Most Important Event of 2014

Subtitle: Weak Sunspot Cycle - Most Important Event was Not On The Radar

Cycle 24 - weakest, at bottom.  Source: solen.info

As the year 2015 has arrived and 2014 is gone, many writers have already discussed what they view as the most important event or events of 2014.  This is a very common thing, reviewing the old year as the new year arrives.  

This article addresses briefly a half-dozen events (more or less) that made the news in 2014, in no particular order, then discusses the most important event of the year: Sunspot Cycle 24 (the current cycle) peaked right on schedule, but far below most previous cycles.   The world-wide climate implications are grim. (see chart showing the relative activity of the four most recent solar cycles, 21, 22, 23, and 24)

1.  US midterm elections - resulting in conservative majorities in House and Senate for the remaining 2 years of Liberal Obama presidency.   Many of Obama's presidential accomplishments will be criticized, and a few will be reversed.   The defection of some Democrat legislators to vote with conservatives will be required.  However, the defection will likely save their electoral lives as they can show increasing distance from a wildly unpopular president.  

2.  Ebola outbreak, treatments improved, vaccines tested.   The deadly virus spread to many countries with this most recent outbreak, including the US and some in Europe.  Treatment systems and protocols work, at least for those who seek early treatment and are correctly diagnosed.  

3.  Space - first landing on a comet, successful test blastoff and return to Earth of Orion system.   The comet-lander bounced a bit and landed in a shadow, which is unfortunate because the batteries are solar-powered.  The solar panels are essentially useless in the shade.  We may never receive data from the lander again.  

Meanwhile, the Orion spacecraft was a huge success.    The Orion may be the technology that carries men to other moons and planets in the solar system, and perhaps asteroids.  SLB soon will carry an original article on the idiocy of a Mars manned colony.  As a preview, the hard reality is that Mars has strong radiation, very little protection from meteors, an unbreathable atmosphere, and is very cold, to mention only a few deadly issues.   

4.  China passed the US as the world's largest economy.  The diplomatic implications are staggering, as China can, and probably will, either threaten or impose economic sanctions on the US to achieve their goals.   

5.  OPEC caused the world price of oil to decline more than 50 percent by maintaining cartel output.  Gasoline prices have dropped to under US $2 per gallon, although California in its infinite wisdom increased state gasoline sales tax as part of the futile effort to combat global warming under state law AB 32, "The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006."   Worldwide, the lower oil price has many important implications.  Russia, a major oil exporter, will have greatly reduced revenues.  OPEC members will also see reduced revenues.  As SLB predicted years ago, this will very likely see OPEC fractured and member nations withdraw so they can pump all the oil they want.  Natural gas prices in many countries will also decrease, which will make electricity prices also decrease.  Consumers will have more disposable income, which will boost economic activity. 

6.  Nuclear power - Another US plant shutdown, Vermont Yankee; Sowell published 30 articles on SLB on Truth About Nuclear Power showing the futility of building and operating nuclear power plants, as not economic, not safe, and not sustainable long-term; as predicted, plants under construction are hopelessly delayed and have escalating construction costs; French plants are aging and are not reliable.   Providers of small, modular nuclear plants failed to attract investment or orders, completely as predicted - the small plants cannot possibly hope to be economic.   

7.  CO2 capture plant started operating in San Antonio, Texas - a commercial scale and economically viable plant designed and operated by Skyonic, Inc. of Austin, Texas.   This falsifies the statements made by many (ill-informed?  Deliberately misleading?) who maintain that there is no viable technology to reduce atmospheric CO2, therefore draconian reductions in fossil fuel use are required.    

8.  World coal consumption passed 9 billion tons annually, further decreasing the remaining years of economically viable coal.   An economically viable, and long-lasting (sustainable) source of 40 percent of the world's electricity production must be found and proven, long before the coal runs out.  This should be a strong priority for planners and policy makers around the world.  Economically produced coal is expected to run out in approximately 50 years.  

9.  Sunspot Cycle 24 had a weak peak and is now declining.   This is the single most important fact of the year 2014.   The sun's magnetic poles reversed, indicating the maximum has occurred.  The long, slow decline in sunspot number is now underway.   The Cycle 24 peak was approximately 80, compared to 120 (cycle 23), and 160 (both cycles 22 and 21)  (see graph at top of post).  

Some prominent solar physicists are on record calling for awareness that the weak solar activity is strongly associated with cold, sometimes bitterly cold, temperatures on Earth.   They also predict a return of the cold based on the very weak Cycle 24.   The winter of 2014-2015 has already started, with unusually cold events across the northern hemisphere.  As just one indication, winter ice appeared on the US Great Lakes far earlier than normal.   As another, Heating Degree Days for November in the US, per EIA, were 13 percent above average, however some regions experienced 30 and 36 percent greater than normal HDD.   Data for HDD for December will be published by EIA soon.   And yet another, the NOAA-predicted El Niño did not occur.   Finally, a new media term emerged: Polar Vortex, to describe vast areas of bitterly cold air plunging southward from Arctic regions and causing ice storms, heavy snow, and cold temperatures.  

As stated in other posts on SLB, there is no man-made global warming from burning fossil fuels.   Tiny increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have no measurable effect on Earth's temperatures, as stated (paraphrased) by the imminent climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen (professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT).  

The area of grave concern, however, is the sudden and dramatic decrease in solar activity and the associated cold weather.   More detail on the implications are at an earlier post, Warmists are Wrong - Cooling is Coming (see part II), see link. 

There is no doubt about it:  the sun is weaker than it has been in the past 60 years.  Winter weather is earlier and colder.   The implications of prolonged and bitter cold are grim.   The most important event of 2014 was the weak peak of Sunspot Cycle 24.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California
Copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell

A Milestone - Post Number 200

This post marks the 200th article published on SLB.   It is certainly not a record in the world of on-line publishing, yet it serves as another small bit of evidence that this little blog continues to exceed my expectations, indeed, even to amaze me.   I started out in blogging a mere 5 years ago in March of 2009, expecting I would write one article per month, for two years at the most.   The evidence shows that many more articles than those original 25 have come forth.   

The topics covered here have ranged from government regulations such as AB 32, regulation of CO2 at the state and federal level, automobile mileage standards, climate science, peak oil and energy, nuclear power, wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy, fresh water shortages, legal liability of scientists and engineers, and a few others.  

Thus far, the most-viewed postings are

1.  a lengthy article on my journey from being a believer in man-made global warming to my conversion as a skeptic, see link  (this article was translated into German and posted on a German-language climate skeptic blog; I was quite pleased about that)

2.  the transcript of my speech on why climate warmists are wrong, and deep global cooling is coming, see link 
(side note: this article was translated into German and posted on a German-language climate skeptic blog; I was quite pleased about that)  (correction:  the above article My Journey... was translated into German and posted on a blog, not this speech -- Roger 4/5/2014)

3.  a chemical engineer uses principles of process control to rebut the concept of CO2 causing global warming, see link

4.  the transcript of my speech at Tulane Law School on Peak Oil and US Energy Policy, see link, and

5.  the NPRA sues the California Air Resources Board over Biofuels, see link.

