"SB 375 (Steinberg) is California state law that became effective January 1, 2009. This new law requires California's Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce emissions from vehicle use throughout the state. California's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have been tasked with creating "Sustainable Community Strategies" (SCS). The MPOs are required to develop the SCS through integrated land use and transportation planning and demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035."
If it doesn't bring tears to your eyes, it will certainly make a dent in your wallet!
Vote YES ON 23 and fire your city council representatives who sit on SCAG's Regional Council Districts this November 2nd.
About prop 23, according to Diane Bailey , seinor scientist at the National resoources Defense Council, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency estimates that every dollar spent to clean up diesel engines saves up to 13 dollars in health costs.
ReplyDeleteYou're too young to remember what the air was like in Fullerton before smog emission control devices and catalytic converters.
The oil industry and those that profit from it will always be against clean air and water.
Think of your kids and your pets. If nothing else, think of the health care costs.
Proposition 23 will freeze the provisions of AB 32 until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. California's unemployment rate (those collecting unemployment benefits) is well over 12%. The under-employed and unemployed who are not receiving benefits together with those collecting benefits is more like 20%.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia already have the most stringent air quality standards in the U.S. And, contrary to urban legend, I do remember being told we could have PE outside because of poor air quality. I remember my lungs burning when we would run around. Prop 23 does NOT UNDO our current environmental gains. However, it does suspend destructive regulations from the far-reaching envirofascism from CARB.
CARB is rife with corruption and lies. Much of the reasoning and "science" used by CARB was CREATED by Hien Tran. Hien Tran was the lead scientist who wrote the report upon which the heavy duty truck and bus regulations are based. He bought a mail order Ph.D. from Thornhill "University" located at 255 Madison, New York. Using his fake Ph.D., the unqualified liar applied for and got the position as Manager of the Health and Ecosystem Assessment Section. Some of the board members, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols knew of the fraud before voting on the controversial regulation. The board members who knew, kept the information from other board members for nearly a year after the vote. The Governor also had the information and failed to take action.
Dr. James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. of UCLA, attempted to alert the Governor and CARB of the Hien Tran fraud and was ignored. Dr. Enstrom has worked for 30 years as an epidemiologist and is the president of the Scientific Integrity Institute. His specialty is research on weak and/or controversial epidemiologic relationships and the epidemiologic methodology used to measure these relationships. He debunks the Hien Tran report.
If we implement the next phase of AB32, I am confident that California will have less pollution simply from the lack of industry that the newly added regulations crush.
Something you don’t hear too often is the toxic footprint left behind by those manufacturing photovoltaic cells (solar panels) and other products associated with a “cleaner environment” all manufactured in 3rd world countries which do not abide by the Kyoto protocol which was brought to us by our “friends” at the U.N.
(Portions of the preceding were taken from killcarb.org as well as the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
So are you saying we should not vote for Shawn Nelson, who sits on the SCAG Board for Orange County? OK, I'll vote for Sidhu then!
ReplyDeleteNorby was really active in SCAG according to their agendas. I guess I shouldn't vote for him either then!
Spoken like a SCAG insider!
ReplyDeleteHow many times has Norby or Nelson voted to expand SCAG?
How many times have they voted to support new regulations or expansions of old regulations?
Show me their votes in favor of more regulations. My guess is that you can't because Norby and Nelson support businesses and taxpayers. In my opinion, both recognize that government, even SCAG, serves at the will of the people, not the other way around.
I intend to win election to the City Council. By my presence on the council, and by default the Redevelopment Agency, does that imply my approval of council or Redevelopment actions? I think not.
Two weeks ago I emailed SCAG and asked for a meeting. Their response to me, the taxpayer: silence. I have made a public records request for SCAG employee benefits and salaries. Their response: more silence. And I didn’t even request their names be included, although I think I will since it is public record.
SCAG executives seem to think they serve SCAG. I think it is time for a rude awakening to SCAG as to whom they serve: taxpayers.
UPDATE: SCAG has emailed the information I requested.
ReplyDelete