The American Spectator : California’s Green Nightmare

Text Size

California’s Green Nightmare

By Stephen Moore from the October 2010 issue

So where are all the jobs going green was supposed to create?

It’s hard to know where the fairy tale of “green jobs” first came from. It was probably a clever marketing scheme by radical environmentalists who realized that their anti-growth climate change agenda wasn’t going to sell among the American electorate if workers realized how many jobs would be eviscerated by the new taxes and regulation. So, from somewhere out of Madison Avenue or K Street, the left devised the green jobs story line: we can impose a $1 trillion new tax on the U.S. economy over the next decade, and it will save jobs, as hundreds of thousands of Americans begin assembling windmills and solar paneling.

If we want to see how green policies work in the real world, we don’t have to look any further than America’s left coast. California has become the poster child of green jobs. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger boasted in his 2007 State of the State Address that “California has taken the leadership in moving the entire country beyond debate and denial [on global warming] to action. As goes California, so goes the nation.”

He’s right. California is the nation’s laboratory in green job initiatives of the type that so many politicians in Washington, D.C., and the states see as America’s economic passport to the future. The Golden State was first in the nation in renewable energy standards, it is the home of the most stringent cap and trade legislation (called AB 32) to reduce carbon emissions, and it has poured hundreds of millions of state tax dollars into renewable energy research.

So where are all the green jobs? A new 2010 study by the University of California-Berkeley comes to the sobering conclusion that “the green economy accounts for just 1 percent of California’s jobs.” That’s right: of the roughly 15 million California workers, only about 159,000 have green jobs (and this was an expansive definition of green jobs, including trash sorters at the dumpsters). That same study did find that green employment is “growing about 50 percent faster than the economy overall.” But that’s mostly a reflection of anemic job generation in California’s industrial base, and not a sign that green jobs are going to sprout all over the state like avocado plants.

California’s heavy “investment” in green job projects — on the types of initiatives that President Obama is all gaga over on the national level — hasn’t added at all to overall state employment. As of June, California had 2.2 million unemployed workers and the fifth-highest unemployment rate in the nation at 12.3 percent. Even if the state were somehow to quadruple its green jobs, the Golden State would still have an unemployment rate above the national average.

Nor has “going green” helped the state’s finances. The budget deficit in Sacramento is expected to reach $20 billion and the state’s credit rating of A- is the worst of any state in the nation, while its default risk is rated on par with that of Libya. California voters are partly to blame. In 2008 they approved a $9.95-billion ballot initiative to build a high-speed “green” rail project from San Diego to San Francisco and beyond. The state can’t pay its bills already. Most rail experts believe the actual cost will be multiples higher than anticipated, and that’s only for the construction costs. The train figures to be an albatross around the neck of the state budget every year in operating subsidies, much as Amtrak is in Washington. By the way, you can take a Southwest flight from San Francisco to San Diego for as little as $59.

Amazingly, even Gov. Schwarzenegger’s own economics team concluded this year that the state’s green regulatory structure is a menace to the state’s economy. The governor’s office study concluded that California’s already iron-fisted environmental and workplace regulations translate into about $176 billion in lost output and nearly 4 million lost jobs. This study was so embarrassing to the legislature and the Schwarzenegger administration that it was suppressed for many months, until several Republican legislators demanded its release.

Meanwhile, California’s celebrated AB 32 climate change law will take effect in 2012. But it is already causing an outsourcing of manufacturing, construction, and utility investment in anticipation of the new regulations. A Riverside construction company, CalPortland Cement, announced in late 2009 it was closing its plant because of AB 32’s impending regulations. The CEO wrote: “A cement plant cannot be picked up and moved, but the next new plant probably won’t be built in California,” but rather in Nevada or China.

Last year, researchers at the college of business at California State University in Sacramento estimated that higher energy prices from AB 32 will increase consumers’ food, utility, and housing costs by $50 billion. That’s the equivalent of a 4.5 percent sales tax on most consumer items Californians buy. Small business costs would rise by $60 billion annually to pay for a policy that will have at best a microscopic impact on global temperatures.

The Golden State is also first in the nation in stifling renewable portfolio electricity standards. These are expected to raise electric power costs on every Golden State business and homeowner by 2 percent, which is like a $250 tax on a typical family. Another expensive initiative, the 1 million solar roofs project, will pour tens of millions more scarce tax dollars into green programs the debt-drenched state can’t afford.

HOW DOES THIS ALL translate into jobs? Well, of course, it doesn’t, and last year California Republicans held field hearings in Reno, Nevada, to discover where all the businesses have fled. The presidents and founders of more than 100 businesses, all formerly in California, almost all said much the same thing. Although taxes are excruciatingly high in the Golden State, the businesses said they could tolerate those if it weren’t for the regulatory climate. They couldn’t stomach the anti-business attitude of so many of the California regulators. One former manufacturer in Los Angeles complained that “the regulators come onto your facility, and they want to shut you down. They view businesses as enemy combatants.” Earlier this year, the EPA chased out of town the last steel foundry in Los Angeles, a firm that had hired hundreds of Southern California workers with good wages for decades.

Joseph Vranich, a business relocation expert, has a database of firms that move in and out of California. “Thanks mostly to California’s hostile regulatory climate,” he says, “for every three new businesses that move into the state of California, about 100 move out.” He’s compiled an exit list of A-list home-grown California-based companies that are expanding operations elsewhere. It includes Intuit, StarKist, Facebook, Northrop Grumman, and Apple. Perhaps even more embarrassing is that when California’s investments do generate new jobs, they are increasingly located outside the state. In June, the hot Silicon Valley firm MiaSolé reported that its planned home for one of the largest solar factories in North America, a 500,000-square-foot 1,000-worker plant, will be built in Atlanta.

Similarly, CalStar Products has erected its newest green plant in Wisconsin. Since then, it has been awarded nearly $2.5 million in federal clean energy tax credits through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the company said, “We expect to build additional plants down the Mississippi Valley and East Coast over the next couple years” — and conspicuously, not in California. Another green firm announced it will build its new plant in Wales. Other states and nations are getting rich on California’s green spending. Much like Europe, California is discovering that for every green job that has been created, several more conventional hardhat jobs have disappeared. The term “green jobs” is a fancy way to say 12 percent unemployment.

Even the politicians in Sacramento are starting to realize the tomfoolery of one state trying to stop planetary global warming all on its own. So Mr. Schwarzenegger has been trying to persuade the governors of other neighboring states like Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington to sign a Western state cap and trade treaty. The other governors have declined, no doubt having observed how well climate change legislation has worked in California.

The whole fight of jobs versus greens comes to a climax in November, when voters will decide on a ballot initiative to suspend the state’s global warming law until unemployment falls back to 5.5 percent. The initiative is polling well, but green groups around the country are raising millions of dollars to defeat the measure. This is Waterloo for the Green Movement. If California rejects expensive job-killing remedies to climate change, other states will surely follow. California, ironically, could be the state that says, “Whoa: jobs first.”

About the Author

Stephen Moore is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (145) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Earl Richards| 10.11.10 @ 7:39AM

The California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is an oil corporation farce and fraud. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs. This notion is an insult to the of the people of California. In fact, there is job growth in the clean, renewable energy industry. Chevron employs 65,000 worldwide and CJI is not going to change this. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs. CJI will make fantastic profits for the oil industry, increase air pollution, especially in communities around their refineries and there will not be lower gas prices. Koch Industries, Valero and Tesoro are super Enrons. Since when did the oil companies start to show any concern for the unemployed and their families and for small businesses?

Todd S| 10.11.10 @ 8:24AM

This is what you call a damn fool, facts need not apply

al gore| 10.11.10 @ 8:47AM

you tell em earl baby!!! they dont need no stinking jobs...us democrats will sent them your paycheck!!!

you're down with that, right? earl? earl? earl?

gee your name repeated sounds [aptly] like a barking seal....and valero is killing the seals!!!!

keep on keepin on fellow kookster!

Texas Mom 2010| 10.11.10 @ 9:15AM

Ultimately the rest of America will have to pay for California's folly. I see another bailout coming. We should not have to pay for California's wasteful pie-in-the-sky experiments. I fear that we will bail them out again.

And by the way, petroleum is not just used for gasoline. I bet Earl could not go an hour without using a product that contains a petroleum component, if he just used a portion of his brain, Earl should realize this. Also, if he wants to do without petroleum in his life he is free to do so, just leave the rest of out of it. That's the problem with libs... They want to spread their misery around.

As far as the oil companies go, they are in business to make a profit. They do not have out of control margins of profit. They are taxed and regulated beyond belief. Fed statutes are a nightmare to comply with and often arbitrarily subject to change on regulators whim. Tough environment for business but even Earl should be able to acknowledge that gas and byproducts are supplied all over the USA for a more reasonable cost than any (heavily subsidized) green energy. And certainly the govt could not do a better job.

People like Earl would be more credible if they were not the same people that have crippled nuclear energy expansion in this country. It could greatly reduce oil needs and possibly make electric cars feasible in our lifetime. But again no new nuclear or oil development will be allowed by the greens.

ron maurstad| 10.11.10 @ 5:26PM

1st of all, I suggest you read about the Koch family and their history of destroying water ways and public lands. 2nd, you know nothing of Calif. finances, FYI calif. has a rainy day surplus of $95B dollars squirreled away in Pooled Money Investment Accts. and Local Agency Investment Funds- you can very easily check these numbers by going to the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR's) see the State Treasures website. With a state deficit of $28B there is plenty of reserve, however the money can be invested by the state BUT not loaned, thanks to Calif. voters in the 1990's who prevented this from passing. Many of us here in Calif. have been pushing for a State of Calif. National Bank just like North Dakota . Calif. has never defaulted on it's bonds, some states are unable to say that, are you listening? The capital requirements for a bank are somewhat complicated, but general ratio's are such that at a 7% interest loan rate $7 of capital can back $100 in loans, thus if $7B in CAFR funds were invested as capital in a Calif. State development bank the bank could generate $100B in loans. This $100B credit line would allow Calif to finance it's $26B deficit at very minimal interest rates, with $74B left over for infrastructure. Hopefully with Jerry Brown in Office he will get this moving along. Now for you Californians who think Brown is to liberal, I suggest you look at his record, by all accounts he was more fiscally conservative than his previous governor ronald reagan, and remember right or wrong he was against Prop. 13, he did balance and budget and he will go after the Police/Fire and Correction Guard salaries.

I've worked at all the major refineers in the LA/Long Beach area, most are a bunch of rat's who pay nothing to the general contractors who do work for them, and I will state right now, the next fire that occurs will be at Tesoro

Jetomko| 10.11.10 @ 6:15PM

The Pooled Money Investment Fund is NOT a rainy day fund. It is a way for the state and municipalities to invest their funds at a higher rate of return than money markets. The money is "pooled" and invested in short term paper, mainly. The state, for example, receives a large amount of money from income taxes and also from property taxes. This money is collected in large lump sums and then spent over the year. No entity in that situation wants to sit on cash so they invest it short term. A rainy day fund is more like a savings account that wouldn't be touched until needed. This fund is more like the state and local goverment's checking account that earns interest at higher rates than they could get otherwise - and at higher risk. It's illogical to say this money could be used to pay down the deficit. It is the money used to cover governments' expenses and since it is not enough to cover them, there is a deficit.

coreyg| 10.11.10 @ 11:56PM

THIS is the type of logic that has bankrupted the once-great state of California. You Ron are an idiot.