About a month ago, I started a series of articles on the Truth About Nuclear Power.  Planned to have about 30 articles total, with 8 of those already published, this series puts forth the many arguments and the evidence on modern commercial nuclear power plants and why they should never be built.  The articles discuss economics, impacts on customers, safety, environmental impacts, unproven technologies that are in development, motivations for countries to install nuclear reactors, why France has so many reactors but medium-sized islands have none, and what lessons we should have learned from our existing history with nuclear power.   

These articles draw on my deep experience in engineering, my university classroom studies of nuclear engineering, decades as a practicing process engineer, justifying then designing and implementing a private power plant to prevent rising power prices from shutting down my company's chemical plant, and understanding the legal requirements for utilities and nuclear plants.  I also had the privilege of a comprehensive guided tour of the Perry Nuclear Plant in Ohio, conducted by the plant manager, when the plant was completed but had not yet had the first load of fuel installed.  Many friends and colleagues encouraged me to write these articles on nuclear power, since it appears I may be one of the few who has the combination of training and experience in these matters. 

The SLB audience also amazes me, as there are more than 32,000 unique visitors from 142 countries.  Most, by far, are from the USA, with second place to UK, third to Australia, then Canada then Germany.  

People ask me if I have a favorite post.  That is difficult to say, but perhaps the post on Climate Science is Not Settled (that was quite fun to write), and another is a guest post by my smart cousin Charley Sowell, on why the Ice Age Is Nigh.  Charley is an interesting character.  

I am also asked if any articles were a surprise, in the number of views or comments.  Two such articles surprised me.  First, the number of views on the article that shows the long-term temperature records for 87 cities in the US.  see link  While it is not in the top 5, it certainly has seemed very popular.  The temperature records show that CO2 is not warming the planet.   

Second, an article on Tire Inflation Rule Causes Liability surprised me with its popularity.  This article illustrates the idiocy of government regulations.  The government meant well, but proposed a rule that could cause dangerous over-inflation, or dangerous under-inflation of automobile tires.  One wonders if they ever talk to an engineer before issuing such idiotic rules.   
There are many, many more articles to write and publish on SLB, and I look forward to the next 5 years, however many articles that will entail. 

As always, thank you for reading.  Leave a comment if you like.  All comments are moderated by me.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq., BS Chemical Engineering
Marina del Rey, California

Top Ten Posts

As of May, 2012, the top ten most-visited posts on SowellsLawBlog are as follows, from most visited to least:

1.   NPRA Sues Air Resources Board Over Biofuels (Feb 9, 2010)

2.  Chemical Engineer Takes on Global Warming (Feb 9, 2009)

3.  From Man-Made Global Warmist to Skeptic, My Journey (Sept 11, 2011)

4.  Warmists Are Wrong, Cooling Is Coming (May 6, 2012)

5.  Speech On Peak Oil and US Energy Policy (April 17, 2011)

6.  Global Warming Laws at AIChE Meeting in Nashville (Nov 12, 2009)

7.  Tire Inflation Rule Causes Liability (April 2, 2009)

8.  USA Cities HadCRUT3 Temperatures (Feb 1, 2010)

9.  Lawsuit Says CO2 Is A Pollutant In Texas (Oct 10, 2009)

10. Cost Increases From AB32 (April 4, 2010)

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

CARB Cuts AB 32 by Half

It's a momentous time in California, with the Air Resources Board (ARB or CARB) just announcing reduced targets for CO2 emissions under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, aka AB 32. see this link. The short version is that ARB have cut the required reductions approximately in half. The reasons cited are 1) reduced economic activity in California, and 2) some federal laws that were not in place in 2008 now require similar reductions, thus, it would be double-dipping to count those.

Some background, and the numbers, California's AB 32 requires the state to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions to 427 million tonnes per year of CO2-equivalent, by the year 2020. The CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) allows non-CO2 gases to be converted and counted as if they were CO2. The 427 million tonnes is what ARB calculated were emitted during 1990 - and it's really just an educated guess. No one really knows how much was emitted in 1990. Before the recent announcement, ARB had estimated that in 2020, California would emit approximately 600 million tonnes CO2-e without AB 32. This is the BAU (business as usual) case. The difference, 600 minus 427, is 173 which must be reduced by a long list of items that make up the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

I am not trying to take any credit for the reduction that ARB has just announced, however, in December 2008, I did write a letter to ARB's chairperson and stated that it was not accurate for AB 32 to claim credit for federal laws already on the books. see this link for the letter. Those reductions would occur even without AB 32. Of course, I received no reply to my letter. One particular item I wrote about was reduced emissions due to more-efficient cars, which in California is known as the Pavley standards. The federal law recently adopted most of the Pavley standards.

ARB's new target for reductions by 2020 is about half of the previous target, with 80 million tonnes CO2-e. ARB states that the deep and prolonged recession has reduced some of the CO2-e already.

We can all stay tuned, as California's economy worsens still more. At the current rate of collapse, the target 427 million tonnes CO2-e will be met entirely by economic recession in about, let's see, four more years. Call it 2016.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

California Voters to Decide AB 32 Fate

After years of build-up, with government and pro-AB 32 factions crowing about how the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 will create jobs for Californians that will usher the state into the post-petroleum age, while the anti-AB 32 factions saying its draconian measures will cause businesses to fail, manufacturing to close and leave the state, and unemployment to skyrocket, it appears the issue will be on the November 2010 ballot as a California Proposition. There were far more than sufficient signatures gathered (approximately 800,000 gathered compared to 433,000 required) to place the issue on the ballot.

First, the pro-AB 32 factions' arguments, then the anti-AB 32.

Pro-AB 32

Pro-AB 32 factions say that all its measures are worth doing because cutting CO2 emissions will stop global warming, and global warming in California causes the sea levels to rise and flood low-lying areas, the Sierra snowpack to melt or disappear, state-wide heat waves that cause deaths and illness, and many others. They also say that AB 32 will increase jobs and the economy. The way that AB 32 will increase jobs, they say, is by the net effect of all the requirements allowing each person to have an additional $5 per week for spending, or approximately $250 per year. The additional spending will go to purchases such as coffee at coffee shops, and retail sales. The increased demand for coffee shop baristas, and retail sales clerks will result in a surge in employment.

