Y

esterday, a group of unelected know-it-all bureaucrats decided it’s not enough that California residents alread are crushed under the second-highest tax burden in the nation, they will impose a massive new tax so they might tip at global warming windmills and force us into their choices for our cars.

The LA Times happily established the motivation for this newest attack on Californians’ wallets:

California took aim Thursday at the oil industry and its impact on global warming, adopting the world’s first regulation to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel that runs cars and trucks.

Oil built this economy; oil fueled the state; oil made fortunes that created universities and endowed charities, but oil is the bogeyman of the Warmies and must be killed at all cost because they think tiny increases in a negligible atmospheric gas are going to kill us all. So CARB, the California Air Resources Board, voted 9 to 1 to pass a complex new rule that will drive up the cost of gasoline and, they hope, penalize hapless car drivers into reducing their fuel consumption by a quarter in the next decade.

And, of course, they hope this false economy will finally create huge consumer demand for electric and hydrogen-fueled vehicles and, as the LAT hopefully put it, “jump-start a host of futuristic biofuels” from algae, woodchips and other stuff that’s been around forever and has yet to produce energy anywhere near as efficiently as good ol’ God-given crude.

Still, CARB, which calls itself “ARB” in a bold move to reduce electron waste, said:

“The new standard means we can begin to break our century-old dependence on petroleum and provide California with greater energy security” said ARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. “The drive to force the market toward greater use of alternative fuels will be a boon to the state’s economy and public health – it reduces air pollution, creates new jobs and continues California’s leadership in the fight against global warming.”

Nichols is a long-time California greenie, and one of its most powerful. She started the Los Angeles office of the nation’s richest, most powerful environmental law firm, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and started her many stints on CARB in 1974, when Jerry Brown appointed her its chair. She also was an Assistant Sec at EPA under Clinton. In other words, she’s been forcing environmentalism onto the public for 25 years, and doing quite well at it. The CARB release continues:

According to ARB analyses, to produce the more than 1.5 billion gallons of biofuels needed, over 25 new biofuel facilities will have to be built and will create more than 3,000 new jobs, mostly in the state’s rural areas. Production of fuels within the state will also keep consumer dollars local by reducing the need to make fuel purchases from beyond its borders.

CARB doesn’t bother to tell us how many perfectly good jobs in oil will be displaced by this Quixotic scheme, nor does it deal with the 8,000 pound gorilla in this little matter: water. Many of the rural areas they hope to bring these jobs to already have unemployment rates over 40 percent because water deliveries have been cut back so much farmers can’t grow crops. Where does Nichols expect to find the water to grow the biofuel stock, and where, oh where, does she think she’s going to find the hundreds of gallons of water needed to process each gallon of biofuel?

But they plow on. Forcing the cost of transportation up so they can force us into the cars they want us to drive, or better yet, onto the buses they don’t ride in themselves.

This state is going to Hades in hyperdrive. I’d move, but the LAT tells me 35 states are watching CARB’s action with gleeful anticipation, hoping to follow in California’s path at their earliest convenience. Watch out! California may be coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

2 Comments »

I

watched this hysterical video the other day – “hysterical” in that the people quoted were immersed in hysteria, not “hysterical” as in funny – on the melting of an ice dam holding back in ice shelf in Antarctica.  We’re told with adequate hysterics that the event disaster happened faster than anyone predicted, so the world must be heating up.

(It reminded me of people who live on the beach and are convinced the ocean is rising because their beach is losing sand – like the celebrity Greenies of Malibu.  Of course the ocean looks higher – there’s less sand between them and it!  The sand is disappearing, by the way, in part because water quality regs forbid people from allowing “particulates,” i.e. sand, to enter streams.  That’s why you can’t take sand that’s built up behind a dam and move it to the stream below the dam – where it would have gone had the dam not been there:  Some enviro-bureaucrat decided that would be pollution.)

