July 7, 2025 • 26 mins
(Friday 07/07/25)
Why California’s plan to ‘make polluters pay’ stalled again. The battle to keep consumers means smaller packs of cookies and chips. Trump signs order to raise national park fees for foreign visitors.
Why California’s plan to ‘make polluters pay’ stalled again. The battle to keep consumers means smaller packs of cookies and chips. Trump signs order to raise national park fees for foreign visitors.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
KFI Handle here.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
It is a Monday morning, July seventh, and before we
jump into our topic of California here, we don't come.
We leave real quickly. Neil, let's talk about what you're
doing Saturday.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
I want to invite everybody out Saturday, July twelfth. That's
this Saturday to Wild Fork Foods in Santa Clarita. It's
right there on Magic Mountain Parkway two to five. We'll
be doing the show. We're celebrating summer grilling season, and
we'll be giving away food samples from wild Fork Foods
cooked by a.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Grill pit master.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
There prizes every fifteen minutes or so, including a chance
to win Fork in the Road Chef's package that's a
barbecue proteins from Wild Fork tickets see the Dodgers, Hornblower,
Dining Yacht, Magic Mountain tickets, and I'll be given away
some Fork Report swag as well. But I'd love to
me you come on out. For more information, go to
(01:05):
KFI AM six forty dot com slash wild Fork.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Yeah, that's I love KFI swag. For example, we give
away t shirts that are made in Pakistan by kids
eight years and younger. You can't actually get them wet.
They tend to run and you can't sweat in them.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
If that's not true. And these this is fork report swag.
I make all this stuff myself.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
So yeah, that's true, that's true, otherwise it wouldn't happen.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Quality, Yes, absolutely all right, moving into California or moving
out of California, you would think California would be at
the forefront of environmental issues, and it usually is. Where
California goes, the rest of the country goes in many ways.
For example, cars emission standards aren't cars in California are
(01:59):
much greater than others ate. Well, guess what. California is
such a market that every car sold in the United
States has those emission standards or virtually all of them.
And so yeah, you would think California would be really
up the top of the list. Well, there is one
major plan that is not going to where it should be,
(02:23):
and that's the Climate Superfund. It's a bill, it's stalling
in Sacramento, and there's a lot of opposition, a lot
of lobbying from industry. Read the oil industry chambers, of Commerce. Now,
New York and Vermont have already passed their version of
the super fund bills they did last year.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
And this is so important.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
To the fossil fuel people, and I'll tell you about
that in a minute. And other opposition groups that they
have outspent supporters of this bill or these bills over the.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Years tend to one.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
But I've always wondered, relative to the impact of a
lot of these bills that are in the billions of
dollars two three five million dollars to a legislator's campaign,
can truly influence that particular legislator legislator.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Which I don't get.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
So what California lawmakers have for years vowed to do
is to hold fossil fuel companies liable for damages caused
by their emissions.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Well, here is the problem.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
It is a global issue where let's say you're going
after Exon and you blame Exxon not for a specific fire,
but for worsening wildfires and floods and the costs of
climate recovery and adaptation. In other words, you're blaming a
(03:58):
company or the wildfires that happened in California, although they
didn't start them. And it's not PG and E for example,
where you can point to a specific tower power pole
where the line goes down and you've got a spark
that ignites a wildfire.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
No, no, this is globally.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
You are responsible for wildfires and pollution globally.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
And so here's the latest version.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Senate Bill six 's eighty four and Assembly Bill twelve
forty three, they're together. Basically, it's the Polluters Pay Climate
Superfunds Act, and it would require the largest oil and
gas companies doing business in the state to pay a
share of the damages caused by planet warming greenhouse gases gases.
