The post California federal judge overturns assault weapons ban first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom has received the necessary number of verified signatures to trigger a recall election later this year.

The California Secretary of State said on Monday that the threshold of verified signatures reported by counties, which was set at 1,495,709, had been met.

The campaign collected more than 1.6 million verified signatures, according to the secretary of state’s office.

CALIFORNIA GOV. NEWSOM RAISING MONEY BY TYING CAITLYN JENNER TO TRUMP

“This now triggers the next phase of the recall process, a 30-business-day period in which voters may submit written requests to county Registrars of Voters to remove their names from the recall petition,” Secretary Weber said in a statement. “A recall election will be held unless a sufficient number of signatures are withdrawn.”

If after those 30 days the effort retains enough signatories, the Department of Finance will be given 30 days to estimate the cost of the recall election, and after that a budget committee will have 30 calendar days to review those estimates before the Lieutenant Governor sets the date for the election.

The recall ballot would ask voters to choose “yes” or “no” on the question of removing Newsom from office, followed by a selection of replacement candidates. More than 50% of voters would be required to “yes” to remove him. Then, the candidate with the most votes is elected governor.

A spokesperson for Newsom’s office did not return Fox News’ request for comment.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gold medal Olympian and reality show star Caitlyn Jenner threw her name into the ring to run as a Republican to replace Newsom. Jenner’s team includes several operatives that helped on President Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns.

Other individuals who are running include businessman John Cox, former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, and former Rep. Doug Ose.

In a statement on Monday, Faulconer pointed to Newsom’s policies as a reason Californians are being “forced to leave their home state in droves” after the state lost a seat in the House of Representatives based on the updated 2020 Census data.

According to data from the California Secretary of State’s office, there have been 54 previous attempts to recall governors. Only one was successful – the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in 2003. Former bodybuilder and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger was selected as his replacement.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-recall-effort-verified-signature-threshold-california-secretary-state

The post Newsom recall officially triggered as verified signature threshold met first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Credit: Illustration by Dan Hubig for CalMatters – California has become a laboratory for progressive policies

CALIFORNIA, USA — With Democrats holding all the political power in California for nearly the last decade, the Golden State has evolved into a laboratory of big blue ideas. Put a price on carbon? We’ve done it. Ban assault weapons? We’ve done that too. Gun control, minimum wage hikes and two years of free community college are also realities here.

The post 9 ways Joe Biden and Kamala Harris aim to make the U.S. like California first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The Supreme Court gave a positive sign to a California church fighting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s restrictions on the number of people allowed at houses of worship due to the coronavirus pandemic.

In a Thursday order, the court vacated a District Court ruling against Harvest Rock Church with instructions to reconsider their challenge in light of the Supreme Court’s recent rejection of restrictions on prayer services in New York.

CORONAVIRUS LOCKDOWNS BY STATE: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

“The September 2 order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to remand to the District Court for further consideration in light of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo,” the Supreme Court said.

Fox News reached out to Newsom’s office for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Jewish group Agudath Israel of America, issuing an injunction against New York’s restrictions that limited prayer services at houses of worship to 10 people in some areas and 25 in others. The religious organizations claimed that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s policies were more restrictive against houses of worship than against secular establishments.

KENTUCKY AG TAKES STATE’S CORONAVIRUS RESTRICTIONS TO SUPREME COURT IN BID TO OPEN RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS

In California, there is a tiered system that places different levels of restrictions on different counties, but as of Nov. 21, 41 counties in the state — representing 94% of the state’s population — were under the most restrictive regulations that include the prohibition of all indoor religious services. Services in other counties have strict caps on the number of people permitted. The state issued specific guidance to places of worship earlier this year.

The church’s legal argument is based primarily on the First Amendment. Under the amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, the church claims, Newsom’s order is illegal because restricts the size of religious gatherings while treating non-religious groups and activities differently.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The church also cites case law surrounding the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause that says that the government cannot “force or influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will.” The church claims that imposing criminal penalties on people who go to a house of worship influences them to stay away.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-california-churches-coronavirus-restrictions

The post Supreme Court gives temporary win to California churches over coronavirus restrictions first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

It’s not just the landscape getting scorched from record wildfires raging along the West Coast and elsewhere. The fires are having a massive economic impact as well.

Researchers project economic losses as high as $150 billion. The fires already have displaced thousands of people and destroyed millions of acres of land.

Using wildfire data and artificial intelligence resources, Zesty.ai researchers estimate that $5.9 billion to $9.8 billion has been lost as of Sept. 18.

Other data suggests this year’s wildfire season is on track to cause about $25 billion in damage. That estimate is similar to the damage two years ago when wildfires burned about 8.7 million acres nationwide, according to a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Some private reports suggest a much higher number. AccuWeather estimates that the total economic loss from wildfires now ranges from $130 billion to $150 billion.

“It’s higher than other estimates because most of those are for insured losses only,” said AccuWeather meteorologist Dave Samuel. “We take into account things like long-term business and health for people, the long-term damage the fires can cause and other things like important papers, memorabilia, photos, antiques and other priceless items that someone could lose who is not insured. So that’s basically the main difference.”

