[Sen. Pavley] – Californians from all parts of the state call global warming a threat and support existing and proposed state government efforts to curb emissions of all types of pollution, Sen. Fran Pavley said in a statement Thursday.
Climate change is happening now and already is affecting California’s economy and quality of life, said 62% of the people who responded to a new poll by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California. Slightly more believe there’s a link between global warming and the four-year, severe drought.
Solid majorities of California adults and registered voters said they back Sen. Fran Pavley’s long-running efforts to combat climate pollution and more recent, related legislation by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León.
What’s more, a significant plurality of respondents said combatting climate change is a boon to the economy. Thirty-eight percent predicted that developing clean energy resources would create new jobs. Fewer respondents, 24%, thought there would be employment declines, while 26% said there’d be no change.
Seven out of 10 adults queried backed Pavley’s landmark, 2006 law, Assembly Bill 32. The legislation requires that climate pollution emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
The law created a target for slashing carbon emissions by encouraging energy efficiency for cars, buildings and industries and development of wind and solar power and other renewable power.
Sen. Pavley’s latest proposal, SB 32, extends the program to mid-century and more deeply reduces pollution caused by burning oil and natural gas. The bill passed the Senate and is moving through the state Assembly.
“Californians recognize the danger of climate pollution,” said Pavley. “That’s why they supported AB 32 nearly a decade ago, and that’s why people in every part of the Golden State from the coast to the Inland Empire and Central Valley want lawmakers to pass my successor bill, SB 32.”
Setting attainable goals for lowering emissions will create certainty for business decision makers and attract billions of dollars in new investment in non-polluting California industries, said Pavley.
De León’s SB 350 has support from more than 70% of polled Californians. The bill, also in the Assembly, has a 2030 target to halve petroleum usage, increase building energy efficiency and boost the generation of renewable energy.
The connection between drought and climate change, said Public Policy Institute President Mark Baldassare, translates to strong support across racial, ethnic and regional lines for “expanding the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Solid majorities of adults in five California regions said they believe that global warming is exacerbating current drought conditions. That conclusion is strongest in Los Angeles at 69% and the San Francisco Bay Area at 67%, followed by 66% in the Inland Empire, 58% in the Central Valley and 54% in Orange/San Diego counties.
Pavley represents the western Santa Clarita Valley in the state Senate.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Tweet This
Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
RSS
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
4 Comments
Doesn’t surprise me!
Some people believe in the Easter Bunny, some in Santa Claus, while others believe in man-made climate change. Just because someone “believes” in climate change does not make it so.
Climate change is the history of the Earth for the past 5 billion years without ANY input from mankind. The Sun is the Biggest influence on the Earth’s climate and this factor is typically and conveniently ignored in the fallacious climate change models which have failed to predict any climate change correctly. As the saying goes about prediction models: “Garbage in, garbage out”
Climatology is a generalist discipline in a world of specialization. Even a basic understanding requires integration of almost everything from cosmic radiation from space, solar activity & cycles, earth’s axis tilt & orbital variations, ocean currents, jet streams, cloud cover & reflectivity, to volcanic heat on the bottom of the ocean and everything in between.
To produce accurate predictions it is almost impossible to leave anything out as those do, who try to produce simulations through climate models, either through lack of understanding or by choosing to ignore factors depending upon their objective.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. …consensus science “is an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period…” MICHAEL CRICHTON
“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” —Margaret Thatcher
“Concern for the natural environment is certainly laudable and every normal person shares it. But the organized environmentalist movement is led by fanatics. The movement’s value system is morally askew. It places a pristine natural world above the well-being of human beings.”
“When we allow science to become political then we are lost. We will enter the internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better.” Michael Crichton.
The objective of “man-made” climate change activists is not to control the earth’s natural climate change but rather to ultimately control societies values and functions through a progressive – socialistic government (communism) led by the self-proclaimed, pseudo-intellectual, condescending elite. It will be “1984”.
Of course climate change is happening. Why there is any argument baffles me. What isn’t known for sure is whether we are experiencing a weather cycle so infrequent its previous occurrence predates documentation, making it an event never within our control, or whether it is man-made. Discussions should be about how to deal with it if it’s natural and how to minimize it if it’s our fault.
The last 34 years of climate action failure proves you wrong.