OP-ED CA Climate change legislation approaches pivotal showdown with oil industry

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ge-legislation-showdown-california-sb350-sb32

Climate change legislation approaches pivotal showdown with oil industry

California Democrats’ push to curb emissions and promote clean energy would alter how the state does business and change the way residents live

Anita Chabria in Sacramento
Friday 28 August 2015 08.20 EDT

With only a few days left in the current session of the California legislature, an aggressive political and public relations fight between the oil industry and top lawmakers over climate change legislation is moving into a final round.

At stake is the passage of far-reaching environmental bills that would fundamentally alter the way the state does business and deals with planet-warming pollution – but would likely also change the way everyday Californians travel, live and consume.

The proposed laws represent a Democratic push to curb emissions and promote clean energy that specifically targets “mobile” pollution from cars and other gas-burning vehicles.

Petroleum companies are warning that the lack of specific plans in the policies could lead to gas rationing, surcharges on minivans and trucks, and even government-imposed fines on driving habits, monitored via a vehicle’s onboard computer – big brother in the passenger seat.

Democratic leaders are calling these warnings “doomsday scenarios” that won’t happen.

One of the two main bills, SB 350, calls for a 50% reduction in petroleum use by vehicles by 2030, the equivalent of removing 36m cars and trucks from the road.

It also calls for 50% of the state’s electricity supply to be derived from renewable resources by that date, and 50% better energy efficiency in buildings through retrofits and upgrades.

The other cornerstone of the push is SB 32, which continues cap-and-trade emissions requirements for large industrial polluters like oil refineries and power companies, implemented in California’s groundbreaking 2006 climate change law.

SB 32 increases those pollution reduction goals – specifically from man-made greenhouse gases, requiring the state to reduce emissions to 40% below its 1990 levels by 2030, and then increasing that to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

The bills, say Kevin de Leon, the leader of the state senate, are necessary not just for the environment, but to protect the state’s population and economy for future generations.

“This is a fight worth having because it’s a fight for our children’s health, it’s a fight for the economic future of the greatest state in the country,” he said at a recent press conference, also highlighting California’s longstanding role as a leader in policy making. “It is not hyperbole and it is not over dramatization to say the world is watching very closely.”

But speaking for oil companies, Beth Miller, spokeswoman for the California Drivers Alliance (CDA), an advocacy group formed by the Western States Petroleum Association – a trade organization representing petroleum companies including Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobile, chastised: “The bill contains no details on how this state will achieve those kinds of mandates.”

She warns that regulatory agencies could have the “authority to do things like restrict driving, when you can drive, on what days you can drive … put in penalties for people who drive minivans or SUVs.” Without details laid out in the legislation, “all of these are within the realm of possibility”, she says.

To push this dire message, CDA launched a massive media campaign with television and radio ads as well as direct mail pieces in recent weeks aimed at convincing average citizens the impacts of SB 350 will make their lives harder. It’s a tactic that supporters of the climate change measures call fear mongering, but which has resonated with many, especially those in the business community who worry about rising fuel prices.

On the legislative front, the Western States Petroleum Association and allies are targeting moderate Democrats in the state assembly, lobbying them to question if the measures provide proper oversight, would negatively impact business in California, and unfairly target a single industry.

“We would prefer that petroleum be taken completely out of SB 350,” said Miller.

De Leon and other supporters of the bills are hitting back hard with their own barrage of media events and one-on-one meetings with their legislative colleagues. This week alone, De Leon has unveiled statements of support from former legislative leaders, a long list of business supporters including a Silicon Valley trade group that includes companies like Google and Apple, a well-known climate change scientist and US senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

State senator Fran Pavley, a close ally of De Leon, promised that the efforts to pass SB 32 and SB 350 were far from over. Democratic leaders are planning on increasing the push to keep their moderate fellows on track in the days leading up to a full vote of the assembly, which could come as soon as next Tuesday. And they are continuing to roll out more hits in the slew of media events to counter the oil industry narrative.

