Bill Gates votes with wallet: No on Prop 23, to the tune of $700k

...according to MapLight.

Fact Checking CARB's Mary Nichols re “Nevada County worst (rural) ozone in the nation

In short: The lady - doubted by some (Steele, KPruett) - was correct.

In the aftermath to last month's CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols talk on AB32, Kim Pruett and Russ Steele wanted evidence for her assertion that Nevada County's air quality was the worst of any rural county in the U.S. and worse than any region nationally outside of California.

I offered to look into it, which entailed a) asking her office for the reference & b) getting stymied when looking into it myself, by not looking into the document that turned out to hold the rankings.

But CARB came through, in the person of a Mr. Chris Bowman:

"In recent years, the American Lung Association has ranked Nevada County as the most ozone-polluted rural area in the nation -- and smoggier than any city outside of California and Texas. The rankings come from the ALA's annual State of the Air reports...
In 2007, for example, you'll see (p. 24) that Nevada County ranked as the 13th most ozone-polluted county in the nation. This year, Nevada County ranked 8th (p. 16).
What's striking, of course, is that Nevada County has but a fraction of the population of every higher ranking county -- including El Dorado, Tulare and Kern, where the highest ozone readings are in urban areas such as El Dorado Hills, Placerville, Visalia and Bakersfield.
The disparity begs explanation. I went searching for answers seven years ago as a reporter for The Sacramento Bee and wrote a story on what I learned...

(Thank you Chris.)

From the aforementioned 2010 A.L.A. air quality report (pdf), p. 16, the nation's "worst ozone" county rankings are:

1. San Bernardino
2. Riverside
3. Kern
4. Tulare
5. Los Angeles
6. Fresno
7. El Dorado
8. Nevada
   

A couple of details: our county's population size is just over half of the least-populated "worse" county, El Dorado, with which we're almost tied for bad air at 45 vs 47 (weighted average of #unhealthy high ozone days, 2006-2008). And #1 San Bernardino, with 20x more people, had 3x more bad ozone days.

Report: CARB chair Mary D. Nichols on AB32 in Nevada City

Update: other reports by Rebane, Steele; reaction by Pelline. If you run across others, could you please add them in the comments?

Tonight was the AB32 presentation at City Hall by California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols. It was informative, well attended, well-run and civil. Kudos to organizers Judy Kildow and Robert Bergman and speaker Nichols for the format, which limited the presentation to AB32 and called for questions to be written on an index card and passed to the aisle.

Practically everyone who was anyone was there.
(And if you missed it, some extremely welcome news - there are plans to bring other science and science-aligned policy experts to our community, to speak on issues like climate change and ocean acidification.)

Nichols spoke for about half an hour on AB32's aims and implementation, then answered audience questions. She stressed that she represented all of us and was not expected or permitted to advocate for or against the stop-AB32 initiative, Prop. 23.

She pointed out we're victims of Bay Area and Sacto-area emissions - our air quality is worse than any rural region in the country, and worse than any region outside of California. And global warming makes air pollution worse - for the same amount of pollution emitted, you get more ground-level ozone. Their study projected that in 40 years, with global warming we'll have an extra 30 "bad ozone" days a year.

"People don't want air that shortens their lives and makes their children sick."

What AB32 does -
Its goal is to get us off petroleum in 40 years, to increase efficiency & shift to more reliable & cleaner energy. It's "cost effective, common sense measures to ratchet down smog and greenhouse gases too."
CARB aims to manage the transition, to make it as seamless, painless and equitable as possible.

* Basically, AB32 reduces emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 - a 15% cut from today - and already we have in place over half the emission reductions needed to meet that goal, mostly via the Pavley bill (AB 1493?)
* By 2020, 1/3 of electricity generated in CA must be from renewables (this would be suspended under Prop 23)
* A low carbon fuel standard - oil cos. will have a choice on how to meet it, e.g. compressed natural gas, electric fueling stations... - for a 20% drop in oil consumption
* Reduce car usage, via land use and transportation planning - it'd be voluntary for communities, with the carrots being CEQA-free infill development and (presumably state) transportation funding.
* Cap & trade, a mechanism originally promoted by the business community - put a price on carbon, so people can choose to make money by cleaning it up. The cap steps down gradually.

There were a couple of good questions asking what to do when an AB32 regulation proves unworkable - e.g. diesel particulate filters on trucks causing them to run poorly and get worse mileage - she answered saying that yes, they do revisit such regulations - you contact their ombudsman, who's their small business point person, and they look at the situation and sometimes lift restrictions or temporarily stop enforcement until they can figure it out & come up with a fix.

