Home>Articles>California Assemblywoman Introduces Bill to Promote ‘Science-based Decisions’ for Climate Response
Laura Friedman
Assemblywoman Laura Friedman. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

California Assemblywoman Introduces Bill to Promote ‘Science-based Decisions’ for Climate Response

They weren’t using ‘science’ for climate change decisions?

By Katy Grimes, February 26, 2020 3:37 pm

“Assemblywoman Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) introduced legislation that would ensure the state’s actions and investment on climate change adaption is science-based,” reads a press statement from Friedman. “The measure, Assembly Bill 2371, creates an advisory team of distinguished scientists that would make recommendations on California’s climate adaption plans and investments.”

“California is a world leader on climate change,” said Friedman. “It is critical that our decisions are rooted in science and that we invest wisely in transformative projects that will protect our citizens and our ecosystems from the future impacts of climate change.”

AB 32. (Photo: California Air Resources Board)

“There’s a time and place for all good ideas.  This one’s time, if it was ever, was 2006, when AB32 was first passed…California could have used some real science back then,” said Tom Tanton, Director of Science and Technology for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. “But today, the ship for real science has long ago sailed.  Global warming, errr climate change, has become so politicized there’s no room for actual science or dissenting view.”

Assemblywoman Friedman’s bill

Here’s what Friedman says her bill is for:

California’s changing climate increases the risk of catastrophic wildfire, drought, floods, extreme weather, biodiversity loss, and sea level rise.  These changes are a major threat to the health and safety of all Californians, and they will have potentially devastating consequences for California’s agriculture, water supply, unique ecosystems, and economy.  The economic cost to California for these losses by 2050 is estimated at over $100 billion – each year.

This year, the Governor has proposed a $4.75 billion climate adaptation bond measure that would appear on the ballot in November.  Investments from this bond would be a down payment on the California’s future and help the state prepare for and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate. 

Should the voters approve a bond, the science team created by AB 2371 would guide the spending of these funds, ensuring that climate investments are cost-effective and make major gains toward protecting the state from current and future climate damages.

Unfortunately, the political elites in charge of California are exempted from hypocrisy. In 2016, I explained: “The inconsistencies of California Gov. Jerry Brown’s climate change policies, together with his immigration policies, are formidable and deceptive—one policy is driving taxpayers and businesses out of the state, and the other is driving droves of unskilled, unemployed aliens into the state.”

Brown claimed in his final term as governor that California had an overpopulation problem, and the ongoing drought the state was experiencing at the time was proof that the explosion of population in California has reached the limit of what the states’ resources can provide:

“We are altering this planet with this incredible power of science, technology and economic advance,” Brown told the publisher of the Los Angeles Times. “If California is going to have 50 million people, they’re not going to live the same way the native people lived, much less the way people do today…. You have to find a more elegant way of relating to material things. You have to use them with greater sensitivity and sophistication.”

Yet Jerry Brown and now Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state’s Democrats continue to put out a welcome mat and a long list of taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens and refugees. According to former Gov. Brown, inviting more people to live in California should only make it harder to meet the strict lower carbon emission goals of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, AB 32.

Most Californians want politicians to stop promoting these ineffective and costly climate change bills which do nothing to lower or increase the earth’s temperature, or prevent wildfire, drought, floods, extreme weather, biodiversity loss, and sea level rise.

Friedman’s Assembly Bill 2371 merely creates a bureaucratic panel to disperse to climate-friendlies the anticipated $4.75 billion climate adaptation bond measure funding. AB 32 already authorized the creation of the Climate Action Team, an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee.

And if that is not enough committee work, there have been numerous other related bills and policies in created to augment AB 32 including:

“This bill will just lead inevitably to worsening cronyism,” Tanton said. “A panel of ‘scientists’ charged with doling out billions of taxpayer funds?  Maybe they’ll make a movie starring Timothy Bottoms and John Houseman. Better yet, why not pool California’s taxpayer money with national efforts at DOE/EPA to increase leverage.  That’d improve ‘bang for the buck’ but limit the ability to fund pet projects and politicians’ friends. Or even better still, return the money to the taxpayers, and encourage researchers to actually develop real, rather than political, solutions unfettered by ‘government grants.’ Private researchers and technology development is doing twice as good as state mandates and subsidies in reducing greenhouse gasses and government funding is perhaps the least efficient and least effective type of R&D.  Let’s spend our money where it might do some good.”


For a more complete list of California’s climate change related legislation, and climate change related Executive Orders, the California Air Resources Board recommends visiting these web pages: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/state/legislation.html and http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/state/executive_orders.html, But both web pages have been taken down. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:


10 thoughts on “California Assemblywoman Introduces Bill to Promote ‘Science-based Decisions’ for Climate Response

  1. “They weren’t using ‘science’ for climate change decisions?” Ha ha! I love it.
    Reading on, I see it’s about more money for these people. Always more money. It’s never NOT about money. Why aren’t they embarrassed? It’s not good when I’m more embarrassed than they are.
    Meanwhile, I reject Friedman’s premises about climate change, so I certainly don’t want her and her cronies getting more money to puff up the lie even further and beat the dead horse until it’s deader. In fact, she has such a bad record of credibility on this stuff, I think I’ll make it easy on myself from now on and just reject ALL of her premises. About everything. Before I even hear what they are.
    Good job Laura Friedman!

  2. Just a simple question from a Southern California surf vet for 60+ years. (Who, by the way, notes that the high tides at Rincon, County Line, and Manhattan appear to reach the same levels today as they did in 1960.). The question remains — where is all this water going to come from to raise the seas this preposterous estimate of 8.2 feet? And don’t tell me it’s from melting glaciers.

  3. The scientific fact that C02 has yet to be fully accepted as a green house gas is always left out of the discussion.

  4. I’ll go ya one step further, during the Obama years they wanted to tear down the Dams along the Klamath River the scientists and engineers they brought in started to find issues with the data and conclusions that preceded them, they got transferred or fired, that’s the kind of science they have used up until now.

    1. Same thing with the Mystery Train. It took Jerry 3 tries with consultants to get the numbers he wanted. They hired the guy who had just built the longest tunnel in the world to study the proposed route through the Tehachapis and he concluded it could not be done safely due to unstable geology. They promptly hired another consultant to study how to slow the train down coming out of the tunnel they were just told they could not build. BTW the HSR board still meets and gets paid to spin hallucinatory fantasies about a project they don’t know how to pay for or even exactly where it is going yet. Not a single foot of track laid and they have no actual train design.

      1. And they have to acquire more rights of way (right?) before they can put down track for the as yet unknown route. What an unholy mess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *