This week Governor Brown signed legislation that introduces truly radical levels of climate change policy. The legislation signed by the governor on Wednesday requires the state to cut emissions at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and invest in the communities hardest hit by climate change.
“Climate change is real, and knowing that, California is taking action,” said Governor Brown. “SB 32 and AB 197 are far-reaching moves that continue California on its path of vast innovation and environmental resilience.”
The legislation comes ten years after the sweeping AB 32, which was the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 – as sweeping as that legislation was at the time, California is actually, according to a release from the governor’s office, “on track to meet or exceed the current target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.”
The governor signed SB 32 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and AB 197 by Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D-Coachella).
The release noted, “The new 2030 requirement in SB 32 will help make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.”
“With its Clean Car Law in 2002 and the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006, California took a global lead in adopting policies to clear the air, transition to clean energy and reduce climate pollution,” said Senator Pavley. “Those policies have fueled billions of dollars in private investment and spawned a thriving clean-energy sector. SB 32 sends an unmistakable message that California is resolute in its commitment to remain on that healthy and prosperous course.”
“In order for California to remain an economic and environmental leader the state will need to also be a trailblazer on issues related to equity,” said Assemblymember Garcia. “Placing the health and economic impacts of climate policy on vulnerable populations second will stunt the state’s prosperity.”
AB 197 establishes a legislative committee on climate change policies to help continue to ensure the state’s actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are conducted with transparency and accountability.
“Today is a proud day for California,” said Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León. “Together we redoubled our commitment to global climate leadership and building the clean energy economy of tomorrow, while ensuring environmental justice so all Californians benefit from our climate policies.”
“SB 32 extends California’s landmark greenhouse gas reduction goals. AB 197 changes the game on how we make sure those goals are reached,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon. “The successful effort behind these two bills is the latest sign of a growing consensus that protecting the environment and improving public health are inextricably linked and that maintaining that link is key to advancing future environmental actions. The Assembly–where AB 32 was passed 10 years ago–will be vigilant and vigorous in making sure California’s climate change goals are met, and are met as we all intended.”
It is difficult to overestimate just how radical these proposals actually are. The U.S. has become bogged down in a debate over whether climate change is due to emissions generated by human industry or whether the perceived warming is due instead to natural cycles.
The truth is that California only emits about one percent of the world’s greenhouse gases – although, given its population, that’s certainly more than its share. However, California is playing a leading role in curbing emissions.
The signing comes at an interesting time. On Wednesday, the New York Times ran a story quoting President Obama calling the trends of a warming planet “terrifying.”
“What makes climate change difficult is that it is not an instantaneous catastrophic event,” he said. “It’s a slow-moving issue that, on a day-to-day basis, people don’t experience and don’t see.”
But the U.S. cannot do this alone, which is why it was key that the U.S. and China, the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, have announced they will formally ratify the Paris climate change agreement. Analysts believe this is a significant advance in the battle against global warming.
“Just as I believe the Paris agreement will ultimately prove to be a turning point for our planet, I believe that history will judge today’s efforts as pivotal,” said President Obama. “Where there is a will and there is a vision and where countries like China and the United States are prepared to show leadership and to lead by example, it is possible for us to create a world that is more secure, more prosperous and more free than the one that was left for us.”
The commitment from China is critical. President Xi Jinping announced that China would ratify the Paris accord, with the Chinese president vowing to “unwaveringly pursue sustainable development.”
“Our response to climate change bears on the future of our people and the well-being of mankind,” President Xi said, according to the Associated Press.
What California is doing is not going to change the world by itself. Instead, what it is doing is far more radical and audacious. By looking to cut emissions by 40 percent and 80 percent, it is attempting to prove to the world that drastic emission cuts are not only possible but desirable, as a way to stave off the worst impacts of global warming.
The key question will be whether California can achieve this while enjoying the type of strong economic growth the state is accustomed to having. And the stakes will be extremely high. A 40 percent reduction is no longer picking off low-hanging fruit. It is no longer riding the wave of wind and solar energy while putting more electric cars on the road.
It will ultimately mean something far far more radical, which will require the state and ultimately the nation and the world to reshape every aspect of the economy, and indeed our lifestyles themselves.
