Let me give you a number...$290 billion.
Economists Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton from the Natural Resources Defense Council calculated that putting off adaptation and mitigation efforts of climate change could cost the United States over $212 billion dollars annually by 2025, and almost $290 billion dollars annually by 2100.
My opponent says "now is not the time" to deal with the effects of climate change, and he and his friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce keep repeating that same line: "Now is not the time."
Well, I have a question for Gary: When exactly is the right time?
When do we start working to fix the damage? Next year? Five years? Ten years? When none of our children can breathe because the air is too toxic?
Climate change is a fact. It is happening, and it is up to us to do something about it.
I have spent more than 20 years working to fix environmental problems that have contributed to the global warming and climate change we can all plainly see before us. Be it working with the shipping industry to reduce emissions by introducing the latest technology at the ports or voting on a comprehensive climate change mitigation plan such as AB 32, I have always been a staunch advocate for the environment.
My opponent still doesn’t believe we should be addressing climate change in this day and age. Yet, somehow he is okay with placing the economic burden on future generations by “kicking the can down the road”.
The United States Department of Agriculture recently issued a report claiming about 80 percent of agricultural land is experiencing drought, which makes the 2012 drought more extensive than any drought since the 1950s.
This means higher food prices for all Americans, more government subsidies to farmers to save failing crops, and more suffering for hard-working families. All in all, it is expensive.
We simply cannot afford to disregard the climate -- we cannot afford it now, and we certainly will not be able to afford it later.
In 2010, the U.S. National Research Council concluded that "climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems".
Mitigating and adapting to human-caused global warming will not be an easy issue -- this is probably a 30 or 40-year issue or even longer; but, the fact of the matter is that we cannot keep delaying progress by continuing on the same negligent path as before.
We must continue to set emission standards and hold ourselves accountable; and, we must move forward with a comprehensive climate change mitigation plan which will lessen our carbon footprint and reduce carbon emission levels down to at least 1990 greenhouse gas emission levels.
When the US Chamber of Commerce, who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to influence this election, says that environmental laws are job-killers; that’s not true. Reducing greenhouse gases and other pollutants is a life-saver.
We should expect more from our elected officials. “It’s too hard” is not an acceptable excuse when faced with big challenges.
“Adjusted for inflation, California’s government spending increased 42 percent per capita from 2000 to 2010.” http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/10/reason-rupe-poll-california-voters-moving-towards-wisconsin-like-government-reforms/ "The study, conducted by the Center for Government Analysis (CGA), found that total expenditures by the State of California to finance salaries and pension benefits for State workers grew three times as fast as the per capita personal income of all Californians." http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/10/alarming-compensation-trends-for-state-workers/ “CA public school teachers the highest paid in the nation. CA students rank 48th in math achievement, 49th in reading. http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx page 36” Please see http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/09/breaking-bad-california-vs-the-other-states/ CA pays ~ 3X more per inmate as TX, but CA is releasing criminals back onto the street. http://reason.org/news/show/private-prisons-save-california-bil But, of course, it’s all for the kids.
"California residential electricity costs an average of 29.2% more than the national average (significantly higher in San Diego and Orange counties). For industrial use, CA electricity is 59.8% higher than the national average (average for 2011)." "CA has now instituted the highest “cap and trade” tax in the nation – indeed, the ONLY such U.S. tax. One study estimates the annual cost at $3,857 per household by 2020. Even proponents concede that it will have zero impact on global warming." "From 2007 through 2010, 10,763 industrial facilities were built or expanded across the country — but only 176 of those were in CA. So with roughly 12% of the nation’s population, CA got 1.6% of the built or expanded industrial facilities." Please see http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/09/breaking-bad-california-vs-the-other-states/ Please also see "I Wanted America to Fail." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuvnsAg3eA8
I think your constituents deserve a straight answer, just like America the families of the Americans killed in Libya deserve a straight answer on the gross incompetence of the Obama administration sending them to terrorist infested area unguarded.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html “There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html “Carbon Tax could raise $1.5 Trillion for the US government. No wonder politicians drool over dire predictions.” http://junkscience.com/2012/09/07/carbon-tax-could-raise-1-5-trillion-for-the-us-government-no-wonder-politicians-drool-over-dire-predictions/ "New Study Thoroughly Debunks Global Warming, Will Media Notice?" http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice “A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times.”
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” http://www.petitionproject.org/ I will be few if any of you heard of this petition, especially if you are foolish enough to still reply on MSM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LRSbH73-oqM
Isn't DeLong partially to blame for these issues also? After all, DeLong contributed to Lowenthals campaign that got Lowenthal elected? http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/congressional-candidate-donated-to-opponent-in-08-09 How do you know DeLong wouldn't have supported the same decisions if put in Lowenthal's shoes? After all, DeLong rarely takes a position on anything other than to point what others are doing wrong. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/delong-372968-district-romney.html Furthermore, DeLong isn't afraid to flip flop on any position he takes, depending on the audience of course. http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_21802425/opinion-delong-unclear-climate-change
Ah....but the questions remain, to what degree, on what scale, and why? Yes. Climate change on a global scale is a fact. It is happening. I believe the earth's climate has been warming and cooling all along, according to natural cycles that existed long before mankind arrived on the scene and which I think will continue long after we, as a species, have gone. In stark contrast, however, man-made (or anthropogenic) global climate change is most assuredly *not* a fact... not one that has been established scientifically to any degree. Many climate scientists support the AGCC theory and many do not. Many others remain skeptical of both positions (as any true scientists might) and seek additional data that they and many others continue to collect and evaluate. If Sen. Lowenthal has definitive scientific evidence that proves (conclusively) the theory of man-made global climate change, he should present it. I would be quite surprised if he was able to do so, however, since no such definitive and conclusive proof exists. Given that AGCC remains a scientifically unproven theory, should we really craft various aspects of our public policy and spend millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars in vain and ineffective attempts to address it? A challenge that has not even been proven exists? Sen. Lowenthal seems to believe that we should. I strongly disagree.
