 |
Re: California Senate Bill 350-Ban the Big Boy?
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-28-2015 - 16:43
The Big Boy will not be allowed into California after restoration? Wow, it gets deep, so fast, when the testosterone starts to flow......
This is a dubious bill, for a number of reasons, including the fact that much of it is "feel good", with all kinds of caveats, that sets "goals", which other laws may make it difficult to enforce (federal pre-emption of many areas), but ban the Big Boy????? Where is that?
Sea level will rise up to 3 feet, between 2050 and 2100, and will begin to cause some real damage to our modern interdependent civilization. It has already risen by over 3 inches since the 80's and is accelerating as the oceans heat up and artic ice mass melts. Such estimates don't incorporate worst case scenarios like Greenland and Antarctic glacial collapse, which could easily add another couple of meters to that.
CO2 level are at record levels, and are increasing, mostly from man made sources. And, while the earths natural cycle accounts for 97% of CO2 being released and reabsorbed, the remainder being added by burning billons of tons of carbon sequestered over hundreds of millions of years in mostly coal and also in oil in the last two hundred years is mostly why atmospheric CO2 levels are rising. That is just the science.
Of course, if you actually believe in the vast conspiracy by all of the Air Force personnel out there, over the last half century, faking the temperature readings every day, to fake all of the temperature data, even years before we even discovered the "greenhouse effect" then it won't matter, will it?
Focusing on transportation "fuel type and fuel use" in the State of California, as the most cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions, is more about political theatre, than good public policy.
If we wanted to reduce the most CO2 emissions, in the most cost effective manner, we would pay the Chinese to switch to natural gas power plants, as quickly as possible. We are doing the same here, because A) gas is cheaper, and B) gas is way cleaner. These are the biggest most polluting sources, but are, on a cost per ton basis, the cheapest way to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions.
Can we achieve some of the things in this bill seeks, in terms of better fuels and less emissions from mobile sources? We are already, without it. We are switching a lot of on-road and off-road diesel powered sources to natural gas. That's a two fer, in reduced CO2, and major reductions in exposure to diesel particulates, that can even kill you, with enough exposure. And, my neighbor still drives his electric Leaf about 30 miles to work, every day, using over 90% less carbon, even including power generation emissions.
Instead of the HSR sucking up CO2 reduction funds for virtually no CO2 emissions reduced, imagine replacing every public school, private home, or business air conditioner compressor over 20 years old, using grants to public agencies and tax credits for individuals or businesses (instead of steering a few bloated HSR mega contracts to politically wired interests???).
SB 350 is poor public policy, based on flawed logic, which has few teeth, and panders to the public, with feel good nonsense, in response to a real and serious threat to our long term self interest. But, banning the Big Boy?
Jeez, sometimes it just gets so deep you've got to wear hip waiters to get through it........
This is a dubious bill, for a number of reasons, including the fact that much of it is "feel good", with all kinds of caveats, that sets "goals", which other laws may make it difficult to enforce (federal pre-emption of many areas), but ban the Big Boy????? Where is that?
Sea level will rise up to 3 feet, between 2050 and 2100, and will begin to cause some real damage to our modern interdependent civilization. It has already risen by over 3 inches since the 80's and is accelerating as the oceans heat up and artic ice mass melts. Such estimates don't incorporate worst case scenarios like Greenland and Antarctic glacial collapse, which could easily add another couple of meters to that.
CO2 level are at record levels, and are increasing, mostly from man made sources. And, while the earths natural cycle accounts for 97% of CO2 being released and reabsorbed, the remainder being added by burning billons of tons of carbon sequestered over hundreds of millions of years in mostly coal and also in oil in the last two hundred years is mostly why atmospheric CO2 levels are rising. That is just the science.
Of course, if you actually believe in the vast conspiracy by all of the Air Force personnel out there, over the last half century, faking the temperature readings every day, to fake all of the temperature data, even years before we even discovered the "greenhouse effect" then it won't matter, will it?
Focusing on transportation "fuel type and fuel use" in the State of California, as the most cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions, is more about political theatre, than good public policy.
If we wanted to reduce the most CO2 emissions, in the most cost effective manner, we would pay the Chinese to switch to natural gas power plants, as quickly as possible. We are doing the same here, because A) gas is cheaper, and B) gas is way cleaner. These are the biggest most polluting sources, but are, on a cost per ton basis, the cheapest way to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions.
Can we achieve some of the things in this bill seeks, in terms of better fuels and less emissions from mobile sources? We are already, without it. We are switching a lot of on-road and off-road diesel powered sources to natural gas. That's a two fer, in reduced CO2, and major reductions in exposure to diesel particulates, that can even kill you, with enough exposure. And, my neighbor still drives his electric Leaf about 30 miles to work, every day, using over 90% less carbon, even including power generation emissions.
Instead of the HSR sucking up CO2 reduction funds for virtually no CO2 emissions reduced, imagine replacing every public school, private home, or business air conditioner compressor over 20 years old, using grants to public agencies and tax credits for individuals or businesses (instead of steering a few bloated HSR mega contracts to politically wired interests???).
SB 350 is poor public policy, based on flawed logic, which has few teeth, and panders to the public, with feel good nonsense, in response to a real and serious threat to our long term self interest. But, banning the Big Boy?
Jeez, sometimes it just gets so deep you've got to wear hip waiters to get through it........