Are we ready to do that? Hard to believe that many people realize just how radical this move is. But it might be the only way to save ourselves.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Jerry a Brown’s environmental terrorism will end in more lawsuits , more unemployment and more foods stamps in California
For anybody who like to contribute a few words about environmental justice in communities I would like to recommend to read.
· The University of California Sustainable Practices Policy issued on June 22, 2015.
The policy is making reference to six greenhouse gasses identified in the Kyoto Protocol as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. The Kyoto Protocol was never ratified by the United States of America and it must be a reason behind.
· A Proposal for the Design of the Successor to the Kyoto Protocol –Author Larry Karp , UC Berkeley and Jinhua Zhao , Michigan State University
· The UC Davis 2009-2010 Climate Action Plan
· Deep Energy Efficiency and Cogeneration Study Finding Report dated September 12, 2014. The very shallow inadequate and waste of money report was prepared for the University of California Office of the President by ARC Alternatives.
· Reform of Environmental Law Needed for California to Move Forward.
· The California Supreme Court’s Recent Flood of CEQA Decisions
· The US. Clean Air Act
· The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide Final Rule
· 2012-2015 California Efficiency Strategic Plan –Research and Technology
· The 2014 UC Berkeley Sustainability Report
· Natural Gas and Environment
· 2012 Steam Emission of UC Campus : Mitigating Climate Impacts –UC Berkeley Climate and Greenhouse Gas Emission Research /Analysis
· EPA-453/R-93-007 –Alternative Control Techniques Document Nox Emission from Stationary Gas Turbines .
· Boiler Emission Guide –Cleaver/Brooks
Realistic Application and Air Quality Implication of Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power in California – Prepared by University of California , Irvine for the California Energy Commission .
· September 24, 2014 article –UC Davis , Sun Power to build largest solar power plant in UC system
· The Supreme Court of The United States Case 540_(2007) Massachusetts et al v. Environmental Protection Agency
· EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Emission from New Power Plants
· A Look Inside the Berkeley Cogeneration Facility
· 2006 Maintain, Enhance and Improve Reliability Of California’s Electric System Under Restructuring Customization of the EPRI Artificial Neural Network Short-Term Load Forecaster (ANNSTLF) and User Support for the California Independent System Operator (CA-ISO)( Prepared for California Energy Commission by: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
· U.S Clean Water Act
· California Environmental Quality Act
· CEQA Turns Forty –The More Things Change , The More They Remain The Same by Lisabeth D. Rothman (Very Interesting Publication )
· USCA Case #14-1112 In re: Murray Energy Corp.,Petitioner, v. Environmental Protection Agency, On Petition for Extraordinary Writ to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
· Amicus Curiae Brief of the States Of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,Washington, And The District Of Columbia In Support Of Respondent
· March 2014 University of California System – Campus Climate Project Final
· USCA Case #14-1112 In re: Murray Energy Corp.,Petitioner, v. Environmental Protection Agency, On Petition for Extraordinary Writ to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
· Amicus Curiae Brief of the States Of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,Washington, And The District Of Columbia In Support Of Respondent
· March 2014 University of California System – Campus Climate Project Final
· The Amendments of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) enacted by U.S Congress in 1978 to conserve energy.
· Filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in relation to the 2007 Settlement –Agreement in Case
· The Waste Heat Recovery and Carbon Emissions Reduction Act, also known as Assembly Bill 1613 (Blakeslee, Chapter 713, Statutes of 2007)created a feed-in tariff for certified CHP facilities that meet efficiency and performance requirements.
I’ll get right on that.
Jerry Waszczuk
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/smilies/facepalm.gif
Environmental justice is code for redistribution of wealth.
BP
“Environmental justice is code for redistribution of wealth.”
So who do you believe that pollution is good for ?
Your question makes absolutely no sense.
It makes perfect sense. If you believe that environmental justice is code for redistribution of wealth, then you have to believe that only poor people are harmed by change and only poor people will benefit from change. My view is that environmental change will mostly help the wealthy, as they will be the ones to develop greener forms of energy, efficient homes, etc. I actually believe that the poor who can’t adapt will be most likely harmed by this than the rich. There is a reason why you see a divided with “social justice” liberals and environmental liberals.
