News

Bonds on the ballot: Will billions of dollars help California cope with climate change?

Given California's international leadership in addressing climate change, it isn't surprising that voters will be asked this November to approve billions of dollars in bonds to help the state become more resilient.

But why settle for one ballot proposal when you can have three?

Competing plans for "climate resiliency" bonds come from three sides of state government: the Assembly, the Senate and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

If any of these proposals are approved by voters in November, the money would be broadly spent, mostly to fund building and retrofitting projects and state grants to communities to prepare for the impacts of climate change.

That's on top of the $12.5 billion for wide-ranging climate-change programs in the governor's proposed budget.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

It's anyone's guess which, if any, of the proposals will prevail, or how lawmakers will ultimately determine the key elements of what voters will see.

The only certainty is that the three proposals will generate a lot of questions.

What is climate resilience, anyway?

Climate scientists used to talk about "mitigation" — changing behavior and harnessing technology. But, with the world unable to put the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions, the current approach focuses on 'resilience,' devising strategies for coping with an unpredictable and dangerous new climate.

Resilience projects are aimed not so much at preventing sea level rise, wildfires, droughts and extreme heatwaves, but helping people and communities survive.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Nevertheless, this doesn't mean the state has given up trying to reduce carbon emissions, said Kate Gordon, Senior Climate Advisor to Newsom.

"This is the opposite of throwing up our hands," Gordon said.

"We need to find strategic places where infrastructure can be improved," she said. "We need to reduce our climate risk, particularly among our more vulnerable communities. We are being proactive and thoughtful."

The stakes are high. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, by the end of this century, the average acres burned from wildfires would increase by 77 percent, losses could reach $18 billion from rising seas and heat-related health emergencies will increase dramatically, according to the state's Climate Change Assessment.

What is the governor proposing?

Newsom is seeking $4.75 billion, the most of the three proposals.

He recommends spending 80 percent of the funding on projects that address immediate risks from floods, fires and drought. The rest of the money would tackle slower-moving, long-term risks from rising seas and extreme heat.

What clearly distinguishes Newsom's plan is an emphasis on water — including groundwater management, flood control, reviving the Salton Sea and ensuring safe drinking water in communities around the state.

He would allocate as much as 60 percent of the bond money for water-related projects, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, an oft-repeated priority for the governor.

"Low income communities around the state don't have access to safe and affordable drinking water," said Jared Blumenfeld, Secretary of the state Environmental Protection Agency. "Communities are being forgotten."

Blumenfeld said the bond money would be used to help cities come up with matching money to access federal funds for improving water infrastructure. Those projects could include upgrading sewage systems, constructing water treatment plants and modernizing pipelines.

Newsom's plan would allocate a half-billion dollars to harden infrastructure — making homes and buildings more able to withstand fire, in other words. One idea is to provide funds for fire-safe building materials and roofs.

He would spend another $250 million for forest clearing and fuels-reduction projects.

What are the Senate and Assembly proposing?

To begin with, the two bills' authors have opted for an approach of using a voter-friendly name, akin to the "Citizens For a Better Tomorrow and Protection of Puppies Act." In other words, a bill that sounds so wholesome that it would seem shameful to oppose.

Thus, there are two identically-titled bills: the Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2020, one authored by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, a Democrat from Coachella, and one by Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from Santa Monica.

Garcia's legislation is being rewritten, and his staff declined to provide details. But it is expected to build on a previous proposal for a $3.9 billion bond that would put a premium on climate resilience projects in low-income communities, including expanding efforts to reduce pollutants that threaten public health.

Allen's bill calls for a bond to raise $4.1 billion, which sets aside $1.6 billion for wildfires. Allen called the potential for climate change impacts to the state a "serious liability" and said he's confident voters will want to do what it takes to respond.

"People recognize that they are already starting to see the costs associated with climate change, real dollars," he said. "I think people who are paying attention understand this is a modest investment for the future."

Those proposals are all different. How does this get resolved?

Negotiation, horse trading, deal-making, arguments, brinkmanship: The stock and trade of Sacramento lawmaking.

As they sit now, the proposals are just the opening gambit for their authors, who have laid out their priorities but expect to compromise and tailor their legislation to accommodate colleagues' requests.

Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot acknowledged that not all of the bond proposals are aligned. But he said that the existence of three robust plans signals the intention of all parties to reach some agreement.

"I'm encouraged by the collective commitment by the governor and the legislative to advance a resilience bond," Crowfoot said. "I've been involved in climate stuff for 20 years, resilience has always a backburner issue. In my conversations with legislators, they understand the threats and importance of this."

In any event, the bills must get through their houses of origin by the end of January in order to stay alive to face what are sure to be future legislative battles during the rest of the session.

It seems as if there's always a bond measure on the ballot. What gives?

There is almost always a bond measure on a California ballot.

In addition to the scores of propositions that crowd the state ballot, there have been 37 bond measures before voters since 2000.

California voters approved $112 billion in general obligation bonds between 2000 and 2010.

But voters dug deep in 2018, approving the $4 billion California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access for All Act, the $3 billion Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act and the $1.5 billion Children's Hospital Bond Act.

The spending spree has been such that the state still hasn't doled out some $34 billion in recent bond money.

Why does all this cost so much and who pays for it?

It's not remotely cheap to shore up — or relocate — an entire coastal city as sea level rises, for example. But some experts say the cost of that work would be overshadowed by repair or reconstruction costs after a disaster such as storm surge occurs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's most recent assessment of California's 20-year water infrastructure needs puts the price tag at $51 billion, to repair community water systems, ramp up storage and more closely monitor threats to clean residential water supplies.

Given the state's climate to-do list, even billions in bond money won't do much more than spackle over needed repairs and upgrading.

And, as per usual, California taxpayers ultimately pay for bonds.

