Tam Hunt: On Caring and Climate

Few heed the cause of the call, but making the connection against Proposition 23 is vital to our future

By Tam Hunt | Published on 10.18.2010 5:15 p.m.

(23)

Cold-calling is no fun. But I steeled myself recently to make about a hundred cold calls to urge voters in California to reject Proposition 23, the ballot measure that would overturn the state’s landmark climate change law set to go into effect next year.

Tam Hunt

Ring, ring

Hello?

Hi, I’m a volunteer for the No on Prop 23 campaign. Do you know what Prop. 23 is?

Click. ...

I don’t blame people for not liking cold calls. But can’t a guy get just a little bit of respect on a key issue? Enough not to hang up on me? I always stressed “volunteer” in my opening spiel because people will generally give a volunteer a little more slack than a paid caller. And they might forgive my fumbling as I warmed up to my thankless task of trying to convince voters to vote against Prop. 23.

I hadn’t officially volunteered for anything in years, partly because until last year I worked for a nonprofit and felt like my day job was a type of volunteering and partly because I feel like my writing these columns is also volunteerism of a sort — a way to share ideas that I hope will advance the common good. But I was inspired to volunteer for the No on Prop 23 campaign because a friend of mine asked me to and because passage of Prop. 23 would be tremendously damaging to California’s efforts to mitigate climate change and promote a green economy.

Prop. 23 is the “California Jobs Initiative.” It is funded primarily by two Texas oil companies, Valero and Tesoro. The Yes on 23 Web site states: “We all want to do our part on global warming, but with 2.3 million Californians already unemployed and the state facing a $20 billion budget deficit, protecting jobs and the economy should be our first priority.”

But this is a false choice. A number of studies have concluded that California’s climate change law, AB 32, would create jobs on a net basis. Fossil fuel industries will indeed lose jobs, but green economy companies will more than offset these losses.

UC Berkeley professor David Roland-Holst has rigorously modeled the likely effects of AB 32 in the BEAR computer model of California’s economy. He concludes: “My research on the economic effects of AB 32 suggests that California will achieve higher growth and more widespread employment benefits if climate policies induce innovation, building on the state’s long history of improvements in energy efficiency.”

Why won’t anyone answer? I thought as I dialed number after number. My heart raced a little as someone finally picked up. When I launched into my spiel they cut me off with a “sorry, I don’t have time.” The next person to answer hung up on me immediately. And when I finally got my first positive response, with the person confirming that she planned to vote no on Prop. 23, I felt like that in itself was an important victory. One down, 5 million or so more to go ...

If Prop. 23 passes, it’s likely that California would lose jobs on a net basis — the exact opposite of the Yes on 23 argument. In full disclosure, my job is one of those at risk if Prop. 23 passes. I began my own business in 2009 because I see the renewable-energy transition as key for the future of our planet and the humans who live here, and also as a tremendous economic opportunity. Studies like Roland-Holst’s support my view. I chose my field because I want to do well by doing good. And that’s not a bad thing.

Prop. 23 would suspend California’s climate change law until unemployment returns to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. We’re currently at about 12 percent unemployment and it will probably be many years before we return to 5.5 percent. So Prop. 23 would essentially repeal California’s effort to mitigate climate change and grow a green economy.

The sum total of my hour and a half of cold-calling was three people confirming that they were voting no on Prop. 23 and one person undecided. But each little effort counts, and that one person I talked to about Prop. 23 will, hopefully, vote no and talk about it to his friends and family, and so on.

The undecided person was probably my most important contact because we had a short conversation about the pros and cons on Prop. 23 and I pointed him to www.stoptexasoil.org for more information. Prop. 23 sounds like good sense to a lot of people until they realize that the environment versus the economy framing is a false dichotomy. It’s the environment and the economy because mitigating climate change can now be done cost-effectively with a net positive impact on our economy.

Thankfully, the most recent Field Poll shows that Prop. 23 will probably fail to pass — but it’s close enough that we can’t rest and assume it will just work out for the best. And that’s why I volunteered to get hung up on by people I don’t know ...