Their message is simple: don’t believe the hype.

“No one is going to outlaw SUVs, no is going to outlaw minivans,” says de Leon. “There is going to be no rationing of gas a la Mad Max … Those doomsday scenarios are not going to exist.”

But the clock is counting down – the last day of the legislative session is September 11. And as of now, the votes to pass the measures in the Assembly likely are not secured.

And there’s more at stake than the climate. California 77-year-old governor Jerry Brown, who is the state’s longest-serving leader (he was also governor from 1975 to 1983 and was elected again in 2011) has made climate change a major component of his legacy. De Leon is finishing up his freshman year as Senate pro Tempore, and a win on this contentious issue would affirm his ability to be a party leader.

Both plan to head to the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris this December, where 190 nations will gather to discuss a potential global agreement – and where a defeat on California’s legislation would be a political black eye for the state and its leaders.

“Keep your eye on these next couple of weeks,” said another de Leon ally, Senator Mark Leno, at this week’s press conference. “It may be a bumpy ride.”
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Most of California is already designed to be so car dependent they can't even keep uninsured drivers off the road; it doesn't matter how many penalties, threats or jail time you throw at people; when the insurance becomes impossible it is also nearly impossible to get to work without a car so people just drive anyway and hope for the best.

Trying to "restrict" the amount of driving people do otherwise would also require such a high level of investment in public transportation that I just can't see it happening under the current economic and drought situations.

I mean places like LA USED to have great public transit (they did when my Mother was a child) but that was all intentionally bought up and taken apart by the oil and car industries in the 1950's and 1960's; there have been some attempts to put some of it back but it is still limited.

Heck right after I moved to Europe the only bus route that let me connect to the BART trains to get to work was cancelled; if I hadn't gotten married I would have either had to walk a couple of miles (though a really bad area of Oakland), get a ride from a friend, move or find another job; and the Bay Area is set up better than most.

Last year I was able to get around on a macro level better than 20 years ago, the trains from Sacramento to Berkeley were highly improved but there was no way at all to get from my sister's house to my mother's nursing home - none, zip, nada; which is one reason I didn't stay. My sister needed the only car for work and I wasn't going to go 40 miles each way on the back of a motorcycle; that may be fun for some but not for me.

Much of the rural area in California is like that; to get anywhere from my friend's house in Paradise you need to get to Chico (or at least my friends had to drive me and they would have mentioned a bus I think if that had been an option, given the state of their car).

Now, I think more public transit (even well-planned and energy efficient buses) is a great thing and I hope to see it both here in rural Ireland rural California at some point; but several times now in my life I have lived places that get this great idea for "getting people out of their cars" and they also concentrate on the cars and not the non-existent options.

That ALWAYS falls flat on its face because even jacking up the price of gasoline to 10 dollars a gallon where I currently live has not stopped driving; it has stopped people driving around on Sundays and spending money at local tourist spots, it has created the "big shop" where you buy everything you need at the grocery for a week, but it also vastly increased an already existing unemployment problem. The Irish government is finally admitting you can't get people off of welfare if they can't afford to drive to work, or even better can't even get to job interviews...

Much of California is set up the same way and "budget cuts" have made the local systems worse than when I lived there (at least in those places) so I think this program is doomed without massive investment in other ways for people to get around.

In Southern California that would actually involve tearing up entire cities, putting in sidewalks (many places were built without them); adding buses, trams, street cars, subways etc and restoring old roads, bridges and transportation routes to avoid the forced use of freeways for those using bikes, walking paths etc.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Most of California is already designed to be so car dependent they can't even keep uninsured drivers off the road; it doesn't matter how many penalties, threats or jail time you throw at people; when the insurance becomes impossible it is also nearly impossible to get to work without a car so people just drive anyway and hope for the best.

