hind teat.

  9. sean2829 says:

    I read all the slides. Slide 10 explicitly says 60 percent of Californians were unwilling to pay more for food, fuel and energy for the sake of climate change. (And more than half that said they would pay said the financial impact had to be minor, less than $0.50/gallon of gas). It also said 70 percent did not really know what AB32 was. The only reason California did not repeal Prop 23 is that more than 2/3 of voters thought it was about dirty air rather than exhaling and they had no idea how much it might cost them. Well, CARB is working diligently to show them and I suspect when 5% of people’s income vanishes to higher prices for no benefit, you’ll find out real quick if there is strong enough interest to go to the ballot. I will say this, any voting block where this many people are this clueless about important pocketbook issues, deserve the nonsense they get as a result.

    • ggoodknight says:

      Sean, Prop 23 was a flawed proposition not to repeal, but only to delay AB32 implementations until California could afford it to lead the world into a clean, green future. Like that clean future company Solyndra, which has since been completely cleaned out of all the green that was poured into it.

      It was also made to be about good Californians turning back the efforts of bad Texas oilmen who just want to make our kids sick. And the Giants winning the World Series.

      The true believers still think if we push harder and make more sacrifices, a magic combination will be found and California will be leading the world into a bright, prosperous, fossil fuel free world while still paying for all the public employee pensions that can’t possibly be paid in the coming decades.

  10. stevefrisch says:

    I did read all the responses Sean, and indeed it sis true, people don’t want to pay more…and I believe a very strong argument can be made that AB 32 will actually create jobs, improve public health, spur innovation and adaption of new technologies, and lower energy costs to people in the long run.

    Russ’s contention that the cost of gasoline in California has anything to do with AB 32 is roundly exposed as a fraud by even the most conservative economists and market watchers that follow the carbon based fuel industry. Gasoline (oil) is a global commodity, and prices here have so little to do with AB32 that, as we see now (but Russ is failing to report), as AB 32 is ramping up implementation, fuels prices are falling. When prices are rising Russ says “Its’s AB 32” or “Its Obama”, when prices are falling Russ says, “how nice, prices are falling, think I’ll take my RV out for a spin”.

    The fact is the price of generating electricity, and the price of carbon based fuels, are going up, regardless what we do here in the US. Even with record low natural gas prices, if one averages the cost of energy, it is rising. The reason is expanding world markets driving demand; rising use as the portions of the world that were once under-developed, develop.

    But one thing that Russ et. al. are saying is true. Access to cheap electricity is one of the most important, transformative, wealth creating, standard of living raising advancements humans have ever known. One and one half billion people on the planet live without electricity right now, and almost all of them live in abject poverty. Three and one half billion people live with only primitive fuels (wood, charcoal and dung). Fixing the energy problem fixes education problems, water access problems, public health problems, poverty problems, etc. As the world turns the political, economic and social pressure to rise people out of poverty is so great, that it is constantly creating new demand for cheap abundant energy.

    So, in a world at risk of rising scarcity, the goal should be to reduce the cost of accessing and using energy in the long run. You don’t do that by depending upon one sector (carbon based fuels) because as the finite resource diminishes and world demand rises the cost of energy will be constantly rising. If you want the price of energy to fall you create competition. You achieve lower costs in the long run by diversifying your energy portfolio, advancing new technologies, and increasing supply by using energy more efficiently.

    But that is impossible while the dominant technology, propped up by huge global and US subsidies, and global military forces, is one, slowly diminishing, sector of the market. Without really knowing it the forces of the right have become the proponents of a huge, government protected, subsidized, anti-competitive, militaristic, monopoly. The very thing they claim to hate.

    I believe in spending less on energy. The way spend less on energy is to diversify your portfolio to empower competition, use less by adopting better technology, crack the energy storage nut, and stop being a pawn of the fossil fuel industry.

    • ggoodknight says:

      The price of natural gas is plummeting and the US is awash in recoverable fossil fuels.

      It would be wonderful to have new energy technologies that are commercially viable, but they don’t exist yet, and forcing energy technologies that aren’t commercially viable be used to generate more and more electricity to be sold in California is just another way to hobble the state economy for no good end.

