California lawmakers want the state’s public pensions to get rid of fossil fuel stocks, claiming that will help save the planet. Who are they trying to kid?
I was agreeing until the last couple of paragraphs. California is not experiencing effects of climate change - it's experiencing effects of neglect and mismanagement of its land and water resources, and of unrestricted construction.
Not clearing underbrush, water usage quotas that ensure that users will take all the allotted water whether they need it or not, allowing almond and rice agriculture in areas that experience water shortages, allowing construction of wood-frame houses in eucalyptus forests, vilifying concrete as a construction material (because cement production releases CO2) - have I missed any human-caused policies that are guaranteed to lead to environmental disasters?
The reason we're hearing about wildfires is because more people are losing their homes and getting hurt. So why are municipalities allowing housing in forests, just as east coast municipalities are allowing construction on flood plains? Oh yeah, property taxes.
California now regulates insurance rates. They wouldn’t allow State Farm to charge enough to cover the risk. Allstate bailed out yesterday. As usual it isn’t climate change, it is bumbling bureaucrats
Thank you, Lee. As a CA licensed insurance agent for over 30 years the idea that State Farm is leaving due to climate changes is silly & wrong. Companies, plural, as in a lot are leaving as they cannot get the appropriate rate for their exposure. This is largely due to our commissioner who has denied rate increases for 30 months. He is still mad that the carriers did not refund more auto insurance premiums during the pandemic and decided to blanket deny rate changes. I have never seen price increases and a lack of availability in my career.
I’m more an energy guy, so it’s good to hear an industry person affirm I got that right. After years of seeing regulatory retribution for perceived sins levied against power companies, I feel your pain
The truly scary thing is that CA is now going to regulate gasoline prices. I left the state 5 years ago but still working on the CA power grid. Another regulatory slow motion train wreck, but quite lucrative for consultants.
People starting fires, intentionally or unintentionally, exacerbated by climate change. Not really that complicated. AllState made that clear. Not a single word in the their statement about "liberals" or "leftists." Hope that answers your question.
Uh no. Wrong again. Carriers are unable to charge the appropriate rate for their exposures. This is largely due to the commissioner, who happens to a "leftist."
Uh no. Right again. Too expensive to cover property in areas that have excessive wildfires. That was the rationale given in the statement. Not "largely due" to any one person.
No crazy wildfires....no need to raise rates to exhorbitant/astronomical levels. So, as usual, I'm correct...because I don't try and squeeze an ideological square peg into a reality-based round hole.
I might ask you what exactly makes the commissioner a "leftist"....but what's the point? You have no cogent explanation anyway.
Man....if only someone had tried to warn us about all this. Invest in water, Alan....it's going fast!
The real reason State Farm is pulling the plug, is insuring people and businesses in a state run by Gov. Nuisance and other left wing loonies is simply bad economics. Every step of the way these people are causing immense harm and serious future risks to their citizens through their meddling in energy, agriculture, and other social matters.
Don’t forget caps on insurance rates that might otherwise cover losses and/or discourage building in fire zones and/or designing fire resistant buildings.
The Californians deserve everything that has happened and is happening to them. They are the ones, nut cases all, who elected the far left morons that run the state.
If you are running for office in California, you run as far to the left as you possibly can and spout the looniest far left insane slogans that you can dream up and the lemmings will elect you and worship you at your feet.
California the state of unicorns, rainbows and butterflies, a left wing utopia, cover in human feces. They love it!
I find that troubling; a blame-the-victim whitewash. In CA, and also here in the PRNJ and in many other places, the vast majority geographically are electorally irrelevant against the masses in the cities -- who think that food comes from the grocery store and electricity from two holes in the wall -- if they think at all. Had there been the wisdom to install a a counter to the masses, say a senate-like entity by county back when such a thing could be done, it would be different. Now I don't like to think about what it would take to restore sanity.
Much of which is the direct result of the dwindling number of individual homeowners who are impacted by these vile policies but no longer exist in large enough numbers to have any political impact. The majority of CA residential housing, whether multi- or single-family dwellings, is owned by investors. Less and less of are whom are the mom-and-pop type and more of the large institutional type, Blackrock, et. al. I highly doubt that Larry Fink pays the same rates for homeowners insurance as I and the rest of the individuals do.
I did not vote for any of this shit. I also do not intend to "retire" in CA when the time comes, I intend to keep more of my retirement and "retire" in another state.
State Farm is leaving the state because the insurance commissioner refuses to allow companies to charge rates in accordance with the risk. Allstate is not writing new business, as well.
State mandated caps on insurance premiums and the huge rise in the cost of rebuilding in good part because of the ridiculous regulatory climate here in California.
Yup. Dusting off my old Andy Rooney imitation: “Ever wonder why California wasn’t heavily settled with Indians [AR would never had said “indigenous peoples” - off-topic thought for another day: wouldn’t it be fun to bring him back for a little while to hear HIS take on current politics and culture wars?] when the settlers came to California in droves in the mid-19th century? I mean, hundreds of millennia, thousands of generations, should have been settled in the bountiful fields and forests flush with timber, as well as the magnificent rivers and lakes teeming with fish and surrounded by wildlife.”
“Gee, it couldn’t have been that these people and cultures, intensely attuned to warp and woof of nature, to the rhythms as well as the vagaries of the seasons, listened to the fires, floods,storms, and earthquakes, said, ‘Unh-unh - let’s find someplace a little more sustainable for our way of life!’ and moved along to the Great Plains, could it?”
“I mean, they couldn’t have been so perceptive and smart to think that a culture bends to its surroundings rather than the other way around and have thought that they would be better off somewhere else, could they?”
“No - it took the humility and sensitivity of a modern European society to decide it could destroy endless forests, dam and divert great waterways for irrigation and power, and pave over millions of square miles of land to create mind-bogglingly huge heat islands, and then blame a client catastrophe on big oil companies…”
"...smart to think that a culture bends to its surroundings rather than the other way around." Well put. I do believe in climate change (and recognize California's general abuse of their environment). But ultimately, we have to figure out how to live and thrive on this planet. That includes taking care of it in the best way we can, as well as adapting our lives to fit mother nature where she's at. Climate change is part of earth's long history. If we "deny" that, we will make it much harder on ourselves.
People who “believe in…” this or that are the very cause of the problem. A scientific approach excludes “believing”, which is a purely religious approach.
Clarify: I believe that the activity of humankind which involves the extraction of fossil fuels from the crust of the earth and burning them to release carbon into the atmosphere does impact our climate. Yes, I have read about this, and it is not a religious approach. Really wasn't looking for your beliefs here. You can "believe" that human activity has no impact at all on the climate. And I could question your sources. My larger point was that we need to LIVE WITH the changing climate (regardless of exact causes) rather than think that we are going to change the direction of things in short order. I completely agree with the premise of this article that these efforts to divest from fossil fuels are useless, and what we really need is common sense practical solutions to gradually reduce dependence on fossil-based power and towards renewables and nuclear.
This is really funny; so my post is about taking a scientific attitude rather than “believing”, and you accuse me of “believing that human activity has no impact at all on the climate”. Where exactly did you read that in my post? Arguing is much easier when you make up what your opponent says, isn’t it?
Also please feel free to “question my sources”, but not only you don’t know what those sources are - the sources for what? That “believing” in something is religious rather than scientific? The source for that is common sense. C’mon, say it: you think you’re dealing with a “denier”, so it’s all settled and righteous for you.
Do you perform your own exhaustive, independent research on every single scientific topic before coming to a decision on its validity? Or do you trust what other people say? If it's the latter, that's belief.
As a scientist (geologist) I do some of the “exhaustive, independent research” that you mention, but that’s only a fraction of what’s needed to fully understand climate change. However, when you see daily hysteria about man-made climate change, when you see the obvious cultist character completely hushed by all mainstream media, when you see no honest public debate being allowed, when you hear the idiotic “the science is settled”, which is a totally anti-scientific attitude, you know immediately that you’re taken for a ride. That doesn’t mean the man-made climate change is not a problem to be considered seriously and scientifically, but it means that the catastrophists are crooks. The notion of “scientific consensus” on such a complex topic is laughable. By far, most people “concerned” by climate change, anlthough theoretically “educated”, are completely unable to tell the difference between data, a hypothesis and a forward model. Am I wrong ?
Has anyone ever been to Utah? Hello. Yes climate does change. Go to Utah. It’s plain to see that yes, continents move and the oceans dry up and mountains pop up in the oddest places. It’s interesting that some astrophysicists (who actually know math) think climate change is being driven by cosmic rays and that anthropogenic changes are negligible. But there is no funding to further explore this assertion and certainly you’ve never seen any discussion or debate of this theory in the media. What we do have is governments operating on the absurd premise that Climate change is controlled by one variable (i.e., the big C or carbon). Yoo hoo- nothing in the universe or the environment is a product of one factor...it’s far far more complicated than that. What about plastics in the ocean? Volcanic activity? Deforestation? Cosmic rays? The fact we are emerging from a a big ice age? Forest practices? Soil degradation? Our place in the universe? The billions of years that earth was just a seething mass versus this minuscule segment of time? Do you really think this planet will last for all of eternity?
What is true however is that the insistence on zero carbon emissions will truly hasten the demise and misery of people on this planet who are already suffering in poverty. And btw, if you have to drive your car to work you will likely be the next target of the climate police. Hint: think Chinese covid lockdowns.
Sacrificing hundreds of poor cows on the alter of appeasing the gods of climate hysteria is just plain meaningless. Insisting we eat bugs and live in 15 minutes cities is simply more Soros-Gates power & population control. These “solutions” suck.
We are more capable & creative as a species than that. And harder to kill off than cockroaches.
But meanwhile, God forbid some current idiot government administration shoots millions of little mirrors up into the atmosphere to deflect the sun’s rays. yep, that will take care of any chance of global warming and more than likely, end any life on earth. Keep in mind: Life is a result of carbon. Deal with it.
If you dropped over due to heart failure tomorrow, would you stop any medical intervention to save you until you’d done your own research? If you need brain surgery, same question? If they are using public (your) funds to construct a highway overpass, would you demand they wait until you’ve thoroughly researched the design, engineering, materials etc before you drive over or under it? They are teaching your child advanced trig in highschool...do you hold the kid out until you’ve done your own research to verify it makes sense? Did you do research the latest in aviation before boarding a commercial plane, drive a new car? Of course not. We have to believe others to function in modern society. In fact fields of science are based on work of previous research that tested hypotheses similar or related hypotheses. Where evidence from various research accumulates supporting a hypothesis, we ought take note...because no one person can know everything, and few would even know how to get answers they need. Same with climate change. Over 750 scientists from around the world published their findings in a a comprehensive climate report about 10(?) years back. I believe about a dozen disagreed with or had findings that did not support the hypothesis that human activity was promoting climate warming. At least a few of them were employed by the oil industry. And the research and data continues to be collected. So yes, you can find various authors and publications refuting the notion that the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to a warming climate. But, if you are attempting to find where the preponderance of data lies regarding the issue, there is no doubt as to what you will find.
Your endless examples show you can’t tell the difference between simple, easily verifiable problems and complex, highly controversial issues. You obviously have never been in
graduate school or academia in a science field, you have no idea what pressures exist on a PhD student or a professor seeking tenure. You imagine that on climate science you can just publish whatever your data shows and damn the consequences ? Your career never starts or dies right there. It’s so telling how you smear those working in the oil industry (they must all be all corrupt, right?) while you show moving trust in scientists working with government money - sure, those wouldn’t sell their soul for money and reputation ! This kind of smear is typical of climate zealots who have no real arguments, because their real grasp of both science and scientific environment is zero.
