On Nov. 8, 2018, a massive wind-driven wildfire destroyed the town of Paradise, California. I experienced it firsthand, watching the plume from relative safety and later comforting friends and co-workers who lost homes, and nearly their lives. Eighty-five people died, some who I knew.

It was an unparalleled tragedy – until August 2023, when the town of Lahaina in Maui burned to the ground and at least 115 people died. The weather events, fire conditions, and human folly that led up to the Maui fire were nearly identical to what happened in Paradise. It reminded me of what British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said in a 1948 speech, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Some journalists and vocal green activists were quick to immediately blame “climate change” in both fires before the fire investigations were even started, much less completed. A detailed analysis by my colleague, meteorologist Cliff Mass, PhD., of the University of Washington shows that the Maui fire was a perfect storm of a high wind weather event, predicted days ahead, combined with a high fuel load due to dry invasive grasses; a similar scenario was the setup for the 2018 Paradise Camp Fire.

In both fires, power lines and high winds were the ignition source and the driver. In both fires, dry high fuel loads contributed to the intensity of the fires. In both fires, there were ample warnings in weather forecasts.

The other common denominator in both fires was the institutional failure of electric utility companies. Pacific Gas and Electric in California and Hawaii Electric (HE) both were pursuing green energy plans to satisfy green energy advocates and investors instead of paying attention to basic maintenance of their electrical power lines. The Paradise Camp Fire was blamed on PG&E ignoring maintenance on century-old power lines, which broke and sparked in a high-wind event. With video and data showing Maui power lines sparking during high winds, Hawaiian Electric is now the focus for lack of maintenance.

The Wall Street Journal, in their article “Hawaiian Electric Knew of Wildfire Threat, but Waited Years to Act,” noted, “Four years ago, the utility said it needed to do more to prevent its power lines from emitting sparks. It made little progress, focusing on a shift to clean energy.”

In 2019, HE stated the risk of fires and in a press release, outlining strategies to mitigate the wildfire risks from its aging power lines. The company noted that it was studying how utilities in California were dealing with similar wildfire threats. None of that was implemented. Meanwhile, the company focused on green energy goals, instead.

In June 2022, HE filed an application with the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission stating it wanted to spend around $190 million over five years upgrading its transmission infrastructure to be more resilient, but at the time of the Lahaina fire, that plan still languished, mostly unimplemented.

In an August 19 New York Times article, the risk and the delay were laid bare. “Hawaiian Electric has known for years that extreme weather was becoming a bigger danger, but the company did little to strengthen its equipment and failed to adopt emergency plans used elsewhere, like being prepared to cut off power to prevent fires. The utility knew it needed to upgrade its equipment but did not make changes that could have reduced risks of fires, energy experts said.”

The pattern of deferring maintenance and safety upgrades at the expense of green energy goals is the same reason contributing to the PG&E Paradise fire, and now the Maui fire. Literally, it is “déjà vu all over again.”

Perhaps it’s time to put aside populist green energy demands and create a company constitution to ensure that system maintenance and the safety of ratepayers is the top priority. Hopefully, with two tragic examples now in full view, other power companies will learn from this history, rather than repeat it.

Anthony Watts is former meteorologist at KHSL TV/ Action News Now. He does daily forecasts for KPAY and is also a senior fellow for climate and environment at the Heartland Institute in Chicago.

PRO / Mark Stemen

Senate Bill 100, passed in 2018, set a goal of “powering all retail electricity sold in California . . . with renewable and zero-carbon resources” by 2045. A recently-released joint agency report finds that “the goals of SB 100 can be achieved in different ways but reaching them will require significant investments in new and existing technologies.”

The first step in addressing climate change is to clean up the grid, and then “electrify everything.” That means increased demand for electricity, however, even as the grid decarbonizes. Meeting the 2045 target while extending electrical use to other sectors (like transportation) will require dramatically expanding California’s electrical grid to triple the current capacity over the next 25 years.

So, carbon-free energy is feasible, but it won’t be easy.

It’s important to understand, however, that SB 100 is not a big leap for California. Due to past efforts at promoting renewable energy, the state’s electricity mix is already more than 60% carbon free, with about 36% of that coming from renewable sources, primarily wind and solar.

California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard in 2002 with the goal of 20% renewable energy by 2017, and the legislature has increased the RPS over time (33% by 2020, and 50% by 2030). The state met these escalating targets easily, and many utilities are already closing in on the 50% target. SB 100 simply raises the 2030 target to 60%.