Trying to "restrict" the amount of driving people do otherwise would also require such a high level of investment in public transportation that I just can't see it happening under the current economic and drought situations.

I mean places like LA USED to have great public transit (they did when my Mother was a child) but that was all intentionally bought up and taken apart by the oil and car industries in the 1950's and 1960's; there have been some attempts to put some of it back but it is still limited.

Heck right after I moved to Europe the only bus route that let me connect to the BART trains to get to work was cancelled; if I hadn't gotten married I would have either had to walk a couple of miles (though a really bad area of Oakland), get a ride from a friend, move or find another job; and the Bay Area is set up better than most.

Last year I was able to get around on a macro level better than 20 years ago, the trains from Sacramento to Berkeley were highly improved but there was no way at all to get from my sister's house to my mother's nursing home - none, zip, nada; which is one reason I didn't stay. My sister needed the only car for work and I wasn't going to go 40 miles each way on the back of a motorcycle; that may be fun for some but not for me.

Much of the rural area in California is like that; to get anywhere from my friend's house in Paradise you need to get to Chico (or at least my friends had to drive me and they would have mentioned a bus I think if that had been an option, given the state of their car).

Now, I think more public transit (even well-planned and energy efficient buses) is a great thing and I hope to see it both here in rural Ireland rural California at some point; but several times now in my life I have lived places that get this great idea for "getting people out of their cars" and they also concentrate on the cars and not the non-existent options.

That ALWAYS falls flat on its face because even jacking up the price of gasoline to 10 dollars a gallon where I currently live has not stopped driving; it has stopped people driving around on Sundays and spending money at local tourist spots, it has created the "big shop" where you buy everything you need at the grocery for a week, but it also vastly increased an already existing unemployment problem. The Irish government is finally admitting you can't get people off of welfare if they can't afford to drive to work, or even better can't even get to job interviews...

Much of California is set up the same way and "budget cuts" have made the local systems worse than when I lived there (at least in those places) so I think this program is doomed without massive investment in other ways for people to get around.

In Southern California that would actually involve tearing up entire cities, putting in sidewalks (many places were built without them); adding buses, trams, street cars, subways etc and restoring old roads, bridges and transportation routes to avoid the forced use of freeways for those using bikes, walking paths etc.

Yeah, thing of it is considering the politicians involved and their ideology, that such a plan wouldn't work is the least likely thing to stop them supporting it. All you have to look at is the high speed rail boondoggle they're pushing in the Central Valley to see the mess and opportunities for funds diversion this legislation could allow. Heck they've done just about everything else they could think of to kill the economy in the state, this would be the last brick.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
SB 32 increases those pollution reduction goals – specifically from man-made greenhouse gases, requiring the state to reduce emissions to 40% below its 1990 levels by 2030, and then increasing that to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

2030 is only 15 short years away, how much progress has been made since year 2000 (15 years ago) in reducing CO2 emissions.

Just been looking at this pdf document page 7 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-12_report.pdf

Emissions of CO2 and other gases in 2000 − 466 million tons, 2012 − 459 million tons.

So NO PROGRESS has been made in reducing so called greenhouse emissions over that period, nothing at all. The goal cannot be achieved without cutting vehicle use by 40% and all other emission sources by 40% or so.

Trying to "restrict" the amount of driving people do otherwise would also require such a high level of investment in public transportation that I just can't see it happening under the current economic and drought situations.

Well it's not going to happen in the next 30 years on a grand scale. Public transport has its uses in certain areas and for certain regular journeys, e.g. common commutes. The vast size of CA makes implementing a realistic public mass transport system nigh impossible.


restoring old roads, bridges and transportation routes to avoid the forced use of freeways for those using bikes, walking paths etc.

The use of bikes is not a realistic answer to the transport problem even in cities, they've tried to promote it for years in the UK but the only people using bikes are recreational cyclists and a small number of diehards who cycle to work, good luck to them but it does not provide a solution to urban transport. Likewise walking, of you live close to work then walking is an obvious answer and a small number of people are fortunate enough to be able to do this. Of course if you have local shop(s) within walking distance then fine.
 
