by Warren Duffy
Desert tortoises are only one of Ivanpah’s problems. Nine nearby military bases and the U.S. Defense Department have formally complained that the 45 story towers will generate a “heat source” that will interfere with the military’s heat seeking missiles. In addition, navigation gear on jets could become jammed or receive inaccurate information.
The nearby Blythe Airport has also protested the construction project saying small planes accessing their airspace will fly over the giant solar plant producing superheated air. This can cause pilots to fly off course or encounter severe air turbulence resulting in possible crashes during take off and/or landings.
Then, there are the giant wind turbines. These are the industrial strength windmills that have received incredible amounts of government stimulus dollars. In Reno, Nevada seven giant wind turbines were built in 2010 at a cost of $1million in taxpayer dollars. When unveiled, the city said the new wind turbines would dramatically reduce the city’s heating costs. So far, the city has saved a total of $2,785. Only naïve and green indoctrinated government bureaucrats could try to make sense of investing $1million to save a bit less than $3,000.
In the Altamont Pass of Northern California, 5,000 wind turbines cover the hillside. Each is seven stories tall with three blades that sweep an area the size of a football field at a rate of 20 times a minute. That means the blades spin at an amazing 200 feet per second. In the last 25 years, the giant windmills have become known as “giant bird killers”. More than 7500 birds, including 67 Bald and Gold Eagles, have been killed by these large blades. Do you recall hearing or seeing anything about all of these deaths? Most of us know that since 1940, both the Bald and Golden Eagle have been protected by a federal act that bears their names as well as being listed on the Migratory Bird Act. For environmentalists not complaining about any of this is a bit hypocritical. But to date, no one has been prosecuted for any of the deaths; not under Presidents Obama, Bush or Clinton. Violators of the protection acts are supposed to be fined $5,000 for first time violations and/or one year in prison.
Apparently green energy projects are exempt from such penalties.
CHAPTER 8
CALIFORNIA GREEN DREAMIN’
In June of 2005, California Governor Arnold Schwartzenhousekeeper gave “a truly remarkable speech” at the World Environment Day (WED) Conference in San Francisco. Straying from President G.W. Bush’s stance on global warming, Governor Arnold stated, “I say the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now.” Following his speech, the Governor signed California Executive Order S-3-05 laying out a series of rules, regulations and target dates to reduce California’s production of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Assembly Bill 32, the California “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006”, was written and introduced by California Speaker of the Assembly, Fabio Nunez. That same year the bill passed and was signed into law by Governor Arnold.
In light of the ‘state of the state’ and our nation today, it is interesting to reflect on the big World Environment Day event. Under the theme of Green Cities, the celebration went on for five days including topics such as Urban Power, Cities on the Move, Redesigning the Metropolis, Pure Elements, Flower Power and a Green Cities Expo.
Then U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said, “It is most fitting that San Francisco, birthplace of the United Nations and one of the world’s most dynamic urban areas, will be the host city for the global celebration of World Environment Day 2005.”
As host city of the event, then Mayor Gavin Newsom said, “San Francisco is honored to host United Nations World Environment Day 2005. We are delighted to work with the United Nations Environment Program to make sure that World Environment Day in San Francisco leaves a legacy that will advance environmental well-being here at home and around the world”.
Perhaps the most foreboding statement was made by then United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Executive Director Klaus Toepfer who said, “It is up to cities in the developed world to set an example in areas such as the efficient use of energy and water. And it is incumbent upon them to partner developing world cities so they do not take a short-term ‘dirty’ development path, but a longterm sustainable one. If this can be done, we can help realize the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015 and in doing so rid the world of poverty—the most toxic element of all.”
Strangely, Assembly Bill 32 contained all three of the primary goals of the U.N.’s Agenda 21 as we outlined in Chapter 2. First, the identical greenhouse gases (GHG) listed in the U.N.1997 Kyoto Accords were copied gas by gas in AB 32. Next, the state’s target for accomplishing control of CO-2 emissions was precisely the same as the goal in Agenda 21; roll back pollution levels to 1990 by the year 2020. Finally, and most destructive, California introduced its own version of the U.N.’s “Cap and Trade” scheme, omitting the global economic implications.
California’s legislature assigned one state bureaucracy, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)—I like to refer to them as, California’s Arbitrary Rules for Bankruptcy—the task of creating an economywide Cap and Trade program governing more than 400 businesses in the state. CARB was charged with developing “pollution caps” for each business. If violators exceeded their pollution caps, they were forced to purchase from the state “carbon credits”, pieces of paper that essentially granted permission to continue polluting once they paid money to the state.
The strangling program took six years to design and was rolled out November 14, 2012. Regretfully, California is no longer the “California Dream” I remember after moving here in the late 60s. Back then, in every measureable category, California was the most incredibly successful destination for families and businesses. With low humidity, average temperatures in the 70s and long, lazy, sunny days year ‘round, aesthetically, the weather was—and still is—perfect.
