Evidently satisfied with his vast share of political COVID19 lockdown hypocrisy, California Governor Gavin Newsom Friday signed six bills he and his media preachers have promoted as great weapons in the battle against bogeyman “Anthropogenic Climate Change.”
None of the moves respects or even acknowledges individual liberty, property rights, or market choice. Not one of the bills increases competition in the energy-provision field. Not one of them is based on anything save manipulated and uncertain data and apocalyptic assumptions, and not one of the bills appears to have received much real scrutiny from the dinosaur media preachers mentioned above.
The six bills are part of a larger, 40-proposal lineup Newsom plans to make law over the next year. They are SB 1020, SB 1137, AB 1279, SB 905, SB 1314, and AB 1757, and Sharon Usadin’s “reporting” on them for The Hill is an example of the blissfully unquestioning manner in which some pop media members are approaching the governor’s agenda.
Each of the poisonous proposals could merit an entire article, but, as a first step, let’s look at the way in which Usadin reported on them, noting not only how Usadin assumes that the political language as acceptable, but also that the predicted outcomes of the policy as valid -- both of which are not proper.
"Among the bills Newsom signed into law on Friday — six of more than 40 in a broad climate package — was S.B. 1020, which focuses on creating a clean electricity grid.
S.B. 1020 will require 90 percent of California’s electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040 — interim targets toward a 100 percent goal for 2045.
In addition, all electricity procured for state agencies will need to come from clean energy by 2035, according to the bill.”
A brief pause, here, to ask why Usadin doesn’t tell us what she or the state call “clean” energy, to ask why the writer assumes the state should “create” or run an electricity grid when the corporation it granted near monopolistic control over wholesale energy provision, Pacific Gas and Electric, repeatedly has shown that it ALREADY cannot meet energy demands and its powerlines have been associated with sparks that start wildfires, and why Usadin does not look into whether the California or U.S. constitutions allow or prohibit state politicians changing the parameters of contracts people might already have established for their energy provision.
(A hint to Ms. Usadin: The U.S. Constitution’s Contract Clause prohibits state politicians from interceding in the fulfillment of existing private contracts, so, as precisely those kinds of intercessions, these “changes” Newsom signals are violations of the U.S. Constitution.)
Let’s continue with this wondrously unbiased report:
“Another key piece of legislation to become law was S.B. 1137, which will prohibit oil drilling within 3,200 feet of places where residents live, work and learn. The bill also ensures that comprehensive pollution controls are in place for existing oil wells already situated within 3,200 feet of such facilities.”
What if someone wants to drill on his or her own land within 3,200 feet of his or her home or workspace? How about a plot of land where one has received okays from neighbors? What happened to the history of tort law, where someone – a person, not the state – had to show real HARM to his person or property in order to bring suit, and where preemptive government blocks of peaceful action by property owner were seen as a sign of arbitrary authoritarianism?
Oh, and what do the state and Ms. Usadin mean by “learn”? That’s a pretty broad and malleable word…
Wait, there’s more…
“A bill focusing on carbon neutrality, A.B. 1279, establishes ‘a clear, legally binding and achievable goal’ that urges carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, according to the governor’s office.”
Well, since this is predicated on an unproven assumption, and no one has concretely shown that “carbon” is harming anyone else -- let alone how much of a carbon increase or decrease over how long would constitute atmospheric change that would have a detrimental effect on another person or someone else’s property, nor how detrimental that effect might be – this is yet another example of the “reporter” simply accepting errant nonsense and regurgitating it without definition or question.
Here's more, for Californians, and other Americans, since California often sets the stage for leftist augmentation on a federal level or mimicry in other states:
“A.B. 1279 also sets an 85 percent emissions reduction target for that year and a 40 percent reduction target for 2030, in comparison to 1990 levels.
S.B. 905 and S.B. 1314 are centered on the development of carbon capture and removal technologies, which aim to take carbon dioxide generated by power plants out of the atmosphere and store it permanently.”
Again, without even addressing the catastrophic consequences this kind of mandate will visit onto employers and workers of most industries in California, the sheer blindness Usadin exhibits regarding schemes such as “carbon capture and removal technologies” what they cost, whether they work, and whether they are necessary in the first place (they are not) is stunning.
And, finally, we have:
“The bills establish a regulatory framework for the advancement of these emerging technologies, while also banning the injection of carbon dioxide into wells — a practice that enhances oil recovery.
A.B. 1757 focuses on nature, by requiring the state to develop an achievable carbon removal target for natural and working lands, according to the governor’s office.”
Amazing. "Clean" energy... "Clean electric grid"... "Carbon Neutrality"... "Create" jobs... "Regulatory framework" for "advancement of these emerging technologies..." "comprehensive pollution controls for existing oil wells..."
As I noted, each of these bills, now "law," could serve as the focus of many paragraphs to strip them of this childish play-acting gloss and show that they only say one thing: Mandates. And they all are premised on absolutely zero justification when it comes to any injury to real people. None has been proven in a court of law. No "carbon emitter" ever has been sued by a person for tortious injury and had to pay out for having caused an injury. In fact, deriving energy from the burning of petroleum, coal, and natural gas has proven to be a massive benefit to people, worldwide.
And there’s a lot more, with the bulk of Newsom’s agenda ready to race through the California Assembly next year, and the year after that, if not all the bills are passed. For an excellent overview, I suggest reading Caden Pearson’s well-written piece just published in The Epoch Times.
And for the Governor and politicians running California further into the proverbial ground, I suggest they look into the decades of fraudulent moves backing much of the Climate Cult’s fearmongering over what is a nonexistent threat.
Then, they can read their state constitution and the federal constitution, to see how completely dismissive of their abiding oaths they are when they push authoritarian idiocy like this.