High energy costs and a desire to do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions has caused Californians to shift their opinion in favor of nuclear power for the first time in more than 30 years, according to a just-released Field Poll.  The San Francisco Chronicle covered this story today in a piece entitled, “Nuclear plants, offshore drilling gain support.”  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/MN0511QA3H.DTL

The article mentions my two-year effort to lift California’s 32-year ban on the construction of modern nuclear power plants:

California law prohibits new nuclear plants within the state until the country has a long-term solution for handling radioactive waste. But Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said Californians are starting to see the technology as a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. For the past two years, he has pushed legislation to lift the moratorium and says he will do so again.

‘Not physically possible’

“Clearly, opinion is beginning to shift, and I’m delighted,” said DeVore, R-Irvine. “Physics and economics dictate that we can’t generate the amount of power we’ll need in this state without nuclear power if you want these kinds of greenhouse gas reductions. It’s not physically possible.”

Physics, if course, the reason why we need nuclear power as it and hydroelectric are the only large scale sources of 24/7 baseload power that do not also produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide.  In fact, nuclear power is about 6.5 million times more powerful, pound-for-pound, than coal. 

Lastly, some critics openly question how nuclear power can be a solution for our high oil and natural gas costs.  It’s simple, really.  Energy, like oil, is fairly fungible; meaning that one source of energy can often displace another.  In California, it goes like this: we burn natural gas to make 42 percent of our power, increased use of nuclear power to make electricity can offset additional natural gas use while also charging electric cars at night with the surplus electricity, natural gas not used to make electricity can then power CNG cars, trucks and buses at a lower cost.  It’s all supply and demand. 

Also, please consider becoming a supporter of mine on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chuck-DeVore/22771210763.  Being a supporter will make it easier for us to keep in touch.  Obama uses Facebook as a major online tool in his campaign (he has about 1.1 million supporters on Facebook). 

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District

Politics is all fun and games - until someone gets hurt.  I’ve been warning for some time now that California’s environmental and energy policy were going to cause a big spike in electrical rates, a spike that would hurt hard working Californians and drive jobs out of state.  Today’s Los Angeles Times contains further proof of this concern. 

In an article entitled, “Sparks fly over rate plan by Southern California Edison,” http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ratehike2-2008jul02,0,801347.story tells of SCE’s proposed 16% plus rate hike for 2009, with more hikes planned for 2010 and 2011.  The article nails the main reason for this, “…Edison bills will go up because of the soaring cost of natural gas, which runs most of California’s power plants.”  As of last year, 42 percent of California’s power to be exact.

Meanwhile, to the north, Pacific Gas and Electric announced an 11 percent increase in electricity costs from January of this year to January of next.  (I blogged about that here: http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog/2008/06/11/power-costs-to-increase-11-percent-year-over-year/.)

The Los Angeles Times article covered a hearing at Compton City Hall where residents packed a room to protest the proposed rate increase.  Due to increasing electrical costs and increasingly challenging economic times in California, Edison’s past-due delinquencies increased by 14 percent last year.  

The proposed rate hike would add more than $7 a month to the average customer’s bill.  Many elderly and poor would be shielded from the rate increase, though, because current law dragoons utilities into yet another government program designed to transfer wealth from the middle class to the less-fortunate - a form of off-the-books welfare that liberals are trying to expand at every turn. 

Most of the electrical rate hikes have so far been due to the rapidly rising cost of natural gas, most of which must be imported into the state.  However, an increasing amount of the price hikes are due to California’s environmental mandates for renewable energy, such as costly solar and unreliable wind.  And soon, a big chunk of the high cost of electricity will be driven by California’s global warming law. 

So, while hard working Californians, such as those who packed Compton City Hall yesterday, suffer, California’s political elites fiddle around, trying vainly to solve a worldwide issue: global warming. 

If only they would display a modicum of vision and courage and agree to lift California’s archaic 32-year ban on the construction of modern nuclear power plants, each one of which would supply 5 percent of California’s electrical needs while saving $2 billion a year worth of natural gas and preventing the emission of almost 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. 

Simply put, more nuclear power is a “threefer” for California, since, by reducing the consumption of natural gas, we can reduce electrical rate hikes, dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and import less natural gas from overseas, keeping dollars here at home. 

Perhaps soon elected representatives from Los Angeles, the Inland Empire and the Central Valley will care more for their hard working constituents than they do for the Sierra Club and other elitist groups who have welcomed recent energy price hikes. 

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. 

If $4.00 for a gallon gasoline is pinching your checkbook, just wait until you see your electric and natural gas bills in the coming year.

California gets 42 percent of its electricity from natural gas.  Many homes also use natural gas for heating, cooking, and hot water.  Natural gas prices increased 45 percent in the past year.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that gas costs may double soon. 

