GOP Presidential Nominees Fire Back at Brown on Climate Change Challenge

After submitting a letter-length question to Republican candidates ahead of their first round of primary-season debates, Gov. Jerry Brown has received some responses.

Heated rhetoric

Pressing ahead with the environmental emphasis characterizing his final term in office, Brown asked the presidential hopefuls to outline their own policies. “Longer fire seasons, extreme weather and severe droughts aren’t on the horizon, they’re […] here to stay,” he wrote, as the Sacramento Bee reported. “Given the challenge and the stakes, my question for you is simple: What are you going to do about it? What is your plan to deal with the threat of climate change?”

Brown’s office told the Bee he submitted his question via the Facebook page of Fox News, which solicited questions from viewers of the debates, which it hosted and televised.

This month, as the San Gabriel Valley Tribute noted, Brown hit out against the field again, using a fresh report on July temperatures to lambaste “Republicans, foot-dragging corporations and other deniers.” Surveying the damage to the fire-stricken Clear Lake area, Brown “repeated his challenge to Republican presidential candidates,” the Los Angeles Times reported, warning that “California is burning” and asking, bluntly, “What the hell are you going to do about it?”

Republican responses

So far, at least three Republican candidates have touched on environmental issues in the wake of Brown’s challenges.

Not all their remarks have been directly responsive, however. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker recently took the opportunity to critique “radical environmental policies that stop things like dams from going in so that water … can be used effectively,”according to the Bee.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, who had challenged Sen. Barbara Boxer’s re-election, both addressed Brown head on, the Bee added. While Cruz dismissed “alarmists” as power-hungry schemers, Fiorina took a more nuanced approach; although she first conceded it “may well be true” that California’s drought was worsened by climate change, she also criticized policymakers for failing to prepare for the kind of droughts the state has had “for millennia.”

Shifting opinions

Republicans on the campaign trail have broadly reflected opinions among constituents nationwide. Even in California, Republicans have demonstrated consistent skepticism toward claims that human activity has fostered dangerous alterations in temperatures and weather. In a new poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, a majority of Golden State Republicans said “they don’t believe that climate change is happening and that they don’t think it will be a serious problem in the future,” as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported. “They also support expanding fossil fuel production — from increasing offshore oil drilling along California’s coast to expanding fracking.”

Yet the poll evinced some wiggle room on environmental policy issues. Fully 43 percent of California Republican respondents supported stricter in-state climate rules than what the federal government has passed into law. “Californians of all parties said they support increasing tax credits for electric vehicles and solar power,” the Mercury News added.

In a recent nonpartisan poll commissioned by a water policy foundation, Californians seemed to confirm that the drought had become a leading issue of worry across the ideological spectrum. According to the Los Angeles Times, “62 percent of poll subjects said they would be very willing or somewhat willing to pay $4 more a month for water if the funds were used to improve water supply reliability. Such an increase, if applied to the entire state, would generate about a billion dollars, according to poll sponsors.”

Environmentalists divided

Brown’s environmentalist policies haven’t satisfied all critics. His administration’s emphasis on reducing emissions, for instance, has led some to wonder why he hasn’t pushed harder for cheaper electricity rates, which would benefit owners of many zero-emissions vehicles. One objection, recently voiced in the San Diego Daily Transcript, warned that Brown’s policies “will systematically shift profits into a few private hands instead of building, managing and maintaining a solid and reliable electric-charging infrastructure comparable to our utility grid.”

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

Environmental groups raise concerns over Florida's new hunt for oil

MIAMI –  Renewed hunts for oil in sensitive Florida ecosystems have environmental groups raising questions about the state's regulation of the oil and gas industry.

A Miami company, Kanter Real Estate LLC, has submitted a permit application to drill an exploratory oil well on the eastern edge of the Everglades.

