Governor Gavin Newsom of California
is putting the onus on individuals
to curb climate change by
banning gas powered lawn mowers and
leaf blowers.
Something that could have an impact
on curbing climate change but
a small one compared to banning
drilling, holding fossil fuel
companies accountable.
Maybe there should be more
of a focus on that.
We just had a massive oil spill in
Newport Beach California, and
Gavin Newsom had some strong
words about what we need to do.
But when push comes to shove,
he does very little
in regard to fossil fuel companies.
Now first, let me
give you the details on this bill.
The bill directs state regulators
to stop selling gas powered
equipment that has small off road
engines by January 1st of 2024, or
once the California Air Resources
Board says such a law is feasible,
whichever date comes later.
The law also calls for
new portable gas powered generators
to be zero emission by 2028,
according to the Los Angeles Times.
That deadline, however, could
be pushed back by the state board.
Now, how much of the impact
is this likely to have?
I'm not going to lie when I first
read the headline,
I rolled my eyes because I thought
it would have absolutely no impact.
>> You sounded pretty like no' >> I
don't have a problem with this if
all of the attention was it hyper
focused on individuals changing
their behavior, right?
I think that's the wrong way to go,
it makes people despise Democrats.
Because on one hand they do that
and they annoy people, right?
On the other hand,
they let fossil fuel companies get
away with murder, literally.
And I'll get to those details
in a second.
But to add weight to this views
again, I'm not against it,
I just hate the the fact that it's
always focused on individuals.
Gas powered equipment with small
off-road engines produce a similar
amount of smog causing pollution as
light-duty passenger cars create in
California.
According to the Associated Press,
there are more than 16.7 million
gas engines in California,
which tops the number of passenger
cars on roads by roughly 3 million.
And I was concerned about what this
would mean for
professional landscapers, right?
And luckily they did think
about that and
they're allocating $30 million to
help them purchase new equipment so
they can do their jobs, and
I think that's really important.
But again, there's very little
focus on fossil fuel companies.
And when you look at the number of
permits that Gavin Newsom signed
for drilling, for
fossil fuel companies in his short
time as governor of California,
you'll understand why I'm so
furious about where his focus is.
>> Yeah, well look even if you were
happy with his climate policy,
you could still be mad at him.
I mean, >> I don't like the guy.
>> Look what he did back on
the eighth with that bill about
student financing higher education
for students.
There's a lot of reasons to be
frustrated with him.
I agree with you overall about too
much of the onus being put on
people to deal with climate change
as well as virtually
every other thing having to do with
the environment.
Almost all of if it is,
it's about your straws,
it's about your bags and whatever.
And it is about those things, but
I agree we should be
pressuring politicians.
That said,
I think this is very good, that I
think it does need to happen.
It's three years in the future,
which I think helps even with
industry that might rely on these
pieces of equipment.
And by the way, it's only even
sort of three years in the future.
So by 2024 or when the Air Resource
Board says that it's feasible, and
it can be pushed back.
And there's guy named Joe that you
got to go through, and there's so
many things that
are going to push it back.
I love the idea so
that it's the one that's the later
of those two, >> Right, right.
>> So if they're every support is
it's totally feasible,
let's still wait a couple years-.
But it's feasible that's
the whole thing.
And I get it, but also I will say,
maybe this is me justifying
the fact that I like this because,
we do have to start to phase these
things out.
We have to, it's kind of putting
pressure on the industry.
Because before it might be hey, can
we get some electric alternatives?
And then the industry might be
well, it's really easy we already
have this thing really why
should we do this?
Well, they're literally
banning them from from selling it.
They can't if they want to still be
in business, they have to do
alternatives powered alternatives.
I think that's good also it's
putting some pressure on the fossil
fuel industry in that, they're
going to lose all the business for
powering those things.
>> I mean, there's
going to be less demand.
>> Potentially coal producing
electricity, but
anyway we can phase that out too It
has to be a two prong thing.
It's on the use side electricity as
well as the generation side, and
you're right, we have to focus on
both those things.
>> Yeah, again,
I'm not against this, but
let me give you more data.
Okay, so
70% of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions can be traced back to 100
companies according to a 2017
Carbon Majors Report by the
Climate Accountability Institute.
So, while I agree that this effort
in California could have a small
impact, and you're right.