We don't do it by doubling down on policies that double or triple the strain on available resources every generation or so.
It seems as though California has succumbed to terminal stupidity and are now demanding that others give up their share of the resources so that the stupidity can be sustained.
California is the poster video of what unbridled progressivism will set loose on the community.
"Ever wonder why California wasn’t heavily settled with Indians when the settlers came to California in droves in the mid-19th century?”
Mostly because 90 percent of the Indians were dead from smallpox before those wagon trains got to California. The pox killed more "Injuns" than all the John Wayne movies put together. The pox, brought to the Americas by early Euro conquerors (not intentionally, though the results were the same), wiped out the tribes more efficiently than any army they could muster.
As for the Great Plains, Indians who hadn't already called it home certainly didn't want to live there. The United States Cavalry forced their migration at gunpoint. I cannot imagine any Indian who'd lived for generations on the East or West Coasts would have said, "Me, me, me, General Custer! I want to move to Oklahoma, but please make sure my reservation is extra hot, arid, and miserable!"
Agree completely that none of this had anything to do with Big Oil. Land belongs only to those strong enough to keep it, and the Indians weren't. Nation-building is ugly, brutal, bloody . . and how the world really works.
I didn't say they were dead before Europeans showed up, Sonsoles. I said the earliest European explorers/conquerors brought smallpox with them--not deliberately, but because they were immune and it came along for the ride without them knowing.
The pox raced through North America like Patton's Third Army, killing 90 percent of the Indian population before *later* settlers rode their wagon trains to the west. My sources are accurate, though there are alternate theories as to where the pox came from. Your source must be among the alternates.
There was an article (can't find it now) analyzing the genetics.
In any case, this all has little relevance today, beyond the fact that focusing on disease transmission, with disregard for the complex conditions within which a disease appears, seems to serve to stoke a negative/punitive animus towards immigrants, and painting a rosie bucolic (and totally false) picture of the Native tribes. Life, as usual, is way more complex. Thanks.
I get your point, however, Indians on the west coast didn’t migrate away to plains. Extensive populations existed and still exist today, modernized of course. California and northwest were always “sustainable” for simple living communities. No exodus occured.
Trying to be absolutely fair: the causes you've listed are probably 90% of the problem and, of course, these are the problems the climate zealots do not want to talk about. Climate change probably does account for some of it. (Climate does change over time. Has since the beginning of time) I just don't want to mirror the zealots by insisting that _none_ of what is happening in California is because of changing climate. Most of it, though, is squarely a result of land and water mismanagement.
The amount of acreage affected by wildfires in California has not increased over the past century. The amount of damage caused by fires has because of the increase of population living in/near fire prone areas which in California is most of our state.
I stubbed by toe yesterday. I blame climate change. I pretty sure climate change was behind the bad refereeing in the Niners-Eagles game last year too.
Between climate change and racism, none of us ever need blame dumb luck or--God forbid--ourselves for anything ever again.
I recall seeing news footage this past winter of water being released to the ocean because the runoff exceeded capacity - maybe it's time to look into adding capacity to the system in California(?) Oh, I forgot- they'd have to use that C02 producing concrete...
CA hasn't built reservoirs since the 70's, and millions of people have settled here since then, that's one reason why we're having so many problems with enough water for all the people.
Very true. We have also passed bond measures to improve freeways and roads, but the green meanies have used the money for bike paths and public transport. They should all be impeached or fired for theft when they don't do what the taxpayers vote on in elections. I still live in CA.
The High Speed Rail that is being built, whose cost and functionality bear no resemblance to what was approved by the voters, is another example of their failures. And there are millions of us here who didn't vote for these idiots.
It's not that CA has *less* water than it's had in the past, it's that the population consuming that water has exploded -- well, at least until very recently. Then there are myriad giveaways and capitulations to the environuts like diverting millions of gallons of water each year from the Sacramento river into the ocean to protect some little minnow fish. This starves not only the residents down state but also the farmers in the Central Valley. Who, as some have pointed out, now choose to grow almonds because they have a higher rate of return for what they have to pay out in water costs as opposed to, say, lettuce. So now lettuce costs more than almonds.
Every environmental "fix" has broad and often disastrous consequences which are deliberately minimized if not flat out ignored.
Government of the stupid, by the stupid, and for the stupid.
The good news is for the last couple of years the "Golden" state has been hemoragging population. So the water storage problem will eventually come into equilibrium - perhaps when the first climate prediction is close to coming right.
Yes, this article is written from the point of vue of a true climate catastrophist who absolutely refuses to challenge the orthodoxy of his cult and has a problem with “divestment” just because it doesn’t work to fulfill their goals. This is in fact the same Joe Nocera who in another Free Press article stated that “woke” wasn’t a reality, it’s all a set of justified, normal beliefs that are somehow hated by the evil conservatives.
I’m going to repeat: balance is not about alternatively publishing flawed articles from people biased on both sides, it’s about publishing articles from people who look at the facts and don’t buy “narratives” from either side. It seems like everybody who worked at some point for the legacy press is still beholden to the reality distorsion field that operates there.
That was precisely my reaction. Every disastrous nature-related event (except the flooding, to be fair) that California has been experiencing is a consequence of gross mismanagement.
Flooding can also be a result of mismanagement - damming and diverting rivers, or failure to build an adequate floodway.
After I bought my current house, I learned that there used to be a creek running across my and my neighbours' back yards. The creek was put in a pipe underground - like 50-odd other creeks in Toronto. Our back yards flood every spring for a couple of days. We've learned to live with it.
True, but the flooding this spring in California was the result of exceptional storm systems. Nature is always going to end up surprising you, no matter how well you think you've prepared.
I live near the Mississippi and this is something we Midwesterners are well familiar with. We have dams and levees for flood control, but every now and then, nature dishes out more than we ever thought of planning for. I experienced the same growing up in Utah, in the floods of 1983. A perfect storm of weather events can create a situation you never thought to plan for.
But mismanagement comes into play when dams and levees are not properly maintained. Evidently that was a huge factor in New Orleans during Katrina. And clearly the infrastructure planners for your neighborhood decided that the spring run-off would never be more than the capacity of the pipe they installed, although it clearly is.
New Orleans sits, literally, at the bottom of a bowl. As for the might Mississip flooding, you guys amaze me. Never a peep or whine. It is almost as if you expect such things and are prepared for it. Such a novel approach.
There is a very small town near us that floods on a regular basis due to being too low-lying too close to the Mississippi. You'd think that after nearly 200 years of human occupation, the people living there would move their town to higher ground. But they don't. They just clean up the mess after a flood and go back to their homes.
I am.okay with that. I assume they tend to not overbuild because they know it will be lost again. They used to build houses in I think the Bahamas that had concrete block walls on each end so that when a hurricane hit it just washed out the insides and left those walls standing. I think sometimes people used to be a lot smarter than we are now. Or at least a lot more practical.
There is a reason why California started growing almond instead of other more water efficient crops. Growing almond uses minimal labor and the myriad of labor laws introduced in the last couple of decades increasing made growing other crop unprofitable. So when the farmers have the water rights, growing almond generate more profit than other crops.
And the amount of fresh water that flows from the American and San Joaquin rivers into the San Francisco Bay is practically enough to grow almonds in Palm Springs. As many here have pointed out, California has been mismanaged across so many fronts that it is becoming a laughing stock. Naturally, its governor thinks he has earned the right to do the same to the entire nation.
Its mismanaged because they are trying to manage it too much. Centralized government always fails in the end because they cannot account for everything
All crops need water and they should because the food supply is what is keeping us alive. We really don't need to water our lawn but the crops need water and we need to feed ourselves. The reason to grow almond is because the growing and harvesting of almond require less labor as compare to the other crop. The harvesting of almost is almost 100% mechanized and uses very little labor. The $ yield per acre is superior to other crops and this is also the reason many California farmers grow almond. If they grow other crops, they may go under. The farm labor laws enacted in the last few decades have made farming much more expensive compare to other states. Farmers are in it to make money and not to live in poverty. The complaint about almond using water is an excuse to mask the problems of mismanagement in California.
I rarely make excuses. Furthermore I understand the role of food production but am not a fan of corporate farming. It is replete with problems - sanitation, not particularly nutritous, not particularly efficient as far as having all or most of a particular commodity too heavily centralized (we recently learned, or should have learned, that it is not wise to have all the eggs in a few henhouse for example), not to mention putting all of the food production in the hands of a very few people controlling the very few massive corporations. This is why we have Monsanto and Roundup issues, Bill Gates pushing his experimentation, and the CCP buying farm land and meat processing plants, and the concept of lab grown meat, among a host of other serious problems. But back to almonds all you demonstrated is that the issue, like most, is complex and you do not refute, in any way, that almonds are not a good crop in drought prone areas. Nor is cotton. It has sucked the Colorado dry.
You seem to spout all the correct tribal talking points. I can understand about the concern that food production is concentrated in a few large corporation. But I have to ask for the fact about what you assert that corporate farming is "not particularly efficient". Perhaps you mean different thing when you wrote this. Corporate farming is the epitome of efficiency because everything drives the bottom line. Corporate farming in its current form is why we don't have mass starvation since food is plentiful and relatively cheap. Since the dawn of civilization, man could only depend on subsistence farming and one bad crop would doom a family. Industrial farming is what enabled us to have the population explosion today.
I don't evaluate the "goodness" of a crop. Farmers will grow whatever the consumers demand. People demand non-diary milk and almond milk and soy milk came to the rescue. If people don't drink almond milk tomorrow, then many of the almond orchards will be converted into growing other profitable crop. Are you so wise to dictate what people should eat, what farmers should grow? Really
Just as I do not make excuses, I do not spout talking points. I understand that this type of thing is necessary to feed the ever expanding urban masses. But I do not accept that either -corporate farming or ever increasing urban masses - are wise. All we have done with these things you laud is create a very weak and very dependent class of humans. I do not think that is a good thing. Does it not occur to you that the ever-growing health crises we are faced with (the latest being a dramatic increase in colon cancer in young people) is directly related to food? We had Taco Bell sued over a decade ago for selling unidentifiable stuff as meat. We pick vegetables pre-peak nutritional value so they can be easily shipped across the country. We tinker with the genetics of plants and animals to produce bigger varieties of both, never mind that bigger does not mean better. Monsanto genetically modifies seed and then sues farmers who refuse to use their seed thereby running them out of business, so all we are left with is the Monsanto products. We treat SEED with pesticides. We treat water as an infinite resource to enable corporate farms when food scarcity will pale in comparison to water scarcity. We created one Dust Bowl already, how long before we create more? All in slavish devotion to what you hail as the bottom line and "efficiency". When this house of cards fails, and it will, you will see starvation beyond your wildest imagination. As for my "judgment" I sleep well at night as I do not worship at the altar of the almighty dollar or the bottom line or some mis-guided efficiency. Rather I value humanity and aspire to what improves humanity.
You mention needing to grow crops to feed ourselves, however, Almonds are not a crop that is particularly needed for feeding people. There is such a thing as NOT growing something, if the thing doesn't grow very well in the place you are farming. If CA makes it too expensive to grow move elsewhere or charge more. As a matter of fact, the farmers changing crops just makes the problem worse because the government can ignore their mismanagement. If a state is making laws that make it hard for people to prosper, people should leave (and NOT vote for more people that will make the same mistakes).