    • Russ says:


      You need to catch up with the news. The Low Carbon Fuel mandated in AB32 has not been implemented yet. Here some details culled from KQED’s Climate Watch.

      Last December, Judge Lawrence D. O’Neill of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California sided with Midwestern ethanol producers who argued that the standard would penalize their use of coal-fired electricity for refining activities, as well as their transport of fuels to California. O’Neill ruled that the LCFS violated the Commerce Clause of the United States and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ARB from further action. The Air Board appealed the lower court’s decision in January.

      As of Monday of this week California’s groundbreaking Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was back on track for implementation after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of an injunction against the earlier lower court ruling.

      Stanley Young, a spokesman for ARB, says that California isn’t telling out-of-state fuel producers how to run their businesses, only that they need to find a way to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuels if they want to do business here. He also argues that the standard will drive innovation and investment in California fuel industry.

      When those out of state fuel producers decide they do not want to sell in CA, the only fuel producers with be those in the state, which will create LCFS fuel, driving up the price. So, we have not yet see AB32’s impact on fuel prices. Stay Tuned. It will!

      • stevefrisch says:

        Nonsense Russ; oil is a global commodity.

        If we used your logic that says that California CO2 reduction can’t make a difference on a global system, the California gasoline market would not make a difference in the global commodity price of oil.

        But we both know that California is the 8th largest economy in the world; fuel producers will shift technology and compete in the California market. And that will drive prices down.

      • ggoodknight says:

        “He also argues that the standard will drive innovation and investment in California fuel industry.”

        You betcha, make energy expensive and folks will figure out great solutions. Bet on U-Haul rates for rentals departing from California to remain high.

      • ggoodknight says:

        “But we both know that California is the 8th largest economy in the world; fuel producers will shift technology and compete in the California market. And that will drive prices down.”

        Energy prices will remain higher than elsewhere, California’s economy will continue to lag, and unfunded liabilities will get harder and harder to ignore.

      • stevefrisch says:

        The U-Haul is waiting for you Greg. I will pay for the first 1000 miles worth of gas.

  11. stevefrisch says:

    By the way, I say, hey, If you guys are so confident, go ahead and run an initiative. You will just waste $25 million in fossil fuel industry money, and it will provide the supporters of clean energy and improved technology an organizing tool. What you guys just consistently fail to understand is that you are way outnumbered. The will of the people is against you, perhaps not on Cement Hill, but across the state. Californians care about the environment, public health and advancing technology.

  12. MikeL says:

    PG&E had a program where a customer could choose to voluntarily pay a higher rate for electricity that was generated by wind and solar. They suspended the program because of a lack of willing participants. Why is this? Oh, oh, pick me I know….the majority of the population of this state who are hypocritical lefties think that someone else should pay these inflated costs.

    I think CARB should not wait until after November to start selling the carbon credits, they should start NOW! This way the State will fail quicker and those that are responsible, namely the regressives that control the State, will have to come clean and admit that they are guilty.

  13. Here is the link to the AB32 Implementation Group I googled after SteveF metioned it from the poll he cited.

    It is obviously in the tank for “cap and trade” rules and regulations. I would say it is biased.

    • stevefrisch says:

      Gosh Todd, you are just so dim. Go look at who is in the AB 32 Implementation Group. It is an industry group AGAINST AB 32. It was a major player in the Prop 23 campaign.

      • SteveF, you seem to be a bit slow today. AB32 is the law and will affect every business. I too would want to be on the committee to ensure I am not further screwed. We do that here in Nevada County as well. If you have a chance to oversee the implementation and you are a enemy of AB32, anyone with half a brain would join. So, do you have a half a brain? Or would you sit on the sidelines?

      • stevefrisch says:

        You just don’t have it in you do you? You just cannot say, “Yes, I was mistaken. They are not some pro-AB32 think tank.” The mark of a truly ignorant man is one who cannot admit an error.