Technically the state sells bonds to investors who often regard government bonds as a safe return. Then the state pays off the loan at a set interest rate, depending on its credit rating. California's bond rating was upgraded last year by the firm Moody's for the first time in five years.

But there's more to it.

The state Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that the cost of borrowing $1, adjusted for inflation over a 30-year repayment period, ultimately pencils out at $1.40.

And, if you look at state-issued bonds as debt, as many economists do, then taxpayers could eventually pay. It gets a bit dizzying to consider the amounts the state is on the hook for.

A sobering analysis from the state Legislative Analyst from last November estimates that the state's annual debt service from the general fund will grow from $5.7 billion in 2019 to $6.4 billion in 2023-24.

The report notes that the calculations do not include new bonds that might be authorized in the meantime, such as the $15 billion school bond on the March ballot.

State officials argue that dollars spent in preparation for climate change impacts are much less than the future price tag. But given the upfront costs, and so many pressing priorities, should the state nix this bond?

"Oh god no, we need the money for resiliency," said Kathryn Phillips, the Sierra Club's California Director.

"Climate change is gonna cost us a whole lot of money. But we can counter that by spending a lot of money now to make sure that we are able to adapt to the changes that are already happening. Or we can spend much, much more later. We are going to spend money either way."

CALmatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California's policies and politics. Read more state news from CALmatters here. Julie Cart can be emailed at [email protected].

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Bonds on the ballot: Will billions of dollars help California cope with climate change?

by /

Uploaded: Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 8:52 am

Given California's international leadership in addressing climate change, it isn't surprising that voters will be asked this November to approve billions of dollars in bonds to help the state become more resilient.

But why settle for one ballot proposal when you can have three?

Competing plans for "climate resiliency" bonds come from three sides of state government: the Assembly, the Senate and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

If any of these proposals are approved by voters in November, the money would be broadly spent, mostly to fund building and retrofitting projects and state grants to communities to prepare for the impacts of climate change.

That's on top of the $12.5 billion for wide-ranging climate-change programs in the governor's proposed budget.

It's anyone's guess which, if any, of the proposals will prevail, or how lawmakers will ultimately determine the key elements of what voters will see.

The only certainty is that the three proposals will generate a lot of questions.

What is climate resilience, anyway?

Climate scientists used to talk about "mitigation" — changing behavior and harnessing technology. But, with the world unable to put the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions, the current approach focuses on 'resilience,' devising strategies for coping with an unpredictable and dangerous new climate.

Resilience projects are aimed not so much at preventing sea level rise, wildfires, droughts and extreme heatwaves, but helping people and communities survive.

Nevertheless, this doesn't mean the state has given up trying to reduce carbon emissions, said Kate Gordon, Senior Climate Advisor to Newsom.

"This is the opposite of throwing up our hands," Gordon said.

"We need to find strategic places where infrastructure can be improved," she said. "We need to reduce our climate risk, particularly among our more vulnerable communities. We are being proactive and thoughtful."

The stakes are high. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, by the end of this century, the average acres burned from wildfires would increase by 77 percent, losses could reach $18 billion from rising seas and heat-related health emergencies will increase dramatically, according to the state's Climate Change Assessment.

What is the governor proposing?

Newsom is seeking $4.75 billion, the most of the three proposals.

He recommends spending 80 percent of the funding on projects that address immediate risks from floods, fires and drought. The rest of the money would tackle slower-moving, long-term risks from rising seas and extreme heat.

What clearly distinguishes Newsom's plan is an emphasis on water — including groundwater management, flood control, reviving the Salton Sea and ensuring safe drinking water in communities around the state.

He would allocate as much as 60 percent of the bond money for water-related projects, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, an oft-repeated priority for the governor.

"Low income communities around the state don't have access to safe and affordable drinking water," said Jared Blumenfeld, Secretary of the state Environmental Protection Agency. "Communities are being forgotten."

Blumenfeld said the bond money would be used to help cities come up with matching money to access federal funds for improving water infrastructure. Those projects could include upgrading sewage systems, constructing water treatment plants and modernizing pipelines.

Newsom's plan would allocate a half-billion dollars to harden infrastructure — making homes and buildings more able to withstand fire, in other words. One idea is to provide funds for fire-safe building materials and roofs.

He would spend another $250 million for forest clearing and fuels-reduction projects.

What are the Senate and Assembly proposing?

To begin with, the two bills' authors have opted for an approach of using a voter-friendly name, akin to the "Citizens For a Better Tomorrow and Protection of Puppies Act." In other words, a bill that sounds so wholesome that it would seem shameful to oppose.

Thus, there are two identically-titled bills: the Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2020, one authored by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, a Democrat from Coachella, and one by Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from Santa Monica.

Garcia's legislation is being rewritten, and his staff declined to provide details. But it is expected to build on a previous proposal for a $3.9 billion bond that would put a premium on climate resilience projects in low-income communities, including expanding efforts to reduce pollutants that threaten public health.

Allen's bill calls for a bond to raise $4.1 billion, which sets aside $1.6 billion for wildfires. Allen called the potential for climate change impacts to the state a "serious liability" and said he's confident voters will want to do what it takes to respond.

"People recognize that they are already starting to see the costs associated with climate change, real dollars," he said. "I think people who are paying attention understand this is a modest investment for the future."

Those proposals are all different. How does this get resolved?

Negotiation, horse trading, deal-making, arguments, brinkmanship: The stock and trade of Sacramento lawmaking.

As they sit now, the proposals are just the opening gambit for their authors, who have laid out their priorities but expect to compromise and tailor their legislation to accommodate colleagues' requests.

Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot acknowledged that not all of the bond proposals are aligned. But he said that the existence of three robust plans signals the intention of all parties to reach some agreement.

"I'm encouraged by the collective commitment by the governor and the legislative to advance a resilience bond," Crowfoot said. "I've been involved in climate stuff for 20 years, resilience has always a backburner issue. In my conversations with legislators, they understand the threats and importance of this."