So why did the Antarctic ice melt faster than the sacred and immutable computer models thought it would if it wasn’t because of global warming?  Well …

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO₂. (The Register, UK)

In other words, the Warmies have no idea going on.  But wait!  It’s worse!

Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates. Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.

Well, if that’s the case, then the environmentalists and their companion bureaucrats did it!  The very people who would save us and the planet from global warming are heating the joint up because they also want to stop acid rain.  And not a one of there sacred, immutable computer models predicted it.

This is just more proof that human intelligence is far too limited and far too polluted with politics and dogma to manage something as vast, complex and changing as the globe’s climate.  But some scientists, all politicians and most bureaucrats have egos nearly as vast, so they want to have a go at it.

Against this backdrop of climate incompetence, let’s turn to the EPA’s little fiasco in the making: its announcement today that it has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. The announcement paves the way for a whole new round of regulations designed to stop climate change – as if global cycles are stoppable by mere humans.

Here’s what the American Petroleum Institute had to say:

“The proposed endangerment finding poses an endangerment to the American economy and to every American family. It could lead to greenhouse gas regulations under a law fundamentally ill-suited to addressing the challenge of global climate change. The regulations could impose complex, costly requirements on restaurants, colleges, schools, shopping malls, bakeries and many other businesses and institutions. The Clean Air Act was created to address local and regional air pollution, not the emission of carbon dioxide and other global greenhouse gases.”

I’m with you, Jack, in fact I’m more than with you.  It’s not just that the Clean Air Act is the wrong law to address this, but that the “solutions” that likely will follow by its application could, like the earlier acid rain effort, just end up making things worse, just as “saving” us from acid rain has.

EPA and UN, keep your hands off our planet!

2 Comments »

I

am a conservative to the core, which supports my frequent criticisms of global warming both in concept and in application.  As a conservative, I am more interested in truth than dogma, so I want a spirited and open debate on anthropogenic global warming, and I don’t want it to be used as an excuse for massive new government expansions, whether it’s actually occurring at levels that threaten us or not.

I’m also a frequent critic of regulatory madness of all ilk; in fact, C-SM has a category named “Regulatory Madness” where you can find a compilation of these posts.  Conservatives can abide by a certain amount of regulation, but with the knowledge that regulations are government weeds, and once they take root they want to do nothing but spread and grow.

So, with this background, I found this comment posted to yesterday’s post on cap and trade to be very intreguing:

Laer,

You keep missing opportunities to reframe the debate on climate change in terms favorable to a conservative approach.

In my view, conservatives will never regain political power in California (and elsewhere) until they address the issues that are important to those that believe in global warming. Simply ridiculing their beliefs is counter productive.

As a fiscal, social and environmental conservative, I say we start promoting conservative principles to improve the quailty of our air and our water, preserve our natural resources, conserve energy, develop alternative energy sources and achieve energy independence.

Rather than belittling efforts to stop global warming, we should emphasis how conservative approaches to addressing the issues above can be achieved with far fewer resources and far less government intervention than any scheme cooked up by AGW alarmists.

So, the next time an alarmist asks “do you believe in climate change?” we should answer “no, but I do have a better way to (fill in the blank).”

Frank

I like very much the idea of being a political, social and environmental conservative.  Frank mentions specifically air and water quality as areas where environmental conservativism should be applied.  Boy should they.  Check this out:

Congressman Farr (D -Natch – CA) has introduced HR 21, dubbed “Oceans 21,” a bill that directs federal agencies to implement the bill’s new National Ocean Policy “to the fullest extent possible” within two years of enactment of the legislation.  That means the “marine ecosystem” health must be maintained with “complete diversity” and the “physical,chemical, geological, and microbial” ocean environment must be maintained to protect that diversity.  How much should it be protected?  Why, to the fullest extent possible.  Not practicable, but possible.

Forget desalination plants or offshore oil rigs.  They will impact the marine ecosystem too much under Oceans 21.