The California school system was the envy of the nation. Schools were committed to graduating students who had an excellent chance of entering college, graduating and successfully contributing to society.
From 1969 through the 1990s, the California economy was the 6th largest in the world. Only five other nations on the planet had a larger domestic economy than California.
Business was thriving everywhere in the state. The space industry was headquartered here and later Silicon Valley, planted in the north part of the state, would transform the world of communications.
The entertainment industry was thriving; movie and television productions were booming and the global music business was humming. Who can forget the hit records of that era perfectly describing “California Dreamin” and, of course, the endless stream of Beach Boy classics that told the world about sunny, sandy beaches, cool ocean breezes and the laid back lifestyle of The Golden State.
California was home to the nation’s aircraft and aerospace industry generating good paying jobs the year round. Living costs were relatively low, homes were affordable and the state government operated like a business with spending not grotesquely exceeding revenues.
That was then, this is now. Today, California is a disaster zone. The state’s economy hit the skids and sunk to 8th place in the world in less than a decade.
Businesses are fleeing from California at an alarming rate. Sadly, California has for the past four years received the dubious distinction by “CEO (Chief Executive Officer) Magazine” as “the state with the worst business climate in America”.
There are now more California “tax takers” than “tax payers”. Approximately one third of America’s welfare recipients live in California and the state is home to a permanent welfare class. The poverty rate is above 23% of the state’s total population.
Schools, if not already closed, are dangerous war zones in many communities. Others are in dire need of repairs and upgrades. Roads and bridges are dangerously in need of repair.
Income to the California State Franchise Board, the tax collecting agency, must total $6.4 billion per month if the state is to break even. For mos
t months, $4 billion is being collected producing a monthly shortfall of nearly $2.5 billion. The state’s bond rating is currently number 50 of the 50 states.
A liberal, one party, big government has taken over California. The state’s giant political machine is supported by election donations from the state teachers union, large and well heeled environmental organizations, government employee’s unions and, the notorious Service Employees International Union (SEIU) complete with their purple t-shirts. All contribute obscene amounts of money to get their handpicked candidates elected to office.
Once elected, those hand-picked officials must negotiate work contracts with their allies whose lavish donations supported them, while the average state taxpayer is left to pay the bills. California now teeters precariously over its own fiscal cliff.
The Golden State leads the nation with the highest state sales and state income tax rates. Tiger Woods moved from California to Florida in 1996 because of his substantial tax burden. Florida has no state income tax. Golfer Phil Mickelson, a California native, recently admitted he was contemplating a similar move.
Officially, California’s unemployment rate is listed a bit above 10%, but trade unions report among their members the number is more in the 20 to 40% range.
The space industry has long since closed up shop and departed. California’s once-thriving boat manufacturing business is gone. Even Silicon Valley pioneers are relocating to other states and overseas. Doing business in California is simply too difficult.
Green is now the state’s favorite color—“environmental green”.
Environmentalism, through AB 32, cap and trade and the massive CARB bureaucracy, has foisted more environmental laws on the citizens and businesses of California than any other state in the nation. Faced with a “fight or flight” climate (either stay in California and fight the state’s environmental laws or take flight and move operations elsewhere) businesses are running for the borders of Arizona, Nevada, and beyond.
In 2012, the Orange County Register newspaper reported that 254 California companies moved out of the state in 2011. That was 26% more than the previous year. Here are a few of the companies moving all, or some of their businesses and jobs, out of the state.
Thomas Brothers Maps moved to Skokie, Il. DirecTV closed operations in El Segundo and moved to Iowa. The Claim Jumper Restaurants and “Investor’s Business Daily” relocated to Texas. Intel of Silicon Valley chose to build a new plant in Viet Nam.
Google built a beautiful new campus in Pittsburgh, PA., while Hyundai Capital America transferred 71 jobs to Georgia and Texas. EBay created 1,000 new jobs at a new plant in Austin, TX. Twitter and software giant Oracle are now headquartered in Salt Lake City. Apple built a new $304 million facility in TX creating 3600 jobs. Hilton Hotels, once the pride of Beverly Hills, moved to Virginia.
That long list of departed businesses is only a partial list of the hundreds that have fled the state. Demographer Joel Kotkin believes in 2013 the fastest growing business in California is “government” and the government’s biggest product is “red tape”.
In November, 2012 CARB implemented the draconian cap and trade program and conducted the first economy wide carbon credit auction in American history.
The California Chamber of Commerce called the complicated program “a job killer” and “an illegal tax” and filed a lawsuit to stop the auctions. The auction was held, but the case is still pending.
Phase one of the arbitrary CARB caps began on January 1, 2013, but were hardly mentioned by the state’s mainstream media. As required by the AB 32 law, the complicated cap and trade scheme is being phased in over the next few years, about as slowly and imperceptibly as the global environmental movement has evolved in the last four decades. By the year 2015 when the final phase of the program slides into place, California’s oil refineries will be responsible for all the emissions of the 27 million vehicles registered in the state.