In any event, the bills must get through their houses of origin by the end of January in order to stay alive to face what are sure to be future legislative battles during the rest of the session.

It seems as if there's always a bond measure on the ballot. What gives?

There is almost always a bond measure on a California ballot.

In addition to the scores of propositions that crowd the state ballot, there have been 37 bond measures before voters since 2000.

California voters approved $112 billion in general obligation bonds between 2000 and 2010.

But voters dug deep in 2018, approving the $4 billion California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access for All Act, the $3 billion Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act and the $1.5 billion Children's Hospital Bond Act.

The spending spree has been such that the state still hasn't doled out some $34 billion in recent bond money.

Why does all this cost so much and who pays for it?

It's not remotely cheap to shore up — or relocate — an entire coastal city as sea level rises, for example. But some experts say the cost of that work would be overshadowed by repair or reconstruction costs after a disaster such as storm surge occurs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's most recent assessment of California's 20-year water infrastructure needs puts the price tag at $51 billion, to repair community water systems, ramp up storage and more closely monitor threats to clean residential water supplies.

Given the state's climate to-do list, even billions in bond money won't do much more than spackle over needed repairs and upgrading.

And, as per usual, California taxpayers ultimately pay for bonds.

Technically the state sells bonds to investors who often regard government bonds as a safe return. Then the state pays off the loan at a set interest rate, depending on its credit rating. California's bond rating was upgraded last year by the firm Moody's for the first time in five years.

But there's more to it.

The state Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that the cost of borrowing $1, adjusted for inflation over a 30-year repayment period, ultimately pencils out at $1.40.

And, if you look at state-issued bonds as debt, as many economists do, then taxpayers could eventually pay. It gets a bit dizzying to consider the amounts the state is on the hook for.

A sobering analysis from the state Legislative Analyst from last November estimates that the state's annual debt service from the general fund will grow from $5.7 billion in 2019 to $6.4 billion in 2023-24.

The report notes that the calculations do not include new bonds that might be authorized in the meantime, such as the $15 billion school bond on the March ballot.

State officials argue that dollars spent in preparation for climate change impacts are much less than the future price tag. But given the upfront costs, and so many pressing priorities, should the state nix this bond?

"Oh god no, we need the money for resiliency," said Kathryn Phillips, the Sierra Club's California Director.

"Climate change is gonna cost us a whole lot of money. But we can counter that by spending a lot of money now to make sure that we are able to adapt to the changes that are already happening. Or we can spend much, much more later. We are going to spend money either way."

CALmatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California's policies and politics. Read more state news from CALmatters here. Julie Cart can be emailed at [email protected].

Comments

What Will They Do Next
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 27, 2020 at 3:43 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
on Jan 27, 2020 at 3:43 pm
27 people like this

"It seems as if there's always a bond measure on the ballot. What gives?" What gives is this. Progressives and liberals in Sacramento know one thing. Tax and spend. They are relentless. They never have enough. They also know that no one will hold them accountable for how the money is spent despite the propositions having specific targets and objectives.

"As they sit now, the proposals are just the opening gambit for their authors, who have laid out their priorities but expect to compromise and tailor their legislation to accommodate colleagues' requests."

So it's get the money now and we'll figure out what to do with it later. Then, mysteriously it gets diverted somewhere else and the process starts all over again with another proposition or bond measure. What ever happened to the road repair and improvements that were to take place when the last two gas taxes were passed?

The article points out that there is still 34 billion in bond money that hasn't been spent. The question is why? California has been run by progressives and liberals for decades. What was once referred to as the "Great State" isn't what it used to be. It's time to vote them all out.


@Old Palo Alto
Mountain View
on Jan 27, 2020 at 6:31 pm
@Old Palo Alto, Mountain View
on Jan 27, 2020 at 6:31 pm
6 people like this

Oh Craig...you REALLY need to update your material.

And remember: It's the Trump administration that has achieved a $1 TRILLION budget deficit. So don't ever argue that "conservatives" are fiscally responsible...


Question
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 27, 2020 at 6:41 pm
Question, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 27, 2020 at 6:41 pm
16 people like this

Who said Trump is or ever was a Conservative?
He’s an opportunist - for himself - without any clear doctrine or philosophy.


@Question
Mountain View
on Jan 27, 2020 at 6:52 pm
@Question, Mountain View
on Jan 27, 2020 at 6:52 pm
11 people like this

"Who said Trump is or ever was a Conservative?
He’s an opportunist - for himself - without any clear doctrine or philosophy."

So what does that say about the current GOP, the party that insisted upon balanced budgets and railed against wasteful spending?

Remember: The GOP votes in lockstep for EVERY budget proposal put out by the Trump administration. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.


What Will C say Next
Mayfield
on Jan 27, 2020 at 10:10 pm
What Will C say Next, Mayfield
on Jan 27, 2020 at 10:10 pm
17 people like this

" California has been run by progressives and liberals for decades. What was once referred to as the "Great State" isn't what it used to be."

California is enjoying a ten year economic boom, with massive wealth creation and jobs.

We don't need a Bush-style recession.

"the "Great State" isn't what it used to be."

Used to be the 8th biggest economy in the world. Now it's the 5th. Thank the Lord you aren't running things, you can't take 'yes' for an answer!


Woke
Mountain View
on Jan 27, 2020 at 10:14 pm
Woke, Mountain View
on Jan 27, 2020 at 10:14 pm
16 people like this

Yes! More bond measures! Why not when high rail speed has been so successful and accomplished so much!

WAKE.UP.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 27, 2020 at 11:58 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 27, 2020 at 11:58 pm
9 people like this

The first problem here is that CA sees itself as an international leader in Climate Change. No - it isn't. The international world out there has huge problems in China and India. Also people burning the jungles in South America. If you have no trees then you have no climate reduction resources. China and India are going to keep doing what they are doing and you have no control over that.

