<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hummers Go Green? An Interview with Hummer GM Martin Walsh</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/</link>
	<description>Causes Entertainment Lifestyle Pop Culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:13:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChaRLIE pETERS</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-412029</link>
		<dc:creator>ChaRLIE pETERS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-412029</guid>
		<description>&quot;(Dr.) Jeffrey Williams. Looking at the very distant future, can we make it clearer how much air
pollution is costing people? I can envision cars with a meter on the dash that shows the health
care cost of the tailpipe emissions. The owner can then get repairs to reduce emissions (rather
than hit a cut point). We’re not using all the information we could (from OBD II for example) to
fix the pollution costs of the vehicle. How many miles has the car has driven with check engine
light? There should be a fine for driving with the check engine light on.&quot;

http://www.aqmd.gov/TAO/ConferencesWorkshops/SmogCheckForum/SmogCheckSummary.pdf

Is it time for CHANGE?


Clean Air Performance Professionals
Charlie Peters
(510) 537-1796
cappcharlie@earthlink.net</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;(Dr.) Jeffrey Williams. Looking at the very distant future, can we make it clearer how much air<br />
pollution is costing people? I can envision cars with a meter on the dash that shows the health<br />
care cost of the tailpipe emissions. The owner can then get repairs to reduce emissions (rather<br />
than hit a cut point). We’re not using all the information we could (from OBD II for example) to<br />
fix the pollution costs of the vehicle. How many miles has the car has driven with check engine<br />
light? There should be a fine for driving with the check engine light on.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.aqmd.gov/TAO/ConferencesWorkshops/SmogCheckForum/SmogCheckSummary.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.aqmd.gov/TAO/ConferencesWorkshops/SmogCheckForum/SmogCheckSummary.pdf</a></p>
<p>Is it time for CHANGE?</p>
<p>Clean Air Performance Professionals<br />
Charlie Peters<br />
(510) 537-1796<br />
<a href="mailto:cappcharlie@earthlink.net">cappcharlie@earthlink.net</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-148722</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:17:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-148722</guid>
		<description>Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )

RE: IMRC  policy

Are carpetbaggers: Booz Allen, Carlyle Group, Applus, Meineke Car Care Centers and CARB working a deal to take CA small business “Smog Check”?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Rocky_Carlisle@dca.ca.gov 
To: cappcharlie@earthlink.net 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:36 PM
Subject: IMRC meeting


Hi Charlie, 

You missed the first part of the last IMRC meeting when we announced we will no longer transcribe IMRC meetings since it is an extravagant expense that the state cannot afford. As you know, we are under no statutory requirement to do so. All that is required are meeting minutes. Therefore, when possible, we will record the meeting but when a recording is not possible, we will simply post the minutes of the meeting. Let me know of you have any questions. 

Regards, 

Rocky Carlisle
Executive Officer
IMRC
(916) 322-8249

Charlie Peters
Cell: (415) 516-9909
Fax: (510) 537-9675
Clean Air Performance Professionals
cappcharlie@earthlink.net

CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796  cappcharlie@earthlink.net</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger<br />
State Capitol Building<br />
Sacramento, CA 95814<br />
Phone: 916-445-2841<br />
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )</p>
<p>RE: IMRC  policy</p>
<p>Are carpetbaggers: Booz Allen, Carlyle Group, Applus, Meineke Car Care Centers and CARB working a deal to take CA small business “Smog Check”?</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8211; Original Message &#8212;&#8211;<br />
From: <a href="mailto:Rocky_Carlisle@dca.ca.gov">Rocky_Carlisle@dca.ca.gov</a><br />
To: <a href="mailto:cappcharlie@earthlink.net">cappcharlie@earthlink.net</a><br />
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:36 PM<br />
Subject: IMRC meeting</p>
<p>Hi Charlie, </p>
<p>You missed the first part of the last IMRC meeting when we announced we will no longer transcribe IMRC meetings since it is an extravagant expense that the state cannot afford. As you know, we are under no statutory requirement to do so. All that is required are meeting minutes. Therefore, when possible, we will record the meeting but when a recording is not possible, we will simply post the minutes of the meeting. Let me know of you have any questions. </p>
<p>Regards, </p>
<p>Rocky Carlisle<br />
Executive Officer<br />
IMRC<br />
(916) 322-8249</p>
<p>Charlie Peters<br />
Cell: (415) 516-9909<br />
Fax: (510) 537-9675<br />
Clean Air Performance Professionals<br />
<a href="mailto:cappcharlie@earthlink.net">cappcharlie@earthlink.net</a></p>
<p>CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796  <a href="mailto:cappcharlie@earthlink.net">cappcharlie@earthlink.net</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-85629</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 03:44:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-85629</guid>
		<description>What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-53570</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-53570</guid>
		<description>Bill Jones as subsidized ethanol magnate