Pro-AB 32 factions say that private investors have pumped billions into California companies who will make revolutionary new products so that emissions of evil Carbon Dioxide, CO2, will no longer be necessary in beautiful California. The products will include smart-grid systems, home-generation of electrical power via solar panels, renewable power plants to supply one-third of utility grid power, advanced cars and trucks that consume about one-third less petroleum-derived fuel, and gasoline and diesel fuels that contain renewable components such as ethanol (for gasoline) and bio-diesel (for diesel, naturally).

There are many, many other aspects of AB 32, with 73 different line items in the Scoping Plan. Changes in the way people make choices are also part of the AB 32 Scoping Plan, with a significant change being scrapping the older and less-efficient home appliances for new and highly-efficient models. These include air conditioners. Proponents say that a home's electricity usage will decline 40 percent by installing new appliances, while the price for electricity will increase only by about 13 percent. The net effect, they say, is the consumer will have more disposable cash each month. Presumably, that extra cash will be used to pay the installment payments on all the new appliances. Similarly for the advanced cars and trucks, which will use less fuel. The reduced fuel consumed (35 mpg compared to 25) will more than offset the increased fuel cost.

Proponents developed a nifty plan to allow a homeowner to be able to afford to install solar panels on the roof. The plan involves increasing the property tax bill, with the annual increase paid to a bank or other financier who puts up all the money for the solar panels and installation. If the homeowner sells the home, the new buyer takes on the payment obligation as part of his tax bill. Presumably, the payments last for 15 to 20 years. Also, proponents argue, the solar panels add to the home's resale value.

Proponents also say that the cap and trade portion of AB 32 will not hurt businesses and industry, because they can actually make money if they just cooperate. Proponents maintain that a carbon credit will be worth $30, $50, even $100 per ton of CO2, so that if the business owners simply cut their CO2 emissions to a point below their government-mandated cap, they can sell the credits to others, thus enjoying a new revenue stream that will allow their business to grow and prosper. The idea is that one can either be a seller of these credits and prosper, or a buyer of these credits and not prosper.

There are many other pro-AB 32 arguments, such as more jobs created for solar panel installers, more construction jobs for renewable power plants, and the long-distance transmission lines to bring the power to the people, and factory jobs to fabricate solar panels and the smart grid components.

Anti-AB 32

Implementing AB 32 will kill California by eliminating millions of jobs, causing massive bankruptcies, closing millions of small businesses and major corporations, and will do nothing to change the Earth's climate.

As more and more scrutiny is applied to the world-wide climate scientists' data, methods, peer-review system, and agenda, it is apparent that there is no cause for alarm over CO2 emissions, or any other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. The entire basis for CO2 causing the Earth to warm catastrophically is false. There are cities in California that show a pronounced cooling even while CO2 continues to rise - Eureka, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento. San Francisco shows a gradual increase in temperature that corresponds to population growth, but not to CO2 in the atmosphere. see this.

None of the dire predictions for California climate catastrophe have occurred since 1975, the period that climate scientists insist has shown an increase in Earth's average temperature due to increasing CO2. In fact, sea levels are decreasing off the coast. Also, the past 40 years have seen much more rainfall than occurred in the first 40 years of the 20th century, with a state-wide average of approximately 23 inches since 1970, but only 19 inches from 1900 to 1940. Presently, the state's lakes are full due to the recent rains and snow that is now beginning to melt. Heat waves have a long way to go to match, let alone exceed, the heat waves of the period 1920 to 1960.

On a more widespread or global basis, polar ice caps are not melting, but are growing. Sea level increases world-wide are at the same pace as far back as satellite records extend, even though CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere. Hurricanes and tropical cyclones have not increased in intensity or frequency. In fact, ocean temperatures are decreasing, and hurricanes are decreasing too.

It is true that investors are pumping billions into California start-up companies, but as I wrote earlier, this is due to the increased price of oil. Such alternative energy, or renewable energy systems, ultimately must compete with oil. At the moment, these industries are incentivized with government subsidies, which can be removed at any time. Also, exchange traded funds (ETFs) that specialize in stocks worldwide that stand to benefit from global warming laws are under-performing the market, and by a wide margin. Investors know that global warming due to CO2 is on shaky grounds, and do not see any advantage in putting their money into such companies. see this and this.

The idea that the average homeowner in California will decrease his electric bill by 40 percent by installing new appliances and a new air conditioner is highly debatable, if not outright false. The largest consumers of electricity in a home are the refrigerator, electric stove and oven, clothes dryer, clothes washer, and automatic dishwasher. Of these, the electric stove and oven cannot be made much more efficient, if any. Homes built in the last 10 years (the 2000's) have high-efficiency appliances due to construction laws. Homes built in the decade prior (the 1990s) likely have had their appliances wear out and either replaced already, or will be replaced soon. My estimate is that, at best, appliance replacement will decrease electric power consumption per home by 10 percent. This will be overwhelmed by the increase in electric power prices, which will be 30 to 50 percent. The reality of high-priced renewable electricity, with its required back-up power plants that burn natural gas, is a large increase in electric power prices. Where Californians currently pay approximately 14 cents per kWh for the lowest-tier of residential power, by 2020 the price will be at least 20 cents, almost a 50 percent increase.

Similarly, the idea that the consumer will save money at the gas pump by purchasing a high-efficiency car just does not make sense. The additional cost for a hybrid car is approximately $3,000, or if one wants to buy a VW Jetta with the high-mileage diesel engine, the cost is more than $10,000 additional. Meanwhile, all drivers in California must pay the increased price of gasoline, but not all drivers will purchase a new car. Those drivers who never purchase a new car, but must by economic necessity buy a used car, must not only wait years before a more-efficient car hits the used car lots, but must pay the higher price of gasoline while they wait. They will not have more spending cash in their pocket.

The idea of putting solar panels on homes in California to reduce grid demand has been around for decades. The economics have never been favorable until recently, with the three-tiered pricing for domestic electricity use in California. As to having the solar panels financed 100 percent by a bank, but having the home's value increased, I'm not quite sure about that. It appears a homeowner could apply for the loan, have the bank pay for installing the solar panels, then sell the home at its enhanced value and walk away with an additional $20,000 or even $50,000 in his pocket, depending on the size of the solar panel system. The buyer would be obligated to pay the annual payments via his increased property tax bill. Hmmm....maybe I'll go into the home-flipping business - but only if I purchase a home without solar panels.

Also, it appears that only the wasteful are in a position to benefit from solar panels on their home. Many of my friends, and my own modest lifestyle, do not have utility bills that soar into the higher echelons of pricing due to excessive use (as determined solely by the price-setting entity, the PUC). Thus, we and similarly situated people will not likely ever install a solar PV system - it just makes zero sense when power price is at 13 cents per kWh. On the other hand, maybe we can simply install the system using the bank's money, then flip the house to a new owner.