Last edited:

Richard

TB Fanatic
Actually bump as the proposal is so unrealistic as to be the worst legislation ever of the Democratic Party. It's not just a showdown but unbelievable, yet this is the state of current left wing politics.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
and each year, wildfires contribute more CO2 and NOX than all the emissions from all the cars and trucks in CA. But this won't cause CA to push harder to thin National Forests.

CA is already ranked the worst state for business. The poverty rate for CA children is disgusting. The economy sucks and the state is in serious debt. So lets all go down the rat hole of climate change and sustainability and make life unbearable for everyone so some late sipping liberal yuppies can congratulate themselves on saving the planet.
 

MountainBiker

Veteran Member
Years ago when I was on a local Planning Board we were working on updating the subdivision regulations. Using a strict reading of the proposed language, including the lack of detail on certain things, I took the stance that they were just looking to stop all development. They all protested that no they weren't, that what I was seeing (or not seeing as the case may be) wasn't how they intended to do things. My response was great, then lets change to wording to say exactly what you say you are going to do. I told them if they didn't change the wording I'd get up on Town Meeting floor and challenge them there. They knew that would torpedo the zoning changes and so they fixed the wording.

The same theory applies to the legislators in CA. If they are saying some of those things aren't going to happen, then great, change the wording to specifically say so.
 

Sleeping Cobra

TB Fanatic
and each year, wildfires contribute more CO2 and NOX than all the emissions from all the cars and trucks in CA. But this won't cause CA to push harder to thin National Forests.

CA is already ranked the worst state for business. The poverty rate for CA children is disgusting. The economy sucks and the state is in serious debt. So lets all go down the rat hole of climate change and sustainability and make life unbearable for everyone so some late sipping liberal yuppies can congratulate themselves on saving the planet.

Or even a volcanic eruption.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Now, I think more public transit (even well-planned and energy efficient buses)

More urban buses and cross state coaches would be the best public transport option for CA, you would not need to build a major new infrastructure unlike railways or city trams etc. they could also be operated privately.
City based tramways would in my opinion be a complete anachronism and unnecessary. They were implemented recently by the Croydon Labour Council in a limited area of the town in South London. They are a pain for motor traffic as they cross or share existing roads in places, were expensive to implement and have limited coverage. The opportunity to extend the system is impossible without demolishing swathes of the town.
Buses and coaches can go anywhere unlike railways or trams. All you would need to build would be additional garages, termini and stops.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
That is a fascinating story, MB...

Years ago when I was on a local Planning Board we were working on updating the subdivision regulations. Using a strict reading of the proposed language, including the lack of detail on certain things, I took the stance that they were just looking to stop all development. They all protested that no they weren't, that what I was seeing (or not seeing as the case may be) wasn't how they intended to do things. My response was great, then lets change to wording to say exactly what you say you are going to do. I told them if they didn't change the wording I'd get up on Town Meeting floor and challenge them there. They knew that would torpedo the zoning changes and so they fixed the wording.

The same theory applies to the legislators in CA. If they are saying some of those things aren't going to happen, then great, change the wording to specifically say so.

Could you give us more details? It would be very illuminating to hear about just what were the types of zoning changes proposed/intended there (spelled out AND de facto but unwritten).
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
When my Mother and Father were children, it was possible to travel all over the Los Angeles area by a combination of buses and electric street cars; my Father's family (they lived with my Great Aunt the Lady Doctor) did have a car but often the Dr. needed it for work; so both families relied a lot of public transit (my Mother's family never had a car, they were too poor).

In the 1950's, the oil companies bought up the old transit lines and intentionally tore them up and lobbied for freeways and planning systems that set up the newer communities in such a way that you couldn't walk to the corner store if you wanted to as there was no sidewalk, and often "sound walls" going up to the street; this also discouraged bike riding because it wasn't safe either.

