CFACT SoCal

Cap and Trade, the scheme dreamed up by the United Nations and included in the Kyoto Accords of 1997 and delivered to the U.S. Senate with a vote by simply ignoring the plan, is being implemented in one of America’s most floundering economies, California.  Signed into law by Governor “Schwarzen-housekeeper” in 2006 as AB32, “The Global Warming Solutions Act”, Cap and Trade was born and implemented 1-1-12.   The first carbon auctions are to be held in  August 2012.

Never mind the state is broke.  California’s economy once the 8th largest, has just slipped to 9th place.  However, the annual state budget deficit is so massive, not even the state’s bookkeepers can, with any certainty, estimate its actual size. Some say the annual budget is $16 BILLION, while others estimate it in the low $20′s. The state simply has a habit of bleeding red ink. Like our Federal government, California has been doing so for years with a big difference.  They are unable to print money.

California’s real estate market tanked half a decade ago with the paper value of those homes being reduced by 20 to 30%.  The state’s unemployment rate sits at about 12%.  However, some blue collar labor unions – particularly construction workers – report the jobless rate at an estimated 40%.

All things considered, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) -unbridled by the environmentally correct state Legislature and an “ever-Green” Governor – refused to reign in any the new pollution rules/regulations/standards imposed state and economy wide.  One such rule demands that in 8 years (2020), California’s oil refineries must reduce the sale of so-called “dirty oil” in the state to address the problem of air pollution.

Will oil companies simply stop manufacturing so called “dirty oil”? Hardly.  To be productive and keep employees with jobs, the oil companies will simply ship their products across state line to be sold elsewhere in the country.  In order to produce fuel for California’s mobile population, these same companies will import “clean oil” from outside the state to be used under the new cap and trade standards.

Diesel truck owners have been forced dramatically to comply with the new air standards.  Trucks older than 2005 must be replaced with newer models required to perform extensive and expensive retrofitting.  Every California licensed truck is required to filter their exhaust emissions through new filtering systems…some initially causing numerous fires as trucks were idling.  Consumers must understand their increased costs of goods (food, clothing, etc.) all points to the increased costs strangling the truck owners.

Yes, California is the home of  Solyndra and other “alternative energy” boondoggles.  It is the state with thousands of acres of pristine desert land (and the protected tortoises roaming among the tumbleweeds) soon to be the home of endless fields of solar farms and wind mills.  All of this as the state harkens back to the days of 2006 when “Global Warming” was believed by many to be a natural disaster waiting to happen, yet  continually found as “false”.

California is still dependent on oil to power the turbines that generate its energy and deliver water to most of the desert land and area Los Angeles and Southern California occupy.  Most of the power plants have been fueled by coal, but now must convert to natural gas to turn those turbines.  Who will pay for that switch?  Guess????

Heedless of the wind and weather, CARB moves ahead with the massive “Cap and Trade” scheme with a slight amusement figuring “California is at it again”.  The rest of the country must clearly understand why medical marijuana was passed in the state….no one could tolerate this madness unless they were high.

During the 17 day meeting at U.N. Climate meeting in Durban, South Africa, some delegates proposed a new bells and whistles that included new ways of raising cash for the United Nations.  Yep, you read that correctly.  Five nations proposed the creation of a tax on overnight banking transactions globally, a scheme that would raise billions of dollars for the world organization.  Read on…it gets better.

The fund would be called the “Green Climate Fund” and it would be…? There was the problem.  Who would be the administrator of a fund that some projected to be a $100 billion a year newly “found” revenue.  Would the delegates trust the United Nations?  The U.N. has proven incompetent to handle past fund distributions–i.e. the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund, as well as, other distribution operations being called as downright corrupt.

Who would be the recipient of this fund?  In 1997, the Kyoto Treaty divided the world into two categories – the rich and the developing.  At that time, China and India were seen as developing nations.  In 2012, these two nation’s economies outstrip much of the rest of the world and their pollution controls virtually non-existent.   The Chinese delegate to Durban asked who was the U.N. to tell China what to do?  The delegate from  India begged the questions, “Should we sign a blank check and agree to stifle our economy back home and condemn millions to a life of poverty?”   Venezuela unloaded, “Capitalism must end – the conference is a failure – we are going home.”

The “Green Climate Fund” agreement was approved but how the money will be raised and who will distribute it are prickly details left to decide at another conference.  Perhaps it will be the conference held in Quatar.  Hold onto to our wallet and stay tuned!

