In April, I addressed the Human Rights Torch Relay in Santa Monica.  The Human Rights Torch Relay drew attention to human rights abuses by the government of China against its own people. 

The unelected communist government in Beijing sent me a warning letter in May, telling me that everything is fine in China and that I should cooperate so as not to hurt their feelings. 

I sent the government of China my formal reply earlier this month.  I reminded the Chinese government officials that they are part of a repressive government that allows no opposition groups and “…has consistently shown itself to be unworthy of the longsuffering and noble people of China.”  I closed by remarking that I will continue to speak out for human rights in China because, “…I innately understand, as an American, that liberty is our strongest ally and that any great people, when truly free, are our natural friends.”

My full letter to the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China follows:

               June 6, 2008

Consul General Zhang Yun
Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China
443 Shatto Place
Los Angeles, California 90020

Dear Consul General:

Before I attend to the main purpose of my letter, please allow me to express my condolences to the victims and the survivors of the “5·12” Wenchuan earthquake.  Californians are all too familiar with the destructive energy of earthquakes and our hearts go out to the people of Wenchuan. 

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 1, 2008 regarding my attendance at the Human Rights Torch Relay in Santa Monica on April 6.  I was rather taken aback for two reasons: First, for receiving a letter from a representative of an unelected dictatorship as an elected official in a democratic nation for simply exercising my free speech rights; and, Second, for the content of the letter itself. 

The Chinese people are a great and historic people who deserve more than one-party rule under the Chinese Communist Party.  The Chinese people deserve liberty and freedom – the liberty to vote for whomever they wish and the freedom to worship and to express their views. 

Unfortunately, the government you represent cannot countenance opposition in any form.  From the purges and terrors of the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s where millions perished at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party to 1989 and the organized massacre of thousands of innocent unarmed Chinese civilians in Tiananmen Square, your government has consistently shown itself to be unworthy of the longsuffering and noble people of China.  As such, the harsh attack on the Falun Gong spiritual movement in your letter to me betrays your fear of internal dissent.  As you point out, your government outlawed Falun Gong in 1999.  You fail to mention that Falun Gong was at first encouraged by your government, then, in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre, your government banned it – perhaps because there were far more Falun Gong practitioners than there were members of the Chinese Communist Party. 

My government states on its Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book that “…no substantial political opposition groups exist (in China), although the government has identified the Falungong spiritual movement and the China Democracy Party as subversive groups.”  It is precisely for that reason, there being no political opposition groups in China, that I chose to help give voice to the voiceless in China and in Tibet.  So I proudly attended and spoke at the Human Rights Torch Relay sponsored by Falun Gong and others and would gladly do so again because I innately understand, as an American, that liberty is our strongest ally and that any great people, when truly free, are our natural friends.              

             Sincerely,
     
     
             Assemblyman Chuck DeVore
             Seventieth District

I just came home from taping a show for the KOCE’s Inside OC with Rick Reiff, the Editor of the Orange County Business Journal.  We were talking about high gas prices and how they may impact Orange County.  I mentioned that we need to drill for our own oil and we need more nuclear power if we expect to electrify our transportation system as the gentleman from the South Coast Air Quality Management District advocated.   

Inspired, I went home and mowed my lawn with my nuclear-powered lawn mower.  Nuclear powered?  Yes, nuclear powered.  Some 29 miles south of home sits the twin nuclear reactors of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.  These reactors produce about six percent of California’s power.  Given my proximity to the plant, I bet that at least a third of the electrons making a trip through my zero-emissions electric lawn mower visited San Onofre shortly before I used their energy to cut my lawn.   

Keeping with the nuclear theme, the British press, in the form of The Guardian, a left-leaning newspaper (but then I’m redundant), chronicled my call for more nuclear power to meet California’s otherwise impossible greenhouse gas reduction mandates in an article entitled,  “California emissions plan won’t be easy or cheap.” An excerpt of the article is below: 

California, which enjoyed widespread praise this week for its ambitious plan to combat global warming, now faces the tough part: making it work. 

