Has anyone in California sat down and figured out how this could be accomplished? How did they arrive at their numbers? What studies were done by responsible parties? Do I blindly follow the oil and coal industry or global warming zealots? How will this effect jobs and energy costs?
2
Clearly there comes a time (and a level of restriction) that even Democrat leaders finally recognize that crushing the economy with crippling "feel good" restrictions -- harming the poor and the working class more than anyone else -- is unacceptable.
Has that time arrived in my California? While a few Democrats now "get it," I'm confident that the progressives' belief system coupled with blind allegiance to the environmentalists will trump common sense and economic reality.
In other words, we first have to EXPERIENCE the disastrous results before any change of direction is possible. It's the California way.
Has that time arrived in my California? While a few Democrats now "get it," I'm confident that the progressives' belief system coupled with blind allegiance to the environmentalists will trump common sense and economic reality.
In other words, we first have to EXPERIENCE the disastrous results before any change of direction is possible. It's the California way.
2
We are always being told that environmental laws will reduce jobs. But history has shown that jobs lost in coal and oil are replaced by others in renewables.
The engineering talents of CA should be let loose on solutions rather than keeping the deadly status quo going.
The engineering talents of CA should be let loose on solutions rather than keeping the deadly status quo going.
2
If we can't get such a widely despised practice as fracking banned in what amounts to a one-party controlled state, the idea of approving such draconian carbon cuts is pure bluster.
2
It is amazing to me that adult educated human beings are willing to deny science and knowledge in favor of their prejudices. They would no do so with their health or anything else they rely on, like the science behind computers, or the expertise of a plumber or mechanic.
The idea that throwing a tantrum to get what you want is not going to work. Politics is no substitute for knowledge.
We are at this point "voting" for prejudices and possessions at the cost of making our planet so inhospitable that none of those things will do our descendants any good.
The wealthiest industries on earth are following big tobacco in creating a mirror universe to help reinforce political prejudices and make people think this is not important. While I sympathize with regular working stiffs who want cheap energy, it will not clean the air or the water, or prevent the climate from tipping over into inhospitality. And that colonization of another planet? That's currently very expensive and that planet is even more inhospitable. How exactly do you envision it working.
Donald Trump tells you all you have to do is insist and things will change. Obama made a very good effort, but as Sarah Palin said, "How's that hopey changey thing working?). Fact is, none of his ideas work, and neither does the idea that turning your back on reality will not work with nature, the planet, or our climate either.
The idea that throwing a tantrum to get what you want is not going to work. Politics is no substitute for knowledge.
We are at this point "voting" for prejudices and possessions at the cost of making our planet so inhospitable that none of those things will do our descendants any good.
The wealthiest industries on earth are following big tobacco in creating a mirror universe to help reinforce political prejudices and make people think this is not important. While I sympathize with regular working stiffs who want cheap energy, it will not clean the air or the water, or prevent the climate from tipping over into inhospitality. And that colonization of another planet? That's currently very expensive and that planet is even more inhospitable. How exactly do you envision it working.
Donald Trump tells you all you have to do is insist and things will change. Obama made a very good effort, but as Sarah Palin said, "How's that hopey changey thing working?). Fact is, none of his ideas work, and neither does the idea that turning your back on reality will not work with nature, the planet, or our climate either.
2
Oh boy, should have proofed more carefully. Point is, Obama had a lot of backing and support, and he couldn't change things. Trump's advertising expertise will work even less to get anything for you, as his main skill is in persuading you that he knows stuff and can do stuff that won't work in practice.
Neither will denying that greenhouse gas emissions have increased the energy in our planetary system, resulting in acceleration climate change.
What will work is rapid deployment of renewable energy and increased efforts to improve storage and delivery of energy that does not come from fossil fuels. We can because we must.
Finding people to blame instead of actively working as a community to solve problems is demagogic and harmful.
Neither will denying that greenhouse gas emissions have increased the energy in our planetary system, resulting in acceleration climate change.
What will work is rapid deployment of renewable energy and increased efforts to improve storage and delivery of energy that does not come from fossil fuels. We can because we must.
Finding people to blame instead of actively working as a community to solve problems is demagogic and harmful.
2
"We don’t have a choice — we have to make these changes,” said Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager and environmental advocate who has been championing the bill.
And this is why Trump and Sanders are going to be the nominees of their parties, because Americans are sick to death of being told by hedge fund managers and their numerous tools in Washington and in every state house that we have no choice except to do what the rich tell us to do.
And this is why Trump and Sanders are going to be the nominees of their parties, because Americans are sick to death of being told by hedge fund managers and their numerous tools in Washington and in every state house that we have no choice except to do what the rich tell us to do.
5
I find California's bland assumption that they are 'leading the charge' on reduction of greenhouse gasses just as much as their opponents assume rationing is the only solution. The wisdom of this law is the LACK of specifying methods; it allows consumers, industry and government to adapt solutions that may not be available yet. But I see several possible solutions already:
Increased harvesting of wind, solar and tidal power. Cali has lots of available land and it doesn't take much for a wind/solar farm. Washington state has many wind farms already (as does Oregon). Cali cannot match us in hydroelectric (which has it's own consequences) but they can easily exceed our use of solar.
Conversion to hybrid and all electric vehicles. My Ford Focus electric gets 99-110 mpge, my previous car topped out at 40 mpg. My street bikes are gas hogs by comparison at 53 and 40 mpg. Even if the energy came from petroleum it would be a net win.
Greater efficiencies everywhere. I can't replace our natural gas furnace with a heat pump (yet), but we have converted high draw TVs to more modern units, and our lighting is now 80% LED, 20% fluorescent. Such christmas decorations as we still use are all LED now so the December bill is no different than January or November.
Best part of these simple changes is that they SAVE ME MONEY. So go for it, California! Leading or following us to the north doesn't matter when the prize is a better planet for our kids and grandkids.
Increased harvesting of wind, solar and tidal power. Cali has lots of available land and it doesn't take much for a wind/solar farm. Washington state has many wind farms already (as does Oregon). Cali cannot match us in hydroelectric (which has it's own consequences) but they can easily exceed our use of solar.
Conversion to hybrid and all electric vehicles. My Ford Focus electric gets 99-110 mpge, my previous car topped out at 40 mpg. My street bikes are gas hogs by comparison at 53 and 40 mpg. Even if the energy came from petroleum it would be a net win.