“I thought it would never end,” said one reporter as he stumbled out of the U.N.’s 17th Conference highlighted as “Framework Convention on Climate Change”.  The conference was held at the lush, tropical resort beach town in Durban, South Africa for 17 arduous days.  After a final 72 hour non-stop session, language for a new resolution was agreed to, a final statement issued and the attendees returned home.

What was accomplished?  Little, if anything.  However, many delegates and reporters did agree that when representatives of 194 nations gather in one place and try to agree on anything concrete, differing nation’s objectives inevitably lead to failure.  Thus was the case in Durban.

The fundamental object of the conference was to rewrite or perhaps extend the 1997 Kyoto Accords that were created to stop the siren-song of the last century – poisonous greenhouses gases being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere were behaving badly causing the earth’s temperature to rise.  Without serious action, their would surely be assorted catastrophic events.

The Kyoto diplomats had identified the list of greenhouse gases and damned carbon dioxide as the worse of the lot.  To save the planet, those nasty gases needed to be capped straight away.

In order to help the poorer nations to recover form the damage blamed on the wealthier industrial nations poisoning the planet, money would be traded from the rich nations and distributed to those needy third world countries.  Call it what you wish, but this scheme came to be known as Cap (as in emissions) and Trade (dollars from rich nations to poor) in the 1997 Kyoto Agreement. Europe agreed to be the first economy to take a whack at this environmental pinata.

After sever years of restrictions and investment in capping green house gases and trading dollars, the EU says Cap and Trade has cost them billions of dollars with an investment paying no measurable environmental dividends.    And yet, Europe’s presence at Durban was to demand other nations step up to the plate and restrict their pollution emissions.  Furthermore, they suggested an enforcement mechanism to include a “World Court” aimed at protecting the “Rights of Mother Earth”.

With their obvious negative results from Cap and Trade, the EU’s request seemed a bit ironic and an over reach.  However, the Europeans delegates were apparently stone faced and serious as they demanded legally binding pollution limits.

A majority of delegates arrived at Durban with less-grandiose goals such as the extension of the old treaty or the hammering out of a new one.  With the Kyoto agreement set to expire next year one thing was clear, the U.N. tried a “Hail Mary” pass in the end zone.  The pass was incomplete.

The outcome of the Cap and Trade deal?  The goals were noble, but the timetable all wrong.  In the 100 page document, the 194 delegates agreed to meet at a later date on the subject with the possibility of extending carbon emission limits of 1997 to 2020.  But there lingers the thorny issue of who will be considered a “developed-industrial nation” and who will be seen as a “developing or third world country”?  If you read between the lines or talk to various delegates, there are inklings that a future agreement might put every nation under the same regulations demanding everyone bear an equal burden in the battle against global warming.

There was indeed lots of posturing at the conference with endless receptions and dinners as well as a wild animal safari.   In the end, the delegates shrugged their shoulders and seemed to agree with, “waiting till next year”.

Listen Now:

• The “Bullet Train” to nowhere funded by proceeds from Cap and Trade
• CARB’s new car and truck fuel standards….really???
• CARB’s czar, Mary Nichol’s, biography
• Why has oil production in CA declined steadily since 2000?
• More tax payer dollars invested by the Energy Dept. go belly-up

Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via iTunes

Once the 2011 Solyndra $535M loan guarantee scandal broke, Congress was quick to call the two top executives of the company to testify under oath before an investigating committee.  With Congressman Darrel Issa presiding, the firm’s recently hired CEO, Brian Harrison and CFO overseer, Bill Stover, raised their hands to take the oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth…”  Standing by their 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination, they said nothing more.

Months have by and there have been no more public hearings.  No further investigations have been reported to the public, nothing from Congress, Justice Department nor the Energy Department who pushed for and guaranteed success for the “renewable energy” solar company.

Perhaps Washington is hoping Americans will somehow forget the taxpayer dollars lost with the government’s gamble on Solyndra.  After all, from “Fast and Furious” to Voter I.D. and Voter Intimidation, there are endless scandals to chase on “The Hill”.

But, the question still begs; HOW did the government in Washington, D.C., under first a Republican, then Democratic President ever get involved with a risky firm like Solyndra?

Documents seized by Justice and Energy Department investigators revealed the man with the brains behind Solyndra was not Harrison or Stover.  Chris Gronet is the 49 year old research scientist who built this start up Silicon Valley firm with the creation of the cylindrical solar panel technology.  Gronet quit the business before it went bust, was never asked to testify publicly at the Congressional hearings, nor made and statements about his company’s failure.