The idea that Californians will be the ones manufacturing solar panels is highly suspect, given the manifold advantages of manufacturing overseas. Why would solar panels be manufactured here, when so many other products are made overseas where labor costs, and regulatory costs, are much lower? What is true is that solar panels will be installed using local labor. But after they are installed, what will those installers do? These are not sustainable jobs for the long run.

Cap and trade will dramatically increase the cost of doing business in California, to the detriment of in-state businesses. Arizona has already withdrawn from the regional cap and trade system, thus inviting California businesses to relocate to Arizona, hire people in Arizona, then ship their goods to California. The same is true of many, many other states where business conditions are much more favorable than are California's. We have already seen every automobile assembly plant close in California, due to burdensome regulations, high taxes, high labor costs, high power prices, and now AB 32 wants to impose additional burdens on remaining businesses. It will not take much for businesses, say for example oil refineries, to shut down their refining processes and simply import gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel from other states or from overseas. Most California refineries are on the coast, except for the handful around Bakersfield. A shutdown refinery does not employ as many people, as it takes only a few to run the tank farm. Out of work refinery employees will have a follow-on impact on local businesses, especially those who provided parts and services to the refineries. The same is true for other industries, especially cement manufacturers, and other heavy industry.

The choice seems abundantly clear: vote to keep AB 32 in place and hope that the government knows what they are doing and will keep their word (and has that ever been the case in the USA, and especially California?), and that each person will indeed get that precious $5 extra in their pocket every week, and electric power prices will only increase 13 percent, and every homeowner will rush out to replace all the appliances and install solar panels, and every driver will immediately purchase a new car that achieves 35 miles per gallon, and every business will find some way to reduce their CO2 emissions below their cap level and sell carbon credits.

Or, recognize what business schools around the world (including the prestigious Harvard Business School) have taught for years (because it is a fundamental truth), that reducing one's costs of doing business is the way to grow and prosper a business. Increasing the cost of utilities, and transportation for goods received and for goods shipped, when one's competitors are not burdened with similar costs, is not the way to grow and prosper. Instead, it is a recipe for bankruptcy. Recognize that few homeowners have the ready cash, or credit, to purchase new appliances, and then recognize that many residences in California are rentals such as apartments. Rental apartments will not usually allow the renter to install new appliances, indeed, the only appliance the renter can replace is his own refrigerator. Not the washer, the dryer, the dishwasher, and certainly not the stove or oven. If the landlord replaces these, then rents will go up to pay for them. That will certainly wipe out that $5 per week that California promises will appear in every person's pocket.

The issue will most likely be on the ballot in November, but it will be a tricky ballot. A Yes vote means AB 32 will be halted until the statewide unemployment reaches 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Presently, California's unemployment rate is at 12.6 percent (for March, 2010).

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Cost Increases from AB 32

As an example of how AB 32 is bad for California's economy, and the opposition to its requirements, the Los Angeles City Council rejected a rate increase request for the local city-owned utility, Department of Water and Power (DWP). Some background is probably in order here.

DWP purchases and imports approximately 40 percent of its power from coal-burning power plants in Utah. The power is transmitted via high-voltage power lines approximately 500 miles. Recently, though, the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, required that Los Angeles "go green" and replace the coal-based power with renewable power. There are also state laws (SB 1368) that require the coal-based power to be reduced and then eliminated, but those laws do not require renewable power as the replacement, simply more efficient power plants. DWP requires a 28 percent increase in power prices to support its replacement power plants to meet the Mayor's goals. That 28 percent increase is very high, especially when one considers the dismal state of the city's finances. Basically, the recession and poor fiscal policies have left the city broke.

One of the mandates of AB 32 is for 20 percent of the state's electric power be provided by renewable sources, by December 31, 2010 (Renewable Portfolio Standard). A further requirement is for 33 percent by 2020. Meeting these percentages means not only building more renewable power plants (solar, wind, geothermal, waste-to-power, landfill gas, etc.) but increasing power prices to pay for the plants. What DWP is proposing is not at all unusual, nor out of line. It costs money to build the renewable power plants, and lots of it.

The sad part of all this is that AB 32 proponents view this as a good thing. They believe (and are on record) that increasing power costs will allow California to "break through" to renewables, and "break free" from the yoke of fossil fuels. The problem is, as they see it, that electric power prices are too LOW, not too high. Higher electric prices will make their dream come true: power from windmills, and solar, and geothermal, and evil fossil fuels can be forever eliminated.

Higher power prices are not good for the economy, for small businesses, or for large businesses, for schools, for hospitals, for any enterprise of any type that purchases electricity. That includes just about every activity in California.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey

ARB Desperately Defends AB 32 - With OIL!

Sometimes, the California Air Resources Board does some simply amazing (read: ludicrous) things. This week saw more than one, as discussed below. The language chosen for this missive is quite instructive. The ARB ship is in quite a panic over the looming possibility that AB 32 will be consigned to the big landfill in the sky, in November 2010's elections. (see this link for the ARB pronouncement, reproduced in its entirety below)

SACRAMENTO (3/22/2010)- Chairman of the California Air Resources Board issued the following statement on the study released today by the AB 32 Implementation Group on the implementation of AB 32, California's climate plan: "This study was conducted by a group dedicated to protecting oil companies and fighting environmental laws that hold them accountable for polluting our environment. It comes as no surprise that their findings support oil companies and oppose clean energy laws Californians overwhelming support. The California public isn't going to fall for the claim that continued dependence on imported oil is better for the economy than switching to more energy efficient vehicles and cleaner renewable energy which will result in green technology job creation and a cleaner environment." [emphasis added]

Because this is so carefully worded, I deconstruct this below, and offer a few comments. (my emphasis in bold)

"This study was conducted by a group dedicated to protecting oil companies and fighting environmental laws that hold them accountable for polluting our environment."

The AB 32 Implementation Group (link here), has dozens of members that includes environmental organizations, with quite a few chambers of commerce. The members range from small businesses to large. One must wonder if AB 32 Implementation Group has a basis for a defamation lawsuit, based on the mis-characterization by ARB. As to protecting oil companies, they are quite able to protect themselves. It is quite obvious that oil companies have a great deal of practice in that, as they are attacked at every turn and almost daily.

But really, ARB, must one go on and on about oil companies polluting our environment? Would you really like to live in a world without oil? Do you realize how much the oil companies (and by extension, natural gas) have done to REDUCE pollution in the atmosphere and elsewhere? As I wrote here:

"Petroleum has brought the world un-ending prosperity, health, wealth, medicines and materials undreamed of, and saved the planet by cleaning the air we breathe from coal-based and animal dung-based odors and particles.

Petroleum is the only resource that provides heating, electric power, transportation fuels, lubricants, chemical precursors, waxes, and many others. No other resource can do what petroleum does, not coal, not nuclear, not wind, not wave, not solar, not geothermal, and at such a low cost.

Rather than vilifying the petroleum industry, you should be praising it – and by extension, the natural gas industry - for all the good that it has brought mankind."