You can eat whatever you want, including almonds. Where we allow them to be grown is our right, because food and water mismatches affect the entire nation, not just Big Ag.
Example: Growing water-ravenous alfalfa in Arizona to be shipped to Saudi Arabia to feed cattle is insane. Arizona is in a massive drought, forced to reduce its take of the Colorado River because the river is drying up. We should ban the growing of alfalfa, almonds, and other water-intensive crops in deserts (like Arizona) but encourage it in regions without such heavy droughts. Or, price water at true market rate, and the free market will push Arizona farmers to switch to other crops for economic reasons.
Two more: Nestle pumps millions of gallons from the aquifers here to fill plastic bottles with sellable water. Tell Nestle to move its butt up north, where there's more water than they know what to do with. Intel is building a couple of computer chip factories here. These factories require tons of water to operate, so move them somewhere that has a lot more water at hand.
Water belongs to all of us, not just Big Corporate, so we can dictate how and where it will be used.
I said need...YOU said should. We NEED food. We do not NEED almond milk. Almonds are not a staple food item that gives great nutrition and calories for the cost to grow them. They are a luxury unless you live somewhere that they grow naturally.
I am not saying you can't have them. I am saying you still have to take some responsibility for the fact that they are not a great crop to grow in a dry place prone to droughts. And using the government's poor management as an excuse for why it is ok to grow them makes little sense.
All food crops will die if not watered. California accounts for 62% of fruit and nut production (source Cal Poly). There is plenty of water to irrigate if we build enough storage here. No new reservoirs since 1980. We are the worst managed state and yet it's what the voters ask for election after election.
Really? Of course crops require water. But not all nut trees die without water. Some just go dormant. But I agree about water mismanagement in Cali. But all that cotton in Arizona and West Texas is bad too in terms of water. I live in Central Texas. We are flooded with Cali refugees and IMO there is insufficient water to support the existing population, much less a growing one. Food scarcity will pale in comparison to water scarcity.
But do we ask for it every election. I’m seriously starting to believe that it doesn’t matter who or what we vote for the powers that be will do what they like even if to the detriment of the people. We have to stand up and say “ITS ENOUGH”
Also look up Lynda Resnick and Stewart Resnick. They control much of the nut and citrus production in California and also happen to be huge democrat party fundraisers and operatives. Follow the money.
The reason why we are hearing so much about the damages to human infrastructure is that the density of human activity in high-risk areas is increasing dramatically.
I find it difficult to see someone as a victim if he chooses to build his house at the end of the airport runway and then complains bitterly about the engine noise.
Not only the density but the *value* of that density, which gives great headline for the warming nuts when a hurricane strikes. "Billions of dollars in damage, all because you selfish bastards are cooking on gas stoves!"
Or buying up multiple oceanfront compounds all over the planet at ~$15M a pop, hosting Romanesque bacchanals to celebrate one's own deification -- in the middle of a plague -- then publicly whining about fictitious rising sea levels. "Won't someone please think of my net worth?!"
With the third longest coastline of any US state, you've got to wonder why California has not yet figured out how to convert salt water into fresh water for its thirsty citizens and its parched but profitable agriculture industry. Shouldn't someone out there have figured out the ever-growing drought cycle?
Desalination is expensive, and Californians still waste so much water, that more efficient usage can create substantial savings. I remember reading many years ago that Israel had invented a breathable biodegradable film that retained moisture in the soil for the duration of the growing season. At the end, the film disintegrated. It's how Israel is able to grow oranges in the desert.
Desalination is more expensive than losing valuable crops, depleting reservoirs, and lowering water tables with all damage and environmental impacts of those results? I'm sorry, but ygbsm!
The same people who proclaim from a position of moral superiority that we must save the planet are the same people who advocate for abortion on demand and turn a blind eye to the world’s largest slave owning country (China).
NYU Professor Aswath Damodaran, known as the “Dean of Valuation”, had the most scathing takedown of the charade:
“I find the purveyors of ESG to be among the most sanctimonious and arrogant twits (and you can quote me on that) on the face of the earth, convinced that they have the right definition of good, that they will thrust down the throats of everyone else. The ESG measurement services, in my view, are a charade, measuring neither goodness nor risk, but they have real effects, since companies take consequential actions to improve these scores.”
It is collusive anti-competitive behavior and embezzlement and defrauding shareholders.
Lawsuits are a big part of the answer since we live in a banana republic and the Democrats running the agencies will never take action.
Of course you have to find good lawyers who don’t mind permanently suiciding any chance they might have of working at a large firm, which is not easy to do.
I loved how NYC was leading the charge on this and then it was pointed out that their bond offerings conspicuously omitted any mention of climate risks.
And tool around on private jets spewing copious carbon emissions.
“A private jet is the most polluting form of transport you can take,” says Matt Finch, the UK policy manager for Transport & Environment. “The average private jet emits two tonnes of carbon an hour. The average European is responsible for [emitting] eight tonnes of carbon a year."
They aren’t trying to save the planet. They all know it’s bullshit. The real question is, what are California lawmakers proposing the pensions invest in? If they adopt Nancy Pelosi’s insider trading investment strategy, you can bet their personal portfolios will be in it before the first nickel of CalPERS pension money is. Chinese money funneled into their bank accounts through multiple LLCs will be another tell as to their real motivations. FOLLOW THE MONEY!
"When I spoke with Boeve, she pointed out that the divestment movement has bred a generation of climate change activists—former university students who had confronted their school president and other administrators to argue for divestment. Those confrontations had offered valuable lessons in advocacy, and helped turn these students into lifelong climate activists, she added."
This is the real point of the entire climate movement; to brainwash kids into anti-capitalist zombies to destroy the progress made worldwide over the past 100 years, improving everyone's standard of living 1,000-fold.
Agreed. The climate extremists claim to want to solve this problem. But they clearly don’t. They are de growth anti capitalists as you say, who want to create a pre industrial world with themselves in charge of the meagre resources. (Not meagre for them of course, just for the rest of us. )
Well yes Lynne. It seems nuts to suggest this is the ultimate goal. And I’m sure they don’t even consider it as such. But yes. All the power, intellectual, financial and social at the top. The rest of us underneath. If that’s not feudalism I don’t know what is. I write about the changing attitude of the elites to the ‘working class’ here. From a UK perspective. If you’re interested. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/in-praise-of-populism?r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I live here in California and yes, we do suffer from fires, floods, and electricity blackouts, brownouts, and a plague of governance called stupidity. We also have astronomical deficit spending, virtue signaling (useless divestment from big oil is literally the tip of the iceberg), homelessness, illegal immigration, crime, pollution, drought, terrible public education systems, sky high inflation, mental illness ...the list is daunting...
I can't tell you how many friends and clients I have lost to "free" states like Texas, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, and Idaho in just the last 2 years. It is a significant number. I even bought property in another state and have an escape plan ready to go myself... This used to be a great state. It is sad.
I’ve had the same thought! Dems hate Red states so much (and vice versa, to be fair). I wish we would be expelled (I live in SC)…. I’d love not having to worry about which policy they enact next that will finally spell the end of my freedom.
“The real crime here is that there’s no place in the country that is experiencing the damaging consequences of climate change as much as California. Chronic wildfire, terrible flooding—it’s gotten so bad that State Farm, the largest insurer of homeowners in the state, announced in May that it would stop selling coverage. “Rapidly growing catastrophe exposure”—propelled by climate change—was the reason it gave.” See the recent editorial in the WSJ. The real reason State Farm is pulling out is an oppressive government regulation regime and extremely poorly managed forests. The state won’t let them raise rates to reflect the actual risk. As has been pointed out by Koonin and others, there is no hard evidence that the state’s wildfires are a result of “climate change”. Wild fires are a part of the climate that should be better managed...
1. They seem to generally act from emotion and fail to think through the impacts or lack of impacts or the downstream effects of the policies they push. They will push for offshore wind farms without considering the impact on sea life.
2. Way too many of them fail to THINK and just jump on the bandwagon of the latest thing that sounds good.
3. Generally, they seem to spend time and effort on things and support things that they themselves will not be impacted on.
And a thread that seems to run through all of this is an emphasis on being SEEN as virtuous and good, not actually doing the hard work, making sacrifices and choices that are hard and ARE virtuous.. Its as performative as the trans movement.
For these reasons I cringe when I read about so-called student activists.
To quote the great Noah Vanderhoff, “Kids know dick.” No one should change their behavior based on the emotionally motivated demands of a bunch of spoiled and easily manipulated children. This causes real problems in actual grownup land, and furthermore hurts said children by failing to teach them sober, mature, adult decisionmaking which starts with understanding the world is far more complex than they can understand in their youth and inexperience.
And what of those who try to destroy great works of art - the heritage of all humanity - in the name of this lunacy? Should we treat them with kid gloves?
Flooding and fires in California aren't from climate change, they are from human interference. No longer is Mother Nature allowed to regularly burn the underbrush in the forests, we now put them all out and have stopped doing controlled burns. When the fires do get away from us, they have so much tinder to feed them they are able to burn hot and long and consume many more large trees than they normally would do. This causes bare hillsides which then cannot accommodate the rains that naturally follow, and therefor the water runs down them instead of soaking in.
I live in CA and fires decimated our "hood" last year. now there are black sticks where there used to be green trees. there is nothing left to burn. except houses
You can protect the houses once the other fuel is gone. We have had two fires sweep through my area in the last 15 years. The first one was really eye-opening. Cedar, a sappy tree, burns from within and explodes like bombs, sending coals everywhere and igniting fresh burns. Got all of that crap away from.the house. Already had a tin roof and a lot of stone but stuccoed everything else. And eventually your land will green back up. The smell is awful for awhile though.
This happened to us in San Diego county, but we started seeing green shoots of plants after about two weeks. We also used it as a chance to re-evaluate the types of vegetation, and its placement, on our property.
First - great article that actually speaks the truth. Fossil fuel is needed. Especially to produce green energy components, the environmental destruction through mining and stripping countries forests for minerals and the environmental impact of disposing of the old green energy components.
Prominent climate activist Bill McKibben - so a guy who feels and thinks and probably has no real job thinks he alone knows the answers to the worlds issues? Where is his plan of action for China and India? Oh wait, they would shoot his dumb ass if he showed up.
Please divest and leave the rest of us alone. You should only invest in green energy. That way you will eating cat food in retirement. Green energy is one of the biggest scams around and got its major push from Obama who has never met a topic he was not morally superior at. Now Ice Cream Joe or Sir Trip A Lot, has only jumped on the money train to continue trying to destroy the country.
Idiots in Europe want to slaughter cows to save the planet. What's next, certain groups of people. Think it can not happen? Yeah look at the clowns leading this effort. Look at pictures of the protestors and the complete look of uselessness on their faces. The push to so called green ignores the environmental and nature impacts, why? It does not do to study things and realize your only goal in life is a lie.
Any funds people have being invested and only directed at green, the people should immediately withdraw or roll-over into a common sense fund. Why let some climate warrior destroy your life savings? Legislation by all politicians is to be regarded with little trust. They always have loop holes and work a rounds. The crazy schemes are what makes money for the grifters and phony people of the climate change groups leaders and they depend on the sheep to just follow, contribute, and fall in line. They make out pretty well just doing nothing useful. People just don't realize, follow stupid and you get stupid results.
