Prop 87

[red-beard]

Celebs Mislead Californians on Air Pollution Threat

Thursday , November 02, 2006

By Steven Milloy


What do Bill Clinton and Julia Roberts know about air pollution and health in California? The answer can only be “not much,” based on their statements in support of the California ballot measure known as Proposition 8,7 which would tax oil to fund alternative energy research.

“We’re all victims of this state’s tragically poor air quality. California has the worst air pollution in the nation,” claims Roberts.

Clinton says that air pollution prevents Californians from “living out the full lives they deserve to have.”

It’s true that much of California doesn’t meet federal air quality standards. Nine of the top ten “smoggiest” counties in the nation and seven of the top ten “sootiest” counties in the nation are in California. But failure to meet federal air quality standards (called nonattainment in EPA-speak) or having the “smoggiest” and “sootiest” counties doesn’t mean that California air significantly threatens state public health.

First, the federal air quality standards are not really health-based standards – no scientific studies show that the standards (or any range around them) serve as actual demarcation points for healthy versus unhealthy air quality.

The existing standards were scientifically controversial when the Clinton-era EPA first proposed them in 1996 -- time and science have yet to validate them as improving public health. In fact, California seems to be doing quite well health-wise despite its nonattainment issues.

“What does [nonattainment] mean in the real lives of people?” Clinton asked at a speech at UCLA on Oct. 14. “It means more asthma, more bronchitis, [and] more lung cancer. It means heart disease, lung disease and premature death,” he said.

But are any of Clinton’s claims true?

The prevalence of asthma in California was below the U.S. national average (7.7 percent vs. 8.1 percent), according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. California has a lower asthma rate than most states that fully meet (attain) federal air quality standards. California’s death rate from chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD) -- including emphysema, chronic bronchitis and asthma -- was 20 percent below the U.S. average (34.4 vs. 42.2 per 100,000 people).

Even within the state there appears to be little correlation between air pollution and respiratory problems.

Los Angeles County has by the far the most Californians exposed to nonattainment air, yet it has a relatively low death rate from CLRD. In contrast, Humboldt County is in attainment yet has one of the state’s highest CLRD death rates.

How about lung cancer risk? For men, California ranks in the lowest quartile among states ranked by the CDC. For women, California ranks in the next-to-lowest quartile. Attainment states like Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin all have much similar or much higher lung cancer rates.

By the way, a new study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (Oct. 24) could find no support for the proposition that gasoline exhaust increases lung cancer risk.

California’s heart disease rate is also below the national average (504 vs. 536 annual deaths per 100,000 people). The rate for Los Angeles County, which supposedly has the “riskiest” air in the state, is on par with the national average. Attainment states like Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma all have substantially higher heart disease rates than California.

With respect to premature death, California has the fourth lowest death rate among the states -- a death rate roughly one-third lower than that of attainment states.

Clinton also warned that, “At the age of two months, babies in Los Angeles have already breathed enough toxins to reach the EPA’s lifetime limit for cancer risk from dirty air.”

Putting aside the question of whether these toxins actually increase cancer risk, Clinton basically implies that California air virtually guarantees that Californians will get cancer. But according to the CDC, the cancer rates for California men and women are about 9 percent and 6 percent below the national average, respectively. California’s cancer rates are below those of attainment states such as North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.

So what is to be made of the fact that while most of California doesn’t meet federal air quality standards, the state’s population doesn’t appear to be adversely impacted? Moreover, Californians seem healthier than the populations of states in full attainment with federal standards.

Could it be that California’s current air pollution levels, in reality, have little, if anything, to do with its public health? If so – and the evidence certainly points to that conclusion – then it seems that Proposition 87 would have a similarly negligible impact on public health.

Yes, California should work to improve its air quality -- but success is more likely to follow from a firm grasp on the actual relationship between air pollution and health, rather than political rhetoric from know-nothing celebrities.


Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert , an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute .

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The effort to defeat Proposition 87 is funded in large part by Chevron Corporation. That's about all one needs to know.

I may not like new taxes and may not like some of the particulars of this bill, but in general if it's bad for big oil, it's probably good for the public-at-large.