This “logic” only makes sense if nanny government keeps increasing the level of transfer payments to the cover the increase in the number of unemployed from killing more job production with continued economic brain-dead environmental extremist laws and regulations.
I think this topic might be over your pay grade… and over the pay grade of most Democrats that support this crap.
I am working on a business start right now and I can attribute at least 25% of the extra costs to what is environmental extremism regulation. This will just increase those costs. And when you increase the cost of something there will be less of it.
Did you just skip out on your business and econ classes?
“If you believe that environmental justice is code for redistribution of wealth” Of course but like most state mandates it will help the politically connected. I have no doubt that connected interests have already figured out how to slurp from the trough while providing no benefit at all.
“The U.S. has become bogged down in a debate over whether climate change is due to emissions generated by human industry or whether the perceived warming is due instead to natural cycles.”
This is just one example of our adversarial societal structure in which we place politics and winning above what is truly in our best interest.
A previous participant on the Vanguard once made a very astute observation about how the issue of environmental stewardship is framed. To paraphrase, addressing one small part of the problem, the poster stated “why do we have to rely on the term “global warming” when we can all see that there is smog and we all know that it is harmful. Clearly our reliance on sources of energy that result in pollution is unhealthy for us and to all beings with which we share this planet. Reasonable people can agree on this much regardless of political persuasion.
Another thing that we seem to agree on as Americans is the leadership role that America has or should assume in the world. If leadership is truly what we desire, or feel that we should live up to, then we must be willing to lead by example.
I think that it is long past time when we should have admitted to the adverse consequences of the processes that we have relied upon in the past to generate our energy and drive our economy. We have the opportunity to invest in cleaner processes for energy production, in a less consumption based economy, in full utilization of our resources rather than a disposable goods mentality, in conservation in our personal lives as well as in our society as a whole.
“It will ultimately mean something far far more radical, which will require the state and ultimately the nation and the world to reshape every aspect of the economy, and indeed our lifestyles themselves.”
I would challenge everyone to consider whether having ever more in terms of consumer goods and disposable income in the present is really worth more than the environmentally healthy planet that we should be leaving for our children. Frankly in a previous thread cited the example of “always leaving the campsite better than when they arrived”. I would like to think that we might be the generation that is willing to consider leaving our planet in better shape than when we inherited it rather than leaving our mess behind for our children and grandchildren to clean up, or possibly even survive.
Hi Tia
I am for to build a super fast electric trains in which people could commute to work from Sacramento to LA or SF in one hour or in to minutes instead of have millions of cars on the freeways. Reducing congestion on the freeway is not less important to make people life easier is not less important than emission of the toxic pollutants. So far a good electric car is very costly and not affordable for average person. Also more than 50 % electrical energy in USA is being produced from fossil fuel . Not every state in USA has 300 sunshine days like California a year to have solar panel on the roof which efficiency still very low and they looks ugly.
Have a nice weekend
J
” Reducing congestion on the freeway is not less important to make people life easier is not less important than emission of the toxic pollutants.”
Drove the Town Car down there a few weeks ago in 4:20. Left Elk Grove at 2:30 am, and Bob’s your uncle, I was parking at Norm’s on Sunset and Vine, for breakfast, at 10 of 7. I5 is very lightly used at that time of night. With one fuel stop and a steady speed, I managed 26 mpg! Like doing my laundry and baking at night, I think timing our long automobile trips can save fuel and time, too.
Biddlin
What is the Town Car’s steady speed to get 26 mpg? 80 miles /h?
Jerry
I agree with the substantive points in your response. I believe that the best approach given the problems inherent in our single occupant car based life style will necessarily be gradual for reasons that you have cited. We will need a combination of major changes to address this. It will require utilizing less energy. It will require rethinking where we choose to live in relation to where we work and having our companies and government encourage rather than forbidding working from home. It will require favoring investment in public transportation ( both high speed regional and local). As you pointed out, changes will have to be designed for the local and regional environments in which we live rather than establishing a one size fits all which was the model used when building our roads and interstate highways on the assumption that the private automobile was best for everyone and creating a culture of “the open road” and “car trips” without adequately assessing the downsides. It will require patience for lower priced hybrids and electric cars to become available at lower cost. It will require balancing whether we would rather have “ugly” solar panels and wind farms with their downsides, or more pollution from alternative energy sources.
