Posted on 04/08/2006 11:15:03 AM PDT by calcowgirl
IN JUNE 2005, before an enthusiastic audience at World Environment Day in San Francisco, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared that, "California will be a leader in the fight against global warming... We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now."
That same day, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed an executive order to reduce California's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by approximately 30 percent by the year 2020 — establishing the most ambitious state-level emission reduction goal in history. The executive order also created a Climate Action Team (CAT), led by the Cal/EPA, to develop strategies and policy recommendations to meet the goals.
On Monday, the CAT Team released its first Climate Action Report to the governor and Legislature. It includes 46 strategies to cut heat-trapping GHG emissions and reflects input from over 200 representatives of public agencies, businesses, non-profits, universities and municipalities statewide.
The governor is enthusiastic about the release. On Tuesday, he will hold a summit at San Francisco City Hall — in the same room where, a year ago, he called for the report — to discuss the key policy recommendations.
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies declared that 2005 was the hottest year on record. Most scientists believe that the earth is warming because of a build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due in large part to human activity and from the burning of fossil fuels.
Governor Schwarzenegger recognizes that global warming threatens California's natural resources, the health of its citizens and the economy.
For example, global temperature increases between 3 and 10 degrees could result in a loss of as much as 90 percent of the Sierra snow pack by the end of this century, according to the California Energy Commission. Other studies have linked global warming to extreme weather events, intensified heat waves and flooding — all of which put the health of Californian's at risk and strain the state's infrastructure.
Economists also predict that the damages of global warming could reach billions of dollars, harming our agricultural and tourism industries, constraining our supply of water, increasing our demand of electricity and critically damaging our vast natural resources.
The governor is committed to the continued economic resurgence of California and believes that by protecting our environment we will also further grow our economy.
The numbers back him up. An analysis conducted by the California Air Resources Board concluded that implementation of emission reduction strategies needed to meet the Governor's targets would increase personal income by $4 billion and create 83,000 new jobs.
California's leadership on climate change positions our state to lead the world's growing GHG-reduction technology industry. We're already on the cutting edge in this area, and jobs created by California-based companies will only increase the positive economic impact of reforms.
Governor Schwarzenegger's leadership in combating climate change is unrivaled at the executive level, and is a call to other states and the federal government to join this critical movement to preserve our natural resources, our health and our future.
Much dialogue and work lies ahead but the Climate Action Report is the blueprint to move forward in achieving the governor's goals.
I am proud of the CAT's work and optimistic about the opportunities that lie ahead. California has a long, proud tradition of leading the world in environment-friendly public policy. I applaud Gov. Schwarzenegger for continuing this tradition and for demonstrating bold leadership to address one of the most important issues of our time.
"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, 2005
.
Yep, that climate change is killing Kalifornia. Don't worry about the flood of illegal aliens, drugs, and liberal government.
You know, I used to live in a place called "Arizona" back in the old days. Now, they tell me, I live in a place called "Aztlan."
It's not all bad. "El Comandante" tells me that he'll worry about global warming when it's time to worry about global warming and then he'll just hit up the gringos in "el Norte" for some money to fix it.
That's "mucho kewel" by me. I'm going to light up some more of this fine, native grown tobacco and have me a little siesta.
Adios muchachos!
I just found detail on the ARB report (PDF-126KB) they refer to. This is the most convoluted analysis I've ever seen. No wonder these brilliant "economists" could only find employment in civil service.
(Snip)Economic Impacts
The steps that manufacturers will take to comply with the regulatory standards are expected to lead to price increases for new vehicles. Many of the technology options that manufacturers will employ to comply with the regulation are also expected to reduce operating costs. These two responses to the regulation have combined positive and negative impacts on California businesses and consumers.
Based on the staff analysis, the net effect of the regulation on the California economy is expected to be small but positive. It is very likely that savings from reduced vehicle operating costs will end up as expenditures for other goods and services. These expenditures would flow through the economy, causing expansion or creation of new businesses in several sectors.
Staff's economic analysis shows that as these expenditures occur, jobs and personal income increase. Jobs increase by 3,000 in 2010, by 53,000 in 2020, and by 77,000 in 2030 as compared to the baseline economy without the proposed regulation. Similarly, income grows by $170 million in 2010, by $4.7 billion in 2020, and by $7.3 billion 2030. There is no impact on the ability of California business to compete with businesses in other states. State and local agencies will not be adversely affected and are likely to realize a net reduction in their cost of fleet operations.