Riley| 10.12.10 @ 12:49AM

Ron... you need to do a bit more research - you are wrong on so many points.

For example... The PMIA is NOT a rainy day fund. It's a pooled cash management account, basically an in-house money market fund. It's about $68 billion, of which $22 billion belongs to local governments. Funds flow in and out of the fund to meet expenses for a myriad of state agencies. While it sounds like a lot of money, it isn't. The state usually runs a surplus in it's fiscal 4Q, which ended in June, which is rapidly wiped out by deficits in 1Q, 2Q, and 3Q. Don't kid yourself - CA has a serious cash flow crisis. If the bond markets lock up on them (e.g. Greece) CA could be forced to default rapidly.

Eric Cartman With Earl's Twin| 10.11.10 @ 9:44AM

Yeah, *sniffle* since when did Kock industries care about *sniffle* the unemployed? *Burble* They just care about *snort* profits *sniffle* We Liberals care about EVERYTHING *whimper, sniffle* That's why we write laws protecting things like Delhi Sands Fly - an innocent *sniff* fly. We are running out of flys, people! *Snort* But Koch doesn't care. They only care about products that help people, not *snort-sniff* FLYYYYYYYSSSSSSSSS! Oh, God, *sniffle, snort, whimper, sniff sniff* That poor fly!

So that's why we need *sniffle* Green Jobs. Like my brother said, There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs. It's the uncaring Koch people *snort* leaving the state because they HATE flies! *Blubber whaaaa, sniffle, burble, snort*

Peter, Paul and Cartman| 10.11.10 @ 10:22AM

Where have all the flowers gone?
Trampled by our Green Jobs march.
Where have all the flowers gone?
Crushed under our toe jam and Birkenstocks .
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the auto jobs gone?
We don't care because they pollute so.
Where have all the auto jobs gone?
They were shipped down to Mexico.
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the construction jobs gone?
Why, do you hate the Delhi Sands Fly?
You mean they left because some stupid fly?
We chased them off, you greedy guy!
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the Green Jobs gone?
You're starting to sound like a bird called mynah.
Where have all the Green Jobs gone?
The stuff is cheaper to manufacture in China
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the fucking jobs gone?
Well, there is Obamacaer and Cap N Trade,
Then there's unions making sure nothing gets made
Where have all the fucking jobs gone?
Then we have outrageous taxes
On everything from TVs to faxes
Where have all the fucking jobs gone?
There's minimum wage, OSHA, lawyers and such,
Oh! And that fly, that's why the business environment sucks so much,
And we'll keep chasing business out,
until the only thing we bake is bean sprouts
When will they ever learn.

the permanent newbie| 10.11.10 @ 12:48PM

Cartman, I think I love you. Sigh.

INTJ| 10.11.10 @ 4:47PM

That's good stuff.

sharonann| 10.11.10 @ 5:21PM

If you're a resident of California, I feel for you. During my enlistment with the United States Air Force, I was stationed part of the time in San Bernardino back in the 70's when the economy was much better than now. There was no such idiotic talk about "green jobs" and "solar power" nonsense. Needless to say I relocated quite a few years later and I'm glad I did. I hope this November 2nd, the good folks of California will do the smart thing and vote this bloodsucker down as well as the far left who espouse this.

Frank T| 10.12.10 @ 3:28AM

this website is a joke, and exactly the type of mis-information that is destroying our country. I'm glad to never click here again.

Loose NooseCharlie| 10.18.10 @ 11:52PM

As smalll business person , I find your song sadly true! I lost my contractors license for lack of work(read money coming in) and when I had collected enough to pay the bond , I discovered I had no credit ,so I needed a co signer, not my spouse or a business partner!! Subsequently no license!! I was truly angry at first , Now I see where everyone is going to have to work for cash and the "Fraud squad " that goes around doing stings on individuals that are attempting to earn a living are getting busted and put in jail!!Be careful, it is hard to eat when you have no money!!Crazy Charlie, out!

Sam Vaughn| 10.11.10 @ 2:14PM

Earl, you're missing the point. Businesses big and small are leaving CA in droves. They can't load the wagons fast enough. You should take a moment to understand business fundamentals. Businesses are a voluntary aggregation of people whose sole purpose is to make a profit. If they do then they stay employed. If all you did was volunteer and never took home a paycheck how long would you last? or, perhaps that is an ignorant question if you are living off the largesse of others....

joli| 10.11.10 @ 7:19PM

Yeah, when is HP leaving? I can't leave until they do--the sooner the better.

Greg Buls| 10.11.10 @ 4:35PM

Go carbon and save the planet.

China and India are just getting started. All of the fossil fuels are going to be burned eventually. If we really cared about climate change, we'd put off nuclear, natural gas , solar and all clean sources of energy, and go whole-hog with fossil fuels. Only then will as much of the stock of FF as possible be burned in clean engines and factories. The course you would put us on would insure that as much as possible is burned in the dirtiest plants and engines in the world.

joli| 10.11.10 @ 7:27PM

All of the fossil fuels are going to be burned? I have long thought dynamic oil production by the natural processes of the earth was more likely than the "fossil fuel" idea. It seems some scientists are beginning to investigate that possibility. http://www.americanthinker.com.....ction.html

Sharonann| 10.11.10 @ 5:31PM

Since "green job" idiots like you refuse to admit what is true. I lived in California (San Bernardino, San Diego, Sacramento, Solvang (just outside of Santa Barbara) in the 70's when I was station in the United States Air Force. I can tell you sir that the economy was in much better shape than it is now. Do I blame all of the mess on this "green job" nonsense? No, a good portion lies right at the feet of the blood-sucking unions and the cowardly politicians (mostly democrats) who had no back bone to stand up to these folks. I truly pray that come November 2nd, the good folks of California will vote this insane prop. down. No wonder that idiot Schwareneggar (a RINO) didn't want this as public knowledge-he would have to admit his stupidity. Now if we can only get rid of the marxist in the White House (Obama) and the one in the House (Pelosi) it would go a long way in reversing the horrible path we are taking as a country. All of my family is voting on November 2nd and some of them haven't voted for a while, but I made sure they were signed up and ready to go- and vote a straight republican/independent ticket. I am that fearful for this country under the leadership of this man.

Armin Miewes| 10.11.10 @ 8:21PM

Sharonann -- What is your plan to deal with climate change? Declaring all the world "idiots" who don't agree with you won't cut it.

In a year that’s on track to be our planet’s hottest on record, America turned “climate change” into a four-letter word that many U.S. politicians won’t even dare utter in public. If this were just some parlor game, it wouldn’t matter. But the totally bogus “discrediting” of climate science has had serious implications. For starters, it helped scuttle Senate passage of the energy-climate bill needed to scale U.S.-made clean technologies, leaving America at a distinct disadvantage in the next great global industry. And that brings me to the contrast: While American Republicans were turning climate change into a wedge issue, the Chinese Communists were turning it into a work issue.

“There is really no debate about climate change in China,” said Peggy Liu, chairwoman of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy, a nonprofit group working to accelerate the greening of China. “China’s leaders are mostly engineers and scientists, so they don’t waste time questioning scientific data.” The push for green in China, she added, “is a practical discussion on health and wealth. There is no need to emphasize future consequences when people already see, eat and breathe pollution every day.”

And because runaway pollution in China means wasted lives, air, water, ecosystems and money — and wasted money means fewer jobs and more political instability — China’s leaders would never go a year (like we will) without energy legislation mandating new ways to do more with less. It’s a three-for-one shot for them. By becoming more energy efficient per unit of G.D.P., China saves money, takes the lead in the next great global industry and earns credit with the world for mitigating climate change.

So while America’s Republicans turned “climate change” into a four-letter word — J-O-K-E — China’s Communists also turned it into a four-letter word — J-O-B-S.

“China is changing from the factory of the world to the clean-tech laboratory of the world,” said Liu. “It has the unique ability to pit low-cost capital with large-scale experiments to find models that work.” China has designated and invested in pilot cities for electric vehicles, smart grids, LED lighting, rural biomass and low-carbon communities. “They’re able to quickly throw spaghetti on the wall to see what clean-tech models stick, and then have the political will to scale them quickly across the country,” Liu added. “This allows China to create jobs and learn quickly.”

But China’s capability limitations require that it reach out for partners. This is a great opportunity for U.S. clean-tech firms — if we nurture them. “While the U.S. is known for radical innovation, China is better at tweak-ovation.” said Liu. Chinese companies are good at making a billion widgets at a penny each but not good at complex system integration or customer service.

We (sort of) have those capabilities. At the World Economic Forum meeting here, I met Mike Biddle, founder of MBA Polymers, which has invented processes for separating plastic from piles of junked computers, appliances and cars and then recycling it into pellets to make new plastic using less than 10 percent of the energy required to make virgin plastic from crude oil. Biddle calls it “above-ground mining.” In the last three years, his company has mined 100 million pounds of new plastic from old plastic.

Biddle’s seed money was provided mostly by U.S. taxpayers through federal research grants, yet today only his tiny headquarters are in the U.S. His factories are in Austria, China and Britain. “I employ 25 people in California and 250 overseas,” he says. His dream is to have a factory in America that would repay all those research grants, but that would require a smart U.S. energy bill. Why?

Americans recycle about 25 percent of their plastic bottles. Most of the rest ends up in landfills or gets shipped to China to be recycled here. Getting people to recycle regularly is a hassle. To overcome that, the European Union, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea — and next year, China — have enacted producer-responsibility laws requiring that anything with a cord or battery — from an electric toothbrush to a laptop to a washing machine — has to be collected and recycled at the manufacturers’ cost. That gives Biddle the assured source of raw material he needs at a reasonable price. (Because recyclers now compete in these countries for junk, the cost to the manufacturers for collecting it is steadily falling.)

“I am in the E.U. and China because the above-ground plastic mines are there or are being created there,” said Biddle, who just won The Economist magazine’s 2010 Innovation Award for energy/environment. “I am not in the U.S. because there aren’t sufficient mines.”

Biddle had enough money to hire one lobbyist to try to persuade the U.S. Congress to copy the recycling regulations of Europe, Japan and China in our energy bill, but, in the end, there was no bill. So we educated him, we paid for his tech breakthroughs — and now Chinese and European workers will harvest his fruit. Aren’t we clever?