Neutrality by 2045 will be much more difficult and that target must be met with “zero-carbon resources,” which include renewables, nuclear power, and natural gas with carbon capture. Solar and wind operate on their own schedule. They are not, in grid terms, “dispatchable,” meaning they cannot be turned on and off as needed. To balance out variations in sun and wind, grid operators need dispatchable carbon-free resources.

Nuclear energy and natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are current forerunners for dispatchable carbon-free power. While I don’t like either option, the question at the center of the dispute over 100 percent renewable energy remains: Is it feasible to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS? Some say yes, some say no. Regardless of which stance one takes, we can all agree that the current climate crisis demands action, now. SB 100 leaves the question of source open, and that flexibility ensures the measure’s success.

Mark Stemen is a professor at CSU, Chico who likes garden to take his mind off the current state of the world.

CON / Anthony Watts

I’ll likely be excoriated for even writing this, because the California left suffers from the noble cause corruption (look it up) of “saving the planet” by preventing climate change. In the CA Energy Commission report on the topic, they say: “The results of this preliminary analysis show that it is indeed possible to achieve a 100 percent clean electricity future. The threat posed by climate change requires us to think and act boldly today.”

Well, that’s nice, it’s also unrealistic. For example, today there are many people that believe today’s weather events are driven by “climate change.” If true, how can you explain California’s hot droughts of 1929–1934? The Central Valley Project was started in the 1930s in response to drought. The 1950s drought contributed to the creation of the State Water Project.

The 1863–1864 drought was preceded by the torrential floods of 1861–1862, Downtown Sacramento was flooded. If these events occurred today, they would invariably be blamed on “man-made climate change.” My point: weather extremes happen, and we can no more control the weather or climate today with wishful thinking (or bold actions) than we could 100 years ago. We can only mitigate.

Then there’s wishful electrical engineering by politicians. Remember last year when we had rolling blackouts in August and the electric grid nearly collapsed? Part of the reason was the “slump” in renewable energy that occurred at sunset (solar panels don’t work at night) and in wind turbines (wind generally calms at night). California’s electric grid is highly dependent on solar/wind now thanks to the political mandate known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) and later SB100. These laws push wind and solar requiring California’s electricity to be 100% “carbon free” energy by 2045.

According to PG&E tariff reports in 2008, the average cost per kilowatt hour of electricity was 16 cents – today it is 28 cents. The average US national electricity rate is 13.2 cents. If you think your bill is criminally high now (PG&E is a convicted felon), just wait until 2045.

California is paying the price for abandoning reliable energy sources in favor of green energy sources such as wind and solar power, and they don’t work at night or when the wind doesn’t blow. The only sensible path forward for clean energy is hydro-electric and nuclear energy, but eco-chondriacs won’t allow those either.

Good luck everyone.

Anthony Watts is  former television meteorologist for KHSL-TV12, currently on KPAY 93.9. He’s also a Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate at the Heartland Institute in Chicago, and has never taken a dime from the oil industry or the Koch Brothers to have an opinion.

PRO

This is such a target-rich environment, where to begin? First an overview.

When California recalled Gray Davis in 2003, he became the second state governor successfully recalled in U.S. history. It was really about the “wimp” vs. the “Terminator” Arnold Schwarzenegger, who swept into office promising to clean up state government. Now with the recall Newsom signature petition reaching the numbers needed, Newsom could be the third recalled governor in U.S. history. Supporters have until March 17 to collect the 1,495,709 signatures needed to trigger a recall election and it looks like they will make that deadline based on recent reports of signature gathering.

Newsom’s approval rating is tanking according to a Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll February 2. Just 46% of California voters approve of Newsom’s job performance — a big decline from the two-thirds positive rating in September 2020. Even 31 percent of Democrats either support his recall or are open to it.

My biggest issue with Newsom is that he acts like a king, not an elected governor.

He’s made edicts that he had no authority to issue, such as closing houses of worship for pandemic reasons, which was tossed out by the U.S. Supreme court on February 5. Back in November, a successful lawsuit by Assemblymen James Gallagher showed Newsom abused his authority by changing state law in violation of the California constitution during the COVID-19 pandemic.

And then there are the gaffes. Shortly after placing a curfew on every county in the “Purple Tier,” including Butte County, Newsom went out to dinner with his “buddies” and the world noticed. Dining indoors at a restaurant called the French Laundry, he was surrounded by lobbyists from the California Medical Association. Not one was wearing masks. It was Newsom’s “let them eat cake” Marie Antoinette moment showing that rules are for little people, not King Gavin the First who has perfectly coiffed hair while us peasants scramble to find a decent haircut.

