Judge : California AB32 Needs To Be Made Even Worse

A San Francisco Superior Court judge has temporarily halted the implementation of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act over its “cap-and-trade” regulations.

The Global Warming Solutions Act (officially known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32), signed into law by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, requires California to cap greenhouse gas emissions in the state at 1990 levels by the year 2020. These requirements are phased in over several years, and are to be fully implemented by January 1, 2012. “Greenhouse gases” generally include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and industrial gases such as hydrofluorocarbons. The U.S. Government states that these greenhouse gases, including those released by humans when burning fossil fuels, are increasing, and cause global warming.

At issue in this case were the cap-and-trade regulations put into place as part of AB 32.  These regulations were approved by California’s Air Resources Board (ARB) last December after a lengthy rulemaking process.  The lawsuit over AB 32’s cap-and-trade provisions largely came from environmental groups who complained that ARB’s cap-and-trade plan “fails to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and protect vulnerable communities”. Superior Court Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith agreed in part, ruling that ARB adopoted its cap-and-trade regulations prematurely, without adequate opportunity for public comment and the discussion of alternatives.



About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Judge : California AB32 Needs To Be Made Even Worse

  1. Mike Davis says:

    They are right!
    Every one knows that “Cap and Trade” Does not reduce emissions but makes people pay for the emissions. The only known way to really “Reduce” emissions is to stop emitting those gases.
    I would suggest starting by stopping tourism and closing all resort destinations. Move all military bases out of the state. Shut down the entertainment industry because they are a major contributor. Restore all the land to farms and orchards that once filled the state before selling off for development became more cost effective than farming. By turning California back to an Agriculture society they would return to emission levels not seen since before WW2!
    Require a commercial need to own a vehicle and make private ownership of any motorized equipment illegal. Ownership of such is a privilege and not a guaranteed right. Remove all but basic necessity items from stores as luxury items are wasteful and cause the pollution that they are attempting to stop!

    The first people that should be required to live under these conditions are those that voted against Prop 23! or for 32!

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      Mike Davis says:
      February 6, 2011 at 3:12 pm

      makes people pay for the emissions

      This delay is about who’s getting the money. It’s always the same ones getting it. “Social justice”. Easy for the judge to do this with someone elses money.

  2. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    I thought it was odd that some people viewed this delay as some kind of victory for ‘skeptics’. They must not live in California. Even worse is right. California will fall all over itself to be even more politically correct. If you are in California get out while you can.

    • papertiger says:

      It is kind of a victory for skeptics; skeptics in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas.
      Anywhere that Cal business moves to get away from the climate fraudsters, that state becomes the winner.

      Bank of America headquarters in North Carolina makes Charlotte skeptics a winner!
      Arnold’s legacy.

      Btw BofA picked Merrill Lynch’s pocket after Merrill drank deep from the AGW koolaid, investing heavily in solar panels and eco-fraud infrastructure, so that makes B of A a double dipper in the win column!

  3. suyts says:

    I always thought these schemes preposterous. Weren’t atmospheric CO2 emissions increasing in 1990? 1980? 1940? 1850? If the ridiculous CAGW theory were true, then we’d have to reduce emissions to levels before 1850 to save the world. Its a joke, and even if I were an alarmist I would consider it a joke.

    • truthsword says:

      You might consider it a joke if you were an alarmist, because you would be laughing all the way to the bank…

Leave a Reply