NC Media Watch

The numbers do not support lefty elitist thinking

Russ Steele

Spend some time checking out the local blog-o-sphere and you will find a common thread coming from the self-described liberals and progressives in blog posts and the comment sections suggesting that the political right are ignoramuses.  If you are a Tea Party Patriot,  you are a special nutcase ignoramuses in the local left leaning blogs. Here are some representative examples from the Sierra Foothill Report and this blog’s comments:

•  Curtis Walker at SFR:
“The only problem is when someone(s) [Tea Party] are so pig headed in their thinking this will not change them because facts have no meaning to them.”

•  Kate Hancock at SFR:
“The great news about this election, is after the tea party happily jumped into bed with their corporatist and GOP masters, who are they going to call–an exorcist?”

•  Douglas Keachie at SFR:
“TPP, Delusional Forever!”

•  Steve Enos at SFR:
"The Tea Party is being used and is being bought and paid for...."

•  Tom Grundy at SFR:
“It’s [Tea Party] a pyramid scheme – you can bet there are more than a few folks laughing all the way to the bank over the fact that undirected fear and anger, on a national scale, has been spun into a ‘political movement’. And you can bet the rest of the world is just plain laughing.”

•  Jeff Pelline at NCMW:
"I remain embarrassed by some of the opinions that are expressed in our community — uneducated, uninformed and extremist."

•  Pat Waynne at SFR:
"Tea Party: corporate puppets, as promoted by Dick Army, FOX and Rupert Murdock, Koch Bros. etc. If you like the corporate lifestyle, Big Boss sitting in your living room, telling you what to eat, drink, clothes to wear, how to brush your teeth, rise your kids, join the Tea Party."

•  Sierra Foothill Report:
And finally, here is a really mean spirited post at the Sierra Foothill Report: Hi, I’m a Tea Partier

I think the above are representative of the local progressive thinking. However, for the purposes of discussion, let's just assume that local conservatives and Tea Party members are in fact ignoramuses. Even if that were the case, this would still be a losing electoral proposition as shown by this graph and the facts below:

Americans older than 18 registered to vote with a college degree represent only 32% of the voting population.  Those with an advanced degree represent only 11% of the population registered to vote. In June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates, and 22% as liberals. Here are some local registration numbers at Inside Nevada County Politics. 

For those smart folks on the left there is no need to explain the corresponding electoral implications.  November 2nd is just the starting point for those  “ignoramuses” Tea Parters to exert their political mussel at the ballot box.

It should also be fairly obvious that when highly educated people tell those who are less educated that they are too stupid to know better, it probably does not lead to acceptance of claims to authority, much less reinforce trust in their lefty proclamations.  In fact, it might even have the opposite effect. 

For those on the left who spend a lot of time explaining how intelligent they are, their politics are not always as smart.  A more evident fact is, if the left has to continually explain how intelligent they are, they aren't as intelligent as they think they are.  

H/T to Roger Pielke Jr for suggesting this line of thought at: The simple man’s math.  He was discussing the larger blogosphere and global warming.  When reading his post, I was reminded of our local lefty elites and how they disparage the Tea Party and any conservative bloggers who defends Tea Party Principles: Fiscal responsibility, limited government, free markets, and respect for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

H/Tip to WUWT for the link to the Pielke post.

Prop 23 Update: If Prop 23 loses, what is the next step?

Russ Steele

In an SEPP Science Editorial this morning, Dr S. Fred Singer  Chairman, and President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) suggests one course of action.

Why the Confusion about Global Warming?

No one denies that the Earth has warmed in the past century. So of course, the past decade must be the warmest – even though there has been no upward trend since the 1998 temperature peak. [Note the important distinction between temperature level (measured in deg C or deg F) and trend (expressed in deg C per year).] The dispute is (and always has been) about the cause of the warming. In fact, the major warming during the first 50 years of the 20th century and the latter part of the 19th century is generally accepted to be natural – a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

But there’s no credible evidence that identifies the most recent warming as human-caused. On the contrary, while the UN’s IPCC claims to be quite certain that it is anthropogenic, the independent NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) concludes that “Nature – Not Human Activity – Rules the Climate.” See http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

In this connection note the obfuscatory language used by the EPA in turning down all of the ‘Petitions for Reconsideration’ of its Endangerment finding on CO2: “The scientific evidence supporting EPA's finding is robust, voluminous, and compelling. Climate change is happening now, and humans are contributing to it. Multiple lines of evidence show a global warming trend over the past 100 years. Beyond this, melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, altered precipitation patterns, and shifting patterns of ecosystems and wildlife habitats all confirm that our climate is changing.”