MANorman| 10.12.10 @ 12:24AM

Mr Miewes,
Your argument offers several legitimate points, but you are missing a few as well. First, and most importantly, your cannot promote healthy change through force. It has never worked in history - ever. Eventually force consumes all available resources in attempting to continue the cause leaving nothing but death of the cause. This is exactly why capitalism in its purest form works as it functions through real power. As energy becomes more expensive opportunities present themselves for the innovators and visionaries to create meaningful growth in technology. Private investment will be plentiful if the technology is considered reasonable to produce at a profit. At that time your old inefficient product or service die by natural causes.
If you want to have an honest debate, ask ourself why we have not progressed in green energy......why does it have to be subsidized? Why do we have to create mandates for manufactures to support green initiatives through force of regulations?
You seem like an intellect, so I will ask you - what are the unintended consequences from forcing the green initiative actions that you describe above?
Allow me to provide you a recent example.
I used to consult for an organic compost site. The site used tens of thousands of raw materials such as chicken litter, wood chips, old hay and clay to create high very quality humus used on professional turf fields, golf courses and large open field container production. But unfortunately, the neighboring state was subsidized by the ton for every load of litter that was shipped out of the source state. The result was tons of fuel and expense to ship 100's of truckloads of litter 300 miles to be dumped (spread)( in raw form) on farmland as cheap - subsidized fertilizer. So the large organic compost operation could no longer obtain the raw materials needed to produce the product, unless paying an extremely high cost to compete with the subsidies. The compost prices skyrocketed and it killed the business. The environmentalist touted the subsides as a victory - but in the end it killed 25 GREEN jobs and a GREEN product that was being purchased by all of your major golf courses and container growers in a 4 state area - which coincidently was reducing their operating costs by CUTTING THEIR CHEMICAL (PESTICIDE) COSTS BY 20%!
Case and point - you cannot force meaningful change. And that is the reason that the climate initiative, cap and trade and green jobs legislation is nothing more than a power grab at the cost to whom and for what? Nobody, including the leading climate scientists believe that bunk.

tpleiman| 10.12.10 @ 12:34AM

Armin--I'm afraid you're conflating China's particulate, etc., emissions pollution problem with carbon dioxide emissions. CO2 emissions are not causing health problems in China, particulates and other truly hazardous air pollutants are. CO2 emissions are created by every living thing that breathes oxygen. For example. when you exhale, the gas that you exhale consists primarily of CO2 that your body exchanges in the lungs for oxygen, as does every other living animal that breathes oxygen. On the other hand, plants consume CO2 and emit oxygen during the reverse (of the above) energy exchange process of photosynthesis. The whole balance between plants and animals is a wonderful natural phenomenon.

Now, I will grant you that unnatural emission of CO2, in the form of burning fossils fuels which emit sequestered CO2, might be a long term hazard to human health and the health of other life on this planet because of supposed long term effects on the temperature of the planet, I would also submit to you that this is entirely debatable. The conceptual phenomenon called Global Warming, or since the Climategate Scancal, now intentionally referred to as Climate Change, is an entirely unproven theory by every scientific standard available and defined by scientists worldwide. That is why it is still referred to as theory.

However, to conflate particulate emissions and other airborne contaminants with CO2 emissions is irresponsible at best and ignorant at worst.

John| 10.12.10 @ 12:25AM

You are right on track. The 'green jobs' is in reality a load of crap that will kill a lot of jobs. I own a small business in s. Cal and if I could move I would. But the real and bigger problem in California is that the public employee unions dominate and dictate the political agenda, to the detriment of the state as a whole. My fear is that they will bleed the state dry (sucking taxes out of those who actually work) to pay for the bloated pensions and salaries of state workers. It's a ponzi scheme that will have to fall down eventually, but it will fall down on us all. If you want to point the finger, look at the SEIU, the AFT, NEA, and California Teachers Associations. These are the grim reapers for the once great state of California.

vonclausewitz| 10.11.10 @ 6:17PM

earl, earl, a gnurled burl;
makes a gurl want to hurl

Dick B| 10.12.10 @ 12:30AM

Best post award!!!
Go girl

Carl Pham| 10.11.10 @ 7:09PM

We'll see in November, Earl. But personally I'll take a "dirty" oil company -- with excellent $80,000 a year JOBS making ACTUAL PRODUCTS that people use -- any day of the week over the fraudsters and bullshit artists in Sacramento, the SIEU, the prison-guard unions, the teacher's unions, and the delusional fools (or cynical bastards) such as yourself holding forth on NPR.

Brush up your CV, fellow. You're going to need it come the second week in November.

steve s denver| 10.11.10 @ 8:07PM

This post epitomizes the idiocy and/or length in which leftists will attempt redistribute. Food for thought for follish leftists: If you redistribute and thus increase population and longevity in third world basket case countries, aren't you in fact increasing the very thing you so loathe? Humans.

Joe| 10.11.10 @ 9:20PM

Earth to Earl...
Earth to Earl...
Come in Earl...

Dick B| 10.11.10 @ 11:39PM

Earl... I just dont understand.
I didnt see the point as being big oil. Face the issue. Big anything is bad. Unemployed is good. Please dont stop all production of energy and then cry when the price increases 150%. If CA has the right answer... why did Intuit, StarKist, Facebook, Northrop Grumman, and Apple leave or expand elsewhere? Those were jobs. As in gone. IMO the real bad guys are ourselves. We want it all and for free. Paid for by "we the people". "We the people" are broke. File chapter 11 and lets reorganize this state.

IMO anti-business is also anti-job and therfore anti-worker. Or said otherwise... a stupid fight to start.

tks

Conservative teamster| 10.12.10 @ 12:38AM

The oil companies have to first find the oil (which is usually way way undeground), then extract it, move it to a refinery, refine it into gasoline and other products and transport it to the local filling station. They do all this and gas is below 3 dollars a gallon. To me thats a real bargain. Earl probably pays 2 dollars for 16 ounces of water (in a plastic bottle made from petroleum) which most probably came from a city water system somewhere. Duh !

Tom| 10.12.10 @ 1:21PM

Earl, your a moron!!

NewportMac| 10.12.10 @ 7:24PM

With Respect Earl Richards,
You are a paid lobbyist?

I'm finding the same message dumped all over the net.

Do you believe what you're saying or do you just do this for a "handful of coins"?

fred| 10.21.10 @ 8:46AM

You're a fricking moron. If California voters don't get it right this time by saying no to regulations and taxes, as well as Boxer, Brown and the rest of the liberal nut jobs in the state, then there really is no hope for California. It might as well have the "Big One" now and fall right into the Pacific, doing everyone a favor.

Jeff Dixon| 10.29.10 @ 5:29PM

Is this the only thing you ever post? I see it all over the place.

KyMouse| 10.11.10 @ 8:00AM

It's great that many people are having second thoughts about the "green revolution." On Oct. 6, the New York Times -- The New York Times! -- ran a front-page story about the noise that's made by those giant white wind turbines.

The article, entitled "For Those Living Nearby, That Miserable Hum of Clean Energy," states that "the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of [a Maine island] unbearable....lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property values..."

"A common refrain among homeowners...is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time...Similar conflicts are arising in Canada, Britain and other countries..."

[One Maine homeowner said] "...now we are prisoners of sonic effluence..."

Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 10.13.10 @ 7:40PM

[One Maine homeowner said] "...now we are prisoners of sonic effluence..."

Here's the first sentence of that article:
Like nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, Art Lindgren and his wife, Cheryl, celebrated the arrival of three giant wind turbines late last year.

The person that complained about the "sonic effluence" is none other than Cheryl Lindgren.

Melvin| 10.11.10 @ 8:16AM

People, the tax payer revenue that is paying for these, "Green Jobs," has already been skimmed off, defrauded, or stolen.
Are we to naive to think that jobs were acutally going to be created, I guess some where. Government doesn't create anything it takes, and just like the Ethanol scam, The Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac scam, the TARP scam, and the Financial Reform Act Scam. People, wake the hell up will you.
These are all financial schemes designed to fleece the tax payers, and for the government to create false images of proof to show us, "See, we told you we were doing something."
Its all one giant house of cards, government puts up a fluorescent light bulb and then touts, 6000 jobs saved or created because of this one single light bulb, that was created in a green atmosphere, with green power from solar panels located in Tibet, tended by monks and blessed by the Dali Lama himself.
Its all bull squeeze, and the American masses are just to stupid to realize that they just been suckered by the government and special interests who lobby to create these fake front companies.
Follow the money people Valerie Jarret, Obama's running partner is sphincter deep in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and no telling what else.
Think about it will you. Many of these hanger ons who come into politics leave multi, multi millionaires many times over and when they first came to Washington, they didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. But they leave millionaires. Now who do you think they got there money from. !The tax payer dammit!
I know I have been on a bit of a rant here. And most who read the American Spectator already know this. But I am hoping that new readers who still believe in our system of government read my rant and start to question those in political office.
Because people one morning we will awake, and the streets of Washington D.C. will be empty except for stray dogs and cats because the looters will have taken everything we own and including the furniture in the White House that Hillary Clinton missed and flown the coop with their filthy lucre.
Besides eating fish heads and rotten rice isn't so bad once you get used to it, because that is all the CHINESE are going to let us have.

Melvin| 10.11.10 @ 9:29AM

Congressional Staffers Gain From Trading in Stocks

"WASHINGTON—Chris Miller nearly doubled his $3,500 stock investment in a renewable-energy firm in 2008. It was a perfectly legal bet, but he's no ordinary investor."

Wall Street Business, By BRODY MULLINS, TOM MCGINTY and JASON ZWEIG

Roy| 10.11.10 @ 1:35PM

Oh, "Jobs" are most assuredly being created. Every new piece of regulo-blather spawns a legion of regulators to enforce it and an even larger legion of lawyers to sue each other over it.

What are not being created are salaries. Neither of the two above mentioned groups create a scrap of value for the world - they must be paid for by those who do. This leaves them with less to spend on salaries for others to create value, meaning less value gets created, meaning less overall salaries.

Only in the world of the government is it considered an accomplishment to "create a job" without creating a salary. My mom taught me otherwise when I was 5 and regularly "created a job" for her in cleaning up after me.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 5:13PM

Roy,
I got confused when you said salaries are not being created. I think you meant wealth. Salaries without wealth leads to debt, inflation, or most likely both.

hardcard| 10.11.10 @ 8:49AM

this a-hole of a governator is just mouthing the words of his wife. he is totally devoid of an original thought. too much steroid abuse. he's is pumping us up, shut up dumbell.

Purple Lips| 10.11.10 @ 9:41AM

The Green Jobs initiative is to Obama what CETA was to Carter. And the joke is on us!!! Hardy-har-har-har!

Clinton nee Publius | 10.11.10 @ 9:46AM

You people are dead on - I am being made to pay for the excesses and lack of adult supervision in the State of California. Like Michigan, Nevada, New York and the rest of these loser states, we get stuck with their bills and I am sick of it.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 11:52AM

California recieves 78 cents for every dollar of taxes sent to D.C., Michigan 92 cents, Nevada 65 cents and New York 79 cents.

Alaska on the other hand receives $1.84 for every dollar of taxes sent to D.C., Mississippi $2.02, and New Mexico $2.03.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/f.....071016.swf

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 12:03PM

Tom, don't know if you're a liberal, but the discrepancy between tax dollars sent and received is almost wholly a function of progressive taxation and Federal wealth transfer programs. If you are a liberal are you proposing we repeal both policies?

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 12:08PM

No, I am no liberal. And yes I would repeal progressive income taxes. But my point was in response to the OPs post, where he mentions getting stuck with the bills of "California. Like Michigan, Nevada, New York and the rest of these loser states" when it is and has been the other way around.