A big problem now is that the EU organization controls the programs for it's member states and the funding for those projects. That is a huge block of countries on all continents. And part of their problems are their own lack of ability to plan out and govern effectively.

Everyone wants to help but most countries now are busy trying to be self determined as to their prospects and are not interested in being told what to do.


What Will C say Next
Mayfield
on Jan 28, 2020 at 9:22 am
What Will C say Next, Mayfield
on Jan 28, 2020 at 9:22 am
8 people like this

"the EU organization controls the programs for it's member states ... That is a huge block of countries on all continents."

I looked back at a post of yours, a conspiracy theory about the EU having control over all the money. You've modified it above, but it still is pretty crazy.

The EU is not on all continents. Your Alcoa-made hat is slipping.


Targeted Limitations Are Good
Crescent Park
on Jan 28, 2020 at 9:55 am
Targeted Limitations Are Good, Crescent Park
on Jan 28, 2020 at 9:55 am
9 people like this

> The first problem here is that CA sees itself as an international leader in Climate Change. No - it isn't. The international world out there has huge problems in China and India. Also people burning the jungles in South America. If you have no trees then you have no climate reduction resources. China and India are going to keep doing what they are doing and you have no control over that.

^^^Good points. There should be economic & immigration sanctions against China & India unless they clean up their non-environmental acts.

And as far as further immigration goes, only those displaced from the destruction of their natural habitats (i.e. the rain forests) should be allowed to enter the United States legally.

The rest of the world can stay put.


Bystander effect
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 28, 2020 at 3:38 pm
Bystander effect, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 28, 2020 at 3:38 pm
19 people like this

How about starting with practical steps to get out notoriously fickle Democratic voters to vote reliably? To understand that if they care about the earth, they each have to personally care about voting every time, about the balance of political power and not letting the minority keep ruling and stacking the state offices and Supreme Court? The Republicans have been trying for decades to destroy our democratic republic form of government and replace it with plutocracy/oligarchy, and despite their rhetoric, destroy the honing of actual competition in politics. So, despite a majority of Americans wanting more action on the environment, nothing happens.

If you want that to change, start getting serious about getting out the vote. You can say “okay boomer” all you want but seniors vote, young people do not. Unless they start voting in greater numbers, they are just as responsible as anyone else for the destruction. Unless each young person who goes away to college realizes it’s their responsibility, and bothers to figure out how to vote, including if that means transferring to their new state of residence, then no one does (as happens) and young people who could otherwise change everything, have no one to blame but themselves.

Same with African-American voters. We sawwith the election of Barack Obama that they could change everything, even get a black President elected. So where were they in the midterms? They didn’t understand that they needed to have Obama’s back and ensure he had the political strength to do what his voters asked if him. Here, finally, black bpvoters could basically decide every election and hold considerable power over the past, but don’t each take the importance of always voting, every person, seriously.

And then there’s the state politics, where developers have co-opted and neutered environmentalists by getting them to follow the false gospel of density over all...


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 28, 2020 at 4:25 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 28, 2020 at 4:25 pm
10 people like this

A problem that I have with the proposal is that it seems to mix long-term investment spending and year-to-year ongoing spending. Long-term investments, with payoffs, would be projects such as (closed-loop) pumped hydro in the San Joaquin watersheds for (mostly solar) energy storage. Year-to-year spending would be year-to-year ongoing activities brush and understory clearance to reduce the velocity of wildfire spreading and increase carbon sequestration in forests.

I don't think that year-to-year, ongoing spending should be done with bonds. I think it should come out of general revenue. Bonds should be limited to long-term investments with long lifetimes.

They seem to be proposing a bunch of short-term spending with long-term bonds. This is what is known as a "credit-card spree", and, we will be sorry if we do it.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 29, 2020 at 12:03 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 29, 2020 at 12:03 am
3 people like this

If you have any question on the EU and it's member states you an refer to the topic on Wikipedia. The EU has 28 member states which includes their territories. The territories are spread out over the globe - typically islands. There are maps which show where the territory locations are. Also there are a number of countries that have signed up to be EU members but have not yet joined.

The island territories do not tend to have big power plants but they do get beat up in hurricanes. That is just what happened a couple of months ago. So now there is a massive amount of money spent to clean up the damaged locations and get them rebuilt.

Our US territory got ravaged by a hurricane and we are now spending money trying to get that island back up and running.

The cleaning up after climate disasters of fire, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, and now volcanos is a very costly venture and is unprintable as to it's impact.

If you have country that you are specifically interested in - a heritage country - then check it out on Wikipedia. Find out how it is financed and what organizations it belongs to.


Jetman
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 29, 2020 at 1:34 am
Jetman, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 29, 2020 at 1:34 am
28 people like this

It is really hard to take these environmental hypocrites seriously when ex-SF Mayor Newsom, and Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Jackie Speier, and Zoe Lofgren use their full weight to push airport expansions in San Francisco and San Jose.

San Francisco owned and operated SFO is the worst with plans to spend $587,000,000 building a giant steel and concrete seawall around the perimeter of SFO so the bay area's biggest polluter can continue to spew greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere even as sea levels rise and flood the airport.

San Francisco's primary industry, tourism, is one of the dirtiest industries on the planet contributing over %8 of total global greenhouse gas emissions in the 2009-2013 period according to a recent study.

"SFO to surround airport with 10-mile wall to protect against rising waters"
The Mercury News ~ October 10, 2019 Web Link

"Global tourism leaves a giant carbon footprint"
Sustainability Times ~ September 10, 2019 Web Link


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 29, 2020 at 5:30 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 29, 2020 at 5:30 am
5 people like this

Just like to ad that in Africa some of the countries on the north end are building hydro-electric dams which interferes with the typical water flow that would go to the southern countries. Recent article of one on a Nile contributor which now blocks water going to the south. One side of Africa is struggling with flooding and the other side is struggling with drought. But it is not a "climate" drought - it is in part a man-made drought caused by the building of the dams.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 30, 2020 at 9:59 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 30, 2020 at 9:59 am
5 people like this

Back to California - the Port of Oakland. Large legal issue concerning the use of that port for shipping coal to China and other Asian Markets. This would involve a train carrying the coal from Utah - which is now mining coal. Currently coal is being shipped from the Richmond location but now they are putting a stop to that. The port of Oakland is a main focus now since there is a proposal to put the coliseum there.