As of Monday, 49,149 fires have burned more than 8.7 million acres across the U.S. this year, the National Interagency Fire Center reported. Even with the summer heat subsiding, firefighters were battling 34 active wildfires in 11 states: California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. With 13 active wildfires, California has the most. Colorado follows with six.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat touring devastation late last month, noted that the state’s 20 largest recorded wildfires have occurred since the turn of the century and its three largest — Cameron Peak, East Troublesome, and Pine Gulch — were this year.

“My heart goes out to all Coloradans who have had to flee their home or leave their community behind due to these fires,” Mr. Polis said during a visit to Boulder County. He said the fires have erupted in a year of “unprecedented challenges,” including the COVID-19 pandemic and an economic collapse.

Although this season has had fewer wildfires on average during a 10-year period, 2 million more acres have burned. From 2010 to 2019, the average was 51,779 wildfires and 6.7 million acres burned.

As of Oct. 7, the U.S. this year had 16 “weather disaster events,” including one wildfire, with losses surpassing $1 billion each, NOAA reported. A wildfire is generally the third most costly event, averaging about $5 billion in damage per incident, behind tropical cyclones and droughts.

When tacking on Hurricanes Isaias, Laura, and Sally, 48 tropical cyclones have caused a combined $974.9 billion in total damage, averaging $20.7 billion per event, NOAA officials said. The National Hurricane Center said Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Harvey in 2017 top out as the costliest tropical cyclones. Each caused $125 billion in damage.

In November 2018, the Camp Fire that broke out in Butte County, California, and destroyed the town of Paradise made U.S. history as the most destructive wildfire, costing $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion in insured losses alone.

Big losses

Last year, NOAA recorded $4.5 billion in damage when wildfires burned about 4.6 million acres. In 2017, wildfires caused about $19 billion in damage and burned more than 10 million acres, the second-highest number since 1983, when the National Interagency Fire Center began recording more accurate data.

Accuweather estimated that wildfires caused about $80 billion in total damage last year, $400 billion in 2018, and $85 billion in 2017.

Wildfires destroy more than 2,500 homes in the U.S. on average each year, said Forbes, citing the National Interagency Coordination Center’s 2019 yearly report. About 85% of wildfires in the U.S. from 2000 to 2017 were caused by human carelessness such as leaving campfires unattended and burning debris. Lightning is another leading cause of wildfires.

The wildfire season started early this year. An August lightning storm ignited many wildfires in California, which Mr. Samuel described as “ground zero” for additional wildfires. He said he expects another half-million acres to burn, adding to the 4.1 million acres in California. The forecast calls for no widespread rain in the state through November, and strong winds could make it an “ugly month” for the wildfire season, Mr. Samuel said.

He said wildfire seasons should have ended in many Western states, although the recent fire activity in Colorado was a surprise to him. The state had a widespread snowstorm in early September, but the landscape dried out and high winds triggered the rapid spread of the East Troublesome fire last month.

The state insurance departments in California and Colorado said they do not yet have estimates on insured losses from wildfires this year.

Destruction from fire, smoke, and water used to extinguish flames is covered under standard homeowners’, renters’ and business owners’ insurance policies, and under the optional comprehensive portion of a car insurance policy, the Insurance Information Institute said. Insurance policies also could also cover damage to a detached garage or shed, trees, lawns, and personal belongings, as well as additional living expenses such as hotel stays and laundry services.

Those who suffered personal or business losses from the devastating fires in August and are waiting for insurance settlements can register with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Disaster assistance could cover uninsured losses or provide help to people who have waited more than 30 days on a homeowner’s claim. The deadline to register with FEMA is Nov. 23.

FEMA assistance could also could be used for disaster-related temporary housing and needs such as funeral costs and emergency home repairs not covered by insurance settlements. FEMA registration is available by visiting DisasterAssistance.gov or by calling 800\621-3362.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, operating through a network of state and county agencies, has disaster assistance programs for farmers and ranchers affected by wildfires.

California has community development block grants for disaster recovery assistance. Congress may redirect funding to states to help areas rebuild.

Federal aid to California became a political football last month when the Trump administration denied a request by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to officially declare a major disaster in the state, freeing up money and logistical aid.

President Trump, after hearing from prominent California Republicans in Congress, reversed the decision and issued a formal disaster declaration.

If the president declares a disaster, people who lose their jobs as a result of the incident could apply for unemployment payments if they do not qualify for regular unemployment insurance benefits.

States, local governments, American Indian tribes, and certain nonprofit organizations can apply for hazard mitigation grants from FEMA. Although individual homeowners and businesses cannot apply for these grants directly, communities can apply on their behalf.

Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/9/wildfires-damages-high-record-setting-150-billion/

The post Up in smoke: Wildfires burn a hole in the economic pocketbook first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Assemblymen Kiley and Gallagher. (Photo: Katy Grimes for California Globe)

California Assemblymen Kevin Kiley and James Gallagher sued to stop California Governor Gavin Newsom’s “one-man rule,” as California Globe has reported over several months. They were in Sutter County Superior Court October 21st, arguing that Gov. Gavin Newsom has exceeded his emergency powers in issuing Executive Orders having nothing to do with the coronavirus pandemic crisis.