Yeah and look at those climate protestors and look at just how diverse those crowds are!
Not.
If this was actually a movement dedicated to improving everybody’s lot in life while saving the planet, don’t you think we just might see representatives of societies that don’t come from leafy suburbs and campuses?
When is somebody going to point out the inherent racism of a movement that, at its core, is saying, “We got ours - now we’re going to change the rules, make things more scarce and expensive, then pull up the ladder to the chopper taking us to the Hamptons!” and leaving a century of growth and prosperity in a shambles?
I read a great article years ago about the 5 families who rule Cali. Getty was one. So m7ch of, if not all, of the policies that come come from Cali are nothing more than ways for that 5 to increase their wealth and power.
Strongly agree. It is amazing how much control of the state of CA is in such a small elite group of people. Pelosi is connected to Newsom, Newsom is connected to Getty Oil, and Nancy Prowda, Pelosi's Daughter, is now acting as Feinstein's caretaker.
I have looked for the article because I do not recall the specifics and could not find it. But it was Getty, Brown, the one Pelosi married into, the one Newsome is part of (I think he is descended from.very powerful judges) and one other.
Yeah they are bowing down to elected politicians who they have no idea who they are and how much they are being sold out. Sheep will always be sheep and used to make others wealthy.
“It requires some serious self-delusion—or a deep misunderstanding of how the world works—to believe that divestment can accomplish any of these things. It can’t.”
----------------------------------------------
I can’t think of a more precise and concise definition of California that a state with “some serious self-delusion and a deep misunderstanding of how the world works.”
How do I down vote something on Free Press? The Free Press should put honesty above religious ideology.
State Farm: "State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure, and a challenging reinsurance market."
Joe Nocera: "it’s gotten so bad that State Farm, the largest insurer of homeowners in the state, announced in May that it would stop selling coverage. 'Rapidly growing catastrophe exposure'—propelled by climate change—was the reason it gave.
Why did Joe blatantly lie to his reading public by inserting "propelled by climate change"? His opinion perhaps but not in the reason stated by State Farm.
That's something I have never understood. If a species is not well-adapted to its environment, it will go extinct. If a species is preyed upon excessively by another species (and humans are only one of MANY predator species), it will go extinct. This has been happening for millions upon millions of years, long before hominids (of which we are the only surviving species) ever appeared on the planet.
I remember when we lived in Oregon in the 90s. It was discovered that sea lions were eating way too many salmon. You could see the environmentalists' heads quietly exploding--how dare one precious endangered species wipe out another!!!
Species extinction is (or should be) only of concern when multiple species are going extinct within a short period of time. IF that is a result of human mismanagement of the environment, we ought to change our practices. But it is absurd to try to preserve every species on earth to the detriment of human survival.
I read recently that indigenous tribes in British Columbia had adapted to successfully farming salmon and a Canadian wing nut government official is hell-bent on shutting them down. Seems their farming operation MAY interfere with wild salmon. No proof that it does though.
While historically you are right about Nuclear power, you forgot to say our entire society rejected it, not just greens. And you are currently wrong as many greens have crossed over to the pro-nuclear side for various reasons. The hold up has been more about Wall Street and its capital not wanting to invest because of lack of ROI compared to other areas. But, the new nuclear technology has gotten their eyes back on nuclear energy as it is less capital intensive. Two types of micro-nuclear plants are currently being built out west (3 plants) as test cases. So, nuclear is coming.............and the greens are at least partially on board at this point.
You are right of course Dave. The nuclear utopia of a 50s Jetsons style future was rejected after the high profile accidents. But I feel there was never a concerted effort to rehabilitate nuclear. Because of vested interests who preferred to people to think that petrol chemicals were the ‘safer’ choice I think. I hope you’re right about some greens coming on board. The high profile Greta types I have seen have always dismissed it out of hand. And I stand by my assumption that it is because for a lot of them their actual goal is de growth and an end to capitalism. These SMRs seem the future to me. But overall I hope you are correct and I’m wrong!
With your comment I have now heard in two places that "oil interests," slowed the growth of nuclear, but I have never seen this documented. I am certain, however, that Exxon did for a time invest in nuclear, because I personally have visited a site that Exxon once owned that manufactures nuclear fuel. I am also certain that the ROI (return on investment) for nuclear power plants was dismal compared with natural gas "peaker plants" because I myself have compared these two. So can you help me find a source indicating the oil interests were against nuclear? My impression is that it was public fear, along with the exceedingly low ROIs that stalled the adoption of nuclear power. The low ROI's were, incidently, at least partialy caused by excessive regulation that was caused by the public fear. An example of the cost of regulation is the the cost of any steel used in a nuclear plant versus the cost of steel used to build a wind turbine.
I strongly disagree it was rejected by the entire population. Anti nuke types have gotten regulations put in place which makes it almost impossible to build new plants. I bet if nuclear power was presented fairly to the American public as an option to solve greenhouse gas problems that it would be accepted successfully. Explain how it eliminates brown outs and blackouts. How the newest designs are safer. I want to know why most human caused climate change proponents aren't screaming for nuclear power plants. Reusable options will never work.
Due to nuclear power plant accidents, a plurality of Americans, both Rep. and Dems. did not favor use of nuclear energy by 2000. Three mile island (1979) was a partial meltdown with the safety features preventing a full blown melt down. Chernobyl (1986)was a full meltdown, but was a result of faulty designed power plant. Since then a plurality of Americans (more so that identify as Rep) have slowly increased their support of nuclear energy (56% currently). Strongest support is with males and college educated folks. The 1980s saw the cancellation of many nuclear power plants. Typically support goes up as the price of gasoline at the pumps goes up. What you suggest is happening as many greens and the general public have started to become educated as to the safety and carbon free nature of nuclear power is elucidated. Again, the big issue has been Wall Street unwillingness to invest capital in nuclear energy. Is has been over a generation since nuclear power accidents pushed down support.
Power companies have more than enough capital to do it. The real question is will the government let them. This could solve the climate problem on it's own. There are a lot of people getting rich off of this scam that don't want to see it end. I am happy you are reporting there is a change among the Greens. I believe you but I am not seeing it.
Feel like this column had a little more meat on the bone than the DeSantis column. I appreciate the effort to get the opinion of the side that supports such divestment to round out this column.
"It’s a sham. Legislators know they can vote for it without ever having to worry about the consequences. They can pretend they’re doing something about climate change without actually doing anything about climate change."
Same with most any attempt at righting a wrong. The U of Utah business school starts its meetings by apologizing to the Native Americans for taking their land. If they really cared, they would return the land!
But then, isn’t most of California a bizarre sham? California seems to be completely captured by a surreal collection of activists and fools, making virtually every mistake in policy feasible. Homelessness, crime, corruption, all made worse by bad policy decisions.
I would be interested to hear (maybe from a CA resident?) one initiative CA policy-makers got right in the last 2-3 decades, in the sense that it worked well and achieved its goal. Seems every idea coming out of that state is a radical non-solution to a genuine problem, likely to make things worse. I realize that bureaucratic solutions tend that way anyway, but CA politicians seem to lean into creative extremism and wild imagination. Maybe they're trying to live up to Hollywood...?
Perhaps it is not a sham. This could be seen as a "first step." The next step would be to modify the state constitution, which happens regularly in california due to ballot propositions. It is not a touchdown, but it may advance the ball down the field.
In no sense whatsoever is destroying the economy, so that you have a larger pool of hopeless destitute people who you can turn into communist revolutionaries, an ‘empty gesture’.
I’d love an article from a historian, maybe Niall Ferguson, explaining all of the times in the past when it took people too long to realize that they were dealing with enemy combatants.
Communist revolutionaries my arse. The real goal is everybody on the plantation toiling away, directed by the overseers. And the NY bankers directing the finances.
I was agreeing until the last couple of paragraphs. California is not experiencing effects of climate change - it's experiencing effects of neglect and mismanagement of its land and water resources, and of unrestricted construction.
Not clearing underbrush, water usage quotas that ensure that users will take all the allotted water whether they need it or not, allowing almond and rice agriculture in areas that experience water shortages, allowing construction of wood-frame houses in eucalyptus forests, vilifying concrete as a construction material (because cement production releases CO2) - have I missed any human-caused policies that are guaranteed to lead to environmental disasters?
The reason we're hearing about wildfires is because more people are losing their homes and getting hurt. So why are municipalities allowing housing in forests, just as east coast municipalities are allowing construction on flood plains? Oh yeah, property taxes.
California now regulates insurance rates. They wouldn’t allow State Farm to charge enough to cover the risk. Allstate bailed out yesterday. As usual it isn’t climate change, it is bumbling bureaucrats
Thank you, Lee. As a CA licensed insurance agent for over 30 years the idea that State Farm is leaving due to climate changes is silly & wrong. Companies, plural, as in a lot are leaving as they cannot get the appropriate rate for their exposure. This is largely due to our commissioner who has denied rate increases for 30 months. He is still mad that the carriers did not refund more auto insurance premiums during the pandemic and decided to blanket deny rate changes. I have never seen price increases and a lack of availability in my career.
I’m more an energy guy, so it’s good to hear an industry person affirm I got that right. After years of seeing regulatory retribution for perceived sins levied against power companies, I feel your pain
The truly scary thing is that CA is now going to regulate gasoline prices. I left the state 5 years ago but still working on the CA power grid. Another regulatory slow motion train wreck, but quite lucrative for consultants.
Too many wildfires.
and why is that ole conny ?
People starting fires, intentionally or unintentionally, exacerbated by climate change. Not really that complicated. AllState made that clear. Not a single word in the their statement about "liberals" or "leftists." Hope that answers your question.
Uh no. Wrong again. Carriers are unable to charge the appropriate rate for their exposures. This is largely due to the commissioner, who happens to a "leftist."
Uh no. Right again. Too expensive to cover property in areas that have excessive wildfires. That was the rationale given in the statement. Not "largely due" to any one person.
No crazy wildfires....no need to raise rates to exhorbitant/astronomical levels. So, as usual, I'm correct...because I don't try and squeeze an ideological square peg into a reality-based round hole.
I might ask you what exactly makes the commissioner a "leftist"....but what's the point? You have no cogent explanation anyway.
Man....if only someone had tried to warn us about all this. Invest in water, Alan....it's going fast!
Same thought here. Forestry management and water use failures are at the heart of those two problems.
And the Real Reason that State Farm is pulling the plug...
The real reason State Farm is pulling the plug, is insuring people and businesses in a state run by Gov. Nuisance and other left wing loonies is simply bad economics. Every step of the way these people are causing immense harm and serious future risks to their citizens through their meddling in energy, agriculture, and other social matters.
Don’t forget caps on insurance rates that might otherwise cover losses and/or discourage building in fire zones and/or designing fire resistant buildings.
The Californians deserve everything that has happened and is happening to them. They are the ones, nut cases all, who elected the far left morons that run the state.
If you are running for office in California, you run as far to the left as you possibly can and spout the looniest far left insane slogans that you can dream up and the lemmings will elect you and worship you at your feet.
California the state of unicorns, rainbows and butterflies, a left wing utopia, cover in human feces. They love it!
I find that troubling; a blame-the-victim whitewash. In CA, and also here in the PRNJ and in many other places, the vast majority geographically are electorally irrelevant against the masses in the cities -- who think that food comes from the grocery store and electricity from two holes in the wall -- if they think at all. Had there been the wisdom to install a a counter to the masses, say a senate-like entity by county back when such a thing could be done, it would be different. Now I don't like to think about what it would take to restore sanity.