That is also a problem in that the port is a main employer and cash cow for the City of Oakland. Many local issues as to how the main employers are managing their locations. Local politics is sometimes overcoming good state planning. Note that Jerry Brown is a partner in the firm that is pushing for the coal terminal.


A Lost Cause & Waste Of Money
Downtown North
on Jan 30, 2020 at 11:13 am
A Lost Cause & Waste Of Money, Downtown North
on Jan 30, 2020 at 11:13 am
20 people like this

Answer to question...NO.

The bulk of the money will go to pay for useless bureaucrats & inept state workers who are either lazy or incompetent.

Use the money & offer sizable rebates to those who get rid of their cars & opt for public transit. Good luck with that.

If this is not practical then the bonds should not be solicited or issued.

Or pay people to move out of California.


A Waste Of Money
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 30, 2020 at 3:20 pm
A Waste Of Money, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 30, 2020 at 3:20 pm
19 people like this

California along with Chinese manufacturing are among the largest contributors to global warming & climate change.

No one is leaving California in hordes & China will never cut-back on its factory-based economy.

Thus the CA bond money will be wasted on stupid brochures & public awareness announcements.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 30, 2020 at 4:08 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 30, 2020 at 4:08 pm
1 person likes this

I do not see how California is the biggest contributor to Climate Change. I think California is doing really well. I grew up in SOCAL and can remember when the smog was really thick. From the documentation I have seen China and India are the biggest contributors.
You can't always point to California to justify people going to European Meetings and conventions to swap stories. From where I am sitting this is just a way to pay for people to travel and schmooze. The Paris Accord has changed over time based on the addition and reduction in participants, and available funds that are now getting stiffed off by countries that have to pay for internal disasters which are snowballing all over the world. That status of the world when signed has changed dramatically.

We have to worry about fires, rebuilding, earthquakes, flooding. How about last year when the Coyote River flooded a part of San Jose.
We need to settle down here and look at the weaknesses in the environment and the organizations that are suppose to monitor and correct those situations.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2020 at 9:48 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2020 at 9:48 am
3 people like this

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> I do not see how California is the biggest contributor to Climate Change. I think California is doing really well.

California is doing better in many areas, including residential fossil fuel consumption and electricity generation. Where it is not doing so well is transportation. Californians drive a lot of miles in their cars, and, they fly a lot. Transportation is a huge consumer of fossil fuels. California uses a disproportionate amount of jet fuel.

Web Link

We need to get busy on those electric cars, trains, and aircraft.


Jetman
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2020 at 12:51 pm
Jetman, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2020 at 12:51 pm
22 people like this

@Anon,

California's automotive fleet will probably be completely converted to all electric or other ULEV/ZEV technologies within the next decade. Thinking we are going to have electric airliners within the next 50 years is just child-like magical thinking.

We will be waiting a VERY long time for electric airliners. As motor vehicles continue to reduce their carbon footprint over the next decade and air travel continues to expand, jet fuel will soon become California's single largest source of green house gasses.

While we are waiting for electric airliners what is California doing to reduce consumption of jet fuel or reduce air tourism?

Right now, while praising Greta Thunberg's fight against climate catastrophe, party leaders like Pelosi, Speier, and Lofgren are doing everything in their power to expand air tourism by putting their full weight behind airport expansions at City of San Francisco owned and operated SFO and City of San Jose owned and operated SJC.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2020 at 4:37 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2020 at 4:37 pm
7 people like this

Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

Jetman, I understand what you are saying, and, I'm not holding my breath waiting for an electric B787 replacement.

But, for short-haul, electric actually is almost here. A pointer to the test flight for the Harbour Air (Vancouer/Victoria BC) electric seaplane: Web Link. They are planning to make money starting next year on commercial flights of around 30 nm. e.g. Vancouver-Nanaimo.

How much difference will this make wrt the CO2 buildup. Not much at first. But, making money always helps get things launched.


Chris Zaharias
Crescent Park
on Feb 1, 2020 at 10:08 am
Chris Zaharias, Crescent Park
on Feb 1, 2020 at 10:08 am
18 people like this

More than half of all unsheltered homeless people in the U.S. - some 53 percent - are in California. That's nearly nine times as many as the state with the second-highest total of unsheltered homeless which is Florida.

And we’re fundraising for climate change? For climate change. California is heartless.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 2, 2020 at 3:18 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 2, 2020 at 3:18 pm
20 people like this

Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of Crescent Park

>> More than half of all unsheltered homeless people in the U.S. - some 53 percent - are in California. That's nearly nine times as many as the state with the second-highest total of unsheltered homeless which is Florida.

When you post something like that, you need to include a source and the context. Otherwise, it is meaningless. "73.6% of statistics are made up."

I found your source: Web Link

>> And we’re fundraising for climate change? For climate change. California is heartless.

How many of those unsheltered homeless are due to climate change? The article mentions Lake County, where 94% of the homeless were unsheltered. You know that over 50% of Lake County has burned in wildfires since 2012? Web Link

Worldwide, the number of people already being displaced by climate change is contentious. Here is one source from 2016: Web Link You can dig through a lot of numbers to come up with your own estimate, but, regardless:

Yes, you are damn right -- fundraising to compensate for climate change. It isn't "heartless", it is necessary. You know what is heartless? Telling people that they can ignore the effects of climate change.