Greater efficiencies everywhere. I can't replace our natural gas furnace with a heat pump (yet), but we have converted high draw TVs to more modern units, and our lighting is now 80% LED, 20% fluorescent. Such christmas decorations as we still use are all LED now so the December bill is no different than January or November.
Best part of these simple changes is that they SAVE ME MONEY. So go for it, California! Leading or following us to the north doesn't matter when the prize is a better planet for our kids and grandkids.
6
Maintaining current trends, there will be about an additional 6.3 million more Californians come 2030 and about an additional 16.2 million more Californians come 2050.
The only way California is going to even get close to their 2030 & 2050 targets is to shut down the air and shipping ports, kick the petroleum burning industries out of the state, revert to a predominately agrarian economy with widespread manual harvesting with emigration by skilled and technology workers accounting for the final targeted percentage points...
“[The legislation] includes no penalties in case the mandate is missed.” Meaning it’s a paper tiger which can be, and probably will be, ignored without legal consequences befalling on anyone.
“It’s a shameless effort to maintain their revenue stream — regardless of what the impact is on everyone else.” Sure, put all of California out of work just to terminate that shameless revenue stream…sure Wilbur.
The only way California is going to even get close to their 2030 & 2050 targets is to shut down the air and shipping ports, kick the petroleum burning industries out of the state, revert to a predominately agrarian economy with widespread manual harvesting with emigration by skilled and technology workers accounting for the final targeted percentage points...
“[The legislation] includes no penalties in case the mandate is missed.” Meaning it’s a paper tiger which can be, and probably will be, ignored without legal consequences befalling on anyone.
“It’s a shameless effort to maintain their revenue stream — regardless of what the impact is on everyone else.” Sure, put all of California out of work just to terminate that shameless revenue stream…sure Wilbur.
4
There are only two ways to solve the problem and it has to be done globally.
1. We change out entire economic, social, and political order to sustain a life style that uses less energy.
2. We keep the same lifestyle and we reduce the population by 50% to 75%.
Since neither is going to happen. I will not see any real solution to this issue in my lifetime.
1. We change out entire economic, social, and political order to sustain a life style that uses less energy.
2. We keep the same lifestyle and we reduce the population by 50% to 75%.
Since neither is going to happen. I will not see any real solution to this issue in my lifetime.
5
There is another solution JD: use alternate sources of energy, starting with the sun. We haven't even begun to tap that incredible source. It will take an emergency, which is upon now and no one is paying any heed, to get us to support solar energy start-ups and innovation. We've been lazy in this vein for a long time - thinking that we can continue on forever with coal and petroleum.
1
I think that once the goal is set, consumer demand will create new markets for the innovations in comments here and more. But we really have no choice; pay now or pay later and, oh by the way, the later cost will be much higher. Time to act is rapidly running out. We just know how much time is left on the clock!
4
350 rocks, and we are going to reduce carbon dramatically in California. When the scientific community says we have to make a fast switch in our economy to shift from dirty to clean energy and reduce carbon outputs dramatically, what that means in English is that we have to make a fast switch in our economy to shift from dirty to clean energy and reduce carbon outputs dramatically. Not, "It would be nice," or "Fine, but let's do it slower than science says we have to." And certainly not, "OK, but we'll only start in earnest after there's no more hope." Fifteen years from now California will look very different and in energy we will be leading the way economically and environmentally. Others will have to get on board too, and I look forward to seeing states that are dragging their heels on this today buy the technology and solutions they will need then from our companies.
2
It probably is a mistake not to publicize widely the means by which we can cut down 50% on petroleum use. In 15 years we should be able to double gas mileage of internal combustion vehicles, while increasing the market penetration of electric vehicles to 30-40%.
California SB 350 should also have included an explicit plan to retrain displaced fossil fuel employees to fill the expanding number of renewable energy jobs.
What will be difficult is fighting off the vicious media blitz and lobying from the petroleum industry.
Also, right now California does generate only about 1% of the world's CO2, but it is important not to underestimate the extent of the state's influence as an example out of proportion to its size, not just to the U.S., but well beyond.
California SB 350 should also have included an explicit plan to retrain displaced fossil fuel employees to fill the expanding number of renewable energy jobs.
What will be difficult is fighting off the vicious media blitz and lobying from the petroleum industry.
Also, right now California does generate only about 1% of the world's CO2, but it is important not to underestimate the extent of the state's influence as an example out of proportion to its size, not just to the U.S., but well beyond.
3
"At some point we should work on reasonable, cost-effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to improve our air quality. But not at the cost of jobs.” Why is it that people are afraid to make sense of facts? How many "green jobs" have been created since 2010? Take a look at this link that seems to support why our move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources makes a whole lot of sense!
http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-jobs-in-renewable-energy-and-...
http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-jobs-in-renewable-energy-and-...
2
Absolutely no plan plan how to achieve the targeted reduction! So we fall back on the standard liberal democrat approach... We will let some unelected bureaucrats decide! What could possibly go wrong?
1
Senate Bill 350 sprang from the mind of Kevin DeLeon, the same guy who proposed the poorly conceived "Ammunition Buying Permit" legislation. The bill came loaded with taxes and fees. It omitted effective methods of disarming criminals and lunatics.
Now, DeLeon is proposing SB350. You can bet the bill, if passed, will
take hundreds of dollars from Californians. Look for huge increases in fuel taxes and motor vehicle fees.
How does one that is not an automotive engineer devise ways to increase the fuel efficiency of existing vehicles? What does that mean? What is the cost of making current vehicles use less gasoline? Can it be done?
What about electric cars? They are not cheap. Democrats will dramatically increase gasoline and diesel taxes to compensate for the loss of revenue
from electric vehicle owners.
Deleon and his ilk want California to lead the world in the reduction of fossil fuel emissions. Look around, no one is following! California is still the only state that requires its own blend of gasoline and CARB approved catalytic converters.
Now, DeLeon is proposing SB350. You can bet the bill, if passed, will
take hundreds of dollars from Californians. Look for huge increases in fuel taxes and motor vehicle fees.
How does one that is not an automotive engineer devise ways to increase the fuel efficiency of existing vehicles? What does that mean? What is the cost of making current vehicles use less gasoline? Can it be done?
What about electric cars? They are not cheap. Democrats will dramatically increase gasoline and diesel taxes to compensate for the loss of revenue
from electric vehicle owners.