Newsom’s waste and cronyism has been unprecedented. From the “bullet train to nowhere” largesse that just got pushed back another year, to at least a half-dozen companies that dumped money into Newsom’s campaign coffers and received no-bid contracts from the state, ranging from $2 million to over $1 billion. Conflict of interest much?

Lack of humility, tone-deafness, financial corruption, no accountability, and no respect for the rule of law should earn King Newsom a total recall.

CON

The recall process was minted 110 years ago as a “precautionary measure by which a recalcitrant official can be removed.” In the year 1911, citizens were concerned that someday, a California governor may adopt an uncooperative attitude toward authority. While Gavin Newsom may have executed his duties in ways that have frustrated his political opponents, he listens to his voters and takes calculated action as he sees fit. When he makes a mistake, he owns up to it and apologizes.

We all know Newsom dined at a restaurant in 2020 after he told citizens not to. As soon as he sat at the outdoor table, Newsom realized the group was larger than he had expected. Like Sen.Ted Cruz said about his Mexico trip amid the Texas winter crisis, Newsom said “I made a bad mistake. I should have stood up and … drove back to my house.”

If enough signatures are gathered, a special election would take place in November. If Newsom were to lose, his last day in office would be Jan. 2023, shortening his term from 48 months to 34 months. The special election could cost taxpayers upwards of $100 million; that’d be over $7 million per month. Seems like a poor value proposition to be promoted by adversaries who often identify as fiscal conservatives.

The real motives of the recall are to exploit a global pandemic to advance political careers. The prime movers are a ragtag crew of anti-vax extremists, Trumpers, and some politicians who want to be governor. It is partisan troublemaking by a small group of right-wingers trying to destabilize the political system and consequently to make the government less effective. The same people who complain about Trump’s impeachment over the insurrection are in support of recalling California’s governor.

If enough signatures are gathered we run the risk of perpetual election campaigns. As soon as an elected official is sworn in, the effort to remove them is started so duly elected politicians will  be required to keep their election campaign machine operational  during their entire term in office. This would be a great distraction from focusing upon their job of leading.

The money required for a special election is wasteful as the state works to distribute vaccinations, stimulate the economy, and reopen schools. If you know anyone who is willing to sign the petition, please tell them not to. Encourage them to relax because they’ll get a chance to vote for a new governor soon enough.

PRO / Matt York

Personally, it seems to me that our nation would be better off if President Trump was not removed from office. The citizens of our nation are so deeply divided now the result would likely be that our political parties emerge even more profoundly bitter.

However since impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office (it is just the statement of charges against the official), I support any impeachment that makes its way through a vote of the House of Representatives. That is the process outlined in our Constitution. If I don’t support impeachment then I must have a suggestion for an amendment to the Constitution that I want enacted without a Congressional vote.

I am not in support of impeachment along party lines because it points to implacable partisanship. Thursday’s vote to establish procedures for the inquiry should not be nearly as controversial. A meaningful number of people have provided sufficient testimony to indicate that NOW  is a good time to clarify the laws surrounding foreign involvement with American politics. Both Republicans and Democrats need crystal clarity about what is illegal vs. legal.

Testimony from several witnesses show that that the president enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics.

It seems all Republicans in Congress feel that the President acted lawfully, while the American people have proved more open-minded—as new evidence is reported upon, support for impeachment has increased—and a parade of civil servants have spoken out. Republican Congress members need clarity for the sake of their party when, someday in the years to come, a Democratic president may conduct his or her affairs in a similar fashion. Lady Justice is our symbol for this process of a moral force in judicial systems. She appears with a blindfold, a balance, and a sword. She appears on statues in the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. But is our justice system really blind? Are the scales truly balanced? Our entire judicial system is at stake here.

It does not seem right that the Senate Majority Leader would say that we will work “in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president as well as the Senate.” There are provisions in the Constitution governing impeachment: that Senators are to act as impartial jurors during a Senate trial on whether to remove the President from office.

I hope that the Senate vote after the trial does not fall along party lines.

CON / Anthony Watts

Trump was hired by the American people to drain the swamp, and knock down the power of the elite career politicians – and he’s doing it. No wonder they want to impeach him.

As I watch the impeachment proceedings run like a railroading operation, where opinion, emotion, hearsay and second-hand or even third-hand knowledge get treated as “fact,” I can’t escape the conclusion that the entire impeachment circus is driven by two emotions: hate and fear.

They hate Trump because he usurped their plans to crown Hillary, they hate him because he doesn’t play the political games they used to, and they hate him because they consider him coarse and unstatesmanlike.