Chris Zaharias
another community
on Feb 3, 2020 at 1:43 am
Chris Zaharias, another community
on Feb 3, 2020 at 1:43 am
18 people like this

@Anon - while blaming global warming may float your boat, the facts point where few journalists or arm-chair climatologists have care to look:

1a) Modern CA history just happens to coincide with the wettest 150 year span in the past 2000-3000, but we are now returning to the much drier pre-1850 norms. If you won't listen to me, listen to professor Lynn Ingram in the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at UC Berkeley Web Link
Cliff Notes version: Vegetation that grew over 150 wet years is burning now that it's dry again.

1b) The graph on page 9 of this 1650-1850 U.S. wildfire frequency study shows that some or all of any given 1.2km2 area in CA's current fire areas burned every 5 years or so: Web Link
Cliff Notes: frequency and intensity of today's fires are merely a return to the norm.

2) NatGeo's 2/15/14 article recounts how the SF Bay Area's Native American Indian population grew and collapsed in accordance with naturally-occurring droughts that lasted from decades to over 200 years: Web Link

3) The number of CA properties at risk of fire has increased to 7 million as of August 2018. That is a 1000% increase since 1940 vs 475% population growth during that time.
Cliff Notes version: we're living closer to fire zones.

CA is much drier and more fire-prone than modern (>1850) history would suggest. Unfortunately, we didn't have the benefit of science as we populated the state, and now we're seeing the tragic intersection of wildfire reality and CA sprawl.

You only have to care just a little bit to know that CA's homelessness explosion is a result of people in this state simply *NOT CARING ABOUT THEIR FELLOW MAN*.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 3, 2020 at 7:34 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 3, 2020 at 7:34 am
10 people like this

The world is dramatically changing for many reasons. Africa is now besieged by locusts which are decimating the crops in more than one of it's states. Huge migrant groups through Libya are trying to go to Europe in every manner possible. The former Russian countries in Europe are still dependent on Russia for oil and now the pipeline is extending to western Europe - Germany. Russia's wedge and economy depend on oil. The US is not an ATM card to solve those problems. And we have no influence over those matters.

What problem are we suppose to be solving? From where I am sitting we are responsible for managing our economy as to how it affects the US. This state is promoting trying to solve the world's problems. Meanwhile Silicon Valley keeps overloading a limited amount of space with more building than it can sustain.

Your favorite SV companies need to put satellite working locations in the central valley so those employees are working and living in the same place.
The infrastructure for our dams and water ways needs to be upgraded so that we are not subject to flooding due to obvious dereliction of duty to maintain the infrastructure.
We need to work with the federal government which has more resources on the very big problems of homelessness and crime. This state keeps thinking it is king of the hill but the companies that help promote that idea are universal in nature and are busy setting up in locations that have a better tax advantage.
We keep hyping some political battles at the top level that are counter productive to the citizens and the state.
Throwing more money at what is already described as the best economy in the US is telling a different story.
Greta needs to focus on her home country and Europe - is she can solve their problems more power to her. And we need to focus on the very obvious problems which are directly in front of us which are driven by our unique economy.
Our economy is driving many of these problems and we need to address those problems directly.


Wildfires and climate change
Green Acres
on Feb 3, 2020 at 10:06 am
Wildfires and climate change, Green Acres
on Feb 3, 2020 at 10:06 am
6 people like this

Instead of cherry picking, see Web Link


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 3, 2020 at 4:19 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 3, 2020 at 4:19 pm
3 people like this

So now the Sierra Club is involved in the financial aspects of this bond issue? This is going down the wrong path. The State of California has departments that are suppose to deal with these issues. And those are the departments that are designated to work with the federal government to coordinate funding.

We already know what the problem areas are. Make the people that are paid to do these jobs do those jobs. The Sierra Club has no authority to deal with the federal government for the state. This is not a get well project for all of the people who want to be involved on a notational status. who ever writes this up will need to be very specific as to what the goals are and who is getting access to the bond funding.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 3, 2020 at 10:45 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 3, 2020 at 10:45 pm
9 people like this

Just read an article in the paper about all of the dams in the state that are suppose to go through a review process to make sure they are compliant with current projected usage, are in good repair, and have not suffered any breakdowns. And no agency has gone out and done that. We establish rules and guidance on infrastructure but do not follow through with the required actions. Saying what we are suppose to do but not following up is our problem. Water and all of the methods we are suppose to exercise to save it, control it, direct it to the right places is our problem. And climate change directly affects how effective our dams are. We need to direct our state budget to making sure that our infrastructure meets all of the guidelines that we determine are the best.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2020 at 11:40 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2020 at 11:40 am
5 people like this

Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of another community

>> @Anon - while blaming global warming may float your boat, the facts point where few journalists or arm-chair climatologists have care to look:

>> 1a) Modern CA history just happens to coincide with the wettest 150 year span in the past 2000-3000, but we are now returning to the much drier pre-1850 norms.

So, we are making a little progress. Because, you do agree, I see, from your examples that California's climate is changing. For religious reasons, I suppose, (correct me if I am wrong), you don't *believe* that the reason for the climate change can possibly be anything that people did. I don't follow this part, though. Show me where it says that in the Bible.

>> You only have to care just a little bit to know that CA's homelessness explosion is a result of people in this state simply *NOT CARING ABOUT THEIR FELLOW MAN*.

I'm not following how your questions regarding the reasons for climate change have anything whatsoever to do with this final statement. Is it just California, or, the whole country? Can you think of a reason why there are not many "unsheltered homeless" in Fargo, ND, in the winter? Do you think Californians are more, or less, heartless than people in other states?

Have you ever heard of "patient dumping", whereby certain states in the US West have been known to push mentally ill people to California? This has been a problem since the 1960's (that I know of): Web Link

Regardless, I have an ethical question for you to ponder: when climate change (man-made, "natural", act of god, or other cause) results in mass migrations of -economic- refugees from other countries, should the US consider these desperate people as having "refugee" status or "economic migrant" status? Does it matter if there is a civil war in the country of origin?