DeLong later told the crowd at the same forum that they should recycle more. That's an interesting suggestion from a guy who has written editorials in opposition to Lowenthal's efforts to toughen up recycling standards
This, of course, is a much different comment from Ruehle's false representation and (unlike Ruehle's) one that is supportable by the fact that none of the scientific evidence surrounding either the support of -or the skepticism about- man-made global warming/climate change is either irrefutable or unquestionable. Many well-established climate scientists *on both sides of the issue* and from all around the world routinely question and refute all of the scientific evidence that currently exists. That's precisely what scientists do, after all, question and test available evidence. In scientific circles, even gravity is still considered a theory and is still being studied, questioned, and tested. Ruehle does not argue the facts, here, because the facts do not serve him. Instead he intentionally misrepresents what DeLong said so as to further his personal anti-DeLong crusade. Similarly, there is a considerable difference between participating in recycling programs voluntarily, and participating because government mandates it. Given Ruehle's propensity for falsehood, it is understandable that the difference between these two approaches might be completely lost upon him.
The theory has been asserted. Some climate scientists agree, some do not. Considerable evidence has been collected, is still being collected, is being evaluated, will continue to be evaluated, and is -almost every single bit of it- constantly questioned and debated by those both within and without the climate science community. Given this fact, I think Sen. Lowenthal's pronouncement that "Climate change is a fact. It is happening..." Is entirely accurate and actually rather obvious. As mentioned, our global climate has gone through many significant changes, some of them long before our industrial age had ever begun. However, Sen. Lowenthal's pronouncement that: "...it is up to us to do something about it" is not necessarily accurate or to any degree obvious. There is no proof that we *can* do anything about it just as there is no incontrovertible proof that we have done anything to *cause* it in the first place. Such sweeping pronouncements may garner Sen. Lowenthal some votes, but I very much hope that it may cost him still more.
If human caused CO2 is causing global warming, why did temperature decline from ~1940-~1975? Why has there been no further global warming since 1996? Why do the global warming advocates need to manipulate their data and try to suppress opposing points of view?
But let's not argue whether or not there's climate change, as I'm not a scientist either (despite having a graduate degree that qualifies me for the Petition Project). Instead, let's agree that people who believe that climate change is absolutely happening and are convinced of the human role in that phenomena will find that Alan Lowenthal agrees with that view and they will be buoyed by his commitment to make this issue a cornerstone of his tenure in Congress. Others, like yourself and Mr. Greet, who don't believe in the existence of climate change (or anthropogenic climate change, or are simply not convinced in by existing data/qualified or unqualified opinion in either direction) will be better represented by the views of Gary DeLong. Does that seem right? Am I missing anything?
What, precisely, do you mean by "...prioritize public resources..."? I have heard the same or similar phrases from many liberal politicians and in each case what they generally mean is: "Through increased taxation, part more people from more of the income they have earned -through their own labor and/or enterprise- thus converting those funds into "public resources." Then abjectly squander those resources in support of so-called green energy R&D and propping up private companies with poor business models but with all the best intentions, most of which ultimately fail anyway." If that's also *your* general definition of "prioritzing public resources", I'll pass, but, yes, I think Sen Lowenthal would best represent those in our society who believe that failed approach is still a good way to go. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/ As I understand Councilman DeLong's position, there should be some public "investment" in further studying AGCC theory, but that to impose unreasonably burdensome regulations on people and businesses and mis-allocate more tax revenues in attempts to address a challenge that we may not have had anything to do with creating or exacerbating, is at best unwise and, at worst, extremely damaging to our currently foundering economy.
My question is fair. It is not about one's philosophy of governance, which could apply beyond this issue. It is only about the issue itself and trying to provide the electorate with a discernable difference in opinion on this issue. I will restate: Alan believes that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomena and we must prioritize, immediately, this matter through policy initiatives. Gary is not yet convinced that anthropogenic climate change is indeed occurring. It may be or may not be and is willing to look at more research and in the meantime does not want any regulations in place that can negatively impact existing business operations. Is that a fair statement?
He has said (paraphrasing) that he does not believe now is the time to impose additional regulations on businesses -particularly in the current economic climate- in the name of solving a climate challenge for which there currently exists no incontrovertible evidence that man has caused or can do anything to mitigate. I think those who believe in more Sacramento-style wasteful government spending and damaging economic policies should vote for Sen. Lowenthal, since he has championed those approaches to legislation. I think those who seek more fiscally sound approaches in Congress should vote for Councilman DeLong.