Monday, State Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman tentatively ruled in favor of Gallagher (R-Yuba City) and Kiley (R-Rocklin) in their abuse of power lawsuit against Governor Newsom.

In the tentative ruling, Judge Heckman declared the Governor’s recent Executive Order N-67-20 unconstitutional. More importantly, Judge Heckman’s tentative ruling places a permanent injunction against the Governor which prevents him from unilaterally making or changing state law moving forward.

Assemblyman Kiley wrote:

The Judge ruled Newsom violated the Constitution. She also issued an injunction restraining the Governor from issuing any more unconstitutional orders. You can read the ruling here.

This marks an end to Gavin Newsom’s one-man rule. It makes clear that the laws of the State of California do not countenance an autocracy under any circumstances – not for a single day, and certainly not for eight months with no end in sight.

The ruling is “tentative,” meaning Newsom has a few days to try to persuade the Judge to change her mind, but it’s rare for a tentative ruling to change. While Newsom can appeal, we are confident the decision is on solid legal ground and will stand.

Kiley and Gallagher argue that California’s Constitution has an explicit separation-of-powers provision, which Gov. Newsom has violated. “A California Governor is constitutionally forbidden from doing the very thing Gov. Newsom has done here: exercise legislative powers,” they said.

Gov. Newsom’s Executive Order to create an all-vote-by-mail-election suspends and substantively changes California’s Elections Code. Gov. Newsom contends that the order “fits comfortably within the Governor’s broad grant of authority under the Emergency Services Act.”

Gov. Newsom’s attorneys argued that the governor does have the “”plenary” authority, along with “broad police powers” during a declared State of Emergency, and under the California Emergency Services Act (CESA).

In her ruling, Judge Heckman explains:

The Governor takes the position the California Emergency Services Act’s grant of authority to exercise “all police power vested in the state,” allowing him to “promulgate, issue, and enforce such orders and regulations as he deems necessary” authorizes him to legislate by unilaterally amending existing statutory law. Not only is this an active and ongoing controversy between the parties, but it is a critically important one for the Judicial Branch to resolve.

The Governor has issued three executive orders during the current state of emergency specifically regarding the November 3, 2020, general election (Def. Exs. 4 and 5; Pl. Ex. D) and has issued more than 50 different executive orders changing numerous Califomia statutes since the state of emergency was declared. (Pl. Ex. F) Further, despite representations by the Governor’s legal counsel that Executive Order N-67- 20 dated June 3, 2020, is “withdrawn,” there is no evidence it has been formally rescinded, and the Executive Order includes provisions controlling the election process for the November 3, 2020, General Election which were not superseded by the subsequently enacted legislation.

Specifically, despite the subsequent legislation, the Executive Order remained in effect requiring all county election officials to use the Secretary of State’s barcode tracking system for all mail ballots and altered the statutorily required outreach in Voter’s Choice Act counties to provide noticed, public meetings allowing for public comment on voting access for California voters with disabilities or limited English proficiency.

Judge Heckman also found “The plain meaning of the CESA does not delegate to the Governor the power to legislate, and therefore does not violate the separation of powers under California Constitution.”

Importantly, Judge Heckman did rule “On the issue of whether Executive Order N.67-20 was authorized by the California Emergency Services Act, the court finds the executive order was NOT authorized by the CESA because it improperly amended existing statutory law, exceeding the governor’s authority and violating the separation of powers.”

The judge explains:

The CESA allows the Governor, during a state of emergency, to issue orders and regulations and to suspend certain statutes, but the plain and unambiguous language of CESA does not permit the Governor to amend statutes or make new statutes. The Governor does not have the power or authority to assume the Legislature’s role of creating legislative policy and enactments. Because Executive Order N-67-20 amended sections of the Elections Code it exceeds the Governor’s authority under CESA and renders Executive Order N-67-2O invalid.

Kiley and Gallagher argued the Governor may not exercise legislative powers unless permitted by the Constitution, while the governor’s attorneys argued, “Making orders’ is what it says,” and that the legislation took care of overriding the governor’s orders.

Gallagher and Kiley argued in court that there is a very clear distinction in the California Governor’s emergency powers as it pertains to legislation: he cannot create legislation or new laws, but the emergency powers allow the governor to remove legislation that is a roadblock to making decisions during the emergency. He can suspend any regulatory statute if it is getting in the way of facilitating emergency procedures.

It appears Judge Heckman agreed with them:

The Court finds good cause to issue a permanent injunction consistent with the request set forth in paragraph 2l of plaintiffs’ complaint (Def. Ex. l), as follows: 8 Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California is enjoined and prohibited from exercising any power under the California Emergency Services Act (Government Code $ 8550 et seq.) which amends, alters, or changes existing statutory law or makes new statutory law or legislative policy.

“Nobody disputes that there are actions that should be taken to keep people safe during an emergency. But that doesn’t mean that we put our Constitution and free society on hold by centralizing all power in the hands of one man,” Gallagher and Kiley said in a press statement.

The Court’s decision does not impact any of the election protocols for the 2020 election.

California Globe was the only Capitol media present at the trial.