Next, ARB writes that "

It comes as no surprise that their findings support oil companies and oppose clean energy laws Californians overwhelming support. "

Note what ARB is trying to do here: turn the conversation (spin is the in-vogue word) so that "evil oil companies" are the focus. Why not tell the truth, ARB, and admit that AB 32 will have an enormous detrimental impact to ALL businesses in California - any business that purchases electric power, or gasoline, or diesel fuel, or any goods that move by diesel-powered trucks, which does include oil refineries, of course, but also millions of small businesses? Why the spin and focus on oil companies? Likely it is because in this battle of wits, ARB is out of ammunition and must resort to the tired old litany of "blame the oil companies." Why not admit that the Renewable Portfolio Standard, for one thing, does not impact the oil companies but instead attacks the electric power providers, such as PG&E and Southern California Edison?

As to opposing clean energy laws, who says those laws are good? California already has the most clean energy of any state, expressed as a percent of total electric power sold in the state. As a direct consequence, California also has one of the highest prices for electric power in the country. Yet, more renewable power is mandated under AB 32, with 20 percent required by this coming New Years' Eve, 12/31/2010. Thirty-three percent is required by 2020. If renewable power is such a good thing, why isn't the marketplace providing it without government mandates? After all, automobiles were made and sold in the millions early in the 20th century - and no law required that. Personal computers were unheard of 50 years ago - but began selling by the millions and billions when some smart guys starting making them - with no law requiring that. Same for cell phones. Same for hundreds of useful products and services (cable TV comes to mind).

The "overwhelmingly support" line is just not true, and ARB will soon find this out after the election. Californians want jobs, want to earn a living, want to have an income with which to pay their bills and take care of their families, as do most all people. Polls show that global warming is not a priority for most people, and the science is shown to be bunk. Even if there were something to the idea that CO2 causes global warming, California is far too small to make any difference. California consumes approximately 2 percent of all the energy in the world. Reducing that 2 percent by one-third, as AB 32 is supposed to do by 2020, will make no noticeable difference.

"The California public isn't going to fall for the claim that continued dependence on imported oil . . . "

Ah, now we see another switch, this time to imported oil. Hey, ARB? Isn't AB 32 supposed to be about stopping global warming? I read the entire law, several times, and did not see a reference to imported oil. In fact, no reference to oil, period. So, why the switch? Why are you not focused on the global warming disaster looming over us all, and how AB 32 will heroically rescue the world from that doom? Imported oil? Grasping at straws here, ARB. Comical, really.

Actually, ARB, the USA has been using less oil for the past 5 years (since 2005). Total crude oil runs to refineries has been dropping, and is expected to continue doing so. How can that be, ARB, since AB 32 was not even passed until 2006?

"is better for the economy"

Is ARB actually stating that importing oil is bad for the economy? Really? After decades of importing oil (from numerous countries, not just the Middle East), ARB wants to show that importing oil depresses an economy? How then, does ARB explain the Reagan-era economic boom (20 years at least) - yet the USA saw increasing amounts of imported oil? Distraction is a key debate tactic, but to be used only when one knows the debate is lost. Is the debate lost, ARB?

“than switching to more energy efficient vehicles . . . “

Here, ARB pulls out the more efficient vehicles topic, which does exist in AB 32 as the Pavley Standards. Note that ARB has relaxed the Pavley Standards, to match those recently imposed by the Obama administration for the entire country. More energy-efficient vehicles (ARB, yes, there is a hyphen in that phrase) may be very bad for the economy, as consumers find the added cost not worth the savings in gasoline. I wrote on this in several places, but the fact is that with gasoline price below $3, it is very difficult to justify hybrid technology with its added costs. No mention of that, ARB? Why not?

“and cleaner renewable energy . . .”

Now ARB again brings up cleaner renewable energy, but the same questions remain. How much will each consumer's electric power bill increase, and how will that higher price of power influence business decisions on when to leave California and start up somewhere with lower power prices?

“which will result in green technology job creation . . .”

Green technology job creation is ARB's standard line with AB 32. Yet, independent studies show that AB 32 will kill jobs - and ARB knows this. If green policies created jobs, why is California having such great unemployment? This state should be booming with economic activity, with all the environmental restrictions on air pollution, the California emissions laws on cars that for many years made California cars different from all others in the US, with California gasoline regulations unique in all the US, and many others. Where are the green jobs, ARB?

“and a cleaner environment."

ARB finally gets to the old stand-by, we need a cleaner environment. How clean, ARB? At what price, ARB? At what point do jobs and economic activity take priority over some arbitrary clean-ness of the air? How many auto assembly plants still operate in California, ARB? There have been many new plants built in the USA in the past 20 years, how many were in California? California already has the most restrictive air pollution laws in the USA, probably on the planet, so much so that economic activity is adversely affected. And now, ARB wants even more.

In conclusion, it is actually comical to watch ARB thrash about in such obvious pain over the specter of AB 32 being repealed, by the voters at the ballot box. Please, ARB, try to remember the basics of AB 32. It's in the law. The law states that CO2 causes global warming, and AB 32 is the Global Warming Solutions Act. There is nothing in the law about oil, imported or otherwise (there is one mention of petroleum, with reference to refineries). Experienced and independent analysts have repeatedly shown that forced measures of AB 32 will kill jobs, increase prices, decrease disposable income, and cause business to not choose California as their home.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey

The Problem With AB 32

Much has been written lately on the advantages and disadvantages of California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also referred to as AB 32. This has become a hot topic, for at least two reasons. First, California Assemblyman Dan Logue initiated a bill to suspend AB 32 until the economy recovers from its present shambles (unemployment is 12.5 percent officially, and more likely 18 percent actually). When Logue's bill was defeated in the legislature, he started a ballot initiative for the November 2010 election so the people of California can vote on the issue of whether to suspend AB 32 or not. Logue's actions drew considerable ink in the press and the internet blogs.

Second, Republican Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman announced that her first act as Governor, should she be elected, will be to suspend AB 32 for one year. That position is in direct opposition to the leading Democrat candidate, presently Attorney-General Jerry Brown. Brown is on record as fiercely supporting the entire man-made global warming theory and AB 32. Whitman's statement also drew considerable ink.

Recently, the "google alert" that I set up for AB 32 has notified me of several publications each day, indicating that AB 32 is in the news much more than was the case just a few months ago. There are two basic camps, one for suspending the law until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent, and the other for pushing AB 32 to the limit. The impact on jobs, especially California jobs, is part of the disagreement. Proponents, including Governor Schwarzenegger, claim that the law will create jobs. Opponents state that the law will kill jobs by forcing companies to close their doors or move away from the state.

I am on record supporting the opponents, and have been since I first read this law several years ago. I have made speeches across the country on what AB 32 requires, and how it will kill the economy.

