Thanks for the links. Following some others in the WashPost article (map, whatever - good presentation), I came upon a Jonathan Adler comment on the recently-overturned (in part) EPA powerplant GHG rules at the time of their adoption. While I don't lean libertarian in general, I can relate to his final paragraph:

"Postscript: Some readers may object that climate change is not a serious problem. Given my libertarian leanings, it would be convenient to hold this view, but I do not. While some environmental activists exaggerate the certainty or severity of some climate-related threats, I believe climate change is a serious policy concern, albeit one that policymakers do not take seriously. Those on the right pretend its not a problem, while those on the left pretend as if old-fashioned regulatory strategies have a prayer of addressing the problem. Both are mistaken, and as a consequence little of any import gets done."

California tends to be a leader on environmental issues, and those on the bleeding edge occasionally get hurt or discover that they may have gone a little sideways, and have to change course. Even CEQA gets fiddled in nearly every legislative session, sometimes to encourage certain projects with exemptions (good old Politicking, that), and sometimes to address issues that are raised by court or administrative interpretations (what the legislature is there for). I'm kind of with Bob2 in the sense that I don't think 350 is going to be the Death Of Us All - there are several cutouts written into it that can keep ARB from really taking a flyer - but it's a start on the next stage after AB32. Which (AB32), by the way, it's looking like we will meet the terms of (1990 GHG emissions by 2020).