Another question was about an L.A. study projecting a huge increase in electricity costs; Nichols responded saying that electricity rates are projected to increase considerably in future, AB32 or no AB32, and that one of the things AB32 will do is protect us from price increases, since - via renewables - it'll reduce our vulnerability to price spikes via outside interests; though she didn't explicitly mention our Enron summer.

For a historical analogy of an earlier transition, she used the example of vapor-retrieval gas nozzles at gas stations, reminding us how stinky refueling your car used to be, and how gas station owners were not happy about installing the new equipment; yet now we take it for granted.

She freely admitted that California wasn't going to stop global warming, since we produce just 2% of global emissions; but said the goal is for us to pioneer solutions, to let us demonstrate techniques & technologies for others to buy; and to reap the benefits of being early adopters.

KVMR climate commentary response to George Rebane

Last Friday KVMR ran a commentary from Dr. Rebane that described&named "camps" who hold various climate views, extolled Bjorn Lomborg, and argued for a Yes vote on Prop 23; and since I'd been told I could reply if Rebane started using his commentary for climate contrarianism, I was invited to respond to that one. My response airs tonight on KVMR's 6pm news.
(As I've said elsewhere, I'm uncomfortable being put in the position of advocating a particular vote - I'm a flashlight-wielder, not an arm-twister or persuader - so after countering Rebane's climate-delay talking points, for the "Prop 23" part I just cribbed from the recent NYTimes editorial.)

Here's the text , with references.

---

Last Friday, KVMR ran a commentary by retired engineer George Rebane, who cited author Bjorn Lomborg in arguing for Prop 23, the out-of-state-oil-funded initiative to roll back California's global warming law.

I thought about what to tell you in response. Should I point out it's a red flag when someone doesn't accept climate science and uses the term "true believers" to describe those who do? - including the 29 out of 30 active climate scientists who agree there's a consensus of evidence that global warming is happening and largely human-caused. (The small group of doubters has demonstrably lower expertise. )

Or perhaps I should note that Bjorn Lomborg, the fellow Rebane touted, has no expertise in climate science or environmental economics, his background's in poli sci and game theory. And while he's written several books that are loaded with footnotes and references, a review of the references found they're a sham, they don't support his claims.

Or I could share some pointers on judging who to trust - like, when there are two sides on an issue, if one side has the recycled tobacco PR flacks & the other has pretty much every major scientific organization on the planet, to treat the two sides equally is...unwise.

Or I could point out that Rebane's "there's no proof" argument' is a red herring - science deals in probabilities, not proof - by the time there's proof it'll be too late. If a mom sits back and lets her son play in traffic since there's no *proof* he'll get run over, we call it reckless endangerment.

Or I could share my prediction that the climate delay effort will turn out to be the most pervasive, effective and destructive commercial PR disinformation effort that the world has ever known. The fossil fuels industry is just as threatened as tobacco was; and we *know* what the tobacco folks were doing behind the scenes to confuse the public. This industry's 10 times bigger; you do the math.
(In his Prop 23 [KVMR] debate with Steve Frisch, in the context of climate science Rebane mentioned a scientist who'd lost his position at UCLA - but neglected to say that the guy's a tobacco researcher.)

No, what I should do for you is share some points from the Prop. 23 editorial in Monday's[?] New York Times; it's called The Brothers Koch and AB 32:
Note: I cut out a lot, & did a lot of paraphrasing for brevity/clarity; the link above goes to the original.

"Four years ago, bipartisan majorities in the California Legislature approved a landmark clean energy bill. Now a coalition of right-wing ideologues, out-of-state oil & gas companies & climate-change skeptics is seeking to effectively kill it.

The money men include Charles and David Koch, the Kansas oil and gas billionaires who have played a prominent role in financing the Tea Party movement.

The law they want to kill, AB32, aims to reduce] California’s emissions of co2 and other greenhouse gases. The prospect that it could reduce gas sales strikes terror into some energy companies. Much of the $8.2 million raised to stop the law came from just two Texas-based oil and gas companies, Valero and Tesoro. The Koch brothers gave another million, partly because they worry about damage to the Koch Industries bottom line, and also because they think climate change is a left-wing hoax.

Since the law was passed, there's been an enormous increase in investments in clean energy technologies — and the jobs that go with them. Overturning it would threaten that and the effort to fight climate change, since State and regional efforts are crucially important drivers — if California pulls back, other states that are trying to reduce emissions may do so as well.

The Kochs and their allies are disastrously wrong about the science... and wrong about the economics. So AB 32’s many friends — led by Schwarzenegger and another respected Republican, Nixon and Reagan cabinet member George Shultz — have mounted a spirited counterattack to defend the law, which Shultz credits for an unprecedented outburst of technological creativity and investment.