The fact is that yes, some jobs will be created by AB 32, and some jobs have already been created by AB 32. Chief among these are the consultants for ARB who perform studies, and those who write the regulations themselves. The regulations are complex and time-consuming, and will not be finished until late in 2011. There are also some reporting and auditing requirements already in place, and each of these functions requires people and creates jobs. There are also some new businesses funded by government (both federal and state) that seek to create markets and market share for the new "green economy." There also is some private venture capital that funds startup businesses in the green economy (more on that in a moment). Yet, the number of these jobs is very small. The unemployment in California overwhelms these tiny job numbers.

Proponents like to use an old but trusty statistical trick when the numbers are not in their favor: they resort to percentages. It works like this: if there are 100 people in a brand-new industry, doubling the number of people in that new industry creates only 100 jobs. But, out of a workforce of 16 million (the rough number for California's work force), no one wants to brag that their new industry created only 100 jobs in a year. Instead, one can say that the industry had a 100 percent job growth in that year. That sounds much more impressive. So that is what the AB 32-is-creating-green-jobs group does. They trumpet the percent increase in jobs. One report has it that green jobs are growing at 5 percent per year. That is a ridiculously low growth rate, and even more so because of the very low starting numbers. The proponents are grasping at whatever weak arguments they can find.

The proponents next argue that AB 32 is creating and will create millions of jobs in fabulous new industries that do not produce CO2. It is notable that few, if any, of these proponents are engineers and understand what they are talking about. As I have written elsewhere, fundamentals of physics can not be violated, ever. The key to green jobs' success is alternative means of producing energy; energy for electricity, for transportation, and for heating and cooling.

The reality is that we have had the means to produce energy without producing CO2 for many decades. The only question is one of economics, that is, how much will the energy cost when produced in this way. Whether the energy is from solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cells, or from fossil fuels with complete CO2 capture and sequestration, the technology exists. One problem for the AB 32 proponents is that fossil fuels are too cheap, so that their pet technologies cannot hope to compete. The governments (state and federal) have entered the fray, with mandated minimum production rates for renewable energy, and with liberal funding for the renewables. Examples of mandates include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard for biofuel usage in California, and the Renewable Portfolio Standard for solar, wind, geothermal, and a few other non-fossil fuel power sources. There are federal mandates for ethanol in gasoline, also. The governments have also mandated less transportation fuels be consumed, by increasing automobile mileage standards, and providing incentives for the purchase of hybrid vehicles.

There are industries and businesses working heroically to install solar power plants, wind-power plants, geothermal power plants, and fuel-cell power plants, all in an effort to make money and comply with the government's mandates. All of these non-CO2 power plants produce power but at much higher power prices compared to conventional fossil fuels. And that creates the argument for the opponents of AB 32. No matter what government-funded studies conclude, the reality is that private businesses must pay their bills, or go out of business. Some will declare bankruptcy. One of the bills that must be paid is the electric bill. As that bill increases due to high-cost renewable power plants, businessmen will find it more and more difficult to keep their prices low and compete with other providers of their products and services. California businesses must increase their prices or lose money. There are other bills to pay besides the electric bill. Diesel fuel must be purchased, if the business ships any goods to customers, or sends out workers to a job in a diesel-powered truck. Raw materials must be purchased, and their costs will also increase because they, too, arrived on a truck powered by diesel fuel. The price of diesel fuel is increasing because of AB 32 bio-fuel mandates. Finally, the employees will find that their wages do not extend as far as they did previously, primarily because the workers' electric bills at home went up, the grocery bill went up, purchasing a new car is much more expensive, and purchasing gasoline for the car (no matter if the car is new or not) costs much more due to the ethanol that must be added to the gasoline.

There are also increases in the water bill for all customers, entirely due to the increased electricity prices. Pumping water in California consumes great quantities of electricity, and the price will go up.

Throughout the history of capitalism and business schools, one key to success is to grow a business by reducing the costs of running the business. This is elementary, and is true because it works. Businessmen, and their consultants, devote much time to analyzing existing costs and evaluating alternatives to reduce those costs. Installing labor-saving devices such as computer-controlled machinery reduces the payroll and eliminates jobs. Installing a more efficient machine that uses less electricity, or produces less waste from the raw material, or uses an entirely different process, also cuts costs. Shipping products in bulk instead of small quantities reduces costs. Training employees to be more productive allows more product to be made with the same payroll costs. Each cost reduction allows the business to reduce the product price, thus gaining a competitive advantage when customers buy his products rather than the more-expensive products from another manufacturer.

And now, AB 32 proponents want to defy all the wisdom of all the business schools and the decades and centuries of hard-earned experience gained by tough, seasoned businessmen. AB 32 proponents want to increase the costs of doing business in California, and they claim that by doing so, more jobs will be created. Does anyone see this as nuts?

There are many businesses in California that cannot make further improvements in energy efficiency, because for many years they have been mandated to invest in "Best Available Control Technology." There are no inefficient motors remaining to replace, in their businesses. They must, however, pay the higher price for electricity as the renewable power plants cause power prices to increase. They might install cogeneration power systems, but those are mainly already done in California. For a small businessman, installing cogeneration is almost always not cost-effective, so that will not occur.

That then, is the problem with AB 32. Costs on almost everything will increase, from water, to electricity, to gasoline, to diesel fuel, to groceries, to goods in shops and malls, even coffee at the local coffee shop. As a colleague stated, if any of these changes were economically attractive, businesses would already be jumping on them without any government prodding. The fact that they have not is a clear indication that costs will go up under AB 32.

Because of all the above, I am firmly against AB 32. I will place my name on the petition to place the Suspend AB 32 initiative on the November ballot. And, I will vote to suspend AB 32 in November.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

California's ARB Backs Down on Auto Emissions

Although one would not know it by reading the press release, California has backed down from its 42 miles-per-gallon car standard that is part of AB 32, the greenhouse gas initiative in California. The state has reduced its standard to harmonize (agree with) the federal standard of approximately 35 miles per gallon by 2016.

This creates a problem for the Air Resources Board, and for some others within California.

The problem is that ARB is mandated by AB 32 to impose regulations on sectors of the economy to achieve a hard limit on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. By relaxing the automotive standards (known as Pavley standards), some other areas must be increased to achieve the overall goal.

The Pavley standard was to reduce CO2 by 27.7 million metric tonnes per year by 2020, at the 42 mpg level. By reducing the standard to 35, the reduction is now about one-sixth smaller, or roughly 4.6 MMTCO2 per year. Some other sector of the state's struggling economy must take the hit, and reduce emissions so that cars can run at 35 miles per gallon.

I propose that the state offices, especially those in Sacramento, shut down their heating and air conditioning systems entirely. This would likely save the required amount of energy, reduce demands on the electric power supply, and set an example for all of us living in the state.