Deleon and his ilk want California to lead the world in the reduction of fossil fuel emissions. Look around, no one is following! California is still the only state that requires its own blend of gasoline and CARB approved catalytic converters.
2
Jerry Brown for President!
Yes, Climate Change is the most important issue. If we do not solve that we do not have to worry about any of the others.
Yes, Climate Change is the most important issue. If we do not solve that we do not have to worry about any of the others.
5
Just like California's governmental bias against housing, this won't be a problem for the rich. If you're working or middle-class though, you'll pay even more ... again. California has the highest (supplemental) poverty rate rate in the nation, largely due to the actions of its government.
2
NYT: "A defeat would be a setback for Mr. Brown, who has made a battle against global warming a centerpiece of his final years in public life, and for environmentalists who have looked to California to lead the emissions fight at a time of strong skepticism about global warming in Washington. "
WaPo: "Securing legislation requiring that standard in the world’s eighth-largest economy would be a timely win for Brown before international leaders meet in Paris in November for the United Nations climate change conference."
NYT: "One amendment would give the Legislature more say over the final recommendation by the Air Resources Board."
WaPo: One of the main sticking points for lawmakers reluctant to tighten climate change rules concerns the California Air Resources Board, an unelected body with broad power to set vehicle emissions and fuel standards to decide how the state will reduce oil use.
Some moderate Democrats want the Legislature to approve board regulations, but de Leon has said he is unwilling to strip the agency’s power. Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, who is carrying a companion bill to extend California’s current emission-reduction targets to 2050, said she would add a requirement for the board to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of policies for lawmakers to review."
The NYT piece seems to strive for "balance" by bringing in the petroleum viewpoint, one that is scientifically wrong, economically and morally wrong. It's like getting the KKK opinion on voter rights.
WaPo: "Securing legislation requiring that standard in the world’s eighth-largest economy would be a timely win for Brown before international leaders meet in Paris in November for the United Nations climate change conference."
NYT: "One amendment would give the Legislature more say over the final recommendation by the Air Resources Board."
WaPo: One of the main sticking points for lawmakers reluctant to tighten climate change rules concerns the California Air Resources Board, an unelected body with broad power to set vehicle emissions and fuel standards to decide how the state will reduce oil use.
Some moderate Democrats want the Legislature to approve board regulations, but de Leon has said he is unwilling to strip the agency’s power. Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, who is carrying a companion bill to extend California’s current emission-reduction targets to 2050, said she would add a requirement for the board to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of policies for lawmakers to review."
The NYT piece seems to strive for "balance" by bringing in the petroleum viewpoint, one that is scientifically wrong, economically and morally wrong. It's like getting the KKK opinion on voter rights.
8
Politicians can cut gasoline consumption by taxing gas so that the price of a gallon will reach well over ten dollars. That will certainly stop people from using their cars which will cut down on carbon emissions.
Those same politicians will then bemoan the fact that the poor and middle class can no longer drive their cars, to work, to schools, on vacations etc. and only the rich will be seen in cars on the highways and streets of California.
Those same politicians will then bemoan the fact that the poor and middle class can no longer drive their cars, to work, to schools, on vacations etc. and only the rich will be seen in cars on the highways and streets of California.
2
Fortunately EV development spurred in part by CA legislation will offer alternatives to walking for the poor and middle class.
rwegrzen - Would it not be better to spur EV development FIRST before passing legislation that will HURT the poor and middle class until EV development is spurred?
1
The oil industry sees this as an attempt to reduce their market by half, and they are investing millions of dollars in deceptive scary ads to avoid losing billions.
1
California Assembly Republican leader Kristin Olsen objects to the economic costs of the bill. The costs of doing nothing about climate change will be unimaginably high, and they will be only one aspect of the disaster. Poor people in the central San Joaquin Valley will suffer worse than anyone. It is not, as she fatuously implies, about "clean air." The stakes are much higher than that.
4
Ah, the buggy whip conundrum!
When cars were invented the people who made horse carriages and buggy whips screamed that the sky was falling and that there would be hundreds of people losing jobs. They all got jobs with the auto industry that had thousands more jobs than they could fill.
That was insane then and it is still insane and anyone still using this hugely dishonest battle cry should be drummed out of office.
New industries will take the place of the oil and coal industries and no doubt in the long run they will turn out to be just as dangerous to human health as every other venture that humans have pursued in their long history.
The reason that every enterprise turns out to be dangerous is because the rich will always cut corners and buy corrupt politicians to push through unethical laws that benefit the rich and harm everyone else.
Until the corruption is stamped out and the rich are forced to clean up their own messes, nothing will save human life and health and livelihoods.
When cars were invented the people who made horse carriages and buggy whips screamed that the sky was falling and that there would be hundreds of people losing jobs. They all got jobs with the auto industry that had thousands more jobs than they could fill.
That was insane then and it is still insane and anyone still using this hugely dishonest battle cry should be drummed out of office.
New industries will take the place of the oil and coal industries and no doubt in the long run they will turn out to be just as dangerous to human health as every other venture that humans have pursued in their long history.
The reason that every enterprise turns out to be dangerous is because the rich will always cut corners and buy corrupt politicians to push through unethical laws that benefit the rich and harm everyone else.
Until the corruption is stamped out and the rich are forced to clean up their own messes, nothing will save human life and health and livelihoods.
1
50% reduction. To achieve that in California, I suspect buying every car built before 1990 and every SUV built before 2005 and bricking them would achieve that. It would cost some money but probably more cost-effective than any other option. You'd have to prevent used car dealers from importing older stuff, too.
1
Is it too much to ask that the plan enabled by the law give specifics on how the goals will/could/might be reached and what regulations might/could/will be passed to implement the goal?
The country saw with Obamacare that there are unintended consequences that occur when 'feel good' legislation is passed without careful exposition of the consequences. "Pushing urban development that help enable people to walk to their jobs and to shopping" sounds good in the abstract, but exactly what regulations, taxes or laws are envisioned to get to that Utopian goal? Are they reasonable? Affordable? Respectful of the liberty of all?
The argument of Mr. Steyer that America just comes up with new ideas to meet this draconian program of change is simply the fatuous hope of a zealot.
The country saw with Obamacare that there are unintended consequences that occur when 'feel good' legislation is passed without careful exposition of the consequences. "Pushing urban development that help enable people to walk to their jobs and to shopping" sounds good in the abstract, but exactly what regulations, taxes or laws are envisioned to get to that Utopian goal? Are they reasonable? Affordable? Respectful of the liberty of all?
