Another good essay exposing the moron majority of our County Supervisors. I reside in Carpetbagger Capps district. She is blinded by her ideology and refuses to accept cogent arguments from the "other side". I simply cannot stand her.
“by eliminating onshore oil production on the Central Coast,”
Wait, who paid out for the Thomas Fire? Who is brung sued for the Palisades Fire?
Not oil & gas.
Electricity providers! Uh oh! Yet another lie told by our corrupt local government.
They think we are idiots. Funny thing is, they’re right. Look she got voted in after endangering thousands of children through covid, after not being able to increase the success of education after 8 years.
She endangers youth and cannot do her job, and she got a promotion from voters.
Mass-immigration "Libertarians" are also responsible for making cars, driving, land, housing & LIVING unaffordable. Can't double the population and not massively jack up the cost of all those things. See my detailed comment elsewhere in this thread.
Even Exxon, a very wealthy and environmentally conscious energy company, gave up trying to obtain approval from the supervisors, environmental groups, Coastal Commission, judges and who knows who else. California state government drove Chevron to move to Texas and now by requiring refineries to do the impossible of maintaining inventory when doing a turn around (that is necessary for performance and environmental reasons) multiple refineries are choosing to close. For $8 gas be sure and continue to vote for the same set of bouncing bubble heads.
Wait. What? How can you put environmentally conscious energy company along with the word Exxon. What the heck? Valdez? No OIL company is environmentally conscious, just like no tobacco company is a health care provider.
DB: There goes that Zero Tolerance glitch again. Like only 25% of smokers die from lung cancers, so 75% do not. And Valdez has been operating as the end point for the Alaska Pipeline for decades now, without incidence. A gorgeous little Alaska town. The one lesson from the Valdez oil tanker spill is don't drink and captain a ship at the same time - that one is worthy of zero tolerance.
And yet, your complete utter ignorance shines like the sun.
Healthcare is not about DEATH. Gasoline is TOXIC. Gasoline, emissions from oil and it's by products goes into the air that we all breath. It goes into the products that we consume. There is your healthcare costs.
Do we need to talk about the BP platform in the Gulf of Mexico?
Do we need to talk about more oil spills across the world?
DB: We need to talk about this modern world and developing world without a ready source of energy to improve their lives and keep them dying from cold alone. The race to find a great renewable and sustainable source of energy continues. Chill during the interim. Fossil fuels are better than burning down forests. Do the math. It is not Armageddon, DB. Your teacher union K-12 indoctrination did you no favors. Plant a tree.
You should sue. Sue the education system because they produced a person who has no education.
Again, the SUN has given the earth life since life began. To prove your ignorance on this matter, if you take 100 x 100 square miles, put it in West Texas or New Mexico, that will generate about 130% of the energy the US used last year. Now, add an additional 1 mile, so you have a 1 x 100 mile row, and make that batteries. You now have enough energy ALL the time to feed the US and still have about 35% more than was used last year.
There is NO need to burn down a forest. See the section about your pending lawsuit. Planting a tree in the desert does not work.
And because you are again showing your ignorance. No one went into the hospital because the hospital had a medical error. The medical error is NOT the leading cause of death. It is the third highest. But again, that is misleading. Why? Because what is a medical error? That is the whole issue. You have no idea how it is defined.
Global warming is based on flawed pssudo-science and computer models of a chaotic system which cannot be accurately modelled. The model outputs are a product of the bias and integrity of those writing and executing the models. Climate models have failed to accurately predict anything but have proven useful at manipulating public opinion. Global warming fear gives our governing libtards the power to generate more revenue for government while wearing the crown of environmental stewards. As long as we elect the likes of Capps, Lee snd Hartman we will continue to suffer from their uninformed bad decisions.
I have watched it 3 times. It is an excellent counter to the global warming narrative. The featured physicists who expose the flaws in global warming science are convincing. They are older scientists with established reputations and one is actually a Nobel Laureate. It was mentioned that if they were early in their career they would be reluctant to challenge global warming dogma as it would threaten their funding. It is disheartening to realize that science is so corrupted by politics and money. It is an inevitable consequence of academic funding coming from government. I am a physicist by training and in the 1970's - 1980's there was not so much forced conformity under threat of funding. I never believed the global warming fantasy.