Yet there is no evidence at all that humans are indeed contributing to warming in a significant way. We’ll see you in court, dear EPA, and gladly examine your “compelling” evidence! (Color emphasis added)

Will California citizens groups follow the same course of action?  Take CARB and AB32 to court where they can prove that humans are causing global warming and prove their science is stong enough to demand that citizen must pay billions of fees and taxes to stop it.   It is time to start thinking about the alternatives.

Prop 23 Update: The True Cost of Wind Energy

Russ Steele

I have written about the cost of wind enegy before, using information collected from the european wind farms. Now Tony Rose and Michael J. Economides writing in the Energy Tribune with a US perspective on wind energy issues. You will clearly see why your energy bills are going to go UP under AB32!

 
Wind energy is the environmentalists’ great energy hope, but two inconvenient truths seem to come between fantasy and reality.

1. Study after study shows that wherever wind development was put in place, natural gas demand went up and the environmental benefits were the opposite of what the advocates expected.

“Cycling” coal plants to accommodate wind generation makes the plants operate inefficiently, which drives up emissions. Moreover, when they are not operated consistently at their designed temperatures, the variability causes problems with the way they interact with their associated emission control technologies, frequently causing erratic emission behavior that can last for several hours before control is regained. Ironically, using wind to a degree that forces utilities to temporarily reduce their coal generation results in greater SO2, NOX and CO2 than would have occurred if less wind energy was generated and coal generation was not impacted.”

2. There is a huge disparity between installed capacity and actual output into the system. In many cases the actual output in the system is less than 20% and in some cases even far less.

There are other unsavory facts that are included in these graphics such as the area required by a wind farm compared to, e.g., nuclear power plant. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas occupies 100,000 acres for a bit less than 800 MW of installed capacity; the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona occupies 4,050 acres (4 percent of the Texas wind farm) but has a 500 percent larger power capacity (almost 4,000 MW.)

Even more obscene are the government subsidies that go into wind power. For an energy source that barely exceeds one percent of energy output, wind subsidies are $23 per megawatt hour, about 60 times of the $0.44 per megawatt hour that go to the mainstay of US electrical power output, coal and 100 times the $0.25 per megawatt hour that go to natural gas, the two sources that account for over 70 percent of US power supply. Way to go for social engineering.

Read the rest of the article here, as they have some very telling graphics, which illistrate the cost issues for visual learners.

Prop 23 Update: Is all of Silicon Valley in the AB-32 bag?

Russ Steele

Well not really!  Here is an article by T.J. Rogers the founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor a solar panel and integrated circuit manufacure.  Mr Rogers writes:  Prop 23 and the Green Jobs Myth

Californians could protect a million or so jobs by overturning the state’s self-imposed carbon dioxide limits.

I have an indelible memory of the one time I was on Rodeo Drive. There she was, a rotund matron dressed in a pink sequined jumpsuit, exiting a limousine and handing her three toy poodles to the doorman at an upscale shop specializing in $1,000 purses. It’s a perfect metaphor for California’s economy: We ignore the important, focus on the trivial, and spend way too much money in the process.

While our state government frets over issues like the disclosure of trans fat on restaurant menus and the habitat of the red-legged frog, our economy - the habitat of homo sapiens - is a disaster. Jobs and the companies that produce them are being pushed out of the state by excessive taxes and regulations. We have borrowed to the limit and at times have been forced to pay state employees and vendors with vouchers until more cash could be secured.

California, which once plowed through recessions, now has 12.4% unemployment, third worst in the nation. CEOs surveyed nationally by Chief Executive magazine recently rated California the worst state for business, for the fifth consecutive year. My company, Cypress Semiconductor, has recently stepped up its contributions of food and money - and even donated an extra warehouse building - so that San Jose’s Second Harvest Food Bank can feed the swelling number of hungry people in Silicon Valley.

Californians have voted to avert economic disaster before. In 1967, we elected Ronald Reagan as governor. After improving our economy, he led the nation out of Carternomics. Then in 1978, we passed Proposition 13, which still limits property taxes to 1% of assessed value, a lifesaver today as our rapacious state government scrounges for revenue rather than cuts spending.

In a few days, we Californians have another chance to restore our competitiveness. We can elect as governor Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO, to make the structural changes necessary to stem the flow of jobs out of California. Or we can elect Jerry Brown, a recycled governor who took interim jobs as state attorney general and mayor of Oakland, where, under his administration, the public schools were taken over by the state for gross mismanagement. For U.S. senator we can elect either Barbara Boxer, another business-hostile veteran politician, or former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who understands the economic problems we face.

Why is CARB’s Cap and Trade Different from Obama’s Cap and Trade?

Russ Steele

President Obama made is very clear that under his Cap and Trade (TAX) program electric rates will skyrocket. 