Much of which is the direct result of the dwindling number of individual homeowners who are impacted by these vile policies but no longer exist in large enough numbers to have any political impact. The majority of CA residential housing, whether multi- or single-family dwellings, is owned by investors. Less and less of are whom are the mom-and-pop type and more of the large institutional type, Blackrock, et. al. I highly doubt that Larry Fink pays the same rates for homeowners insurance as I and the rest of the individuals do.
I did not vote for any of this shit. I also do not intend to "retire" in CA when the time comes, I intend to keep more of my retirement and "retire" in another state.
You didn't vote for it but the majority of voters did, nut cases all.
Retire to Texas, mild winters, brutal summers. Retire to somewhere around San Antonio. San Marcos is a pretty, college town on a picturesque river.
Get rid of the Nuisance it’s not to late
Very well said
State Farm is leaving the state because the insurance commissioner refuses to allow companies to charge rates in accordance with the risk. Allstate is not writing new business, as well.
It is that simple.
My insurer bumped me 20% this year using Ca. wildfires as the excuse and I'm almost halfway across the country.
State mandated caps on insurance premiums and the huge rise in the cost of rebuilding in good part because of the ridiculous regulatory climate here in California.
And Allstate too
Yup. Dusting off my old Andy Rooney imitation: “Ever wonder why California wasn’t heavily settled with Indians [AR would never had said “indigenous peoples” - off-topic thought for another day: wouldn’t it be fun to bring him back for a little while to hear HIS take on current politics and culture wars?] when the settlers came to California in droves in the mid-19th century? I mean, hundreds of millennia, thousands of generations, should have been settled in the bountiful fields and forests flush with timber, as well as the magnificent rivers and lakes teeming with fish and surrounded by wildlife.”
“Gee, it couldn’t have been that these people and cultures, intensely attuned to warp and woof of nature, to the rhythms as well as the vagaries of the seasons, listened to the fires, floods,storms, and earthquakes, said, ‘Unh-unh - let’s find someplace a little more sustainable for our way of life!’ and moved along to the Great Plains, could it?”
“I mean, they couldn’t have been so perceptive and smart to think that a culture bends to its surroundings rather than the other way around and have thought that they would be better off somewhere else, could they?”
“No - it took the humility and sensitivity of a modern European society to decide it could destroy endless forests, dam and divert great waterways for irrigation and power, and pave over millions of square miles of land to create mind-bogglingly huge heat islands, and then blame a client catastrophe on big oil companies…”
“Just sayin’…”
"...smart to think that a culture bends to its surroundings rather than the other way around." Well put. I do believe in climate change (and recognize California's general abuse of their environment). But ultimately, we have to figure out how to live and thrive on this planet. That includes taking care of it in the best way we can, as well as adapting our lives to fit mother nature where she's at. Climate change is part of earth's long history. If we "deny" that, we will make it much harder on ourselves.
Do you believe in geology?
What do you mean?
belief veers toward religion, not science.
People who “believe in…” this or that are the very cause of the problem. A scientific approach excludes “believing”, which is a purely religious approach.
Clarify: I believe that the activity of humankind which involves the extraction of fossil fuels from the crust of the earth and burning them to release carbon into the atmosphere does impact our climate. Yes, I have read about this, and it is not a religious approach. Really wasn't looking for your beliefs here. You can "believe" that human activity has no impact at all on the climate. And I could question your sources. My larger point was that we need to LIVE WITH the changing climate (regardless of exact causes) rather than think that we are going to change the direction of things in short order. I completely agree with the premise of this article that these efforts to divest from fossil fuels are useless, and what we really need is common sense practical solutions to gradually reduce dependence on fossil-based power and towards renewables and nuclear.
This is really funny; so my post is about taking a scientific attitude rather than “believing”, and you accuse me of “believing that human activity has no impact at all on the climate”. Where exactly did you read that in my post? Arguing is much easier when you make up what your opponent says, isn’t it?
Also please feel free to “question my sources”, but not only you don’t know what those sources are - the sources for what? That “believing” in something is religious rather than scientific? The source for that is common sense. C’mon, say it: you think you’re dealing with a “denier”, so it’s all settled and righteous for you.
Do you perform your own exhaustive, independent research on every single scientific topic before coming to a decision on its validity? Or do you trust what other people say? If it's the latter, that's belief.
As a scientist (geologist) I do some of the “exhaustive, independent research” that you mention, but that’s only a fraction of what’s needed to fully understand climate change. However, when you see daily hysteria about man-made climate change, when you see the obvious cultist character completely hushed by all mainstream media, when you see no honest public debate being allowed, when you hear the idiotic “the science is settled”, which is a totally anti-scientific attitude, you know immediately that you’re taken for a ride. That doesn’t mean the man-made climate change is not a problem to be considered seriously and scientifically, but it means that the catastrophists are crooks. The notion of “scientific consensus” on such a complex topic is laughable. By far, most people “concerned” by climate change, anlthough theoretically “educated”, are completely unable to tell the difference between data, a hypothesis and a forward model. Am I wrong ?
Has anyone ever been to Utah? Hello. Yes climate does change. Go to Utah. It’s plain to see that yes, continents move and the oceans dry up and mountains pop up in the oddest places. It’s interesting that some astrophysicists (who actually know math) think climate change is being driven by cosmic rays and that anthropogenic changes are negligible. But there is no funding to further explore this assertion and certainly you’ve never seen any discussion or debate of this theory in the media. What we do have is governments operating on the absurd premise that Climate change is controlled by one variable (i.e., the big C or carbon). Yoo hoo- nothing in the universe or the environment is a product of one factor...it’s far far more complicated than that. What about plastics in the ocean? Volcanic activity? Deforestation? Cosmic rays? The fact we are emerging from a a big ice age? Forest practices? Soil degradation? Our place in the universe? The billions of years that earth was just a seething mass versus this minuscule segment of time? Do you really think this planet will last for all of eternity?
What is true however is that the insistence on zero carbon emissions will truly hasten the demise and misery of people on this planet who are already suffering in poverty. And btw, if you have to drive your car to work you will likely be the next target of the climate police. Hint: think Chinese covid lockdowns.
Sacrificing hundreds of poor cows on the alter of appeasing the gods of climate hysteria is just plain meaningless. Insisting we eat bugs and live in 15 minutes cities is simply more Soros-Gates power & population control. These “solutions” suck.
We are more capable & creative as a species than that. And harder to kill off than cockroaches.
But meanwhile, God forbid some current idiot government administration shoots millions of little mirrors up into the atmosphere to deflect the sun’s rays. yep, that will take care of any chance of global warming and more than likely, end any life on earth. Keep in mind: Life is a result of carbon. Deal with it.
they have been spewing the same crap since 1890 , always a disater around the corner
You’re 💯 correct & thank you.
If you dropped over due to heart failure tomorrow, would you stop any medical intervention to save you until you’d done your own research? If you need brain surgery, same question? If they are using public (your) funds to construct a highway overpass, would you demand they wait until you’ve thoroughly researched the design, engineering, materials etc before you drive over or under it? They are teaching your child advanced trig in highschool...do you hold the kid out until you’ve done your own research to verify it makes sense? Did you do research the latest in aviation before boarding a commercial plane, drive a new car? Of course not. We have to believe others to function in modern society. In fact fields of science are based on work of previous research that tested hypotheses similar or related hypotheses. Where evidence from various research accumulates supporting a hypothesis, we ought take note...because no one person can know everything, and few would even know how to get answers they need. Same with climate change. Over 750 scientists from around the world published their findings in a a comprehensive climate report about 10(?) years back. I believe about a dozen disagreed with or had findings that did not support the hypothesis that human activity was promoting climate warming. At least a few of them were employed by the oil industry. And the research and data continues to be collected. So yes, you can find various authors and publications refuting the notion that the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to a warming climate. But, if you are attempting to find where the preponderance of data lies regarding the issue, there is no doubt as to what you will find.
Your endless examples show you can’t tell the difference between simple, easily verifiable problems and complex, highly controversial issues. You obviously have never been in
graduate school or academia in a science field, you have no idea what pressures exist on a PhD student or a professor seeking tenure. You imagine that on climate science you can just publish whatever your data shows and damn the consequences ? Your career never starts or dies right there. It’s so telling how you smear those working in the oil industry (they must all be all corrupt, right?) while you show moving trust in scientists working with government money - sure, those wouldn’t sell their soul for money and reputation ! This kind of smear is typical of climate zealots who have no real arguments, because their real grasp of both science and scientific environment is zero.
There is doubt about what you will find on both sides of the fence.
We don't do it by doubling down on policies that double or triple the strain on available resources every generation or so.
It seems as though California has succumbed to terminal stupidity and are now demanding that others give up their share of the resources so that the stupidity can be sustained.
California is the poster video of what unbridled progressivism will set loose on the community.
"Ever wonder why California wasn’t heavily settled with Indians when the settlers came to California in droves in the mid-19th century?”
Mostly because 90 percent of the Indians were dead from smallpox before those wagon trains got to California. The pox killed more "Injuns" than all the John Wayne movies put together. The pox, brought to the Americas by early Euro conquerors (not intentionally, though the results were the same), wiped out the tribes more efficiently than any army they could muster.
As for the Great Plains, Indians who hadn't already called it home certainly didn't want to live there. The United States Cavalry forced their migration at gunpoint. I cannot imagine any Indian who'd lived for generations on the East or West Coasts would have said, "Me, me, me, General Custer! I want to move to Oklahoma, but please make sure my reservation is extra hot, arid, and miserable!"
Agree completely that none of this had anything to do with Big Oil. Land belongs only to those strong enough to keep it, and the Indians weren't. Nation-building is ugly, brutal, bloody . . and how the world really works.
check your sources, it seems that the disease was not introduced from Europe
besides, if they were dead “before” europeans came... what/who killed them???
I didn't say they were dead before Europeans showed up, Sonsoles. I said the earliest European explorers/conquerors brought smallpox with them--not deliberately, but because they were immune and it came along for the ride without them knowing.
The pox raced through North America like Patton's Third Army, killing 90 percent of the Indian population before *later* settlers rode their wagon trains to the west. My sources are accurate, though there are alternate theories as to where the pox came from. Your source must be among the alternates.
Maybe...
https://daily.jstor.org/european-colonization-and-epidemics-among-native-peoples/
There was an article (can't find it now) analyzing the genetics.
In any case, this all has little relevance today, beyond the fact that focusing on disease transmission, with disregard for the complex conditions within which a disease appears, seems to serve to stoke a negative/punitive animus towards immigrants, and painting a rosie bucolic (and totally false) picture of the Native tribes. Life, as usual, is way more complex. Thanks.
I get your point, however, Indians on the west coast didn’t migrate away to plains. Extensive populations existed and still exist today, modernized of course. California and northwest were always “sustainable” for simple living communities. No exodus occured.
Yes, thank you.
Wait until the rest of the Colorado River flow is diverted....
rivers will go back to where they were and dams ? don´t get me started
The Ohlones lived in CA. And why not? This area is eminently livable when it isn't mismanaged by bureaucrats.
Trying to be absolutely fair: the causes you've listed are probably 90% of the problem and, of course, these are the problems the climate zealots do not want to talk about. Climate change probably does account for some of it. (Climate does change over time. Has since the beginning of time) I just don't want to mirror the zealots by insisting that _none_ of what is happening in California is because of changing climate. Most of it, though, is squarely a result of land and water mismanagement.
