Posted on 04/03/2006 8:28:27 PM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO--Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez introduced legislation Monday to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, oil refineries and other industrial sources, a step he said would lead the nation in combating global warming while spurring the state's economy.
"(The bill) sends a loud and clear message to ... innovators and entrepreneurs here and abroad to develop and bring clean technologies into the California marketplace," the Los Angeles Democrat said.
Nunez announced the legislation on the same day Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration released a report calling for development of economic incentives that could include emission caps to cut greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide.
The two developments triggered praise from environmental groups but warnings from business leaders that limits could drive businesses out of the state.
"The governor gets it and the legislative leadership gets it," said Karen Douglas, director of the California climate initiative at Environmental Defense, a national nonprofit group. "Today's announcements set the stage for California to take global warming by the horns and implement meaningful policies to curb this serious issue."
But Alan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders should embrace a voluntary system that provides incentives to industry. An emissions cap would drive California power plants, refineries and other companies out of state, he said.
"This is a global problem and it requires a global solution," Zaremberg said. "If you shut down a facility here in California and that facility migrates somewhere else in the world, you haven't done anything to solve the problem."
Nunez introduced the bill with Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, the author of 2002 legislation that requires the state Air Resources Board to draft regulations curbing greenhouse gas emissions from autos.
The Nunez-Pavley bill is intended to cut emissions from commercial sources to 1990 levels by 2020. It would require the air board to determine which industries would be covered by the limit, but Richard Stapler, a spokesman for Nunez, said power plants and oil refineries would be included.
"It directs the ARB to implement these policies and collect research and data on which industries actually produce the most amounts," he said.
The bill also would allow the air board to grant exemptions to industries that had already lowered their carbon emissions, Stapler added.
A spokesman for Schwarzenegger, Bill Maile, said the administration had not yet reviewed the bill but said the governor looked forward to working with the Democrats. He said the governor's office and the Democratic leadership have enjoyed "a spirit of cooperation" on climate change.
The report from the administration's Climate Action Team calls for development of a "market-based system (that) uses economic incentives" such as pollution credits and offsets to curb emissions.
It said the incentives could include an emissions cap, a limit on carbon in oil and gas or a combination of the two.
The report warned that a cap could drive polluting businesses to other states, resulting in no net cut in overall emissions, and suggested that the best way to deal with the problem would be a national or regional emissions control plan.
The team set a target of Jan. 1, 2008, to recommend a program for cutting emissions. It also said the administration should work with other western states to minimize businesses moving from one state to another to avoid emission limits.
Other recommendations in the report include:
_ Consideration of a "public goods charge" on gasoline and diesel or a fee on major greenhouse gas polluters to help pay for emission-reduction efforts.
_ Mandatory emissions reporting from oil refineries, power plants, cement manufacturers, garbage dumps and other major sources of greenhouse gases.
--A public education campaign to make the public aware of the environmental problems created by global warming.
--A requirement that publicly owned utilities meet the same energy efficiency goals of investor-owned utilities.
Schwarzenegger formed the climate team after a speech last June during a United Nations environmental conference in which he vowed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California.
On the Net: http://www.assembly.ca.gov and http://www.climatechange.ca.gov
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"Its all about posturing and buttering up to the Golden State's enviro wackos."
===
No, actually it's all about wrecking CA's economy and that of the US, since CA is the 8th largest economy in the world ( or the 5th -- somewhere in between, I think this year it's the 8th -- but it's pretty significant.)
The envirowackos and the terrorists both have the same goals: wreck the economy, they just use different methods to try to achieve it.
You don't think environmental regulations are bad for CA's economy?
Yes, I can see how consistent it is with conservative principles to allow the Dems to forever control CA and even actively help them do it. (/sarcasm)
"At least then legislative Republicans will resist a regressive agenda "
===
Yes, all 5 of them, that'll really scare the Dems. (/sarcasm)
I like the op-ed by George Will they printed:
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_3663223
(snip)
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
In fact, the earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change — remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Middle West — must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is "over"?
About the mystery that vexes ABC — Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? — perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon. Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
Sigh.
An excellent article posted by Exton1 -- it's from 1998, but hits the nail on the head and it's applicable today:
Global Warming: The Real Agenda
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1608765/posts
Great find! Thanks for the posting, it made my day!
The article at your link is a very superficial analysis of what the environmental move-mint has in store. It's redistribution all righty, but the real benefits accrue to a select group of the investor class.
--
after seeing the lukewarm version of republicanism being served up under the auspices of the Wilsonegger gang along with the New Majorityites and the 19th holers at country clubs, you really want to talk about who is peddling what here, FO?
Your boy is dishing out dough by the bucketsful and collecting it by the same.
Can't wait for McCain to come back and campaign with him at his side.
btw FO, question for ya, do you want to see more rigid air quality standards all over this state?
Any time a politician mentions global warming or greenhouse gases he may be ignored except as his suggestions impact the wallet.
And yet some continue to apologize for the agenda being implemented in California.
"Today, California will be a leader in the fight against global warming . . . I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat and we know the time for action is now. Global warming, pollution and the burning of fossil fuels that caused it are threats we see here in California and everywhere around the world . . . We have no choice but to meet this challenge."- Arnold Schwarzenegger, speaking at World Environment Day
San Francisco City Hall, June 1, 2005Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.