California NOT “fighting climate change”, climate change NOT driving wildfires – claims are propaganda

Spread the love

Loading

The L A Times is at it again making completely idiotic claims that California is “fighting climate change” and alleging that wildfires and blackouts will hurt this purely politically contrived, monumentally costly and globally meaningless state “fight”.

clip_image002
 
“The state’s electric grid was experiencing rapid and unprecedented changes even before Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison began shutting off power to millions of people in a desperate scramble to prevent their transmission lines from sparking wildfires.

Solar and wind power were booming. Gas-fired power plants were shutting down. Investor-owned utility companies such as PG&E and Edison were being replaced by city-run alternatives. And the falling cost of lithium-ion batteries was making some households less reliant on the grid than ever before.



The changes will only accelerate in the coming years, as California ramps up efforts to fight climate change by cleaning up its energy supply.

But the state’s plans for slashing climate emissions depend on a stable electric grid delivering clean electricity to the cars, homes and businesses of the world’s fifth-largest economy. The jarring new reality of preemptive blackouts could frustrate those plans by throwing the grid’s reliability into doubt.”

Additionally an Orange County Register article is also hyping the same flawed California wildfire climate change claims as the Times with its own article touting climate change political opportunist Tom Steyer and his screwball and economically destructive energy ideas for our state and nation.

clip_image004
 
“With California’s wildfires drawing attention to climate change’s role in the blazes, presidential candidate Tom Steyer is especially vigorous in touting the need to reduce carbon emissions and overcome the corporate influence that contributes to the environmental status quo.

“You prevent wildfires by not having a climate that creates the environment for them,” the Democratic billionaire said in a Tuesday interview.

“My first day in office, I would declare climate change a national emergency. It would entail rules about renewable energy, miles per gallon for new cars, building codes requiring energy efficiency and stopping oil drilling in national parks and on federal government land.”.

The reality however is that no matter what California does about reducing at great cost its own emissions while at the same time ruining its energy reliability and economy the impact on the world stage is completely irrelevant.

Additionally the state’s targeted emissions reductions have no impact whatsoever on California’s wildfire debacle that is driven solely by government forest management failure and incompetence.

These energy and emissions realities were addressed in the WUWT article noted below which exposed how inept a prior Times article was that attempted to make the same point with this newest Times article equally inept.

clip_image006
 
The bottom line from the WUWT article is summarized as:

“What California government officials and L A Times completely hide from view and leave totally unaddressed is the unequivocal fact that the state’s climate change campaign is immensely irrelevant regarding any impact whatsoever on reducing global emissions ever increasing outcomes. This reality is driven by the huge and increasing use of energy and related emissions by the world’s developing nations that completely control global energy use and emissions trends and results.”

Additionally because the state so badly bungled its responsibilities in failing to properly fulfill its forest management responsibilities over a period of many decades the resulting wildfire outcomes have added more emissions to the states tracking assessments that when properly accounted for will preclude California from even meeting its modest year 2020 AB 32 emissions targets as noted in another WUWT article presented below.

clip_image008
 
The article notes that originally the state assumed that wildfire emissions would be carbon neutral but that assumption has proven to be wrong as shown in the chart below that estimates the net increased emissions from the state wildfires.

When these emissions are accounted for as being the responsibility of the state the AB 32 emissions reduction target for year 2020 is unachievable.

clip_image010
 
Also addressed in the article is the fact that the state should be held accountable for its forest management responsibility failures that have led to the wildfire debacle with this significant issue as usual left unaddressed and concealed by the Times.

“The state is clearly responsible for creating significantly increased wildfire risks and outcomes as a consequence of decades long poor forest management decisions, practices and priorities by responsible government, regulatory and political leaders as presented in detail at WUWT.

These extensive failures are fully addressed and documented in a comprehensive report by the California Legislative Analyst Office issued in April 2018. This significant report and its detailed assessments and findings are unaddressed by the L A Times.”

clip_image012
 
Year 2018 global emissions of CO2 total about 37.9 billion metric tons and have climbed ever higher for decades as a consequence of unrelenting increased energy use by the developing nations. In 2018 the developing nations accounted for about 60 percent of global energy use and two thirds of all global CO2 emissions.

California’s misguided, useless and expensive emissions reduction schemes that impose tens of billions of dollars in costs may achieve about 50 million metric tons of CO2 emissions reductions IF wildfire emissions are NOT counted. This California reduction is completely indistinguishable and irrelevant compared to the total global CO2 emissions shown below that have grown by 8 billion metric tons since 2005.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So the Sierra Club method is suing to stop Logging Sales to protect some speices then allowing for the fires to burn up the forests Well lets put the Eco-Freaks on the fires and make them learn some responsibility

California’s regulators, not climate change responsible for fires
https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/02/california-wildfires-blackouts/

Notable that Steyer is heavily invested in green energy industries. I’m sure that has nothing to do with him trying to get control of the economy of the entire nation, though.

