NC Media Watch

How many left wing NGOs does it take to enforce a governement mandate?

Russ Steele

I wrote about the House of Representatives attempt to restore sanity to the light bulb debate by restoring our ability to choose which bulb we use in our homes and businesses here. The government has mandated we all use CFLs manufactured in China, rather than the conventional incandescent bulbs we currently use. This is how our local lefty blogger and one of his trusty left wing commenter's view Congress's effort to restore our freedom of choice and remove dangerous mandated CFLs from our homes.  

How many far-right Congressmen does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
by jeffpelline

Editor’s note: While the House meets to vote on a GOP bill to overturn a 2007 light-bulb efficiency law  — p.r. grandstanding that will not see the “light of day” as signed legislation — here’s some background on how energy efficiency programs, including changing out light bulbs, is working in our region. What has the “new” House done for us?

Steven Frisch comments on the Sierra Foothills Report.

Sierra Business Council’s energy efficiency program has done more than 300 retrofits of commercial, municipal and non-profit facilities in the Sierra Nevada in the last 16 months (we don’t do residential).

ooo

The typical business will pay between 15-30% of the cost of equipment and installation, with the rest coming from the already existing public goods charge on their utility bill. The typical business pays back their initial cost in less than 6 months, and saves about 25-40% on their utility bill.

Taking into account the initial capital cost, operating costs, maintenance costs, financing costs, the expected useful life of equipment and future equipment salvage values the life cycle cost of the system shows the average business will save almost 50% of their utility bill.

For many businesses changing out light bulbs is part of the mix, but most also include changing fluorescent fixtures, control mechanisms, refrigeration measures, heating/cooling systems or even some natural gas measures. CFL’s account for less than 30% of the almost 10,000,000 kwh of we have saved since April of 2010.

For most business owners this is a straight economic equation–pay a little up front to realize savings for years–and thoughts of divisive national politics never even cross their minds.

Energy efficiency makes sense. Saving energy by utilizing existing infrastructure is cheaper for ratepayers than building new power plants. In many cases improved lighting can increase employee productivity, showcase products more effectively, reduce maintenance costs, reduce down time in facilities, oh yeah……as a side benefit…..reduce emissions which we all pay for through public health and other costs, otherwise known as externalities.

This is not a political issue. It is not about ‘freedom’. it is not about whether or not one believes in global warming. It is not about the definition of ‘consensus’. It is a hard, cold, honest business calculation.

Saving energy saves money. Period.

If this is such a good business decision, why does it take a government mandate and tax payer funded grant to SBC to make it happen?  Regardless of what we think about climate change, the government wants us to believe in global warming, so they an have an excuse for distributing our wealth and manage our behavior.

Why should PG&E charge each private utility user a carbon tax on their utility bill so that Sierra businesses can use that money to reduce their utilities bills? We are paying twice for this mandated government program, once on our utility bill and again to subsidize the Sierra Business Council to enforce the mandate. 

I want to thank Congressman McClintock and his peers for restoring our freedom of choice, and I encourage them to stop the EPA and PG&E from stealing our hard earned savings to solve a non-existing problem. There has been no global warming since 1998 and there is no valid science proving that that AGW is has contributed to past warming.  A government mandate destroys everyone's FREEDOM!

Prop 23 Update: Why the Left's Global Warming Agenda is WRONG!

Russ Steele

Below is mini-movie is based on Roy Spencer’s work to debunk the left’s global warming agenda. Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a former NASA climatologist and climate expert. He has just published “The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda.” You can order his book from Amazon here. It is available as a Kindle Book and you can start reading instantly! Here is a white board preview:



H/T to WUWT for video link.

It is true, compact fluorescent light bulbs can poision your children

Russ Steele

I wrote about the danger of these environmental bombs in an Off the Top of My Head Column for the CABPRO Report here. Mercury vapor released from broken compact fluorescent light bulbs can exceed safe exposure levels, according to a study published in Environmental Engineering Science.  Mary Ann Liebert, Inc covers the report in Genetic Engineering News, the details are at Watts Up With That.

New Rochelle, NY, July, 6, 2011—Once broken, a compact fluorescent light bulb continuously releases mercury vapor into the air for weeks to months, and the total amount can exceed safe human exposure levels in a poorly ventilated room, according to study results reported in Environmental Engineering Science, a peer-reviewed online only journal published monthly by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (www.liebertpub.com).