And forget questioning the wisdom of the bill or its application. Farr has that covered with liberal environmentalism:

H.R. 21 also provides that the National Ocean Policy “shall” be implemented such that “the lack of scientific certainty should not be used as justification for postponing action to prevent negative environmental impacts.” (memo from the law firm Nossaman LLP)

Twenty-one members of Congress were so unconcerned about advancing regulation without scientific certainty that they signed on as co-sponsors.

Like Frank, I am an environmental conservative.  I believe in the Bible’s admonition that we serve as stewards of God’s creation, sustaining the resources He bequeathed to us for the future generations He expects us to parent.  But I live my life working for the regulated community, trying to help them find a little wiggle room in a forest of crushing rules and regs, and I am not as optimistic as Frank that we can prevail against the onslaught without some frontal attacks.

I feel here like I felt on Jan. 20 when I wrote that I could not support the success of President Obama, because the success of his policies was too dangerous to the future of America.  I would like to be as optimistic as Frank that holding to conservative principles, including polite deference to other points of view, can be enough.  I want to stand apart from shrill, hysteric environmental liberals and be more thoughtful, clear and polite.

 In my work, I am.  When I write a letter protesting something as costly, imposing and ridiculous as Oceans 21, my language is proper, contained and even complimentary at times.  When I blog … well, not so much.

I have to run to drop Incredible Daughter #3 off at school, then to a long meeting.  I hope to get back to this because Frank’s comment really fascinates me.

No Comments yet »

O

K, so Joe Biden’s a liar.  That’s hardly big news, is it? It’s not like the American people bought a vice-presidential pig in a poke, after all.  But buying vice-presidential puppies from a … the  horror! … breeder, now that’s news.  Even more newsworthy is the governmental response.

In case you missed the basics, Lyin’ Joe was much quicker than his boss.  He wanted a pup, so he went out and got one – a German Shepherd from breeder Linda Brown in East Coventry, PA.  Ah, how sweet.

But not in whacko America.

After the local rag wrote up the story, readers started posting comments, says said local rag.  Ugly, hateful, insane comments:

Following a story about Brown and Biden in the Daily Local News, readers posted 131 comments, some chiding Biden for having the Secret Service with him when he went puppy shopping and others complaining he did not get the dog from a shelter.

Brown was taken to task for selling pedigree dogs.

Brown said she has read the comments, even the one that said she was sued.

“I’d like to meet that person,” Brown said, adding that she has not been sued.

Some people were outraged about the photograph of Biden holding a 5-week-old puppy, Brown said. But, the breeder points out, Biden only came to select a puppy on that visit, left it with its mother and returned three weeks later to take it home.

Brown was not only vilified in posted comments to newspapers but also on the Web site of People for the Ethical Treatment Animals, or PETA.

According to a Dec. 12 press release from the animal rights group, it aired its controversial TV commercials “Buy One, Get One Killed” in Biden’s home state of Delaware after he bought his dog from Brown. The commercial blames euthanization of animals in shelters on people who purchase pets from breeders.

Goodbye, choice.  Every decision we now make is monitored by those who deem themselves to be more pure than us, those who live on a higher moral plane.  Nevermind that supposedly sentient purebred dogs have a right to breed and bare pups just like mutts.  Doesn’t matter; mutts are morally superior.  Tell that to our purebreds, Cammie and Pepper.

But the outraged psycho-moralists were just the beginning of Brown’s problems.  Perhaps the shirts the agents of oppression were brown, too:

Brown also was cited for record-keeping problems and warned about maintenance and sanitation shortfalls by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

“I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don’t tell you why,” said Brown, who disputes all the items where she was written up.

Brown’s case was heard by District Justice James DeAngelo in South Coventry on March 31. She was found “not guilty” for each citation, the judge’s office confirmed Wednesday.

Chris Ryder, press secretary for the Department of Agriculture, said Brown was inspected in December because of a complaint. He said it was department policy not to release the name of the person who complained.