Yeah, I guess if you were to guess that there would be 1000 jelly beans in the jar and there were only 999, your guess is invalid. PFFT. Only a person who is ignorant to the definition of scientific method would call it pseudo-science. Why not take the 5 minutes and learn about the difference between the scientific method and what an opinion is then come back.
That does not mean that it is not accurate at the point in time. The problem with your 'arguement' is that the other dissenting few can not replicate their models. The scientific method forces theories to be questioned, it is full of skeptical people. That is why trials are done to either validate or invalidate the theory.
I do not remember the exact numbers, and this is from memory, but IIRC, there are tens of thousands that have modeled and shown the impact and there are 10s that have not. The tens of thousands can not replicate the 10s that have.
Models are used because there is no way to predict climate from first principles. Climate models cannot be tested in any meaningful way because they predict miniscule changes in temperature which might be observed in 100 years or further into the future. I can predict where a cannon ball will land based on the charge and angle and other variables and then I can test that. THERE IS NO WAY TO TEST CLIMATE MODELS. Every attempt to use climate models to predict something in the near future has failed. An example would be the prediction that there would be no snow on Mt Kilimanjaro by today. Review the movie an inconvenient truth which made some predictions all of which have failed to materialize. Don't let that sway your conviction that the science is settled and that you are a crusader to save the planet. Like Doctors recommending the covid boosters the majority is not always right but the majority is where the money is.
But wait, what happened when it was banned? Energy usage went down . . . drastically.
Now, see if you can tie that together with OIL.
What I do not understand is the argument that people on this site love to scream, SPENDING EFFICIENCY, WASTE, etc. want to spend more personally and in the government. Gasoline costs more per mile than an EV. If you get to price parity on the CapEx, then the savings are immediate. The delta between the CapEx is just moving the further out the ROI. It is simple math.
If you now generate the electricity via solar, then you have something that has nowhere near the environmental damage that oil creates. If you spill electrons on the ground, you do not need to send a crew wearing protective gear to clean it up. /end sarcasm.
It is easy to see the future here. VERY easy. Why? Because it is capitalism. For the vast majority of citizens, they will buy based on price. The vast majority, just like they don't care if something is made in China or Vietnam or America (Walmart tested this in the 80s/90s) they care more about price, once EV's are cheaper than ICE vehicles, that will be the death knell for gasoline. Oil, though will always be needed.
This would be actually interesting if instead of putting heads on a spike you took the time to formulate an actual argument and thoughtful remediation. Such a low IQ boomer coded article clearly written by a propaganda artist rather than someone working in energy.
The argument is that those in power have assaulted the oil industry. Those companies are now leaving the state. Since there are no pipelines into the state, there are few alternatives.
Oil & gas will have to be imported from afar. Our gas prices are higher because of government regulations. Much higher. This is a tax on consumers such as you, me and the tens of thousands driving everyday in SB.. Energy raises the quality of life. Making that energy expensive means a reduced standard of living. Andy also points out that the Supervisors are wrong to believe that their actions will achieve any measurable professed goal.
And yet you only care about the immediate impact of your dollars being spent. If you truly cared about the impact that the oil industry has, you would see gas at $40+ a gallon.
Gasoline is toxic.
Earth and humans survived without gasoline for quite a long time. We have visual proof everyday of what is needed to produce energy. We see it about 12 hours a day. It costs nothing to produce, just a capex on equipment to capture it.
DB: Nature gave us fossil fuels. We are merely recycling them. For the greater advancement of civilizations around the world. No, they are not inherently toxic. They are organic and made from star stuff.
Explain why Gates et al, now want to inject particulate matter into the atmosphere to "cool" things down, after having taken out the particulate matter recycled into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion?
Plus everyone is complaining about a cool summer this year, do you think we bought too many Teslas?
Nature did NOT give us fossil fuels in the manner in which you are describing. They have to be REFINED, therefore they are not natural and we are NOT recycling anything. Damn, you are really illiterate. To recycle would be to use something more than once. We are NOT @#$% recycling fossil fuels. They burn and turn to a GAS. They were in a liquid state before hand and the burning of them splits the chemical structure.
Pfft. You really are clueless about a lot of subjects.