I am still "undecided" on this measure. Not sure which is going to win out - my disdain for big oil companies (particularly those that do little or nothing in the way of sustainable/renewable energy) or my disdain for government bureaucracy and new taxes.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
I may not like new taxes and may not like some of the particulars of this bill, but in general if it's bad for big oil, it's probably good for the public-at-large.

What makes you say that? What have the oil companies done to you? Why is it the responsibility of any particular company to derive some other business.

One point I will make, it does make sense for an "oil" company to become an "energy" company and be comprehensive, if they wish to survive when oil goes the way of the dodo. But I don't understand your venom towards oil companies.

Why would you do research to put yourself out of business? Somehow I don't think the shareholders/investors would think too highly of that.

[red-beard]

Oh, and the last government funded alternative energy source, no one seems to like...nuclear fission

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The "correct" approach is not to publicly fund this kind of stuff but to provide incentives for energy producers to do what you call "researching how to put themselves out of business". On the surface that sounds insane, but when you think about it - it isn't so crazy.

An established energy company with lots of resources is in a FAR better position to establish itself as a "next generation" energy provider, seeing the potential to establish itself as a market leader and capturing market share of alternative energy markets early-on. While I'd normally say that the incentives/motivation for this way of thinking should come from the free market (things like it getting too expensive to tap new oil supplies, getting too expensive/risky to operate in the areas of the world where oil supplies are, etc.), the insatiable appetite of America for energy demands SOME kind of catylist for getting us off of fossil-fuel energy and onto alternative sources. Unfortunately if we wait for free market pressures to get to the point that it will change the behavior of very large, slow corporations, it'll be too late and more damage will be done long-term both economically, environmentally and socially.

As such, I'm not opposed to SOME sort of governmental role in trying to create incentives for A.E. research and development. I think most large energy companies will eventually realize that the future is in A.E. and start meaningfully pursuing it, but something needs to be done to make this happen sooner rather than later or it'll be "more of the same old crap" for years, if not decades. The stakes are too high.

Nuclear power MIGHT have a role to play (in the short to intermediate-term) although the prospect of building more nuclear power plants in a terrorist-laden world with no viable long-term solution to deal with the waste products is a very tough sell.

If only we could produce gererators on a massive scale!

[red-beard]

I guess what isn't understood is that the only way to make uranium "safe" from terroists, is to run it through a nuclear reaction. You see, then it can't be used in a bomb. Our reactor designs go against making plutonium, and the little that is produced can also be run through a reactor cycle and made inert.

As far as 'waste' is concerned, the 'waste' is concentrated left over nuclear material that is less radio active. The difference between uranium in the ground and nuclear waste is A) one is less radioactive, B) we know where it is.

As I've stated many many times, the nuclear industry is actually cleaning the enviorment of a fairly nasty material and making it more safe.

Now as to why the oil companies have a moral obligation to fund research into alternative energies that will cost them money, I think you are rowing against the tide. If oil is running out and they can make money selling different forms of energy, they will surely get up and do it. And I think you will find that most of the "oil" companies are re-aligning themselves to be "energy" companies. But at this point, there is only 1 workable alternative energy that can produce sufficient energy to offset petroleum sources, and that is Nuclear Fission. Nothing else can make a dent.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

There's some truth to what you say, but nuclear fission is a temporary "band-aid" fix. It substitutes its own subset of problems for the current ones. It's hardly a silver bullet. But it might (as I said) have its role to play in the short-to-intermediate term until better truly sustainable sources of energy come available.

[mikester]

87 is unnecessary at best. My vote is "no" simply based on that alone.

Now to pick a fight with a good friend...

James, you don't live here - what do you care how we vote?

[mikester]

...I'll elaborate a little more...

Lets take for example the demand for Hybrid cars (disclosure: I have one). Recently California started allowing Hybrids with 45MPG or better into HOV lanes with only a driver. All you had to do was pay $8 for the stickers to ugly up your car. The idea was to get people to buy hybrids instead of conventional cars. They issues 75,000 stickers. I read some articles a few months ago that 65,000 had been issued and the rest were being processed. Basically that they were all gone and as soon as that happend the wait for a Prius became nearly nothing (I incquired about buying another) according to my original sales fella.