The post BREAKING: Court Declares Gov. Newsom’s Abuse of Power Unconstitutional first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Carriers sent non-renewal notices to 42,088 homeowners in the foothill counties in 2019, compared to 23,925 the year before, Deputy Insurance Commissioner Bryant Henley announced Monday. Almost every one of these homeowners had to buy replacement coverage from the state’s “insurer of last resort,” the FAIR Plan, often at prices double or triple what they were paying before.

The statistics, released at a Department of Insurance hearing, suggest the insurance crisis in California’s wildfire zones is continuing to rage.

Insurers began dropping thousands of mostly rural Californians after swallowing losses of $25 billion during the 2017 and 2018 wildfire seasons, capped by the near-total destruction of Paradise in the Camp Fire. Insurers did get compensated for about $11 billion in losses by PG&E Corp., which has been held responsible for most of the worst wildfires.

Nonetheless, industry officials say climate change and other factors are making increasingly large swaths of California almost uninsurable.

With the state experiencing its worst wildfire season ever, with more than 4 million acres burned, the shortage of affordable insurance coverage for homeowners is likely to intensify.

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, who convened the hearing on Zoom to explore ways of increasing coverage options, acknowledged that affordable insurance is tied to the underlying risk. “We will reduce this spread of wildfire risk,” Lara said.

The wave of insurance cancellations blanketed much of the Sierra Nevada. In the northern Sierra, non-renewals more than doubled last year, to 25,508. In the central and southern Sierra, 16,580 homeowners lost their coverage last year, up from 11,779 the year before.

Homeowners who get dropped by mainstream companies usually have to buy coverage from the California FAIR Plan, the state’s “insurer of last resort,” at rates three or four times higher than they had been paying. The number of Californians on the FAIR Plan jumped from 140,000 in 2018 to 190,000 last year. By August of this year, the FAIR Plan rolls had surpassed 200,000.

“I’m fortunate, I guess, to even have some insurance,” Mark Ratermann, who lives in the foothills northeast of Sacramento, said during the Zoom hearing. He said he pays $6,000 a year for coverage now, up from $1,800 a few years ago.

HOME ‘HARDENING’ STANDARDS TO REDUCE RISK

Lara introduced a bill earlier this year, AB 2367, that would have forced insurers to write coverage in fire-prone areas if homeowners and communities took steps to “harden” homes against wildfire risks.

The legislation died after insurers fought back, saying they shouldn’t be required to sell policies until standards for home hardening had been established. As a result, Lara agreed to work with the industry on standards, and Monday’s hearing was the first step in that process.

Home hardening has emerged as an increasingly viable tool for reducing wildfire risk. After the 2018 Camp Fire destroyed more than 12,000 homes in Paradise, a McClatchy investigation revealed that homes were more likely to survive if they’d been built according to a strict building code requiring fire-resilient roofing and siding and other protective features.

“Home hardening works,” Henley said, as a chart outlining some of McClatchy’s findings flashed on the Zoom screen.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed state budget for this year originally contained $100 million to help communities retrofit homes for wildfire safety. But the funding was dropped after the COVID-19 pandemic and economic shutdown left the state with a $50 billion deficit.

Insurance companies say they’ll work with Lara on home-hardening standards — but also argue that they must be allowed greater flexibility to charge rates that match with the risks involved in selling coverage in fire-prone communities.

“We absolutely must retain financial strength to pay these claims,” State Farm vice president Nicole Forziati said at Monday’s hearing.

Flames shoot from a window as the Bear Fire burns through the Berry Creek area of Butte County, Calif., on Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2020. The blaze, part of the lightning-sparked North Complex, expanded at a critical rate of spread as winds buffeted the region. (AP Photo/Noah Berger) NOAH BERGER AP

The post Insurance companies abandoning California at a faster rate, as wildfires wreak havoc first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Monday morning, Sept. 28, California woke up sweaty, devastated, even shocked to find the state burning again. But if we’re honest, and to our great shame, no one was surprised. We’d seen this horror movie in this town. Three years ago, wildfire killed 25 people in Sonoma County. Now the Glass Fire was there, again, burning toward Santa Rosa. At 12:30 a.m., a string of seniors stood in line, many in pajamas, waiting to board an evacuation bus from their retirement home. A tiny woman with a roller bag stooped over her walker. A man in a red shirt leaned on his red cane. A woman in a purple robe and magenta slippers sat in her wheelchair, a white teddy bear in her lap. They disembarked at the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Auditorium. But then at 2:48 a.m., before the slumped crowd, a young man climbed on a folding chair and announced: The fire was moving too fast toward them. Time to move again.

Farther east, the Butte County sheriff issued an evacuation warning for the entire town of Paradise. The Camp Fire killed 85 people in Paradise less than two years ago. Many survivors, including the former mayor, spent the night trying and failing to sleep in one of Paradise’s 434 newly rebuilt homes.

It is all too close, too soon: the propane tanks exploding, the safety-vest orange sky. By daylight, that sky rained chunks of ash, like dead moths. Many Californians would have felt less triggered by locusts.

California, as we all now know, is going to burn.

The ecosystem here depends on fire to stay healthy. OK, fine.

We suppressed that fire for a hundred-plus years, and now we’re living with a deathly backlog of kindling. Not fine, but that’s going to take decades to fix.

The climate crisis has warmed and dried that tinder, leading to five of the six largest fires in California history just this year. Not fine at all, but the time frame of remedying this … uhh … let’s just put that to the side.