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 12:40PM

I'll leave it to the poster to explain whether he was referring to TARP for GM, Fannie and Freddie and other bailouts or something else.
But it's not exactly "the other way around" either. The states receiving more than they pay in are not submitting bills to the other states. It is a function of taxation and federal programs effecting individuals that the federal government has passed which benefit more rural and lower income individuals in states which have a lower proportion of high income urban areas.
The wealth transfer is not from state to state any more than, within for instance California, it is from the municipality of Menlo Park to Kern County. It's a geographical phenomenon of where wealthy and poor individualslive.
And since neither of us are liberals how about we jointly worry about the real problem: that DC tops the list at over $6 income for every tax dollar they pay, more than three times the nearest state.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 1:09PM

Yes, DC is much worse than any state.

"The states receiving more than they pay in are not submitting bills to the other states. "

I am curious why you did not comment on the OPs post since using your logic one could hardly claim NY, California, Nevada, or Michigan were submitting bills to other states.

Even with TARP, GM bailouts, and Fannie and Freddie more money flows from the states the OP claimed he was getting stuck paying their bills.

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 5:39PM

I didn't comment on OP's post mainly because it is still unclear to me if he is griping about something he is incorrect about or whether he is referring to previous and anticipated bailouts.

I commented on yours as it looked like the familiar liberal complaint about blue states supporting red states which I dearly love to pounce on. In this instance I was incorrect in that you were merely correcting what you took to be a misapprehension in OP's original comment.

Warrior | 10.11.10 @ 3:56PM

If ever we decide to return to a Constitutional government and limit congress to its enumerated powers, this spending will take care of itself.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 4:51PM

If only it is to be. We can all hope and strive for that.

TobyTucker| 10.11.10 @ 9:56AM

Funny thing about most of these "green" jobs, they seem to rely heavily on federal or state subsidies. When or if said subsidies go away, it turns out they are economically unsustainable. Just for fun, google "Spain green jobs failure" and see how that worked out.

Chloria| 10.11.10 @ 11:01AM

Well there is Soylent Green. "The Green Slime are comming,The Green Slime are comming"

INTJ| 10.11.10 @ 4:50PM

Nice reference!

Redstateboy| 10.11.10 @ 11:10AM

We are such a collective laughing stock of a Nation... We have bought in to this Environmental BS since Jimmy Carter - 34 Years Ago!

Bill Coulter| 10.11.10 @ 11:33AM

You can usually tell which way to vote by who is supporting or opposing a ballot proposition. I use the CTA standard. If CTA( Calif. Teachers Association) is for it, I go the other way. CTA is against Prop 23 so the right vote is for it.

Ned| 10.11.10 @ 1:07PM

I have a similar, but I think simpler approach:
if a bill hinders, limits or restricts government in any way, I vote for it. If it funds, promotes or enables government at all, I vote against.

With candidates it's become easier still in the last eight years - anybody with an "R" after their name gets my vote. If both candidates are equally vile, I skip that office/position.

From California| 10.11.10 @ 11:56AM

You people need to understand that California pays more into the fedreal government than any other state in the union!! So we pay the bill for everyone else. We have the largest economy in the union and one of the top 10 in the world. So before you go bitching about our state, realize we contribute more to everyone elses with less return to ours!! Wake up people!!

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 12:04PM

See my response to Tom above.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 12:16PM

Brian,
Do you think it is accurate to imply that somehow California is a drain on the federal treasury?

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 12:44PM

As I stated above; I'm not sure what the OP was implying but I do consider it just as inaccurate to imply that other states are drains on the treasury when it is almost wholly a function of income and wealth transfers to individuals not states.
We are not yet a collectivist society.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 1:13PM

"I do consider it just as inaccurate to imply that other states are drains on the treasury when it is almost wholly a function of income and wealth transfers to individuals not states."

Do you think that this is a good thing? Whether it is directly a transfer from the state or individuals do you think wealth should be taken from one person and given to another by the federal government.

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 5:34PM

No I think it's a very bad thing, but I was remarking that you seemed to mischaracterize the nature of the transaction, in that is the result of individual transactions from the more wealthy no matter where they live to the more poor rather than a bill one state pays to another.
It is often stated by liberals as though blue states are paying for more roads and bridges in hick states when in fact it is the inevitable result of policy they seem to hold sacred.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 8:34PM

Brian,
Yes, I have seen this hypocrisy first hand. Having been subject to Long Island Newsday as my main source of news I often wondered why on one page they were writing about how shortchanged NY state was and on another pleading that we needed to increase income transfers. Failing to see that one was the logical outcome of the other.

But on a larger scale two things bother me: they rampant hate of all things coastal by many Conservatives, mirroring the hate Liberals have for the middle of the country; the inability of Conservatives to reach out what should be a prime outreach demographic, over-taxed wealth creators. Spend sometime in NY, NJ, Mass, or Conneticut and you will hear many people complaining about how much they pay in taxes. Unfortunately there is very little outreach by conservatives to educate these people. And I think it is a mistake.

George S| 10.11.10 @ 1:08PM

The federal tax tables are compartmentalized by income not residency. I do not see your point.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 1:18PM

George,
Perhaps the point is the federal government punishes wealth creation. Maybe the point is that all the other posters who suggested that somehow California is a drain on the federal treasury were incorrect (I noticed you did not reply to any of those).

Californian tax and regulatory policy is a matter of California. It only impacts the rest of the country when A) they are allowed to create regulations that in violation of the Constitution (CARB being a good example) and B) politicians in other states are stupid enough to follow a bad example.

Roy| 10.11.10 @ 1:47PM

And C) When, after their regulations have driven them into bankruptcy, they demand and get a federal bailout.

If that weren't going to happen I pretty much agree. Oh wait, it already is happening, with the "stimulus" and the "edu-jobs" bill.

Statistics about which states get more from the federal government are highly suspect. If, for instance, in the case of Alaska they only include personal income taxes paid by Alaska residents and don't account for the ridiculous wads of cash the government collects from the oil companies based on revenue from Alaskan oil, that would be pretty goofy.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 4:50PM

There has been no federal bailouts yet, if there is you are I will probably be in agreement that it is an insane thing to do. But remember, last time there was an economy this bad NYC went functionally bankrupt and there was no bailout, and this with a sitting Democratic President and enormous Democratic majorities in Congress.

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 5:44PM

There hasn't been a specific bailout bill, but much of the "Stimulus Bill" was directly and indirectly aimed at shoring up state and local government budgets and preventing or delaying state and local layoffs.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 8:37PM

Agreed, and the money was fairly well spread. It was hardly a bailout for blue states -does anyone else hate the fact that the nominal conservative party is red while the liberal is blue?

I salute those Governors who knew taking the money was nothing more than sticking their state's heads in the mousetrap. All the 'stimulus' did was delay the day of reckoning.

Roy| 10.12.10 @ 12:18PM

It was a bailout for teacher's unions, in that it allowed them to go on demanding unsustainable wages and benefits, knowing that the state will be bailed out by the feds when it can't pay them.

It was, therefore, a redistribution from states that do not act this way to states that do. While that might not line up perfectly red vs. blue, the fact is that public employees unions are Democrats belonging to the Democrat party who elect Democrat legislators to take money from non-Democrats to give to them. So any bailout of state governments is money taken from non-Democrats and given to Democrats, whether or not Democrats are a majority in that state.

Milton| 10.11.10 @ 4:19PM

If that's the way you really feel, why don't you start a grassroots movement advocating secession?

Axel| 10.11.10 @ 4:22PM

http://www.next10.org/environm.....ion10.html

"California’s global leadership in green innovation continues to grow, attracting billions in investment dollars.
California’s green manufacturing jobs are growing while conventional manufacturing jobs are in decline.
California’s economy has profited from efforts to improve energy efficiency and reduce its dependence on carbon.
Californians are getting out of their cars more to use public transportation, or using more alternative fuels when driving.
This year’s Index includes two special features. The first, “The Changing Business Climate in California: Impacts & New Opportunities” examines myths about California’s business climate and found contrary to conventional wisdom, the facts are:

Fact One: Electricity bills are lower in California.
Fact Two: California manufacturers spend a smaller percentage of total operating costs on electricity.
Fact Three: California’s electricity productivity in manufacturing is outpacing the rest of the nation.
Fact Four: More businesses are starting up in California than are leaving or closing."

Letting corporations set economic legislation is like letting unions dictate legislation in their respective areas.

I support neither socialism nor corporatism. You people make me as sick as the communists and socialists do.

Thank goodness the US can't bring itself out of its decline. It's vision and example is the nadir of the West.

Jay Leno | 10.11.10 @ 4:53PM

About 1880 T. Edison made the first light bulb and electric generation plant. At the time there was no Federal rules on light bulbs, electric motors or even electric power generation.

Within 50 years the United States of America was lit by electric lights. There was also new fangled vacuum cleaners, waffel irons, movie projectors, refrigriation boxes, radios, coffee pots, water pumps, record players, hair curlers, stoves, fans, electric industrial motors, iron lungs, window fans, steam irons, neon signs, street lamps, elavators, subways & electric trains, and yes even vibrators.

How many of these modern marvals would be invented if the Federal Government had stuck their blue... uh "Green" nose in Thomas Edisons business?

On an even more basic level, if King George was trying to create "Green" jobs would Ben Franklin have ever invented the lighting rod, bi-focals, or the Franklin Stove, aka. the first centeral heating unit?

INTJ| 10.11.10 @ 5:04PM

Fact One: In 2008, California produced 208 billion kWh, and imported 98 billion from other states, or 32% of everything you use. Your cheap electricity comes from others, who produce it with less "clean" methods than with which you might be comfortable.

Fact two: The unemployment rate in California calls into question your assertion that more businesses are starting up than leaving or closing.

Using environmental activists' statements as evidence is like believing Big Brother's press releases. I don't know if you are socialist or "corporatist" (whatever that is), but it is clear, whatever the case, that you are wrong.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 5:06PM

Citations please. Because with 15 seconds of googling I found data contrary to 'Fact 1' and frankly am dubious about most of the others.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 6:19PM

Here's one cite which states CA imports about 30% of its electricity.

And here's another which if I'm reading it correctly approximates his Kwh figures.
Hope my html tags work since there's no preview here.

The only thing I saw at your cite was price per Kwh.

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 6:21PM

INTJ is incorrect when he states we in CA have cheap electricity. It's actually quite expensive. Just another blessing of the collectivists.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 8:45PM

I cited energy costs per Kwh because it was the easiest to find and it disproved Axel's (OP) first assertion. I could have calculated energy outlays versus gross state product but saw no reason to since I had already satisfied - for myself - that his list was probably made up. I would be willing to concede his points if he had valid citations.

Just as an aside, I almost always provide citations when I am dealing with data. I did not claim the rest of his 'facts' were incorrect, only that I was dubious of them. The one fact I disputed I provided data that was contrary to his claim, that electricity was cheaper in California.

lsjogren| 10.11.10 @ 4:26PM

"Ultimately the rest of America will have to pay for California's folly. I see another bailout coming."

Not with the Republicans in partial or complete control of Congress.