This is not a simple issue. But to do nothing and pretend that doing more of the same will lead to better outcomes is clearly not working out well on any level, local, regional, national or global. We obviously cannot change our past actions and we cannot dictate what future generations will choose. But we can all chose to make steps ( smaller or greater) to clean up our own “campsite”. And we can choose to lead by example.
A good weekend to you as well.
Nobody calculated yet what environmental impact would be by producing and recycling millions of batteries used by electric cars and solar panels. Now everything looks nice and sweet when we see beautiful and expensive Tesla on the road once a while. At this point we are almost on same level with China in amount the green gasses emission.
I don’t know if anybody from DV read the two of the newest State of California Assembly’s pseudo and meaningless Bills: AB 1288 & AB 1071. They were authored by Speaker Emeritus Tony Atkins and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. The bills are a form of socialist propaganda and agenda and are an unnecessary cost and burden for California taxpayers. Jerry Brown is environmental terrorist and hypocrite
You are correct Jerry. Nothing stopping those leftists craving more environmental restrictions. They want their feel-good regulations to satiate their secondary craving as being the bossy people telling everyone else how to live their life.
They kill incandescent light bulbs and caused buckets of mercury from fluorescent bulbs to be dumped into land fills.
They kill plastic grocery bag thus causing greater environmental damage from the manufacturing of paper bags.
They push electric cars while ignoring the fact that our electrical grids are falling apart and are vulnerable… and that batteries are toxic to dispose of.
They fight fracking even though we have been doing it for 60+ years and even though it allows for us to burn more natural gas (which is much cleaner) than oil and coal.
They kill economic opportunity and job production… and make the absurd claim that their never ending quest to return nature to a state where no people inhabited the planet is good for poor people.
These are true environmental wackos.
By the way, take a look at the state of the environment in Venezuela. This is what happens when those lacking any sense of macro economics get to the ruler chair and start bossing people around.
“They push electric cars ”
Only if they fail to yield the passing lane on the causeway.
Ha!
I was going to write “they peddle electric cars” but then, you see.
“super fast electric trains” are great in concept but we cannot even build an apartment house. This is not China where they can build things like that.
“What is the Town Car’s steady speed to get 26 mpg? 80 miles /h?’
http://static.theglobeandmail.ca/789/globe-drive/culture/commuting/article17526607.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Headlights.jpg
A bit higher, 90 mph. I drove to Oakland recently and got 32 mpg at 55 mph.(Just had my 120,000 mile service w/new plugs etc.) I don’t mind piddling along with traffic, but truth be known, I hate trying to drive continental distances at a snail’s pace when there’s no one else around..
Jerry
“Nobody calculated yet what environmental impact would be by producing and recycling millions of batteries used by electric cars and solar panels.”
I believe that your statement is accurate. What it neglects to mention is that we do know the costs of staying with the internal combustion engine in single occupant vehicles. We can see it and smell it in our air daily. We know that it is contributing to major illness including but not limited to asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes with all its complications and multiple forms of cardiovascular disease. These forms of transportation are the sole reason for the ridiculously high cost of infrastructure maintenance in the forms of freeways, highways and surface streets. This is money that could go towards education, or health care, or to support veterans, or to support military families or for any number of causes that are more important than a smooth ride.
Unfortunately, we are willing to brush all these known problems with the use of cars aside based on our unquestioning acceptance that this is just the way things are and that it would be too difficult, or too disruptive, or too expensive, or too inconvenient to consider doing things differently.
Hi Tia
Are you trying to kill pharmaceutical industry and , Kaiser and the UC Davis Medical Center with electric cars. ? We have to die of something or God will . I am kidding. Frankly saying I believe that more people are perishing today from food loaded with chemicals , hormones and who knows what and from obesity than from staying with internal combustion engine which will became obsolete sooner or later on the roads with some exception. This process already started not because lawmakers wrote more stupid and meaningless bills which majority of population don’t know and don’t care but because of the technology , invention and science and profit from selling the new ideas and new products.