Environmental Justice
Staff evaluated the effect of the regulation on low-income and minority communities. This analysis indicated that businesses in such communities will benefit from the regulation, because much of the operating cost savings will be spent in other sectors of the economy and will result in increased jobs overall. Staff also considered the potential effect of the regulation on consumers. Because the vehicle price increases caused by the proposed regulation may, over time, increase the price of used vehicles that low-income households tend to purchase, staff focused on analyzing the potential impacts of the vehicle price increase on low-income purchasers of used vehicles. Staff calculated that the increased vehicle payment minus the reduction in operating cost would result in a monthly cost savings of about $4.50 to $6.00.
And we thought that global warming was all bad news!
Arnold, you simpering, pandering creep, I did not vote for you before and I won't start now.
Reading between the lines I believe the ultimate result will be the elimination of the middle class. The middle class was built on manufacturing, and manufacturing is what must be removed to meet these goals
Fine with me as long as they confine the global warming to Kalifornicia. Don't let it spread to other states, okay?
We visited Anaheim in the 70's and they had smog than, what will get them in the end are the illegal aliens.
They won't actually do anything about that smog, themselves. they will try to presure Detroit and/or Washington to do something for them thay won't do for themselves. Same with the illegals. somehow Washington is supposed to fix a problem they created, aggrevated, and overlooked for years. Won't/can't happen.
Only if goods and services include increased debt service. A classic case of the disappearing expense. Poof, the increase in initial price is gone. Proof, the monies are free to purchase goods and services.
No young lady, the analysis is not convoluted. It magical.
ROFL! Just like the disappearing deficits! Magic!
Denied driver's licenses to illegal aliens: SBX3 1 was passed by a supermajority of the legislature. It didn't matter if the Austrian approved it, ignored it or vetoed it.
Rolled back the car tax: The VLF remains and Californians pay it. The Austrian did reinstate a subsidy that Wilson orchestrated in good times, but he was then forced to borrow $15B to cover the political ploy for the rest of his term. The borrowing amounted to almost 40% more in taxes that the VLF.
Vetoed gay marriage: On the same day the Austrian vetoed AB 849 ,he signed AB 1400. They were almost duplicates. One called marriage, the other, civil rights. The former would have started a donnybrook with organized religion, lead by the Catholic Church, but the later sneaked quietly in the back door (excuse the pun).
I'm not a big Arnold fan, but I'm glad that he is using his position to prod California in doing something about climate change. They've recognized that it is a problem and are planning to do their part to try to turn it around. What's wrong with that? If we wait for everyone to agree on this, then the science it's pretty clear that are economy and lifestyle is going to suffer in the long run.
As for costing jobs, it seems to me that if we send less of our money to places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria for oil and spent more on renewable resources at home, then it would be pretty good in a lot of ways, including creating jobs.
Who is they?
What is the nature of the problem?
Why is it a problem?
Is it a circumstance over which people have a control?
Many suggest that the world's climate is changing.
Most will point out that changes have always occurred.
Many say the climate is warming.
Most will agree that it has warmed before.
Many suggest that a warming climate is bad?
Other say; "So what? Adapt!"
Many say that people are causing the warming.
Others say "Prove it!".
Many blame an expanding world population for the problem.
Others say; "Then limit the population."
Many say population control is unthinkable.
Others say; "Then accept a little warming."
Some say that the world is entering a mini ice age.
Others point out it has happened before.
Many think an ice age is bad.
Others say; "So what? Adapt!"
Many think that global warming will end our species.
Others point out that species have come and gone as climates changed.
Many predict that the end is near.
Others whisper; "Chicken Little?".
Let’s just assume for a moment that we had the power to influence our weather (which this is the most arrogant belief that man has ever come up with.) Even the same corrupted scientists (Enron financed many of them) that support this belief say man could lower the temperature by a fraction of a degree that is if we had no cars at all, that is if we used no electricity and so on laterally living as we did in the Stone Age.
If we really wanted to influence the weather we are going about it all wrong. We should be focusing on what we know for a fact that does change the weather such as volcanoes and how to stop them. We couldn’t even fathom how to do that.
In Arnold’s mind the debate is over, thus the majority of the scientists that doesn’t accept that man is influencing the weather are irrelevant. If it was a vote among scientists the minority wins for Arnold.
I enoyed that poem. But, your point (so just adapt) seems pretty weak.
If you can, why not treat the cause, instead of adapt to the symptoms?
Doctor: Smoking is ruining your lungs.
Patient: Should I stop smoking, then?
Doctor: No, just adapt. Take the elevator rather than the stairs.
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.