 * From Alan Bock, Orange County Register (blog), December 4th, 2007 

 * Here’s an interesting piece from the Mercury-News on the “post-politics” of Bill Jones, former Republican Assemblyman and Secretary of State Bill Jones, who has now become one of California’s biggest Welfare Queens as an entrepreneur in the subsidized world of ethanol. His family had some farmland near Madera, and for years he’s been eyeing corn likker — ethanol – as a way to maximize profits. Since retiring from politics, but using his political influence, he’s becoming a magnate, having formed Pacific Ethanol. Having pocketed $15 million from selling stock after the company went public, he’s looking for a controversial $14 million tax break from the state to build two more ethanol plants.

 * I remember when Bill Jones used to come in for editorial boards and talk about how he was a limited-government conservative eager to get rid of boondoggles and use taxpayers’ money responsibly. Now he’s profiting from one of the biggest boondoggles in California history. Sad case — but then he’s pocketed $15 million and I haven’t.

 * http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/

 * Clean Air Performance Professionals</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill Jones as subsidized ethanol magnate</p>
<p> * From Alan Bock, Orange County Register (blog), December 4th, 2007 </p>
<p> * Here’s an interesting piece from the Mercury-News on the “post-politics” of Bill Jones, former Republican Assemblyman and Secretary of State Bill Jones, who has now become one of California’s biggest Welfare Queens as an entrepreneur in the subsidized world of ethanol. His family had some farmland near Madera, and for years he’s been eyeing corn likker — ethanol – as a way to maximize profits. Since retiring from politics, but using his political influence, he’s becoming a magnate, having formed Pacific Ethanol. Having pocketed $15 million from selling stock after the company went public, he’s looking for a controversial $14 million tax break from the state to build two more ethanol plants.</p>
<p> * I remember when Bill Jones used to come in for editorial boards and talk about how he was a limited-government conservative eager to get rid of boondoggles and use taxpayers’ money responsibly. Now he’s profiting from one of the biggest boondoggles in California history. Sad case — but then he’s pocketed $15 million and I haven’t.</p>
<p> * <a href="http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/" rel="nofollow">http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/</a></p>
<p> * Clean Air Performance Professionals</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-31566</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-31566</guid>
		<description>A Background Research Paper on Corn Ethanol

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/14/18440750.php</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Background Research Paper on Corn Ethanol</p>
<p><a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/14/18440750.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/14/18440750.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-29935</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-29935</guid>
		<description>The Farce About Ethanol...

By State Senator Tom McClintock, Free Republic, 06/28/2007

In response to my blog, &quot;Ethanol Economics,&quot; Former Secretary of State Bill Jones (now Chairman of Pacific Ethanol), made five key points in his piece, &quot;The Facts About Ethanol.&quot;  Just for fun, let&#039;s run &quot;The Facts About Ethanol&quot; through the old fact-checker: 

&quot;Today, ethanol is about 65 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in the California market.&quot; That&#039;s only after taxpayers and consumers have kicked in a subsidy of $1.50 per gallon - or $7 billion a year paid into the pockets of ethanol producers to hide the staggering price of ethanol production. And even with the subsidy, the California Energy Commission estimates that the new CARB edict will INCREASE the price per gallon by between 4.2 and 6.5 cents - on top of the tax subsidies. Ouch. 