They fear him because he’s been very successful, and that success has translated into employment and prosperity. Just look at the most recent numbers: 266,000 jobs added last month and a 3.5% unemployment rate.

Former President Bill Clinton, a subject of impeachment himself due his lying about unsavory actions with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, had this to say about it all in a CNN interview:

“My message would be, look, you got hired to do a job … You don’t get the days back you blow off. Every day is an opportunity to make something good happen.”

“And I would say, ‘I’ve got lawyers and staff people handling this impeachment inquiry, and they should just have at it … Meanwhile, I’m going to work for the American people. That’s what I would do.”

In essence, Clinton recognizes this impeachment circus is a political witch-hunt, and Trump shouldn’t waste any of his valuable time on it.

That’s sage advice.

But even if the vote in the House moves impeachment forward to the Senate, it isn’t likely to be successful.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham fired a warning shot across the bow to congressional Democrats that he and other Senate Republicans would not allow the Senate to be transformed “into a circus.”

Graham had this to say on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures”:

“This whole Ukrainian stuff is a joke. They got the money. They got the meeting with the president. They didn’t investigate Joe Biden or Hunter Biden. There is no there there.

“We’re not going to turn the Senate into a circus … And I would tell Schiff, what you’re doing is very dangerous for the separation of powers here.”

To sum up; there’s no smoking gun, no quid pro quo, and nothing in testimony other than angst and opinion brought forth by the operatives of do-nothing Democrats. Hatred and fear converted into opinion in a House Judiciary hearing isn’t evidence.

It’s shameful behavior.

York takes the “Pro” position and Watts is “Con.”

PRO/Matt York

Our President believes that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of his race.

In 2015, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham called then candidate Donald Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic bigot”.  Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, a challenger to President Donald Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination, last week called the president a “raging racist,” adding that if Republicans don’t denounce Trump in the upcoming election they will be known as the “party of racism.”

North Carolina GOP Rep. Mark Walker said; “I do not want to support in any way, shape or fashion, a phrase that for decades has been represented to hurt people in the minority communities,”. The racist chant that resounded through Donald Trump’s political rally was like a “dagger that went through my heart,” “As a former minister we have worked years in the inner cities,” Walker added. “The minority communities that value or put a little bit of trust and value in what we’re trying to do in Washington, I immediately thought of those folks.”

A Fox News poll also asked respondents directly whether they thought the “go back” tweets were racist. Most said they were, including half of white respondents. Republicans and Trump voters generally said they weren’t — though even about a fifth of those who supported him in 2016 said the tweets were racist.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) describes Immigrants’ Employment Rights Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws defines Harassment Based on National Origin

To include comments like, “Go back to where you came from, ” whether made by supervisors or by co-workers.

The news cycle covering this topic and this entire debate is helping Make America Racist Again. It is rolling back progress in race relations which was steadily improving for decades.  Trump’s comments may cause people of color to doubt the sincerity of white people. Trump’s Tweets were reckless.

CON/Anthony Watts

Racist? No. A brilliant political move? Absolutely. The Democrats are obsessed with the words written in the tweet; was he racist, heartless, mean, insulting, etc. ? Even though he didn’t say one thing about race, color, or even name anyone, four people stood up and self-identified. Not only did these fools stand up, but they also held a dramatic and angry press conference to complain about the tweet that was carried by networks and all over social media. That was a big win for the President, because he didn’t have to lift a finger to get them to show themselves.

But something else happened too. What that tweet did was to cause 2020 presidential candidates and almost every other Democrat to stand up and defend these four self-identified women who by their own words, clearly hate the USA and what it stands for.

Looking at their public statements, it is easy to see that these four women support socialism, open borders, abortion on demand, retracting the Second Amendment, new laws against so-called “hate speech,” free medical care for those here illegally, cancellation of student debts, free college for everyone, and Medicare for all at a $40 trillion dollar cost. In their mind, “free” equals “taxpayer funded.”

These four, “The Squad” as they’ve come to be known, have terrible public approval ratings, and as far as I know, zero accomplishments as elected officials. They seem too busy shouting to get anything meaningful done.

With that one Tweet, the president gave them opportunity to become the face and the heart of the Democrat party today. They all took the bait. It’s an epic win for President Trump, one he will use in the 2020 election. Online, the term for such a thing is “pwned” (leet-speak for owned), and own them he did.

Even CNN’s Jake Tapper said that Democratic Party sources admit Trump’s political move was brilliant, making “The Squad” their party’s de facto leaders.

And what about Trump’s statement saying, “Go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”?