Which leaves us with the one thing we could be doing to keep wildfire from destroying homes and lives: get a whole lot smarter about where and how we build.

Housing is the megafire-sized climate issue that lawmakers in California keep failing to adequately address — even though when asked directly how important housing is to California climate policy, Kate Gordon, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s senior climate policy adviser, told me, “Oh, it’s HUGE.” Yet it remains intractable.

Adam Millard-Ball, a professor who studies urban planning and environmental economics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told me, “It’s absolutely the weak link in the state’s climate policy.” Affluent urban areas and suburban areas have been incredibly successful at “pulling up the drawbridge,” as Millard-Ball put it, blocking new housing and pushing Californians to live in evermore remote communities, often in what’s known as the wildland urban interface. (WUI, the shorthand for this area where humans meet nature, is pronounced woooeeee.) It kicks off a pernicious cycle. Once there, people drive more, increasing emissions. And thanks to emissions globally, those areas are burning more than ever before. In August, Millard-Ball himself recently had to evacuate his home because of the CZU August Lighting Fire Complex.

“So with that as a backdrop. …” he said. “California’s housing dysfunction has been thrown into really tragic, stark relief for the last couple of months.”

California leads the country on most climate issues; its showpiece is green transportation. Just last week, amid this latest round of fires, Newsom promised to phase out new gas-only cars by 2035. “But when it comes to addressing the root causes why people have to drive in the first place. …” Millard-Ball trailed off. Not much happens. Or not much good.

On Wednesday night, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have nudged Californians to stop putting new housing in high fire-risk zones. The piece of legislation had overcome a yearlong delay, appeased initial detractors — including the development lobby — and passed the legislature by wide margins before flaming out at the eleventh hour on the governor’s desk.

It was, as original sponsor Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, acknowledged when the California Senate Housing Committee began debating it in April 2019, “not exactly the sexiest stuff in the world.” But it had two important goals: One, to identify existing structures highly vulnerable to burning in wildfire and make plans to retrofit them. (This was not politically complicated, as the measure did not even include funding.) Two, to ease pressure to develop in the parts of California with the highest wildfire risk. To date, no legislation related to wildfires — or any other climate-related hazard — impacts California’s arcane housing allocation system. (That system tells each region how much housing it’s required to build over a stretch of five or eight years.) But once wildfire risk is codified as a valid reason not to build, what’s next? Extreme heat? Nick Cammarota, with the California Building Industry Association, articulated that viewpoint when he called the bill “a housing killer.”

“We don’t want to have gentrification. We don’t want to have seismic risk. We don’t want to have sea level rise or wetlands, or ag land preservation or floods, or toxics. Or you name it,” he continued. “The entire state is covered with imperfect places to build.”

Yet dealing with WUI development, according to fire pros like former California State Fire Marshal Kate Dargan, is “the most urgent” fire question in the state.

Newsom did sign legislation to improve emergency response and preparedness efforts. But his veto of what was a pretty modest bill felt inauspicious to climate policy wonks who pay attention to such things. “At this moment, it is extremely disappointing to hear that \@GavinNewsom decided not to sign #sb182,” Michael Wara, director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University, tweeted at 10:31 p.m. on Wednesday. “The housing crisis enormously complicates decisions not to build anywhere. But solutions to California’s housing production needs are not now nor will they in future be in the WUI.” A half-hour later he tweeted again, appalled by Newsom’s refusal to back away from “sprawl that must ultimately be defended from wildfire at enormous cost in treasure, and hopefully not in blood.”

What will it take to create change? “If we can’t do it now, with the impetuses of the housing crisis and the wildfire. …” Millard-Ball said. Then he trailed off. “It would be incredibly sad to sit back and do nothing.”

This is the basic WUI problem: Houses are essentially big piles of fuel. Houses in the WUI also mean people in the WUI, and people ignite over 95% of California wildfires. Houses further increase risk to lives and structures by making it difficult for land managers to do prescribed burns. Once wildfires grow large, houses increase risks for firefighters. Houses in the WUI cost a fortune to defend.

Max Moritz, a wildfire specialist at University of California Cooperative Extension at the Bren School in Santa Barbara, began focusing intently on the WUI problem six years ago. He’d been creating fire probability maps under different climate change scenarios, and his data on fuel included plants that could burn, but not buildings. He found that nearly a quarter of the increased risk that appeared to be due to climate change was in fact due to development. So in 2016, Moritz worked with a team of scientists to co-write a paper laying out why we need to include land use in the wildfire models. (“I can send it to you if you want it. It’s great bedtime reading.”) Then Moritz pivoted to synthesizing the research on fire in the WUI. His goal was to lay out the facts for policymakers. “Then maybe this stuff could get codified,” he said. “Because yeah, why isn’t it? Why isn’t it regulated?”

After the 2009 Black Saturday fires in Australia that killed 173 people and destroyed 2,133 homes, the federal government launched a commission that found (among many other things) “planning and building controls are crucial factors affecting safety.” The Australians then instituted swift, sweeping changes. Among them: including bushfire risk in planning new development and making ember risk part of building codes. Yet, over the past seven years, wildfires in California have killed 193 people and destroyed nearly 50,000 structures, and the state has done comparatively little to fix the problem. “We have these tragic, huge events. We have Black Saturday after Black Saturday and almost no movement on these things,” Moritz said.