Why should we to assume that under CARB’s Cap and Trade (TAX) program the results will be any different? 

President Barack Obama's Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects for various sources of electricity per megawatt hour in 2016 (in 2008 dollars):

• Conventional coal power: $78.10
• Onshore wind power: $149.30
• Offshore wind power: $191.10
• Thermal solar power: $256.60
• Photo-voltaic solar power: $396.10

Why should we assume that CARB’s alternative energy cost will be any different?  And, as the President made very clear the costs will be passed on to consumers. That is you!  Vote YES on Prop 23

Compared to what? (Updated 10-31-10)

Russ Steele

Every time I read statements like this from the Sierra Foothill Report, I have to ask compared to what? 

The Internet is changing the media landscape. This blog broke last month’s record for traffic four days ago and continues to grow every month. We are in unchartered territory.

I have to agree that the Internet is changing the media landscape, and I congratulate Jeff Pelline on his growth. For the last month SFR traffic is up 400%, and for three months SFR traffic is up 100%, according to Alexa, the Web Information Company.  It appears that both of our blog sites are growing and gaining more readership. NCMW traffic is down 3% for the last month, but up 710% for the three month period.  It is hard to sustain such rapid growth.

We are both members of Sac Connect and have gained traffic from that association, according to Alexa.  NCMW Sacramento ranking is 4,589  and SFR is 6,632. The Lower the number the higher the rank. NCMW is ranked 28,651 in the US and SFR is ranked 234,721.  Again,the highest rank would be #1.

The growth in the Number of Blogs in Nevada County, each with a growing audience, is certainly changing the media landscape.  Stay Tuned! 

Update #1: (10-31-10, 19:00)  Here are the stats from StatCounter my third party tracking service:

Update #2 (10-31-10, 19:45) Check this out NC Media Watch vs The Union

 

Prop 23 Is All About Saving California’s Economy

Russ Steele

Ben Boychuk writing at National Review Online cover some to the Prop 23 and AB32 issues that we have been writing about on this blog.

The ongoing fight over California’s Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, isn’t really about combating climate change. It’s about jobs and profits and — more important — losses.

On Tuesday Californians will vote on Proposition 23, which is dubbed the California Jobs Initiative by its backers and called much less charitable names by its opponents. The purpose of the initiative is to soften the effect of AB 32’s draconian rules and regulations, which are aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent by 2020. According to Prop. 23 supporters, those regulations will worsen the state’s already awful economy and raise unemployment even beyond its current desperate level.

You can read the whole article here, but his was my favorite paragraphs.

Less rosy still is a little-noticed and little-discussed draft report circulated last year by the California Air Resources Board’s economic and allocation advisory committee. In it, the panel seriously contemplates using some of the hundreds of millions of dollars the state hopes to collect in carbon “allowance fees” to pay the unemployment benefits of people thrown out of work by new regulations.

And that’s not all. “Some firms are likely to experience a reduction in profits as a result of AB 32,” the draft report says. “This burden depends on the extent to which costs rise and the extent to which firms can pass these cost-increases forward to consumers.” Those candid assessments somehow did not end up in the committee’s final report, published in January.

CARB knows that AB 32 is a job killer, and now you know.  VOTE YES on PROP 23.

Prop 23 Update: A “green company” is leaving California for Florida - why?

Russ Steele

Lighting Science Group of Rancho Cordova is closing their California facility and laying off 50 employees. Lighting Science is an environmentally responsible company that develops LED lighting systems for business and industry.  They created the very green Times Square crystal ball that signals the start of a new year on New Years Eve.

From the LSG web site:

Energy conservation and environmental responsibility have become the most important issues in the lighting industry today—and Lighting Science is the leader in developing innovative “green” LED lighting solutions.

We believe that in order to manufacture and to market sustainable products, we must begin by committing to sustainable practices in our sourcing, product development, manufacture and delivery.  Our commitment extends to the use of our own products in all of our facilities, recycled materials and soy based inks in all of our packaging and promotional literature, and a program designed to take back old technology lamps and fixtures that are replaced by our LED products and guarantee that they are disposed of in a responsible way.  Our technology is completely “clean” and recyclable, our LED lamps and fixtures contain no pollutants such as mercury or other hazardous materials.

Beyond saving energy and building a more sustainable world, we are committed to saving our customers money starting day one.  By reducing energy and maintenance costs, sourcing utility and government rebates and  offering the unique Lighting Science Cash Flow Positive (CFP) program we can provide you with a financially responsible way to go “green”  allowing you to shrink your carbon footprint the minute the lights are switched on.