Meanwhile, federal approval is pending for a seismic survey meant to locate new areas for drilling in the Big Cypress National Preserve, a freshwater swamp whose health is vital to the neighboring Everglades and to native wildlife, including the endangered Florida panther.

The state recently issued a wetlands activity permit to Fort Worth, Texas-based Burnett Oil Co. Inc. for the survey that would cover 110 square miles within the preserve. Florida and the National Park Service are requiring a number of steps to ensure minimal harm to wildlife and the environment, but the proposal worries critics who have complained that lax oversight of previous drilling operations left ecologically sensitive areas vulnerable to contamination.

From 2012 to 2014, Florida issued three environmental violations for oil and gas operations in the state, according to violations data analyzed by The Associated Press.

The three violations occurred in 2014 after Collier County officials raised concerns about another Texas oil company's use of a fracking-like oil recovery practice at a well near panther habitat.

The Department of Environmental Protection — the state's oil and gas regulator — say the number doesn't show lax law enforcement, but rather that Florida's strict inspections keep well operators in compliance.

"During the 2014 calendar year, DEP's inspectors conducted 2,472 inspections on the 160 active wells in the state. Due to the frequency of these inspections, potential problems are identified and remedied before a violation occurs or a compliance action is required," said DEP spokeswoman Lauren Engel said in a statement.

Environmental groups argue that Florida's regulations currently only cover conventional drilling methods, not the "acid stimulation" that prompted last year's violations or other advanced extraction techniques.

"We've learned that Florida's oil and gas laws are extremely antiquated and rudimentary and don't address new techniques such as fracking," said Jennifer Hecker, director of natural resource policy for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.

Drilling has been a part of the Big Cypress since before it became a national preserve in 1974. The first wells were dug in the 1940s, and drilling continues to this day, as new technologies may improve the efficiency of extracting oil from deposits running underground from Fort Myers to Miami.

The Burnett survey would be scheduled for Florida's winter dry season and produce vibrations created by plates attached to thumper trucks driving across a grid.

The state has gone on record opposing some methods of seismic testing, but it has not objected to the Burnett project.

DEP sent a letter to the Obama administration opposing new rules allowing seismic surveys for oil and gas off the state's Atlantic coast because not enough was known about the surveys' effects on marine life. The seismic survey in the Big Cypress, however, has to comply with Florida laws, said Engel.

"With onshore seismic, we have regulatory authority through this permitting program," she said.

Burnett says it's prepared to address concerns about the survey's environmental impact. The wetlands activity permit issued by DEP requires the company to restore "using hand tools" any habitat damaged by the survey vehicles, and it encourages crews to remove any invasive plant species they encounter.

The survey trucks' wide, balloon tires will be less damaging than off-road vehicle tires, said Burnett spokesman Ryan Duffy.

The survey would cover an area between active well fields in the eastern and northwestern parts of the preserve, far from recreational areas. In addition to the state permit, the park service could impose additional stipulations on Burnett to mitigate any environmental damage, said Ron Clark, the preserve's chief resource manager.

Drilling has been a rarity east of the Big Cypress. In 1985, a Texas company drilled in western Broward County, but that well was plugged and abandoned the same year, according to DEP.

The Kanter permit application calls for a 5-acre operation to drill down 11,800 feet.

In a statement, John Kanter said the application is "one of the first steps in a long-term plan that includes proposed mining, as well as water storage and water quality improvement components that have the potential for assisting with Everglades Restoration."

His family has owned the Broward County property slated for exploratory drilling for over 50 years. "As stewards of this land, we are fully invested in ensuring this project provides maximum public benefit while also providing Florida with solutions for water storage and treatment in South Florida," he said.

Environmental groups and some local elected officials say any drilling expansion threatens the region's water supply and Everglades restoration plans.

"Florida law asks the driller to do the best job possible, but it doesn't say you can't drill for oil in wetlands, in the Everglades, in panther habitat," said Matt Schwartz, executive director of the South Florida Wildlands Association.