California has the right to destroy itself, but it does not have the right to destroy the rest of us.

Ted Peters| 10.11.10 @ 4:37PM

I pray you are right about not bailing them out. I just worry that someone might argue that California is too big to fail.

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.11.10 @ 10:57PM

As a native Kalifornian, I don't want a bailout, I want these Dam# Liberals to go to #ell. I want them to drink their ethanol gas and explode. I want Prop 23 to pass and the courts to leave it alone. I want Jerry Moonbeam Brown to go away and stay that way. I want Boxer to blow away. I want Pelosi to jump out of her plane. I want the central valley to have water so they can grow things. I want all the wallet bleeding liberals to walk to Hawaii. I want my state BACK.

lsjogren| 10.11.10 @ 4:29PM

"Fact Four: More businesses are starting up in California than are leaving or closing."

Axel: An E-Coli infested taco stand doesn't help the economy as much as a billion dollar tech firm.

JohnR22| 10.11.10 @ 4:34PM

Green Jobs was just part of Obama's Hopium pitch. All manner of utopianist problems...waters receding, heavens healing, a cornacopia of $100K/yr jobs just waiting to be plucked from the trees. In 2008 1/3 of the voters were desperate for anything non-Bush, another 1/3 were googly-eyed Obamabots, and the other 1/3 voted for McCain.

INTJ| 10.11.10 @ 4:42PM

Avocado plants?

Caveman| 10.11.10 @ 4:43PM

We, comsumers in the USA (and around the world for that matter), go for the best bang for our buck. The reason everybody is not driving around in a Lamborgine is that while it may be a great car, it is way too expensive. Oil produced products are currently the cheapest, most cost effective, and durable ways to produce things from the plastics in your car to the keys on the keyboard I am typing on right now. We need to get government out of over-regulation and let market forces determine what customers want/need. If, in the future, electric cars are more economical then gasoline cars, then a whole mess of folks will shift to the cheaper form of transportation. However, this situation is currently not the case; hence, electric cars are not being readily accepted by the public. Some companies have pushed this technology, which is potentially on the verge of becoming economical, but it is not yet there. When it is, folks will convert. Again, let market forces decide, not the government.

Jay Leno | 10.11.10 @ 4:47PM

About 1880 T. Edison made the first light bulb and electric generation plant. At the time there was no Federal rules on light bulbs, electric motors or even electric power generation.

How many of these modern marvals would be invented if the Federal Government had stuck their blue... uh "Green" nose in Thomas Edisons business?

Petey Kay| 10.11.10 @ 5:32PM

Most well said, Jay. I'm sure the greens would be happiest if we eliminated electricity and the internal combusion engine. Voila! Problems solved. Obesity would go away too.

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.11.10 @ 11:04PM

No they wouldn't be happy. The EnviroNarcissists wouldn't have gas for their Prius' to get them to Starbucks for their double whip, half decaf, half expresso, triple skim late' so they can say how bad the Tea party is and the Utopia that Obummer is creating is being ruined.

bcl| 10.11.10 @ 4:53PM

Even those of us who dream of a smaller Federal government understand that we have to pay taxes to support national responsibilities; e.g., national defense. But don't you have to wonder if _all_ citizens wouldn't be better off if their tax dollars stayed in their municipality, county, or state instead of being sent to Washington, DC and then redistributed back? Only God knows what percentage of Federal taxes collected are lost to the bureaucratic inefficiencies of the Federal government.

deblee| 10.11.10 @ 7:36PM

BCL,
About 30 years ago, the statistics then were that for every $1 of actual service or aid delivered by the federal government, it cost $3 to deliver. So the government collects $4 from you to deliver a$1 service. By contrast, at that time, private business or private charities needed $2 to deliver the same service. Therefore, the Feds could give us our $4 in taxes back for welfare and similar and we could save a $1, spend a $1, and give $2. The economy would improve, our savings would improve, the homeless and helpless would be helped AND maybe we could get the *&*** federal government out of our lives.

stardust| 10.11.10 @ 4:55PM

What a bunch of loony right-wing nonsense this article is. Obviously written by a shill for the oil companies. It comes after the hottest summer in recorded history and the BP oil spill catastrophe. Evolve before it's too late.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 5:10PM

What bothers me is that 10 years of cooling was not meaningful but one year of warming is. This goes beyond how shady and badly collected most global warming data is. Even if we accept it as 100% accurate - and I don't - their own models predict even if we slavishly followed all current 'green energy' proposals it would at best limit temp. increases by .2C. In the meantime it will cost trillions of dollars. To me the equation is pretty one sided.

hstad| 10.11.10 @ 5:45PM

Stardust - obviously you don't live in California? If you did then you would see the jobs fleeing this state the past 10 years. Since 2000, manufacturing alone has lost over 1 million jobs. In August, 2000 California employed 15.9 million versus August, 2010 when California employed 15.6 million. Now add up the increase in California population of 4 million, during the past 10 years, then you would understand how bad it is in California. Please stop drinking kool-aid.

Kevin| 10.11.10 @ 8:12PM

Anthropogenic global warming will be proved exactly and not before the warming models can a) account for the medival warm period, and b) account for warming detected on the outer planets not caused by us )obviously), and c) account accurately for solar variance.

As it cannot and as we can expect more efficient technologies to supplant outdated ones as companies vie for market share (see my new Ford hybrid for details), there really isn't any government intervention required.

Human society is successful because it evolved that way-- including its most recent, major innovation-- the United States.

I bought a hybrid as a guarantee against higher gas price threat whether from demand pressure, world events, or tax increase.

Personal interest is, of course, Smith's "Invisible Hand," is the only way that works.

megapotamus| 10.11.10 @ 4:58PM

Unaddressed either in the article or comments is that this is all based on Global Warming, which has been demonstrated to be a hoax. All else is moot. There is no reason for solar panels or wind turbines absent the mythical threat of Global Warming.

rigdum funidos| 10.11.10 @ 5:38PM

i agree 95%, but anthropogenic global warming via CO2 has not been proven a hoax; it also hasn't been proven in any way to be true, so that spending money on it is foolish. perhaps with all the billions of dollars being spent to try to prove it, they actually might.

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.11.10 @ 11:15PM

Yeah great idea, let's spend a ton of money to prove that the .001% of the CO2 produced by man has a significant impact when combined with the 99.999% of the CO2 produced by volcanoes. Let's ban Volcanoes and solve the problem.

Black Saint| 10.11.10 @ 5:02PM

California the Golden state, American future, is fast becoming the poster child for an bankrupt third world State!

An unholy alliance of Socialist Democrat politicians, Unions, and Illegal Aliens supporters are feasting at the trough of tax payers paid benefits while taxing & regulating business and the tax paying public into poverty.

The pandering of Left Wing Democrat Politicians to their constituency of Illegal Aliens, open border supporters, and unions are driving business and citizens to other states & countries, while leaving the parasites & welfare leeches in an increasing bankrupt, crime ridden, dysfunctional state!

For years California has ignored economics 101 by rewarding Public employee with wages and benefits that far exceed any in the private sector or any thing connected to common sense to buy their votes while importing poverty, Criminals and uneducated parasites from Mexico, which increased Medical, Welfare, Crime, Prison, etc. & adding a estimated 16 billion per year to Calif. State expense to provide for the invading horde of Illegal Aliens while exporting business and educated working tax payers.

Like all Socialist & Marxist States the results have been a astronomical increase in social welfare, schooling, prison cost etc. and a lowing of Living standards, Education standards, Tax receipts & finally Bankruptcy.

Failure to abide by our Constitution against invasion & enforce our Immigration laws and constraints on wages and benefits for public employees will result in turning the Golden State into MexiCalif and the end of the California dream!

The policies of Obama and Wash. DC Democrats are intent on following Calif. policies and are rewarding the Lazy, Corrupt, Criminal, Greedy and Stupid while punishing the tax paying, Law abiding citizens that pulling the cart and carrying the load.

Amnesty & Citizenship as a reward for their invasion of the USA, will result in the rest of the USA turned into a Spanish speaking third world slum, modeled on Mexico and follow California into a polluted, over populated, Spanish speaking third world Nation of Crime, Corruption, Poverty, Cruelly & Misery!

This will result in a population depending on Welfare and the Democrat party, thus assuring the lock on power for the Socialist Democrat party of the United States of Mexico!

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.11.10 @ 11:19PM

You're almost correct. Kaliforina isn't 'is fast becoming the poster child for an bankrupt third world State!' it has already achieved that status. I know, I live here. We need some adults in charge of this place. Meg & Carly are two good starts.

Calif48years| 10.13.10 @ 10:17AM

Unfortunately, Meg isn't the answer. She opposes Prop 187, she will only put off AB32 for a year, she's pandering to the non-existent Hispanic vote, and she says that California "must lead the way in Green initiatives." She continuously flip-flops on her immigration stance.
Obviously, Jerry Brown is not the choice. He'd be a pig in shxt heaven if the legislation didn't change. It amuses me that he has a plan for 500,000 "green jobs"! What, are these all going to be inspectors, going around writing citations for companies and residents not "complying" with whatever new regulation the quacks in Sacramento hand down? 'Cause it sure ain't gonna be any sort of manufacturing of solar panels/wind turbines, etc. Those jobs will be in China and elsewhere in the world where labor is cheap and all the California manufacturing jobs already left for.
I'm tired of being given the choice of 2 turds, of being left to choose the "lesser of 2 evils". This happens over and over.
I was born in CA 48 years ago, in a seaside town that's about as close to paradise as you can get, and I PAY dearly for it. But my husband and I will most likely have to spend our "golden years" somewhere in the mid-west where the cost of living is cheaper, and my 3 children that are nearing college/in college age all want to leave this state. I wish they could have had the same California that I grew up in.

R. L. Hails Sr. P. E.| 10.11.10 @ 5:42PM

All green electrical generating technologies share one common characteristic, they all cost too much. The differential costs, above conventional technology costs, can be funded in one of two ways, either government subsidy, and/or a utility pass through to the customer. After the forty year disaster in nuclear and coal fired generation, which makes 2/3 of our juice, the utilities will now acccept any government dictated technology based on one axiom: the customer must pay. The end result will be the same, a poorer population. Green jobs may exist, but many more "non-green" jobs will not, and the total costs must sky rocket, to repeat our President's campaign pledge. It is duplicitous for any politician to claim that a green future is not a poor one. People can choose between a higher level of wealth and CO2, or be poorer, with less CO2.

These are the facts, and the clear policy choice in November.

hstad| 10.11.10 @ 5:50PM

I Agree! Green jobs is a pipe dream. 30% of the energy comes from coal, another 30% comes from oil and another 20% comes from various other sources, i.e. nuclear, natural gas, etc. Less than 10% comes from green energy. There is not enough land to replace coal and oil as energy sources. We need to build more nuclear like Japan (90%) and France (80%). Even that is many decades in the future. Greenies are just a bunch of PR guys who don't care about destroying California.

Beth Barnat | 10.11.10 @ 6:28PM

Liberals' idea of a tragedy:

"There is nothing more horrible than the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts."
- La Rochefoucauld

P.S. Left CA and moved back to Sanity Island (Indiana) last Fall. Haven't regretted it once.