The argument of Mr. Steyer that America just comes up with new ideas to meet this draconian program of change is simply the fatuous hope of a zealot.
2
Much of the focus seems to be on cars and trying to get more Californians behind the wheel of an electric car to help meet climate and energy policy goals. Lost in the discussion are the other vehicles on the road, namely medium and heavy duty trucks that consume about 25% of all petroleum based motor fuels. The largest of these - Class 7 and 8 tractors - consume 75% of the fuel used by these vehicles. Fuel economy standards for these big commercial vehicles that kicked in in 2014 will greatly contribute to petroleum reduction goals. Getting more of California's commercial truck owners behind the wheel of a new vehicle will greatly contribute to petreoleum reduction. Still yet, many new and old commercial vehicles are powered by engines that can operate on higher blends of bio-based fuel that further contribute to petroleum reduction and overall CO2 savings.
5
Sadly, NIMBY against multi-unit structures goes hand in hand with Save the Redwoods fund raisers held on rich folks redwood decks.
All the options to reduce emissions will not work without cooperation from the Zoning and Planning departments of every city and county. Due to the way those local boards kowtow to Neighborhood Associations and Citizen's for XYZ we will see suburban sprawl and antiquated "modern" communities. Consolidating communities and increased densification with public transport systems for commuting must be efficient not necessarily acceptable. In the 50's citizens accepted having to move for our Interstate Freeway system to be built. Today we must save our planet by displaying the ingenuity and willingness to work for the greater good that has built America. Now lets save America.
All the options to reduce emissions will not work without cooperation from the Zoning and Planning departments of every city and county. Due to the way those local boards kowtow to Neighborhood Associations and Citizen's for XYZ we will see suburban sprawl and antiquated "modern" communities. Consolidating communities and increased densification with public transport systems for commuting must be efficient not necessarily acceptable. In the 50's citizens accepted having to move for our Interstate Freeway system to be built. Today we must save our planet by displaying the ingenuity and willingness to work for the greater good that has built America. Now lets save America.
1
Please take action, drive electric and talk with me about going VisionSolarDotCom!
1
Democrats need to finally confront, and overcome, their massive, incessant and out of control cowardice, and finally support the common sense solution: a revenue neutral carbon tax.
2
As a resident of both Los Angeles and London, I know that the ONLY reason that UK residents aren't chopping heads off politicians who vote for high fuel taxes is the access to massive public transit that makes owning an automobile not only unnecessary but undesirable. Studying LA's history and its lack of will to implement public transit, and the absence of a mandatory citywide implementation of such in this bill, makes it a ridiculous exercise in futility.
4
Mass transit in Los Angeles is gradually improving. In San Francisco, it is already good.
The reason California has to be a leader in cutting emissions is simple--not only is it the most populous state, but I believe if it it was its own country, it would have about the world's 10th largest economy. California making emission cuts really does make a difference, not only on their air quality, but our continent's (and probably global) air quality.
4
Here we go again. California is trying to pass a bill with no specifics, instead outsourcing the details to the bureaucracy, leaving voters with no say on how to implement the goals.
Whatever one believes on this issue, the legislature should have the courage and do the real work of coming up with a plan that has detailed actions. No more "pass this bill so that we know what's in it". Put the specifics up front so voters and their legislators know what is being proposed! We're all tired of government bureaucracies running our lives.
Whatever one believes on this issue, the legislature should have the courage and do the real work of coming up with a plan that has detailed actions. No more "pass this bill so that we know what's in it". Put the specifics up front so voters and their legislators know what is being proposed! We're all tired of government bureaucracies running our lives.
4
I'm with Steve. I live in CA and generally support the initiatives proposed here. But I absolutely do not trust the Air Resources Board here to make the rules independently.
Californians have this relentless crusade against the evils of fossil fuel, yet they continue to "mine" water, dropping their water table, at an alarming rate. To borrow a quote, "they strain out the gnat and swallow the camel".
3
California allegedly is the only state without regulation of groundwater, so agriculture has been taking advantage of this to pump as much water as they can. Finally a law has been passed to regulate groundwater basins.
Governor Brown,
From the coast of Maine, we hear you and offer support!
We need you to lead the way.
Thank you
From the coast of Maine, we hear you and offer support!
We need you to lead the way.
Thank you
3
This appears to be a replay of 2006 for those who have seen the diabolical documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" when Big Oil, Big Auto, and Big Parts collaborated and killed a machine that has uses no petroleum products, pretty much kills Big Auto's mantra of "planned obsolescence, and has few moving parts, Not to mention they are quiet, non-polluting, and just as fast. It was heartbreaking to watch then destroy the 400 they made (only 1 left in a museum) proving once again that corruption rules and everything in America is bought and paid for by special interest lobbyists and an oft despicable Congress looking out for themselves and not us. Lets hope this is not the case this time around.
4
What I can't seem to understand is why not continue to research alternative energy sources but not but our country at risk. Wars are fought for land and resources. With modern computers and smart people like the ones at Tesla, who have made an electric car that can go about 250 miles between charges, or the team working on the hydrogen fuel cell. If the government wants to help, stay out of it but offer something like a $100 Billion prize to the one who can come up with a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine. How about building Nuclear power plants instead of coal fueled plants. After living through the last 50 years as an observer of all of this madness, we could have built enough Nuclear power plants around the U.S. to supply more than our needs for electricity. We have the ability to run safe Nuclear plants. Other countries might but we don't. Here's something new. Try using our heads instead of our politics.
5
Reducing oil use does not "put our country at risk". Wars are being fought over access to oil. The sooner we devalue oil, remove the incentive to use it, the sooner our world will have one less reason for wars.
We already have the basic technology we need to greatly reduce, if not eliminate, our civilization's emissions of fossil fuel CO2. The sooner we get it done, the less global warming our children will face.
Car manufacturers are meeting increasing MPG standards by rolling out new cars based on existing technologies, in many cases without even using electric cars.
We already have the basic technology we need to greatly reduce, if not eliminate, our civilization's emissions of fossil fuel CO2. The sooner we get it done, the less global warming our children will face.
Car manufacturers are meeting increasing MPG standards by rolling out new cars based on existing technologies, in many cases without even using electric cars.
2
Note also that $100 billion would be more than enough to finish the needed research on fusion energy and start deploying commercial fusion energy power plants.