Is it just me, or did Ryder’s comment sound like it fell just a bit short of an apology?  But then, why should an Agency of the State apologize for overtaking a private enterprise, terrorizing its proprietor, and actually bringing her up on charges that cause embarassment and worry, and take time and money to defend.  It’s her fault for daring to be an entrepreneur and not a government lackey.

What a sad, disturbing story.  And even sadder is this:  It happens all the time.

No Comments yet »

C

lick here to view the Environmental Protection Agency’s rogues gallery of fugitives from environmental justice.  Quite a seedy bunch they are, like:

Allessandra Giordano, right, who with poppa Carlos fled the country (hopefully in a bright red Ferrari) for importing cars what did not meet EPA’s air quality regulations.

Or

Wendell Baptiste, left, who I chose primarily because of the fascinating red tint on his mug shot.  Do you suppose he got that way by peddling plutonium on dark corners?  No, Baptiste is a wanted EPA fugitive because he went on the lam after illegally discharging a hazardous substance into waters of the United States.

That’s the most common crime of these losers – dumping oil, sewage or contaminated cargos off their third-world freighters and into our international waters.  That they’ve all fled seems to indicate that EPA Prison is not the most secure detention facility around.

EPA doesn’t want to judge the severity of these crimes.  There is no #1 worst felon among this felonious bunch – at least not one EPA cares to identify.  But the one who gets that dubious distinction is obvious.  It’s not Denis Feron, who fled to Belgium after the hidden pipe dumping gunk from his factory into a creek was discovered, although that’s a pretty heinous act.  Belgium apparently is tolerant of polluters.  And it’s not Albania Deleon, who had a pretty brisk little business going, in which she didn’t properly train asbestos removers, then licensed them and hired them out for a pretty penny. She’s disappeared like asbestos vapors in the wind.

Nope, the award for the #1 EPA fugitive from environmental justice goes hands down to this guy, Mauro Valenzuela.  Nice looking fella, eh?  Hint of a smile, whimsical tilt to the head.  Don’t you believe it. Here’s his write-up:

# Valenzuela was charged in the Southern District of Florida on a multiple count indictment.

# Alleged violations include:

* Illegal transportation of hazardous materials aboard a commercial aircraft
* Making false statements
* Conspiracy

# Valenzuela was a mechanic for SabreTech. He certified that all cabin oxygen generators had been properly removed and replaced on a ValuJet plane. Valenzuela caused these generators to be delivered and loaded on VALUJET flight 592 without proper markings, capping, packaging and other safety measures. The flight crashed into the Everglades shortly after take-off from Miami International Airport killing all 110 passengers and crew onboard.

# Valenzuela fled the country soon after his arraignment. Whereabouts unknown.

Now you’d think they might include murder in there, too, since the oxygen generators caused the fire that caused the horrific, nose-in crash, but that’s someone else’s bailiwick. To EPA Valenzuela is just a lying, conspiring transporter of improperly marked, capped and packaged oxygen generators.

I think there’s a lesson in there about the workings of the mind of the federal bureaucrat … you know, the ones that now run Wall Street and Detroit, and are coming soon to a business near you.

hat-tip to “Alphonse,” who is not too keen on bureaucrats trying to assess evil:

You bring up an inconvenient truth about ranking degree of evil. The criterion should be human life, reduced to cost per life directly or indirectly taken. Most agencies will not touch this. NRC (AEC) tried with one of its early reports, but there was a controversy because it appeared that some lives were deemed to be more valuable than others. [Can't have that, can we?]

The Netherlands used human life valuation for its levee reconstruction: “The optimal failure probability shows a downward trend with increasing number of victims. With this addition, however, the problem of the value of a human life has been introduced. Numerous approximations for this are to be found in the literature. In the present study, it is proposed that the value of human life be equated to the cash value of the net national product per inhabitant of the Netherlands. The opinion is that in assessing acceptable levels of risk, it is advisable to take the possible loss of lives into account in economic terms.” [See, the government really does see you as just an economic entity.]