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 5, 2020 at 7:43 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 5, 2020 at 7:43 am
Like this comment

Article today in the SJM concerning a gas pipeline issue in Oregon. For some reason the state allowed leases to a Canadian pipeline company that wants to set up a port site in Coos Bay for shipping the oil. There is a state senator working to shut this down, meanwhile the Oregon senator who is in DC does not appear in the mix. So Oregon allowed the initial effort and now is screaming because the logical conclusion to this is in port site.

This is not the first assault on the Oregon state in which the state of Utah wanted to send the coal they are mining down the Columbia River on barges to the coast so that it could be sent to China.

From where I am sitting there is a whole web of incompetence within that state concerning environmental issues that the senator in DC does not participate in.
How did a Canadian company get in the door to begin with? If you let them in the door then why did you not understand what their intentions were? Why does their senator in DC ever appear in these quagmires? He is busy attacking everyone else on environmental issues except his own state's issues. And what about Utah mining coal that is going to be sent to China? These state's have governors who allow the first encroachment then scream when whoever needs to ship the product off shore.

So we are fighting a coal terminal in Oakland, and a train that is suppose to take oil through the bay area down to central CA where it will be loaded on ships. Incompetence at the governor level that got us to this situation in the first place. And reps in DC who scream about the climate but are not appearing to address the issues within their own states.

And you all want money to fight climate change. Actually you went money to attend meetings in Europe to solve everyone else's problems instead of the problems within the states. If the senators and reps in DC do not get home to fix their own state's problems then they have no value and their screams of outrage are meaningless.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2020 at 10:01 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2020 at 10:01 am
Like this comment

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> Article today in the SJM concerning a gas pipeline issue in Oregon.
>> This is not the first assault on the Oregon state in which the state of Utah wanted to send the coal
>> From where I am sitting there is a whole web of incompetence within that state
>> So we are fighting a coal terminal in Oakland, and a train that is suppose to take oil through the bay area down to central CA where it will be loaded on ships. Incompetence at the governor level that got us to this situation in the first place.

There certainly are things that California and Oregon and the cities of Oakland and Coos Bay and Portland can do, *to get in the way* of these misguided but *legal* activities. I would just caution you to consider "interstate commerce" in the abstract policy view, and why the great state of California is not allowed to blockade or hold hostage Nevada or Utah or Wyoming. I agree with you that there is no reason why Oakland or California should make it easy to export dirty fossil fuels. But, we do have interstate commerce rules for a reason, and, really, the Federal Government and the states need to cooperate to shut down coal use-- along with the government of Australia, and of Queensland, I might add.

We, the public, have the obligation to educate our elected officials about the impact. Leadership from politicians is rare when big money is pushing in the other direction. So, we will have to educate them, and we will have to do the heavy lifting.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 5, 2020 at 11:52 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 5, 2020 at 11:52 am
7 people like this

A pipeline being set up by a Canadian company is not interstate commerce. It is international commerce. And the sale of that product is to Asia. And coal mined in Utah that was going to be placed on barges down the Columbia River is not interstate commerce - the goal is to ship to China - who is eventually going to sell to other Asian countries and India. The coal being transported to the Oakland port is going to be shipped to China for sale to other Asian countries and India.
People keep screaming about the Paris Accord which gave China and India a pass on any goals. They did not want to give the US a pass on being the ATM card to support other activities in other foreign countries to which we had no control over and no choice on where money going.
You can note that Jerry Brown was/is a participant in all of this and is a partner of the group that wanted the Oakland port to be a coal terminal.

There is no denying climate change - the problem is how it is being used on the international market to promote certain activities which when time passes appears to be unacceptable. We all need to get on top of what is happening in the US that promotes the very activities that we decry to promote our own political positioning. Utah is mining coal. CA is shipping coal. The end product is going to the very countries that have a free pass and are the worst polluters.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2020 at 4:15 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2020 at 4:15 pm
20 people like this

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> The coal being transported to the Oakland port is going to be shipped to China for sale to other Asian countries and India.

>> You can note that Jerry Brown was/is a participant in all of this and is a partner of the group that wanted the Oakland port to be a coal terminal.

I'm aware of Jerry Brown's political ties to Phil Tagami, and, I thank those people that publicized this and called out Brown regarding it. Where I differ from you is regarding the "hypocrisy" of politicians, as well as their lack of leadership. Money always talks -- it is up to us citizens to push back. We can't expect political leaders to stand up to money/power interests if we aren't pushing in the other direction. Compared to any Republican in the Senate, Jerry Brown has extremely clean hands. Sad, but true. At least Mitt Romney has a conscience. I thought Susan Collins did, but, I was mistaken. Sauron commanded, she knuckled under. The rule of law is crumbling.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 5, 2020 at 10:52 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 5, 2020 at 10:52 pm
Like this comment

[Post removed; off topic]


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2020 at 9:09 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2020 at 9:09 am
14 people like this

[Post removed; off topic]


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 6, 2020 at 3:49 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 6, 2020 at 3:49 pm
1 person likes this

[Post removed; off topic]


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 7, 2020 at 7:45 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 7, 2020 at 7:45 am
8 people like this

Today in the SJM - "News of the Weird" - France - solar panels were installed over the library to meet "green" standards. However it was later discovered that the solar panels were not hooked up with the central power system. So money is being spent to demonstrate that something is happening but it is for show. Lack of business sense in the governments world wide.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2020 at 11:23 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2020 at 11:23 am
4 people like this

On-topic: my problem with this bond issue is that bonds are supposed to be for things that are amortized over 30 years. Generally speaking, water projects fit.

This doesn't:

>> He would spend another $250 million for forest clearing and fuels-reduction projects.