(04:51):
Now it's probably true, but connecting those dots in terms
of liability, that.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Is a trick.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
The fees would be collected into a superfund that then
is put towards projects and programs to help the state mitigate,
adapt respond to climate change. And as it went through,
as it has gone through many years. In this case,
for example, the legislation did game on minium, but it's
(05:23):
been put.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
On hold till next year.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
This is what the legislature does is instead of outright
killing a bill, they let it die.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
And that's what happened.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
A similar bill introduced last year and cleared three committees,
and then it died in the Senate Appropriations Committee, because
that's how politics work. And California continues to struggle while
the White House is ramping up federal direct directives for
(05:57):
more oil, more gas. So these Superfund bills are going
against what the administration wants. And what they're doing is
punishing oil and gas companies, and that's the last thing
that the administration wants. So in the first quarter of
this year, fossil fuel companies and chambers of commerce and
(06:17):
other opponents spend ten point six million dollars lobbing against
this Climate Superfund Act, more than ten times spent by
the environmental groups. As I have said, and the Climate
Superfund Act is modeled after the federal Superfund Law that
(06:37):
requires companies to pay for the cleanup of contamination caused
by their activities such as hazardous waste disposal, of accidents
or spills. Now Here is the huge difference under the
Superfund Act, and that is cleaning up a specific place.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
You can directly a tribute.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
To an area being contaminated by a company, and what
the local authorities where city can do is apply to
the super Fund to clean that up.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
There it is.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
There's the contamination right there the corner of First and
Maple where there used to be a gas station, and
we want the Superfund app to clean it up because
there's no one there left to clean it up. Business
is gone, has been around four years and years, and
we have a contaminated area, and in some cases massive
contaminated areas, for example landfills that go on acres and
(07:41):
acres and there's no one to pay for it, so
you go against the Superfund. This is not a contaminated
area they're talking about.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
This is the climate.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
This is wildfunds going on, drought, sea levels going up.
Now Kansas is a little bit backwards because they have
yet to pass the bill that talks about their sea
levels going up a foot and a half, so they're
(08:20):
sort of behind the times. California is not. And therein
lies the problem. How do you blame an industry, Well,
an industry you can blame because fossil fuels are responsible
for a lot of our problems, and the scientists can
absolutely connect those dots. But then going from fossil fuels
(08:45):
are responsible to Exon being responsible, and we're going to
figure out the percentage that Exon pays. Okay, I want
to get into California and this superfund climate superfund bill
that keeps on being introduced us and will not get
passed at all because the fossil fuel companies and the
(09:06):
Chambers of Commerce are simply saying.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
No to it.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Because the gist of this bill is taxing these major
oil companies and having them pay into this superfund to
mitigate wildfires, climate change, drought.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And I mean, that's a big, big picture.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
And this is modeled after the federal Superfund law that
requires companies to pay for the cleanup of contamination.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Caused by their activities, but it is specific. This one
is big picture.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
And the climate version, this state's proposed climate version would
direct the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties
who are responsible parties here here's how they find responsible parties.
Oil companies that produce more than one billion metric tons
(10:08):
of CO two emissions globally from nineteen ninety to twenty
twenty four. I mean, how is that for just a
comprehensive You're responsible for everything wrong in my life and
you're going to pay for it bill, And I don't
quite know how they're going to do it, it makes sense.
(10:30):
I mean, for those of us that believe in climate change,
and I have for a lot of years, you bet,
I am a fan in the belief of climate change,
even when early on it's a hoax. None of that
is true. Believe me, it is true. But how do
you tag these major companies? Well, this is one way,
(10:51):
a billion dollar metric tons of CO two emissions globally
from nineteen ninety to twenty twenty four, and those are
oil companies that had done more than that. So the
California the EPA Environmental Protection Agency has one year to
conduct a comprehensive study to apportion damages to each polluter
(11:13):
based on the amount of pollution based on the emissions
that are released by these companies. And I mean, how
do you do that? Now, a couple of facts that
we do know. Fossil fuels account for about seventy five
percent of greenhouse gas emissions, which is the primary driver
(11:34):
of global warming. And we know global warming contributes to
wildfires and floods and droughts and extreme heat, as well
as sea level rise and air pollution. So state Senate
officials wrote this, the consequences of climate change come with
a huge price tag that's only increasing.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Here is a stat wildfires and cal.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
California in twenty twenty four years ago caused economic losses
of about nineteen billion dollars. In January, the wildfires we
had in southern California estimated to be two hundred and
fifty billion dollars. That effectively is one fire if you
(12:22):
count the Palisades fire, and you count the ones in
Malibu and the Eaton fire.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
Put all that together. So who is against this bill? Oh?
Speaker 3 (12:32):
The Western States Petroleum Association. Who do you think those
people are. It's a lobbying group for the oil producers,
the California Chamber of Commerce. Why because it's business being tagged,
and the Chamber of Commerce, let's just say they're not
consumer friendly. And the old companies say, look at this.
(12:53):
This imposes retroactive liability on companies for lawful business activities
dating back to nineteen ninety perfectly lawful. We weren't violating
anything when and we still aren't, and all of a
sudden you have retroactive regulatory uncertainty. Also, the Western States
(13:18):
Petroleum Association arguing that it's a de facto carbon tax
and it ripples across goods services economies and would create
a burden of up to thirty four hundred dollars per
year per family. Not everyone agrees with this assessment, for sure.