No Comments yet »

UPDATED

I

n a recent article, the LA Times blamed California’s increased water use, in part, on farmers’ decision to grow permanent crops that “can’t be fallowed.”  I wasn’t sure what it meant, but last Friday I went to a Southern California Water Committee meeting in agricultural Kern County and I got an earful.

San Joaquin Valley farmers have switched from cotton to tree crops like almonds in a big way.  The switch was made in part because stricter environmental regulations, especially for air pollution control and pesticide use, are crimping profits, as are rising energy costs.  So now, a drive through the southern San Joaquin Valley is a drive through tree groves, not cotton fields.  And that’s causing a big problem.

Kern County supervisor Ray Watson told the group that farmers have a tough decision this year, as water deliveries from the Central Valley Project to the western San Joaquin have been cut to zero (as in zero, no water deliveries).  They can get enough groundwater to produce a crop from half their trees, but that means letting the other half die, and it takes about eight years (with good water) for new trees to begin producing.  Or they can minimally water all their trees so they barely survive, but will produce no fruit or nuts – no income.

As a result, unemployment in California farm towns is reaching 40 percent, and even 60 percent. Yet the Sierra snowpack that provides the valley with water is at 90 percent of normal.  What’s happening?

Simple.  The environmentalists took the water.

California – the nation’s largest producer of tomatoes, lettuce, almonds, apricots, strawberries and many other crops – risks agricultural losses of over $2 billion for the upcoming season and $3 billion in total economic losses in 2009.  According to a University of California at Davis study, 80,000 jobs could be lost in the Central Valley.

Although global warming is expected to receive much of the blame for this economic disaster, government regulation is a more significant – and preventable cause – of it, according to The National Center for Public Policy Research.

For example, state and federal water officials have sharply cut agricultural water deliveries in California so that more water can go out to sea as part of an effort to protect the Delta Smelt – a three-inch long fish listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.  In February, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced a “zero allocation” of water from the Central Valley Project, cutting off the massive federal irrigation system that serves numerous California farms.  The supply of water from California’s State Water Project is 20 percent of normal.

“By demanding that the water flow into the Pacific Ocean, government meddlers have forced farmers to abandon production, threatening both the nation’s fresh food supplies and the jobs of farm workers, many of whom are among the nation’s poorest minorities,” said Mr. Smith.  “Ironically, the cut-off of agricultural water has done nothing to help the Delta Smelt.  Every year less water is diverted for agriculture, yet the fish population continues to decline.” (National Center for Public Policy Research)

By the way, the Endangered Species Act also protects certain bass species in California.  Their meal of choice?  Smelt.  Logical people would find something wrong with that, but we’re not dealing with logic here.

The Obama administration, eager to please immigrants and supposedly concerned about the plight of poverty stricken farm workers, is allowing the water shortage to continue – and indeed, the Dems are doing all they can to further the crisis, in the eyes of the National Center, which points at a hearing today before the House Committee on Natural Resources on the California drought.

Only witnesses from federal agencies will be allowed to testify at the hearing – the same folks who are managing water resources to protect the smelt and the bass – and we will hear blame placed on climate change, farming practices and population growth.  Guaranteed, we won’t hear much about the role of activist-inspired environmental policies in creating a “regulatory drought” in California.

Not testifying will be unemployed farm workers or farmers who have been forced to chose between untenable options because of curtailed water deliveries.  Not testifying will be any of the thousands of scientists who don’t go along with absolutist global warming dogma.  Also missing will be any representatives of California’s water industry, who could address the state’s failure to build infrastructure to meet the state’s growing population.

The National Center has categorized this proceding correctly – they plan to show up for the hearings with a kangaroo in tow.

Update one: Representative Ken Calvert showed up at the hearing with a bagful of Delta smelt and some harsh words for the Dems.

And, unrelated but interesting timing, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service just announced that it is going to conduct a status review of the smelt’s listing.  Don’t get your hopes up, though – these almost never change anything.