  14. sean2829 says:

    You are half right. The price of gasoline (in California) is dependent upon the world price of oil. But the differential between what the rest of the US pays and California pays is partly a result of the difference between the WTI price paid in the midwest and south vs. the Brent crude price but there are also all the special blends and what not for CA. A single CA refinery will be paying half a billion dollars or more to comply with new CARB standards and the cost of operating in the state will be hundreds of millions of dollar per year more per refinery. Those costs will be paid at the pump. Russ is tracking the difference between what CA pays vs. the US. The good citizens of CA are already paying about $.40 more than the rest of the US and AB32’s regulations are just beginning to ramp in. It will be interesting to see just how much that difference grows.

    As far as the cost of electricity goes, here on the east coast it’s gone down a bit with the price of natural gas. While I believe this is temporary, a stable supply natural gas will hold the line on prices. Our state is looking at a renewables mandate that will be paid for by a flat fee on everyone’s bill. CA is looking at 2-3 times the renewables mandate we have here plus a much higher carbon cost (we are in the RGGI where its less than $2 per unit). This drives prices higher on everything hooked to the grid.

    As far as the cost and future of fossil energy, shale gas is a game changer. Gas is a regional fuel because its expensive to chill it to liquid temperatures and ship it overseas where the price of natural gas is 3-5 times higher. California will benefit from this development as much of the base-load power will come from this fuel for a long time to come. But wind and solar will likely remain 2-3 times more expensive than natural gas for years. The renewable mandates will do nothing more than pass along higher prices for economically non-competitive generation.

    As far as diversification goes, the environmentalist don’t like nuclear, don’t like hydro, hate coal, barely tolerate natural gas but love wind and solar. “Diversifying” to expensive generation and strangling power generation it doesn’t like will do little good for the citizens of CA. Bureaucrats love bottlenecks because gate keeping is power for them. AB32 and CARB will serve bureaucrats very well.

    • stevefrisch says:

      How would you explain the fact that prices in California were averaging more than 10% above the national price long before anyone (including the industry) even heard of Cap and Trade? The answers have more to do with 1) refining capacity in California (I would whole heartedly support building new modern appropriately sited and technologically flexible refineries on the west coast) 2) the nature of the crude delivered to California which is harder to refine and 3) the world market competing more for crude that is produced in the delivery area for California refineries. If one looks at the historical record, based on GAO reports, prices in California were always above the rest of the nation for the last 40 years, and were more sensitive to shortages because of competition in the pacific rim for crude. In addition, because California was growing faster than the rest of the nation the demand was rising faster and placing additional pressures on prices. Previously when California faced shortages we could ship finished product in from the Gulf coast. Now much of that supply is going to foreign markets, creating more price competition.

      There is no doubt that air quality rules are PART of the equation. But then you pay for the impacts one way or another. Either get cheap gasoline and pay high public health costs, or get more expensive gasoline and pay lower public health costs. It is a trade off, and most Californians have opted for cleaner air and healthier people over cheaper gas and not being able to see the Santa Monica Mountains.

      • sean2829 says:

        Young people in California are exercising their options. I sat next to a young woman on a flight from CA to Chicago what had a college degree who was looking to leave the state. There are few opportunities and the only work she can get pays $12 – $15 an hour. She and her college educated husband are the people you want to keep and they are leaving. On the next leg of my flight I sat next to a man my age who’s son just had a high school diploma. His son went to work in North Dakota earning $30/ hr to start and within few months was making $45 an hour. The educated and ambitious young people are leaving and with the budget cuts evisorating all levels of public schools in California, they won’t come back.
        The biggest irony is that CA is sitting on some of the biggest shale oil plays in the nation near the Monterey formation but the development of those plays is progressing at a snails pace. I wonder why.

      • ggoodknight says:

        IIIRC there was a shakeout of CA refiners when there was a major revision of the California fuel spec. Several closed, leaving fewer players. And then since the CA spec is significantly different than other states there is less downward pressure on refiners supplying the CA market. So we pay more.

        It’s what you want anyway, right? Higher prices for fossil fuels?

      • Greg don’t we also have state mandated “blends” that cost more as well? MTBE was one of them.