Today Gronet lives on sprawling acres in scenic Portola Valley, California still making himself unavailable to anyone seeking answers to many nagging questions about his company’s failure.

Leading up to the Solyndra fiasco, the federal government offered not just Solyndra, but 143 other companies to apply for a new investment program for alternative energy producers, more specifically solar panel producers.  The Energy Department workers narrowed the field of applicants to 16, Solyndra an obvious qualifier.

The Energy Department essentially cosigned a loan with these qualified companies.  They further guaranteed that should a company default on the investments made by speculators, the government guaranteed to pick up the tab aka – the taxpayer’s money.  For the Solyndra founder, this was his opportunity to make a huge splash in the solar market.  All that was needed–the government’s guarantee to investors.

As months and years went by, reviewers at the Energy Department sifted through details of each proposal until the exasperated Gronet began sending “testy” correspondence to D.C. asking why his loan guarantee had not been approved.   What has now been uncovered from the Bush administration is correspondence sounding the alarm that, Solyndra as not ready for prime time.”

President Bush moved out and Obama moved in…perhaps a blessing in disguise. It certainly did not hurt that one of the prospective investors in the government program had bundled thousands of dollars for the Obama campaign.  In addition, President Obama nominated a California Nobel Prize winning scientist to serve as the administration’s Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu.  The relationship between Gronet and Chu prior to taking the administration’s appointment has yet to be fully revealed.

In an effort to speed up Gronet’s loan guarantee, he invited Chu to visit Solyndra.  He went on to promise Chu that if his project was the first alternative energy program approved, it would produce “rapid results” for the program.  With even more assertion by Gronet, he hired a team of well connected lobbyists who trudged in and out the White House, Energy Department and Capitol Hill encouraging support for Gronet’s “green” vision.

Following the Energy Department’s loan approval, Obama toured the plant and lavished praise on Gronet and his Silicon Valley venture.  Let by Gronet, Obama shook hands with 1100 neatly dressed plant workers, asked appropriate questions and received marvelous predictions of success.  With the President eventually stepping to the microphone with a beaming Gronet at his side, Obama endorsed Solyndra as the poster child for his “clean energy” administration.  A speech many remember and Obama would jsut as soon forget.

Not only were there private investors in Gronet’s concept and the Federal government, but the state of California exempted the company from all sales tax obligations during new equipment purchases for the plant.  Everyone agreed, Solyndra was a “can’t lose” proposition…but lose it did.

According to some of the soon to be laid off employees, the company had been clearly hemorrhaging money even during Obama’s visit.  China was flooding the solar market with inexpensive flat panels that cost about $1.50 each, while Solyndra’s cylinders were selling for over $5 each.

Shortly after the president’s plant visit, a new CEO, Brian Harrison, was named at Solyndra.  With Harrison on board, Gronet took a golden parachute buy-out (not yet revealed) and left the company.  By August 2011, Gronet was gone and in September, Solyndra filed bankruptcy.  FBI agents, armed with search warrants, rummaged through the debris left in the wake of the disaster.

Gronet is gone and apparently moving on to a “new endeavor”.  However, many unanswered questions remain.

Why was Solyndra the first business chosen for a loan guarantee in the green energy plan?

With one of Obama’s top campaign bundlers  also a chief investor in Solyndra, was the Energy Department’s decision influenced by pressure from Kaiser in underwriting his personal investments?

What did Secretary Chu know about Gronet and Solyndra and when did he know it?

How high up in the Obama White House had the approvals gone before the loan guarantee was awarded?

Did the White House actually act on Solyndra’s behalf and encourage the Energy Department to approve the loan guarantee?

As Congress and the White House contemplate cuts to defense spending, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and much more, hopefully none have forgotten the Solar Power Dream in the Silicon Valley and the answers to many questions still only known by one individual….Chris Gronet.

Listen Now:

• President Obama is a fan of fracking–yet nixed the XL Pipeline. What’s up?
• Two major courts decisions against EPA and CA CARB.  Is legal persistence against all this over reach in environmental rules and regulations working?
• CA seems to be counting their chickens before they get to the bank…will revenue from Cap and Trade really pull the state out of the red?

Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via iTunes

LISTEN NOW:

Please enjoy this special podcast as  Warren Duffy is the special guest of  Maggie Roddin on her radio program “THE Unsolicited Opinion”.   Maggie’s interview with Duffy enlightens her listeners to the truth and overall plight of businesses and families when Cap and Trade is implemented in California on 1-01-12!

Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via iTunes

Listen Now:

• International flights with $3 surcharge pay for EU’s Cap and Trade program
• Your tax dollars at work –CARB facing Federal Court Ruling
• CA Cap & Trade scheme to bring big bucks to the state’s revenue stream
• Why has So Cal Edison not signed an agreement with CA or Feds for 3 solar plants to “plug in”?
• CA Redevelopment Agency face angry–very angry–protesters
• Californian’s carbon credit futures already being sold to Global speculators

Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via iTunes

As the new year began, “common sense”, (and I do mean “common sense”), environmentalists in California had two reasons to celebrate.  First was Darrell Issa (R-CA) demanding answers from CARB Chairman Mary Nichols.  Second,  was a last minute judicial ruling declaring one of CARB’s grandest programs unconstitutional.

The arrogant and over reaching California Air Resources Board (CARB), which launched their first Cap and Trade program on January 1, 2012, spent the last two months of 2011 back peddling and doing damage control.  CARB had an angry Congressman that was expecting an overdue and more plausible response to a previous request.

Domineering Nichols is facing the wrath of Issa’s House Oversight Committee that issued her an invitation to appear at an October public hearing.  Nichols not only failed to attend, but sent no representative to testify on her behalf.

Congressman Darrell Issa, (R-CA) launched an investigation into the conduct of CARB chairman, Mary Nichols and other top CARB bureaucrats in Sacramento.  His investigation triggered an angry exchange of correspondence between Issa and Nichols.  The Congressman  is investigating a series of meetings Nichols discussed in an interview with the “New York Times” in 2011.

In the interview she claimed all those who participated in the closed door meetings agreed to “put nothing in writing–ever”.  To that end, Congressman shot off a 9 page letter to Nichols asking for information about CARB’s strict, new, federal fuel standards requiring all cars and light trucks in America to achieve a landmark goal of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

According to Nichols interview, officials from the Unions, CARB, EPA and  car manufacturers all joined in the talks.  Therefore, Issa wanted to know if such a secretive process “is the best approach for regulating an industry that affects nearly every American?”

In early December, Nichols shot back a response to Issa and decried his demand for information.  Her claim was the new regulations created from the meetings would decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil and save every American family thousands of dollars at the gas pump…once the new standards went into effect.

Issa remains unconvinced.  Just before the year ended, he sent a second letter to Nichols demanding more information, answers to more questions and the documentation of each of her responses from various public records.

By the way, though Nichols ignored the Congressional request to attend the  2011 public hearings, she was able to appear at the United Nation’s environmental summit meeting held in December at Durban, South Africa.

Meantime, as the Congressional flap continued, a lawsuit filed against CARB  concerning low carbon fuel standards was inching its way through the Federal courts.  The suit was filed by a group of out-of-state fuel producers who claimed CARB’s new low-carbon fuel regulations – the most stringent in America – were a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The coalition of nine different organizations claimed the stiff new California laws discriminated against them unfairly and favored California energy producers.

Apparently, Federal District Court Judge Lawrence O’Neill agreed.  Just before the end of the year, the judge ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, citing the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  His ruling went on to claim that the fuel standard regulation of production outside of California state boundaries interfered with interstate commerce and unconstitutional.

CARB lawyers immediately asked the judge to stay his ruling so an appeal could be field with 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Depending on that court’s decision, the case could eventually wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the state of California’s 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, as implemented by AB32, and the California Cap and Trade scheme all remain in place.  Unlike an article stating Cap and Trade was blocked…that is not correct information.  On January 1, 2012, a broad section of California companies began to file pollution reports with CARB.  If their mandated emission limits are exceeded, they will be required to purchase Carbon Credits in 2013.  Hence, the full Cap and Trade program would begin.

So as 2012 begins, Issa demands more and more information from CARB and Nichols.  It is rumored the next step could be a subpoena demanding Nichols testify under oath.  And as that drama plays out, CARB lawyers are considering their option following the “unconstitutional” ruling by Judge O’Neill.

Happy New Year to CARB and Chairman Nichols.

Listen Now:

• A New Year Surprise for CARB and Chairman Nichols
• CA and the XL Pipeline
• No money or jobs – except for another solar company
• Carbon emissions in the air – or so says the EU.  Are International Air Travelers going to pay yet another fee?

Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via iTunes