On Thursday, the most populous U.S. state unveiled a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels over the next 12 years with requirements for cleaner cars, more solar and wind energy and stringent caps on big polluting industries.

Many are skeptical of that claim, saying demands for more renewable power and cleaner transportation fuels — each of which are pricier than traditional fuel sources — are sure to drive up the state’s energy costs. 

California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, in a letter to Nichols, said he was disappointed that the plan did not advocate for more nuclear plants, which produce cheaper electricity with no harmful emissions.

Let’s hear it for the leftwing British press – at least they published my response to California’s plan to bankrupt itself. 

All the best, 
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70^th District

www.ChuckDeVore.com

A Reuters piece just hit the wire on California’s poorly thought out plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent in 12 years – without added nuclear power.  In fact, the plan shows its complete lack of any seriousness by not mentioning nuclear power even once, this in spite of the fact that nuclear power produces the most energy with the smallest carbon footprint of any energy source.  As such, the plan is truly a fool’s errand.  It cannot meet its intended targets and will only shift California jobs to more polluting states, or, worse yet, to China, thus increasing global greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.   

The Reuters story, entitled, “California unveils major plan to slash emissions” can be seen at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSGOR62620320080626?sp=true 

The story quotes me, 

“But not everyone was as confident. 

“California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said the high price of renewable energy sources would pressure Californians’ wallets and drive manufacturing industries out of the state. 

“’All the studies suggest that nuclear has the lowest emissions, and you also get energy that would be affordable to working class Californians,’ he said.” 

I am very disappointed about today’s release of a Air Resources Board draft road map for implementing California’s global warming law that is devoid of real science and economics.  Simply put, this plan will not meet the planned greenhouse gas reductions.  It will put people out of work, though, causing hardship for working class Californians.  It will also make California an even bigger practioner of energy colonialism – where California simply shifts jobs and pollution to other states, or to China, so we can feel good about ourselves.  The surest and most efficient path to generating affordable, low carbon emission energy is to lift California’s 32-year ban on the construction of modern nuclear power plants.  Instead of relying on chemical energy, nuclear power harnesses the power of the atom – this is why one pound of uranium can generate the energy found in about 6,500,000 pounds of coal.   

The Air Resources Board claimed that some 340 premature deaths might be avoided by 2020 due to a reduction in harmful emissions.  They fail to account for the increased number of suicides and domestic violence that will occur when the implementation of their plans throw people out of work, causing tremendous stress on California families.  On June 3, 2008, I wrote a letter to Mary Nichols, Chairman of the California Air Resources Board, imploring her to consider nuclear power as a way to meet California’s greenhouse gas reduction target of 25 percent by 2020.  I wrote: 

“Clearly, the only way we can meet our goals is by a complete transformation of the transportation sector to a virtually zero-emissions technology.  The only clear path to do that is through a large increase in the use of nuclear power, not only to displace the burning of coal and natural gas, but also to make added power to charge batteries and make hydrogen through electrolysis…  Further, emerging electrolysis processes employing nanoscale materials are likely to make hydrogen generated with nighttime electricity more cost competitive than gasoline, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and oil consumption while preserving jobs, the economy and our standard of living. 

“In closing, I urge you to factor nuclear power into your AB 32 calculations.  I see no other physical way we can meet our ambitious goals, short of shutting down California’s economy.”

Public opinion on energy issues is shifting due to the rising cost of fuel.  Even in California, according to a recent SurveyUSA poll, 47 percent of the public supports the construction of modern nuclear powers plant while only 35 percent oppose.  Further, 59 percent of Californians want to drill for the vast amounts of oil off our coast while only 33 percent want to keep those resources off limits. 

With this change in public opinion in mind, I wonder two things: when will California’s leaders, such as Gov. Schwarzenegger and Democrat legislators, publicly change their minds; and, what impact might this significant shift in public opinion have on the Presidential race. 

Lastly, regarding offshore oil, might public opinion be further swayed when the people discover that slant drilling technology has advanced to the point that offshore rigs aren’t really needed to access California’s offshore oil deposits.  Slant drilling from near the shore can reach oil fields miles off the coast - all without an offshore rig.  Further, the safety record of offshore rigs is actually better than that of oil tankers, which are statistically far more prone to accidents. 

