Green Marxist Nutjobs Push Radical California Gas Restriction Act of 2015 (VIDEO)

This is the logical result of politics in an extreme left-wing one-party state.

You won't be able to drive your own car in California pretty soon. You'll be forced onto a completely inadequate "public transportation" system, and you know these green nutjobs won't stop at a "50 percent reduction" in fossil fuel usage.

The once-Golden State is going down.

See the Contra-Costa Bee, "SB 350 — battle rages over proposed 50-percent fuel cuts in California":

Take notice if you drive to and from work each day in California. SB 350, known as the California Gas Restriction Act of 2015, (de León) requires a 50% reduction in petroleum, 50% increase in renewables for electricity generation, and a 50% increase in the energy efficiency of buildings by 2030. SB 350 will also grant the Air Resources Board significant authority to adopt regulations that will result in a 50% reduction in petroleum use in cars and trucks by 2030.

In short, unelected regulators will be able to limit how far you can drive, ration gas, increase costs, and penalize drivers for using too much gas.

Opposed by energy producers and allied groups, a full court effort has been launched by the California Drivers Alliance that is circulating a petition to pressure lawmakers to oppose SB 350 passage.

Radical environmental groups like California Climate Leadership Stemming from the notorious passage of AB 32 during the forgettable Schwarzenneger governorship, SB 350 joins a raft of AB 32 enabling legislation, including SB 375 (emissions reductions), climate adaption (SB 246, 379), plus overarching agricultural restrictions and transit fiats.

In its defense, SB 350 proponents say that SB 350 requires the California Air Resources Board, to be cost effective and technologically feasible (page 4, line 19; its actions be based on validated scientific and engineering data (page 5, line 12); and explicitly requires an economic analysis that takes into account impacts on fuel manufacturers, consumer acceptance, the state’s competitive position with other neighboring states, and the costs to consumers (page 5, lines 30-34)

The campaign on both sides has become nasty and misleading. For instance, an image of Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla appears on a California Drivers Alliance ad on Drudge touting its petition opposing SB 350. This does not mean Bonilla is an opponent of SB 350. Oh hell no. For Bonilla has authored and voted for numerous environmental and energy laws that dovetail with AB 32. Rather, the ad hopes to pound Bonilla with petition from signers within her district to bring pressure on her to — hope-against-hope — oppose SB 350 legislation when it reaches the Assembly floor.

Meanwhile, the Greenbelt Alliance is also asking its supporters to put pressure on Bonilla and other legislators to vote for SB 350.

In one of his first votes as State Senator, Glazer voted for SB 350. Glazer recently defeated Bonilla in a special election for the vacant 7th California Senate seat vacated by now Congressman Mark DeSaulnier.

According to proponents propaganda concerning “renewable targets,” it took nearly a decade for California so-called green fuel sales to grow from 12- to 25 percent of sales. So it is certain that Californians will be reliant on fossil fuels for decades to come, despite the specious claims and data manipulation of climate alarmists is used by politicians and an increasingly unfettered state to bypass voter preferences in favor of increasing central control over the lives of the polity.

In short, a mandated 50% reduction in petroleum will have a significant impact on transportation in California, but also on future jobs and valuable tax revenue. An analysis of the petroleum industry’s economic contributions to California shows SB 350 would devastate the California energy economy in that supports...

Still more.