2
You can't be an advocate for the middle class, and at the same time support draconian measures to lower global temps by half a degree over the next 100 years. Steyer is a dangerous man. He funds the studies, then funds the pr on those studies, all funneled through proxy 501(c) entities.
4
The temperature increase would be more like one or two degrees, which does not sound like a lot, but we are already seeing effects with one degree increase.
California would like to keep its cities. New England would too.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-levels-rise-20-feet-19211
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-levels-rise-20-feet-19211
If you wonder why the world can't seem to avoid what is a clear disaster in the making, then look at the fact there will be economic hardships imposed on people in acting. In the balance, we must act, but an abstract threat will almost always lose against the more immediate threat of not being able to pay the bills.
It's not enough to simply mandate the cuts; one must figure out a way to transition those most dependent on the economic activity brought about by carbon emissions so that they can feel this isn't an assault on their livelihoods. There will be winners and losers, and in a fair society, while we don't have to pretend climate change is a boogeyman, we ought share that pain -- or else face intractable opposition and wonder why nothing gets done.
It's not enough to simply mandate the cuts; one must figure out a way to transition those most dependent on the economic activity brought about by carbon emissions so that they can feel this isn't an assault on their livelihoods. There will be winners and losers, and in a fair society, while we don't have to pretend climate change is a boogeyman, we ought share that pain -- or else face intractable opposition and wonder why nothing gets done.
7
Here in Germany, we heard the very same phrases from doom-sayers, albeit in German, but theirt predictions have not come true. We have the lowest unemployment rate in over 20 years, our economy is humming. Renewable energy production creates new jobs, we have programmes to retrain the unemployed, all of them, to offer them the chance to find good employment.
Instead of complaining about these stricter environmental rules, consider the fact that there is long period of transition. I daresay all companies have strategies in their safes, so now is the time to implement these strategies gradually. No one expects the change to be effected in a day. Aren't FIFTEEN whole years enough? America, please show us what you can do for the good of California, and ultimately for the whole world.
Instead of complaining about these stricter environmental rules, consider the fact that there is long period of transition. I daresay all companies have strategies in their safes, so now is the time to implement these strategies gradually. No one expects the change to be effected in a day. Aren't FIFTEEN whole years enough? America, please show us what you can do for the good of California, and ultimately for the whole world.
4
Here in Germany, we heard the very same phrases from doom-sayers, albeit in German, but theirt predictions have not come true.
================
Actually, they did come true:
Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-di...
Germany shut down its nuclear reactors and is now busy building coal fired plants to make up base load as renewables are unreliable
================
Actually, they did come true:
Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-di...
Germany shut down its nuclear reactors and is now busy building coal fired plants to make up base load as renewables are unreliable
God bless Governor Brown.
12
And Elon Musk.
5
climate change is real problem, but i'm very troubled by the fact that no real ideas are being put forward to address how the world could transition to a fully green economy fast enough to mitigate the effects of carbon pollution without doing serious damage to a global economy highly dependent on carbon based industry.
The automobile industry, in spite of the criticism they receive, has done a good job reducing the levels of pollution there products emit, you can buy a hybrid or fully electric cars and the internal combustion engine is increasingly
efficient in spite of being over 150 years old. we are not going to solve the problem of climate change by punishing cars alone.
Everything has to become greener with no exceptions we need green airplanes, green trucks, green ships at sea be they cruise, cargo or military.
we need new air conditioning technology that's less energy intensive and less polluting this is a bigger challenge than the state of California or anyone else is willing to admit.
The automobile industry, in spite of the criticism they receive, has done a good job reducing the levels of pollution there products emit, you can buy a hybrid or fully electric cars and the internal combustion engine is increasingly
efficient in spite of being over 150 years old. we are not going to solve the problem of climate change by punishing cars alone.
Everything has to become greener with no exceptions we need green airplanes, green trucks, green ships at sea be they cruise, cargo or military.
we need new air conditioning technology that's less energy intensive and less polluting this is a bigger challenge than the state of California or anyone else is willing to admit.
6
'The Transition Handbook' is wonderful and full of great ideas. Become a transition community where you live.
Also- 'Grow Gardens, Not Lawns' presents an interesting perspective. Drought resistance plants exist and can be beautiful.
However, the carbon tax needs to be framed in a way that people can really understand.
Also- 'Grow Gardens, Not Lawns' presents an interesting perspective. Drought resistance plants exist and can be beautiful.
However, the carbon tax needs to be framed in a way that people can really understand.
1
Studies by reputable economists show that the costs of global warming would be about three times the cost of avoiding it.
The auto industry has been able to keep making cars more efficient. Trucks will become more efficient in new models, and they have already found ways to do it with existing trucks, like streamlining with air deflectors on the bottom.
The auto industry has been able to keep making cars more efficient. Trucks will become more efficient in new models, and they have already found ways to do it with existing trucks, like streamlining with air deflectors on the bottom.
NO! The USA & Canada have highest per capita carbon use. As Europe has showed us less carbon emissions from cars can be reduced by heavy taxation .
The extra taxes are used for various transit schemes & for countries' budgets.
The extra taxes are used for various transit schemes & for countries' budgets.
4
When the mother comes in for pre-natal check up, we don't ask the parents to give a detailed explanation of how they are going to raise the child to 18 to be an upright, moral, productive citizen. We don't ask them how they are going to feed & house the child and pay for their education.
Just like that, this is taking care of Mother Earth, the only place we know and can live in. We are making a statement at this time and we need to figure out how we are going to make it work over time.
Just like that, this is taking care of Mother Earth, the only place we know and can live in. We are making a statement at this time and we need to figure out how we are going to make it work over time.
3
There are about 21 million cars in California. There are about a billion cars on Earth. California's cars are much more efficient than most but Californians drive much more. But let's say California's cars cause 5% of the world's transportation-related carbon emissions (that's probably high).
Transportation is estimated to cause 13% of total global carbon emissions.
If California's cars totally stopped emitting carbon, that would reduce global carbon emissions by 0.65%
It's not hard to understand why people in California, enlightened though they may be, resist the idea that they alone should pay such a high price for such a trivial benefit.
Transportation is estimated to cause 13% of total global carbon emissions.
If California's cars totally stopped emitting carbon, that would reduce global carbon emissions by 0.65%
It's not hard to understand why people in California, enlightened though they may be, resist the idea that they alone should pay such a high price for such a trivial benefit.