The amount of acreage affected by wildfires in California has not increased over the past century. The amount of damage caused by fires has because of the increase of population living in/near fire prone areas which in California is most of our state.
Same is true of hurricane damage and shark attacks.
Do you have evidence reference? Not wanting to argue, just wondering because that is another one those facts that kind of refutes a lot of nonsense.
I stubbed by toe yesterday. I blame climate change. I pretty sure climate change was behind the bad refereeing in the Niners-Eagles game last year too.
Between climate change and racism, none of us ever need blame dumb luck or--God forbid--ourselves for anything ever again.
I recall seeing news footage this past winter of water being released to the ocean because the runoff exceeded capacity - maybe it's time to look into adding capacity to the system in California(?) Oh, I forgot- they'd have to use that C02 producing concrete...
CA hasn't built reservoirs since the 70's, and millions of people have settled here since then, that's one reason why we're having so many problems with enough water for all the people.
Despite the fact that we taxpayers (I lived there until 2022) passed bond measures to build water reservoirs.
Very true. We have also passed bond measures to improve freeways and roads, but the green meanies have used the money for bike paths and public transport. They should all be impeached or fired for theft when they don't do what the taxpayers vote on in elections. I still live in CA.
The High Speed Rail that is being built, whose cost and functionality bear no resemblance to what was approved by the voters, is another example of their failures. And there are millions of us here who didn't vote for these idiots.
The powers that be don’t give a sh..
We are ruled by useful idiots.
"Useless" :-)
Bingo!
It's not that CA has *less* water than it's had in the past, it's that the population consuming that water has exploded -- well, at least until very recently. Then there are myriad giveaways and capitulations to the environuts like diverting millions of gallons of water each year from the Sacramento river into the ocean to protect some little minnow fish. This starves not only the residents down state but also the farmers in the Central Valley. Who, as some have pointed out, now choose to grow almonds because they have a higher rate of return for what they have to pay out in water costs as opposed to, say, lettuce. So now lettuce costs more than almonds.
Every environmental "fix" has broad and often disastrous consequences which are deliberately minimized if not flat out ignored.
Government of the stupid, by the stupid, and for the stupid.
The good news is for the last couple of years the "Golden" state has been hemoragging population. So the water storage problem will eventually come into equilibrium - perhaps when the first climate prediction is close to coming right.
Except far too many are coming to Central Texas and we have water issues here too.
And electricity they haven’t expanded the grid either Cynthia.
I thought the same, California is being destroyed by Californians, not climate.
Yes, this article is written from the point of vue of a true climate catastrophist who absolutely refuses to challenge the orthodoxy of his cult and has a problem with “divestment” just because it doesn’t work to fulfill their goals. This is in fact the same Joe Nocera who in another Free Press article stated that “woke” wasn’t a reality, it’s all a set of justified, normal beliefs that are somehow hated by the evil conservatives.
I’m going to repeat: balance is not about alternatively publishing flawed articles from people biased on both sides, it’s about publishing articles from people who look at the facts and don’t buy “narratives” from either side. It seems like everybody who worked at some point for the legacy press is still beholden to the reality distorsion field that operates there.
That was precisely my reaction. Every disastrous nature-related event (except the flooding, to be fair) that California has been experiencing is a consequence of gross mismanagement.
Flooding can also be a result of mismanagement - damming and diverting rivers, or failure to build an adequate floodway.
After I bought my current house, I learned that there used to be a creek running across my and my neighbours' back yards. The creek was put in a pipe underground - like 50-odd other creeks in Toronto. Our back yards flood every spring for a couple of days. We've learned to live with it.
True, but the flooding this spring in California was the result of exceptional storm systems. Nature is always going to end up surprising you, no matter how well you think you've prepared.
I live near the Mississippi and this is something we Midwesterners are well familiar with. We have dams and levees for flood control, but every now and then, nature dishes out more than we ever thought of planning for. I experienced the same growing up in Utah, in the floods of 1983. A perfect storm of weather events can create a situation you never thought to plan for.
But mismanagement comes into play when dams and levees are not properly maintained. Evidently that was a huge factor in New Orleans during Katrina. And clearly the infrastructure planners for your neighborhood decided that the spring run-off would never be more than the capacity of the pipe they installed, although it clearly is.
New Orleans sits, literally, at the bottom of a bowl. As for the might Mississip flooding, you guys amaze me. Never a peep or whine. It is almost as if you expect such things and are prepared for it. Such a novel approach.
There is a very small town near us that floods on a regular basis due to being too low-lying too close to the Mississippi. You'd think that after nearly 200 years of human occupation, the people living there would move their town to higher ground. But they don't. They just clean up the mess after a flood and go back to their homes.
I am.okay with that. I assume they tend to not overbuild because they know it will be lost again. They used to build houses in I think the Bahamas that had concrete block walls on each end so that when a hurricane hit it just washed out the insides and left those walls standing. I think sometimes people used to be a lot smarter than we are now. Or at least a lot more practical.
Don't forget the uninsulated power lines and outdated transformers....
There is a reason why California started growing almond instead of other more water efficient crops. Growing almond uses minimal labor and the myriad of labor laws introduced in the last couple of decades increasing made growing other crop unprofitable. So when the farmers have the water rights, growing almond generate more profit than other crops.
And the amount of fresh water that flows from the American and San Joaquin rivers into the San Francisco Bay is practically enough to grow almonds in Palm Springs. As many here have pointed out, California has been mismanaged across so many fronts that it is becoming a laughing stock. Naturally, its governor thinks he has earned the right to do the same to the entire nation.
hey it's chinatown....
Nothing ever changes, does it?
Agree, the complaint about growing almond is masking the problem of government mismanagement in California.
Its mismanaged because they are trying to manage it too much. Centralized government always fails in the end because they cannot account for everything
So true.
Yes but it is my understanding that almonds must be watered or they will die unlike others that simply go dormant. So not a good drought crop.
All crops need water and they should because the food supply is what is keeping us alive. We really don't need to water our lawn but the crops need water and we need to feed ourselves. The reason to grow almond is because the growing and harvesting of almond require less labor as compare to the other crop. The harvesting of almost is almost 100% mechanized and uses very little labor. The $ yield per acre is superior to other crops and this is also the reason many California farmers grow almond. If they grow other crops, they may go under. The farm labor laws enacted in the last few decades have made farming much more expensive compare to other states. Farmers are in it to make money and not to live in poverty. The complaint about almond using water is an excuse to mask the problems of mismanagement in California.
I rarely make excuses. Furthermore I understand the role of food production but am not a fan of corporate farming. It is replete with problems - sanitation, not particularly nutritous, not particularly efficient as far as having all or most of a particular commodity too heavily centralized (we recently learned, or should have learned, that it is not wise to have all the eggs in a few henhouse for example), not to mention putting all of the food production in the hands of a very few people controlling the very few massive corporations. This is why we have Monsanto and Roundup issues, Bill Gates pushing his experimentation, and the CCP buying farm land and meat processing plants, and the concept of lab grown meat, among a host of other serious problems. But back to almonds all you demonstrated is that the issue, like most, is complex and you do not refute, in any way, that almonds are not a good crop in drought prone areas. Nor is cotton. It has sucked the Colorado dry.
You seem to spout all the correct tribal talking points. I can understand about the concern that food production is concentrated in a few large corporation. But I have to ask for the fact about what you assert that corporate farming is "not particularly efficient". Perhaps you mean different thing when you wrote this. Corporate farming is the epitome of efficiency because everything drives the bottom line. Corporate farming in its current form is why we don't have mass starvation since food is plentiful and relatively cheap. Since the dawn of civilization, man could only depend on subsistence farming and one bad crop would doom a family. Industrial farming is what enabled us to have the population explosion today.
I don't evaluate the "goodness" of a crop. Farmers will grow whatever the consumers demand. People demand non-diary milk and almond milk and soy milk came to the rescue. If people don't drink almond milk tomorrow, then many of the almond orchards will be converted into growing other profitable crop. Are you so wise to dictate what people should eat, what farmers should grow? Really
Just as I do not make excuses, I do not spout talking points. I understand that this type of thing is necessary to feed the ever expanding urban masses. But I do not accept that either -corporate farming or ever increasing urban masses - are wise. All we have done with these things you laud is create a very weak and very dependent class of humans. I do not think that is a good thing. Does it not occur to you that the ever-growing health crises we are faced with (the latest being a dramatic increase in colon cancer in young people) is directly related to food? We had Taco Bell sued over a decade ago for selling unidentifiable stuff as meat. We pick vegetables pre-peak nutritional value so they can be easily shipped across the country. We tinker with the genetics of plants and animals to produce bigger varieties of both, never mind that bigger does not mean better. Monsanto genetically modifies seed and then sues farmers who refuse to use their seed thereby running them out of business, so all we are left with is the Monsanto products. We treat SEED with pesticides. We treat water as an infinite resource to enable corporate farms when food scarcity will pale in comparison to water scarcity. We created one Dust Bowl already, how long before we create more? All in slavish devotion to what you hail as the bottom line and "efficiency". When this house of cards fails, and it will, you will see starvation beyond your wildest imagination. As for my "judgment" I sleep well at night as I do not worship at the altar of the almighty dollar or the bottom line or some mis-guided efficiency. Rather I value humanity and aspire to what improves humanity.
You mention needing to grow crops to feed ourselves, however, Almonds are not a crop that is particularly needed for feeding people. There is such a thing as NOT growing something, if the thing doesn't grow very well in the place you are farming. If CA makes it too expensive to grow move elsewhere or charge more. As a matter of fact, the farmers changing crops just makes the problem worse because the government can ignore their mismanagement. If a state is making laws that make it hard for people to prosper, people should leave (and NOT vote for more people that will make the same mistakes).
Oh really. You know what people should eat. I am glad you don't make the rules for the rest of us.
You can eat whatever you want, including almonds. Where we allow them to be grown is our right, because food and water mismatches affect the entire nation, not just Big Ag.
Example: Growing water-ravenous alfalfa in Arizona to be shipped to Saudi Arabia to feed cattle is insane. Arizona is in a massive drought, forced to reduce its take of the Colorado River because the river is drying up. We should ban the growing of alfalfa, almonds, and other water-intensive crops in deserts (like Arizona) but encourage it in regions without such heavy droughts. Or, price water at true market rate, and the free market will push Arizona farmers to switch to other crops for economic reasons.
Two more: Nestle pumps millions of gallons from the aquifers here to fill plastic bottles with sellable water. Tell Nestle to move its butt up north, where there's more water than they know what to do with. Intel is building a couple of computer chip factories here. These factories require tons of water to operate, so move them somewhere that has a lot more water at hand.
Water belongs to all of us, not just Big Corporate, so we can dictate how and where it will be used.
I said need...YOU said should. We NEED food. We do not NEED almond milk. Almonds are not a staple food item that gives great nutrition and calories for the cost to grow them. They are a luxury unless you live somewhere that they grow naturally.
I am not saying you can't have them. I am saying you still have to take some responsibility for the fact that they are not a great crop to grow in a dry place prone to droughts. And using the government's poor management as an excuse for why it is ok to grow them makes little sense.
All food crops will die if not watered. California accounts for 62% of fruit and nut production (source Cal Poly). There is plenty of water to irrigate if we build enough storage here. No new reservoirs since 1980. We are the worst managed state and yet it's what the voters ask for election after election.