I was fortunate to grow up in an older area (Dad's house was the old farmhouse in fact) that had sidewalks, parks, shops and schools you could walk to but the buses were already pretty much gone and we moved by the time I was nine.

Growing up on the Central Coast there was NO public transit at all, except for school buses and interestingly enough; 40 years later that is still pretty much the case, it is this local problem that is the reason Californians won't be able to get out of their cars; even if faced with 10 dollar a gallon gas like we have here in rural Ireland.

The conditions are similar and the distances are too in terms of shopping and getting around; some people like my brother-in-law hold down jobs by having motorcycles but not all of us can deal with those in all weathers and at all times.

For macro-travel the situation has improved greatly - I know I took several trips around the State as a young adult after moving away and again when I moved back in my middle 30's; so I have various periods to compare with.

In my Dad's day, to get to Morro Bay from Southern California you either drove on winding, pre-freeway roadways or you took a train to San Luis Obispo and hired a car or had someone waiting for you; by the time I was 18 you could make the trip easily on Greyhound, and get directly to where you were going.

By the time I was in my 30's, many of the Greyhound routes were gone and the trains were difficult and expensive; in fact I used to go to Sacramento a lot after work from San Francisco, that was pretty easy because someone had the vision to build a train station that connected to the BART trains.

However, during that time all funding was cut for the trains going to Sacramento to San Francisco even though it was one of the most popular and crowded routes; thankfully the State stepped in and funded the Capitol J routes.

I took that route my last trip and they had wonderfully modern trains, a new train station and it was great; except they built the new train station way outside the downtown area because of "projected" development that didn't happen.

Anyway, my point is that while macro-services have improved to a degree; the smaller routes that people would actually need to get to the main services for larger travel or to go to the shop for local travel; have been cut so far that in some of the more cash strapped cities and counties they don't even exist anymore.

People will NOT get out of their cars if they have no viable options or if the options are poorly run, dirty and unsafe; they just won't and while hitch hiking in rural Ireland is fairly safe, I wouldn't do it in California unless it was a life-threatening emergency.

Yes, people will cut back driving; but the won't stop because they can't, at the very least you have to drive to the public transit system, which kind of defeats the purpose...
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
When my Mother and Father were children, it was possible to travel all over the Los Angeles area by a combination of buses and electric street cars; my Father's family (they lived with my Great Aunt the Lady Doctor) did have a car but often the Dr. needed it for work; so both families relied a lot of public transit (my Mother's family never had a car, they were too poor).

In the 1950's, the oil companies bought up the old transit lines and intentionally tore them up and lobbied for freeways and planning systems that set up the newer communities in such a way that you couldn't walk to the corner store if you wanted to as there was no sidewalk, and often "sound walls" going up to the street; this also discouraged bike riding because it wasn't safe either.

I was fortunate to grow up in an older area (Dad's house was the old farmhouse in fact) that had sidewalks, parks, shops and schools you could walk to but the buses were already pretty much gone and we moved by the time I was nine.

Growing up on the Central Coast there was NO public transit at all, except for school buses and interestingly enough; 40 years later that is still pretty much the case, it is this local problem that is the reason Californians won't be able to get out of their cars; even if faced with 10 dollar a gallon gas like we have here in rural Ireland.

The conditions are similar and the distances are too in terms of shopping and getting around; some people like my brother-in-law hold down jobs by having motorcycles but not all of us can deal with those in all weathers and at all times.

For macro-travel the situation has improved greatly - I know I took several trips around the State as a young adult after moving away and again when I moved back in my middle 30's; so I have various periods to compare with.

In my Dad's day, to get to Morro Bay from Southern California you either drove on winding, pre-freeway roadways or you took a train to San Luis Obispo and hired a car or had someone waiting for you; by the time I was 18 you could make the trip easily on Greyhound, and get directly to where you were going.