(13:40):
There is someone who's looked at as Claire Brown, a
professor of economics at UC Berkeley, who studied this bill
and what we'll do, what will happen as a result, said,
you know what, gas prices are not going to increase,
for example, And they claim they will because California's pump
prices are primarily set by global crude oil.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
But it could be you're right, the global market concerned.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
The global market is in fact responsible the world price
of oil. But I read something over the weekend that
says this, this is California and taxes.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
If oil were zero.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
And we did not pay for oil, if the refinery
costs of oil were zero, we would still pay a
dollar eighty one in taxes. So I'm arguing that the
major oil companies or California does have a little bit
(14:45):
to do with the amount of gasoline that we pay,
and what the Superfund is saying, you know what, We're
going to make these companies pay for what they're doing.
Problem is globally really sea level change around the world,
and we're gonna blame Exon and we're gonna blame Mobile
(15:09):
and we want them to pay. I mean, I think
in theory I don't have a problem with that, but
practically speaking.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
How do you deal with this?
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Okay, moving on, and this one has to do And
Neil and I have covered this before, and that is
how food companies package their products. And what we have
always talked about is newer and better. So what they
do is they come out with newer packaging and what
(15:43):
it really turns out to be is you get the
same price, but you get less than.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
All of a sudden.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Well, for example, I go to Costco and Dell sausage,
which I really love. There are Apple sausages, and there
used to be six to a package. Now there are five,
same price. Same thing with their muffins. By the way,
(16:13):
a quick word. You ever had Costco muffins?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Yes, of course they're god awful.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
I find Costco muffins and I'm a big fan of
Costco food horrific. But here's the new one, and that
is in order to keep prices even.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Lower, or to bring them lower.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
You're talking tiny little bits of food like a cookie
or let's say they've developed a different brand, a different
kind of sales, for example, snack size that they haven't before.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
And how prevalent is this?
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Neil talk about the different sizing of the products themselves
for a different market.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Well, so you were taught talking about shrinkflation, which frustrates
a lot of people, and even the former president Joe
Biden had pushed back on this. This is slightly different
as you find companies now looking at sizing. So let's
say in a standard situation, you might have small, medium,
(17:20):
and large.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
If you have three sizes.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Well, now they're having sizes that are in between those
as well. So this isn't hey, we're going to take
away some of the product and charge you the same.
This is giving people more options. And what that does
for them is give them a larger margin because the
smaller the packaging, the larger the margin in most cases.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
So they so let me quickly interrupt here, So normally small, medium, large,
do they now add medium minus or small plus?
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Well, you know what they might come up with the
fund names like I got, there's like family size, and
then there's like party size, which is bigger, and then
you have fun sized snack bars.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
You know that are tiny.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
But the thing here is whether it's you know, pepper
farm cookies or goldfish crackers, cam you know, you can
find these smaller packaged I kind of like this, and
I'll tell you why. I think there's sometimes that we
especially in the States, want the biggest amount or the
(18:28):
most amount, and then some of it goes to waste.
You know, smaller families don't need a whole loaf of bread,
or if you want to snack, you know, we're dealing
with obesity. If you want to snack, then you can
get a couple of cookies rather than a whole box
of cookies that you're probably gonna plow through anyways. And
this goes for chips, this goes for beverages. You know
(18:48):
how they went from the twelve ounce cans to the
little eight ounce cans of soda. And I know you
think that's crazy, but sometimes if I want a little
bit of soda, I don't want a twelve ounce can.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Do you know what?
Speaker 3 (19:00):
I find what I love to do in this regard,
and that is not buy less than but individual packaging.
For example, I just bought a box of Lorna Dune
cookies and you open the package and there are packages
of inside packages of two cookies. Or I buy, for example,
(19:22):
a package of Laize potato chips at Costco and it's
a big box and it's thirty individual snack size packs.
That makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Well, that was popular for a while too, some years back,
where they would do these one hundred calorie count packages
for people that were counting calories. This fits sort of
into that. But this also hits people in the pocketbook
where they go, you know what, I just want to
taste of something or a cup, you know, a little
handful of chips or whatever it is. And they're much
(19:54):
less expensive, the margins are better. And this is like
a sort of diverse sifying for these companies where they
have all these kind of smaller sizes and now instead
of three sizes, they may have a dozen different sizes
of the same product.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
All right, here's the quest I want to leave you
with this.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
How do you eat only one family size bag of chips?