Really? Of course crops require water. But not all nut trees die without water. Some just go dormant. But I agree about water mismanagement in Cali. But all that cotton in Arizona and West Texas is bad too in terms of water. I live in Central Texas. We are flooded with Cali refugees and IMO there is insufficient water to support the existing population, much less a growing one. Food scarcity will pale in comparison to water scarcity.
There is no water scarcity. We got 97% worth of water in our oceans. Now that is science.
Your gullibility is showing. You ought to tuck that in.
But do we ask for it every election. I’m seriously starting to believe that it doesn’t matter who or what we vote for the powers that be will do what they like even if to the detriment of the people. We have to stand up and say “ITS ENOUGH”
Also look up Lynda Resnick and Stewart Resnick. They control much of the nut and citrus production in California and also happen to be huge democrat party fundraisers and operatives. Follow the money.
I thought the same. Thanks for pointing this out.
Thanks for saying this brother so I didn't have to. Yes, The Church of Climate Change remains way too full of true believers
A shared delusion is far more powerful than any lone belief.
A wording of your last paragraph, if I may...
The reason why we are hearing so much about the damages to human infrastructure is that the density of human activity in high-risk areas is increasing dramatically.
I find it difficult to see someone as a victim if he chooses to build his house at the end of the airport runway and then complains bitterly about the engine noise.
Actually, I find it downright annoying.
Not only the density but the *value* of that density, which gives great headline for the warming nuts when a hurricane strikes. "Billions of dollars in damage, all because you selfish bastards are cooking on gas stoves!"
Or buying up multiple oceanfront compounds all over the planet at ~$15M a pop, hosting Romanesque bacchanals to celebrate one's own deification -- in the middle of a plague -- then publicly whining about fictitious rising sea levels. "Won't someone please think of my net worth?!"
Yeah, y'all know who I'm talking about.
Or a McMansion in hurricane prone areas. I think a solution would be to cap what insurance can be liable for.
With the third longest coastline of any US state, you've got to wonder why California has not yet figured out how to convert salt water into fresh water for its thirsty citizens and its parched but profitable agriculture industry. Shouldn't someone out there have figured out the ever-growing drought cycle?
Call in the Hebrews/Israelis - they can assist they have been conserving water for years
Desalination is expensive, and Californians still waste so much water, that more efficient usage can create substantial savings. I remember reading many years ago that Israel had invented a breathable biodegradable film that retained moisture in the soil for the duration of the growing season. At the end, the film disintegrated. It's how Israel is able to grow oranges in the desert.
Nuclear power is a great resource to use in the desalinization process.
Desalination is more expensive than losing valuable crops, depleting reservoirs, and lowering water tables with all damage and environmental impacts of those results? I'm sorry, but ygbsm!
Large scale desalination costs about $.01/gallon. For drinking/cooking/rinsing usage that is actually dirt cheap.
I have a State Farm home policy. I'm thrilled they stopped coverage in California! I'm sick of paying for it.
The same people who proclaim from a position of moral superiority that we must save the planet are the same people who advocate for abortion on demand and turn a blind eye to the world’s largest slave owning country (China).
Ironically ESG is a demoralized social scoring system. When you see ESG, you should think CCP. Calculate your ESG score here to make sure you are on the right side of history: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-raise-your-esg-score
NYU Professor Aswath Damodaran, known as the “Dean of Valuation”, had the most scathing takedown of the charade:
“I find the purveyors of ESG to be among the most sanctimonious and arrogant twits (and you can quote me on that) on the face of the earth, convinced that they have the right definition of good, that they will thrust down the throats of everyone else. The ESG measurement services, in my view, are a charade, measuring neither goodness nor risk, but they have real effects, since companies take consequential actions to improve these scores.”
It is collusive anti-competitive behavior and embezzlement and defrauding shareholders.
Lawsuits are a big part of the answer since we live in a banana republic and the Democrats running the agencies will never take action.
Of course you have to find good lawyers who don’t mind permanently suiciding any chance they might have of working at a large firm, which is not easy to do.
I loved how NYC was leading the charge on this and then it was pointed out that their bond offerings conspicuously omitted any mention of climate risks.
And tool around on private jets spewing copious carbon emissions.
“A private jet is the most polluting form of transport you can take,” says Matt Finch, the UK policy manager for Transport & Environment. “The average private jet emits two tonnes of carbon an hour. The average European is responsible for [emitting] eight tonnes of carbon a year."
But according to Bill Gates, it isn't hypocrisy because he is "part of the solution." In other words, we live in District 13. He lives in District 1.
Piece of scrap, he can keep District 1 I will rather be in District whatever as long as it’s far away from Bill
They aren’t trying to save the planet. They all know it’s bullshit. The real question is, what are California lawmakers proposing the pensions invest in? If they adopt Nancy Pelosi’s insider trading investment strategy, you can bet their personal portfolios will be in it before the first nickel of CalPERS pension money is. Chinese money funneled into their bank accounts through multiple LLCs will be another tell as to their real motivations. FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Follow the money
Who buys hundreds of miles of farmland then demands the West destroy its farms and livestock to meet climate change targets?
Who??? That would be the Sith Lords.
Yeah strange stuff
Brilliant post it’s all bullshit
Yip Ben as well as Brandon fist bumping the Saudi’s.
"When I spoke with Boeve, she pointed out that the divestment movement has bred a generation of climate change activists—former university students who had confronted their school president and other administrators to argue for divestment. Those confrontations had offered valuable lessons in advocacy, and helped turn these students into lifelong climate activists, she added."
This is the real point of the entire climate movement; to brainwash kids into anti-capitalist zombies to destroy the progress made worldwide over the past 100 years, improving everyone's standard of living 1,000-fold.
I wrote about that sick trend in my piece- Our Children Are Not Tools of Your Green Propaganda: https://www.sub-verses.com/p/our-children-are-not-tools-of-your
Agreed. The climate extremists claim to want to solve this problem. But they clearly don’t. They are de growth anti capitalists as you say, who want to create a pre industrial world with themselves in charge of the meagre resources. (Not meagre for them of course, just for the rest of us. )
A return to feudalism.
Well yes Lynne. It seems nuts to suggest this is the ultimate goal. And I’m sure they don’t even consider it as such. But yes. All the power, intellectual, financial and social at the top. The rest of us underneath. If that’s not feudalism I don’t know what is. I write about the changing attitude of the elites to the ‘working class’ here. From a UK perspective. If you’re interested. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/in-praise-of-populism?r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
They consider it exactly so. It’s perfect cynicism.
I think Americans should divest themselves of all things California. Those people are crazy zealots and will continue to drag the whole country down.
I think a better plan is to encourage all the crazy people to move to California.
COME TO CALIFORNIA AND JOIN US IN SAVING THE PLANET
And await "the Big One" to complete the job?
While, in the interim, they suffer fires, floods and electric blackouts.
All without evil gas stoves
I live here in California and yes, we do suffer from fires, floods, and electricity blackouts, brownouts, and a plague of governance called stupidity. We also have astronomical deficit spending, virtue signaling (useless divestment from big oil is literally the tip of the iceberg), homelessness, illegal immigration, crime, pollution, drought, terrible public education systems, sky high inflation, mental illness ...the list is daunting...
I do like the weather and the beach, though 🤪🙄💨
Yeah, the weather and the beach finally couldn't balance out all the rest. So I left...
I hear you, JB...
I can't tell you how many friends and clients I have lost to "free" states like Texas, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, and Idaho in just the last 2 years. It is a significant number. I even bought property in another state and have an escape plan ready to go myself... This used to be a great state. It is sad.
Arizona Bay.
If only that were possible.
California is a big bowl of granola - what ain't fruits or nuts is flakes!
There, I said it...
Good observation.
The Civil War seems to have settled questions of secession, but the question of expulsion is a different matter.
I’ve had the same thought! Dems hate Red states so much (and vice versa, to be fair). I wish we would be expelled (I live in SC)…. I’d love not having to worry about which policy they enact next that will finally spell the end of my freedom.
we were talkin about california,
i'd think there are about 7 or 8 states vs. 42 or 43 that would get thrown out if it came to a national vote and SC would not be one of the 7 or 8.
I am stealing this line. (And I live in Illinois, which richly deserves to be the first state expelled.)
“The real crime here is that there’s no place in the country that is experiencing the damaging consequences of climate change as much as California. Chronic wildfire, terrible flooding—it’s gotten so bad that State Farm, the largest insurer of homeowners in the state, announced in May that it would stop selling coverage. “Rapidly growing catastrophe exposure”—propelled by climate change—was the reason it gave.” See the recent editorial in the WSJ. The real reason State Farm is pulling out is an oppressive government regulation regime and extremely poorly managed forests. The state won’t let them raise rates to reflect the actual risk. As has been pointed out by Koonin and others, there is no hard evidence that the state’s wildfires are a result of “climate change”. Wild fires are a part of the climate that should be better managed...
Everything distasteful and unpleasant is the result of climate change, but for $10 million I can solve the problem. 🤣
Wow. You are too cheap. Go big or go home. 😉
Chris, please link to WSJ editorial. Thanks!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-farm-homeowners-insurance-california-2a934a22
I've noticed a few things about modern activists.
1. They seem to generally act from emotion and fail to think through the impacts or lack of impacts or the downstream effects of the policies they push. They will push for offshore wind farms without considering the impact on sea life.
2. Way too many of them fail to THINK and just jump on the bandwagon of the latest thing that sounds good.
3. Generally, they seem to spend time and effort on things and support things that they themselves will not be impacted on.
And a thread that seems to run through all of this is an emphasis on being SEEN as virtuous and good, not actually doing the hard work, making sacrifices and choices that are hard and ARE virtuous.. Its as performative as the trans movement.
For these reasons I cringe when I read about so-called student activists.
To quote the great Noah Vanderhoff, “Kids know dick.” No one should change their behavior based on the emotionally motivated demands of a bunch of spoiled and easily manipulated children. This causes real problems in actual grownup land, and furthermore hurts said children by failing to teach them sober, mature, adult decisionmaking which starts with understanding the world is far more complex than they can understand in their youth and inexperience.
Another common denominator is they all have the same sources of information and live in echo chambers where they are never exposed to the truth.
They need safe spaces from truth.
And what of those who try to destroy great works of art - the heritage of all humanity - in the name of this lunacy? Should we treat them with kid gloves?
Nope. Jail them and then force them to pay the costs of the loss. I do not care if they have to work 20 yrs to pay off the debt.
Good idea except they cannot work. For the reasons you point out about how they engage to start with.
It's a culture dominated by the whims of celebrities.
Did you mean to say, “…the whiff of celebrities…”? 😂
Flooding and fires in California aren't from climate change, they are from human interference. No longer is Mother Nature allowed to regularly burn the underbrush in the forests, we now put them all out and have stopped doing controlled burns. When the fires do get away from us, they have so much tinder to feed them they are able to burn hot and long and consume many more large trees than they normally would do. This causes bare hillsides which then cannot accommodate the rains that naturally follow, and therefor the water runs down them instead of soaking in.
I live in CA and fires decimated our "hood" last year. now there are black sticks where there used to be green trees. there is nothing left to burn. except houses
You can protect the houses once the other fuel is gone. We have had two fires sweep through my area in the last 15 years. The first one was really eye-opening. Cedar, a sappy tree, burns from within and explodes like bombs, sending coals everywhere and igniting fresh burns. Got all of that crap away from.the house. Already had a tin roof and a lot of stone but stuccoed everything else. And eventually your land will green back up. The smell is awful for awhile though.