The evidence is that there billions of people who are not in abject poverty. Are there costs? Yes but we shouldn't want the future shackled to fanciful goals. Sustainability is hunting and gathering and a 25 year lifespan.
You are not interested in thoughtful discussion that challenges global warming CO2 dogma. If it is settled science then it is not science which must be perpetually challenged. The concept "settled science" is antithetical to the scientific method. I would say that the low IQ shoe is on the other foot.
Brenda criticized the article for not having an actual argument and thoughtful remediation. Thoughtful remediation assumes that there is something to remediate as in damage to the climate due to CO2. Stating the need for remediation is to state that it is settled science which it is not. It is settled dogma but not scientifically sound.
Jeff we went two different routes with the word remediaiton. I took it as a critique that the article is just a gripe session with no suggestions for a way forward to remediate the problems Andy is stating.
All the problems go back to the idea that fossil fuel poses an existential threat to the environment and to the existence of life on planet earth. Extraordinary measures are warranted by extraordinary threats. But the threat is speculative and supported only by models which cannot be proven in our lifetimes. I am sick of people just assuming that there is a threat when the evidence is tenuous at best. Realize that it has been hotter and colder and CO2 has been higher and lower all before humans burned oil. We are at the end of an extraordinarily cool period and future warming is to be expected simply from the climate historical record. When the lie that the science is settled is accepted, the argument shifts from if there is a threat to how do we manage the threat. I am sick of this. The evidence for anthropomorphic global warming is far from settled and no action should be taken.
Never said I disagreed nor agreed with the authors sentiments. Just plainly not a fan of fundamentally bad writing, something which the Current has become a megaphone for.
You clearly disagree with the author's sentiments. You are in the carbon capture business, in my opinion one of the most ridiculous wastes of time and money, but hey it pays the bills. You are welcome to submit a sample of your writing to the Current. Make your case for the need for CO2 capture.
Funding DecarbDigest: .............. Heinz Endowments (John Kerry); Soros Tides Center; now tax exempt after federal government sponsored "community visioning" efforts in 1998. Now a certified tax exempt DEI operation, according to their own terms.
........"financial backing from The Heinz Endowments. The organization was an outcome of the Pittsburgh visit of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (September 1998), where a committee of civic leaders organized several days of community visioning around introducing concepts of sustainability to the region. Sustainable Pittsburgh became a project of the Tides Center in March 2000 and was awarded IRS 501(c)(3) nonprofit status on November 1, 2006.
Since its inception, Sustainable Pittsburgh has advanced the simultaneous goals of equity, environmental and economic success by promoting the policy and practice of sustainability in Southwestern Pennsylvania..........."
Brenna (aka Decarb Digest), put up a mirror to you own post first. And then join the discussion. Do you work for the county or on some government funded grant?
I have always found it deceitful that they say carbon when they are talking about CO2. When people hear carbon they think black lung, cancer, nasty dirty black stuff that you don’t want to breathe. By contrast, CO2 is a trace atmospheric component essential to life. CO2 is colorless, tasteless and is not toxic and is not scary like carbon.
This is just a good example of why the conservatives need to be voted back in our state. The mid-terms next summer will be very telling of the future of California and our country. God help us.
Sherry: Write an article on opening up mineral rich federal lands West of the Mississippi possibly worth $150T to fund a sovereign national wealth fund is to save SS, and build new cities. “A Sovereign Wealth Fund is a pool of wealth set aside by a country, for the benefit of its people.
“The biggest Sovereign Wealth fund in the world is in Norway. Thanks to its rich offshore oil fields, it was able to set aside more than $2.8 trillion. Which translates to roughly $350,000 per citizen.
China also has a $1.8 trillion wealth fund called the China Investment Corporation.Then there’s Saudi Arabia. Its sovereign wealth fund is paid for by its endless oilfields. Today, it’s worth just a hair under $1 trillion.”
I just know that its going to be biblical when NewCaliforniaState.com comes in wht so many are attending the event this monday and tuesday in visailia huge Constitutional announcment becoming public. I can write about after this weekend i havent forgotten what you have asked me to do. Im still gathering information.