    • The price of gasoline in Venezuela is 12 cents a gallon. Libya it is 52 cents. The proces in the devoloped world are contrived through gasoline “mixes” and taxes. Americans and Europeans are simply ripped off every fillup to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

      • stevefrisch says:

        The price of gasoline in Venezuela and Libya is subsidized by oil revenues from exports. The oil is state owned.

      • So what is your point?

      • stevefrisch says:

        Isn’t it obvious… point is that that is not the true cost of the product in Venezuela or Libya, it is an attempt by the government to keep energy cheap so they don’t have civil unrest. Gas is under a buck in Iran too.

        My point is that your statement that”The proces[sic] in the developed world are contrived through gasoline mixes and taxes….” and “Americans and Europeans are simply ripped off every fillup..” is simply ignorant.

      • D. King says:


        Steve is towing the line, just like this guy from OZ.

      • SteveF, if the cost f the gas is 12 cents isn’t that the cost? In our country the cost is say one dollar and the government adds two dollars in taxes then the cost is still the cost isn’t it? Even if Hugo subsidizes the cost what is the difference in say our Solyndra money subsidizing solar? Please explain.

      • ggoodknight says:

        Todd, you’re way off base on this one. If a relative sells you a house for $1, that doesn’t become a datum for the price of homes in your area.

        The centrally planned price of gasoline in Venezuela has nothing to do with fair market value of gasoline here.

      • Sorry Greg, I disagree. Other than maybe a few commodity sales in the Chicago Mercantile, the price of fuel, or energy in general, is subsidized down or up depending on government intervention. My point is correct.

        Regarding th house for 1 buck. The fair market value is what a willing seller gets from a willing buyer in an arms length transaction. That is then judged in the pool of sales in the surrounding area. A very workable compromise. Hard to beat that system without having a crooked Assessor.

  15. stevefrisch says:

    Precisely, Greg. Yet Todd tries to use 12 cent gasoline as a rationale for the incompetitence or craven nature of government. It’s just like I said, he does not do his homework. Perhaps that’s why he could not undertand that the “AB 32Implementation Group” was not some pro AB 32 advocacy organization or a state agency. Because he cant tell the difference between a pro-industry advocacy group using green washed language and their corporate overlords.

    • No SteveF, I totally understand what I wrote and it is correct. The price is the price. If you lived in Venezuale you would pay 12 cents. Travel to Europe and pay 8 bucks. The government of Hugo charges 12 cents to keep the peace and the Euro’s charge 8 bucks to pay for healthcare. You need to get smarter, you are too easy.

      Regarding the AB32 working group. Since you appear to not want to read a previous explanation I will state it again. The group is composed of people trying to influence the implementing regulations since it is already a law. We do it here in our little county as well. The county wanted to pass a “comprehensive site plan” law and I was on the committee trying to ensure the implementing regulations were not too onerous on the builders. There, see how easy that was? Understand now?

      • stevefrisch says:

        Yeah, too bad you had to go back and read it three times to understand it.

        I noticed you could not resist spouting your big uninformed, illiterate, opinion, before going to the source I provided and doing a little independent thinking of your own.

        Here is your comment at 7:18: “The poll was conducted FOR the AB32 Working Group per the first page. Would that not be an indicator of the bias?”

        Here is your comment at 7:22: “Here is the link to the AB32 Implementation Group I googled after SteveF metioned it from the poll he cited.

        It is obviously in the tank for “cap and trade” rules and regulations. I would say it is biased.”

      • SteveF is obviously unable to do any critical thinking again. Never reading anything that may be in contra to his leftwing views. If SteveF bothered to use a bit of his noggin he would see he is wrong again and I am correct. But, when pigs fly!

  16. stevefrisch says:

    And finally they key point remains the same as it was at my very first post.

    Right now both AB 32 and Cap and Trade are favored by the voters in California at roughly the same, although slightly less within the margin of error, level they were before Prop 23.

    The reason a group like the AB 32 Implementation Group does a poll is they are testing going to the ballot. They tested and failed.