In Miramar, the city 5 miles from the where Kanter wants to drill, the mayor and city commission recently voted to oppose the plan because of the threat to their drinking water.

Bonita Springs is over 30 miles from the Big Cypress and hasn't been a target for drilling, but the city council last week unanimously approved an ordinance banning fracking within city limits.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

CA Policies to Blame for High Gas Prices, Not Oil Companies

Am I the only one that finds billionaire/environmentalist Tom Steyer siding with Consumer Watchdog’s attack on the oil companies counter intuitive?

Consumer Watchdog and Steyer say the oil companies are manipulating production so Californians have to pay more for gasoline. They say it adds to the cost of gasoline for the consumer.

Steyer’s goal is to get people to reduce or perhaps stop entirely the use of fossil fuels. He’s a renewable energy advocate.  Shouldn’t he be thrilled that people must pay more for gasoline encouraging them to use less? Wouldn’t the laws of economics help his crusade to reduce fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable energy if people had to pay not the $3.44 per gallon average in California today but say, $15.44 a gallon; or $50.44 per gallon, for that matter?

Or is there another agenda here?

If the idea is to paint the oil companies as bad guys, gouging the public, that might come in handy if Steyer runs the campaign he has discussed to levy a tax on oil as it is removed from the ground. Then again such a tax would also raise the cost of gasoline at the pump for the average Californian.

California’s tax and regulation requirements for gasoline and reduced number of refineries are the chief reasons Californians pay so much more for gasoline than other parts of the country.

Yet, Steyer says cost is a concern for him. He told the L.A. Times that even the current cost of gasoline is a burden on working people commuting to work.

Well, I’m not a billionaire so maybe Mr. Steyer understands something about finances that escapes me — but in my two plus two world the economics of this situation do not add up.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading...

Dem. Senator Hopes The DOJ Sues Global Warming ‘Deniers’

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is not a fan of anyone who disagrees with him about man-made global warming. And at an event hosted by environmentalists, he made it clear just how much he doesn’t like skeptics.

“But, this vast denial apparatus that propagates the false doubt, that props up the phony science, that gets these yahoos who can’t survive … peer-reviewed scrutiny onto Fox News, onto the cable shows, saying that their scientists, they create an artificial conflict about this and that’s why I think there’s doubt,” the Rhode Island Democrat told attendees at a League of Conservation Voters event in last month, according to a recently published Youtube video.

“A lot of people haven’t seen through the scam that’s being perpetrated,” Whitehouse said. “So that’s one of the reasons I hope that we get another lawsuit out of the Department of Justice, like the one they brought against the tobacco industry that showed that the whole fraudulent scam was a racketeering enterprise, held them accountable for it.”

This is not the only time Whitehouse suggested the federal government prosecute global warming skeptics under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for being a “racketeering enterprise.”

Whitehouse essentially wants the Justice Department to prosecute skeptics the same way it prosecuted the tobacco industry in the late 1990s.

“In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrote in the Washington Post in May — The video that was recently posted to Youtube, was from an event that took place before his op-ed was written.

“The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking,” Whitehouse added.

Whitehouse, however, was forced to admit at the end of his op-ed that he didn’t actually know “whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry.” But, of course, he suggested there’s a lot of evidence pointing in that direction.

Ironically, Whitehouse’s support for using RICO against global warming skeptics came one month before he appeared at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank, to unveil a bill he wrote that would slap a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. While at AEI, Whitehouse talked about how a carbon tax was the “conservative” answer to global warming.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading.....

The Crumbling Environmentalist Case Against the Keystone Pipeline

A new report showing that importing Canadian tar sands oil would have a negligible impact on American greenhouse gas emissions is the latest in a series of developments that have undermined the environmentalist case against the Keystone pipeline.

The report, by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, suggests that rejecting the project could actually lead to an increase in emissions.