I quote from Mr. Caldwell> "The term “talking head” has become slang for a person whose talk is empty and pretentious." AND "County Supervisor Capps is simply living in a bubble of pretense. She is as woke as they come, coupled with an attitude of sanctimonious superiority." AND
"All of this is par for the course for these hard-core leftist talking heads. They steal things without compunction."
To the Point> Santa Barbara and California are completely controlled by a Political Party and it's
"Operatives" that have utterly failed to Serve this Community, Serve this State and Serve this Country. The ultimate day of service is soon arriving Memorial Day weblink provided below>
"Memorial Day is an American holiday, observed on the last Monday of May, honoring the men and women who died while serving in the U.S. military. Memorial Day 2025 falls on Monday, May 26"
There is 5 bobble heads on the BOS not 3. Just because 2 are not vocalizing their support doesnt mean that they are not cintributing with this political theater. What do they want a SCAG award or daytime emmy? Wait till the fat lady sings! This is all about the President Trump placing in his Big Beautiful Bill ending the ev car mandate that was going to start here in California and effect the whole nation. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/senate-votes-overturn-californias-electric-vehicle-mandate-major/
How do I unsubscribe to your letter? I have tried many times, but your fascist propaganda keeps appearing in my inbox. I don't want to read your Trumpy takes on everything, since you are a rabid fascist who has no idea about the community you live in. Santa Barbara is a tolerant place where human rights are respected. We love our earth and want to protect it. So PLEASE take me off your list. Your idiocy is wasting my time and annoying me . I click UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing happens.
At least understand what the word fascist means - Trump is just a boomer conservative. Detestable yes, but it's because he's a modernist. He wants to preserve America, whatever that means - an integralist wants the eagle to rot so the lily may bloom.
Thank you again Andy for exposing our ridiculously stupid local government. However I find the other comments perhaps not as contributing. The question I think should be not be whether we drill or not, but how as a society we use this finite resource. I don’t like oil spills, watching marine life die miserably, people foolishly wasting fuel driving a noisy jet ski in a circle, dirt bikes. But to keep this free western society going untilI think until hydrogen fuel is available it is a temporary hopefully necessary evil. I think we should control production but also use. Perhaps that is what $8 per gallon would accomplish— would people be less wasteful or just only the rich have access?
La Cumbre Plaza is going belly up. Our oil revenues are disappearing. It seems as if they are just determined to destroy our tax base. Who is going to process oil in a more environmentally sensitive way than Santa Barbara? No one.
Andy-
Another good essay exposing the moron majority of our County Supervisors. I reside in Carpetbagger Capps district. She is blinded by her ideology and refuses to accept cogent arguments from the "other side". I simply cannot stand her.
“by eliminating onshore oil production on the Central Coast,”
Wait, who paid out for the Thomas Fire? Who is brung sued for the Palisades Fire?
Not oil & gas.
Electricity providers! Uh oh! Yet another lie told by our corrupt local government.
They think we are idiots. Funny thing is, they’re right. Look she got voted in after endangering thousands of children through covid, after not being able to increase the success of education after 8 years.
She endangers youth and cannot do her job, and she got a promotion from voters.
Part of the plan to make it so expensive to own and drive a car..
Mass-immigration "Libertarians" are also responsible for making cars, driving, land, housing & LIVING unaffordable. Can't double the population and not massively jack up the cost of all those things. See my detailed comment elsewhere in this thread.
Even Exxon, a very wealthy and environmentally conscious energy company, gave up trying to obtain approval from the supervisors, environmental groups, Coastal Commission, judges and who knows who else. California state government drove Chevron to move to Texas and now by requiring refineries to do the impossible of maintaining inventory when doing a turn around (that is necessary for performance and environmental reasons) multiple refineries are choosing to close. For $8 gas be sure and continue to vote for the same set of bouncing bubble heads.
Wait. What? How can you put environmentally conscious energy company along with the word Exxon. What the heck? Valdez? No OIL company is environmentally conscious, just like no tobacco company is a health care provider.
DB: There goes that Zero Tolerance glitch again. Like only 25% of smokers die from lung cancers, so 75% do not. And Valdez has been operating as the end point for the Alaska Pipeline for decades now, without incidence. A gorgeous little Alaska town. The one lesson from the Valdez oil tanker spill is don't drink and captain a ship at the same time - that one is worthy of zero tolerance.