This happened to us in San Diego county, but we started seeing green shoots of plants after about two weeks. We also used it as a chance to re-evaluate the types of vegetation, and its placement, on our property.
First - great article that actually speaks the truth. Fossil fuel is needed. Especially to produce green energy components, the environmental destruction through mining and stripping countries forests for minerals and the environmental impact of disposing of the old green energy components.
Prominent climate activist Bill McKibben - so a guy who feels and thinks and probably has no real job thinks he alone knows the answers to the worlds issues? Where is his plan of action for China and India? Oh wait, they would shoot his dumb ass if he showed up.
Please divest and leave the rest of us alone. You should only invest in green energy. That way you will eating cat food in retirement. Green energy is one of the biggest scams around and got its major push from Obama who has never met a topic he was not morally superior at. Now Ice Cream Joe or Sir Trip A Lot, has only jumped on the money train to continue trying to destroy the country.
Idiots in Europe want to slaughter cows to save the planet. What's next, certain groups of people. Think it can not happen? Yeah look at the clowns leading this effort. Look at pictures of the protestors and the complete look of uselessness on their faces. The push to so called green ignores the environmental and nature impacts, why? It does not do to study things and realize your only goal in life is a lie.
Any funds people have being invested and only directed at green, the people should immediately withdraw or roll-over into a common sense fund. Why let some climate warrior destroy your life savings? Legislation by all politicians is to be regarded with little trust. They always have loop holes and work a rounds. The crazy schemes are what makes money for the grifters and phony people of the climate change groups leaders and they depend on the sheep to just follow, contribute, and fall in line. They make out pretty well just doing nothing useful. People just don't realize, follow stupid and you get stupid results.
Yeah and look at those climate protestors and look at just how diverse those crowds are!
Not.
If this was actually a movement dedicated to improving everybody’s lot in life while saving the planet, don’t you think we just might see representatives of societies that don’t come from leafy suburbs and campuses?
When is somebody going to point out the inherent racism of a movement that, at its core, is saying, “We got ours - now we’re going to change the rules, make things more scarce and expensive, then pull up the ladder to the chopper taking us to the Hamptons!” and leaving a century of growth and prosperity in a shambles?
The Rockefeller heirs being Exhibit "A".
Getty heir funding Stop Oil for Exhibit B.
I read a great article years ago about the 5 families who rule Cali. Getty was one. So m7ch of, if not all, of the policies that come come from Cali are nothing more than ways for that 5 to increase their wealth and power.
Strongly agree. It is amazing how much control of the state of CA is in such a small elite group of people. Pelosi is connected to Newsom, Newsom is connected to Getty Oil, and Nancy Prowda, Pelosi's Daughter, is now acting as Feinstein's caretaker.
I have looked for the article because I do not recall the specifics and could not find it. But it was Getty, Brown, the one Pelosi married into, the one Newsome is part of (I think he is descended from.very powerful judges) and one other.
More and more, the idea is right for a national divorce.
Idiots in Europe want to slaughter cows to save the planet. What's next, certain groups of people. Think it can not happen?
I can think of a few Europeans who could be on the list... Let's start with most representatives of the EU and move on from there...
There was a time when Europeans weren't such fucking losers and actually fought fro something.
Yeah they are bowing down to elected politicians who they have no idea who they are and how much they are being sold out. Sheep will always be sheep and used to make others wealthy.
Brits starved the Irish to keep the beef.
“It requires some serious self-delusion—or a deep misunderstanding of how the world works—to believe that divestment can accomplish any of these things. It can’t.”
----------------------------------------------
I can’t think of a more precise and concise definition of California that a state with “some serious self-delusion and a deep misunderstanding of how the world works.”
NYC already did this stupid shit
NYC elected an anthropology major, Brad Landner, as Comptroller whose only qualification was he is an IdiotLiberal
Brad Lander divested the NYC pension fund from fossil fuels and in his first year as Comptroller, lost $26Billion!
and he thinks he is doing a great job!!
You need to trust the experts, Bobby.
and he thinks he is doing a great job!!
In all fairness, New Yorkers seem so fucking stupid that even they probably think this guy is doing a great job.
How do I down vote something on Free Press? The Free Press should put honesty above religious ideology.
State Farm: "State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure, and a challenging reinsurance market."
Joe Nocera: "it’s gotten so bad that State Farm, the largest insurer of homeowners in the state, announced in May that it would stop selling coverage. 'Rapidly growing catastrophe exposure'—propelled by climate change—was the reason it gave.
Why did Joe blatantly lie to his reading public by inserting "propelled by climate change"? His opinion perhaps but not in the reason stated by State Farm.
I hope for a correction.
Joe is a journalist. Lying to make a point is what they do.
Maybe he just read the "news" coverage of the matter. But it is a misquote.
I mean, let’s face it. The people that are running California have fallen completely out of the frame.
It’s clear that we need to embrace nuclear. But the green movement rejects it. Not because it is dangerous and doesn’t work. But because it isn’t, and it does. If it’s ok to post here…. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/save-the-planet-unleash-godzilla?r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Hydro where possible. But that is frowned upon too.
We're not allowed to harm the habitat of a small sub-species of fish. Let humans die instead of fish.
Precisely. How many species have come and gone on earth? I cannot believe the arrogance of those who want to preserve "the planet" as is.
That's something I have never understood. If a species is not well-adapted to its environment, it will go extinct. If a species is preyed upon excessively by another species (and humans are only one of MANY predator species), it will go extinct. This has been happening for millions upon millions of years, long before hominids (of which we are the only surviving species) ever appeared on the planet.
I remember when we lived in Oregon in the 90s. It was discovered that sea lions were eating way too many salmon. You could see the environmentalists' heads quietly exploding--how dare one precious endangered species wipe out another!!!
Species extinction is (or should be) only of concern when multiple species are going extinct within a short period of time. IF that is a result of human mismanagement of the environment, we ought to change our practices. But it is absurd to try to preserve every species on earth to the detriment of human survival.
I read recently that indigenous tribes in British Columbia had adapted to successfully farming salmon and a Canadian wing nut government official is hell-bent on shutting them down. Seems their farming operation MAY interfere with wild salmon. No proof that it does though.
While historically you are right about Nuclear power, you forgot to say our entire society rejected it, not just greens. And you are currently wrong as many greens have crossed over to the pro-nuclear side for various reasons. The hold up has been more about Wall Street and its capital not wanting to invest because of lack of ROI compared to other areas. But, the new nuclear technology has gotten their eyes back on nuclear energy as it is less capital intensive. Two types of micro-nuclear plants are currently being built out west (3 plants) as test cases. So, nuclear is coming.............and the greens are at least partially on board at this point.
You are right of course Dave. The nuclear utopia of a 50s Jetsons style future was rejected after the high profile accidents. But I feel there was never a concerted effort to rehabilitate nuclear. Because of vested interests who preferred to people to think that petrol chemicals were the ‘safer’ choice I think. I hope you’re right about some greens coming on board. The high profile Greta types I have seen have always dismissed it out of hand. And I stand by my assumption that it is because for a lot of them their actual goal is de growth and an end to capitalism. These SMRs seem the future to me. But overall I hope you are correct and I’m wrong!
With your comment I have now heard in two places that "oil interests," slowed the growth of nuclear, but I have never seen this documented. I am certain, however, that Exxon did for a time invest in nuclear, because I personally have visited a site that Exxon once owned that manufactures nuclear fuel. I am also certain that the ROI (return on investment) for nuclear power plants was dismal compared with natural gas "peaker plants" because I myself have compared these two. So can you help me find a source indicating the oil interests were against nuclear? My impression is that it was public fear, along with the exceedingly low ROIs that stalled the adoption of nuclear power. The low ROI's were, incidently, at least partialy caused by excessive regulation that was caused by the public fear. An example of the cost of regulation is the the cost of any steel used in a nuclear plant versus the cost of steel used to build a wind turbine.
I strongly disagree it was rejected by the entire population. Anti nuke types have gotten regulations put in place which makes it almost impossible to build new plants. I bet if nuclear power was presented fairly to the American public as an option to solve greenhouse gas problems that it would be accepted successfully. Explain how it eliminates brown outs and blackouts. How the newest designs are safer. I want to know why most human caused climate change proponents aren't screaming for nuclear power plants. Reusable options will never work.
Due to nuclear power plant accidents, a plurality of Americans, both Rep. and Dems. did not favor use of nuclear energy by 2000. Three mile island (1979) was a partial meltdown with the safety features preventing a full blown melt down. Chernobyl (1986)was a full meltdown, but was a result of faulty designed power plant. Since then a plurality of Americans (more so that identify as Rep) have slowly increased their support of nuclear energy (56% currently). Strongest support is with males and college educated folks. The 1980s saw the cancellation of many nuclear power plants. Typically support goes up as the price of gasoline at the pumps goes up. What you suggest is happening as many greens and the general public have started to become educated as to the safety and carbon free nature of nuclear power is elucidated. Again, the big issue has been Wall Street unwillingness to invest capital in nuclear energy. Is has been over a generation since nuclear power accidents pushed down support.
Power companies have more than enough capital to do it. The real question is will the government let them. This could solve the climate problem on it's own. There are a lot of people getting rich off of this scam that don't want to see it end. I am happy you are reporting there is a change among the Greens. I believe you but I am not seeing it.
Feel like this column had a little more meat on the bone than the DeSantis column. I appreciate the effort to get the opinion of the side that supports such divestment to round out this column.
"It’s a sham. Legislators know they can vote for it without ever having to worry about the consequences. They can pretend they’re doing something about climate change without actually doing anything about climate change."
Same with most any attempt at righting a wrong. The U of Utah business school starts its meetings by apologizing to the Native Americans for taking their land. If they really cared, they would return the land!
Follow the money. That is what 'green' is all about, no pun intended.
But then, isn’t most of California a bizarre sham? California seems to be completely captured by a surreal collection of activists and fools, making virtually every mistake in policy feasible. Homelessness, crime, corruption, all made worse by bad policy decisions.
I would be interested to hear (maybe from a CA resident?) one initiative CA policy-makers got right in the last 2-3 decades, in the sense that it worked well and achieved its goal. Seems every idea coming out of that state is a radical non-solution to a genuine problem, likely to make things worse. I realize that bureaucratic solutions tend that way anyway, but CA politicians seem to lean into creative extremism and wild imagination. Maybe they're trying to live up to Hollywood...?
We got rid of the Kamela Harris woman.
That made me cackle like Kamala. Thanks. But can't you please take her back?
Hah. But that was a happy accident. Not the genius of state politicians...
Perhaps it is not a sham. This could be seen as a "first step." The next step would be to modify the state constitution, which happens regularly in california due to ballot propositions. It is not a touchdown, but it may advance the ball down the field.
“Divesting from Big Oil Is an Empty Gesture”
———————————————————-
In no sense whatsoever is destroying the economy, so that you have a larger pool of hopeless destitute people who you can turn into communist revolutionaries, an ‘empty gesture’.
I’d love an article from a historian, maybe Niall Ferguson, explaining all of the times in the past when it took people too long to realize that they were dealing with enemy combatants.
Communist revolutionaries my arse. The real goal is everybody on the plantation toiling away, directed by the overseers. And the NY bankers directing the finances.
Think “Hunger Games”
A very good illustration.