Speaker 1 (20:22):
I am not the guy to ask that question because
Kraft Mac and Cheese thinks I'm a family of four.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Well, there you go, all right, thank you, neil Oh,
You're welcome. Bill.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
I'm just here for your needs, sir, Yes you are.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
And this is why Neil does Foody Friday and the
Fork Report on Saturday afternoon. Now on Thursday, people really
didn't pay attention to what happened amongst everything else, but
President Trump sign an executive order to increase entrance fees
at US national parks for visitors from other countries. Not
(20:58):
a sense that makes a fair amount of sense if
you think about it. And all of this is going
on as the administration is cutting the national park spending
by more than a third. More than thirty percent of
the budget for national parks have been cut, and the
(21:18):
original the additional revenue from foreign tourists alone the White
House has will raise hundreds of millions of dollars for
conservation and deferred maintenance projects that have not been taken
care of. One of the things about our national parks
is they are just beloved by the American people. I mean,
the number of people that go to national parks is astronomical.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
They're four hundred and thirty.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Three national parks in the US, about one hundred of
them charge fees various fees during the year at various times.
Numbers range all over the place, and so The order
directs the Park Service to number one two things, ensure
(22:03):
that US residents receive priority, and to charge foreign visitors more.
Don't know how much more. We don't know when it
kicks in. But it's just an order saying you do this.
And the White House said, charging higher entrance fees to
foreign tourists happens all the time. It's common policy at
(22:24):
national parks around the world. So the administration is cutting
a billion dollars from the Park Service budget in twenty
twenty six fiscal.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Year and that is a lot.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
So permanent staffing at the Park Service since Trump took office.
Since Trump took office in January has dropped twenty four percent.
So you've got eight thousand seasonal workers, well forty five
hundred of the eight thousand seasonal workers that the administration pledged.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Would be hired.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
That's only forty five hundred out of eight thousand. The
government says that's who we're going to hire. And so
what ends up happening is there are reduced personnel levels
at some national parks.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Other's not.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Yosemite got hit pretty badly amongst other parts. So there
are closures of various trails, some programs that have been cut,
a lot of programs for kids, for disadvantaged kids, I
mean all kinds of programs that the Park Service has
and so that has been reduced. Emergency response operations have
(23:38):
been reduced. And to give you some numbers here in
twenty twenty three, that's the last time we had numbers.
Three hundred and thirty one million people that year went
to national parks. That's almost the entire population of the
United States. Three quarters of the population of the United
(24:00):
States went to these parks. And national parks are just
a big deal. However, it's part of the budget cutting
because we know what the Trump administration where the priorities are.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
And it's no surprise. And I know the last time
I went to a National park, where did I go?
Speaker 3 (24:21):
I think I went to Zion National Park Bryce up
in Utah, and it was pretty spectacular, you know.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
I mean you look.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Out over the ledge and I've gone to the Grand Canyon. Uh,
And I wasn't able to do what I've wanted to
do since I've been a kid, and that is pee
into the Grand Canyon.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
There was just no place I could have done that.
Don't you want to pee in the Grand Canyon?
Speaker 1 (24:50):
No, sir, Oh, I didn't want to get close enough
to be able to pee into this.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
See that's the problem.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
You know, you have to get too close to the
edge to pee into the Grand Canyon.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
That the Grand Canyon is so spectacular even standing there,
it doesn't look real.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
That's true, do you know? And here's an interesting factoid.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
The Grand Canyon is the only place that the Post
Office still delivers mail by mule. Really yeah, going down
the hill. You can check that out. By the way,
if that's still true, I don't know where. I don't
know where Anne went.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
So Heather, would you look that up?
Speaker 3 (25:31):
See? Well, let me ask, hey, siri, Oh boy, is
mail delivered to the Grand Canyon by mule? No? That's oh,
that's just a oh on a minute, come on, that's
just a breaking story.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
I hate when that happens.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Hey, Siri, I'm saying yes, I'm getting yes, the mail
is still delivered by mule in certain parts of the
Grand Canyon.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
I rest my case. There you go, there you go.
You know what?
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Drugs are still delivered by mules.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
That's very funny. I like that.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Nice way to end the show. I had Neil, all right,
we're done. Guys is over completely. We're back again tomorrow morning.
