Not enough answers from CARB’s Mary Nichols

Russ Steele

I have posted before about Rep Darrell Issa’s probe of CARB and is secret role in help set the new fuel standards HERE.

Now Representative Issa, House Oversight Committee Chairman, is intensifying his probe into the California Air Resources Board and it’s role in negotiations that led to the tough new federal fuel economy standards.

Issa initially asked CARB 17 questions, which Mary Nichols at CARB answered, however the information provided so far by the state agency had some serious holes. Details in a story by the Press-Enterprise:

Though she provided responses to 17 questions related to the negotiations, Issa wants more information, and his committee staffers are drafting another request to be delivered to the air board before the end of the year.

Moore said the panel wants details about reports that those involved in the talks were asked to put nothing in writing and leak no part of the discussions to the news media. In her initial response, Nichols said no written documents were created to her knowledge but that she knew of no direction from Obama administration officials to refrain from doing so.

Issa also wants answers on why Nichols didn’t provide any documents related to negotiations with the Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Moore said. Separate documentation shows that officials from the two agencies were involved in meetings on 116 occasions, Moore said.

It is getting tougher and tougher for CARB to lie it’s way out of the mess they have created, all to solve a non-existing problem.  When is it finally clear that humans have no control over the climate, or for that matter the weather, who will  hold these bureaucratic liars responsible for the damage they have done to our economy?

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:

CARB insures that U-Haul will be profitable through 2025

Russ Steele

No this is not a stock buying advice column, it is really a plea for some sanity in Sacramento.

The climate warmers at KQED Climate Watch has the story:

On Wednesday, just as the Obama Administration proposed strict new fuel efficiency standards for 2017-2025-model cars and light trucks, the California Air Resources Board leapfrogged Washington with its own package of regulations designed to further reduce emissions from passenger vehicles.

The proposed “Advanced Clean Cars” regulations package has four components, including a greenhouse gas emissions standard that matches the new federal one, which isn’t surprising since California played a key role in drafting the new federal proposal.

The other three prongs of the package are new smog-reduction rules, a program designed to spur the growth of zero-emissions vehicle production and sales, and the construction of new hydrogen fueling stations.

According to CARB, the Advanced Clean Cars regulations are designed to deliver:

• A 47% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, compared to today’s levels;

• A further 75% reduction in smog-forming emissions by 2025;

• One in seven new cars sold in 2025 (15.4 percent) be a zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicle;

• A total of 1.4 million zero-emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road in California by 2025;

• A reduction of 40 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2025, the equivalent of taking eight million cars off the road; and,

• A savings of $5 billion in operating costs in 2025 for California drivers.

This will rise to $10 billion in 2030 when more advanced cars are on the road.

Whew. CARB’s Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV) program aims to have battery, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles account for up to 15% of California’s new vehicle sales in 2025, . . . 

You can read the rest of the article HERE.

Read more of this post

Rep Darrel Issa – Paging CARB’s Mary Nichols

Russ Steele

It has been my opinion the CARB is bureaucracy that is out of control, with little of no oversight. Now, it appears that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has some concerns about CARB refusing the answer some questions about CARB setting fuel standards.

The Sac Bee Capitol Alert has the story:

The California Air Resources Board is now being investigated by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

On Wednesday, the committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Temecula, sent Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols a 13-page letter advising her that he was “expanding” the committee’s ongoing investigation into the establishment of fuel economy standards. Nichols had earlier declined to attend a committee hearing on the subject.

“Your refusal to subject yourself and your office to congressional scrutiny is emblematic of the core concern that many in Congress share…that CARB, as a state actor, is unresponsive to congressional concerns and unappreciative of congressional priorities,” Issa wrote.

Issa accompanied his observation with a series of specific questions and document requests, dealing with California’s role in the fuel economy standard deliberations. The ARB has until Nov. 23 to meet the demands.

I will keep looking for the list of questions and see how CARB answer them.  This should be real interesting, with Governor Brown holding a climate change threat conference in December. More on that meeting in another post.

Nevada County’s Tourism Plan Maybe Dead on Arrival

Russ Steele

While Nevada County Supervisors are spending money to encourage more tourist to drive to Nevada County, the California Air Resources Board and the supporters of AB-32 are working hard to take those tourist cars off the road.  Katy Grimes writing at the Cal Watchdog has the details.

A hearing held Monday in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee covered the long-term viability of available fuels needed to meet California’s increasing green energy demands — demands that are increasing because of laws passed by the state Legislature. But the discussion was not about all available fuels. In fact, petroleum-based fuels are even more unwelcome in California than trans fats.

Sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund, AB 32 requires California to lower greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — “the equivalent of taking approximately 28 million cars off the nation’s roads,” according to the EDF. On Oct. 20, the California Air Resources Board voted to launch in 2012 a key part of AB 32, the “cap and trade” program for trading emissions.

The purpose stated for Monday’s hearing was to address California’s increasing transportation demands, which “reflect state policies on air quality and greenhouse gases.”

But the panel invited to provide the overview of transportation fuels sounded as if they had stepped right out of a global warming conference at the United Nations. Panelists included Mary Nichols, California Air Resources Board Director, Daniel Kammen, a Professor at University of California Berkeley and Dawn Manley, PhD, Sandia National Laboratories. They presented committee members with plans, charts and graphs for aggressively pushing even more clean-air goals by entirely changing the way Californians drive.

What is this group of global warming grant whores planning for California drivers:

  • Mary Nichols wants to accelerate the clean air goals established in AB-32 by “ “ramping up” the mandates.”
  • Dan Kammen wants to monitor where we drive, and why we drive and then charge fees on cars that aren’t deemed clean and green in order “to send signals to purchasers of vehicles to use more bus and rapid transit.”
  • Dawn Manley wants a mandated shift from petroleum to alternative fuels, including ethanol, and plug in vehicles that do not have a combustion engines.

You can read the whole article HERE,  but it is clear that the actions of this group are to get petroleum powered cars off the road by making driving as expensive as possible.  As the cost of driving increases, Californians will have to adjust their budgets, and tourism will be one of the first budget items cut, as they preserve money and fuel for work and survival related tasks.

This means that no matter how attractive we try to make Nevada County, our target audiences in the Valley and Bay Area will not be driving to Nevada County for the weekend, and if they do they will have much less money to spend after an expensive drive to the foothills.

Oh, Yes here is the global warming that CARB is trying to prevent by limiting your driving:

Do you see the warming that you are going to  pay for, and will kill Nevada County’s tourism!