As anticipated by UN Planners, the control of California energy policy is firmly in the hands of the California Air Resource Board under the progressive thumb of Mary D. Nichols and her staff of 1,200 like minded progressives.
Maurice Strong and creators of Agenda 21 and the IPCC very happy to see that California followed the prescribed path of putting bureaucracies in charge of controlling the economy through the implementation of climate change policies. The entire Agenda 21 structure was designed to bypass politics and needs of the people. CARB continues to implement the goals of reducing human CO2 producing activities, even though the science supporting the policies has been discredited.
The Agenda 21 plan was to have countries, states and communities to develop Climate Action Plans. The over all plan was to have weather agencies in every nation in charge of energy policies. These Climate Action Plans were to be based completely on the scientific findings of the IPCC. The plans were to include a carbon tax, requirements for smart meters, low carbon fuels, plus stack ’em and pack ’em urban planning, promoting the use of public transportation.
California’s Climate Action Plan, The 2006 Final Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature was published on April 3, 2006. AB-32 was signed in to law by executive order in June of 2006. This act was preceded by a long line of climate scare reports and legislation that starting in 1988 with AB 4420, which directed the California Energy Commission, in consultation with the Air Resources Board and other agencies, to study and report on how global warming trends may affect California’s energy supply and demand, economy, environment, agriculture, and water supplies.
California was well prepared from the Rio Earth Summit in November of 1992, where 130 nations signed a Convention on Climate Change and a Convention on Biodiversity. The delegates also reached agreement on Agenda 21, an action plan for developing the planet sustainably through the twenty-first century, and on a broad statement of principles for protecting forests.
Before the summit, Maurice Strong, then United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Secretary General, had defined success as a minimum of an extra $10 billion a year of “new money” from Western countries to finance summit commitments in the Third World. It was all about money from the rich nations for the poor nations, not about climate.
Strong knew that control and power lay with the bureaucracies. He knew about the gap between what politicians intended and what the bureaucrats implemented could be different things. Strong involved the World Meteorological Organization bureaucrats in planning, implementation and production of the UN Climate Change Plan.
Elaine Dewar, reported in her book Cloak of Green, his ideal was to eliminate the industrialized nations. She asked if he intended to become a politician to implement the idea. He replied, no, you couldn’t do anything as politician; he liked the UN because:
Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
As Strong planned others are joined in, including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which produced information on how States and lower government levels should establish:
Learn how to develop a climate change action plan for your community.
Regional Climate Change Action Plan
A climate change action plan lays out a strategy, including specific policy recommendations, that a local government will use to address climate change and reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
California followed the guidance and created a series of action plans for the State, all under the control of CARB and Cal/EPA and other state agencies like the Energy Commission who funded some really biased science studies.
The EPA based its plan on the science of the IPCC that skeptics have proven to be wrong, according to Dr Tim Ball. He writes,
“The only opposition to these plans will come from lost jobs and economic failures.”
With the climate change plans complete, the legislation passed and state bureaucratic agencies firmly in control, some politicians are beginning to have some second doubts, as it is clear energy prices are going to soar and gas prices are projected to jump any where from 15 to 40 cents a gallon come 1 Jan 2015. A recent Public Policy Institute Poll showed that California’s supported the reduced carbon regulations unless it has an impact on their personal financial well being, then they do not support the CO2 policies.
The LA Times has some details HERE:
As California gas prices climb, a group of moderate and pro-business Democratic lawmakers is voicing concerns about the cost to drivers of state regulations to curb carbon emissions set to take effect next year.
As part of a landmark law passed in 2006, motor vehicle fuel will be subject to new price pressures starting in January, and the change could add at least an estimated 15 cents to the average price of regular unleaded gasoline.
o o o
Pavley’s legislation, AB 32, was signed into law by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The law has survived a number of challenges in the courts and at the polls. In November 2010, more than three-fifths of California voters opposed Proposition 23, an initiative backed by oil companies that sought to suspend all of AB 32.
Brown’s budget for the spending year that begins July 1 estimates that cap and trade would raise more than $550 million. As approved by the Legislature, that money would be spent on high-speed rail construction, transit, low-income housing and other environmental projects.
That money shouldn’t come out of the pockets of motorists who already pay the country’s highest state gasoline taxes, Republican Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen of Modesto said. She and fellow GOP Assembly members plan to send their own letter to Brown calling for a delay in including vehicle fuel in the cap-and-trade program.
Car owners, she said, are about to be “blindsided” by “a hidden tax increase on the price of fuel that every Californian will feel when the program is expanded in January.”
The question, will this be enough opposition to force the bureaucrats to make changes? Or, will we have to wait until the jobs disappear and business move to more business friendly states with lower energy costs?
It is clear that there is a direct connection to Agenda 21, that can be traced from the UN’s Maurice Strong to the EPA to California Climate Change Action Plans. Plans that resulted in legislation giving CARB and other California bureaucrats extraordinary power over the local economy. As fuel prices soar, families will have less money to spend on a day trip or weekend vacation in Nevada County. Nevada County commuters to the valley to work will have less money to spend in local stores and restaurants.
The local left will not agree there is an Agenda 21 connection to our local economy, but the evidence is clear if they are willing to look. Denial is easier.