— Tam Hunt is president of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, which is focused on community-scale renewables. He also is a lecturer on climate change law and policy at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. Click here for his blog, Thought, Spirit, Politik.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use

» Left coast local on 10.18.10 @ 09:01 PM

Net increase in jobs? Bull. Green jobs are less than 1% of the jobs in CA. A major backer for No on 23 is Thomas Steyer who owns Farallon Capital Management, a $33bln hedge fund. He’s also donated $2.5m to blocking Prop 23 and has pledged a further $2.5m if needed.He is betting on green profits by selling solar panels to CA. Solar panels made in China. Nice green jobs. If AB32 is fully implemented, jobs will leave CA for other states or countries with more reasonable or inferior environmental standards which will result in a net degridation of our environment. Yes on 23

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Richard Jensen on 10.19.10 @ 06:19 AM

Tam, thank you for the effort of calling—even when it seems marginal in effect.

Count me in for buying and installing solar panels (whether manufactured in China or not) vs buying petroleum products which are mostly imported from outside the USA.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» justmythoughts on 10.19.10 @ 06:44 AM

Getting paid for working for a non-profit is not the same as volunteering and neither is writing self-serving PR pieces that further ones business interests. When you can’t stand on your arguments and have to create a boogieman out of big oil , which has been demonized for 40 years, you know your argument is weak.

justmythoughts

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» EarlRichards on 10.19.10 @ 07:54 AM

Prop 23 is a “Pain in the Neck.” There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs. This notion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of California. In fact, there is job growth in the clean, renewable energy industry. Chevron employs 65,000 worldwide and the California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is not going to change this. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs. CJI will make fantastic profits for the oil industry, increase air pollution, especially in communities around their refineries and there will not be lower gas prices. Valero, Koch Industries and Tesoro are super Enrons. Since when did the oil companies start to show any concern for the unemployed and their families and for the consumer? BP, Shell, Occidental, Exxon Mobil and Chevron are silent partners in CJI.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Really? on 10.19.10 @ 09:27 AM

When is enough, enough? Apparently for Mr. Hunt and his friends it is never enough.

All one has to do is look at the changes in technology creating a huge drop in air borne pollutants, and it is only getting better. Remember when it was “neighborhood recycling” centers that subsidized, with taxpayer money, the CEC? Well the answer was a MRF Plant up the coast at the dump. It was this same political faction that blocked the building of the plant at “no” cost to the taxpayer and would have 20 years ago diverted 90% of land-fill. It did spend millions of taxpayer money to support a lousy plan, created and pushed by supposed environmentalist. That MRF plan would have eliminated the need for the CEC program and killed it.

Now we see them willing to cripple an economy with draconian rules. All one has to do is look at the monitored air pollution facts, pair that to the new and fast evolving technology, and presto the need for Prop. 23 disappears. Just as the recycling centers disappeared as soon as the CEC no longer needed subsidy. Space does not permit a description of the 20 year debacle know as high capacity storage batteries, but you get the idea.

Reality is often the “B” word, and unfortunately for the State of California the voters have not had a fair representation of facts over fancy.

Too bad voting against Prop. 23 would not also repeal it completely.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Left coast local on 10.19.10 @ 12:41 PM

Vote YES on prop 23.

CA unemployment is over 12%.

Green jobs are less than 1% (around 160,000) of the jobs in CA (around 16,000,000). To employ even a tenth (around 250,000 new jobs) of the currently unemployed Californians (around 2,500,000 unemployed) green job expansion would have to happen at a rate of 17 times its current pace (not realistic).

Implementation of AB32 will raise the cost of energy on business (and people).

In Southern California for example; the Southern California Public Power Authority has warned of a 30% rate hike. L.A.‘s Department of Water and Power has told businesses to expect a 21% hike this year, though the city council recently nixed a three-month 5.7% rate increase. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told the L.A. Times that the city council must raise rates because “the state is breathing down our necks . . . where we could be looking at fines of $300 million [in 2012] and $600 million on top of that.” CARB’s report on AB32 pays lip service to these red flags and claims the AB32 will neither hurt taxpayers nor the economy. Of course not.