1 Comment »

Environmental fanaticism comes at a price.  When you start trying to eliminate hydrocarbon byproducts from the atmosphere, it’s messy, costly, and it puts people out of business.  There’s no need to wait for Obama to impose a $2 trillion cap and trade dead weight on the economy – it’s happening right now.

By April 1, the California Air Resources Board (that’s CARB to you folks who like clever acronyms) wants every single gas nozzle in the state replaced with an $11,000 nozzle that’s reportedly cleaner than the costly vapor recovery nozzles they mandated a few years back.  When you figure most stations have six to eight pumps, the cost of fitting the new nozzles on is $66,000 to $88,000.  And that spells trouble, according to the OC Watchdog:

At least 51 independently owned gas stations in Orange County are in danger of closing next month because of costly new regulations implemented by the state. …

“We’re not talking about Chevron. We’re not talking about BP,” said Tom Kise, spokesman for the Responsible Clean Air Coalition. “It could be the guy, or gal, who owns just one gas station,” he said. …

“I think it’s going to be pretty bad,” said David Berri, who figures only three or four of his family’s 22 SoCal gas stations will be ready by April 1.

The rest of the stations might close, he said, putting a tragic end to a rough stretch that’s seen the family lay off employees and lose as much as 50 percent of their revenues.

Even worse, Berri predicted that so many other stations will have to close that gas prices could go up. At the very least, he said it’ll be more difficult to find a place to fill up.

In all, some 3,400 of the 11,000 affected gas stations in California have yet to comply with the regulations. One hundred fifty of them have formed the Responsible Clean Air Coalition to beg the state to delay implementation.

According to the Coalition, the best and most cost-effective of three systems that meet the CARB regs was not approved until just five months ago, so there’s been little time to comply, especially since the credit crunch has made it hard for many small operators to get the capital for the change-over.  Most gas stations are small operations, since the big oil companies have gotten out of the retail business.

Worse, says the Coalition, the manufacturers of compliant equipment know they’re the only CARB-blessed game in town and have been raising their prices.

California already has vapor-retrieving nozzles on its pumps. Californians already pay more than most other Americans because of CARB-mandated refining requirements.  Our air is far, far cleaner than it was at the peak of our air pollution problems, but remains non-compliant primarily because CARB and the feds keep setting higher standards, so this kind of nonsense can be imposed on us.

But, hey, that’s just gas nozzles in one state.  It’s nothing compared to carbon taxes on everything you buy, from hamburgers to houses.

No Comments yet »

C

alifornia’s professional greenhouse gas worrywarts are insensitive dolts.  They have actually picked the hallowed March Madness festivities as the ideal time to announce their latest madcap scheme in their war to save the planet that doesn’t need saving:  Ban big screen TVs.

Yes, folks, you’ll be huddled around your 12″, peddle-driven black and white watching the Final Four if these hysterics get their way. Here’s the report, from OC Watchdog:

The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.

The TV industry points out that this is needless meddling by California’s ubber-Greens, because the feds already have set energy efficiency standards. The Energy Commissars counter that you can save $18 to $20 a year (OOOOH!) by buying a more energy efficient model.  Since that’s obviously no motivation whatsoever, the Commissars are turning to heavy fisted regulations.

Incredible Daughter #1 makes her own point:

Morons. The economy sucks, so let’s take products OFF the market.

She’s right. Televisions are the fastest growing consumer appliance in California. Let’s figure out how to sell more of them, and let people make their own decision based on the unit’s relative electrical efficiency and how much keeping up with the Joneses is required.

No Comments yet »

A

s the Obama Admin stands poised and ready to impose their statist regime on America, injecting government into every layer of our life in the grand tradition of FDR, it’s not a bad idea to spend a little time analyzing just how government performs.

Here’s a handy case study:

Facing forecasts of wet weather that could flush tons of urban trash out to sea and onto local beaches, Los Angeles County authorities scrambled Thursday to reinstall a boom across the outlet of the Los Angeles River to keep debris out of Long Beach Harbor.