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.11.10 @ 11:21PM

I envy you. You didn't go there with Beckman did you? That's where my job went to.

Matt| 10.11.10 @ 6:29PM

At least TRY to get your facts straight. If a 2% increase in energy costs equals $250 then the average person spends over $12,000 a year on energy. That is simply ridiculous. My total energy consumption is about $200 per month or $2,400 dollars per year. So a 2% increase would be $48. Although I am pretty energy conscious and probably spend less than most, you can't tell me the average is 5 times higher than mine.

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 7:36PM

At least TRY to read what he said. He said it would amount to a $250 tax on the typical family not individual.
Our family of four, between propane, electricity and gasoline spends typically about $800 per month (and we are by no means profligate) which comes to around $10,000 per year. If the author was including embedded costs via commercial increases past onto customers his figure is quite reasonable and your criticism quite not.

Brian B| 10.11.10 @ 7:53PM

Correcting my own stupidity, the author was only talking about electricity, but he was also referring to a typical family so his numbers are still not off by a factor of five but are quite close to matt's example if applied to a typical family rather than an individual.

Tom| 10.11.10 @ 8:50PM

You are discounting the effects a 2% increase in energy will have on goods and services. It is not simply a matter of how much your electric bill goes up but how much more it will cost you to get a haircut, buy meat from a supermarket, or have your car serviced. Energy cost increases ripple through an economy because unlike some commodities there is no economic activity that does not need an energy input.

Matt| 10.12.10 @ 11:27AM

Although it is difficult to figure out how the author calculated his costs, I was included my family's total cost (wife and me). It would help if the author kept his units constant, either per person or per average household. I believe the average household is only slightly above 2.0 people.
What the author also leaves out of course are all the externalities of the fossil fuel industry, a rather conveinent omission. Our military costs around the world, subsidized pipelines, all favorable lease agreements all have significant costs to the taxpayer. It is unfair to talk about subsidies to renewable power without including those from traditional energy sources.

Oregonian| 10.12.10 @ 12:56PM

Matt: a tax on business is passed on to the customers of the business. An increased tax on the energy consumption of businesses becomes an additional tax on all the individuals in the state who use the products of those businesses. Your share of energy costs is not only what you use.

Stephen Moore did not become a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a respected contributor to print and electronic media publications without an understanding of basic economics. I hope that you got something else out of his analysis of the disastrous consequences of institutionalizing environmental activism in Cahleefourneeah than your response indicates. If not, the state is truly doomed!

Roy| 10.12.10 @ 12:33PM

I think Tom's idea is the only way we can come up with "$250".

The real thing is, I don't think it's going to be anything like 2%. Gas went up to $4 and in some cases much higher in 2008. Did that do a thing for "renewables"? It did not. That means that PC fuels are still not competitive when gas prices nearly double. That means, to get people to use them, you're going to have to increase costs by a lot more than "2%".

Matt: No matter what energy source we use we're going to have to protect it militarily. If solar power really became a significant component of American energy production, then not only would the minerals used in solar cells become important, but our enemies would be researching ways to block the sun. Etc, etc. So I decline to count the cost of maintaining a military as a "subsidy" for oil. It's really just the cost of maintaining our global position which is a whole separate issue with a wide diversity of perspectives on this site.

Any other "subsidies" that oil receives, if they are really subsidies and not word games, should instantly be taken out and shot, not come anywhere near even thinking about dreaming about justifying subsidies for other energy sources.

Buster202| 10.11.10 @ 6:41PM

What the UC study left out is that of the 159,000 "Green" jobs in the state - nearly 100,000 are bureaucrats engaged in activities such as "education, compliance, enforcement, and trading". In other words there are almost two bureaucrats for every green job and none of them would exist if not for tax subsidies. This is is why the anti prop 23 folks have to lie about it. The entire "Green" movement is all about "make work" for bureaucrats.

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.11.10 @ 11:24PM

Which explains why I've voting for 23, I love government unemployment, it's cheaper.

NicoMaco| 10.11.10 @ 6:51PM

Green Power under California Assembly Bill 32 - the Global Warming Solutions Act - is a scam that will not reduce air pollution and will reduce reduce jobs in the conventional energy sector by eliminating peaker power plants.

First, Green Power will only reduce air pollution in Utah, Arizona or Idaho where coal power plants are located. But those coal power plants do not create the same type of air pollution problem because they are not located in So Cal's coastal air basins which traps the air and pollutants. The solution to pollution is dilution.

Secondly, wind farms can only compete in price per kilowatt hour for peaker power needed when it is hot or there is a cold snap. This is due to high cost of new transmission lines, newly mandated energy storage, and costs to regulate the lines to stop ruinous electric pulsing. But wind is typically not blowing when you need it for peak hours/days. So the only way wind power will work is if the whole western U.S. is gridded up with wind farms. If wind not blowing in Kern County then maybe West Texas is blowing. So the Green Jobs for energy needed in California may likely go to Utah, Idaho or Arizona; conversely the green jobs for those states may be in California. That is why FERC recently mandated that Green Power has to be stored in batteries or salt mines (but not in reservoir pump back systems). But storage is extremely costly (like $0.80 kWh). But if new regulations mandate that Green Power trumps conventional power during peak days/hours, then existing peaker plants will go out of business without any compensation for their losses. So Green Jobs just wipe out conventional energy jobs in the peak power sector. But that may be what is intended - green union jobs replacing non-union red state jobs. Capish?

CalMark| 10.11.10 @ 7:15PM

The Greenies don't want us to burn coal, or natural gas, or oil, or any of that other nasty stuff that comes out of the ground. "It harms the environment," they whine.

But on a chilly night (it does get down into the low 30s sometimes in the Bay Area, doubtless a sign of Global Warming, or Global Cooling, or Universal Something-or-other), you aren't allowed to burn wood, either.

On "Save the Air" nights (hard to figure out when those are, actually), the enviro-nazis ride around and issue citations to people found burning wood-fired stoves or fireplaces.

So...no wood fires. No "artificial heat." Are we all supposed to freeze to death? That WOULD control the "population time bomb," come to think of it...

gina fregosi| 10.14.10 @ 10:33AM

we don't need to freeze out here in california. there is no one going around looking for smoke out of chimney stacks. but developers have stopped building real fireplaces in new subdivisions. the average tract home does not use its fireplace for heat, only in the sticks...like up in monte rio off the russian river near the coast.

the new jobs created aren't tallied since so much of the retrofitting is built by small construction companies city by city, and municipality by municipality. doubtful all this work is tallied into the statistics books. statistics can be deceptive, just like politics. look to oregon for your best example of growing green jobs. take the city of portland, for example. if you want to fly out of portland, you do not drive to the airport. you take a train directly from downtown portland. the inner city tram moves people all over down town, and somehow the electorate in portland introduced no cost to ride these trams.

green jobs will keep people from freezing because they promote energy independence such that when you produce your own energy, you can sell it back to the grid.

one thing obama did in his first year was to open that grid up to single family dwellings that overproduce. the main grid lines could not reach these sources because of laws preventing a throughway on private property. now those throughways are open across the west. this means alternative energy in action. it is not the statistics but the inertia where we need to look. people are excited and hopeful, and that is half the combination toward a strong economy: the stuff that thwarts us forward into our futures. future, think future, not status quo.

PerryM | 10.11.10 @ 7:30PM

Going to be fun to watch "Green" jobs to down the toilet and all the stupid politicians connected with it.

Free markets decide what succeeds and what fails. Government just screws up everything it touches.

Don't you guys realize that yet? (Of course you don't you love big government; and it too will fail eventually)

Rick| 10.11.10 @ 8:11PM

The communists who run California are killing jobs at an accelerating rate. Fools like Shwarzenegger bought the global warming propaganda, the biggest scam ever. The enviro-nazis have to be dis-empowered if we are ever to get jobs back in California - real jobs, not phony government 'green' jobs.

jody | 10.11.10 @ 8:20PM

One green job in CA is mine, however it is unpaid. I'm President, for what it's worth, of PKRV, which is opposing a large solar plant proposed for Weldon, CA. The site is in a flood plain, adjacent to homes and churches, near the largest remaining riparian forest in the SW states, etc. etc. etc.
But "jobs" is one of their selling points. We are talking temporary jobs, that require some college training. So in our rural area, once you are trained for a $12/hr. job, you must either move or commute hundreds of miles to get another one. Great job. The wages, nationwide, average from $9 to $19 per hour, higher near metropolitan areas, which we are not.

N22S| 10.11.10 @ 8:45PM

Let us assume that theories regarding global warming are 100% accurate. What's to stop China from taking our technology and producing it cheaper than we can?

Oh that's right, pressure them to engage in more fair trade and proper employment practices....Shoot, I keep forgetting that we rely upon them to finance our debt and if we irritate them enough, well, that's all she wrote.

And let us not forget the pollution estimates overstated by 340%.

Good luck with Jerry Brown. Meg Witman is...shudder...a hypocrite and can't possibly be better than Brown. And she's a wh*re, by the way for pandering to a group for political purposes. Because though we may disagree, no Democrat would ever, ever pander to, say, environmental groups.

Oh, but we have a genius in the White House! That citizen of the 57th state of Freedonia. Einstein was a genius but he didn't pretend to practice brain surgery. Nor did he come up with his theory of relativity at the age of 5.

Perhaps we should start electing people with the genius to recognize their limitations instead of those who blindly lead us down the path of ruin armed with little more than an A+ in Sociology 101.

John| 10.11.10 @ 9:36PM

>>> suspend the state's global warming law until unemployment falls back to 5.5 percent

At which point they go back to fucking over the middle class and business owners with onerous regulation and confiscatory taxes. These morons aren't even smart enough to lie about it.

Now, would YOU go to the expense of relocating your business back to CA from NV knowing that at the first chance they get, it's the same old song and dance?

Tom59| 10.11.10 @ 10:59PM

One day the connection between business doing well and the taxes to pay government pensions will be made. That is when it is going to get really interesting.

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.11.10 @ 11:25PM

You are delusional aren't you?

Al| 10.11.10 @ 11:52PM

I see a bunch of rednecks on this forum getting owned by big oil. Koch brothers FTW!!

B Daddy | 10.12.10 @ 12:16AM

One can believe that global warming is real, man-made, and catastrophic and still be in favor of Proposition 23. Cap and trade is an inefficient and pork laden way of reducing emissions. A single state can not effectively reduce global emissions as businesses tend to just move across the border. The United States needs to negotiate a world wide carbon tax, even if sovereign governments collect it themselves to raise the price of burning fossil fuels. Then the scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs can figure out the best substitute technologies to produce clean energy, without government interference. Further, by taxing all carbon emissions, we reduce other forms of pollution associated with burning fossil fuels. One need not be a shill for the oil industry to recognize the immense impracticality of the California legislature's scheme.

Julia| 10.12.10 @ 12:22AM

Well I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but...I have a feeling that the green jobs initiative began because it was a pretty sure way of choking business. I have begun to believe that our government has been hijacked from within and that many in the democratic party and some in the republican party are working night and day on bringing the U.S. down. I just left California and I promise you, it is becoming a wasteland of shuttered businesses and angry, over-educated, unemployed people.

jksisco| 10.12.10 @ 2:24AM

When is a "green job" not a "green job"? When it uses fossil fuels to produce the end product, so all the greening is really bull.