If you are a business owner faced with increasing costs you can:
a) Pass the cost on to the consumer and possibly become uncompetitive with businesses in other states (Anyone gotten a raise lately to cover this?)
b) Go out of business because you are uncompetitive (see job losses)
c) Move your business to another state (or country) with no cap and trade laws (see job losses)
d) Lay off employees to cover the increase in energy costs (see job losses)

CARB chairman Mary Nichols has even acknowledged that technology that would be mandated under AB32 either has yet to be developed (that means they don’t commercially exist) or are prohibitively expensive (that means YOU pay more to use it).

Voting YES on prop 23 will not degrade our environment by suspending AB32. Voting YES on prop 23 will save jobs in a state with over 12% unemployment

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 10.19.10 @ 02:02 PM

Unfortunately, what Mr. Hunt and others who are against Prop 23 fail to realize is that is legislation like AB32 that makes CA the 3rd worst state in the US in which to do business. Now I know that all you lefties are cheering this, but the fact is that business, not government, creates the jobs that pay taxes to pay for government. Not a huge leap of reasoning to connect anti-business legislation to high unemployment to low tax revenue to ongoing budget crises.

At the Federal level, Obama doesn’t understand this either, much to my disappoinment (I voted for him).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 10.19.10 @ 05:16 PM

We are broke. Tam may be doing well at a parasitic job but those that actually produce wealth, real wealth to the economy as a whole, not just themselves, are sitting on the side lines.

AB32 is not a “green jobs initiative” to help a new green industry while solving global warming (or is that climate change now, oh wait a minute, they changed the name again because it isn’t working, hmmmm). This is the liberal progressive method of enlightenment and advancement, social engineering through coercion, mainly making everything you do and buy way more expensive. Hey, it’s not bad if your name is Tam Hunt or Al Gore and you can afford it, but if you are like most of us struggling pay check to pay check or losing your home to the blood sucker banks or worse yet unemployed then paying more for anything, Tam, is unacceptable.

Really, do you have no shame? Do you really honestly believe that making everything pricier is the answer? I guess so because that is your ONLY solution. How about this Tam, make your green industry produce CHEAPER energy than all the rest and not after you jack the price up on the others, I mean cheaper than energy was 20 years ago. Then you won’t need any damned punitive legislation to get your world view sold, it will sell itself on cost alone. That’s how a FREE market works.

But neither you or your colleagues (Earl, Richard) can do that. Do you want to tell people why Tam or should I just get it over with now? Tam cannot sell green on the open market because it cost too damned much for the value it produces. He knows it and so does anyone with an engineering degree. But rather than put that engineering talent to work, Tam and his socialist cohorts have a better plan. Jack up the price of cheaper alternatives until they are at equity with green. Then you can choose which overly costly alternative you can buy (which for most is neither and they really don’t care).

However, and it’s a biggy, nowhere does the green community factor in the cost to the poor. We rich phony green elites can afford whatever costs come down so why should we care? The biggest benefactors to cheap energy and products are the poor and they are the first to be hurt every time some idiot greenie socialist liberal progressive decides to save something by jacking up prices.

The free enterprise system works by using competition in the market place. If that competition is not working to produce safer cleaner energy or greener products then look at what legal road blocks are being thrown at them and work those out. But if the reason is that the cost to value ratio is off (as it is) then get back to the drawing board and engineer less expensive solutions (that heat in the kitchen is competition, not global warming).

What prop 23 does is put the brakes on socialist engineering which is at its very best the most punitive and regressive toward the poor. Think about that when you go to the polls. Oh and having worked most of my adult life in high tech engineering, I can tell you the solutions are there, but they don’t fit the elitist lefty agenda of government takeover of the private economy (AB32).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tam Hunt on 10.19.10 @ 07:49 PM

Left Coast, John Locke, and AN50, you ignore the comprehensive studies and arguments made in favor of good policy. I cited Roland-Holst’s studies of California’s economy, using the state of the art BEAR software model, and his conclusions that AB 32 would help the economy, not hurt it. In return, you cite anecdotal quotes and opinion. Granted, there is room for healthy debate on a question as large as “what is the likely net impact of AB 32 on California’s economy and jobs?” However, if you want a serious debate, please cite equivalent studies that complete a comprehensive review of AB 32’s likely impacts. The Air Resources Board’s studies also concluded initially that AB 32’s net impacts would be positive. After some criticism, the ARB re-did the studies and found a likely neutral result. However, this re-study assumed far too low fossil fuel costs, in my opinion.