Founding father and Sixth President John  Quincy Adams said it best in 1819 “… if they cannot accommodate themselves to the character, moral, political, and physical, of this country, with all its compensating balances of good and evil, the Atlantic is always open to them, to return to the land of their nativity and their fathers.”

PRO / Anthony Watts

Let’s look at data first, because without data, the argument is purely emotional. According to the data from all 18,000-plus local law enforcement agencies in the US, Chico does not fare well. Chicoans have a 1 in 219 chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime, and a 1 in 24 chance of becoming a victim of a property crime. Both are higher than the California and national averages.

With a crime index of 6, Chico is safer than a mere 6% of U.S. Cities. Oakland, CA is #1 for crime. Sacramento is #10. LA is #14. Who would have ever thought Chico was more dangerous to live in than these cities?

New York City has a crime index of 30, five times safer than Chico.

Coming here over 30 years ago, I remember remarking to myself that the newspaper and TV station had very little “if it bleeds it leads” type stories; it was refreshing. Chico felt safe to me. It doesn’t any more. Like many others weary of what’s become of our town, I think about leaving daily.

Full disclosure: I’m the victim of a crime in downtown Chico — a carjacking on Park Avenue, near the Jesus Center. Driving, minding my own business this guy in the street starts screaming about a bomb. I stop so I don’t run him over, and in the interest of public safety, ask him “where?” Next thing I know he’s piling into the vehicle’s passenger window demanding my keys. Fortunately, I had the sense to kill the engine, grab the keys, and run. CPD’s Jim Parrott was the arresting officer of just another drug addict so high he couldn’t tell fantasy from reality.

Now, I just avoid downtown. There’s no reason to risk going there anymore. I’m reminded of the first “Star Wars” movie, where Obi-Wan says “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.”

The city council seems to want to ignore our public safety issue, perhaps for fear of owning it. Yet they have declared a “Climate Emergency” while deflecting the “Crime Emergency” that’s right in our face every day. We can provide hard data to show Chicoans suffer from crime, but you won’t find one single piece of data showing any Chicoan suffering from climate change.

In my opinion, our city council needs to perform a cranial-posterior extraction maneuver.

(Source for data: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/chico/crime)

CON / Matt York

Currently, Chico does not have a “crime emergency,” however there is plenty of cause for concern. Violent crime was down 34 percent last year, but property crime was up 48 percent.

While some may experience more anxiety than others, we must resist the temptation to bastardize the word “emergency.” This problem reared its head on a national level during the border wall debate when the President declared a national emergency on the border with Mexico in order to access billions of dollars to build a wall to please his political supporters.

When we misuse a word like emergency we risk reducing its meaning from a higher to a lower state or condition.

In April of 2018, Siskiyou County supervisors declared a state of emergency because their local department was outmanned by the illegal pot farmers. Emergency declarations can provide government officials flexibility to quickly react to catastrophes and natural disasters which may  lead to grants and other financial help. In this case, there were too many illegal pot farmers and not enough sheriff’s deputies.

In 2013, a series of gun-related crimes culminated with the the death of a young boy prompting the East Palo Alto police chief to declare a “crime emergency.” Besides the one person who was killed, eight were shot within a two-week period. In the previous months, there were five murders and over 50 assaults with firearms.

These 2 examples were true emergencies.

The World Health Organization defines an emergency in time and space, it requires threshold values to be recognized, and it implies rules of engagement and an exit strategy. Conceptually, it relates best to response. Further, the WHO defines an emergency threshold as having a mortality rate above which an emergency is said to be occurring. Usually taken as a crude mortality rate of 1 per 10,000 per day, or as an under-five years of age mortality rate of 2 per 10,000 per day.

We need to be judicious with words like emergency. If we’re not careful and conditions deteriorate, we’ll be forced to use adjectives before the word like “dire” emergency or “severe” or “acute.” This further muddles our verbal communication.

We all deeply appreciate our police force and are grateful for their service to our city.  Chief Mike O’Brien did say that Chico has become “inundated by criminal activity.” But we recently added one sergeant and three officers, dedicated to reducing “quality of life” crimes like bicycle theft, car and home burglaries, as well as drug trafficking. However, he is not declaring an emergency.

Anthony Watts and Matt York are Chico residents who disagree on many things, but remain good friends.

PRO/Gordon Gregory

I dearly wish I could believe climate change is not a grave threat. But I’d have to ignore the thousands who’ve devoted their lives to the science and overwhelmingly conclude our consumption of fossil fuels is heating the planet, with devastating effects that will worsen and last many generations.

I’d also have to reject every serious scientific literature review, including the Trump Administration’s November climate assessment prepared by 300 researchers from 13 federal agencies. It’s conclusion: failure to slash fossil fuel use will cause “substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being … .”