This is an ongoing year-to-year expenditure that should come out of the general fund. We should not pay for year-to-year spending with bonds. That is the path to bankruptcy.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:22 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:22 am
8 people like this

Your Gov was just on "The View" telling them that CA is the fifth biggest economy in the world. So why do we need to approve bonds and additional taxes for items which should be baked into the long range liabilities for any state and school system - our local isues? The Gov is selling himself on TV while we arguing about how tax dollars are spent for housing and infrastructure upgrades. Add to that school taxes so the taxpayer can pay to teach foreign languages at the request of all our diverse set of residents.

And he was glowing when one of the View participants said he should be the VP on the upcoming presidential ticket. Is that why he was in NY when his state is putting on the Oscars in Hollywood? The biggest economy in LA is the film.media business with every studio and media represented - most in Mr. Schiff's congressional district. If that is where the LA money is coming from then why not there at the event? We need to see the state as a whole now - we are the technology location but LA is the film/media location. If we only address the bubble we live in then we need to know that there are different bubbles out there that have major income for the state and impact on the state budget at the top end.. And the LA Times has a different political spin than the SJM and SFC.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:49 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:49 am
Like this comment

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> Your Gov was just on "The View"
^^^^^^^^^^
He may be sub-standard, but, he isn't a "Republican" (in the current sense, having absolutely nothing to do with the Party of Lincoln)..

Here's hoping that two non-Republicans top the ticket next time around. Then, I will have a choice. Any Republican candidate implicitly supports Voldemort. I will never vote for a candidate from a party that doesn't support the First Amendment, which is the legal bedrock for *all* the other competing rights.

==

Back On-Topic: I think you and I could agree that it is a bad idea to pay for ongoing year-to-year expenses with bond issues.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 10, 2020 at 12:39 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 10, 2020 at 12:39 pm
9 people like this

Yes - we do agree on that - Bond issues. And yes he is a Democrat who is selling himself and the state to a bunch of outside people to raise his electability IQ at the national level. But we are sitting here in what is the actual State of the State dealing with the after effects of his policies which keep asking us to feed the horse/donkey trough. Sacramento is twisting in the wind trying to do stuff then he goes out and cancels the whole point of what they are doing.

We have all kinds of issues regarding bonds, taxes, infrastructure lapses, school issues which do not conform to any state requirements, etc. He is a narcissist who - if you read his Wikipedia page - is dyslexic and not good with reading and numbers. Had trouble in school.

Strange - he was born in October and is left handed and dyslexic My son was born in October and is left handed and dyslexic. He did have his problems in school.
I am seeing a trend here - a special class of students born left handed and dyslexic - can we have "special" classes for them? A high percentage born in October? What does the school system do with them? Transfer them to a different school in the district.


off topic
Evergreen Park
on Feb 10, 2020 at 6:53 pm
off topic, Evergreen Park
on Feb 10, 2020 at 6:53 pm
6 people like this

" dealing with the after effects of his policies "

He's been in office a year, and you now blame him for things you've complained about for years. Okey-dokie.

And as to your strange rant about October, left handedness and dyslexia, uhhhh.... did you forget to add in Dole? No more French solar panels? Coal barges? Coos Bay oil? African locusts? Heritage countries? Coyote river in SJ?

You do cover the globe with your off-topic tangents!


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 11, 2020 at 8:22 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 11, 2020 at 8:22 am
2 people like this

If you all take time to read your local paper you will see an opinion piece from a candidate for your state senator - Josh Becker who is Jerry Hill's choice for replacement - 'Peninsula cities must lead the world on climate change" - 02.11.20.

From Josh's POV the whole world is open territory for CA - specifically this congressional district - for redemption and comment. He is going to address all of the problems. So while some of you want to interpret climate change and the world economy for the specific location of Palo Alto that is not what Josh has in mind. And the Gov is backing his positions regarding world domination of climate change issues.

All corners of the world and sectors of the economy are fair game. So if that is Jerry Hill's choice for replacement then the world is fair game. You don't get to play this game from multiple POV's and shame people who are basically following the lead of the main candidate.

As to Dole - I do track who is selling what products from the world hemispheric locations that produce those products that are shipped world wide. Walmart is one of the biggest world corporations that has switched from Dole - Corporate center in Westlake, CA to ONE back to Dole and now again ONE - a Guatemala company. Meanwhile Starbucks is selling Del Monte with product from Costa Rica. Those are products sold world-wide that are only grown in specific hemispheric locations. Throw in you coffee beans and sugar cane.

Note that sugar cane used to be a product of Cuba on land controlled by the American Fruit Company - land that was taken over as a result of the Bay of Pigs debacle and Fidel Castro regime. The economy of Cuba is in dire straits now and is a growing concern as it is off the coast from Florida. We have a lot of people from Cuba who live in the south east and are concerned about their people.

Climate change directly affects the products on your market shelf. And if you check out US Foreign Aid on Wikipedia you will note that the US budget is trying to support the growing regions and help them be successful. So the "world' is not off-topic as to climate issues which affect the economy of both the producing countries and the end-users of the products.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 11, 2020 at 10:01 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 11, 2020 at 10:01 am
2 people like this

Let's note here that the corporate office for Dole are in Westlake Village - CA. The Corporate office for Del Monte are in Contra Costa County - CA. CA has a direct financial connection to the success of these companies which have numerous growing regions. C&H corporate office is in Crockett.

And you can look to the city and port of Baltimore - that used to be the second biggest port on the east coast. Ships were coming in from the central American and Cuban sugar cane fields with produce that was processed in that city. Each of the docks was tailored to the specific products. So goes the sugar industry - so goes Baltimore. Those docks are being converted to other uses. Under Armor is both a sports company but it also a hotel company - stayed at a historic hotel that is built on one of the docks. The biggest employer in Baltimore is now a non-profit organization- John Hopkins. That city is not doing well.

While PA is centered on the technology industry that in itself is not a climate changer - it can exist anywhere. However food products are zone specific.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.