A little over a month ago I blogged here and on Red County about the coming spike in electricity prices (“Hang on for a spike in electricity costs made worse by poorly thought out energy and environmental policy).  I predicted that we may soon see 20-30 percent increases in our electrical rates due to our overdependence on natural gas to power our grid.  Well, according to the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News, PG&E just announced a 6.5 percent rate increase in two increments over the next seven months.  PG&E’s residential rates rose 4.1 percent last January, meaning that by next January rates will have increased almost 11 percent since the beginning of this year.

Keeping in mind one of Yogi Berra’s great truisms, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future,” I’ll go out on a limb and predict that this rate hike will be the first of many. 

As I wrote last month, “California needs to get serious about energy.  Failure to get energy policy right will cause California to hemorrhage good paying jobs while doing absolutely nothing for the environment.  Since California is the most electrically efficient state in the U.S. and the most environmentally advanced, it makes no sense for us to effectively ship jobs to coal-fired states back East, or, worst yet, to India or China.  In fact, the most environmentally intelligent thing to do would be to encourage an increase in California goods and services since our environmental impact per value of goods produced is low compared to dirty, coal-fired economies such as China.” 

In other words, we need to build some modern nuclear power plants here in California. 

(For more on nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions and imported fuel, see my paper in UC Berkeley’s Ecology Law Currents, “Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs. Nuclear Power” http://www.boalt.org/elq/C35.01_05_DeVore_2008.04.10.php).

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

Having a healthy suspicion of politicians’ motives and public statements is a good thing in a representative democracy.  There is no better example of this than in America’s perennially messed up energy policy, which favors federal subsidies over actual energy generation, and in the process, makes us hostage to foreign oil while hurting the environment at the same time.  Case in point: America’s ongoing infatuation with turning corn into fuel while ignoring proven ways of bringing energy to market, such as building nuclear power plants or drilling for more oil and gas. 

Congress passed H.R. 6 in July 2005.  The Energy Bill was dubbed, “A bill to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.”  The final vote in the U.S. Senate on this lard-loaded bill was 74-26, with Presidential contender Sen. John McCain and both California Senators Boxer and Feinstein voting “nay” while corn-state Senator Barack Obama voted “yea.”  What were they voting for?  Huge subsidies to U.S. farmers to grow corn and turn it into fuel.  Preventing oil and gas drilling both off shore and in Alaska.  And, loan guarantees to help revive the nuclear power industry. 

During debate on the bill in June, Senators Feinstein, Boxer and Obama voted to send the bill back to the House.  Sen. McCain, as McCain is ought to do, stubbornly voted “nay,’ hewing to his principled opposition to pork barrel politics.  During the debate, Sen. Boxer summarized the environmental left’s concerns with the bill as it was taking shape, opposing any effort to drill for America’s oil and gas resources offshore, opposing the ability to import liquefied natural gas, and opposing nuclear power.  To Boxer’s credit, she expressed skepticism over ethanol’s environmental impact.   McCain’s opposition was mainly rooted in corn ethanol’s huge federal subsidies, already totaling well over $40 billion in the 10 years before the 2005 vote in the Senate. 

California legislators have gotten into the act as well, introducing multiple bills to increase the use of ethanol, cut greenhouse gas emissions by mandate, and reduce oil production – all in the name of the environment.  That many of the bills operate at cross purposes to each other or to federal law is no matter; the appearance of action is more important than outcome in the Alice in Wonderland world of politics. 

The benefit of experience has now shown us what uncritical listening to political pressure groups can give us.  Corn ethanol has been touted by a phalanx of groups from the right and left, including environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, national security conservatives, and, of course, the farm industry.  Corn ethanol’s central promise was that it would enhance “energy security” by reducing oil imports while reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. 