And yet, your complete utter ignorance shines like the sun.
Healthcare is not about DEATH. Gasoline is TOXIC. Gasoline, emissions from oil and it's by products goes into the air that we all breath. It goes into the products that we consume. There is your healthcare costs.
Do we need to talk about the BP platform in the Gulf of Mexico?
Do we need to talk about more oil spills across the world?
DB: We need to talk about this modern world and developing world without a ready source of energy to improve their lives and keep them dying from cold alone. The race to find a great renewable and sustainable source of energy continues. Chill during the interim. Fossil fuels are better than burning down forests. Do the math. It is not Armageddon, DB. Your teacher union K-12 indoctrination did you no favors. Plant a tree.
You should sue. Sue the education system because they produced a person who has no education.
Again, the SUN has given the earth life since life began. To prove your ignorance on this matter, if you take 100 x 100 square miles, put it in West Texas or New Mexico, that will generate about 130% of the energy the US used last year. Now, add an additional 1 mile, so you have a 1 x 100 mile row, and make that batteries. You now have enough energy ALL the time to feed the US and still have about 35% more than was used last year.
There is NO need to burn down a forest. See the section about your pending lawsuit. Planting a tree in the desert does not work.
You err DB. "Health care" in the US today finds iatrogenicity, (medical error) a leading causes of death in the US. Ponder that one.
And because you are again showing your ignorance. No one went into the hospital because the hospital had a medical error. The medical error is NOT the leading cause of death. It is the third highest. But again, that is misleading. Why? Because what is a medical error? That is the whole issue. You have no idea how it is defined.
Wow
Another person proving that liberalism is a mental disorder.
They are everywhere.
Must have all been in the public school system.
Global warming is based on flawed pssudo-science and computer models of a chaotic system which cannot be accurately modelled. The model outputs are a product of the bias and integrity of those writing and executing the models. Climate models have failed to accurately predict anything but have proven useful at manipulating public opinion. Global warming fear gives our governing libtards the power to generate more revenue for government while wearing the crown of environmental stewards. As long as we elect the likes of Capps, Lee snd Hartman we will continue to suffer from their uninformed bad decisions.
Excellent documentary underscores all your points and available online: Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth).
I have watched it 3 times. It is an excellent counter to the global warming narrative. The featured physicists who expose the flaws in global warming science are convincing. They are older scientists with established reputations and one is actually a Nobel Laureate. It was mentioned that if they were early in their career they would be reluctant to challenge global warming dogma as it would threaten their funding. It is disheartening to realize that science is so corrupted by politics and money. It is an inevitable consequence of academic funding coming from government. I am a physicist by training and in the 1970's - 1980's there was not so much forced conformity under threat of funding. I never believed the global warming fantasy.
Yeah, I guess if you were to guess that there would be 1000 jelly beans in the jar and there were only 999, your guess is invalid. PFFT. Only a person who is ignorant to the definition of scientific method would call it pseudo-science. Why not take the 5 minutes and learn about the difference between the scientific method and what an opinion is then come back.
Science is a verb; not a noun. It is always in motion; never settled. Thank goodness. Back to you, DB.
No one said it is.
That does not mean that it is not accurate at the point in time. The problem with your 'arguement' is that the other dissenting few can not replicate their models. The scientific method forces theories to be questioned, it is full of skeptical people. That is why trials are done to either validate or invalidate the theory.
I do not remember the exact numbers, and this is from memory, but IIRC, there are tens of thousands that have modeled and shown the impact and there are 10s that have not. The tens of thousands can not replicate the 10s that have.
Models are used because there is no way to predict climate from first principles. Climate models cannot be tested in any meaningful way because they predict miniscule changes in temperature which might be observed in 100 years or further into the future. I can predict where a cannon ball will land based on the charge and angle and other variables and then I can test that. THERE IS NO WAY TO TEST CLIMATE MODELS. Every attempt to use climate models to predict something in the near future has failed. An example would be the prediction that there would be no snow on Mt Kilimanjaro by today. Review the movie an inconvenient truth which made some predictions all of which have failed to materialize. Don't let that sway your conviction that the science is settled and that you are a crusader to save the planet. Like Doctors recommending the covid boosters the majority is not always right but the majority is where the money is.
