moonbattery.gif


« Hope and Change Will Mean Abandoning Equality Before the Law | Main | Children Forced to Pledge to Obama »


January 30, 2009

Why California Needs a Bailout

You would need a federal bailout too, if you ran your life the way moonbats have been running California:

Dozens, and potentially hundreds, of gas stations around California are choosing to shut down rather than comply with a state mandate that would require owners to purchase new equipment to reduce vapor emissions at the pump.
The requirement, known as Phase II in the state's Enhanced Vapor Recovery Program, is set to go into effect in April. It requires gas station owners to individually purchase tens of thousands of dollars of equipment designed to prevent harmful vapors from escaping into the air when gasoline is pumped.

Already 76 filling stations have announced they will shut down rather than attempt to comply with the excessively onerous regulations, which fittingly go into effect on April Fool's Day. But at least the bureauweenies are making the air nice and clean for the polar bears.

April's regulations promise to cut what are known as reactive organic gas emissions by 7 tons per day statewide, but opponents point to the fact that California produces 2,322 tons of such gases per day.

That comes to a 0.3% reduction.

Econazi Dimitri Stanich of the California Air Resources Board displays his math skills:

We do calculate the cost of compliance with the regulation as related to emissions. These costs could be recovered by raising gasoline prices by an average 0.68 cents per gallon.

Is that all? Our rulers want the price of gas much higher, to prevent us plebs from driving wherever we see fit, and to cripple the economy to the point that socialism can be imposed.

On tips from Richard C and Travis A.

Posted by Van Helsing at January 30, 2009 9:12 AM

Comments

The inmates have taken over the assylum and are re-configuring the cultural environment to suit their desires.

The decades long campaign to dumb down Americans is paying off.

The economy indeed will be destroyed by the same people who claim they are the only ones who can save it.

Americans now stupid enough to fall for this?

All they know is what the news outlets report.

The news outlets are part of the socialist coup d’état, interestingly enough.

Posted by: JW Wright at January 30, 2009 10:04 AM

Ever notice how closed gas stations rarely get redeveloped and just set there in a blighted condition for years? I certainly have, and we avoid them in my particular line of work. Why avoid them? Yep, environmental regulations. Companies are afraid to touch the properties due to the likely presence of LUSTs. Stands for "leaking underground storage tanks" for which they would likely be held financially responsible if they did the community a favor and attempted to redevelop the gas station properties.

On a related note, I have a 9 year old Ford Escort that is still in pretty good shape that I will likely sell to a junkyard. You'd think enviros would be pleased that I'm getting long use out of a small car, but no. Environmental regulations are causing me to ditch it. The car can no longer pass emissions testing and the fix would cost more than the car is worth. So it, along with a bunch of other older cars, is getting scrapped. This type of regulation hurts the middle class and poor most of course - you know - the people the leftists claim to support, and it wastes a perfectly good cars.

What's worse for the environment, older cars with marginal catalytic converters, or basically throwing away a bunch a decent cars? It's the "throw away society" environmental kooks always bitch about, and they are causing it.

The parade of unintended consequences to totalitarian do-gooder moonbat ideas is endless.

Posted by: forest at January 30, 2009 10:05 AM

Earthquakes, flooding, mudslides, droughts, fires, restricted freedoms, high taxes, high housing costs, high insurance, lawyers to sue you for anything, heatwaves, water shortages, brownouts, smog, liberal politicians, most expensive cost of living anywhere. Why wouldn't anyone want to live there?

Posted by: Eric at January 30, 2009 11:29 AM

Couldn't pay me to live there, Eric. I've visited twice, that's enough.

In summary:

Gas stations close, so supply goes down = COST UP
Taxes to "recover cost?" = COST UP
Abandoned junky gas stations = ENVIRONMENT DOWN
Possible unintended underground tanks = SOIL/WATER QUALITY DOWN
Have to drive further to next gas station = EMISSIONS UP

ENVIRONAZIS, THINK THINGS THROUGH!!

Posted by: Karin at January 30, 2009 2:05 PM

so why do they make all this vital earth saving and government required "technology" available only through the most expensive private companies?

The very option of throwing something away to rot somewhere if not being able to upgrade it just doesn't make sense at its very core.

It's not about the environment, it CAN'T be in light of rational thinking. It's about paralyzing our economic system. Green is the new Red.

Posted by: Auntie J at January 30, 2009 2:36 PM

Oh, Karin, you don't know the half of it...

In the late 90's, I wen't back to visit. The envirokooks had recently managed to pass a law requiring that gasoline sold in Cali had to burn "cleanly", the level of cleanliness naturally being absurd overkill, and only giving refineries 2 years to find a way to make it. The only way they could come up with (in two years) was to add obscene levels of methyl tetrabutyl ether (approaching 10% when it had previously been a trace amount). It's an octane booster... and also makes gas burn more cleanly.

It was only a few years before the unintended consequences started to appear. All gas tanks leak somewhat, but gasoline *will* break down in soil over time, and doesn't travel far.

MTBE, however, doesn't break down. It travels straight down into the water table. One teaspoon of it makes 100,000 gallons of water undrinkable.

9 of the original 11 municipal wells in San Luis Obispo CA are closed due to MTBE contamination. So, what was the moonbat... er, I mean Democrat... response? Pass a law banning MTBE entirely, and blame the 'evil old fat-cat corporate big oil capitalist exploiters'.

You couldn't pay me enough to move back to California.

Posted by: hiram at January 30, 2009 3:04 PM

What will CALIFORNIA look like after the eco-nazis uner the green swastika look like and GOVENOR TERMINATOR will terminate us all

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at January 30, 2009 3:20 PM

Actually this is great - now that the nut jobs have their "THE ONE" in the Whitehouse they think that means they can get just as NUTS as they want, no rules, no stops. They are making themselves so obvious and so crazy the middle-of-the-road and the apathetic will start to take notice. They didn't believe it before, wellllllllllllll, they'll know now!

Posted by: TED at January 30, 2009 7:26 PM

Glen Beck did an exccelent report on this today. We should start throwing out states that can't get their act together

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2009 10:46 PM

You've slipped a decimal place or two there: 7 / 2322 is 0.3%, not 0.003%.

Agreed, it's the difference between nothing and next to nothing, but green slime have a similar affliction when it comes to arithmetic (or facts of any kind, come to that) and sane people need to exercise great care to avoid providing them with ammunition.

Posted by: Brian of Darlington at January 31, 2009 1:53 AM

Brian, thanks, fixed the typo.

Posted by: Van Helsing at January 31, 2009 9:18 AM

One must assume that the $.68 amount is less than it seems. The amount of increase Mr. Stanich cites to cover costs probably apply to large chain operations that can cover a fixed cost for the equipment with relatively large revenues spread over multiple outlets. For the small, single location owner the cost per gallon to break even over a reasonable time frame would be significantly higher. How then does he compete with the chain outlets? BTW, in the time of limited loan fund availability, where does a modest business operation such as this get the financing for this purchase? Just askin'.

Posted by: boqueronman at January 31, 2009 4:02 PM

So it seems that this enviro regulation is a bit harsh on gas station owners. I agree lusts are a problem. that octane booster sounds nasty too.

I want to say you can just spend the money and get the car fixed. They are not making you throw it away, but you find that that is the most reasonable economic option and so you blame the act of scrapping it on those who are attempting to see improvement on the enviro stance.

I can tell you guys honestly I am worried about global warming, but even more about pollution and public health issues. Neither are easy to fix, and yes I take issue with people who want to drive anywhere and anywhen they see fit. It becomes wasteful at some point. I think the limousine liberals are seriously hypocrites on this issue sometimes and that is why I ride a bicycle! Try not to run me over out there, I do it because it is legal and fun and low impact on the enviroment. I ride in the road where the law says I should so please give me some road so I am not needlessly terrorized as you drive by.

To the other dude telling liberals "to think things through" don't claim to have all the answers. Enviro legislation is something that takes time to implement, and I doubt you could have studied all the facts and PREDICTED that gas station owners would rather close than comply. The economy and lots of other factors in the retail sector might be in play here.

Posted by: fine ahht at February 1, 2009 6:22 AM

I often listen to NPR's "Living on Earth" and it is an absolute hoot - a veritable rat's nest of fool's errands and idiocy. I recommend everyone give up an hour or two of their Sunday morning to tune in for some good belly laughs.

Anyway today some nincompoop was presenting his grand plan for "decoupling" (you'll find more info here http://www.californiaenergyefficiency.com/docs/EEStrategicPlan.pdf). Essentially the idea is that utility companies should not be making money from actually selling energy but rather by providing "Added value" services such as reducing the carbon footprint of people's home.

The real chuckle came when the professor told his audience of the real outstanding example of this in the U.S. - you have probably guessed, the land of rolling blackouts itself, California.

Posted by: Ian at February 1, 2009 6:57 PM