&quot;Allowing a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline provides a 4 percent supply increase to the marketplace at a price far below current gasoline prices.&quot; Not only is the price far ABOVE current gasoline prices (see above) but Bill ignores the fact that ethanol produces less energy than gasoline - meaning you&#039;ll have to buy more gallons for the same mileage. 

&quot;CARB&#039;s recent vote reduces our reliance on oil from overseas...&quot; Let&#039;s walk through the numbers again. One acre of corn produces 350 gallons of ethanol; the CARB edict will require 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol, in turn requiring 4.3 million acres of corn for ethanol production. Yet California only has 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of any kind. And that, in turn, means an increasing reliance on foreign agricultural produce, shifting our energy dependence from King Abdullah to Hu Jintao. 

&quot;Further, it sends a signal to companies like ours to continue to invest in California production to help make this state energy independent.&quot; Yes, you can sell a lot more ethanol with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone. You got me there. But it also sends a signal to the market to raise prices on every product that relies upon corn for both food and grain feed - meaning skyrocketing prices for everything from corn meal to milk. Remember the tortilla riots in Mexico in January? 

&quot;Pacific Ethanol uses state-of-the-art production practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 40 percent compared to conventional gasoline.&quot; Unless Pacific Ethanol has re-written the laws of chemistry, ethanol is produced by converting glucose into two parts ethanol and two parts carbon dioxide. The chemical equation is C6H12O6 = 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. (Memo to Bill: If you&#039;re not using this formula, you&#039;re not producing ethanol. And if you are, you&#039;re also producing lots of carbon dioxide. Better check.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858095/posts

* NO on â€œcar taxâ€ AB118 (Nunez)

* Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP)  supports a Smog Check inspection &amp; repair audit, gasoline oxygen cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÃ‰ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.

* Some folks believe corn ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit

* Ethanol uses lots of water

* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in Â½ in 1 year.  Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never

* A corn ethanol waiver would stop a $1 billion California oil refinery welfare program coming from the federal government @ $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used 

* About 60,000 barrels per day of the oil used by cars is allowed by the &quot;renewable fuel&quot; CAFE credit</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Farce About Ethanol&#8230;</p>
<p>By State Senator Tom McClintock, Free Republic, 06/28/2007</p>
<p>In response to my blog, &#8220;Ethanol Economics,&#8221; Former Secretary of State Bill Jones (now Chairman of Pacific Ethanol), made five key points in his piece, &#8220;The Facts About Ethanol.&#8221;  Just for fun, let&#8217;s run &#8220;The Facts About Ethanol&#8221; through the old fact-checker: </p>
<p>&#8220;Today, ethanol is about 65 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in the California market.&#8221; That&#8217;s only after taxpayers and consumers have kicked in a subsidy of $1.50 per gallon &#8211; or $7 billion a year paid into the pockets of ethanol producers to hide the staggering price of ethanol production. And even with the subsidy, the California Energy Commission estimates that the new CARB edict will INCREASE the price per gallon by between 4.2 and 6.5 cents &#8211; on top of the tax subsidies. Ouch. </p>
<p>&#8220;Allowing a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline provides a 4 percent supply increase to the marketplace at a price far below current gasoline prices.&#8221; Not only is the price far ABOVE current gasoline prices (see above) but Bill ignores the fact that ethanol produces less energy than gasoline &#8211; meaning you&#8217;ll have to buy more gallons for the same mileage. </p>
<p>&#8220;CARB&#8217;s recent vote reduces our reliance on oil from overseas&#8230;&#8221; Let&#8217;s walk through the numbers again. One acre of corn produces 350 gallons of ethanol; the CARB edict will require 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol, in turn requiring 4.3 million acres of corn for ethanol production. Yet California only has 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of any kind. And that, in turn, means an increasing reliance on foreign agricultural produce, shifting our energy dependence from King Abdullah to Hu Jintao. </p>
<p>&#8220;Further, it sends a signal to companies like ours to continue to invest in California production to help make this state energy independent.&#8221; Yes, you can sell a lot more ethanol with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone. You got me there. But it also sends a signal to the market to raise prices on every product that relies upon corn for both food and grain feed &#8211; meaning skyrocketing prices for everything from corn meal to milk. Remember the tortilla riots in Mexico in January? </p>
<p>&#8220;Pacific Ethanol uses state-of-the-art production practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 40 percent compared to conventional gasoline.&#8221; Unless Pacific Ethanol has re-written the laws of chemistry, ethanol is produced by converting glucose into two parts ethanol and two parts carbon dioxide. The chemical equation is C6H12O6 = 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. (Memo to Bill: If you&#8217;re not using this formula, you&#8217;re not producing ethanol. And if you are, you&#8217;re also producing lots of carbon dioxide. Better check.)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858095/posts" rel="nofollow">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858095/posts</a></p>
<p>* NO on â€œcar taxâ€ AB118 (Nunez)</p>
<p>* Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP)  supports a Smog Check inspection &amp; repair audit, gasoline oxygen cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÃ‰ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.</p>
<p>* Some folks believe corn ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit</p>
<p>* Ethanol uses lots of water</p>
<p>* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in Â½ in 1 year.  Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never</p>
<p>* A corn ethanol waiver would stop a $1 billion California oil refinery welfare program coming from the federal government @ $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used </p>
<p>* About 60,000 barrels per day of the oil used by cars is allowed by the &#8220;renewable fuel&#8221; CAFE credit</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-25279</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-25279</guid>
		<description>NO on AB118