He’d hoped the research he and others had done on where and how we build in the face of climate change would spur bolder action. “Man, you’ve got the chance here to establish your legacy, as a progressive leader, tackling a tough problem,” he said, as if talking to Newsom shortly before the governor vetoed the bill. “But hey, land use urban planning … that’s political. That’s tough, right? Yeah. We need some guts.”

To protect a single home from wildfire in the WUI, this is your basic checklist. Defensible space. (No combustibles close to your home — for sure in the first 5 feet. Newsom did sign a separate law on Tuesday mandating this for high fire severity zones.) Class A fireproof roof. Dual-paned windows. Remove flammables from under deck. Metal gutter covers. A mesh covering all vents.

But protecting a single home in the WUI is (with only some exaggeration) like being the only one in your family who wears a mask. Safety is inherently a community project, and fire experts, as a rule, freak out about their neighbors’ houses and yards. One has nightmares about wood shingle siding “that ignites and flies off like an airfoil spreading fires.” Another about mulch that lets embers smolder until a wind whips them into “open flames that creep right up to people’s house walls.” A third told me about ponderosa pines killed by bark beetles but not yet cut down. “Have you ever had a real Christmas tree and burned it in February?” he asked. “They go off like napalm.”

For Wara, of Stanford’s Climate and Energy Policy Program, the zombies are the 20-foot-tall juniper bushes that line his neighbor’s house. “It’s a herd immunity thing, right?” he said. Once your neighbor’s house catches fire and starts throwing embers, yours is probably next. “I don’t think people get that.”

In the early 1970s, the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control tackled the problem of indoor fire. This culminated in the “America Burning” report, which in turn led to the creation of the U.S. Fire Administration and an over 50% drop in indoor fires since 1980. But there’s no such equivalent effort for wildfires. To help fix this, for the past two years, Alexander Maranghides, a fire protection engineer with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, has been co-leading a detailed reconstruction of the Camp Fire that destroyed Paradise. (NIST plans to release its first of three 400-page reports this fall.) “The outside fire problem is technically somewhere between one and two orders of magnitude more complex than the interior fire problem,” Maranghides said. Those fires involve topography, weather, fuel conditions, fire-fighting response, on and on. Just defining the fire dynamics of embers alone is a huge task. The intention of this science is not to keep people from living in the WUI at all, which almost nobody thinks is feasible. The intention is to make the public and policymakers WUI literate and provide science and tools that could lead to the creation of cost-effective solutions, so we don’t keep repeating the same tragic, expensive mistakes.

Wara pointed out that people are rebuilding in Coffey Park, a neighborhood in Santa Rosa that was nearly destroyed in 2017. “And they’re doing all these things that are so avoidable. Like wood fences connecting the homes. It’s like a vertical, combustible ember catcher! You just don’t need to do that.”

Here’s the political problem: 11 million people, over a quarter of all Califorians, live in the WUI. We are not going to kick them out.

At the same time, the state is in a housing crisis, and Newsom staked his career on fixing it. In his inaugural address, in January 2019, he announced “a Marshall Plan” for housing and promised to build 3.5 million new affordable units by 2025. You could hear the tension between that promise and watching his state burn down in his veto Wednesday night. “Wildfire resilience must become a more consistent part of land use and development decisions,” he wrote. “However, it must be done while meeting our housing needs.”

Right now, the state’s climate priorities are skewed. California has “focused on solar and wind and electric vehicles — the sort of technology solution side of climate,” she said. “We haven’t focused as much on land use,” Gordon, the Newsom adviser, admitted. This is an oversight, and the administration knows it, even refuses at times to act that way. “As a state, we’re the one who pays for the disaster mitigation, right?” Gordon said. “It’s just not sustainable. I mean, our entire budget will become about disaster response if we don’t get ahead of this thing.”

Without action at the state level, it’s hard to see how California achieves good climate housing policy. Local governments have a lot of power. Too much power, Millard-Ball, the UC Santa Cruz professor, argues. “Cities can effectively ignore the climate crisis when they’re making certain decisions,” he said. “Like most cities in California have developed climate action plans, which are great in terms of things promoting waste reduction and street trees and energy efficiency. But they have said almost nothing about creating more walkable, transit-oriented places to live.”

The situation is becoming dire. Insurers, losing a fortune in the WUI, are rapidly dropping homeowner policies. The hemorrhage of “non-renewals” grew so acute that California’s insurance commissioner essentially instituted a circuit-breaker halt and declared a one-year moratorium. But that may not be enough help for residents to afford to stay. As Mariposa County Supervisor Kevin Cann told me, “You go on the FAIR Plan” — the California insurance policy of last resort — “and you realize, Holy smokes! I used to pay $1,200 a year and now I’m going to pay $5,000. That’s a second mortgage.”