3
Sure, cars have become more efficient, in California as well, but what about trucks, S.U.V.s, heating units, facttories, oh, yes, and gas-powered lawn-mowers, etc? I have had the dubious pleasure of breathing some of that air and, believe me, there is plenty more poison in that exhaust to pollute the air.
And even though you may have calculated th difference these laws may make globally, every bit makes a difference. It would be lovely for the USA to become an example for the world as to environmental action. Many other countries would join in the effort if they saw America select this path.
And even though you may have calculated th difference these laws may make globally, every bit makes a difference. It would be lovely for the USA to become an example for the world as to environmental action. Many other countries would join in the effort if they saw America select this path.
Someone has to lead. (I guess you'd rather not, though.)
As a gas station owner I see a tremendous amount of problems in this bill if it is implemented incorrectly. By blinding reducing petroleum consumption by 50% you are pretty much eliminating 50% of the revenues gas station owner, a type of small business with low margins mostly owned by immigrant families. A blind reduction would lead to an increase in prices are gas station owners and refiners will seek to increase margins to make up for lower revenue.
I am unusual in that I want to see action against climate change but without more detail I do not see this working well at all. Instead I believe a mandate that each gas station in California, be retrofitted with hydrogen fuel storage tanks and solar fueling pumps. This will allow owning a car powered by renewable fuel much more practical, offer a new source of revenues for small business and offer an innovative transformation to our energy infastructure.. To make it work I believe the the state of California should pay for the installation in return raise the fuel tax by a certain amount and introduce a fuel tax to hydrogen and solar power. This way a reduction of 50% will be viable, and at the same time be stimulative to the economy as it will create new industries such as hydrogen fuel production plants and hydrogen and solar pumps manufactures.
I am unusual in that I want to see action against climate change but without more detail I do not see this working well at all. Instead I believe a mandate that each gas station in California, be retrofitted with hydrogen fuel storage tanks and solar fueling pumps. This will allow owning a car powered by renewable fuel much more practical, offer a new source of revenues for small business and offer an innovative transformation to our energy infastructure.. To make it work I believe the the state of California should pay for the installation in return raise the fuel tax by a certain amount and introduce a fuel tax to hydrogen and solar power. This way a reduction of 50% will be viable, and at the same time be stimulative to the economy as it will create new industries such as hydrogen fuel production plants and hydrogen and solar pumps manufactures.
There are many initiatives in California to begin to address our shared climate change challenge. Bemoaning the situation that many other "leaders", states or countries have not jumped on board is no excuse and no reason not to act and to lead. Deniers dither while putting in place zero solutions. I hear far too many conservatives pine or hope or pray for some divine or futuristic "solution" that magically solves the problem later. Of course California cannot alter global issues just within its borders, but it's effort and leadership against entrenched and short-sighted economic interests is to be applauded and supported. Or do you think hope and prayer are going to change the climate?
2
See, the whole thing about cutting carbon emissions is, everyone wants everybody else to do it, but they themselves want to be able to keep living the same way, driving the same cars, using the same amount of electricity. The notion is: let other people change their ways, but not me. Why should I?
3
Safe clean carbon-free nuclear power looks better all the time.
2
Sweden and other countries burn garbage for electricity and their plants have almost zero emissions because they are very intelligent people and they solve problems while American corporations are only good at creating problems.
Sweden is so good at recycling and reusing and creating less trash to begin with that they have started charging other countries to export their trash to Sweden. So now they are actually getting paid to produce electricity for their people.
We could solve 2 of America's biggest problems at the same time but the oil and coal industry goons are buying politicians and hiring lobbyists to keep the garbage burning plants out of the US.
Time to get money and republicans out of office so that the US can have clean air and water plus cheap electricity.
Sweden is so good at recycling and reusing and creating less trash to begin with that they have started charging other countries to export their trash to Sweden. So now they are actually getting paid to produce electricity for their people.
We could solve 2 of America's biggest problems at the same time but the oil and coal industry goons are buying politicians and hiring lobbyists to keep the garbage burning plants out of the US.
Time to get money and republicans out of office so that the US can have clean air and water plus cheap electricity.
Suprise, even Democrats agree that the myth of a costless transition alternative energy is a lie.
1
What are you talking about everyone knows it's going to cost to transition, we've made a mess now there is a cost to cleaning it up. It's scary how many people don't think they have a responsibility to contribute.
7
Chris - Don't worry about the cost, it will only be be borne by the middle class and poor. Those big donors will hardly be effected.
1
Glad two of the players in this absurd debate were highlighted: Steyer is the hedge fund opportunist who made hundreds of millions investing in coal plants all over Asia and now is eager to boost his “green” investment portfolio, The loss of jobs from these proposed draconian changes will not affect him. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the actor who worked mightily to glamorize gratuitous killing in multiple films, as issue which is now a national plague. Hats off to these publicly-minded folks, who also happen to possess broad scientific knowledge.
2
Renewables create jobs -- even better than the jobs that would be created in a desperate rush to rebuild cities inland 100 years from now. Unless your plan is to collect all of America's scientists and bury them in a mineshaft in Utah, you're going to keep hearing about the impacts to come:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019
1
So a fifty percent reduction in petroleum use in 15 years is a bit ambitions. Its not impossible, but it is not easy to achieve. However, there is nothing wrong in striving towards this goal. Any significant reduction is a success.
So maybe the state could set a slightly more modest goal of a 40% reduction by 2030 or with other specific goals. First petroleum us for not transportation needs should be stopped. Then, the overall goal can be achieved by targeting a 20% reduction from increased fuel efficiency and the other 20% reduction from having less vehicular miles being driven. This means that vehicles will have to be 25% more fuel efficient and people would be driving 25% fewer miles (yes the math is correct).
To achieve these goals some concrete steps would have to be put in place. A gradual but eventually much higher progressive taxes on gasoline, more aerodynamic commercial trucks & vehicles, and major investments in transportation alternatives and development patterns (think better / more effective public transportation, high-speed rail, and more compact cities). Each initiative complementing one another to give major results.
If the state successfully implements these strategies, it should easily get a significant reduction in petroleum use.
So maybe the state could set a slightly more modest goal of a 40% reduction by 2030 or with other specific goals. First petroleum us for not transportation needs should be stopped. Then, the overall goal can be achieved by targeting a 20% reduction from increased fuel efficiency and the other 20% reduction from having less vehicular miles being driven. This means that vehicles will have to be 25% more fuel efficient and people would be driving 25% fewer miles (yes the math is correct).
