Berkley Looking To Save Us From Climate Change Using Stickers!

They really hate fossil fuels, just not enough to stop using them and messing up their own modern lives

(Daily Californian)Berkeley commissioners are working to bring climate change awareness right to the gas pump in a proposal that would place warning labels on fuel nozzles.

The city’s Community Environmental Advisory Commission voted Thursday to move forward with a plan that would mandate such labels to be placed in Berkeley gas stations. The signs would state that gasoline consumption releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.

Max Gomberg, chair of the commission, said the label would be a reminder to customers that the gas in their cars has a direct effect on the environment.

This is yet another stupid “spreading awareness” campaign that doesn’t require Warmists to actually Do Anything within their own lives. This is being pushed by the unhinged

On Wednesday, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the petroleum association, sent a letter to the commission stating that the plan would violate gas station owners’ First Amendment rights. Citing various court cases, she wrote that a governing body cannot compel a business to state information unless doing so would “prevent consumer deception.” Reheis-Boyd also questioned if climate change was a serious threat to California’s resources.

The letter states

The Western States Petroleum Association (“WSPA”) appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the City of Berkeley’s (City) proposed ordinance (Proposed Berkeley Municipal Code Section 11.64) to require gasoline pump “warning” labels disclosing the State’s of California’s position on the impacts of climate change. We have reviewed the draft legislation proposed to the City Council on March 11, 2014, and believe the City’s proposal compels speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The City has not shown a compelling interest in forcing gasoline service stations to make statements advancing the political opinions of the City and State regarding the alleged impacts of greenhouse gases. Even if the City had a compelling interest in the wide spread disclosure of the State’s opinions about greenhouse gas effects (which it does not), the City has not narrowly tailored its proposal to fulfilling that interest. Far less restrictive means exist to disseminate this information to the general public without imposing onerous restrictions on businesses and forcing unwanted speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Perhaps no city in our nation has as rich a tradition in the exercise of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech as the City of Berkeley. Throughout times of tremendous civil upheaval in this country, citizens of this City have exercise d great courage in resisting efforts by those at all levels of state and federal government to force them to agree with or advance government opinions. Citizens of Berkeley well know that, in America, “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc ., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006); see also United States v. United Foods, Inc ., 533 U.S. 405, 410 (2001); Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind , 487 U.S. 781, 795 (1988). Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court ha s found that the First Amendment prohibits the state from “requir[ing] an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on his private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public. . . The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster, in the way [the state] commands, an idea they find morally objectionable.” Wooley v. Maynard , 430 U.S. 705, 714-15 (1977).

The letter goes on to note that the City has numerous ways to inform the masses, such as their own government website. Obviously, Warmists/Progressivess do not care, particularly about the First Amendment, unless it is their own speech being monitored. They have a cult to push.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Berkley Looking To Save Us From Climate Change Using Stickers!”

  1. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    Throughout times of tremendous civil upheaval in this country, citizens of this City have exercise d great courage in resisting efforts by those at all levels of state and federal government to force them to agree with or advance government opinions.

    That was during the unenlightened days. Today, people are more aware, more enlightened, more open to forcing opinions on to people for their own good. It’s for their own good, health, and mental well being. If you don’t agree with us, we’ll get you fired, run you out of town, and take your kids.

    If you don’t listen to us and deploy these petroleum based, petroleum distributed stickers, then we’ll really get mad at your rights to self expression.

  2. Lee says:

    Uh, breathing releases carbon dioxide. Are they going to put stickers on people’s foreheads, too?

  3. Jeffery says:


    I understand you’re being flip and mocking, but stickers on foreheads would be silly, wouldn’t it? Do you think humans should stop eating and breathing?

    Humans, in fact all animals, take temporarily stored carbon-based foodstuffs, e.g., grains, fruits, vegetables and animals and convert the carbohydrates and fats to carbon dioxide. It’s a perfectly balanced system and part of the natural carbon cycle.

    In contrast, when we burn fossil fuels, we take long-term stored carbon (coal, oil, gas) and convert it to carbon dioxide, causing the atmospheric concentration to rise. We are adding much more than the natural cycle can accommodate.

    If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was innocuous there would be no problems, but it is acidifying the oceans and causing the Earth to warm rapidly (in geologic terms). Most scientists view these developments as detrimental to human societies.

  4. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    You see Lee, despite being ardent believers in Evolution, they don’t consider man part of nature. They don’t believe that man evolved through nature and its cycles due to being in balance with nature.

    Thus, whatever man does, it is outside of nature’s cycles and ability to do damage control upon.

    Therefore, when man burns petroleum products, it is evil, unnatural, and destroys the carbon cycle.

    But, when a volcano, tornado, fire, earthquake, tsunami does it, that’s perfectly normal. We don’t count those effects in our models because those are natural processes. We ignore all the natural oil and gas seeps occurring ALL OVER this world.

    And, although our world has created, survived, and come through a world with many thousands of times higher concentrations of CO2, it is only now during man’s dominance while CO2 levels are at their lowest in eons, it is bad.

    You see, J has no clue what “geologic terms” means. To him, it is only the last few thousand years of earth’s history without humans. He believes that your breathing causes the oceans to acidify. Can’t beat that for a Friday Funny.

Bad Behavior has blocked 4945 access attempts in the last 7 days.