Ok . . .
You are another clueless person on subjects.
The models are based on what input variables?
Think about it.
Come on.
You can do it.
Now think about the variables and the actions taken.
Think about that.
Can YOU see anything that could destroy the model?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-just-put-chinas-co2-emissions-into-reverse-for-first-time/
That should make you think a little.
Now, here is something that I feel you would have fought hard against, just because you feel you are always right about stuff. How dare the US ban incandescent lights and mandate LEDs. How dare that black man in office make that happen. Then the orange man undid it. https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/its-lights-out-obama-era-bulb-ban-would-have-curbed-consumer-choice
But wait, what happened when it was banned? Energy usage went down . . . drastically.
Now, see if you can tie that together with OIL.
What I do not understand is the argument that people on this site love to scream, SPENDING EFFICIENCY, WASTE, etc. want to spend more personally and in the government. Gasoline costs more per mile than an EV. If you get to price parity on the CapEx, then the savings are immediate. The delta between the CapEx is just moving the further out the ROI. It is simple math.
If you now generate the electricity via solar, then you have something that has nowhere near the environmental damage that oil creates. If you spill electrons on the ground, you do not need to send a crew wearing protective gear to clean it up. /end sarcasm.
It is easy to see the future here. VERY easy. Why? Because it is capitalism. For the vast majority of citizens, they will buy based on price. The vast majority, just like they don't care if something is made in China or Vietnam or America (Walmart tested this in the 80s/90s) they care more about price, once EV's are cheaper than ICE vehicles, that will be the death knell for gasoline. Oil, though will always be needed.
Going off a little on a tangent, but this still ties into the topic. Isn't it interesting that I suspect you would have BASHED Carter in the 70s, but now that Trump is proclaiming to do what CARTER was pushing for, it is OK. ROFL. Carter saw the impact of OPEC and being dependent on the Middle East. He pushed for the ability for the US to not have to deal with OPEC. The US produces more OIL than it uses, just like FOOD. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20became%20a,time%20since%20at%20least%201949.&text=In%202022%2C%20total%20petroleum%20exports,be%20stored%20and%20later%20exported. And the irony . . . that was under BIDEN, not TRUMP. That started under OBAMA!
Never let the facts get in the way of your opinionated rant.
This would be actually interesting if instead of putting heads on a spike you took the time to formulate an actual argument and thoughtful remediation. Such a low IQ boomer coded article clearly written by a propaganda artist rather than someone working in energy.
The argument is that those in power have assaulted the oil industry. Those companies are now leaving the state. Since there are no pipelines into the state, there are few alternatives.
Oil & gas will have to be imported from afar. Our gas prices are higher because of government regulations. Much higher. This is a tax on consumers such as you, me and the tens of thousands driving everyday in SB.. Energy raises the quality of life. Making that energy expensive means a reduced standard of living. Andy also points out that the Supervisors are wrong to believe that their actions will achieve any measurable professed goal.
And yet you only care about the immediate impact of your dollars being spent. If you truly cared about the impact that the oil industry has, you would see gas at $40+ a gallon.
Gasoline is toxic.
Earth and humans survived without gasoline for quite a long time. We have visual proof everyday of what is needed to produce energy. We see it about 12 hours a day. It costs nothing to produce, just a capex on equipment to capture it.
DB: Nature gave us fossil fuels. We are merely recycling them. For the greater advancement of civilizations around the world. No, they are not inherently toxic. They are organic and made from star stuff.
Explain why Gates et al, now want to inject particulate matter into the atmosphere to "cool" things down, after having taken out the particulate matter recycled into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion?
Plus everyone is complaining about a cool summer this year, do you think we bought too many Teslas?
Nature did NOT give us fossil fuels in the manner in which you are describing. They have to be REFINED, therefore they are not natural and we are NOT recycling anything. Damn, you are really illiterate. To recycle would be to use something more than once. We are NOT @#$% recycling fossil fuels. They burn and turn to a GAS. They were in a liquid state before hand and the burning of them splits the chemical structure.
Pfft. You really are clueless about a lot of subjects.