To achieve these goals some concrete steps would have to be put in place. A gradual but eventually much higher progressive taxes on gasoline, more aerodynamic commercial trucks & vehicles, and major investments in transportation alternatives and development patterns (think better / more effective public transportation, high-speed rail, and more compact cities). Each initiative complementing one another to give major results.
If the state successfully implements these strategies, it should easily get a significant reduction in petroleum use.
2
Are we so narcissistic or narrow sighted that we don't stop to think that how/what we do now will affect future generations? Or don't we care?
7
If the Obama Administration cared about future generations it would not be spending more than we take in in taxes and burdening our children, grandchildren and great grand children with crushing debt.
2
“We want to be leaders,” she said, “but not when there are no followers."
What a sad comment from a supposed leader.
Perhaps Silicon Valley needs to take the lead then, and quit with the gadgets. Or the citizens.
The media too needs to do much more to educate the public, so that the public can lead our hapless "leaders" who only follow the lead of big oil.
The mantra of even the best is, "we can't stop using oil completely." Cutting to zero in 35 years is drastic. Obviously, they think that 35 years is too far away for anyone to take seriously.
What a sad comment from a supposed leader.
Perhaps Silicon Valley needs to take the lead then, and quit with the gadgets. Or the citizens.
The media too needs to do much more to educate the public, so that the public can lead our hapless "leaders" who only follow the lead of big oil.
The mantra of even the best is, "we can't stop using oil completely." Cutting to zero in 35 years is drastic. Obviously, they think that 35 years is too far away for anyone to take seriously.
1
Here is a simple suggestion. After sitting for ten minutes in a drive through line at a Starbucks with at least 6 cars running their engines the whole time I wonder how much saving could be obtained either by banning drive thrus or mandating that cars be turned off. It wouldn't hrt me or any of us to have to walk a bit to get our coffee.
4
I coast to red lights (in my Prius). I find others rev their motors the whole way, rushing to the red light, only to stop, and then have to power up their monstrous vehicles when the light turns green. I'm amazed at how unaware people are of their gas usage -- well, look at the size of the vehicles people drive. No one cares.
Meanwhile, on the Pacific coast, sea life collapses. Who cares? Obviously not Americans.
Meanwhile, on the Pacific coast, sea life collapses. Who cares? Obviously not Americans.
In Brussels and through the parts of Central Europe I've been to, modern cars are equipped with an automatic shutoff triggered by idling. When you take your foot off the brake or step on the clutch, the cars automatically start. This would be good for LA and SF traffic.
Time to bite the bullet, America, minivan population notwithstanding. We have built a gasoline-based culture that has become unsustainable and downright toxic. When will we start to face the facts?
4
What facts? How about you stop telling people how to live. If you are so concerned about our "toxic gasoline culture", you are perfectly free to stop using all fossil fuels, including the use of electricity that allows you to pontificate from behind a keyboard..
The Governor, who has generally done a good job, is so over the top with this legislation. Starting about 2031 we will have a Republican Governor and legislature that will overturn this folly. America is powered by oil and will be for the next 100 years. The air is already cleaner than people ever thought possible, in California where we by and large use zero coal. Global warming is a myth. With politicians giving exclusions for emerging markets (China etc.) there will always be self interest involved in this environmental power grab vs. jobs and economic growth. Wake up, we need to protect America's self interests and people.
1
Pass your thoughts on for your great-grandchildren to see the folly of your thinking.
The difficulty here is the free rider problem. If a majority of nations take aggressive action on climate control, then those nations who do not take such action will also benefit. They will have better air, AND higher industrial output which they got by ignoring controls.
If only a minority take action, then they will have absorbed the costs with no real benefit.
The solution is to find means to compel ALL nations to take action. But where are the means for such compulsion? Also, China and India are both increasing their output of CO2, but even then they emit much less per capita than the cleanest parts of the US.
Very tricky!
If only a minority take action, then they will have absorbed the costs with no real benefit.
The solution is to find means to compel ALL nations to take action. But where are the means for such compulsion? Also, China and India are both increasing their output of CO2, but even then they emit much less per capita than the cleanest parts of the US.
Very tricky!
It's interesting to see how the party of freedom, the Left is always about compelling people to do what they want. It's amazing, this ability to be of two minds and never seeing or feeling the conflict.
The oil company arguments are particularly specious: minivans get comparatively good gas mileage - certainly better than SUV's. The other interesting thing is that the dry, hot Central Valley, where this opposition seems to arise and is highly dependent on agriculture, will suffer (and indeed is already suffering) the effects of climate change more than other parts of the state.
Odd that conservatives place so much faith in free enterprise, but abandon that faith when it comes to the question of free enterprise rising to the challenge of transitioning to a carbon-free economy. Just as an example, Tesla's $35K electric car will come on the market in just two years, showing that American ingenuity can indeed rise to the challenge.
Odd that conservatives place so much faith in free enterprise, but abandon that faith when it comes to the question of free enterprise rising to the challenge of transitioning to a carbon-free economy. Just as an example, Tesla's $35K electric car will come on the market in just two years, showing that American ingenuity can indeed rise to the challenge.
3
How is it possible to talk of free enterprise and mandated enterprise in the same breath?
In a car-centric world, why can't we invest heavily in alternative transportation, renewables and research: mass transit like rails, buses and even bike rentals; more research on emission reduction; schools located within walking distance of homes; sidewalks; Greenways. Yes, California is already a leader, but every state and every person must do more. Come on --- America can do this but we need the political will. Why isn't carbon reduction a major election issue instead of people-bashing, fear-mongering and empty promises? Isn't ruining the entire planet for our grandkids important enough?
2
Since the late 1970's we have already achieved most of the petroleum use reduction target!
Over the past 40 years, the per capita oil consumption in the US has dropped by about 30%. But, as should be obvious, population growth has more than compensated, so that total consumption is greater now.
So sure, let's talk about how to achieve even greater efficiency and energy diversity, but if we really want to reduce human environmental impact, we need to talk about population control.
Over the past 40 years, the per capita oil consumption in the US has dropped by about 30%. But, as should be obvious, population growth has more than compensated, so that total consumption is greater now.
So sure, let's talk about how to achieve even greater efficiency and energy diversity, but if we really want to reduce human environmental impact, we need to talk about population control.