There are only 14 oil refineries operating in the entire state of California to produce the gas at the pump needed by all those vehicles. Refineries are currently ordered by the state to produce three different gas blends each year; a winter blend, a summer blend and now a new ethanol based, low carbon emitting fuel. That news sent oil investors surveying the future business climate in the state and some have already begun to pull their California plug.
British Petroleum put a for-sale sign on their huge refinery in Southern California. They have opted to invest in more profitable horizontal drilling operations in the great Pacific Northwest. An EXXON refinery in Northern California is considering the same course of action. Where will those 27million vehicles buy gas if oil refineries are exiting the state? Perhaps the drivers will be forced to park their vehicles and use public transportation (refer please to the chapters on the goals of Agenda 21 and ICLEI).
The New York Times analyzed California’s cap and trade scheme and reported in a vast understatement of fact, “Opponents argue that it (cap and trade) would impose excessive costs in energy industries in a weak economy.”
San Diego’s Union newspaper called cap and trade an “initiative that will eventually affect Californians every time they take a shower, pump gas or watch TV”. Yes, television. Using their unquestionable environmental wisdom, CARB has ruled that big screen TV’s are a threat to the environment and must be tightly controlled.
For the first time in history, more people are leaving California than are moving here. The weather has stayed the same but the “climate” has certainly changed, especially for businesses.
The president of the San Francisco Small Business Network, Art Swanson, reports that in 2011 small business failures in California were 69% higher than the national average and California now claims 4 of the top 5 metropolitan areas in the nation for small business bankruptcies.
“Relocation Reps” are thriving in California. Other states now send representatives to California enticing businesses to relocate. “Move to our state,” they say, “where there is no state income tax, we offer special incentives and will even provide you with a friendly government liaison to make your move go smoothly” (instead of an environmental bureaucracy with its hand out at every turn). Those from the other states remind business owners in California, “there is no Air Resources Board and there is no such thing as cap and trade”.
Texas now tops the list of states where California businesses are relocating. Second is Arizona, third Nevada and Utah are tied, and Virginia and Oregon are tied for fourth.
How is the California state government reacting to the long list of business departures? Denial is the first response and disbelief is the second. Take for example the following exchange between a reporter and the California State Senate President, Darrell Steinberg.
Reporter: The Campbell Soup Company has operated here in Sacramento since 1947. It is the oldest of all of the company’s soup plants across the country but it is closing down and laying off employees. Campbell says it costs more to produce a case of soup in Sacramento than at any of their other plants in America. Your response?
Steinberg (answering with a very broad smile): “Well, people aren’t eating as much soup as they used to. And besides, the unemployed workers will get better union jobs.”
Callous statements like that are not uncommon in a state that has been run by one political party for almost all of the last 30 years.
Consider for a moment how the California environmental bureaucracy has victimized the trucking industry. In 2007, CARB began to create their pollution caps and lots of new rules and regulations. They focused on truckers, declaring diesel trucks the state’s worst polluters. CARB had a scientific study to support that claim.
Doctor Hein Tran, a graduate of the University of California at Davis and CARB science analyst, produced a study that was the basis for all of the onerous CARB air pollution regulations saddled onto California ‘s truckers.
He reported that in 2006, there were 3500 deaths recorded statewide directly attributable to “di
esel particulate matter” inhaled by unsuspecting citizens. Those citizen-victims demanded the government’s environmental protection.
Many wondered how Dr. Tran arrived at such a shocking number of deaths caused by diesel truck emissions. Were there autopsy reports that listed the cause of death as “the inhalation of diesel particulate matter”? Logical questions aside, Dr. Tran’s report was accepted and approved by the state’s environmental board. Based on Dr. Tran’s scientific research, a long list of stringent trucking regulations was officially passed by CARB in December of 2007.
One regulation stipulated a truck more than 7 years old must be replaced. CARB claimed older trucks caused pollution, ignoring the fact that the replacement of a single truck could cost an operator as much as $130,000. If a business owns a fleet of usable but aging trucks, say 20, replacing them would cost the company $26-million. CARB also demanded a truck, newer than seven years old, must be retrofitted at cost about $15,000 per truck. Astounding, indeed.
Just as the regulations were about to be passed into law, a large scandal erupted that was nick-named “Trangate” in honor of Dr. Tran. Investigative journalists began reviewing his resume and what they found was shocking.
Tran wasn’t really a PhD graduate of UC Davis. In fact, he received his advanced degree, not from UCD, but from UPS. Tran’s diploma was ordered on-line from a London “diploma mill” Thornhill University. For a few extra dollars, Tran also received the distinction of “Magna Cum Laude”.
In the summer of 2007, the revelation of Tran’s phony doctorate combined with the outrageous claims made in his research study was sent to the director of CARB, Mary Nichols. She reviewed them and decided to keep the report under lock and key until all of the onerous “diesel particulate matter” rules were passed and put into effect. Then she revealed the incredible deception of the “Trangate” scandal to the members of her Board.