    So unless you guys can come up with like $50 million for a campaign, you are stuck with AB 32 and Cap and Trade. Better figure out how to make it work, leverage it for benefit and comply with it. It is the law.

    • AB32 is trending away rapidly from the people’s approval and the poll shows that. A poll is a snapshot and it looks bad for AB32. The “cap and trade” scenario will be history soon. Sort of like a knockout punch in a prizefight. The fellow smacked has a delayed reaction but then hits the canvas.

    • ggoodknight says:

      The key point remains that voters are in favor of AB23 as long as it really doesn’t cost them anything. It’s already hurting the state but the active obfuscators have so far kept the facts well blurred.

      Hiding the costs while the benefits remain elusive cannot go on forever and when the music stops AB32 will be no more.

    • sean2829 says:

      An interesting interpretation. Leverage it fir benefit…I’m sure there are quite a few doing just that at the expense of everyone else. But when food, fuel and heat become a bit more expensive. When any service requiring temperature control becomes a little less affordable. When having a new house with a yard becomes impossible to permit, the 70 percent of people who don’t understand what AB32 is about will have learned the hard way. At that point, getting enough folks to sign a petition for a referendum won’t be hard at all.

  17. stevefrisch says:

    All of your objections of course are based on your believe that climate change is not occurring, is not human caused, there are no health benefits derived from reducing emissions and the pollution that accompany them, and that the next generation can deal with the problems we are causing today if you are wrong. Actually it is roughly analogous to the debt crises everyone here is so fond of decrying. Instead of a financial debt it is an environmental debt you are passing on to your grandchildren. Just as passing crippling financial debt to the next generation is wrong, passing crippling environmental debt to the next generation is wrong. Its really that simple.

    • SteveF, we all believe in climate change for goodness sakes. It is minute by minute thrill since the earth gained an atmosphere. What we don’t believe is what you believe and that is mad made AGW. You want to scare humans into granting the government power over every aspect of their lives through fascist tactics and we are resisting that. We are winning you are losing. It will all boil down to people starting to see what we saw in your fallacious arguments and grant seeking sycophants in the “scientific” community. No, we see the climate changing everyday, you see a bunch of like minded fellow megalomaniacs trying to shove AGW on an unwary population.

  18. sean2829 says:

    The pointlessness of California’s actions to a real or imagined environmental debt of CO2 cannot be over stated. You are right, I do not believe that the element of life, carbon, and the oxidized form in the atmosphere, CO2 — that all plant life depends upon, are pollution. California, or the UK or nearly all of Europe, all who have or soon will have ETS or cap and trade schemes, cannot cut emissions enough to make up for the growth of emissions in the developing world. Imposing inadequate solutions in developed economies is at best a gift to the developing ones who won’t buy into these schemes. Economies that are prosperous are the most likely to correct real pollution problems. There is a big risk if you are wrong. If an economy is wrecked by expensive solutions to contrived problems, then the resources will not be available to adequately deal with the real ones.

  19. stevefrisch says:

    First, you are only focusing on CO2, which is a strategy on the part of climate deniers to ignore all other greenhouse gasses and pollutants contributing to climate change. Second you are ignoring the fact that it is not solely the issue of CO 2 being a pollutant, it is the CONCENTRATION of Co 2 in the atmosphere that is the issue, just as too high a concentration of Oxygen or Nitrogen would be. Third, you make an unsupported statement that it is the developed nations that are buying into this scheme; the truth is that it is the under-developed and developing nations that have adopted Kyoto, and other global responses, while the developed and developing nations, like the United States, Russia, India, China and Brazil are dragging their feet. Finally, you state there is a risk if I am wrong, yet you deny there is a risk if you are wrong. What part of illogical do you not understand?

    • sean2829 says:

      First of all, denier is name calling. Using the term weakens your argument. Second, I understand concentration. Life evolved withich more CO2 in the atmoshere. It will probably do just fine if it rises from it’s current level. Third the only other major greenhouse gas in the atmoshere is methane and it’s not changing much. Fourth, the developing countries did nit have to restrict their GHG emissions so were handed a competative advantage so of course they signed on. And the undeveloped were given money to deal with climate change. What dictator wouldn’t sign on for that kind of wealth redistribution. And if I’m wrong but prosperous using fossile fuels, I’ll have the resources to adapt or help others to adapt.