The amount of liquid mercury (Hg) that leaches from a broken compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) is lower than the level allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), so CFLs are not considered hazardous waste. However, Yadong Li and Li Jin, Jackson State University (Jackson, MS) report that the total amount of Hg vapor released from a broken CFL over time can be higher than the amount considered safe for human exposure.

My emphasis added.  We have removed all the CFLs from our house, and are now hoarding regular bulbs, enough for our use until 2016, when we can be assured of a Republican victory in the House, Senate and White House and we can put an end to this lunacy of poisoning our children and grand children with government mandated CFLs to save the planet from global warming.

Exit Questions: Are you still using CFLs? Why?

Over the e-mail transom: A peek at California's solar future?

Russ Steele

Several readers have sent me a link to this article on one of Germany's solar farms.

Two years ago, Germany unveiled its latest planet-saving (and heavily subsidised) solar park:

The Leipziger Volkszeitung newspaper:

‘The park is finally realized,’ beams mayor Carina Radon (CDU) nowadays, and praised the 7.5 million Euro investment. 36,300 modules will be installed in the weeks ahead. It will generate an annual amount of 2.7 million kilowatt-hours. The facility will produce a peak amount of 2722 kilowatts.

But when the subsides ran out the developers lost interest and stopped cutting the grass.  Will this happend in California when the subsides run out?


More at this solar failure at the NoTricksZone.

Electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket” - Obama in 2008.

Russ Steele

Newsalert writes that the pagan religion of "environmentalism" may be driving us all into the poor house.

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation's electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

When the wind stops blowing and the sun is not shining and the coal power plant are gone and cannot take up the slack, there will be black outs and brown outs. In some cases all those people with smart meters in their AC and Furnace Units will get a warnimg as PG&E shuts of their AC's power. As the AC shuts down it will be head up to start the generator to protect their power sensative electronic equipment from the brown which is sure to follow.

Over the email transon: A rent seeking request from PG&E(Updated)

Russ Steele

A rent seeking request came in yesterdays email from our good global warmer friends at PG&E, they want me to jack up my electric bill by five buck a month to save the planet.  That was followed by a jump in our PG&E bill which required a call to find out why. According to PG&E we used more gas due to the excessive cold month of May? And, now they want us to join the global warmers club.  They need a new marketing plan, if it is extra cold out who is going to pay for global warrming, especially when they are paying PG&E for the extra gas.

Join your neighbors in the fight against climate change.
Did you know that every time you watch TV, turn on a light or heat your home, greenhouse gases (GHG) are emitted into the atmosphere? The ClimateSmart program is an easy way to balance out your home’s GHG emissions. Join the 30,000 customers who’ve enrolled in the program and have helped reduce carbon emissions equivalent to taking 74,000 cars off the road for one year!
 
Go carbon neutral for about the cost of a cup of coffee.
When you join the ClimateSmart program, a tax-deductible donation will be added to your PG&E bill based on your home’s energy use that month. For less than $5 a month, your contributions to the program will help reduce GHG emissions through environmental conservation, restoration and protection projects right here in California. Sign up today.

Exit Question: Would you pay PG&E five bucks a month in guilt restitution to reduce your greenhouse gases?

Note, I left out the link to sign up. They are on their own in promoting this fraud on California rate payers.

Update (06-02-11, 21:11) PG&E is not giving up the sent another e-mail with the same message along with this graphic:

They are clueless, the climate is cooling! 

Prop 23 Update: Social engineering hits a snag - personal perference

Russ Steele

As a Transportation Commissioner I often wrote about transportation issues in The Union and on this blog, especially about the transit issues.  Local liberals often cited the need for more public transit, yet even a casual observer could see all the empty seats on the Gold County Stage. People were not using the existing service and their was no indication that anything would change.

San Francisco was often cited by our local liberals as a example of great public transportation.  An they were right. A new study by the Brookings Institution found that compared with the rest of the nation, the Bay Area has good public transportation.

So…if Bay Area transit is so good, why doesn't anybody seem to take it, asks Gretchen Weber in a KQED Climate Watch article here.

Just one out of ten people in the Bay Area commute by public transportation, according to John Goodwin of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. He says that number hasn't changed much over the years, despite huge investments in the system. And the Bay Area isn't alone in that. A recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that between 1990 and 2008, the share of commuters taking transit increased by less than one percentage point, from 5% to 5.5%, despite the construction of 217 new rail stations, and the fact that more than a third of California's transportation spending since the early 1980s has gone to public transit.

"The California public likes the idea of public transit in the sense that they highlight it as a place where we should be investing a lot of our dollars," said the PPIC's Ellen Hanak. "But there is a gap between what people say, and how they actually sort of vote with their feet. It’s almost like people would like their neighbors to take transit so they could have fewer cars on the road."

Now if you recall Senate Bill 375 was passed in 2009 to nudge regional planning agencies into linking land use and transit in ways that will get people to drive less.  Transportation makes up 37% of all greenhouse gas emissions in California, so to reduce those gases there has to be fewer people on the road.  In other words to reduce vehicle miles traveled and CO2 by15%, CARB wants to force people to use public transportation, by mandating all future housing and commercial development be transit centric. 

The problem, the people have demonstrated with their feet, even with huge investment in transit funding, they are not going to use public transit. Social engineering only works if it take in to account how people really act, not now the liberals would like them act. Reality is a power force for change.

Climate Courtroom Worm Has Turned

Russ Steele

John O'Sullivan has the story here.

In a landmark court ruling in New Zealand that will send tremors around the world, the once respected Greenpeace is stripped of its charity status.
 
High Court Judge, Justice Paul Heath made the groundbreaking decision today after overwhelming evidence was presented that proved that the organization's illegal activities were motivated by zealous political advocacy and crossed the line of what charities are permitted to do.

Arrogance often leads to over stepping one's boundaries and leads to destruction. It appears that Greenpeace is on the that path. 

As a consequence of the shock New Zealand ruling Greenpeace’s political activities mean it will be de-registered as a charity and thus lose the prestige and tax advantages associated with that status.

Stay Tuned. Can a US lawsuit be just around the corner to strip them of their non-profit tax status?

Cost of CARB: A few words on supply and demand

Russ Steele

The Board of Supervisor and local city leaders held and economic seance in Truckee earlier this week and they heard a presentation by Lloyd De Llamas, a financial analyst from HDL Companies, based in Diamond Bar, Calif on the local economy. Detail were published in The Union here.

De Llamas, called to give an update on sales tax estimates, said the state is recovering — banks are lending money again, car sales are going up significantly and business and industrial investments are showing a rebound — all according to an HDL study.

However, De Llamas said it is anticipated Nevada County won't recover as fast as other California counties in terms of sales tax revenues due to a lack of key industries, including new car sales, business investments in high tech companies and gas sales. De Llamas also estimated that gas prices won't peak until mid-summer.

De Llamas explained that while the county receives sales taxes from gas sales, they will directly influence other sales negatively as low to middle income consumers continue to cut traveling and spending.

“Your going to grow, but you're not going to grow as fast as you will be reading about state-wide,” De Llamas said.

With gas prices soaring we are not going see much economic growth in Nevada County.  As pointed out by Llamas we have not it the peak vacation driving season, when gas is in highest demand. Five dollar a gallon gas will not help Nevada County's tourism economic sector.

George Rebane has some thought on the issue here: Memo to Obama on Gasoline Prices

Steve McCann writing at the American Thinker has some more thoughts on the issue in Gasoline and Dollars: Supply and Demand.

Note: Diesel prices will be covered in separate post. I spotted a potential problem in the chart that needs more work. 

How much did this GHG Inventory cost the County and Cities?

Russ Steele

This item was in the CEO Friday Letter

Grass Valley, Nevada City, and Nevada County Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Inventory Reports Completed: I recently received an email from the Sierra Business Council (SBC) informing us that Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Inventory Reports have been completed for Grass Valley, Nevada City, and Nevada County. The March 22 Board of Supervisors presentation on the Government Operations GHG Inventory report by SBC has generated press and public interest and SBC will be disseminating all three inventories to those interested in the topic. The email was also congratulatory of our staff’s professionalism, wise counsel and support, during the process of compiling this information. SBC is looking forward to working with us on the next phase of this process. SBC believes the inventory reports will benefit our communities by saving taxpayer money and allowing us to manage our resources more efficiently.

Exit questions: 

How much did this GHG Inventory Report Cost?

How much will the next phase cost the taxpayers?

Why are the County and Cities required to do GHG Inventories?

Why did the County use the rent seeking SBC to do a useless GHG Inventory?