Look out for the "Coercive power of government" | Tim Talk | Tim Hunt | PleasantonWeekly.com |

Local Blogs

Tim Talk

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add...  (More)

View all posts from Tim Hunt

Look out for the "Coercive power of government"

Uploaded: Sep 13, 2016
Grab your wallet and prepare for much more government intervention in your life.
Gov. Jerry Brown directly said so last week when he signed SB 32, the re-written law to battle climate change.
Brown said that residents and businesses were going to feel the “coercive power of government.”
The new law doubles the already ambitious goal of reducing carbon emissions below 1990 levels to 40 percent by 2030. Previously, it was a 20 percent reduction by 2020. The state has made progress, but a study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that current policies will get only about halfway to the new goal.

Thus you can expect both innovative and draconian approaches. That will be particularly true in trucking and cars where electric cars, despite hefty rebates, make up a tiny portion of the overall fleet.
What’s even worse is that the Legislature continued to empower the state’s Air Resources Board, which is an appointed body, to take the measures it deems necessary without any regard to the economy or impact on the residents.
Those of us who have watched the unrelenting regulation from the Bay Area air board shudder. A number of years ago, that body declared war on wood-burning fireplaces and now has banned them entirely unless they are new models certified for minimal pollution by the EPA and the sole source of heat.
Proponents argue that their theory that man’s activities are causing the climate to change (as opposed to the natural cycles such as two Ice Ages) require these steps. Democratic Sen. Fran Pavley said the reductions under the original climate change bill show that California can have a vibrant economy and meet the goals. That may be true in her area and for her family, but it certainly not is the case statewide.
This time around, experts and academics in the field, warn that it will take dramatically tougher regulations across all sectors of the economy to move the needle and there’s no guarantee.
There’s also no guarantee that the regulations will have the hoped-for effect on carbon emissions and the climate. What is pretty much guaranteed is regulations will be issued without any regard to the impacts on people or the economy.
In addition, this is a state of haves and have-nots. Folks living in the Bay Area working in the technology industry are doing well—you cannot say the same for many people living up and down the great Central Valley as well as poorer residents living in coastal cities.
Brown long has pushed California to the forefront of all things environmental and hopes to leverage this legislation to convince other states to join in his vision.

Generally, I do not go the movies other than on rare occasions. However, I made an exception to see Sully, which describes our hometown “Hero of the Hudson” Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and the travails he went through after he successfully landed the Airbus 320 in the Hudson River and saved the lives of 155 people.
Clint Eastwood directed the film and Tom Hanks plays Sully. We were seated toward the front of the theater and I originally had planned to move farther back once the film started. I found it so gripping that we never moved.
It a movie worth seeing and a great story that is devoid of tawdry language or sex.
Incidentally, as it relates to the earlier comment, check out the government regulators and investigators.
Local Journalism.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Sep 13, 2016 at 5:22 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

The BAAQMD lists a staff of 340 people.
The BAAQMD payroll spread sheet shows a payroll of 750 people.
The BAAQMD staff is actually 750 people, they simply do not list part time people as staff.
Jack Broadbent's salary is well over 400K.

BAAQMD payroll spread sheet lists the following payroll numbers for full time staff and part time people:

300 people salaries over 175K to 250K.
50 people salaries 160K to 225K.
250 people salries 120K to 115K.
55 people salaries 115K to 145K.
100 people salaries over 100K.
There are hundreds of part time people earning over 100K.

The BAAQMD is an out of control unelected bureaucracy that are appointed politicos.

Not a single person employed at BAAQMD is elected to the BAAQMD.

Posted by Hattie Neff Areddy, a resident of Alamo,
on Sep 16, 2016 at 5:13 pm

Dear Mr. Hunt:

Tell you what -- please take a look at this timeline, Web Link and then tell us in a new blog about all the Voluntary initiatives that you believe will stem the onrushing tide of climate catastrophe. You are twiddling while the planet burns.

Posted by Herman Glates, a resident of Danville,
on Sep 19, 2016 at 10:20 am

Herman Glates is a registered user.

You could get rid of every car, truck, power plant, heck everything in the state and it still wouldn’t do anything to stop climate change. California only produces 2% of global CO2 emissions.

You might get excited about reducing California emissions, but these tough emissions laws will merely push manufacturing out of state. You can’t just draw a circle around California and declare victory.

Most people want to stop Climate Change…they just don’t want to pay for it.

According to recent surveys, if the cost of fighting climate change is only an additional $1 a month, 57% of Americans said they would support that. At $10 a month, 39% were in favor and 61% opposed. At $50 a month, 20% were in favor, 80% opposed.

Web Link

California emissions rules are going to cost a lot more than $50 per month. If people knew what’s coming, they would be upset.

That’s why liberals and their media allies hide the price tag. Liberals know if they told the truth, they would lose support.

Liberals justify this deception, as they are trying to save the world from an even higher price tag of catastrophic climate change.

The problem with this logic is that it ignores that CO2 emissions from foreign countries like China and India are on course to explode. Global CO2 emissions will rise even if the US and Europe implement the CO2 cuts mandated by the Paris Accord.

If we truly want to stop climate change we must essentially ban all fossil fuel use immediately.

Sorry folks, that’s going to cost a lot more than $1 per month.

Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Sep 20, 2016 at 10:22 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

When a model cannot accurately reflect the past, it cannot accurately predict the future. I ask any "global warming" proponent to point out a scientific model that has been able to predict future warming, while simultaneously and accurately reflecting past climate.

They can't do it.

By arguing about the amount of taxes that might be levied, "deniers" have already given up the scientific fight.


Like everything else, when confronted with this inconvenient modeling fact libs will say "so YOU are a climate scientist?" but what they are really thinking is, "I better redirect the conversation because I really don't have an answer".

Same ol' playbook...


Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from PleasantonWeekly.com sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 1 comment | 1,458 views

Reflecting on lives this Thanksgiving Day
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 913 views