Corn ethanol policy is good for gasoline refiners 

Corn ethanol policy increases oil use and increases oil profit 

The proposed car tax of AB 118 Nunez is an oil company welfare program 

Italy used public/private partnerships as a business model in the early &#039;40s 

In my opinion the corn ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 fed energy bill would lower gas prices, improve miles per gal, lower oil use and improve the air. 

Your phone book lists your elected officials, sharing your opinion with the folks that make our rules might help 

Clean Air Performance Professionals</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NO on AB118</p>
<p>Corn ethanol policy is good for gasoline refiners </p>
<p>Corn ethanol policy increases oil use and increases oil profit </p>
<p>The proposed car tax of AB 118 Nunez is an oil company welfare program </p>
<p>Italy used public/private partnerships as a business model in the early &#8217;40s </p>
<p>In my opinion the corn ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 fed energy bill would lower gas prices, improve miles per gal, lower oil use and improve the air. </p>
<p>Your phone book lists your elected officials, sharing your opinion with the folks that make our rules might help </p>
<p>Clean Air Performance Professionals</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-25135</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-25135</guid>
		<description>----- Original Message ----- 

From: 

To: 

Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:04 PM

Subject: Re:&quot;Conservation may limit global warming&quot;(LA) Times / February 28, 2007

 

 

 Thank you for your letter on an issue I take to heart - fighting global climate change.  I appreciate that you took the time to share your concern about the impact global climate change has on California.  
 
 I&#039;m committed to addressing this issue - we know the science, we see the threat and the time for action is now.  That&#039;s why I worked with members of our Legislature to pass the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).  AB 32 established California as a national leader in the fight against climate change.  We established a program for the capping and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and California is set to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
 
 While California leads the way, we must work with our neighbors in the fight.  I&#039;ve partnered with the governors of Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to create the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a joint strategy to combat global climate change.  Like AB 32, the agreement establishes a regional cap and reduction program for GHG emissions, as well as a framework for developing a similar national program.
 
 To reduce GHG emissions and also decrease California&#039;s reliance on foreign oil, I have established the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation.  By 2020, the LCFS will reduce the carbon intensity of California&#039;s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent - the same as removing 3 million cars from the road. 
 
 Through our efforts to fight climate change, we can secure both a stronger economy and a cleaner environment for future generations.  Our programs foster economic growth by promoting the development of green technology.  As the computer industry and the Internet built the economy of Silicon Valley, green-clean technology can be the next great economic wave for California. 
 