Lighting Science Group of Rancho Cordova is closing their California facility and consolidating their operations in Florida.  Why are they leaving California?  The primary reason is the shrinking economy is forcing consolidation.  The secondary reason is California's highly regulated business environment. They had a choice -- consolidate in Florida or California.  They decided that Florida had a much more business friendly environment, thus they are leaving California, laying off 50 employees that will not be moving to Florida.

Green companies will be California’s economic salvation according to Steven Frisch, Sierra Business Council, President in a debate on the viability of Prop 23, now this one is leaving the state. If California is the land of milk and honey for green business, and our economic salvation, how long is it going to take for the green economy to emerge if "green companies" continue to leave the state?  Perhaps Steven Frisch has the answer?

Exit Question: Will more "green companies" be leaving California for more business friendly states?

Will green businesses produce needed revenue for local governments?(edited)

Russ Steele

The weekly County Executive Officers report by Rick Haffey containes some interesting information that could have some long term impacts on how quickly our local economy. The report contains an economic report to County employees and an update on the 2 Qtr Sale Tax receipts.  From the report it is clear that County Tax Revenues are declining and we discover in the report that government bureaucrats are exempting green businesses from paying critically needed sales and use taxes.   

Declining Tax Revenue (Haffey Report to County Employees)

Unfortunately, our property taxes and frankly virtually all revenues throughout the County services
have been declining and there is no clear cut signal of economic recovery. This sets up a twofold
problem. First, the decline in revenues will force us to reduce expenditures once again in 2011/12 and
second there is no new revenues to pay for cost increases, the largest of which is salary and benefits,
which will cause us to reduce expenditures even further in 2011/12. You will see in the report that in
the General Fund alone we are now estimating a $5.5 million budget gap for 2011/12

Green Energy Exemptions ( From the Sale Tax Report produced by Hdl Companies )



If green manufacturing and energy production companies can get sales and use tax exemptions under AB 71, one has to wonder how are Counties and Cities are going benefit from having these industries with in their jurisdictions?  These green businesses require infrastructure support and services, but can apply for sales taxes and user fees exepmtions.  According to the write up in the graphic above local governments have been shut out of the discussions and there is no cap on the value of State and Local sales tax exemptions that the California Alternative Energy and Advance Transportation Financing Authority may approve. 

With the CAEATFE under the influence of green manufacturing funded lobbyists it does not appear that local governments will benefit from having green industries in their communities. This Green Manufacturing Cabal has spend $30 million to defeat Prop 23, and they will spend even more to insure their green companies will benefit from SB 71 exemptions, while stiffing local governments dependent on the tax revenue for survival. Local governments will have to pay the infrastructure bill without any tax and fee benefits to offset their costs.

Exit Question: Maybe Steven Frisch at the Sierra Business Council can explain how communities will benefit from green industries that do not have to pay any sales taxes and user fees?

Prop 23 Update: CARB issues Cap and Tax details

Russ Steele

A staff report issued today by the state's Air Resources Board provides the first details of how a state-run cap-and-trade program would work.

It advocates starting out by having companies pay for one quarter of their permits to emit greenhouse gases.  The report pegs an initial "reserve" price at $10 per ton of carbon. The reserve price is intended to be a floor, if the permit trading market doesn't support a higher price.

It is interesting to note that a few weeks ago the price of carbon on the Chicago Climate Exchange drop to less than a nickel.  See the chart below for recent prices:


At its founding in November 2000, some estimated that the size of CCX’s carbon trading market could reach $500 billion. However, last week the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced that they were scrapping the existing carbon trading program, and will be focusing on a new one that deals with directly sold carbon offsets rather than open trading.

Air Board chair Mary Nichols said, in a release: “We have worked closely with all interested parties and stakeholders to make sure that the program provides flexibility to reach our emissions reduction goals while taking into consideration the current economic climate and the need to fully protect California’s economy.”

How can California sell carbon dioxide for $10.00 a ton when it is selling on the US market for 5 cents a ton? Do they think that we are that stupid?  A bag of charcoal BBQ briquettes is worth far more than a ton of carbon dioxide right now.

If Prop 23 does not pass this is the schedule to CARB's Cap and Tax program.

• The 45-day public comment period opens Monday, November 1st.
• During this time, ARB staff will continue to work with industry and other stakeholders to refine proposal and may recommend changes to Board
• Nov. 18, 2010: Staff will provide an overview of the proposed program to Board
• Dec. 16, 2010: Board will consider the proposed cap-andtrade
• program at its December meeting
• January through summer, 2011: Staff completes package of changes based on Board direction, and makes proposed changes available for public comment.

We can save CARB from all this stupidty by VOTING YES on PROP 23.

More details on CCX carbon trading at WUWT.