Of immediate relevance to our area, the assessment states “the area burned by wildfire across the western United States from 1984 to 2015 was twice what would have burned had climate change not occurred.”

If we continue ignoring the issue, it says, fires will get much worse, meaning more Camp Fires.

Also consider the Defense Department’s January analysis indicating two-thirds of its “operationally critical installations are threatened by climate change.” The DoD has long concluded climate change-driven heat waves, droughts and floods will force mass migrations of people fleeing famine and poverty and greatly increase global conflicts.

Grasping the thin reed of doubt means disregarding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s October report concluding only quick action can avert the decimation of coral reefs and avoid an array of dreadful consequences we’re likely to see by 2030. Ninety-one scientists from 40 countries analyzing more than 6,000 studies prepared the report.

To doubt means pretending CO2 doesn’t trap heat, and direct measurements don’t prove it is accumulating rapidly. The correlation between fossil fuel use, atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increases are inescapably clear. NOAA and NASA reports show the five warmest years on record were the past five and the 20 warmest years occurred in the past 22 years.

Skeptics grasp at other explanations for the obvious heating, but the administration’s November assessment is unambiguous. “Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century.”

What skepticism most requires is willingness to accept the risks of worsening wildfires, record-breaking hurricanes, floods and droughts, rising seas, crumbing ecosystems, and increasing temperatures that will curse uncounted future generations.

While I hate thinking about what climate change means for the world, the time for wishful thinking is not only past, it’s dangerous, for it gives us excuses to do nothing.

CON/Anthony Watts

There was a time I believed this, and was fully on the “pro” side; no more. Global warming is a very complex issue and temperature data isn’t as accurate as you might think. It’s not just increased carbon dioxide controlling temperature; there are other factors.

I published studies in 2010 and 2015 demonstrating how weather stations used to measure climate have been encroached upon by human development over the last century, resulting in warmer temperatures. Almost half of the warming signal in the United States is data from stations next to heatsinks where they were not decades ago.

Asphalt and concrete infrastructure have increased but the thermometers stayed in the same place. Anyone who’s stood next to a brick building in the early evening who can feel heat radiating from the surface knows how energy from the sun stored in the bricks radiates heat into the night. USA nighttime low temperatures greatly increased over the past 30 years where daytime highs have not. The method used to calculate warming uses averages of the daily highs and lows over time. Based on examining weather station metadata, I found half of the average temperature increase can be attributed to proximity to increased infrastructure radiating stored heat at night, affecting the lows, thus the average.

Las Vegas is an example. With increased buildings, roads, and homes the nighttime temperature has shot up but daytime highs have not. Guess what? The official climate temperature is monitored at hugely expanded McCarran International Airport. Chicago O’Hare is another example; you may note your luggage tags say “ORD.”. Think this stands for O’Hare? It does not, its “OrchaRD Field” which is what that airport was named and resembled when created. Now it’s a megaplex of terminals and tarmac, but temperature is still measured there. This encroachment process has happened worldwide.

There’s fear that temperature increase is bad for humanity, yet humanity has thrived in warm periods of history, and faltered during cold periods. Famines, epidemics, and death track squarely with cold, and NASA says the Earth is greener over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The polar ice caps and polar bears are still there.

Recent calls from politicians to change our lifestyles or face doom resemble this famous quote from H.L. Mencken: “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”

Gordon Gregory is a former newspaper reporter and currently a small business owner in Paradise and founding member of the Chico Chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.  Anthony Watts is known for his time reporting the weather on KHSL-TV, as well as KPAY NewsTalk 1290 radio. He operates the website wattsupwiththat.com, which is part of the ER blog network.

FUTURE TOPICS: “Should vaccinations be mandatory for children?” “Are you in favor of more roundabouts in Chico?” “Is baseball too slow, or should they just leave it alone?” If you’re ready to state your case in 400 words, reach editor Mike Wolcott at mwolcott@chicoer.com.

Now there is a new scale to characterize strength and impacts of atmospheric river type storms, just like hurricanes. The scale is useful because atmospheric rivers often have a significant impact on California, bringing large amounts of snow, rain, and sometimes, catastrophic flooding. They are also a significant source for our water supply.

A new study, in the February 2019 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and published by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the UC San Diego ranks the strength and impacts of these “atmospheric rivers” type storms, sometimes called a “Pineapple Express” due to some of the moisture originating as far away as Hawaii.