So, the stickers did what they were intended to do but I seriously doubt that there was any lasting effect to them. As soon as they ran out people stopped buying the Hybrids. Plus, there were really only two that met the requirements and could carry people; the Prius and the Civic. The others didn't get the MPG which begs the question in general about them: "What's the point?"

So the solution to our problems with oil are not really with "big oil" as I see but with *YOU* (not necassarily you personally but you the consumer) and *YOUR* choices to buy the f'ing Nissan ARMADA and the new FORD EXCURSION LS (LS stands for "Long son of a b*tch").

When you stop f'ing buying those earth destroyers they will stop making them. When simple f*ing demand for Hybrids and whatever fuel efficient vehicle there is today exists the market will adjust.

Personally I love my hybrid, it's a great little 4 family member vehicle. Sure I Can't haul a load of drywall in it but I don't need to do that too often. We get about 48mpg on average and have relatively short commutes. My other daily driver is a 911 and I really do drive it every day (14 miles round trip).

When we have our second kid the 911 will probably have to go and I won't hesitate to get another prius because I think they are rad.

Unfortunately I imagine we'll probably get an f'ing minivan.



Oh, and don't be a stupid lemming; vote no on 87. Change for the sake of change is stupid - vote for something intelligent (which is to say vote no on everything on this year's ballot).

[craigster59]

The bottom line on prop 87 is to establish an "extraction tax" for oil companies that is charged in all oil producing states (Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, etc.) with California being the only exception. This tax cannot be passed on to the consumer, no matter how they phrase it in the commercials. It is a tax on the oil companies, plain and simple, and they will try their hardest to avoid paying it.

[EdT82SC]

I don't like 87. I am all for oil extraction fees, but they shouldn't expire like they do in 87. Also the way 87 uses the money is so loosely defined it leaves the door open for abuse, waste, and inefficiency. I like Mike's idea of incentives for the oil companies. So charge the oil extraction fees, and use that money to fund a tax rebate for research into alternative energies.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by craigster59
The bottom line on prop 87 is to establish an "extraction tax" for oil companies that is charged in all oil producing states (Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, etc.) with California being the only exception. This tax cannot be passed on to the consumer, no matter how they phrase it in the commercials. It is a tax on the oil companies, plain and simple, and they will try their hardest to avoid paying it.

The cannot be passed on? Are you kidding? That is the surest thing. You think they'll just let it come out of their bottom line? Nope, prices will go up and the non-taxed guys will make a windfall, as will the CA government and nothing will actually be done.

ha-ha

[artplumber]

Originally posted by craigster59
This tax cannot be passed on to the consumer, no matter how they phrase it in the commercials. It is a tax on the oil companies, plain and simple, and they will try their hardest to avoid paying it.

Well, I have the most perfect commercial property for YOU! A BRIDGE! Yes, admittedly it is several decades old, but it is holding up just fine....

EDIT: Anyone mention how the millionaire producer (Bing, I believe) contributed $40mill to this campaign?

[Tobra]

I believe it was 49 of the 50 million dollars that they were able to scrape together

I am against all the initiatives, except the one that makes them spend the gas tax on the roads, like it was already voted on to be.

I want to know why it is that they have a school bond or two for boatloads of dough on every ballot for as far back as most people can remember, they spend about half the state budget on education already and it still is not enough(actually I know why, does anyone care to take a stab at it?)

They already have more than enough money, at least in Mexifornia, they just need to spend it smarter, as though it were their own.

Dude, he is in Houston why do you think he is asking about it? He is the CEO of Chevron, incognito, trying to sway public opinion any way he can

[mikester]

Hey, he's the one who moved! By bringing it up really - he's the who picked the fight I'm just doing him the favor (like a good friend would) of answering the call.

[red-beard]

Yep, I voted with my feet. But I have lots of family still living in the people's republik. Anyway, I just hate seeing something so obviously bad for California pass.

[red-beard]

It's just like my sister, she never listens to the family and goes her own way, but we still try to help her on the path.