It would also increase the use of personal deodorants, dry cleaning for sweaty clothes, and probably the sale of room-sized fans. In short, revert to the life of the 1940's before air conditioning was wide-spread.

Here's the challenge, ARB. Take the lead. Show us all how it is done. Cut the power to the air conditioning, and to the heating, in all the state offices, including yours. After all, 4.6 million tonnes per year is not much.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Musings on Why Some Scientists Cheat

I get into some very interesting conversations from time to time, but cannot divulge the contents as most of them are in the course of representing a client and the attorney-client privilege prevents my disclosure. However, every now and then a non-privileged conversation occurs, and one of those happened recently that I want to share here.

The conversation’s central question was, since atmospheric CO2 clearly has no influence on the earth’s average global temperature, either upward or downward, why then do so many scientists around the world maintain that CO2 is causing global warming?

First, scientists should notice that CO2 has no bearing on global temperature, if for no other reason than CO2 is inconsistent in its effects. Yet, physics requires a law to behave the same in all places. Physics is not fickle. Thus, we have the earth’s gravity pulling all objects at the same rate in all areas of the earth, after accounting for certain minor differences such as gravity anomalies. It appears that gravity is a bit weaker in some areas, and stronger in others, very likely due to the density or thickness, or both, of the earth’s crust in those areas. We also see that water dissolves certain substances, no matter where on earth these substances encounter water. It would be odd, indeed, if common table salt (sodium chloride) were not dissolved in water in some areas, but did dissolve in others. Physics is not fickle, so water and salt readily mix, up to certain well-known solubility limits.

As I wrote earlier, in the USA alone, there are some cities where the long-term temperature trend is increasing, some where it is absolutely stable, and some where the trend is decreasing. (Washington, DC shows a cooling trend, Phoenix and Las Vegas are warming). Yet, the CO2 across the USA is relatively constant over each city. Also, over time, the general trend was for the USA to warm slightly from 1910 to 1940 at the rate of 4 degrees C per century, yet the USA cooled very slightly from 1940 to 1970 at the rate of minus 0.5 degrees C per century. Then, the general trend for the USA from 1975 to 2000 was another slight warming (but not in all cities), by an average of 4 degrees C per century. In this final 25 years (1975 to 2000), CO2 was measured as increasing slightly. This, then, became the climate alarmists’ evidence of CO2-induced global warming. Finally, some cities are cooling recently at an alarming rate, of 6 to 9 degrees C per century. (Eureka and Los Angeles, California, and Washington, DC) But not all cities are cooling, only a few. Thus, the results are inconsistent, and physics does not tolerate an inconsistent principle. At this point, the climate scientists should have stopped declaring that CO2 causes global warming. But, some did not, obviously. The question is, why?

Second, some scientists blindly accept what other scientists do and publish, trusting that the peer review system will prevent bad science from being published. This is an error of the gravest extent. Engineers are taught many fundamentals, with which almost any proposal or conclusion can be evaluated. As an example, the second law of thermodynamics is not violated, ever. To repeat, not ever. (as an aside, those who write and implement global warming laws should take note of this, and ponder it deeply.) As another example, and from my writings and drawing on Dr. Pierre Latour’s writings, fundamentals of process control are not violated, either. Applying just a few such fundamentals to the climate science debate, an engineer can easily determine that there is no valid CO2 connection to the earth’s average global temperature. It is certainly a good thing that engineers, and not scientists, build the bridges, the roads, the buildings, the chemical plants and refineries, the steel and aluminum mills, and all the other trappings of modern society. If an engineer had to guess at what the tensile strength of a particular grade of steel was to be for today’s project based on where the bridge is to be built, chaos would result. Fortunately, steel has well-known properties (tensile strength is but one property out of hundreds), and engineers can confidently design and build useful things from steel all over the world. Yet, if steel behaved the way that CO2 does with the earth’s temperature, one would need a thin piece of steel for one bridge, but a piece that is much, much thicker for the next bridge. This is but one reason why engineers know that CO2 and earth’s climate are not related in any way.

Third, there is an institutional constipation, or corporate mindset, which is dangerous to go against. A certain orthodoxy is how one acquaintance put it. This is very real, as I personally can attest, having worked in several large corporations and some smaller firms, each with its own company (or corporate) mindset. A certain amount of independence and ingenuity was announced as being desired in those settings, but the reality was that no true innovation was tolerated, especially when it would reflect badly on the management. A favorite complaint of the engineers (I was in that group at the time) was that nobody listened to the good ideas. I personally had an experience where a very good idea (mine) was rejected by the middle manager in charge of that area, who then advanced the idea as his own and took credit for it when it was implemented and worked quite well. He got promoted. I quit.

A similar mindset undoubtedly exists in scientific research organizations, and would be more pronounced as the prestige and egos of the principle scientists grow. In contrast to engineering, where most things are quite certain, in science, one is always taught that there are no absolutes, as every scientific principle is only true until it is falsified.. Many scientific principles are indeed falsified each year, and long-held views must be discarded. No wonder, then, that senior scientists may hold the young scientists back. Who would want to have their cherished principles dashed to bits?

Fourth, there is the desire by some to get back at those who have had plenty and done wrong with it, in their view. They want to stop oil, coal, and natural gas, by any means possible. Advancing “the agenda,” by whatever means necessary, is an appropriate thing in their view. One hears the words “the new world order” from these types. It is quite interesting, actually, to consider that the wealth and lifestyle they so envy was created (at least in part) by burning the very fossil fuels they claim to despise: coal, oil, and natural gas. One can only wonder just how they intend to produce great wealth for themselves and their societies, without burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Perhaps their strategy is to sell carbon credits, or Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).

Fifth, there is the desire to continue the golden goose, or gilded gravy train, or streams of grant money. Those with money, giving the grants, may have little to zero expertise in the esoterica of the field, and can be easily fooled with high-sounding scientific jargon, claims, and colored charts. This has always been a problem, likely since time began. A king could appoint a royal scientist, who would bless some seekers and turn away others. But, who was to watch the royal scientist? A seeker of grant money needs to show the grantor that his money is well-spent, that good research is being done, and that more money is required to discover even more good things. It would be an end to the money stream to tell the grantor that the research has resulted in a dead end.

And so, we see the current state of affairs with respect to the IPCC and their latest enormous report that was reportedly filled with peer-reviewed scientific work, and that showed that increasing CO2 created by man’s burning of fossil fuels and release of methane (and a few other chemicals) was increasing the earth’s average global temperature. That temperature increase, according to the warmists’ view, was to melt the polar ice caps, increase the sea level, inundate shorelines, cause massive population relocations, create huge and expensive infrastructure problems with rising sea level, and a host of other disasters. None of these are true, none have happened, and none will happen. It turns out that the IPCC did not rely on good science, but instead fulfilled their agenda to punish the west for consuming fossil fuels, and in some instances relied on pure fictional journalism.