Just like we have with hurricane strength categories, this new scale assigns five categories to atmospheric rivers from 1 to 5 and labels the categories “weak,” “moderate,” “strong,” “extreme” and “exceptional.” The categories consider the amount of water vapor the carried by the storms and the duration at a given location.

While the scale might be fine for helping people understand the strength of the storm when reported in the news, the real value is helping to determine if the atmospheric river will be beneficial, hazardous, or both.

The new intensity scale ranks atmospheric rivers like this:

Cat 1 (Weak): Primarily beneficial.

Cat 2 (Moderate): Mostly beneficial, but also somewhat hazardous.

Cat 3 (Strong): Balance of beneficial and hazardous.

Cat 4 (Extreme): Mostly hazardous, but also beneficial.

Cat 5 (Exceptional): Primarily hazardous.

For example, in California, there was the “Great Flood of 1862” which was an atmospheric river that continued non-stop from late December 1861 to mid-January 1862. It flooded downtown Sacramento, and Chico experienced flooding from Big Chico Creek. That storm would be categorized as a Cat 5, or “Exceptional.” It is the largest flood event since California was settled.

An example of a Cat 4 (Extreme) atmospheric river that would be mostly hazardous, but also beneficial occurred on Jan. 8-9, 2017. That storm continued for 36 hours and produced up to 14 inches of rain in the Sierra Nevada, causing many rivers to reach flood stage. It was a major contributor to the Oroville Dam spillway crisis.

Dozens of other storm events throughout California history can now be ranked by this new system.

In the study, researchers noted that 80 percent of levee breaches in California’s Central Valley are associated with atmospheric rivers, so this new scale will be helpful to water resource managers and emergency planning personnel in determining if the next storm coming our way will be helpful, hurtful, or both.

PRO

By Matt York

The City of Chico’s prohibition of retail cannabis is not working. The black market thrives, criminals get rich, and retail taxes are evaded. The retailers are pot dealers and they can sell to customers who are underaged or have poor mental health.

Our city needs proper retailers to play the role of the Learned Intermediary who interacts with the consumer of a product. Liquor store and gun shop retail clerks are good examples of Learned Intermediaries who help keep potentially harmful products out of the hands of customers who may be prone to abuse.

Liquor store clerks are on the lookout for would-be customers who may be abusing alcohol. Unlike black market drug dealers, retail clerks are trained to evaluate customers, doing their best to determine if the person purchasing liquor is a responsible individual.

With recreational use of marijuana now legal in nine states plus Washington D.C., the latest Fox News Poll finds a record number of voters nationally favor legalization. The poll shows 59 percent of voters support legalizing marijuana. A Gallup poll showed that 64% of Americans favor legalization, and even a majority of Republicans back it.  In the near future the Chico City Council will likely vote yes and follow the trend set by Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and Canada.  According to data from the California Bureau of Cannabis Control, the state currently has 358 licensed recreational marijuana stores. College towns like San Luis Obispo  and Davis licensed retail stores last year.

Legal cannabis revenues in the U.S. exceeded $10 billion last year with a quarter-million jobs devoted just to the handling of marijuana plants, according to New Frontier Data, a leading cannabis market research firm. Another report from the investment bank Cowen estimated that legalization in California would triple the size of the nation’s legal pot industry within 10 years. This points to the potential economic impact on Chico as entrepreneurs begin to grow, process and distribute. Like beer and almonds, large volumes of cannabis products produced by Chico-based businesses could be shipped to markets outside of our community, bringing hundreds of millions of dollars into our local economy.

Culture is always changing. Chico has become world famous for beer in spite of the fact that Annie Bidwell, the pioneer and founder of society in Chico, was a leader in the temperance movement against the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Today, in a similar vein, the cCity cCouncil’s current prohibition of retail cannabis sales requires change as well.

CON

By Anthony Watts

Let’s look at another college town that tried this experiment. Last summer, I had the opportunity to visit Boulder, Colorado, where retail cannabis is big business. There were billboards all over town advertising “pot shops” and there was even a couple of “chain stores” with presence throughout the city. They seemed as ubiquitous as Starbucks.

The stores I saw seemed well-kept and well regulated, even looking cleaner than most liquor stores. From external appearances, it all seemed like legit business. One thing I noted from viewing store websites, was that cannabis for sale today is far more potent than 30 years ago, due to selective breeding.

From a tax revenue standpoint, Colorado’s 5-year legalization experiment seems to be working. Recreational marijuana sales in Denver from 2014-2017 were $1.038 billion, with a tax revenue on recreational marijuana from 2014-Oct. 2018 of $173.1 million. That’s not small potatoes, and certainly attractive to politicians.