Heather Brooker is here all week.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Filling in for Amy and the rest of us.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
And it starts tomorrow morning with Heather and with Will
Wake Up Call, Neil and I jump aboard at six
am until nine and we do this all over. Gary
and Shannon up next. This is KFI AM sixty. You've
been listening to the Bill Handle Show. Catch my Show
Monday through Friday, six am to nine am, and anytime
(26:37):
on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
KFI Handle here.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
It is a Monday morning, July seventh, and before we
jump into our topic of California here, we don't come.
We leave real quickly. Neil, let's talk about what you're
doing Saturday.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
I want to invite everybody out Saturday, July twelfth. That's
this Saturday to Wild Fork Foods in Santa Clarita. It's
right there on Magic Mountain Parkway two to five. We'll
be doing the show. We're celebrating summer grilling season, and
we'll be giving away food samples from wild Fork Foods
cooked by a.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Grill pit master.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
There prizes every fifteen minutes or so, including a chance
to win Fork in the Road Chef's package that's a
barbecue proteins from Wild Fork tickets see the Dodgers, Hornblower,
Dining Yacht, Magic Mountain tickets, and I'll be given away
some Fork Report swag as well. But I'd love to
me you come on out. For more information, go to
(01:05):
KFI AM six forty dot com slash wild Fork.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Yeah, that's I love KFI swag. For example, we give
away t shirts that are made in Pakistan by kids
eight years and younger. You can't actually get them wet.
They tend to run and you can't sweat in them.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
If that's not true. And these this is fork report swag.
I make all this stuff myself.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
So yeah, that's true, that's true, otherwise it wouldn't happen.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Quality, Yes, absolutely all right, moving into California or moving
out of California, you would think California would be at
the forefront of environmental issues, and it usually is. Where
California goes, the rest of the country goes in many ways.
For example, cars emission standards aren't cars in California are
(01:59):
much greater than others ate. Well, guess what. California is
such a market that every car sold in the United
States has those emission standards or virtually all of them.
And so yeah, you would think California would be really
up the top of the list. Well, there is one
major plan that is not going to where it should be,
(02:23):
and that's the Climate Superfund. It's a bill, it's stalling
in Sacramento, and there's a lot of opposition, a lot
of lobbying from industry. Read the oil industry chambers, of Commerce. Now,
New York and Vermont have already passed their version of
the super fund bills they did last year.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
And this is so important.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
To the fossil fuel people, and I'll tell you about
that in a minute. And other opposition groups that they
have outspent supporters of this bill or these bills over the.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Years tend to one.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
But I've always wondered, relative to the impact of a
lot of these bills that are in the billions of
dollars two three five million dollars to a legislator's campaign,
can truly influence that particular legislator legislator.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Which I don't get.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
So what California lawmakers have for years vowed to do
is to hold fossil fuel companies liable for damages caused
by their emissions.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Well, here is the problem.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
It is a global issue where let's say you're going
after Exon and you blame Exxon not for a specific fire,
but for worsening wildfires and floods and the costs of
climate recovery and adaptation. In other words, you're blaming a
(03:58):
company or the wildfires that happened in California, although they
didn't start them. And it's not PG and E for example,
where you can point to a specific tower power pole
where the line goes down and you've got a spark
that ignites a wildfire.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
No, no, this is globally.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
You are responsible for wildfires and pollution globally.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
And so here's the latest version.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Senate Bill six 's eighty four and Assembly Bill twelve
forty three, they're together. Basically, it's the Polluters Pay Climate
Superfunds Act, and it would require the largest oil and
gas companies doing business in the state to pay a
share of the damages caused by planet warming greenhouse gases gases.
(04:51):
Now it's probably true, but connecting those dots in terms
of liability, that.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Is a trick.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
The fees would be collected into a superfund that then
is put towards projects and programs to help the state mitigate,
adapt respond to climate change. And as it went through,
as it has gone through many years. In this case,
for example, the legislation did game on minium, but it's
(05:23):
been put.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
On hold till next year.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
This is what the legislature does is instead of outright
killing a bill, they let it die.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
And that's what happened.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
A similar bill introduced last year and cleared three committees,
and then it died in the Senate Appropriations Committee, because
that's how politics work. And California continues to struggle while
the White House is ramping up federal direct directives for
(05:57):
more oil, more gas. So these Superfund bills are going
against what the administration wants. And what they're doing is
punishing oil and gas companies, and that's the last thing
that the administration wants. So in the first quarter of
this year, fossil fuel companies and chambers of commerce and
(06:17):
other opponents spend ten point six million dollars lobbing against
this Climate Superfund Act, more than ten times spent by
the environmental groups. As I have said, and the Climate
Superfund Act is modeled after the federal Superfund Law that
(06:37):
requires companies to pay for the cleanup of contamination caused
by their activities such as hazardous waste disposal, of accidents
or spills. Now Here is the huge difference under the
Superfund Act, and that is cleaning up a specific place.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
You can directly a tribute.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
To an area being contaminated by a company, and what
the local authorities where city can do is apply to
the super Fund to clean that up.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
There it is.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
There's the contamination right there the corner of First and
Maple where there used to be a gas station, and
we want the Superfund app to clean it up because
there's no one there left to clean it up. Business
is gone, has been around four years and years, and
we have a contaminated area, and in some cases massive
contaminated areas, for example landfills that go on acres and
(07:41):
acres and there's no one to pay for it, so
you go against the Superfund. This is not a contaminated
area they're talking about.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
This is the climate.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
This is wildfunds going on, drought, sea levels going up.