Your response giving me impression that the car makers don’t care about clean environment. They care more than Jerry Brown and other environmental freaks . I know a lot about protection of natural environment because I told Jerry Brown’s friends twice don’t pollute and I lost my job twice . This why I know the environmental bills and laws and how it is being enforced and how the Jerry Brown’s and other like him environmental justice in our communities works.
This political cartoon pretty much sums up my view. I say why fight the deniers, it’s not worth the time:
file:///Users/peter/Desktop/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jpg
Shoot, now I find out I don’t know how to put in a link. Oh well, sorry, no way to delete this post.
Odin… climate change is real… has been for millions of years…
Causes and “solutions” [assuming they are under our control] are points of legitimate argument…
Yes, indeed, climate change has been happening for billions of years, actually. But the current instance is happening at a greatly accelerated pace compared to most of the past change. In other words, the differential is quite steep, if you remember your calculus. And it correlates very well to the concentration of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere.
Thank you jrberg. Anyone over the age of 50 should acknowledge the climate changes they’ve seen within their lifetimes.
We’ve cut down the majority of the world’s forests, eliminated thousands of animal and plant species through habitat destruction, encourage mass consumption, allow unbridled population growth on our way to 10 billion, and have pumped millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet somehow they assume it’s the Sun’s fault for the ocean’s rising and expanding heat waves. Aren’t we such angels as a species.
Some desire to live in denial, some accept reality. We’ve effed up this planet pretty good, and it’s going to take a lot to keep it from getting worse. Unfortunately that commands our acceptance of climate change in the first place, and as is evidenced in this thread, sadly ain’t gonna happen any day soon.
Odin, to post an image it must be web-hosted. If it is, then display the image on your screen using your browser, then copy the url from your browser’s address bar, and then paste that copied url into the body of your Vanguard message.
EIGHT YEARS AGO
In 2008, then-Assemblymember Galgiani authored AB 3034 which approved the first phase of the nation’s first High Speed Rail system in California. AB 3034, which later became Proposition 1A was approved by the voters on the November ballot. Her bill culminates decades of work by elected officials to bring the largest infrastructure project in the California since the state highways were built to the Central Valley. This project will be an incredible boost to California’s economy and the Central Valley by creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Who is blocking this this project to make it happen ?
How many California corporations moved their business , factories to produce goods to China and other countries because of cheap labor no environment protection laws and enforcement like in United States . Don’t pollute here , pollute China and Mexico and whine and b—- about global warming green gasses This how Jerry Brown and others protects our Planet with Made in China products we are buying and using every day . Just write another environmental bill.
[moderator] edited. Certain words trigger our filter.
Texas loves our new drastic environmental laws. All the more businesses moving their way.
More food stamps and welfare recipients . Domino rules
Jerry
“Are you trying to kill pharmaceutical industry and , Kaiser and the UC Davis Medical Center with electric cars. ? We have to die of something or God will . I am kidding”
In the spirit of fun with which you wrote, I will share with you my philosophy of being a doctor. I have always considered myself in the business of putting myself out of business. If I succeeded in optimizing everyone’s health, then no one would ever need my services. Except that I chose obstetrics as a profession thus guaranteeing a steady stream of mostly healthy patients ! In my ultimate goal, I have been an abysmal failure. As I approach retirement, I have not come even close to putting Kaiser, UCD, Sutter, or Mercy out of business. As a matter of fact, I have personally provided all with many more patients through the years.
But on to the more serious issues you raise.
“I believe that more people are perishing today from food loaded with chemicals , hormones and who knows what and from obesity than from staying with internal combustion engine which will became obsolete sooner or later “
I agree that there are many, many contributing societal factors to our current ill health of which the automobile is only one. However, to state that there are many factors does not mean that we should not lessen the harm from any particular one if we are able. And we are most certainly able to lessen our dependency on our cars. We have only to choose to do so.
“Your response giving me impression that the car makers don’t care about clean environment.”
I believe that there is probably a wide variety of degree of caring about the environment among car makers just as their is amongst politicians. If a car maker gets the most of his profit from large gas consuming vehicles, I would suspect that that individual cares less than does the maker of a very small, fuel efficient car. But I simply do not care who “cares the most” or makes the “biggest steps” towards environmental protection, I feel that this is something that will have to be addressed collaboratively between manufacturers, the government and those of us who choose to use, or not use our cars for discretionary purposes.
