Facts and FICTION about the "impending death of the planet -

Commentary by Jean O'Sullivan


"How about a SMuG Deck (cards)

No, Monopoly!

You know my opinion; Q: What do you call local variations in temperature
and precipitation worldwide? Ans: "Weather" unless you need your follow on study funded, then it is "global climate change."

Calling "weather" "global climate change" doesn't give the phenomena a

Or Politics of Pollution - Trivia Game

That would be the Kalifornia Global Warming Law.

The "science" driving this ill conceived foray into areas where the State has no business intruding is so poor that if it weren't such a blatant assault on our Republics' civil liberties it would be laughable. Bad science makes for bad law so let's start there. CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas. CO2 is not in any way implicated in ozone depletion or any other similar negative environmental impact. CO2 is acknowledged as a vital component of an atmosphere that sustains and protects all life on this planet. The US Energy Information Administration reports that 95.3% of all CO2 is from natural sources. These are probably the only things the world's scientists agree upon concerning the unresolved debate over supposed Global Climate Change. Understand; Global Climate Change (as opposed to the discredited theory of Global Warming cited by the new law) is merely the latest fallback theory for the same people that failed to convince us all of their failed Global Warming theory and that fantasy was proposed only after their embarrassing 1970's "Mini Ice Age" theory. Like all true zealots the people behind this latest assault are desperate for any excuse to advance their true agenda.

As an example of the idiocy and danger inherent in Pavley's Folly we should look at some of the technical ways we -could- meet the stated goals of the law. For instance, one way to reduce CO2 auto/SUV emissions is to change the combustion process slightly in a manner that will increase the amount of ozone depleting and other noxious byproducts. Another bright idea, and not coincidentally the "solution" the anti-auto crowd had in mind is to produce smaller, lighter, less capable vehicles. Unfortunately smaller, lighter, less capable also means more expensive, requires more total trips and most importantly, means less safe. Just what California needs; more vehicle trips being done in less safe autos. That drop in safety is on top of the current roughly 2,000 deaths per year caused by existing CAFÉ standards. Jerry Ralph Curry, former NHTSA Administrator, said in 1998 that CAFE had already claimed more lives than Vietnam, and that the NHTSA people knew in advance it would happen. Let's not even get into California's diversion of highway maintenance funds to wasteful and polluting transit that is forcing people to purchase more rugged vehicles in the first place.

Back to carbon dioxide. By a large margin CO2 is ranked only the second most important of the greenhouse gases but in the scientific mind of California Law it has being promoted to the most significant *problem.* Excuse me, I spoke too soon, CO2 is not even -that- significant. The only status accorded CO2 amongst real scientists is that of the second most significant human generated greenhouse "gas." There is still debate about how significant human generated airborne particulates are and whether they would bump CO2 down to third place amongst the human generated contributors to greenhouse effects. But that's science not politics. This is all about politics.

Advocates promulgating an insidious anti-auto agenda have convinced Assemblywoman Pavely (D-Agoura) and her gullible fellow members of the Legislature that California is in a position to legislate science. One of the factoids used to justify the restrictions is that a disproportionate 57% of California's greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming, come from cars, trucks and buses.

No, not even close. The "57%" quote is a carefully constructed half-truth that is then used to leap to a conclusion. That suprious conclusion is then extrapolated to justify a solution. Our use of autos and light trucks MAY contribute to global warming IF IT EXISTS but then again climate records also indicate that some 7500 of the last 10,000 years were warmer than the supposedly hot decade of the 1990's. But 57% doesn't tell the whole story. First off, human generated contribution to the planets' greenhouse gases are only 4.7% of all greenhouse gases. Of that 4.7% from humans, some 70% is H2O. 30% of 4.7% brings the scope of "Palvey's Ploy" down to the remaining 1.4% from "transportation." But even that isn't the whole story since "trucks and buses and commercial vehicles" are exempted from the Bill. Even that grudging admission is a misdirection on the part of the legislation. You see the 57% figure is for the entire California transportation sector, planes, ships, trains, etc. Taken into account it turns out that CARB is being tasked at looking to less than 0.6% of the supposed "problem." Got that? Even an extremely optimistic achievement of a 10% reduction would make a difference of zero point zero six percent. That 0.06% is only applicable to California's contributions. What is our global contribution? Less than 3.5% and I'm sorry but 0.06% of 3.5% is far too small a number to have any meaning. That immeasurable improvement wouldn't even take effect until after all the cars on the road are replaced by conforming vehicles somewhere around 2021. It might be interesting to go into why such a large portion of California's energy budget is devoted to transportation. Remember, much of California's fossil fuel electric generating capacity is in other States. We profit from and enjoy the benefits of making our pollution in Nevada and Arizona. Heaven forfend those States adopt our supposedly high minded principles and clamp down on California's ethically questionable practice of exporting our pollution. For that matter -if- California were really interested in global warming and not SUV illegalization, then we could drain the Hetch Hetchy reservoir which contributes mightily to global warming; surface evaporation, a significant rise in surface temperatures and heat dumping into the ocean are global warming effects too. If the Legislature hadn't so very conveniently dropped water vapor from the list of greenhouse gases they'd have many other "easy targets" for saving the planet without busting the State and Federal Constitutions in the process. They could end water subsidies to the Central Valley farmers for instance. Obviously this stuff is far more complex than reducing CO2 emissions from autos. Autos and light trucks no less. Not buses, not trucks not aircraft nor ships. Subtract out those from the "transportation" finding of "57%" and you see the legislation for exactly what it is; Anti-auto/anti-SUV social behavior modification.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

Back to Current Edition Citizen Review Archive LINKS Search This Site