Yes, OIL is toxic. Gasoline is toxic.
https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/how-toxic-oil
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/substances/ToxSubstance.aspx?toxid=83#:~:text=Gasoline%20is%20a%20manufactured%20mixture,%2C%20xylene%2C%20and%20sometimes%20lead.
Take the time to read before you type.
The evidence is that there billions of people who are not in abject poverty. Are there costs? Yes but we shouldn't want the future shackled to fanciful goals. Sustainability is hunting and gathering and a 25 year lifespan.
You are not interested in thoughtful discussion that challenges global warming CO2 dogma. If it is settled science then it is not science which must be perpetually challenged. The concept "settled science" is antithetical to the scientific method. I would say that the low IQ shoe is on the other foot.
Did Brenda Casey say it was 'settled science'? I think you took your self for a walk on that one.
Brenda criticized the article for not having an actual argument and thoughtful remediation. Thoughtful remediation assumes that there is something to remediate as in damage to the climate due to CO2. Stating the need for remediation is to state that it is settled science which it is not. It is settled dogma but not scientifically sound.
Jeff we went two different routes with the word remediaiton. I took it as a critique that the article is just a gripe session with no suggestions for a way forward to remediate the problems Andy is stating.
All the problems go back to the idea that fossil fuel poses an existential threat to the environment and to the existence of life on planet earth. Extraordinary measures are warranted by extraordinary threats. But the threat is speculative and supported only by models which cannot be proven in our lifetimes. I am sick of people just assuming that there is a threat when the evidence is tenuous at best. Realize that it has been hotter and colder and CO2 has been higher and lower all before humans burned oil. We are at the end of an extraordinarily cool period and future warming is to be expected simply from the climate historical record. When the lie that the science is settled is accepted, the argument shifts from if there is a threat to how do we manage the threat. I am sick of this. The evidence for anthropomorphic global warming is far from settled and no action should be taken.
Thomas
Don’t be an idiot.
You are pathetic
Never said I disagreed nor agreed with the authors sentiments. Just plainly not a fan of fundamentally bad writing, something which the Current has become a megaphone for.
You clearly disagree with the author's sentiments. You are in the carbon capture business, in my opinion one of the most ridiculous wastes of time and money, but hey it pays the bills. You are welcome to submit a sample of your writing to the Current. Make your case for the need for CO2 capture.
Funding DecarbDigest: .............. Heinz Endowments (John Kerry); Soros Tides Center; now tax exempt after federal government sponsored "community visioning" efforts in 1998. Now a certified tax exempt DEI operation, according to their own terms.
........"financial backing from The Heinz Endowments. The organization was an outcome of the Pittsburgh visit of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (September 1998), where a committee of civic leaders organized several days of community visioning around introducing concepts of sustainability to the region. Sustainable Pittsburgh became a project of the Tides Center in March 2000 and was awarded IRS 501(c)(3) nonprofit status on November 1, 2006.
Since its inception, Sustainable Pittsburgh has advanced the simultaneous goals of equity, environmental and economic success by promoting the policy and practice of sustainability in Southwestern Pennsylvania..........."
More about Brenna and the Decarb Digest: https://sustainablepittsburgh.org/decarb-digest/ from the school of we are all gonna die, without woke green ideology. Who funds this stuff?
Brenna (aka Decarb Digest), put up a mirror to you own post first. And then join the discussion. Do you work for the county or on some government funded grant?
decarb digest was a suggested substack handle sherlock. not affiliated with that company in the slightest
RE DecarbDigest. Except using the same name and the same talking points. Pardon our confusion. It was elementary, Watson.
I have always found it deceitful that they say carbon when they are talking about CO2. When people hear carbon they think black lung, cancer, nasty dirty black stuff that you don’t want to breathe. By contrast, CO2 is a trace atmospheric component essential to life. CO2 is colorless, tasteless and is not toxic and is not scary like carbon.
I am pretty sure Brenna is paid to hold these views and does not have the mental resources to challenge anything.
This is just a good example of why the conservatives need to be voted back in our state. The mid-terms next summer will be very telling of the future of California and our country. God help us.
If only it was just those three
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/how-doge-trump-could-save-social-security-2/
Sherry: Write an article on opening up mineral rich federal lands West of the Mississippi possibly worth $150T to fund a sovereign national wealth fund is to save SS, and build new cities. “A Sovereign Wealth Fund is a pool of wealth set aside by a country, for the benefit of its people.