We also see that some governments, California in particular, have seized the bad science and passed equally bad laws such as AB 32, designed to prevent CO2 emissions. The federal government of the United States is attempting to pass similar legislation, with a House bill already passed, and a Senate bill under consideration. The disastrous thing is that the President has stated he will sign the bill when it is presented to him. Good policy must be based on good science, not bad science.

There are some good scientists in the world, no doubt, who do good work and follow the proper peer-review approach. One can only hope that the peer-review expands a bit, to include the engineering approach described above. If it violates the second law of thermodynamics, or fundamentals of process control, it is junk and must be rejected. It may be too much to expect of elected Congressmen and Senators to know about the second law and process control, but there are certainly engineers and technical attorneys who can explain this to them. I am one of them.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Chevron Departing Bay Area - Maybe

Chevron, a major international oil company, has a refinery in Richmond and its headquarters nearby in San Ramon, California, both on the San Francisco Bay. A recent article states that Chevron may have had enough of battling California (the state) and Californians (the eco-nuts) in its quest to upgrade and modernize the Richmond refinery. Chevron may just shut it down, and perhaps import gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that is refined somewhere else. Goodbye to the jobs, to the taxes that support the local and state economy.

Chevron might consider relocating the headquarters to more friendly areas. Exxon did when it departed New York and moved to Dallas, Texas. The difference to the bottom line between New York's tax rates and Texas' made a big difference to Exxon's bottom line (now ExxonMobil after aquiring Mobil). Chevron could use the boost to its bottom line, too.

And nothing would be more fitting than for a huge corporation, with thousands of employees in California, to move out of California. Other industries have downsized or departed entirely. Cars are no longer made in California (after the sole remaining plant shuts down, as they have stated they will.)

Some Californians will likely say goodbye and good riddance if Chevron shuts down and departs. They view the corporation as an evil on society, causing pollution that injures or sickens or kills people prematurely. These same people drive their cars to their protest meetings, heat their homes with natural gas, depend on emergency generators fueled by diesel, and fly to their vacations and holidays in jets that burn jet fuel. All made by oil and refining companies, very likely Chevron, although there are several others in the state.

I hope Chevron does shut down the Richmond refinery and use it just as an import terminal. I hope Chevron does close its doors in San Ramon and move the headquarters to another state with lower taxes and no Global Warming Solutions Act like AB 32.

On the other hand, closing the refinery may not be possible. Shell tried to shut down a refinery in the Bakersfield area recently, and was required instead to find a buyer who would keep it running. Anti-trust reasons were brought up because the supply-demand balance in California is very tight (or it was in those days, it has improved somewhat now with the economic recession). The reasoning was that prices would soar if that one (and it was very small) refinery was closed, which would be an anti-competitive practice. Shell found a buyer, sold the refinery, and the buyer soon filed for bankruptcy, proving Shell was correct in their assessment that the refinery could no longer be run profitably. Will a US Senator intervene against Chevron if Chevron wants to shut down the Richmond refinery? Why should she, if Chevron imports the fuels? No harm, no foul, just bring in ships with products rather than ships with crude oil. India has plenty of refining capacity with products for sale.

California. What a place. Fantasies are written almost daily in this state, and some are made into movies to entertain the world. Some are actually quite good, while most are junk. Yet the front page news stories are far more entertaining than the film world's products. Imagine this script, where a large state writes law after law to cripple its industries, decrease employment, enrich consultants and doom-sayers, employ armies of lawyers, drive out employers, stays eternally in massive budget deficits in the amount of roughly $24 billion each year, spends half its state budget "educating" children who cannot read or write upon graduation, then that same state advertises itself as The Golden State where everyone is free, the weather is fabulous, and business opportunities abound.

Nah, couldn't happen. No state would be that dumb.

Climate Questions for Teens and 20s

There are claims that children are being taught in the schools that CO2 is evil, and that man's activities are causing catastrophic changes in the climate. Even if the children are being brainwashed about AGW (and I don’t know either way on that), children have a way of growing up. And finding their own truth. Testing authority – or rejecting it. But this pre-supposes that children actually learn in school, a result that is not borne out by some competency testing. However, I digress.

Enough of them (the children) will soon find that they have been lied to, much as my generation was lied to by our US government in the 1960’s. The results then were (almost) revolutionary. It should be fun to watch what the current group of teens and 20-somethings do as they find they’ve been lied to. They have the internet with which to communicate. All we had was tv, our songs, and “happenings.”

Below are some questions (a Baker's dozen) that teens and 20-somethings should be asked to get them thinking:

– When CO2 was much higher in the past compared to today, why did ice ages occur? Why didn’t the earth have runaway warming with hotter summers and melting polar ice caps with much higher CO2?

– What caused the ice ages to end, was it CO2? There have been dozens of ice ages with warm periods in between.

– How did the recently-discovered ancient hunter get beneath a glacier in the Alps, especially since he was mortally wounded with an arrow? Did he dig a hole through the glacier to die under there? Or was it so warm in those days (roughly 6,000 years ago) that the Alpine pass was free of ice, so that later snows covered the body and became a glacier? How could our time be the warmest on record, then?

– Since any gas (like CO2) absorbs radiation energy (like heat from the earth) such that each doubling of the gas absorbs less and less than the previous amount, why should anyone be concerned about an increase from 380 ppm to 760 ppm (a doubling)?

– The Roman warm period, and the Medieval warm period were both much warmer than today, so how did Polar bears survive those warm periods? PETA and WWF were not around back then.

– Why is the sea level decreasing off the coast of California? see this link

– Why are sunspots so very critical to earth’s average climate? Why were there so few sunspots during both the recent cold events (Maunder and Dalton)? Why were there so many sunspots during the 1980’s and 1990’s?

– Why do climate scientists (Mann, Hansen, and others) hide their data for years, and never reveal their calculation methods? What are they hiding?

– Why is the Main Stream Media so silent on Chiefio’s blog results, the March of the Thermometers? see http://chiefio.wordpress.com

– Why do thousands of scientists say (signed their names) that man-made global warming is junk science?

– Why do process control engineers know that increasing CO2 above 350 ppm cannot possibly have any role in changing earth’s climate? see this link.

– If the science is settled, why are governments funding additional research in the billions of dollars per year? see this link

– And this one just to get them thinking about the entire concept of Environmental Doom: if the oceans are so fragile and vulnerable to oil spills, how did the oceans manage after all the millions of barrels of oil were spilled in World War II attacks on oil tankers? Hundreds of oil tankers were torpedoed and sunk, and many hundreds more of other oil-fueled ships went to the bottom, leaking oil from their fuel tanks. (reference: The Prize by Daniel Yergin, pp 350 - 370)