 Thanks again for your interest in climate change and for writing to share your thoughts.  I truly appreciate your personal commitment to the future of our great state.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 
 Arnold Schwarzenegger</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8212;&#8211; Original Message &#8212;&#8211; </p>
<p>From: </p>
<p>To: </p>
<p>Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:04 PM</p>
<p>Subject: Re:&#8221;Conservation may limit global warming&#8221;(LA) Times / February 28, 2007</p>
<p> Thank you for your letter on an issue I take to heart &#8211; fighting global climate change.  I appreciate that you took the time to share your concern about the impact global climate change has on California.  </p>
<p> I&#8217;m committed to addressing this issue &#8211; we know the science, we see the threat and the time for action is now.  That&#8217;s why I worked with members of our Legislature to pass the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).  AB 32 established California as a national leader in the fight against climate change.  We established a program for the capping and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and California is set to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.</p>
<p> While California leads the way, we must work with our neighbors in the fight.  I&#8217;ve partnered with the governors of Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to create the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a joint strategy to combat global climate change.  Like AB 32, the agreement establishes a regional cap and reduction program for GHG emissions, as well as a framework for developing a similar national program.</p>
<p> To reduce GHG emissions and also decrease California&#8217;s reliance on foreign oil, I have established the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation.  By 2020, the LCFS will reduce the carbon intensity of California&#8217;s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent &#8211; the same as removing 3 million cars from the road. </p>
<p> Through our efforts to fight climate change, we can secure both a stronger economy and a cleaner environment for future generations.  Our programs foster economic growth by promoting the development of green technology.  As the computer industry and the Internet built the economy of Silicon Valley, green-clean technology can be the next great economic wave for California. </p>
<p> Thanks again for your interest in climate change and for writing to share your thoughts.  I truly appreciate your personal commitment to the future of our great state.</p>
<p> Sincerely,</p>
<p> Arnold Schwarzenegger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-22910</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:17:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-22910</guid>
		<description>Ethanol Eco nomicsâ€¦

Tom McClintockâ€™s Citizens for the California Republic, 06-18-2007

 
The public policy farce that the â€œGreen Governorâ€ unleashed with AB 32 (the so-called â€œgreenhouse gasâ€ law) continues.  Using their newly granted power to slash carbon dioxide emissions, the California Air Resources Board (all Schwarzenegger appointees) has mandated that every gallon of gasoline sold in California must contain at least 10 percent ethanol by 2010.  

First, a few basic facts.  Californians use about 15 billion gallons of gasoline a year, meaning that the new ten percent CARB edict will require about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol.  Corn is the most common ethanol-producing crop in the country, yielding about 350 gallons of ethanol fuel per acre.  That means converting about 4.3 million acres of farmland to ethanol production, just to meet the California requirement.  But according to the USDA, California currently has only 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of all kinds.  Get the picture? 

The entire purpose of this exercise is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from California automobiles (although Californians already have the 8th lowest per capita gasoline consumption in the country).  And thatâ€™s where the public policy discussion becomes farce.  

As more acres are brought into agricultural production, the demand for nitrogen fertilizer will grow accordingly, which is itself produced through the use of fossil fuels.  And the most likely source of new agricultural land will be converting rain forests to agriculture, although deforestation is already the second biggest man-made contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking just behind internal combustion.  And hereâ€™s the clincher: ethanol is produced through fermentation, by which glucose is broken down into equal parts of ethanol and â€“ you guessed it â€“ carbon dioxide.      

Obviously, this edict will hit gasoline consumers hard: ethanol is less efficient than gasoline and itâ€™s more expensive â€“ meaning youâ€™ll have to buy more gallons at the pump and pay more per gallon.  

The bigger impact, though, will be at the grocery store.  By radically and artificially increasing the demand for ethanol, the cost pressure on all agricultural products (including meat and dairy products that rely on grain feed) will be devastating.  Earlier this year, spiraling corn prices forced up by artificially increased demand for ethanol produced riots throughout Mexico.  