As for LA DWP and other southern California public utilities, they are woefully reliant on coal, to all of our detriment. Granted, coal is cheaper and it will cost these ratepayers some money to comply with AB 32. And yet LA has the most aggressive renewable energy goal in the state: 40% by 2020, and this is a major plank in Villaraigosa’s time in office. And, yes, over time, it will probably save money because coal prices will also rise due to declining quality of coal (coal is also a finite fossil fuel, despite popular opinion to the contrary) and federal clean air regulations.

My point being, gents, if you want a serious debate, be serious in your analysis and sources.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tam Hunt on 10.20.10 @ 07:31 AM

My point being, gents, if you want a serious debate, be serious in your analysis and sources.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Left coast local on 10.20.10 @ 07:51 AM

YES on 23

Fine you cite your Computer models, I’ll cite facts on the ground. You did not refute my assertion that AB32 is a job killer in a state with over 12% unemployment. The study commissioned by Mary Nichols and CARB was flawed in that to get the net positive she had to assume unrealistic goals and outcomes GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). She has admitted as much. You still refuse to acknowledge nor refute the negative impact on jobs of AB32. Coal, oil, nuclear, natural gas, it doesn’t matter where the source of the power is now, it is cheaper to the consumer than what it will if/when AB32 is implemented. What part of 30% increase in your utility bills are you struggling with? Green energy will come, but it needs to be market driven (see consumer) and economical, not government driven (see regulation) and a financial burden on the poor middle-class and small business. By the way, computer models? Really? how are those GIGO global warming computer models working out for you?

YES on 23

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Left coast local on 10.20.10 @ 08:07 AM

YES on 23

Also, when a small business construction company whose livelihood depends on the use of his equipment (earthmovers, excavators, bulldozers, dump trucks etc.) is forced to buy new equipment with diesel engines mandated by AB32, and can’t sell his current equipment (which he still might be making payments on) in California due to AB32, and consequently folds up shop or moves to another state. Where are the green jobs for his newly unemployed equipment operators, laborers, mechanics, accountant, bookkeeper, secretary, estimator, project manager, etc?

YES on 23

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 10.20.10 @ 09:20 AM

Tam we have had the discussion. Your software models only work if cost to consumers goes UP! That is the argument. Find a model, or better, find the technology that gets it done with a cost to consumers that goes DOWN!

The argument I made was you don’t want cost to go down, you want energy cost and thus everything dependant on it to go UP. By making everything more costly you believe will make people consume less and be more conscientious about what they consume. You and your socialists are correct it will, however your method is called coercion.

Further, you do not take in to consideration what impacts higher costs have on those who can least afford it. Your socialist buddies have created the most populous welfare state in the US. You now have more dependants than ever that your model will saddle with more costs. What do you think that outcome will be? Right, deeper and more widespread dependency, and that Tam, is the goal of all socialists. Not independence, not thinking for yourself, not relying on your own resources, not growing up and being an adult, no, dependence, straight up adult adolescence, just like we see in France today, rioting in the streets because, “oh, my God, I might have to work for two more years!”

I’m sorry; I really DO want the alternative energy industry to succeed. I want those wind mills, solar panels and other sources to come on line, not to supplant oil or coal but to augment them. I want our higher energy density hydrocarbon supplies to be stretched out so that they can be used for transportation. But until we can make alternates cheaper than hydrocarbon supplies that ain’t gonna happen unless you hurt a lot of poor people.

As for the jobs creation model, all bogus. The government could by legal fiat create 20 million jobs right now. That’s right! The problem is, unless those fricken jobs add value to the economy at a higher rate than they consume it, we still go fricken broke buster. And that Tam is the argument. Have your model show that cost goes down, and the jobs created have a net increase in value to the economy and then you have a winner. So far you have not.