Key word is “discretionary”… choosing to live/work/shop outside walking/bicycling distance is a discretionary act… inherently…
Hi Tia
The problem of clean environment and pollution of the planet is complex a global problem. No one normally thinking person like dirty water in the lakes and rivers and grey sky on hot days instead of blue because of uncontrolled pollution . However, I am against environmental extremism with lot of bills which nobody is enforcing because the enforcement of environmental law cost money , lot of money .
As a concern person I am always looking how what I can do for natural environment in the place I work and live . This is the bottom line. President John Kennedy said one time (maybe not in exact words as I write) that” ” Don’t look what your country can do for you but look what you can do for your country”
By applying environmental extremism government will do more harm than good . I would recommend for Jerry Brown and environmental “oriented” legislators to go for one day San Francisco , Cliff House area next to Golden Gate Park and watch and count how many ships with thousands of containers coming from China to Oakland port with products which can be produced and distributed in this country . Beside that these products from China are causing unemployment in this country and creating welfare state , legislators should knows that these products are being delivered from China by ships powered by the internal big and powerful internal combustion engines which are burning millions of gallons of diesel without catalytic converters not to mention uncontrolled pollution in China to make these products .
Jerry Brown is Napolitano’s evil follower .
In November 2013, President Janet Napolitano announced the Carbon Neutrality Initiative, which commits UC to emitting net zero greenhouse gases from its buildings and vehicle fleet by 2025, something no other major university system has done.
Jerry
“By applying environmental extremism government will do more harm than good “
Again, I agree with many of your points. However, I suspect that, in some cases, what you call environmental extremism, I would call prudent environmental management. I am glad to hear that you act with concern for the environment individually. I am in an ongoing process of attempting to live lighter and lighter on the land myself.
However, I believe that it is naive to believe that because you and I are making efforts, that means that everyone else is doing so also. When and if we ever becomes so enlightened, we will not have need for government regulation. I will not see it in my lifetime.
Let me use a somewhat crude but I believe appropriate example. I doubt either of us engages in public urination. Our society has deemed this to be inappropriate behavior that carries minor legal consequences with it if persistent. But there are still some people who engage in this practice which I see as detrimental to the environment. Do you believe that as a society we should have the ability to regulate this behavior and to penalize in some way those who persist ?
Most of us would probably agree to some form of regulation and censure. And yet many of us oppose sanctions against large businesses that create far more environmental destruction than is caused by the nuisance act of public urination. In your view, is there not more reason to prevent and/or penalize large industrial polluters than there is to prevent and/or penalize public urinators. ?
What CEO is his right mind would ever consider starting a new company or expanding into California now. Jerry Brown just became the job killing governor.
How about one that does green energy? Ag tech? Medicine?
DG
Could you be more specific with Ag and Medicine in this subject
Here is a quick example on Ag tech: http://www.forbesconferences.com/event/2016-forbes-agtech-summit/
Bottom line is that I think this will continue to spawn innovation in high tech industries to solve the world’s problems but in a greener more sustainable way.
Frankly
“I am working on a business start right now and I can attribute at least 25% of the extra costs to what is environmental extremism regulation. “
Let’s go back to your own campsite example from a previous thread. You stated the importance of leaving the site cleaner than when you found it. This is an excellent principle by which I believe we all should live. If everyone lived by this principle, there would be no, zero, zip need for any government regulations. But just as individuals may choose to litter, so many businesses will engage in environmentally destructive practices if not checked by government regulation.
We both would like to see “smaller government”. We just disagree on how to get there. I personally believe that if each individual business and each type of business were to self regulate, adopt best and least polluting practices and adopt new cleaner processes as soon as they are developed, we would not have a need for regulation at all. So when you promote responsibility on the part of each and every business, and that becomes the predominant model, you will see me advocating for rolling back of governmental regulations. As things are now, governmental regulation is needed to stand between the environment and those who simply do not care what shape the “campsite” is in for the next group of campers as long as they themselves have had fun.
People will start high growth companies where the talent is. In my line of work that means CA and MA. TX is offering free money and that is often not enough.