Supporters of the Keystone pipeline, which would connect Canada’s wealth of “tar sands” crude oil to refineries on the American gulf coast, pointed to IHS’s findings as further confirmation of the project’s environmental soundness.

It was the latest revelation that undermines environmentalist opposition to the project, Keystone supporters said. The IHS analysis followed reports that oil companies are seeking out alternative, less environmentally friendly, means of transporting Canadian crude.

Killing the Keystone Pipeline has become a priority of the American environmentalist community, even as some liberal commentators question the political wisdom of its intense focus on the project.

The pipeline’s most vociferous opponents “are obsessed with a program that amounts to a rounding error” with respect to total U.S. carbon emissions, wrote New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait.

“There is no environmental case against the Keystone XL pipeline,” said James Taylor, senior fellow for environmental policy at the Heartland Institute.

President Barack Obama has stated he will not approve the pipeline if it results in an increase in U.S. carbon emissions.

However, supporters of the project say Canada will export its petroleum products regardless of his decision.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

High school cheerleader car wash violates environmental laws

It’s hard to wave your spirit fingers when the city shuts down the cheerleading squad’s fundraising car wash to protect the environment.

This is what happened to Lincoln High School cheerleaders  trying to raise money to attend a national competition in April. The San Jose Mercury reports that local environmental officials warned the high school cheerleaders that their car wash violated the city’s water discharge laws.

“We had a visit from the city of San Jose Environmental Services Department who said that the car washes at Hoover [Middle School] are in violation of water discharge laws, therefore we had to cancel this and all future car washes,” said an email that was sent out to neighborhood email lists on Oct. 18.

“Anything that is not storm water or rain water is considered a pollutant,” said Jennie Loft, acting communications manager for San Jose’s Environmental Services Department. “If it goes into a storm drain, that pollutant will harm wildlife and habitats in the creeks. Water goes directly from the storm drains into our creeks.”

The city intervened in response to two complaints received about the car wash events Lincoln High Schoolers had been holding at Hoover Middle School. City officials reached out to school and district staff to give them information on how to prevent pollutants from getting into storm drains.

The city also gave some tips on how they can have legally compliant cars washes.

The Mercury reports: “Conduct car washing over gravel, grassy area, or other earthen areas if possible… Ensure that wash water (soapy or not) does not run into a street, gutter, or storm drain… Wash water from paved areas should be collected and diverted either into the sanitary sewer system or a landscaped area… Use different methods to protect the storm drain system… Ensure no soap stains remain on the ground.”

These byzantine regulations don’t just apply to high school sports teams struggling to raise money, but also to individuals who want to give their car a rinse.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading......

Steyer-Funded Study Boosts Fracking

A study released Monday that was co-financed by one of the highest-profile environmentalists in the country undercuts a chief objection to the innovative natural gas extraction technique known as hydraulic fracturing.

The study, conducted by scientists at the University of Texas Austin and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed small amounts of methane emissions associated with hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking.

“Based on the best information available to us today, shale has a clear benefit when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions,” said Steve Everley, a spokesman for the industry website Energy In Depth, citing the study.

The findings could weaken the environmentalist case against fracking, which relies in large measure on the contention that methane leaks at the site of natural gas extraction reduce or eliminate any greenhouse gas emission benefits associated with its use for electricity generation.

That contention relies primarily on the work of two scientists who have produced research showing high methane emissions associated with the fracking process itself.

One of those scientists, Cornell University geochemist Robert Howarth, told the Associated Press that the study released on Monday is “good news,” though he noted it represents “a best-case scenario.”

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

Enviros attack CA Dems’ fracking bill

Environmentalists are protesting a Democratic bill on its way to California Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk that would regulate — but not ban — hydraulic fracturing.

On Wednesday, California lawmakers passed a bill that would “erect a permitting system, mandate groundwater monitoring and dictate more disclosure, including having fracking firms notify neighbors of planned wells and release more information about the chemicals they shoot underground,” The Fresno Beer reports.