If it leads to less demand for
fossil fuels then you're right, it
effectively does weigh into these
fossil fuel companies having to
essentially adapt to different
renewable energy alternatives.
But I'm curious how much of
an effect it would have considering
the fact that California is not its
own country, it's one state in
the United States, where you have
all sorts of red states that love
to empower fossil fuel companies.
>> Yeah, I have no doubt that
Ben Shapiro probably just bought
four gas powered ones, and he's
just running them, he's not even
mowing, he's just burning the fuel.
And maybe the example I'm about to
make is a bad example.
But to your point about it being
only one state, I mean California
was more heavily regulating car
engines for a long time in terms of
how much pollution and
smog they could produce.
And that had effects on the cars
that were sold everywhere,
because it's a lot easier for
corporations to build ones to the
most restrictive standard rather
than two different models, it's not
to say that they don't some do.
But it could be that some of these
companies will just find that
batteries are pretty powerful now.
I have a battery powered mower, and
a leaf blower too well,
let's actually plug in.
But if it's more feasible in terms
of the technology and you're
already having to make it any way,
and people start to realize that
hey, it's kind of nice not to have
to be burning gas all the time,
maybe it's quieter, all that stuff.
It might have effects on all
the other states too,
I would be shocked if it did not.
>> Yeah, we'll see.
One thing that I wish California
lawmakers also focused on, because
remember they've banned plastic
straws and plastic bags, but
take a walk outside in California.
And especially the major
metropolitan areas of California,
there's trash everywhere.
There are plastic bags everywhere
>> The city overrode didn't
stop [INAUDIBLE] >> What happened?
Is there any sanitation taking
place, I don't know what happened,
but there's garbage literally
everywhere.
>> That's Ben Shapiro.
He just brings a whole bunch he
just walks around.
>> You got Ben Shapiro on your
minds today.
>> Political speech.
[LAUGH] >> Okay,
I do want to just quickly touch on
the whole drilling aspect of this,
because I don't want Gavin Newsome
to posture as some sort of climate
warrior when in reality he gives in
to these corporate donors, right?
So by the way,
corporate donor's pretty
significant in terms of funding,
lobbying in this year alone in the
first quarter of 2021 for instance,
the industry spent more than $4.3
million on lobbying in California.
A significant portion of it to
oppose legislation that would
bolster the state's progress toward
reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
impose tighter regulations for
industrial accidents, and
ensure justice for communities
most impacted by pollution, and
climate change.
And it has an impact, the lobbying
effort has appeared to derail
at least one bill prominently
touted by environmental justice and
climate groups, that would have
banned fracking, and other forms
of oil recovery that involve
injecting high pressurized water or
steam into wells.
That bill called SB 467, would also
mandate physical distances of 2,500
feet between oil and
gas operation and
places such as homes or schools.
A distance based on studies showing
a correlation between proximity of
the operation and
poor health outcome including,
cancers, respiratory ailments, and
low birth weight in infants.
So, the lobbying works in this
great state of California,
this alleged blue state that really
looks out for the little guy.
I mean, no,
the corporate Democrats completely
run things in this state.
I mean, they're susceptible to
the same corruption and the same
actions that we see with corporate
Democrats in the senate today.
And then finally Newsom
loves to approve drilling permits.
Newsom's record to date on oil
drilling permits and
the protection of public health and
the environment includes approving
a total of 9,728 oil drilling
permits from January 1st,
2019 until October 1st, 2021.
In fact, he approved 299 new
drilling permits overall in
the first three quarters of 2021.
So Mr. Tough guy who really wants
to take the fossil fuel industry
to task, he's rhetorical about it.
He'll speak about it but
when push comes to shove he'll sign
those permits, because he knows who
pays his checks.
>> Yeah, I think the dude when he
was a kid he got like stung
by a jellyfish at the beach, and
he's had a vendetta against our
beaches ever since, and he won't
stop until they're covered in oil.
>> He's just, >> Calling attention.
>> He's a pretty face on corporate
corruption that's what
Gavin Newsom is.
>> I don't think he's that pretty
>> I don't either, but he seems
to trigger right wingers because of
his hair I don't know, they're
super jealous of his good looks.
>> If you use machine learning,
it's give me a politician,
>> [LAUGH] Totally.
>> It'll just be him.
[LAUGH]