Who wins if Prop 23 passes and our global warming law is repudiated? The Koch brothers, maybe, but the biggest winners will be the Chinese, who are already moving briskly ahead in the clean tech race. And the losers? The people of California, surely. But the biggest loser will be the planet. "

Nobel economist Paul Krugman's New York Times piece Building a Green Economy is a great intro to environmental economics and climate policy.
He sums it up saying,

"We know how to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. We have a good sense of the costs — and they’re manageable. All we need now is the political will. "

Thank you.

This week: Prop. 23 - Kochs give, KVMR/Frisch/Rebane; and McKibben

Prop 23 (essentially, "Paralyze California's Global Warming Solutions Act") news:

The Kansas-based Kochs have now weighed in, as it were, with a hefty million-dollar "Yes on 23" contribution from a Koch Industries subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources. Campaign finance data here.

KVMR hosted a Prop. 23 "discussion, not a debate" with Steve Frisch and George Rebane on Wed. eve; see Jeff Pelline's "before" and "after" posts for details and discussion.
No transcript available, but you can listen to the audio recording.

Yo, economic fearmongers - British Columbia's carbon tax looks like success

Interesting article here - B.C.'s carbon tax is looking like a winner.

Sac N&R: big legal mess if "Big Oil’s ballot attack" succeeds

From the July 22 Sacramento News & Review issue comes an in-depth look at likely consequences of November's "Stop AB32" initiative, AB23 - titled "Don’t panic", it suggests that if you're a lawyer, good times could be coming.

"Instead of saving the economy from overzealous environmental regulation, the measure [AB23, to stop 2006's AB32] is more likely to spawn lawsuits and confusion—and send a message to clean-tech investors that California can’t make up its mind."

"Backers of the initiative agree that much of Prop. 23’s impact will be sorted out in the courts. [Dan] Logue said even he isn’t sure which pieces would be scrapped by the new law and which would be left unscathed.
“It’s a good question,” said Logue. “I think there’s going to be a lot of legislation that’s going to be tested in the courts.”"

A thorough article; recommended reading.

Pie chart showing Stop-AB32 contributions so far

Here's how the numbers (data sources here) came out for me ( warning, it may not be 100% accurate):

$3360 contributions $1000 and under (12 contributions)
$60,000 misc over $1000 (3 contributions)
$102,300 Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn (3 contributions)
$498,000 refused to state (1 contributions)
$1,588,000 coal, oil, gas (23 contributions)

Former "suspend climate action" initiative's proponent Ted Costa turns against the effort

Peoples Advocate CEO Ted Costa, a drafter of the Logue-and-McClintock-supported initiative to suspend California's Global Warming Solutions Act, has turned against the initiative and, according to the Sacramento Bee, "is willing to write a ballot argument against it."

He's objecting to the influx of oil money and their failure to report it, according to the LA Times - a situation which, from Costa's words, does sound shady:

"I wanted to do a grass-roots operation and involve a lot of people," Costa said in an interview. "But they believe they can run this thing out of the country club, and to hell with the little people of California. If they have half a million dollars, how come they haven't reported it?"

Under state law, financial disclosure forms must be filed with the California secretary of state within 10 days of collecting $50,000. Although paid signature-gatherers were deployed more than a week ago, financial forms for the initiative committee have yet to be submitted.

Costa says that to launch signature-gathering, the group would have had to spend at least $250,000 so far, adding that "it had already spent $160,000 on research more than 60 days ago."
(emphases added)

(response from the SuspendAB32 folks: it's sour grapes because Costa's group wasn't hired to collect sigs.)

The news of Costa's change of heart does not appear on the Suspend AB 32 website's "Latest news" page - although Costa's name and bio have been removed from the site's "proponents" page (previous version here, for now).

Calif SuspendAB32 anti-climate effort isn't looking too healthy

Not only are the would-be SuspendAB32 folks painfully reticent about who's committed the $600k (according to Dan Logue) to their signature gathering effort (*), but their own economic analyst wouldn't stand behind his analysis, according to the Sacramento Business Journal Friday.

The SuspendAB32.org site asserts:

Economists estimate if nothing is done AB 32 will:
* Cost California up to 1.1 million jobs
* Cost the average family $3,857 a year in greatly increased expenses for housing, transportation, food and energy
* Cost $49,691 per small business
* Result in a total loss of output of $182.649 billion
* Devastate budgets of California social services agencies through massive losses in tax revenue

This was the study by Varshney and Tootelian of CSU Sacramento business school, a study which has been roundly criticized, most recently by Jim Sweeney, Director of the Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency at Stanford University as "very, very defective", according to this Sacramento Business Journal story - which also reported that Dr. Varshney, Dean of the Business School at CSUS, was unwilling to stand behind his study's findings.

-----
h/t Steven Maviglio

I've emailed Drs. Sweeney and Varshney asking if there's anything they care to add or clarify; will report back.