LePauvrePapillon| 10.12.10 @ 3:12AM

Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara: “Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n.....long-life/

mulp| 10.12.10 @ 5:11AM

Why create sustainable energy in the US using US labor when we can borrow from China to import energy and keep millions of workers on the government dole, paid for with money borrowed from China.

rich mckone| 10.12.10 @ 9:36AM

California's deficit is more political than economic. Just moving parole to the counties would save over $400 million in annual prison operating costs and $2.8 billion in prison construction costs. Moving technical parole violators and “wobblers” (offenders who can serve their short sentences either in prison or jail) to contract facilities would save about $580 million in annual operating costs and billions in construction costs. It is not complicated. Anyone with a computer and 15 minutes to spare can easily verify these facts by reviewing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation annual budget and population reports and Bureau of Justice Statistics annual prison and parole bulletins.

dareisay| 10.12.10 @ 10:47AM

And then there is this!

China stakes claim to S. Texas oil, gas

By Monica Hatcher - Houston Chronicle
Web Posted: 10/12/2010 12:48 AM CDT
http://www.mysanantonio.com/bu.....53969.html
------------
While Obama has placed bans on oil drilling here, guess it's ok for China though.

Why not an American owned company drilling here, in order to keep the profits in our own country?

Tony in Central PA| 10.12.10 @ 10:46PM

The buffoons in this Administration would probably consider selling apples on a streetcorner a ' green ' job.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 3:02PM

Poor Earl. Leave him alone. It's not his fault. He is probably the product of the failed public school system, also controlled and regulated by the federal government.

Vasu Murti | 10.14.10 @ 3:35PM

Why don't we see the private sector leading the transition to a green economy and/or a cruelty-free economy?

The political left sees government as the means with which to realize that which cannot be accomplished in the private sector.

At least the American Left is addressing the need to transition to a green economy and/or a cruelty-free economy. The right either ignores these issues altogether, or is part of the problem.

Consider, for example, government subsidies to agribusiness. Author John Robbins provides these points and facts in his Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987):

Half the water consumed in the U.S. irrigates land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water wash away their excrement. U.S. livestock produce twenty times as much excrement as the entire human population, creating sewage which is ten to several hundred times as concentrated as raw domestic sewage. Animal wastes cause thrice as much water pollution than does the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes thrice as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined.

Meat producers, the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contribute to half the water pollution in the United States. The water that goes into a 1,000 lb. steer could float a destroyer. It takes 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, but 2,500 gallons to produce a pound of meat. If these costs weren't subsidized by the American taxpayers, the cheapest hamburger meat would be $35 per pound!

Subsidizing the California meat industry costs taxpayers $24 billion annually. Livestock producers are California's biggest consumers of water. Every tax dollar the state doles out to livestock producers costs taxpayers over seven dollars in lost wages, higher living costs and reduced business income. Seventeen western states have enough water supplies to support economies and populations twice as large as the present.

Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion, turning once-arable land into desert. We lose four million acres of topsoil each year and 85 percent of this loss is directly caused by raising livestock. To replace the soil we've lost, we're destroying our forests. Since 1967, the rate of deforestation in the U.S. has been one acre every five seconds. For each acre cleared in urbanization, seven are cleared for grazing or growing livestock feed.

One-third of all raw materials in the U.S. are consumed by the livestock industry and it takes thrice as much fossil fuel energy to produce meat than it does to produce plant foods.

A report on the energy crisis in Scientific American warned: "The trends in meat consumption and energy consumption are on a collision course."

Nor can fish provide any help here, notes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983). There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, humans have lived on "vegetarian or near vegetarian diets,"; meat has traditionally been a luxury. Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients that already suffered a heart attack.

Providing the entire world with a meat-centered diet is absurd. But what about providing only the affluent with a meat-centered diet? According to Keith Akers, if the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already.

Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption.

On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed 8.7 billion humans.

When I first read Diet for a New America, I felt it could have the same kind of impact on mainstream American society that Frances Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet had in the '70s.

In writing his expose on the meat industry, John Robbins has been compared to Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader and other whistleblowers. I had the opportunity to meet John Robbins, in September 1988. It was one of the most inspirational moments of my life!

He was heir to the Baskin-Robbins fortune. He renounced it at a young age. He traveled to India, opened a yoga ashram in Canada, etc. He spoke of Gandhi and nonviolence.

His son Ocean Robbins founded Youth for Environmental Sanity (YES!) and is also dedicated to promoting veganism. I asked John if he would try and get the American Left to support animal rights. He told me that he had sent a copy of his book to Mother Jones, a left-liberal periodical published in San Francisco.

Many on the Left are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. Joanna Macy, who wrote the foreword to Diet for a New America, spoke at the San Francisco Green Festival, in November 2005.

In his 1990 updated and revised edition of Animal Liberation, Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes that many of the political parties leaning towards the "Green" end of the political spectrum in Europe were beginning to oppose animal experimentation.

John Robbins spoke before the United Nations in 1994, where he received a standing ovation.

Diet for a New America briefly discusses a return to organic farming. In 1989, concern over the use of the pesticide Alar on apples caused many Americans to consider organic produce. John Robbins writes in his Pulitzer Prize nominated book, Diet for a New America (1987):

"We produce pesticides at a rate more than 13,000 times faster than we did only 35 years ago. Our environment and food chains are being inundated by a virtual avalanche of pesticides. What three decades ago took us six years to produce, we now produce every couple of hours."

"It is hard for us to imagine how destructive these substances are. Pesticides are extraordinarily concentrated and powerful chemicals which have been intentionally developed to kill living creatures. In fact, some of them were originally developed to kill human beings. Phosgene, used today to produce chemical herbicides and insecticides, was originally developed for use in chemical warfare, and as, in fact, the agent of almost all deaths due to poison gas in World War I. Zykon-B, another modern pesticide, is the substance which the Nazis used to produce deadly hydrogen cyanide gas, used to kill millions upon millions at Auschwitz, Dachau, and other concentration camps.

"Many of today's most widely used pesticides--including malathion and parathion--are members of the nerve gas family. So lethal is parathion that a chemist who swallowed an infinitesimal dose, amounting to 0.00424 of an ounce, was instantaneously paralyzed and died before he could take an antidote he prepared in advance and had at hand.

"Pesticides are not the kind of substances you'd want to have hanging around in your environment. But hang around many of them do. In fact, the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides--DDT, aldrin, kepone, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, endrin, mirex, PCB's, toxaphene, lindane, etc.--are extremely stable compounds. Ominously, they do not break down for decades, and in some cases, centuries."

Poisons used to kill insects accumulate on crops, in the soil and in greater concentration in the tissues of living creatures higher on the food chain. The Environmental Protection Agency's Pesticide Monitoring Journal reports that "Foods of animal origin (are) the major source of...pesticide residues in the diet."

John Robbins writes: "Recent studies indicate that of all the toxic chemical residues in the American diet, almost all, 95% to 99%, comes from meat, fish, dairy products and eggs. If you want to include pesticides in your diet, these are the foods to eat. Fortunately, you can overwhelmingly reduce your intake of these poisons by eating lower on the food chain, and not choosing foods of animal origin...

"While DDT has gotten most of the publicity, there are unfortunately many other toxic chemicals that are equally widespread in the environment, and actually more poisonous. The pesticide dieldrin, for example, is five times more poisonous than DDT when swallowed, and forty times more so when absorbed by the skin. Yet by the time dieldrin was finally banned in 1974, the FDA found it in 96 percent of all the meat, fish and poultry in the country, in 85% of all dairy products, and in the flesh of 99.5% of the American people! Sadly, dieldrin will remain with us for a long time; it is one of the most biologically stable of all pesticides, taking many decades to break down."

In his Pulitzer Prize nominated book, How to Survive in America the Poisoned, pesticide authority Lewis Regenstein writes:

"Meat contains approximately 14 times more pesticides than do plant foods; dairy products 5 1/2 times more. Thus, by eating foods of animal origin, one ingests greatly concentrated amounts of hazardous chemicals. Analysis of various foods by the FDA shows that meat, poultry, fish, cheese and other dairy products contain levels of these pesticides more often and in greater amount than in other foods."

As far back as 1966, it was admitted in Congressional hearings that:

"No milk available on the market, today, in any part of the United States, is free of pesticide residues."

In 1975, the Council on Environmental Quality concluded dairy and meat products account for over 95% of the population's intake of DDT. The same is true of other pesticides.

A 1976 study by the Environmental Protection Agency found the breast milk of mothers who consume animal products to be 50 to 100 times more contaminated by pesticide residues than the milk of vegetarian or vegan mothers.

John Robbins writes:

"Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture under Nixon, used to say that before the United States could consider organic farming, it would have to decide which 50 or 60 million Americans were going to be allowed to starve.

"His attitude exemplified the stance that government and agribusiness have taken in the past: that organic farming is a luxury we can ill-afford, and we need these chemicals to feed ourselves. The chemical companies...have spent millions to reinforce this way of thinking.

"But it could hardly be less true."

Organic farming and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are getting more attention today. These utilize natural insect controls, such as predatory insects, weather, crop rotation, pest-resistant varieties, soil tillage, and other environmentally safe practices.

A 1979 Department of Agriculture task force of scientists and economists came to "...positive conclusions on the importance of organic farming and its potential contributions to agriculture and society." Until the end of the Second World War, American farmers produced bountiful harvests without relying on pesticides. There is no reason why America cannot do so again.

Citing the Earl Butz quote above, it's hard to imagine the political right, with its ties to agribusiness, mustering the political will to phase out pesticides and calling for a return to organic farming.

Further: animal liberation has its antagonists, and nearly all of them are on the right.

"I'll tell you what the environmental movement is in this country today, folks," insisted Rush Limbaugh on an April 22, 1993 television broadcast, "It is the modern home of the socialist/communist movement in America."

According to Limbaugh, the "real mission" of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) "is destroying capitalism, not saving animals." (The Way Thinqs Ought to Be, p. 108)

The reality? As an integral part of a secular moral philosophy, ethical vegetarianism and purchasing only cruelty-free consumer products are comparable to economic boycotting -- a political tactic used by liberals and conservatives alike.

In The Case for Animal Riqhts, Dr. Tom Regan observes: "The rights view is not antagonistic to business, free enterprise, the market mechanism, and the like. What the rights view is antagonistic to is the view that consumers owe it to any business to purchase that business's goods or services. The animal industry is no exception."

According to Dr. Regan: "The rights view's denunciation of standard toxicity tests on animals is not antibusiness. It does not deny any manufacturer the liberty to introduce any new product into the marketplace, to compete with the others already there, and to sink or swim in the waters of free enterprise.

"All that the rights view denies is that the toxicity of any new product may be pretested on animals in ways harmful to them. Nonanimal alternatives are not ruled out by the rights view. On the contrary, their development should be encouraged, both on the grounds of the public interest and because of the legitimate legal interests of the manufacturers.

