blogs.ocweekly.com — An anti-tax group and a coalition of businesses quietly led by Texas oil companies have launched a signature drive for a November ballot initiative that would suspend California's pioneering law to combat global warming. Assembly Bill 32, which requires California greenhouse gas levels to be rolled back to 1990 levels by 2020.
Mar 20, 2010 View in Crawl 4
yacksMar 21, 2010
Considering that Cali's Global Warming Bill will make California lose more jobs in an already horrible recession... I have no problem with Texan Oil Companies doing this... If the economy was better, it would be a different story.. But we cannot let these restrictions to force companies to move out of state with lesser restrictions..
lbxac20Mar 21, 2010
No clue why you're being buried. Somehow a handful corporations acting in their own interest gets twisted into one state meddling in the affairs of another? Corporations can set up in any state they want and move wherever they want, it happens all the time. Many operate in every state and some in nearly every country. The only company even mentioned in the article is Valero, which has refineries in California. So it's not like they don't have a legitimate self interest in the laws there.
xmraxMar 21, 2010
Everyone in Texas hates Rick Perry.
Closed AccountMar 21, 2010
CA state government has driven away business and we are bankrupt with highest taxes in the country. I hoping for the oil companies to win on this one
brookedunneMar 21, 2010
As goes California, so goes the nation.
goatworshipMar 21, 2010
The only reason to arbitrarily separate the concept of "climate" from it's physical manifestation "weather" is to shield climate conjecture from the burden of physical proof.It's not like it's hard to understand the rationale behind this. The average person will make short-term judgments about climate based on the weather they are currently experiencing, verses having the inclination and interest required to research its contrast against long-term trends. People on both ends of the political spectrum are guilty of this.Unfortunately the act of making this distinction only serves to render climate science as irrelevant play time with purely hypothetical models, the accuracy of which cannot be illustrated by real world impacts on the physical manifestation of climate: weather.One day climate science will evolve to a degree of accuracy and reliability which will be illustrated by accurate weather-trend predictions. This will make it finally relevant and useful to all of us, instead of just the few involved in developing our understanding of the field. Until then it will have little practical use beyond political fear mongering.
bristevensMar 21, 2010
Actually, Gov. Davis permitted an expedited siting process for power plants in CA shortly after the energy crisis. <a class="user" href="http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/9108/" rel="nofollow">http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/9108/</a>Your quote stating "California has faced rolling blackouts in the last decade and we have not built a new power plant of any king within the last 30 years in the state." is a complete lie. In fact, the number power plants going through the siting process is currently higher than they have seen in a number of decades. If California is going to be able to continue to function, we need to really think about the sheer air quality. Let's be honest, the air here sucks. Allowing more dirty power (albeit not the main focus of AB32) will only hamper the possibility for CA to be great once again.
bigdogg32Mar 21, 2010
Siting and actually building a plant are two completely different things. If we want to address the air quality, lets look at the multiple fires that are causing the problems and pollute our state more in a week than all the cars and factories (there aren't any left) do in an entire year. CARB (California Air Resources Board) wants to regulate and eliminate all diesel engines in the state when Europe uses these same diesel engines primarily to fuel high mileage vehicles. The state is so fanatical about this "clean air" push that they don't realize that our air is infinitely cleaner already than it was when these initiatives were actually needed. If people can't afford to live in a clean state and can't find a job here, then of course the state will be clean. It will be clean because nobody will be living here anymore.
chozmanMar 22, 2010
I wanna live on Pandora
brockway32Mar 23, 2010
What global warming?NASA DATA (last dozen meteorological years):Source: <a class="user" href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts ...</a>Year D-N 1998 57 1999 34 2000 34 2001 45 2002 57 2003 52 2004 50 2005 62 2006 53 2007 59 2008 43 2009 56NOAA DATA (last dozen years):Source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat1998 0.59711999 0.41992000 0.38862001 0.51732002 0.57462003 0.58172004 0.54142005 0.61532006 0.55992007 0.54722008 0.48042009 0.5569
ferretmanApr 5, 2010
Getting dugg down for supporting basic corporate interests in *this* story is clearly a badge of honor.....
strangefamousApr 7, 2010
That's why the state needs to legalize and tax cannabis and industrial hemp.