Environmental activists were displeased.

“This bill will not protect Californians from the enormous threats of fracking pollution,” said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “Fracking poses unacceptable risks to the air we breathe, the water we drink and our climate. We’ll keep working to end this inherently dangerous activity in our state.”

The Center for Biological Diversity is part of Californians Against Fracking — a coalition of environmental groups that have been pushing for a complete ban on fracking in California and have adamantly opposed the more moderate bill, which has been backed by state Democrats.

“There’s only one prudent next step to protect California’s water, air, and climate – for Governor Brown to place an immediate moratorium on fracking, acidizing, and other unconventional methods of exploiting fossil fuels,” said Victoria Kaplan, campaign director at MoveOn.org.

However, state Democrats have supported the bill despite the fact that it’s not a complete moratorium on fracking.

“I still believe that a moratorium is the best way to go with respect to fracking,” said Democratic Assemblyman Richard Bloom, “but this bill is the next best alternative.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Enviros claim Keystone will raise carbon emissions

Environmentalists are taking up President Obama’s challenge to prove that the Keystone XL pipeline will significantly raise carbon dioxide emissions and increase global warming.

A report issued by environmentalists on Thursday claims to give Obama “all of the information he needs to reject” the pipeline as it will increase Canadian tar sands oil production by 36 percent which will significantly increase carbon emissions.

“The answer to the president’s Keystone XL climate challenge is clear: the Keystone XL pipeline is a linchpin to tar sands development, and increased tar sands development would be disastrous for the climate. The president must reject the pipeline,” reads the report by the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment America and Oil Change International.

The document also downplayed the effect alternative modes of transport such as trains, trucks, and other pipelines would have on carbon emissions.

“There is no question the American public is going to give more credibility to the Department of State, IHS CERA, and even prominent climate scientists, who have all said that Keystone XL will not significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions,” said Katie Brown of Oil Sands Fact Check.

Environmentalists have stood firm in their criticism of the Keystone pipeline, despite remarks made by climate experts that the project would have little, if any, effect on global warming.

Harvard climate scientist David Keith told Nature that, “The extreme statements — that this is ‘game over’ for the planet — are clearly not intellectually true.”

“I don’t believe that whether the pipeline is built or not will have any detectable climate effect,” Ken Caldeira, climate researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science, told Nature.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

CA Sales Tax Revenue Nosedives by 33.5%

We were severely criticized last week by the left and the right for publishing, “Calif. default risk turns Gov. Brown into a capitalist.“ The report highlighted that Gov. Jerry Brown is steamrolling environmentalists and regulators to generate more state tax revenue by expediting approval of pro-business infrastructure.

But our detractors were stunned to learn from State Controller John Chiang that California’s July sales tax revenue was down 33.5 percent from that anticipated by the state budget approved in late June by the Legislature.  Even more ominously, the state’s $9.6 billion cash deficit that was rolled over from the June 30 fiscal year has catapulted to $18 billion last month.

The state has avoided default by temporarily borrowing from state trust funds, but those accounts will soon need their cash back to continue operating.  Today California quickly began trying to sell $10 billion in municipal bonds to fund the record $28 billion they need to keep the lights on.  With tax revenue plummeting and the state already having the second-lowest rated credit in the country, if the independent credit rating agencies downgrade the state to “junk bond,” California will be short up to $18 billion and default.

Brown used his line-item veto authority to strike $128.9 million in spending from the $91.3 billion California general fund before signing the state budget.  Brown’s cuts surprisingly hit Democrat priorities, such as spending for child care and preschool for low-income children, and closing 30 state parks.

But Republican Senator Tom Berryhill warned Brown: “This budget is a slow-motion train wreck, and you’re driving the bus.”  Berryhill criticized Democrats for failing to rein in public pensions and regulatory terrorism, and to and cap state spending. Those all are things Republicans say are needed to rescue state government.

Via: CA Political Review

Continue Reading...