According to recent research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), since legalization, vehicular accidents are up by as much as six percent in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, compared with neighboring states that didn’t legalize marijuana for recreational use.

A separate IIHS study examined accidents logged by law enforcement before and after retail sales were legalized in Colorado, Oregon and Washington. The IIHS study says data from those three states demonstrated a 5.2 percent increase in the rate of crashes per million vehicle registrations, compared with neighboring states that didn’t legalize marijuana sales.

Citing a state report, the Denver Post reported in October 2018: “Colorado has not experienced an increase in marijuana use among young people, although it was the single most common reason for school expulsions in the 2016-17 school year, the first year it was broken out as its own category.”

They also said: “driving fatalities involving cannabinoids are on the rise”

Proponents often gloss over such issues, but think about this from a January E-R editorial:

“In the aftermath of the Camp Fire, there are more cars on our local roads than ever before. By a matter of simple mathematics, that also means there are more careless drivers on our roads than ever before.”

Do we really need to add increased cannabis impaired driving to that mix due to easy availability? I think the timing is really bad, and a detriment to safety in our community.

PRO

By Anthony Watts

From a conservative viewpoint, since there’s unwillingness for cooperation from the other side of the aisle, labeling the wall as “ineffective,” “unnecessary” a “waste” and “immoral,” this seems like the only course of action that remains.

What amazes me is that we are even having this conversation at all, because as “8 U.S. Code § 1325. Improper entry by alien” states:

“Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”

It’s the law, so why are some so afraid to enhance enforcement by strengthening our border?

I think it is because some in political circles see a source for voter rolls. After all, there have been multiple pushes to give voting rights to those who came here illegally. Recently in Texas, election officials announced that as many as 58,000 people voted illegally in state elections spanning almost two decades. Those numbers are in dispute, but clearly at least there have been cases where votes were illegally cast because no proof of citizenship is required to vote.

We are a nation of immigrants. In 2016 immigrants comprised 13.5% of the U.S. population, and we hosted one-fifth of all the world’s immigrants in 2017. We have averaged about 1 million legal immigrants per year that went through the process of education and naturalization to become good citizens. It is unfair to those who went through that process to coddle those who came here illegally.

Since the U.S. Border Patrol formed in 1924, illegal immigration has been increasing. In the 1990s we saw big upticks in drug trafficking and those who came here illegally. Since then, concerns about our nation’s security have become a major issue.

According to President Trump, those who have entered the country illegally avoid $113 billion a year in income tax revenue. Illegal immigration enables drugs, crime, sex trafficking, and human misery.

Stop this nonsense once and for all — build the wall.

CON

By Matt York

State of Emergency. Noun: a situation of national danger or disaster in which a government suspends normal constitutional procedures in order to regain control.

Butte County residents can agree that the Camp Fire was most certainly a state of emergency. Most would agree about the attacks on 9/11 qualify. And all would agree that a state of emergency should not be declared in an effort to fulfill a campaign promise.

Let’s rewind to nearly four years ago. On June 16, 2015, Donald Trump officially announced his candidacy for the presidency. Promises around the wall were immediate:

“I will build a great wall ― and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me ― and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

So why has it taken him nearly three years to threaten a state of emergency? Why didn’t he declare a state of emergency on the day he was sworn in? Why didn’t the he declare a state of emergency on the day before he lost control of Congress in early January 2019?

The answer is clear: He wants his wall, and he wants to fulfill his campaign promise. If Congress won’t allot or divert funding he wants, he’ll look for loopholes — ones that could set very dangerous presidential precedents.

The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations. And yet, the USC03] 50 USC Ch. 34: NATIONAL EMERGENCIES contains no mentions of the word “immigration” and similarly no references to any sort of “express allowance” for U.S. presidents to declare immigration emergencies.

If the 1976 National Emergencies Act is used for Trump to fulfill his campaign promise, you can expect future Democratic presidents to do the same on issues like climate change and other personal agendas. This is why Mitch McConnell warned President Trump that declaring a national emergency could create a rift in the GOP conference.

Politicians should be very careful when exercising powers which could be abused in the future by their successors. The 1976 National Emergencies Act can be implemented once a single president starts the trend. A future Democratic president, for example, could use it for universal health care, preventing gun violence, or making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. Certainly even President Trump would not agree with this future possibility.

 Anthony Watts is known for his time reporting the weather on KHSL-TV, as well as KPAY NewsTalk 1290 radio. He operates the website wattsupwiththat.com which is part of the ER blog network.

Matt York is the Executive Director of One Mobile Projector per Trainer. He founded Videomaker Inc., a leading publisher on video production, in 1986 in Chico.