I wonder if spending $3 billion on an unfinished high speed train that will NEVER be finished was a better idea than spending money to upgrade the energy transmission infrastructure and do some forest management?

This is the concept of government Democrats wish to impose across the entire country. Let’s not, shall we?

We may have to sue California for excessive snow removal costs. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/oct/17/..
Manage your forests, and control burn your grasses. Bury all your powerlines, where possible. While you are at it keep your trash out of the ocean and rivers.

@Greg: California should show they can spend the money wisely. They still owe the US taxpayer for the billion they took in federal funds to build that boondoggle choo-choo, something they wasted money on instead of managing their forests. College education and health care costs for illegal immigrants would go a long way in upgrading power grid infrastructure. They just waste the money and the people are no safer. Newsome is an idiot, just like his predecessor and their Democrat representation in Congress is just as stupid.

@Greg: Like giving a kid lunch money that spends it on candy for his deadbeat pals.

@kitt, #6:

Tell Donnie Boy that California contributes $13.7 billion MORE per year in federal revenue than than the state receives back in federal aid.

Per capita, California residents pay $348 more to the federal government than they receive back from the federal government.

The fact is that California is subsidizing the residents of the states where most Trump voters live. Which I guess makes many in Trump country a bunch of ungrateful moochers, particularly resentful of the very people who are helping them get along.

January 14, 2019 – 11 states pay more in federal taxes than they get back — here’s how every state fares

Check out the figures on Florida, Trump’s new tax-dodging residence:

Total balance of payments: $62.4 billion

Per capita balance of payments: $2,977

The state receives $62.4 billion more per year in federal aid than it contributes in federal revenue. Per capita, each Florida resident receives $2,977 per year more than the Florida per capita contribution.

@Greg: Nevertheless, sending federal taxpayer dollars to California only to be wasted is pointless and unacceptable. How much they pay or receive is not a factor; stupidly wasting money is stupidly wasting money and Democrat’s policies in California are endangering lives. The taxpayers of the rest of the country don’t need to be subsidizing it.

@Greg: No. of declared disasters since 2007: 209
Yet they do little to minimize the damage. Year, after year, after year. Its seasonal they know what is coming, next it is mudslides they are also seasonal.

top 10 states that received the most federal disaster funding over the past five years:

New York: $16.06 billion
Louisiana: $5.57 billion
Texas: $3.86 billion
New Jersey: $3.57 billion
Florida: $2.61 billion
California: $1.7 billion
North Carolina: $716 million
South Carolina: $555 million
Mississippi: $308 million
Missouri: $208 million
Sometimes what Trump says and what happens 2 different things untie the knot in your thong.

Apparently deflecting facts and rationalizing nonsense becomes easier with practice.

@Greg: You know, context is not “deflecting”. In fact, trying to divert attention away from the stupidity and incompetence that is Democrat governance is deflecting.

NY had 9/11. Coastal states have hurricanes. What’s California’s excuse? Massive fires that grow enormous and out of control because of government’s mismanagement.

@Greg:

Apparently deflecting facts and rationalizing nonsense becomes easier with practice.

You’d know. Soros taught you well.

Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires in California and other parts of western and southwestern United States. The climate there is becoming warmer and drier and will continue to do so. This raises the risk of fires, prolongs the times of high risk, and makes fires far more dangerous and difficult to contain when they happen. All of this is fact. To deny this reality as a matter of political orientation is stupid.

Fifteen of California’s 20 most serious recorded wildfires have occurred since 2000. It isn’t because of democrats. It’s because the climate is getting warmer and drier.

@Greg: Plants in that region have evolved to use fire, they thrive on hot hot summers and wetter winters, that means its pretty normal. they dont have the data to make such inane statements as its getting hotter or drier or even the climate is changing in that region. The planet is 400 billion years old and they have less than 200 years of data.
It isnt political its science no tropical rain forest in that region.

@Greg:

Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires in California and other parts of western and southwestern United States.

They are no more frequent than before, but in California, their idiotic policies make sure there is plenty of volatile fuel available to make any fires far larger than they would be normally.

But, if global warming is a contributing factor, why isn’t California preparing for it by managing their forests better? Believing the global warming fantasy is no excuse not to properly manage forests in populated areas; it’s nothing but an excuse.

It IS because of Democrats; they forbid wise forest management.