The boom had been decommissioned Monday because the county Department of Public Works ran out of money to keep it operating.

The problem, according to a spokesman for the department, was that a company which had been paid $450,000 to operate the boom this year [sic? $450,000 in three weeks?!] — and remove the trash it harvested — had completed its contractual obligations ahead of schedule.

As a result, Frey Environmental Inc. of Newport Beach on Monday was ordered to take the boom out of service while public works authorities sought permission from the county Board of Supervisors to renew its contract.

Complicating matters, the board canceled its meeting Tuesday because several members had traveled to Washington to attend the presidential inauguration. (LA Times)

It’s expected that trash will flow unfettered to sea until well into February.  Now, we used to just let that happen because none but the fringes of society cared much whether trash washed out to sea or not, but now at least the enviro-packed regulatory agencies care greatly, so they have imposed regulations (more statism) with fines to boot, in order to force municipalities to pick up after their littering citizens (more statism).

Imagine what would happen to a private sector manager if  his operation had to shut down for several weeks because he let a contract run out.  Expect no such repercussions here.

What you can expect is higher costs, since Frey needlessly had to shut down and now will have to re-start its operations – and because one branch of government, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, will impose a hefty fine on another branch of government, Los Angeles County, for being out of compliance with the trash TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) regulation.

So government incompetency leads to  higher cost government and fines, which government does not have to pay. We do.

And they want us to trust government with our health!

Hat-tip: Jim, whose group Trails 4 All has picked up tons of trash from local watersheds without being forced to by government.

No Comments yet »

Y

eah, I know that Carol Browner, former EPA headmistress for Clinton, greenie-in-chief for Florida, noted over-regulator and fawning Gore acolyte is known more for her anti-industry views on the environment, but a fact is a fact:  Obama’s top pick for the new position as Chief Climate Hysteric is also a nasty, nasty lobbyist.

Browner is in business with former Clinton sec of state Madilyn Albright as, in the NYT’s coy words, “an international consultant.”  Heaven forbid that the paper should call a lobbyist a lobbyist, unless of course it’s a GOP lobbyist.

Top among Carol & Maddie’s clients was Dubai Ports, and top among their priorities was getting US ports in Arab ownership – following Clinton’s sale of much of the Port of Long Beach to the Chinese. Isn’t it just a teeny bit scurrilous that a woman who has been working for Dubai, which produces, you know, oil, is now going to be the chief proponent of penalizing the heck out of oil?  And not only that, but isn’t it even worse that she was working to get Dubai into U.S. port ownership so they could manage smelly, polluted, traffic generating, oil-burning businesses there?  And now it’s kosher all of a sudden for her to turn her back on all that and start promoting laws, regulations and “incentives” (read: fines) that penalize the use of oil?

Browner ultimately failed in her Dubai mission, but she’s had many successful missions in her primary task: slamming unneeded regulation on American business.  If Obama does indeed appoint her, she will immediately get to work hammering out the US position on the new UN global warming protocols – and don’t expect that position to care particularly about the health of business.

Yes, folks, that’s a change we can believe in.

By the way, I don’t say environmental regulations are “unneeded” because I’m for wrecking our environment.  I say it because since the Clean Air, Clean Water and Endangered Species acts were passed in the 1970s our environment has gotten better and better, so people like Browner are not regulating primarily to improve things, but rather because they see manufacturing, power generation and transportation as bad things.

Their quest to scrub our air and water of contaminates down to the parts per trillion results in great and unsupportable burdens on business.  It’s immutable:  As more improvements are made, the benefits of incremental new improvements become smaller and their costs become higher.

Browner doesn’t care about such niceties, and her eminent appointment, along with another big-time business over-regulator, New Jersey EPA head Lisa Jackson, tells us that Obama has no intention of dialing back regulation in order to help the economy.  Instead, he’s signaled his intention to undo the corrections Bush made as he removed some of the more egregious acts of over-regulation imposed by Clinton.

Economy, watch out!

6 Comments »