    • So now we see the debate that once hinged on CO2 changed to “other” pollutants eh SteveF? Greg Goodknight has toasted you on the CO2 issue anyway. Kyoto was booted by the Senate 99-0 if I am recalling and Gore and Clinton had bi-partisan mud on their faces. Then we got to hear from that little island chain in the Indian Ocean how the sea was rising and hey were toast. Since then we see that was total crap. Yeah, those third world nations simply wanted a funds transfer from us to them, that is what it all boiled down to. You need to do more reading. Lastly, the reason India, China and Russia would not support Kyoto was simply they knew it was a lie and their economies were starting to prosper and the lie would have hurt them. SteveF, you bandwagon has vamoosed!

    • ggoodknight says:

      First, focusing on CO2 is what the alarmists have done from the beginning. Why did McKibben pull a number out of thin air to name his Why did *he* focus on CO2?

      Second, there was five times the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere when mammals first evolved, and perhaps four times *that* amount during an early worldwide ice age in the early Phanerozoic. The predicted catastrophe is not about *any* greenhouse gas by itself; no greenhouse gas is the actual danger. It’s the theorized positive feedback responses (to *any* perturbation of the temperatures) involving water vapor that amplifies the small tiny increase known to be the result of, for example, CO2 increasing from 0.0003 of the atmosphere to 0.0004, causes the unverifed (even falsified) computer models to predict warming that has not occurred.

      Third, underdeveloped nations were to be the recipient of climate reparations the IPCC was formed to negotiate treaties to recognize, and a recent meeting called for the US to pay an amount roughly equivalent to our yearly defense budget for burning so much gasoline in the past. So yes, they bought into this enthusiastically. Free money is very popular, especially in the smaller kleptocracies.

      Fourth, the Kyoto protocol is dead.

      Finally, there is no present warming, the ice caps aren’t melting. Manhattan is not under water as predicted by James Hansen at the start of the alarm. And global warming is at the bottom of the list of the average person’s list of environmental concerns.

      Face it, Frisch. You have no command of the real issues.

      “Denier” is more than name calling, it’s hate speech, and cheapens the message of the Holocaust, as “holocaust denier” is where that term was borrowed.

      • ggoodknight says:

        “Gore’s transcript documents that during his sophomore year at Harvard he earned a “D” in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature). Also, as a senior at Harvard, he earned a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118.”

        One might guess “Man’s Place in Nature” is a bonehead science class for folks who have little talent for it.

    • sean2829 says:

      I am not sure if you are reading this thread any more but if you are, check out this reference at Roger Pielke Sr.’s site on the modeling of cloud fraction (CF) in the climate vs. what is measured. Keep in mind that a change in cloud fraction of 2% can completely counter act the warming from green house gases, including water vapor. Toward the end of the article, it pointed out that the difference between the models and the measurements are 7%. This is really the crux for most skeptics. Changes in cloud fraction can easily account for the observed climate variability. Global circulation models do a very poor job with clouds. Until they can adequately predict cloud fractions, they will tell us very little about what to really expect from the climate in the future and its premature to make policy decisions.

      • ggoodknight says:

        When Svensmark published on a GCR link to cloud fractions in ’96, he was denounced by the chair of the IPCC as being “extremely naive and irresponsible”, and IPCC brand science has actively fought any inclusion of those theories into the IPCC sanctioned investigations, reports and summaries.

        Those theories continue to build momentum, and as sean writes, are large enough to account for all the warming attributed to the theorized but never measured positive feedbacks the IPCC believes in.

  20. ggoodknight says:

    By the way, Frisch, as you put the finishing touches on your rumored response to my exhortation to pay some attention to “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” by Shaviv & Veizer (2003), you might want to read Shaviv’s take yesterday on a recent alarmist paper:

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: