[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Carly Fiorina: Global Warming Denier?

by: Robert Cruickshank

Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 14:48:02 PM PDT


Most Californians accept the reality of global warming. They also understand that its effects are to be taken very, very seriously - from rising sea levels that threaten the SF Bay Area and the Port of LA-Long Beach to drought and firestorms to threats to the wine industry. Only a fool would say we have no reason to take quick and aggressive action on global warming to forestall and/or deal with these and other related impacts.

So does that make Carly Fiorina a fool? Or just a global warming denier? Check out what she told the Sacramento Bee:

Calling it an "unbelievable job killer," GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina today urged the elimination of California's landmark global warming law....

And she said the science involved in global warming should be subject to more scrutiny.

"I think we should have the courage always to examine the science," she said.

Fiorina, caring not a whit about the thousands of jobs AB 32 has created in the green tech industry, has apparently declared herself a climate scientist. She's offered no facts or analysis to support her claims that AB 32 kills jobs or that global warming science needs greater scrutiny.

More importantly, she's proved that she cares nothing at all for the millions of people who either live in a place or depend on places that will be underwater if the Greenland Ice Sheet or one of the Antarctic Ice Sheets melts in the coming years and decades.

I guess all those people who live and work in those areas don't count as much as the handful of folks who might possibly be impacted by AB 32. Not to Fiorina, who seems to believe that any change to the status quo is bad, even if that change is designed to avert catastrophe in the near future.

Robert Cruickshank :: Carly Fiorina: Global Warming Denier?
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Go with the Senate Bill (2.00 / 1)
Instead of spending time/money/effort debating AB 32 anymore, all parties should agree to table the entire thing until we resolve what we're going to do at the federal level. As Mary Nichols pointed out yesterday, it was one thing when there was an administration that had no intention of dealing with GHGs. Things have changed. There will be federal climate legislation. Based on what I've seen of the newest Senate bill (Kerry/Lieberman/Graham), it's got a great chance of passing and succeeding (does some very smart things that the current drafts of our reg do not). More importantly, it places a moratorium on states establishing their own separate GHG limits. Why waste more time/money/effort on something that's simply going to be unwound in a few years?

California can beam rays of green tech out of it's rear end and it's not going to matter if the rest of the country and the rest of the world doesn't follow. Those ice caps will still melt.  


RE: Go With the Senate Bill (0.00 / 0)
Wow, that's probably one of the most absurd justifications for inaction I've ever heard. While I don't agree, at least Carly had the guts to say she thinks scientists don't know what they're doing and their findings should be analyzed by non-scientists.

While we're at it I assume you think we should we scale back our auto guidelines, discrimination policies as well as employee rights and wage standards to meet the bare federal minimum.

As for California producing green tech and it not being necessary, as I assume you know a large majority of the right wing entertainment (see Hannity's 102 ways the stimulus money is being wasted*) is blasting transitioning to green power because we'd have to buy technology from other countries rather than purchase within the country. Technology that California would be producing once AB32 gets full implementation. Having production going on within our borders would take away many arguments from global warming deniers.

A step in the right direction may only be a step, but it's easier to take a second step once the first has been taken.

*I know almost all of the programs in his list have been debunked, but it's still a good example of the tactics of the deniers.


[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
Ensuring that our state regulatory agency builds a universe that doesn't fall apart two days later isn't my definition of "inaction", but rather, good public policy. What part of my statement made you believe I was "questioning the science"? I advocated going forward with proposed federal legislation which, if you are familiar with the policy, is much better crafted than the plan being posited by the ARB.

#1 - Cap and Trade was not originally conceived as a cross-sector program (SO2 pilot). Different sectors are at different stages of control technology and face completely different challenges to reign in carbon. Forcing them to compete with one another, instead of within entities of like sectors rewards inaction in sectors which have had available compliance options and punishes good actors in sectors whose options have lagged behind. This approach actually artificially increases the price of carbon, which benefits sectors who are net suppliers of allowances.

The Kerry/Lieberman/Graham bill isolates sectors, in my estimation, correctly.  

#2 - California can produce green tech in the absence of a state bill. As of today, there's no official plan for auction revenues (and there's only been a recommendation to auction...also one to allocated in the first few years, then auction later), so it's not like green tech can count on a windfall of subsidies in the next several years. The carbon market is already global. California and the United States are actually way late to the ball game.

#3 - Mary Nichols herself said the political realities on the federal level have changed since Nov. 2008. We're going to get federal climate legislation and it will most likely preempt state programs. And designing a system this complex means you can't just unwind things on a dime when we realize we're running an program incompatible with the feds. We need additional time to study how linkage with a final federal program will work.

#4 - Be careful to inject strawmen into this argument with people who are, in good faith, advocating for climate legislation, just not the one you think you like. The politics of this thing are easy. The policy is not. There's a reason a lot of money is being injected into this debate by industry. And, contrary to what you might think, not all industries are hell bent on stopping climate legislation, because a lot of them are going to make out like bandits.


[ Parent ]
Some problems (0.00 / 0)
There are a couple of problems with your approach.  First, I tend to take the supply side of this issue.  I think it will cost us, but by taking an early leadership role, we will develop the innovations and industries that the rest of the nation and the rest of the world will need to meet the challenge.

Second, I'm sure they are all fine people, but I don't really want to bet the farm on John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham.  


[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
Like I said in the earlier post, the climate market is already global. We are way behind. This has nothing to do with supply side issues and everything to do with the logistical difficulties of controlling emissions in a country as large as the U.S. that has been civic engineered for fifty years into sprawl.

And to your second point, would you rather bet the farm on a single regulatory agency with 1/10th the budget of Caltrans? Cause that's the ARB. And only a small portion of the ARB is actually working on crafting this thing.

Here's a phrase to keep in your head when thinking about what our state agency is doing right now..."100% pass through". Just ask somebody you know that's working on this thing what that means.  


[ Parent ]
Cantwell's makes more sense so of course it won't become law.. (0.00 / 0)
 without the required corporate giveaway....

Which is what the current Senate bill is, not on a large scale but stupid enough that in five years we'll be back adding onto it and making it stronger when it should be the bitter pill that Corporate America should have to swallow, which they'll threaten (like they have already) it will give them an excuse to fire people and not hire anybody.

When are people going to wake up and know that these morons are not hiring anyway and even if they did it would be a greatly reduced wage?

AB32 makes sense and inaction doesn't, so the first post is laughable at best.

Batten down the hatches, DWP rate increase coming.  


re: Cantwell (0.00 / 0)
Awesome...an actual policy point. Cantwell makes an interesting argument...that cap and dividend doesn't actually blunt price signals since consumers see increases in energy prices and won't necessarily link the dividends to overall net washes in purchasing power. That's assuming a lot about consumer behavior.

How do you figure that the new senate bill is anymore a corporate giveaway than our own cap and trade design? Again, I point you toward the phrase "100% pass through".

And how does planning for the very likely moratorium on state GHG limits count as inaction? Do you people drive through walls instead of steering around them?  


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Advertisers


Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox