A few weeks ago Assemblyman Chuck DeVore had an Op-Ed printed in Investor’s Business Daily regarding the need to lift the ban on building new nuclear power plants in California to comply with AB32 The California Global Warming Act of 2006. In his commentary DeVore said:
Global warming has become a lot like the weather: Everyone talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.
In environmentally conscious California, a poll found that 54% of residents believe “global warming poses a very serious threat to the state’s future economy and quality of life.” But only 13% claim to carpool and 7% use mass transit. In other words: Do as I want you to do, not as I do.
Meanwhile the California legislature, reflecting the conventional wisdom, has passed a sweeping new greenhouse gas law that calls for a 25% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020  while the state’s population is projected to grow 20% to 44 million people.
Passing the law was the easy part. Now we implement.
Perhaps this is where the majority of Californians were right  but not for the right reason  when they agreed that “global warming poses a very serious threat to the state’s future economy.
“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% in 13 years while growing the economy to support 7 million more people will, to put it mildly, be a challenge. Thirteen years is not a long time to dramatically change the way California uses energy.
Reading Chuck’s comments you would assume that he believes that global warming is a problem to be addressed and that he actually supported the passage of AB32.ÂÂ
You would be wrong. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore voted against the legislation in the Assembly. I also doubt that Assemblyman DeVore believes global warming is a problem. I believe he sees the issue of global warming simply as a way to restart the building of nuclear power plants in California. I wouldn’t be surprised if DeVore did not also support the provision of loan guarantees and/or public financing for nuclear power plant construction so that the profits of the utility companies can be enhanced.
I guess DeVore could argue that he is simply trying to make lemonade out of the lemon he considers the global warming legislation. I think it is more a case of good old Chuck DeVore contributing in his own way to global warming, one word at a time.
Chris, whether or not I am a hypocrite for not supporting a law whose goals cannot be realized without nuclear power is besides the point. I’m at least trying to find a path towards success. AB 32 says we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent in 13 years while we are expected to grow by 7 million people to 44 million. Without nuclear power, this is nearly impossible. Mark my words, the deadlines and goals in AB 32 will be rolled back or remain unobtained unless we allow more nuclear power. Sticking to the goals without nuclear power will result in your electric bill going up by two or three times.
So, who are the responsible lawmakers? The ones who passed a law that cannot be achieved under present rules — at least not without destroying the economy, or those who saw AB 32 as well-intentioned, but malformed public policy.
Interesting aside, did you know that China surpassed the U.S. this year in greenhouse gas emissions? They’ve ordered four modern nuclear reactors, by the way — in addition to building a 1,000 mW coal-fired plant every week.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
Chuck: Your argument and evidence for the assertion that “greenhouse” gas reductions cannot be realized without nuclear power is what?
Anonymous,
I’ve developed and run some lifecycle greenhouse gas emission spreadsheets to analyze the data.
Perhaps the question you should be asking is how lawmakers can pass such a wide ranging law like AB 32 that calls for a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions in only 13 years while the state is expected to grow 20 percent in population without knowing how they’ll accomplish it without destroying the economy.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
Chuck, you dodge the question and try to prescribe a different question for me to ask, one that would be more convenient for you. “I’ve developed and run some lifecycle greenhouse gas emission spreadsheets to analyze the data”… is not an answer. What data? Collected how? What conclusions? What spreadsheets? This is a non-argument you offer, dressed up with the jargon authority, presenting conclusions as research.
Chris:
So because Chuck doesn’t support your favored “solution” to global warming, then he is a hypocrite? That word is tossed about very liberally these days with little regard as to whether it is tossed about accurately.
It seems inconsistent to support Nuclear Power as a solution for global warming when you don’t actually believe global warming is a problem.
Alternatives exist for renewable energy: wind and solar. Yes, more expensive than nuclear but no nasty lethal byproduct handing around for several millinea.
Matt — the facts speak for themselves. Chuck supports the building of new nuke plants citing it as a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions while voting against global warming legislation. What exactly would you call this?
And if we don’t protect the environment, there won’t be an economy to worry about.
Unbelievable. Someone asked earlier if I’m a De Vore staffer because I’m always here defending him.
It’s funny because I find myself defending Chuck because he’s the only one making ANY sense of AB32.
Chris & Dan-
The cold reality is that no matter what Chuck does, you will find a way to criticize it. I guess you would much rather support your liberal democrats who propose NO REALISTIC WAY of achieving the goals set out by your own ill advised legislation.
You can’t have your cake and it it too guys. If you’re going to debate Chuck, do it on the guise of proving him wrong on his research, not on a matter of false hypocrisy to convince (or try to) your readers that he is inconsistent.
Chuck’s stance on global warming is much like my own. He doesn’t necessarily think it’s the end of the world, but he respects the opinion of Californians who put it at the top of their priority list. The difference between Chuck and ANY Democrat in the legislature is that he is actually trying to come up with a REALISTIC solution.
It’s interesting though, to see you criticize Chuck on doing what he just did, while I sit and watch every liberal Democrat sidestepping and re-wording their argument on illegal immigration to fit the reality of the national polls.
If anyone is a hypocrite sirs, it is you.
“The cold reality is that no matter what Chuck does, you will find a way to criticize it.”
— you must have missed some of the posts on Hemp; Chris thinks its great; I don’t see how it benefits anyone in the 70th district.
” I guess you would much rather support your liberal democrats who propose NO REALISTIC WAY of achieving the goals set out by your own ill advised legislation. ”
— well if it deals with conservation, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, those are all very realistic ways to bolster California’s energy needs; more expensive than nuclear power, but again, no harmful waste byproduct to worry about. Just where will we be storing all of this radioactive waste?
Dan-
If you think conservationist policies combined with wind and solar power is enough to cut back 25% of our carbon emissions, then unfortunately you are a lost cause.
I’m confident Californians will be more reasonable than that.
Here’s a less inflamatory assessment of DeVore’s efforts
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/07/chuck-devorse-launches-nuclear-ballot.html
Ohadi — Thanks for the details on who’s bankrolling Chuck.