Gas and coal power 70 percent of America’s grid.  Coal prices have already doubled, following demand and oil price increases.  This has caused electrical rate increases across the nation.  Virginia is looking at a 29 percent rate increase this summer.  Oregon saw a 10 percent rate increase last year with another 9 percent by next January.  Maryland residents will see their electric bills rise almost 8 percent in June, increasing home electric costs by $137 a year to $1,800 annually.  Maryland’s commercial customers can expect rate hikes of 27 percent to 41 percent price by the summer.

Higher costs boost conservation efforts as consumers and business cut back and become more efficient users of energy.  In addition, government mandates and subsidies boost conservation efforts, albeit unevenly and without the efficiencies of the market. 

Conservation alone is not enough, however.  As our population and economy grows, we use more energy.  Further, the growing economies of China, India and others will continue to put great pressure on world supplies of oil and gas, keeping world prices on a constant upward ramp.  This means that conservation at home will do little to moderate energy prices as the cost of energy is determined by a global market.  Americans should conserve when it makes sense to do so – but we should not confuse conservation by itself with a comprehensive energy policy. 

California is especially vulnerable to natural gas price hikes since we get a plurality of our electricity from burning gas.  Accounting for the fixed costs of power generation and distribution, this means we could be looking at a 20-30 percent increase in electrical costs in the near future. 

Increased use of wind power can actually increase our dependence on natural gas since wind needs to be backed up by large natural gas power plants.  Solar can help offset peak energy demand on hot days, but it is still as costly as natural gas and some five to ten times more costly than coal, hydro, or nuclear power. 

Adding to California’s dire energy picture is our current policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent in 12 years, and another 80 percent on top of that by 2050 (returning per capita emissions to levels not seen since wood-burning Colonial days).   A just completed federal study on the effects of the proposed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, a national version of California’s AB 32 greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, showed it would add costs of $723 costs per household by 2030.  That’s $723 more than whatever the higher costs for energy will add to the family budget. 

It is growing more apparent by the month that turning to modern nuclear power is the only way we can realistically address the twin challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing our reliance on imported oil and natural gas.  While California continues to dally on the energy front, making the false hope that somehow wind, solar, and conservation can do it all, other states are moving ahead.  There are new nuclear power plants starting the licensing process in Maryland and Texas with bipartisan legislation looking at nuclear power in Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois and other states.  Ohio’s Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, just signed a bill that requires electric utilities to generate 25 percent of their energy through renewable energy including new nuclear reactors by 2025.

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.  

(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

Well, if words could produce electricity, we’d be in good shape this week.  On Monday, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources killed AB 1776 (designed to improve our energy independence by lifting the state ban on building new nuclear reactors) and AB 2788 (lifting the state ban to allow one modern nuclear reactor to be built in California).The same day, U.C. Berkeley published a scholarly piece they invited me to write on nuclear power. 

Today, the Orange County Register’s lead editorial was in support of my effort to revive nuclear power in California. 

How the Berkeley piece came about was interesting.  A few months ago I was approached by the UC Berkeley School of Law to contribute a scholarly piece on nuclear power as a solution to global warming.  The piece entitled, “Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs. Nuclear Power,” is in the inaugural edition of the Ecology Law Currents publication.  After more than a year of intense advocacy on behalf of modern nuclear power, writing the piece itself was not all that difficult – getting the footnotes in order was a different story as the last time I wrote a footnoted research paper was for the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College some six year ago.   My piece concludes by noting, “California is not an island. When we act to increase the cost of doing business here, whether through higher taxes or more burdensome regulations, capital and labor have the choice to move elsewhere. California is the most electrically efficient state in America and the third most energy efficient state overall… …making California less competitive has the unintended impact of moving economic activity to other states or nations with less environmentally friendly economies. Any production of goods or services lost to Nevada or Arizona sets us back in the struggle to reduce global (greenhouse gas) emissions – and a loss to coal-fired China or India is far, far worse.” 

See Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs. Nuclear Power for the full paper.

Penguins, polar bears, global warming, Tibet, pawnbrokers and Matricula Consular cards were discussed today in the Assembly.
 
The California State Assembly passed two measures of note Thursday morning.  What was approved was less important than what wasn’t approved, while also serving as an illustration for what consumes our time in the legislature. 

Assembly Joint Resolution 41 by Assemblymember Ted Lieu (D-El Segundo) memorializes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to list both polar bears and penguins as needing protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.  Never mind, that aside from a few polar bears and penguins residing in California zoos, the nearest of the furry white former are 2,600 miles to the north while the closest of the feathery black and while latter are almost 8,000 miles to the south. 

The impetuous for Assm. Lieu’s action is “…global warming caus(ing) catastrophic environmental change in the Arctic…”  Lieu, a lawyer, discounts that polar bear populations have quintupled in only three decades, citing instead a federal report that asserts greenhouse gas emissions will render “…two-thirds of the world’s polar bears extinct by mid-century.”  This would leave the world with almost 70 percent more of the ravenous carnivores than it had in the 1970s.  Curiously, scientists believe that polar bears have done quite well in other, warmer times, such as during a warm spell in medieval times as well as during the prehistoric Holocene Climate Optimum that began 9,000 years ago and lasted some 4,000 years.  Perhaps with polar bears, some like it hot - or at least hotter than things are today.  In any event, polar bears and penguins will be delighted to know that the California State Assembly has gone to bat for them, sending copies of the AJR 41 to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Speaker Pelosi and others.

Of course, the legislature could do something that could at least partially arrest global warming fears by ending California’s anachronistic ban on the construction of modern nuclear power plants - the only ultra-low carbon and large scale source of reliable baseload electricity.  But, that would be logical, and logic in Sacramento is scarcer than penguins or polar bears.  By the way, AJR 41 passed 57 to 11. 

Putting things into perspective, Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) spoke out on the floor, not in opposition to AJR 41, but with the observation that his own resolution, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 119, on the horrific Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet remains bottled up in the Rules Committee over fears that it would be too controversial.  ACR 119 would designate March 10 as “Tibet Day” by “…condemn(ing) the recent activities taken by the People’s Republic of China against Tibet…”  We’re talking about “people here” Assm. Blakeslee reminded his colleagues (as opposed to animals), people who, according to the United States Department of State, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, and international human rights organizations, are subject to “…egregious violations of human rights including the repression of political, civic, and religious groups such as Tibetan Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, Falun Gong practioners, Muslims, democracy advocates, labor organizers, lawyers, journalists, environmental activists, political dissidents, and other innocent people; the illegal harvesting of vital body organs and coercive third-trimester abortions; the perpetuation of slave labor camps; and the deprivation of basic fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, and religious beliefs…” by the officially atheist and communist People’s Republic of China.

Oh, and lest you think that the Blakeslee Tibet measure had as much nexus to California as the Lieu penguin measure, consider this: China’s cyber offensive against critics of its human rights abuses in Tibet and elsewhere resulted in the blocking of California-based Google as well as YouTube in China, as well as causing service disruptions outside of China too.  Messing with Californians’ Google and YouTube is serious business. 

So, while penguins and polar bears are worthy of protection, the basic human rights of a few million people aren’t worth a few words and a ream of paper in Sacramento. 

Now, if Tibet was peopled by penguins and polar bears, that would be cause for swift action in the Assembly!

Meanwhile, the Assembly passed AB 1870 by Assembly Member Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) on a 47 to 22 vote.  AB 1870 expands the identification that pawnshops and coin dealers may use to include a Matricula Consular card, a purported form of ID only used by our neighbor to the south.  That pawnshops and coin dealers have to ask for ID in the first place would seem a government infringement on the operation of the free market - except that both lines of business have been plagued in the past with being fences for stolen property.  Hence, the requirements in current law for valid ID limited to drivers licenses issued by any state or Canada, or ID issued by any state or the federal government or a passport from any nation, so long as that passport is accompanied by “…another item of identification bearing an address.” 

By expanding the law to include the notoriously unreliable and easily forged Mexican Matricula Consular, this bill would have the effect of setting back anti-theft efforts by decades. 

According to testimony by the FBI before the U.S. House of Representatives, the Matricula Consular is mainly used “…by illegal aliens in the United States,” while foreign nationals, whether in the U.S. legally or illegally, “…have the ability to obtain a passport from their own country’s embassy or consular office.”  The FBI testified that the Matricula Consular is not a viable form of identification “…due to the non-existence of any means of verifying the true identity of the card holder.”  Because Mexico doesn’t have a database to coordinate the issuance of Matricula Consular cards, the cards are often issued to the same person under multiple names.  This allows the person with multiple consular ID cards to better evade law enforcement when they commit crimes.  Further, according to the FBI, “…the Government of Mexico issues the card to anyone who can produce a Mexican birth certificate and one other form of identity, including documents of very low reliability. Mexican birth certificates are easy to forge and they are a major item on the product list of the fraudulent document trade currently flourishing across the country and around the world.”  In some cases, a Mexican consulate will even issue a Matricula Consular card to a person who is unable to produce any documents whatsoever.  According to the FBI, the Matricula Consular is easily forged as well.  Banks in Mexico won’t even accept a Matricula Consular card as a form of ID!  Other than all that, Matricula Consular cards are fine, majority Democrats evidently suppose.  

I rose to speak in opposition to this bill as did Assemblyman John Benoit (R-Bermuda Dunes), a veteran of the California Highway Patrol.  All 22 “no” votes came from Republicans.   

All the best,

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