"Nor is the rights view antiscientific," concludes Dr. Regan. "It places the scientific challenge before pharmacologists and related scientists: find scientifically valid ways that serve the public interest without violating individual rights."

Abolitionists are almost always accused of being anti-capitalist by the very industries they attack:

"(The abolition of the slave trade) would be extreme cruelty to the African savages, a portion of whom it saves from massacre, or intolerable bondage in their own country, and introduces into a much happier state of life," claimed James Boswell, an 18th century pro-slavery writer.

According to Boswell: "...the anti-slavery crusade...the ranting of a handful of moralistic bigots, (which attempted)...to abolish so very important and necessary a branch of commercial interest, must have been crushed at once had not the insignificance of the zealots who vainly took the lead in it, made the vast body of planters, merchants and others, whose immense properties were involved in the trade...suppose that there would be no danger."

Social progress means change. The invention of the automobile and the end of the Second World War brought about radical change in the work place. Anti-abolitionists claimed that the end of human slavery would bring with it the collapse of the economic structure of the Southern United States.

In his book, The Status of Animals in the Christian Religion, author C.W. Hume noted:

"The major cruelties practiced on animals in civilized countries today arise out of commercial exploitation, and the fear of losing profits is the chief obstacle to reform."

"In the eighteenth century," observes Keith Thomas in Man and the Natural World, "it was widely urged that domestication was good for animals; it civilized them and increased their numbers: ‘we multiply life, sensation and enjoyment.’" The Reverend William Jones wrote in 1801, "(It was) best for the beasts that they should be under man."

This supremacist thinking has its roots in Aristotle, who wrote:

"...for all tame animals there is an advantage in being under human control, as this secures their survival. And as regards the relationship between male and female, the former is naturally superior, the latter inferior, the former rules and the latter is subject.

"By analogy, the same must necessarily apply to mankind as a whole. Therefore all men who differ from one another by as much the soul differs from the body or man from a wild beast -- these people are slaves by nature, and it is better for them to be subject to this kind of control...

"Assistance regarding the necessities of life is provided by both groups, by slaves and by domestic animals."

In her book, The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery, on the issue of animal experimentation, Marjorie Spiegel explains:

"Many of these experiments are completely non-medical in nature, being done to test out new hair sprays, oven cleaners, shampoos, etc. for toxicity. A myriad of alternatives to using live animals in research exist -- many often superior to methods employing animals -- making current practices an archaic holdover from a less sophisticated era, fairly calling back to the days of dungeons and sweat-boxes.

"Furthermore, billions of tax-dollars are spent each year to literally torture animals -- supposedly for our benefit -- while many humans in this country lack access to even basic health care."

The Feminists for Animal Rights (FAR) newsletter (Vol. VI, Nos. 1-2, l991) substantiates Ms. Spiegel's observations by citing John Robbins' EarthSave organization as stating that taxpayer subsidies to the livestock industry in California for 1991 totaled $24 million, while the yearly budget for child welfare was only $125,000.

Why aren't corporations voluntarily phasing out animal testing?

We know animal tests are poor science. Official figures show that an astonishing 92 per cent of drugs tested on animals prove to be ineffective or unsafe for humans.

As renowned pathologist Dr Bruno Fedi points out, "The abolition of vivisection would in no way halt medical progress, just the opposite is the case. .... No surgeon can gain the least knowledge from experiments on animals, and all the great surgeons of the past and of the present day are in agreement on that".

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally acceptable to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."

---Charles R. Magel, professor of philosophy

Opposition to animal experimentation has a long history. The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) was founded by Caroline Earle White in 1883...long before People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which was founded in 1980, and even longer than before the current debate over stem-cell research!

An editorial in the now-defunct Animals' Agenda from the early '00s, noted that animal research goes on unquestioned, while debate rages over stem-cell research, for no other reason than the stem-cells have human chromosomes. This is *speciesism* -- discrimination on the basis of species...a term which has not caught on or become part of the American vernacular, even among progressives, the way words like "Ms." or "homophobia" have become part of the American lexicon.

"The women we recognize today as the founders of AAVS," writes Lily Santoro, "were pioneers in the world of animal welfare but not in the sphere of reform movements. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw a rise in reform movements known as the Progressive Era.

"Inspired by the new science of sociology and cultural movements like the social gospel, middle and upper class Americans increasingly engaged in reform movements aimed at uplifting the downtrodden and improving society.

"Women were central to the Progressive Era reforms. In the late nineteenth century, women made great strides in reform movements like Temperance, Sunday Schools, food and drug regulation, women's suffrage, and child-labor laws.

"In a world where women were supposed to be relegated to their own 'separate sphere,' many women joined reform movements wherein they acted as the 'moral compass' of American society. Caring for the weak and voiceless in society was the focus of progressive era reforms. Animal welfare met this category perfectly."

The Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) reports that the following advances in medicine were all made without animal research:

1. Discovery of the relationship between cholesterol and heart disease -- America's No. 1 killer.

2. Discovery of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer and between nutrition and cancer -- the second biggest killer of Americans.

3. Discovery of the relationship between hypertension and stroke -- the No. 3 killer of Americans.

4. Discovery of the causes of trauma, the fourth largest killer of Americans, and the measures to prevent it.

5. Elucidation of the causes of many forms of respiratory disease, America's No. 5 cause of death.

6. Isolation of the AIDS virus.

7. Discovery of the mechanism of AIDS transmission.

8. Discovery of penicillin and its curative effect on various infectious diseases.

9. Development of X-rays.

10. Development of anti-depressant and anti-psychotic drugs.

The PCRM further reports that the use of animals in education, consumer product testing and medical research is ineffective and obsolete. In vitro research, epidemiologic studies, clinical research and computer modeling yield more accurate results.

John J. Pippin writes:

"There are many things wrong with the use of intimidation and violence in the critical debate over animal research. In addition to being anathema in our society, such tactics obscure important issues regarding animal experiments and human health.

"I am a cardiologist and a former animal researcher. I stopped experimenting on animals after I came to doubt the medical value of such research. Today, a growing number of physicians, scientists and scientific agencies believe that moving to non-animal research and testing methods is critical to advancing human health.

"Numerous reports confirm very poor correlations between animal research results and human results, and the research breakthroughs so optimistically reported in the media almost always fail in humans.

"Examples abound. Every one of 197 human trials using 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines tested in animals has failed. More than 150 human stroke trials using treatments successful in animals have failed, as have at least two dozen animal diabetes cures.

"Vioxx was tested successfully in eight studies using six animal species, yet this anti-inflammatory medication may have caused the deaths of more Americans than the Vietnam War.

"The monoclonal antibody TGN1412 was safe in monkeys at 500 times the dose tested in humans, yet all six British volunteers who received the drug in 2006 nearly died.

"Conversely, simple aspirin produces birth defects in at least seven animal species, yet is safe in human pregnancy. When even identical human twins have different disease susceptibilities, how can we think answers will be found in mice or monkeys?

"The National Cancer Institute now uses panels of human cells and tissues to test treatments for cancer and HIV/AIDS, and to detect drug toxicities. And the National Research Council now recommends replacing animal toxicity testing with in vitro methods.

"I can attest that animal research is inherently cruel. Animal protection laws do not mitigate this reality. Whether the debate involves humane issues or human benefits, the evidence confirms the need to replace animal experiments with more accurate human-specific methods. That's the best way to make progress and improve health."

---John J. Pippin is a senior medical and research adviser with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

Again: at least the American Left is addressing the need to transition to a green economy and/or a cruelty-free economy. The right either ignores these issues altogether, or is part of the problem.

Milt Hobbs| 10.14.10 @ 8:42PM

“GREENHOUSE GAS A THREAT?
SUMMARY
The early earth contained the carbon and oxygen which when burned made the atmosphere rich in carbon-dioxide. The coal, oil, and natural gas deposits used as fuel today were formed by the geologic process of rapid flood burial of vegetation under sediment. Also formed in the early earth were other compounds such as calcium carbonate, etc. If we burned all this fuel to make “greenhouse” gases, we would only be returning the atmosphere towards its original composition. The climate would change some but not catastrophically. Other factors including changing solar radiation and sea water global circulation are much more effective. The earth’s mountains and Antarctica all show evidence of both prehistoric vegetation growth and global flooding.

LONGER EXPLANATION
Geology and other scientific evidence support the view that the burning of fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global climate change. Consider these facts:
1. The early earth had enough atmospheric carbon, oxygen and water to support the formation of all existing compounds of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen contained in the earth’s fossil fuel resources. The earth’s molten core was there to initiate the combustion of these elements and others such as calcium.
2. When the earth’s crust rose to form land, the warm air was rich in carbon-dioxide and high in humidity so that sunshine and evening dew supported abundant tree and plant growth.
3. Plants use carbon dioxide, water and sunlight to grow their hydrocarbon structures – plants and trees on land and plankton, etc in oceans. The photosynthesis process driven by the sun’s light (energy) uses atmospheric water and carbon dioxide as “feedstock” and returns oxygen for us to breath.
4. Fossil hydrocarbons used as fuels and to make plastics, etc are generally the result of the burial of vegetation with water under the weight of sand etc. carried by flood waters or in the sea. Naturally occurring pressure and heat are involved.
5. It seems reasonable to believe that the tremendous coal, crude oil and natural gas deposits, we have found in the earth all have received their carbon content by early plant life using the carbon dioxide in the early atmosphere.
6. Rather than being a pollutant in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is the feedstock of all if the earth’s life-cycles – vegetation, animal, fish and humans. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increases tree and other plant growth. Today extra carbon dioxide is sometime supplied in greenhouses to increase growth.
7. Because our early earth atmosphere was the source of all the carbon in the hydrocarbons we use as fuel, etc. the burning of all the fossil fuel presently in the earth could increase carbon dioxide only to the level existing on the early earth.
8. Since its beginning a huge amount of the earth’s carbon has also been combined with the earth’s calcium and oxygen to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Marble and limestone are two of its many forms. Carbon dioxide and oxygen dissolved in the oceans are also sites of carbon dioxide existing on earth since its creation.

CONCLUSION
That catastrophic global warming can be caused by “greenhouse gases” is a terrible fraud

ironfish| 10.20.10 @ 8:56PM

I needed to buy a dozen cherry urinal deodorizer cakes for our Irvine, CA facility.
Went to the local hardware store and told the counterman what I wanted.
The counterman told me the cherry deodorizer cakes were still in their national inventory @$42 dollars per dozen, but due to new CARB regulations, could not be sold in California.
I asked what were my options.
The counterman told me they had CARB approved apple deodorizers @ $48 per dozen.
More California business money pissed away!

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|72 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|42 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|46 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|13 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|6 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|11 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|21 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|11 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

Nixonian

Yogi Love | 11:54AM

Moore, OK by Steve Breen

Patrick Ryan | 11:50AM

He’s Just Not That Into You

Ross Kaminsky | 11:34AM

Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi

Quin Hillyer | 11:29AM

Issa’s Mistake

Ross Kaminsky | 11:11AM

Bernanke: No Need to Reimplement Glass-Steagal

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Lerner Says She Did Nothing Wrong, Then Pleads the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 10:50AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Nation's Pulse