Now Kansas is a little bit backwards because they have
yet to pass the bill that talks about their sea
levels going up a foot and a half, so they're
(08:20):
sort of behind the times. California is not. And therein
lies the problem. How do you blame an industry, Well,
an industry you can blame because fossil fuels are responsible
for a lot of our problems, and the scientists can
absolutely connect those dots. But then going from fossil fuels
(08:45):
are responsible to Exon being responsible, and we're going to
figure out the percentage that Exon pays. Okay, I want
to get into California and this superfund climate superfund bill
that keeps on being introduced us and will not get
passed at all because the fossil fuel companies and the
(09:06):
Chambers of Commerce are simply saying.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
No to it.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Because the gist of this bill is taxing these major
oil companies and having them pay into this superfund to
mitigate wildfires, climate change, drought.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And I mean, that's a big, big picture.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
And this is modeled after the federal Superfund law that
requires companies to pay for the cleanup of contamination.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Caused by their activities, but it is specific. This one
is big picture.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
And the climate version, this state's proposed climate version would
direct the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties
who are responsible parties here here's how they find responsible parties.
Oil companies that produce more than one billion metric tons
(10:08):
of CO two emissions globally from nineteen ninety to twenty
twenty four. I mean, how is that for just a
comprehensive You're responsible for everything wrong in my life and
you're going to pay for it bill, And I don't
quite know how they're going to do it, it makes sense.
(10:30):
I mean, for those of us that believe in climate change,
and I have for a lot of years, you bet,
I am a fan in the belief of climate change,
even when early on it's a hoax. None of that
is true. Believe me, it is true. But how do
you tag these major companies? Well, this is one way,
(10:51):
a billion dollar metric tons of CO two emissions globally
from nineteen ninety to twenty twenty four, and those are
oil companies that had done more than that. So the
California the EPA Environmental Protection Agency has one year to
conduct a comprehensive study to apportion damages to each polluter
(11:13):
based on the amount of pollution based on the emissions
that are released by these companies. And I mean, how
do you do that? Now, a couple of facts that
we do know. Fossil fuels account for about seventy five
percent of greenhouse gas emissions, which is the primary driver
(11:34):
of global warming. And we know global warming contributes to
wildfires and floods and droughts and extreme heat, as well
as sea level rise and air pollution. So state Senate
officials wrote this, the consequences of climate change come with
a huge price tag that's only increasing.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Here is a stat wildfires and cal.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
California in twenty twenty four years ago caused economic losses
of about nineteen billion dollars. In January, the wildfires we
had in southern California estimated to be two hundred and
fifty billion dollars. That effectively is one fire if you
(12:22):
count the Palisades fire, and you count the ones in
Malibu and the Eaton fire.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
Put all that together. So who is against this bill? Oh?
Speaker 3 (12:32):
The Western States Petroleum Association. Who do you think those
people are. It's a lobbying group for the oil producers,
the California Chamber of Commerce. Why because it's business being tagged,
and the Chamber of Commerce, let's just say they're not
consumer friendly. And the old companies say, look at this.
(12:53):
This imposes retroactive liability on companies for lawful business activities
dating back to nineteen ninety perfectly lawful. We weren't violating
anything when and we still aren't, and all of a
sudden you have retroactive regulatory uncertainty. Also, the Western States
(13:18):
Petroleum Association arguing that it's a de facto carbon tax
and it ripples across goods services economies and would create
a burden of up to thirty four hundred dollars per
year per family. Not everyone agrees with this assessment, for sure.
(13:40):
There is someone who's looked at as Claire Brown, a
professor of economics at UC Berkeley, who studied this bill
and what we'll do, what will happen as a result, said,
you know what, gas prices are not going to increase,
for example, And they claim they will because California's pump
prices are primarily set by global crude oil.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
But it could be you're right, the global market concerned.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
The global market is in fact responsible the world price
of oil. But I read something over the weekend that
says this, this is California and taxes.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
If oil were zero.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
And we did not pay for oil, if the refinery
costs of oil were zero, we would still pay a
dollar eighty one in taxes. So I'm arguing that the
major oil companies or California does have a little bit
(14:45):
to do with the amount of gasoline that we pay,
and what the Superfund is saying, you know what, We're
going to make these companies pay for what they're doing.
Problem is globally really sea level change around the world,
and we're gonna blame Exon and we're gonna blame Mobile
(15:09):
and we want them to pay. I mean, I think
in theory I don't have a problem with that, but
practically speaking.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
How do you deal with this?
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Okay, moving on, and this one has to do And
Neil and I have covered this before, and that is
how food companies package their products. And what we have
always talked about is newer and better. So what they
do is they come out with newer packaging and what
(15:43):
it really turns out to be is you get the
same price, but you get less than.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
All of a sudden.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Well, for example, I go to Costco and Dell sausage,
which I really love. There are Apple sausages, and there
used to be six to a package. Now there are five,
same price. Same thing with their muffins. By the way,
(16:13):
a quick word. You ever had Costco muffins?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Yes, of course they're god awful.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
I find Costco muffins and I'm a big fan of
Costco food horrific. But here's the new one, and that
is in order to keep prices even.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Lower, or to bring them lower.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
You're talking tiny little bits of food like a cookie
or let's say they've developed a different brand, a different
kind of sales, for example, snack size that they haven't before.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
And how prevalent is this?
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Neil talk about the different sizing of the products themselves
for a different market.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Well, so you were taught talking about shrinkflation, which frustrates
a lot of people, and even the former president Joe
Biden had pushed back on this. This is slightly different
as you find companies now looking at sizing. So let's
say in a standard situation, you might have small, medium,
(17:20):
and large.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
If you have three sizes.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Well, now they're having sizes that are in between those
as well. So this isn't hey, we're going to take
away some of the product and charge you the same.
This is giving people more options. And what that does
for them is give them a larger margin because the
smaller the packaging, the larger the margin in most cases.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
So they so let me quickly interrupt here, So normally small, medium, large,
do they now add medium minus or small plus?
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Well, you know what they might come up with the
fund names like I got, there's like family size, and
then there's like party size, which is bigger, and then
you have fun sized snack bars.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
You know that are tiny.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
But the thing here is whether it's you know, pepper
farm cookies or goldfish crackers, cam you know, you can
find these smaller packaged I kind of like this, and
I'll tell you why. I think there's sometimes that we
especially in the States, want the biggest amount or the
(18:28):
most amount, and then some of it goes to waste.
You know, smaller families don't need a whole loaf of bread,
or if you want to snack, you know, we're dealing
with obesity. If you want to snack, then you can
get a couple of cookies rather than a whole box
of cookies that you're probably gonna plow through anyways. And
this goes for chips, this goes for beverages. You know
(18:48):
how they went from the twelve ounce cans to the
little eight ounce cans of soda. And I know you
think that's crazy, but sometimes if I want a little
bit of soda, I don't want a twelve ounce can.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Do you know what?
Speaker 3 (19:00):
I find what I love to do in this regard,
and that is not buy less than but individual packaging.
For example, I just bought a box of Lorna Dune
cookies and you open the package and there are packages
of inside packages of two cookies. Or I buy, for example,
(19:22):
a package of Laize potato chips at Costco and it's
a big box and it's thirty individual snack size packs.
That makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Well, that was popular for a while too, some years back,
where they would do these one hundred calorie count packages
for people that were counting calories. This fits sort of
into that. But this also hits people in the pocketbook
where they go, you know what, I just want to
taste of something or a cup, you know, a little
handful of chips or whatever it is. And they're much
(19:54):
less expensive, the margins are better. And this is like
a sort of diverse sifying for these companies where they
have all these kind of smaller sizes and now instead
of three sizes, they may have a dozen different sizes
of the same product.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
All right, here's the quest I want to leave you
with this.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
How do you eat only one family size bag of chips?