And finally, until you separate your desire to eliminate hydrocarbon fuels, the most abundant and widely used fuel by life on earth, from your desire to develop alternative fuels then you will lose the argument all day long. Your goal is not driven by finding new energy, but rather eliminating the primary source for humans. Its bass ackwards Tam, find stuff that works cheaper and you will be very successful.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tam Hunt on 10.20.10 @ 09:22 AM

Left Coast, I explicitly addressed your point about jobs. The best analysis available suggests that AB 32 will result in a net INCREASE in jobs. If you disagree with this, it’s not helpful to simply say “garbage in, garbage out” without suggesting what data should go into the models instead. Do you have a better model you can point me toward?

As for small construction businesses being forced to sell equipment b/c of AB 32, this is not the case. AB 32 only applies to large polluters like utilities, concrete manufacturers, or lumber mills, not small construction companies. Diesel vehicle regulations fall under a different law.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Coastal Local on 10.20.10 @ 09:33 AM

Just curious? Wasn’t there a study by a university in Spain that campe out and concluded that every green job created cost approximately $750,000 and for every job created their was a loss of 2.5 jobs? I think Germany came to the same conclusion although with not quite the dramatic costs but still bad for the economy just the same. We ought to be going after our own domestic oil and natural gas and have a portion paid to create the green projects and economy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Left coast local on 10.20.10 @ 11:12 AM

YES on 23

Once again who determined your computer model is the best? Because it is “cutting edge”, because a Berkeley professor says so? The now debunked “hockey stick” graph was cutting edge at one time too. And how wise is it to base policy on a computer model? The Legislative Analyst’s Office delivered an assessment of AB 32’s impact on jobs, and job losses were predicted. Yes I admit it showed an EVENTUAL increase in jobs……….. 0.7% (112,000 jobs)..............by 2020 (remember, we have 2,500,000 currently unemployed)! And the LAO confirmed that AB32 would “almost certainly” raise prices on electricity, gasoline, and certain other energy sources. Hard to pay the higher electric bill when you just lost your job.

Tam, you need to read the 13 pages of AB32. You are flat out wrong. AB32 assigns policy and enforcement including diesel emissions (through AB 1493, Pavley) to Mary Nichols and CARB, an unelected and unaccountable government agency. And yes, small business that uses diesel equipment including construction fall under CARB’s thumb. Do you have any idea what an excavator or other large pieces of equipment costs (hint, it’s six figures).

On top of that, the “sound science” used to establish policy is flawed and hardly “sound” I guess you missed the article where CARB had to admit that the policy on diesel engines was based on flawed “science” that over estimated the impact of diesel emissions by 340%. Again, that’s three hundred and forty percent. And don’t get me started on the “scientific” farce that is the UN IPCC, more flawed “science” that is cited and used for policy basis by CARB.

YES on 23

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 10.20.10 @ 12:05 PM

Tam, interesting point about the study you mention. Before I read it, I’d like to know something about the authors, their source of funding, and their political leanings. After all, whenever a study seems to favor oil, the anti-oil crowd screams bias and corruption. Let’s apply the same rule here.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 10.20.10 @ 01:35 PM

Left coast local, that’s why I call their methods coercion and pointed out Tams motives. Coastal local nailed it. If your motivation is eliminate fossil fuels you will lose every time. However if green wants to succeed they need to compete in the market place just like everyone else. Right now fossil fuels are the cheapest source of power. If you want alternatives to succeed then you need to produce them at higher volumes at lower cost.

The left can’t do it and in fact they don’t want to. They only want wealthy elites to have things like running water, electric lights, affordable food and automobiles, everyone else can go to hell as far as they are concerned.

Take a look at LED lighting. It will revolutionize how we light our world and it will do it cheaper, safer and at a lower cost. How? Competing in the market place. Yes you can still buy a standard incandescent lamp much cheaper, but those in the industry are not going to wait for subsidies, harsh regressive policies to drive the cost of cheaper alternates up or draconian regulations to force people to use them. Nope they are going to kick the crap out of the cheaper alternates by being a cheaper alternate themselves. Once they crack the market they will drive the others out in a hurry and all the NRE they are spending now will be recouped in volume sales. The electronics industry has been doing this for decades.