By the time I was in my 30's, many of the Greyhound routes were gone and the trains were difficult and expensive; in fact I used to go to Sacramento a lot after work from San Francisco, that was pretty easy because someone had the vision to build a train station that connected to the BART trains.

However, during that time all funding was cut for the trains going to Sacramento to San Francisco even though it was one of the most popular and crowded routes; thankfully the State stepped in and funded the Capitol J routes.

I took that route my last trip and they had wonderfully modern trains, a new train station and it was great; except they built the new train station way outside the downtown area because of "projected" development that didn't happen.

Anyway, my point is that while macro-services have improved to a degree; the smaller routes that people would actually need to get to the main services for larger travel or to go to the shop for local travel; have been cut so far that in some of the more cash strapped cities and counties they don't even exist anymore.

People will NOT get out of their cars if they have no viable options or if the options are poorly run, dirty and unsafe; they just won't and while hitch hiking in rural Ireland is fairly safe, I wouldn't do it in California unless it was a life-threatening emergency.

Yes, people will cut back driving; but the won't stop because they can't, at the very least you have to drive to the public transit system, which kind of defeats the purpose...

What would be the priorities for a modest and realistic sustainable public transport system in CA that would be genuinely useful not just PC and compatible with private transport given the realities of housing distribution now extant. I see this as being useful but nothing to do with CO2 emissions, the implementation of a public transport system of any kind will have limited impact on CO2. Anyway what will happen in your opinion over the next 15 years, given that the Democrats want to reduce CO2 emissions by 40% and intend to legislate to achieve it. How in reality will CO2 emissions be reduced given that over the past 15 years no reduction has been obtained.
 

MountainBiker

Veteran Member
Could you give us more details? It would be very illuminating to hear about just what were the types of zoning changes proposed/intended there (spelled out AND de facto but unwritten).

Here's one of the major components. The old subdivision zoning was simply based on having adequate frontage and area, and if a new road was being built, the road had to be built to Town standards. Outside of the village where there wasn't any sewer, each lot had to perc as well. The proposed zoning called for all subdivisions involving a new road to be subject to Planning Board approval in addition to meeting the old standards except that the Planning Board would have the right to vary area and frontage so long as the average area and frontage for all of the lots met the old standards. The publicly stated goal was so as to allow developers to put in more sensible lot configurations better taking into account the terrain. It sounded good when stated that way but the unwritten goal was to give the Planning Board the power to either say no to the subdivision altogether or to get the developer to reduce the number of lots in exchange for getting an OK. Being I was on the Board I knew that most of the Planning Board wanted to shut down new subdivisions altogether. Publicly it would have been the classic "we support growth but just not there....". There was sentiment in town supporting that view of course and so the answer was compromise. What we went to Town Meeting with was allowing new dead-end roads up to 800' long by right (so long as the frontage & area minimums were met on average) and approval by the Planning Board for new dead-end roads greater than 800'. The nature of land parcels in town was such that most new subdivisions would not incur a new burden being most new roads didn't exceed 800' and it would only be the large (by our small town standards) developers from which the Planning Board would likely extract some concessions beyond the allowable right # of lots for the 1st 800'. Spelling it out more in this manner vs the overly simplistic initial version preserved a whole lot of property owner rights while making the "stop all development" people feel like they won too given the new Planning Board powers for larger dead-end road subdivisions. Most roads in town were dead-ends which is why that was the focus. Developers who could acquire enough land to do a loop or somehow connect two existing streets retained their rights to maximize lots in accordance with frontage & area standards, though it was rare anyone was able to do a non-dead end subdivision. As an aside the 800' by right limit was supposed to be a safety consideration being these neighborhoods only had a single ingress/egress. That was nonsense but I went along with it being 800' retained full property rights in most instances and a compromise was needed for it to be politically palatable.
 
Top