The CARB regulations will undoubtedly hit Californians hard â€“ but they will hit starving third world populations even harder.  Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries.

So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, theyâ€™re right.  Theyâ€™re creating it.  
 

http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?domain=tom_mcclintock&amp;blog_id=136&amp;category_id=&amp;start=0&amp;arcyear=&amp;arcmonth=&amp;curyear=&amp;curmonth=&amp;curday=</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ethanol Eco nomicsâ€¦</p>
<p>Tom McClintockâ€™s Citizens for the California Republic, 06-18-2007</p>
<p>The public policy farce that the â€œGreen Governorâ€ unleashed with AB 32 (the so-called â€œgreenhouse gasâ€ law) continues.  Using their newly granted power to slash carbon dioxide emissions, the California Air Resources Board (all Schwarzenegger appointees) has mandated that every gallon of gasoline sold in California must contain at least 10 percent ethanol by 2010.  </p>
<p>First, a few basic facts.  Californians use about 15 billion gallons of gasoline a year, meaning that the new ten percent CARB edict will require about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol.  Corn is the most common ethanol-producing crop in the country, yielding about 350 gallons of ethanol fuel per acre.  That means converting about 4.3 million acres of farmland to ethanol production, just to meet the California requirement.  But according to the USDA, California currently has only 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of all kinds.  Get the picture? </p>
<p>The entire purpose of this exercise is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from California automobiles (although Californians already have the 8th lowest per capita gasoline consumption in the country).  And thatâ€™s where the public policy discussion becomes farce.  </p>
<p>As more acres are brought into agricultural production, the demand for nitrogen fertilizer will grow accordingly, which is itself produced through the use of fossil fuels.  And the most likely source of new agricultural land will be converting rain forests to agriculture, although deforestation is already the second biggest man-made contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking just behind internal combustion.  And hereâ€™s the clincher: ethanol is produced through fermentation, by which glucose is broken down into equal parts of ethanol and â€“ you guessed it â€“ carbon dioxide.      </p>
<p>Obviously, this edict will hit gasoline consumers hard: ethanol is less efficient than gasoline and itâ€™s more expensive â€“ meaning youâ€™ll have to buy more gallons at the pump and pay more per gallon.  </p>
<p>The bigger impact, though, will be at the grocery store.  By radically and artificially increasing the demand for ethanol, the cost pressure on all agricultural products (including meat and dairy products that rely on grain feed) will be devastating.  Earlier this year, spiraling corn prices forced up by artificially increased demand for ethanol produced riots throughout Mexico.  </p>
<p>The CARB regulations will undoubtedly hit Californians hard â€“ but they will hit starving third world populations even harder.  Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries.</p>
<p>So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, theyâ€™re right.  Theyâ€™re creating it.  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?domain=tom_mcclintock&#038;blog_id=136&#038;category_id=&#038;start=0&#038;arcyear=&#038;arcmonth=&#038;curyear=&#038;curmonth=&#038;curday" rel="nofollow">http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?domain=tom_mcclintock&#038;blog_id=136&#038;category_id=&#038;start=0&#038;arcyear=&#038;arcmonth=&#038;curyear=&#038;curmonth=&#038;curday</a>=</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: odograph</title>
		<link>http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/06/13/hummers-go-green-an-interview-with-hummer-gm-martin-walsh/comment-page-1/#comment-21933</link>
		<dc:creator>odograph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=2152#comment-21933</guid>
		<description>The best thing Hummer could do?  They&#039;ve already licensed the name, to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hummerbikes.com/h2bike_gallery.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a fairly decent folding mountain bike&lt;/a&gt;.

They could bundle one with every H2 sold, and hope that it cuts down on the time they spend driving.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The best thing Hummer could do?  They&#8217;ve already licensed the name, to <a href="http://www.hummerbikes.com/h2bike_gallery.html" rel="nofollow">a fairly decent folding mountain bike</a>.</p>
<p>They could bundle one with every H2 sold, and hope that it cuts down on the time they spend driving.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