“The biggest Sovereign Wealth fund in the world is in Norway. Thanks to its rich offshore oil fields, it was able to set aside more than $2.8 trillion. Which translates to roughly $350,000 per citizen.
China also has a $1.8 trillion wealth fund called the China Investment Corporation.Then there’s Saudi Arabia. Its sovereign wealth fund is paid for by its endless oilfields. Today, it’s worth just a hair under $1 trillion.”
I just know that its going to be biblical when NewCaliforniaState.com comes in wht so many are attending the event this monday and tuesday in visailia huge Constitutional announcment becoming public. I can write about after this weekend i havent forgotten what you have asked me to do. Im still gathering information.
I read this article tilted "Three Insufferable Talking Heads Bring On $8 Per Gallon Gasoline
By Andy Caldwell" and I of course have another Title as follows>
"SB and CALI Burning Down the House" THE TALKING HEADS ARE DESTROYING EVERTHING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3eC35LoF4U&ab_channel=TalkingHeads
I quote from Mr. Caldwell> "The term “talking head” has become slang for a person whose talk is empty and pretentious." AND "County Supervisor Capps is simply living in a bubble of pretense. She is as woke as they come, coupled with an attitude of sanctimonious superiority." AND
"All of this is par for the course for these hard-core leftist talking heads. They steal things without compunction."
To the Point> Santa Barbara and California are completely controlled by a Political Party and it's
"Operatives" that have utterly failed to Serve this Community, Serve this State and Serve this Country. The ultimate day of service is soon arriving Memorial Day weblink provided below>
https://www.history.com/articles/memorial-day-history
"Memorial Day is an American holiday, observed on the last Monday of May, honoring the men and women who died while serving in the U.S. military. Memorial Day 2025 falls on Monday, May 26"
Howard Walther, Member of a Military Family
There is 5 bobble heads on the BOS not 3. Just because 2 are not vocalizing their support doesnt mean that they are not cintributing with this political theater. What do they want a SCAG award or daytime emmy? Wait till the fat lady sings! This is all about the President Trump placing in his Big Beautiful Bill ending the ev car mandate that was going to start here in California and effect the whole nation. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/senate-votes-overturn-californias-electric-vehicle-mandate-major/
How do I unsubscribe to your letter? I have tried many times, but your fascist propaganda keeps appearing in my inbox. I don't want to read your Trumpy takes on everything, since you are a rabid fascist who has no idea about the community you live in. Santa Barbara is a tolerant place where human rights are respected. We love our earth and want to protect it. So PLEASE take me off your list. Your idiocy is wasting my time and annoying me . I click UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing happens.
Please define fascism.
You don’t sound too tolerant to me Clare.
At least understand what the word fascist means - Trump is just a boomer conservative. Detestable yes, but it's because he's a modernist. He wants to preserve America, whatever that means - an integralist wants the eagle to rot so the lily may bloom.
Unfortunately voters don’t vote for intelligence. They vote for sound bites.
Unfortunately voting is demonic as it exalts the will of man over God.
Democracy is the issue - not voters alone.
Thank you again Andy for exposing our ridiculously stupid local government. However I find the other comments perhaps not as contributing. The question I think should be not be whether we drill or not, but how as a society we use this finite resource. I don’t like oil spills, watching marine life die miserably, people foolishly wasting fuel driving a noisy jet ski in a circle, dirt bikes. But to keep this free western society going untilI think until hydrogen fuel is available it is a temporary hopefully necessary evil. I think we should control production but also use. Perhaps that is what $8 per gallon would accomplish— would people be less wasteful or just only the rich have access?
Elections have consequences.
The communist that run the city know what they are doing.
Evil communist think they can sneak by and and not be held accountable.
Sorry!
We will all be held accountable.
Don’t be a fool.
We will all stand in front of the only righteous judge.
Thank you to ALL of the people who have sacrificed their lives for this country.
God speed!
La Cumbre Plaza is going belly up. Our oil revenues are disappearing. It seems as if they are just determined to destroy our tax base. Who is going to process oil in a more environmentally sensitive way than Santa Barbara? No one.