Speaker 1 (20:22):
I am not the guy to ask that question because
Kraft Mac and Cheese thinks I'm a family of four.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Well, there you go, all right, thank you, neil Oh,
You're welcome. Bill.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
I'm just here for your needs, sir, Yes you are.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
And this is why Neil does Foody Friday and the
Fork Report on Saturday afternoon. Now on Thursday, people really
didn't pay attention to what happened amongst everything else, but
President Trump sign an executive order to increase entrance fees
at US national parks for visitors from other countries. Not
(20:58):
a sense that makes a fair amount of sense if
you think about it. And all of this is going
on as the administration is cutting the national park spending
by more than a third. More than thirty percent of
the budget for national parks have been cut, and the
(21:18):
original the additional revenue from foreign tourists alone the White
House has will raise hundreds of millions of dollars for
conservation and deferred maintenance projects that have not been taken
care of. One of the things about our national parks
is they are just beloved by the American people. I mean,
the number of people that go to national parks is astronomical.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
They're four hundred and thirty.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Three national parks in the US, about one hundred of
them charge fees various fees during the year at various times.
Numbers range all over the place, and so The order
directs the Park Service to number one two things, ensure
(22:03):
that US residents receive priority, and to charge foreign visitors more.
Don't know how much more. We don't know when it
kicks in. But it's just an order saying you do this.
And the White House said, charging higher entrance fees to
foreign tourists happens all the time. It's common policy at
(22:24):
national parks around the world. So the administration is cutting
a billion dollars from the Park Service budget in twenty
twenty six fiscal.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Year and that is a lot.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
So permanent staffing at the Park Service since Trump took office.
Since Trump took office in January has dropped twenty four percent.
So you've got eight thousand seasonal workers, well forty five
hundred of the eight thousand seasonal workers that the administration pledged.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Would be hired.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
That's only forty five hundred out of eight thousand. The
government says that's who we're going to hire. And so
what ends up happening is there are reduced personnel levels
at some national parks.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Other's not.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Yosemite got hit pretty badly amongst other parts. So there
are closures of various trails, some programs that have been cut,
a lot of programs for kids, for disadvantaged kids, I
mean all kinds of programs that the Park Service has
and so that has been reduced. Emergency response operations have
(23:38):
been reduced. And to give you some numbers here in
twenty twenty three, that's the last time we had numbers.
Three hundred and thirty one million people that year went
to national parks. That's almost the entire population of the
United States. Three quarters of the population of the United
(24:00):
States went to these parks. And national parks are just
a big deal. However, it's part of the budget cutting
because we know what the Trump administration where the priorities are.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
And it's no surprise. And I know the last time
I went to a National park, where did I go?
Speaker 3 (24:21):
I think I went to Zion National Park Bryce up
in Utah, and it was pretty spectacular, you know.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
I mean you look.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Out over the ledge and I've gone to the Grand Canyon. Uh,
And I wasn't able to do what I've wanted to
do since I've been a kid, and that is pee
into the Grand Canyon.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
There was just no place I could have done that.
Don't you want to pee in the Grand Canyon?
Speaker 1 (24:50):
No, sir, Oh, I didn't want to get close enough
to be able to pee into this.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
See that's the problem.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
You know, you have to get too close to the
edge to pee into the Grand Canyon.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
That the Grand Canyon is so spectacular even standing there,
it doesn't look real.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
That's true, do you know? And here's an interesting factoid.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
The Grand Canyon is the only place that the Post
Office still delivers mail by mule. Really yeah, going down
the hill. You can check that out. By the way,
if that's still true, I don't know where. I don't
know where Anne went.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
So Heather, would you look that up?
Speaker 3 (25:31):
See? Well, let me ask, hey, siri, Oh boy, is
mail delivered to the Grand Canyon by mule? No? That's oh,
that's just a oh on a minute, come on, that's
just a breaking story.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
I hate when that happens.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Hey, Siri, I'm saying yes, I'm getting yes, the mail
is still delivered by mule in certain parts of the
Grand Canyon.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
I rest my case. There you go, there you go.
You know what?
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Drugs are still delivered by mules.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
That's very funny. I like that.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Nice way to end the show. I had Neil, all right,
we're done. Guys is over completely. We're back again tomorrow morning.
Heather Brooker is here all week.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Filling in for Amy and the rest of us.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
And it starts tomorrow morning with Heather and with Will
Wake Up Call, Neil and I jump aboard at six
am until nine and we do this all over. Gary
and Shannon up next. This is KFI AM sixty. You've
been listening to the Bill Handle Show. Catch my Show
Monday through Friday, six am to nine am, and anytime
(26:37):
on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.