The hard truth is: this is as it should be. WUI housing, with its true costs factored in, is not the bargain real estate agents refer to when they say, “Drive until you qualify.” Last year, the National Bureau of Economic Research, or NBER, published a paper detailing how taxpayers are subsidizing people living in high fire risk zones. How? Firefighting is expensive — California may spend a billion dollars this year. A large percentage of that will go to defending private homes. This firefighting “benefit” is not negligible: NBER calculated it can exceed 20% of a property’s value. The very fact that firefighting is publicly funded decreases the incentive for WUI residents to fireproof their properties. Distorting the housing market further and creating moral hazard: Because much of firefighting budgets comes out of federal disaster funds, publicly funded fire response decreases the incentive for a city or state — hello, California — to create and enforce wildland building codes.

This pattern, according to NBER, will grow more pronounced with climate change.

The state would also save money if it took a preventative medicine approach and shifted more funds into fire prevention. Every dollar invested in risk mitigation typically saves six in disaster costs. Dargan, the former state fire marshal, who was a firefighter for 30 years and has a son working as a first responder right now, believes the state makes a mistake by not viewing fire prevention and suppression as the same thing. “Mitigation and response just happen at different times on the continuum of solutions,” she said. “We have the world’s best response system in California.” And that system works beautifully — until a megafire erupts. Then that system fails. At that point, no matter how well they’re trained or how hard they work, “firefighters are unable to focus on firefighting. All they can do is get people out ahead of time and even then we’re beginning to fail at greater numbers.” We need a better plan. For taxpayers. For WUI residents, like those seniors evacuated from their homes after midnight in Santa Rosa on Monday and then evacuated from the evacuation center around 3 am. For people, including her son, on the front line.

Source: https://truthout.org/articles/california-housing-policy-is-making-wildfires-worse/

The post California Housing Policy Is Making Wildfires Worse first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

In this March 31, 2016, file photo, Tesla Motors unveils the new lower-priced Model 3 sedan at the Tesla Motors design studio in Hawthorne, Calif. Electric car maker Tesla said on Monday, July 3, 2017, that its Model 3 car will go on sale on Friday. (AP Photo/Justin Pritchard, File)

California will ban the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger cars and trucks in 15 years, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday, establishing a timeline in the nation’s most populous state that could force U.S. automakers to shift their zero-emission efforts into overdrive.

The plan won’t stop people from owning gas-powered cars or selling them on the used car market. But in 2035 it would end the sale of all new such vehicles in the state of nearly 40 million people that accounts for more than one out of every 10 new cars sold in the U.S.

California would be the first state with such a mandate while at least 15 other countries have already made similar commitments, including Germany, France and Norway.

Newsom used the hood of a red, electric-powered Ford Mustang Mach-E to sign an executive order directing state regulators to develop new regulations to meet the deadline. He urged Californians to “pull away from the gas pumps” and encouraged other states to join California for the good of the environment and public health.

“If you want to reduce asthma, if you want to mitigate the rise of sea level, if you want to mitigate a loss of ice sheets around the globe, then this is a policy for other states to follow,” Newsom said.

While environmental groups cheered the announcement, the oil industry panned it and the automakers’ industry group sought a middle ground, saying it’s committed to increasing zero-emission vehicles but through cooperation among governments and businesses, not by mandates.

Meantime, White House spokesman Judd Deere said flatly: “President Trump won’t stand for it.” And Larry Kudlow, Trump’s economic adviser, labeled it a “very extreme” position that he doesn’t think other states will follow.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s campaign didn’t comment directly on Newsom’s plan. But spokesman Matt Hill said Biden believes electric vehicles can create “good-paying union jobs, dominate a fast-growing market worldwide, and meet the demands of the climate crisis.”

Tailpipe exhaust from cars, pickups, tractor-trailer rigs and other transportation are the single largest source of air pollution, and California has by far the most cars on the road than any other state.

In 2017, the federal government said California emitted 266.5 million tons (241.8 million metric tons) of carbon dioxide from the burning of petroleum. That’s about the same as the total emissions from Egypt, which has 2.5 times the population.

Newsom says his order will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35%. But he stressed the benefits went beyond the environment, saying electric cars and trucks are “the next big global industry and California wants to dominate it.”

California is already home to 34 electric vehicle manufacturers — including Tesla, the world’s top-selling maker — and accounts for about half of all electric vehicle sales in the U.S.

Some auto industry analysts warned the timeline could be too fast for technology to catch up to customer’s expectations. Battery life and manufacturing costs are still issues that haven’t been resolved, said IHS Markit principal analyst Stephanie Brinley, who studies the North and South American auto markets.

On Tuesday, Tesla announced plans for cheaper batteries with higher energy density, but they are well into the future, she said.

“Even if you get a battery like Tesla is talking about, it’s going to take time and money to get there,” Brinley said.

Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights at the Edmunds.com auto pricing site, said Newsom’s announcement “does seem like this is a significant shot fired against” the internal combustion engine that is likely to trigger high-level meetings at all the auto companies, which were moving toward electric vehicles but didn’t expect a zero-emissions mandate in 15 years.

Ford Motor Company said it agreed with Newsom that it’s time to take action to address climate change. But the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents Ford and most other automakers, said markets can’t be built with mandates and bans.

The oil and gas industry, meanwhile, criticized Newsom for holding a news conference on Wednesday in front of nearly $200,000 worth of electric cars “as he told Californians that their reliable and affordable cars and trucks would soon be unwelcome in our state.”

“Big and bold ideas are only better if they are affordable for us all,” said Cathy Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association. “Our industry and the energy we provide will be the part of any solution.”

Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources board tasked with writing regulations for the plan, said electric vehicles will be more affordable in 15 years and everyone will benefit from cleaner air.

California already has some of the most progressive climate laws in the country, putting it at odds with the Trump administration and it’s more relaxed regulatory approach to environmental policy. The federal government has tried to end California’s authority to set emission standards for cars and trucks, a move the state is fighting in court.

About a dozen states follow California’s lead on auto emissions standards that are more restrictive than federal rules. If those states follow suit on zero-emission vehicles, it could have a huge impact on the U.S. automobile industry.

Governors from many of those states appeared with Newsom at an event on Wednesday sponsored by the U.S. Climate Alliance. They praised California’s move, but they gave no immediate indication they would join it.

“We’re going to be with you, the auto industry is going to be with you, as we move to zero emissions vehicles,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said.

Newsom’s order on Wednesday also targeted medium and heavy duty commercial trucks, saying he wants those to be 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2045 “where feasible.”

On the oil production side, Newsom called on the state Legislature to end new fracking licenses by 2024. Fracking is a technique that allows energy companies to extract huge volumes of oil and gas from shale rock deep underground. It involves injecting high-pressure mixtures of water, sand or gravel and chemicals into rock. Fracking opponents says the chemicals involved threaten water supplies and public health.

“Newsom can’t claim climate leadership while handing out permits to oil companies to drill and frack,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “He has the power to protect Californians from oil industry pollution, and he needs to use it, not pass the buck.”

___

Associated Press writers Tom Krisher in Detroit, Ellen Knickmeyer in Oklahoma City and Seth Borenstein and Kevin Freking in Washington, D.C., in contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/california-moves-to-end-sales-of-new-gas-powered-cars/2336687/

The post California Is Ready to Pull the Plug on Gas Vehicles first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

There’s a message in the raging wildfires that have scorched her home state of California as well as neighboring states, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“Mother Earth is angry,” the San Francisco Democrat said during an appearance Thursday on MSNBC. “She’s telling us — whether she’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is … that the climate crisis is real and has an impact.”

“Mother Earth is angry,” Speaker Pelosi says, discussing wildfires burning in California. “She’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is…the climate crisis is real and has an impact.”

---

As Pelosi spoke, the network split the screen, with Pelosi on the right and images on the left showing flames consuming homes and a “Children at Play” sign – as well as the general landscape.

CALIFORNIA WILDFIRE DESTROYS FAMILY’S ICONIC STORE AND HOUSE HOURS APART

Another image showed the Transamerica Pyramid skyscraper in San Francisco, set amid the eerie orange sky in the Bay Area that has been seen in other photos and videos from the West Coast this week in reports on the fire damage.

The skyline in the distance behind Oracle Park is partially visible with smoke from wildfires late Wednesday afternoon Sept. 9, 2020, in San Francisco. (Associated Press)

---

“Sixteen people have died in Washington, Oregon and California, including a firefighter and 1-year-old baby,” Pelosi said during the same interview. California’s death toll later rose to 19, The Associated Press reported Friday.

In Northern California, the North Complex fire alone has accounted for at least 10 deaths, with 16 other people unaccounted for, the AP reported.

The blaze was among 29 major wildfires counted in the Golden State, burning an area of more than 4,800 square miles – equivalent to the area of Rhode Island, Delaware and Washington, D.C., combined, the AP reported.

Oregon has seen more than 1,400 square miles burn this week while Washington has lost more than 900 square miles to the flames.

President Trump spoke with California Gov. Gavin Newsom “to express his condolences for the loss of life and reiterate the administration’s full support to help those on the front lines of the fires,” White House spokesman Judd Deere told the AP.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Newsom, a Democrat, has spoken in the past of having a good working relationship with the White House in trying to obtain federal assistance for the state for dealing with wildfires, an annual occurrence that has grown more impactful in recent years.

“I’d be lying to you to say that [Trump] hasn’t been responsive to our needs,” Newsom told CNN’s Jake Tapper in April. “He has. And so, as a question, as a sort of an offer of objectivity, I have to acknowledge that publicly.”

Tom Elliott@tomselliott

Calif. Gov. @GavinNewsom: “Let me just be candid with you. I’d be lying to you to say that [Trump] hasn’t been responsive to our needs. He has. And so, as a question, as a sort of an offer of objectivity, I have to acknowledge that publicly.”

---

The aid from the president has come despite his assertions in the past that California’s wildfires have been sparked, at least in part, by deficiencies in forest management.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

The Governor of California, @GavinNewsom, has done a terrible job of forest management. I told him from the first day we met that he must “clean” his forest floors regardless of what his bosses, the environmentalists, DEMAND of him. Must also do burns and cut fire stoppers…..

---

Also Thursday, Pelosi told reporters at a news conference that climate policies needed to be “absolutely a priority” if Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden defeats Trump in November.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

---

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-on-wildfires-in-california-and-west-mother-earth-is-angry

[Disclaimer]

The post Pelosi on wildfires in California and West: ‘Mother Earth is angry’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.