Run a business Tam, figure out how it works and then turn your engineering talent to the market. But to do that you need to drop the obstructionist lawyer crap and get your head out of Europe. Most European leaders are running from the policies you and your lefties are now embracing. They are admitting they were colossal failures. Oh, crap, the damned Americans had it right all along? Well at least some of us.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tam Hunt on 10.21.10 @ 12:04 AM

AN50, we have indeed been through this dance before - more than once. And I’m disappointed each time because you revert back to the same rhetoric each time even after you concede point after point - and then forget.

Look, I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this again, but here’s the basic argument, backed up by many rigorous analyses: if climate change efforts lead with energy efficiency (electricity and vehicles) and then cost-effective renewable energy, there is a net savings and generally net job creation because people pay LESS for power. Get it out of your head that climate change mitigation is necessarily more costly than the status quo. It’s not. And please review the studies I mentioned.

You’ve also agreed previously that fossil fuels are finite. You may also have seen that more and more organizations and analysts are concluding that peak oil is on the horizon. This means that fossil fuel costs are very likely to go up across the board, because oil is the market leader for fossil fuels. And as prices for fossil fuels rise even higher, energy efficiency and renewables become even more of an economic winner.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tam Hunt on 10.21.10 @ 12:08 AM

Left Coast, AB 32 is not AB 1493. They’re different laws. Here’s the link (it’s quite a bit more than six pages):

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.html.

There’s no mention of AB 1493.

The AB 32 Scoping Plan does indeed mention AB 1493 because the Scoping Plan draws all of CA’s laws together that will have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. But don’t blame AB 32 for AB 1493. They’re different laws.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Left coast local on 10.21.10 @ 07:49 AM

YES on 23

Wrong again Tam. AB32, chapter 2, sub paragraphs (a) through (d) establishes the basis of AB32. This basis is a direct reference to AB 1493 (which might might as well been a copy of AlGore’s movie) and the reason AB32 exists.

Look, I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this again, but here’s the basic argument, backed up by many rigorous analyses including CARB’s own: if government climate change efforts lead with alternative energy efficiency (electricity and vehicles) and then cost-effective renewable energy, there is an immediate net increase in energy costs and generally net job loss because people pay MORE for power. Get it out of your head that climate change mitigation is necessarily currently less costly than the status quo. It’s not.

YES on 23

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 10.21.10 @ 08:52 AM

Although electric cars seem green and forward-looking, life-cycle cost studies, including the government subsidies encouraging purchase and the energy cost of creating and recycling the batteries, repeatedly indicate that electric cars are a net energy consumer as compared to gasoline-powered vehicles.

Once again: use gasoline/diesel/aviation fuel for things that move (still the most efficient way to package energy on a btu per pound or cuft basis) and use solar, wind, nuclear for things that don’t. Once the majority of electricity is created by these means, THEN electric cars may make sense.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tam Hunt on 10.25.10 @ 01:11 PM

Left Coast, I´m glad you looked up the law, but you´ve read it wrong: Ch. 2, a through d are what is called ´recitals.´All they do is establish the intent and reasons for the law. They are not law themselves. All of Chapter 2 consists of recitals, so it is preface, not establishment of new law. This is not one of those things that is debatable. Feel free to consult another lawyer on this, but you´ll find they mirror what I´ve just written to you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

1. Jay Leno Hosts Magical Evening for New Partnership for Cancer Care - 05.19.2013 12:42 a.m.
2. St. Athanasius Orthodox Church Takes Long View While Building Home of Its Own - 05.18.2013 11:40 p.m.
3. Boat Ramp Repairs to Launch New Era of Access at Santa Barbara Harbor - 05.18.2013 10:30 p.m.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Your Daily Noozhawk, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Facebook

Twitter

+ View More

Tam Hunt: On Caring and Climate

Log in

Daily Noozhawk

Facebook

Twitter