The facts of corn ethanol are otherwise.  In exchange for what amounts to a whopping $0.51 per gallon subsidy for ethanol blenders (reduced to $0.45 per gallon in the recent Farm Bill), American farmers have produced record amounts of corn.  This has resulted in making a fuel that takes more energy to produce than we get out of it, increased food prices around the world, increased use of fossil fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. 

How did this happen?  To grow more corn, farmers reduced soy bean production, much of which shifted to Brazil.  To grow more soy beans, Brazilians cut down rain forest – this, of course, has ruinous implications for greenhouse gas emissions, one of the supposed benefits of turning corn into vehicle fuel. 

In addition to being bad environmental policy, corn ethanol subsidies have added misery to the world’s poor.  According to U.S. Department of Agriculture, about one-fifth of the big run-up in world food prices has been caused by U.S. corn-ethanol subsidies.  International organizations peg food price increases due to corn ethanol much higher, at 40 percent.  With food riots in Mexico, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Haiti, our corn ethanol subsidies are dangerously immoral as well as foolish. 

Less than a month ago, I had the chance to summarize my opposition to corn ethanol subsidies at an educational symposium.  “Energy Alternatives: America’s Challenge in the Global Economy” was sponsored by the University of California, Irvine, the Milken Institute, and the New Majority California Energy Task Force on May 13.  Speaking on a panel immediately after former governor, and current California State Attorney General Jerry Brown spoke – surprisingly, Brown had favorable words for nuclear power – I boosted modern nuclear power as a way to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels.

During my talk I warned that not every renewable energy source is helpful in the effort to address global warming, specifically singling out corn ethanol because it is, “…destroying Brazilian rainforest as soybean production has shifted from the U.S., it is also starving people in the third world and causing unrest.”

My remarks caused a bit of a stir, causing another panelist, Anne Korin, an energy policy analyst and co-chair of the Set America Free coalition and a director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS), to strongly defend corn ethanol at the conclusion of the conference.  Ms. Korin passionately stated that corn ethanol is not causing a rise in world food prices since American farmers are exporting more grain than ever.  She also emphatically disputed the notion that corn ethanol was causing any destruction of the Amazonian rainforest, pointing out that sugar cane is grown outside of the rainforest region in Brazil. 

As I previously cited, Anne Korin’s first statement regarding food prices is flat wrong according to government officials who track such things.  Further, to someone in the third world spending 80 percent of their income on food, any increase in the cost of food is devastating and can push their family into starvation.  That U.S. farm and energy policy is abetting this artificial famine is unconscionable. 

Ms. Korin’s second assertion completely misses the mark.  I never linked the destruction of the rainforest in Brazil to sugar cane; rather, I linked it to the U.S. appetite for corn ethanol which has displaced domestic soybean production to nations such as Brazil where they have cut down rainforest to put more land into production.  According to a study by the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy published in Science in February, 2008, increased demand for corn ethanol is contributing to the conversion of the Brazilian Amazon into farmland as Brazilian farmers grow the soybeans U.S. farmers used to grow.

If we want more affordable ethanol, the best U.S. policy would be to drop our $0.54 per gallon tariff on ethanol imported from nations such as Brazil where they make ethanol from sugar cane.  Sugar cane, by the way, is eight times more efficient at making fuel than corn and it is grown in the southern U.S.

Better yet, we can open up Alaska and our offshore territories to oil and gas drilling.  Rather than begging the Saudis to pump more oil we should pump more of our own – sadly, that would require our living in the real world where hard choices have to be made. 

Further, we should produce far more clean and affordable electricity, using nuclear power, rather than coal and natural gas.  If global warming is the problem many say it is, then nuclear power has to play a major role in its solution since nuclear power makes the most amount of energy for the least amount of greenhouse gas emissions of any source of energy.  Fortunately, after some 30 years of effort, the Department of Energy a few days ago finally applied for a license to operate Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository for spent nuclear fuel.  Too bad we are not yet doing what the French do: recycle nuclear fuel, reducing waste by about 96 percent. 

The bottom line is this: we need to base our energy and global greenhouse gas reduction policies on sound science and economics, not simply on what may be good for a few well-placed interest groups.