3
You have a Republican party threatening to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. Population control, at this point in time, is dead in the water (no pun intended -- thinking of dying oceans).
This is overreach. Even California gets more pollution from coal than cars, and even so: this is a state that made absolutely no effort at making mass transit available to its own citizens, and invented the 12 lane freeway- it now seeks to vilify everyone else for bad policy choices made decades ago. As older vehicles are replaced with newer, cleaner ones, California's air quality will improve by itself. This is the problem with instituting policy- people have to know how far you can go without disrupting lives.
3
Ralph says: "Even California gets more pollution from coal than cars.". Reference, please? Keep in mind that California power plants burn virtually no coal.
I wasn't aware that we Californians were vilifying anyone. We're just trying to make progress on solving a very big problem.
I wasn't aware that we Californians were vilifying anyone. We're just trying to make progress on solving a very big problem.
Setting goals that are disconnected from reality, no matter how laudable, is counterproductive. We might as well mandate a 50% reduction in food consumption to solve the obesity crisis.
4
As many of both parties in the State Assembly point out, it's impossible to assess SB 350 without knowing what it means. What is the plan to achieve 50% reductions? What are the benefits and costs? What will be the results and impact on California? These aren't partisan politics, simply good rational government.
3
In every state, we should begin the process of defining a schedule for the elimination of the legal uses of fossil fuel. We know that we'll stop using them anyway. The volatility of fuel prices, the inevitable increase in fuel costs, and our growing unwillingness to accept their negative effects all ensure that the days of fossil fuel use are limited. We also know that, for a variety of applications, fossil fueled systems are already more expensive than the cleaner alternatives. Given that we know that we'll end using this stuff anyway, it is now time to begin an orderly phase out. If we can define a schedule now, innovators, entrepreneurs and consumers will be able to make more optimal decisions about how and when to invest their time and resources.
Here in New York, we ended the legal use of No. 6 heating oil in June of this year. We're currently scheduled to end No. 4 heating oil in 2030 -- but we really should accelerate the No. 4 ban to 2020. Given new building techniques, the availability of high efficiency heat pumps, and opportunities for mini-thermal grids, we should ban the use of all fossil fuels for heating in any new construction after 2025. Then, we'll need to schedule the phasing out of fossil fuels in existing buildings. A similar set of schedules should be set for transportation applications. Perhaps, we'd require all taxis and buses to be electric by 2025... Then, ban registration of new fossil fueled vehicles after 2030? Whatever, let's set the dates now.
Here in New York, we ended the legal use of No. 6 heating oil in June of this year. We're currently scheduled to end No. 4 heating oil in 2030 -- but we really should accelerate the No. 4 ban to 2020. Given new building techniques, the availability of high efficiency heat pumps, and opportunities for mini-thermal grids, we should ban the use of all fossil fuels for heating in any new construction after 2025. Then, we'll need to schedule the phasing out of fossil fuels in existing buildings. A similar set of schedules should be set for transportation applications. Perhaps, we'd require all taxis and buses to be electric by 2025... Then, ban registration of new fossil fueled vehicles after 2030? Whatever, let's set the dates now.
5
It really is bickering here. It is a foregone conclusion that this will happen with or without the bill. The Internal combustion engine (ICE) is only 25% efficient. Its days are numbered.
Electric motors are 90% efficient. The cost to maintain and fuel an ICE is much higher compared to Electric Vehicle ( about $400 per year)
Once the cheap Tesla , extended LEAFs and Chevy BOLT are out nobody will want to drive slow, polluting expensive ICE
Electric motors are 90% efficient. The cost to maintain and fuel an ICE is much higher compared to Electric Vehicle ( about $400 per year)
Once the cheap Tesla , extended LEAFs and Chevy BOLT are out nobody will want to drive slow, polluting expensive ICE
8
This is why Tesla located it's new battery factory in Nevada. It's too expensive for manufacturing already in California. When neighboring states have no regulations, you are just driving jobs out of state.
3
Tesla located it's new battery facility in Nevada because the state's government gave Tesla $1.2 billion in tax incentives. It has nothing to do with manufacturing costs. If it was, their headquarters and assembly lines for the cars wouldn't be in California.
And yet Tesla has its manufacturing in California. Also, note that it selected Nevada over Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and other low regulation state. Also note that hardware companies are on a dramatic rise in CA, from 3D printing to drones to medical devices. Also note that due to a long view on climate, CA not only has Tesla, but an entire ecosystem of suppliers and manufacturers that are building the future of transportation - battery suppliers, component suppliers etc. Also note that the two other companies that are jumping in self driving electric cars are also in CA - Google and Apple. With all Republican policies of low regulations, those states have achieved a bunch of call center jobs. While CA has laid the foundation of industries for the next 100 years
Tesla located the battery factory in Nevada because Elon Musk is pushing for rule changes in the "dealership model". He had states bid to get the factory. Many states do not allow Teslas to be sold. New Jersey has no Tesla showrooms. They refused to change their rules and therefore opted out of the battery factory.
Nevada changed their rules to allow Teslas to be sold outside of the dealership model. They changed their rules AND won the competition for the battery factory.
Make sure you understand the full story.
Nevada changed their rules to allow Teslas to be sold outside of the dealership model. They changed their rules AND won the competition for the battery factory.
Make sure you understand the full story.
California leads the way in showing what happens if you marginalize the GOP nut house: normal, semi-corrupt, conflicting, compromising politics. Things get done in the messy, frustrating, sometimes outrageous way politics in a democracy generally works. No miracle, no ideal, but an oasis of sanity in a country that otherwise seems to have gone off the rails, a country flirting - seriously flirting, I think - with fascism.
8
Joel - Interesting comment. Perhaps water use in the State is a good example of our outstanding government? Or the fact that the other day when I drove from Yuma AZ to San Diego the price of gas went up $1.00 when I crossed the State line? Or the fact that we now have to pay for 3 million more people on Medicaid? Or the fact that total taxes on income are now 62% if you live in California [why keep working?]? Or the fact that CA's two Senators both have not even read the proposed Iran nuclear agreement prior to voting? Or...shall I go on?
Nice comment, Joel. You touch on all the points. The fascism is very frightening, and yes, the voters who elected Brown brought some sanity to the discussion.
Thank you, Governor Brown and voters who elected him.
Thank you, Governor Brown and voters who elected him.
A 50% reduction in petroleum use in 15 years? Brown is called Governor Moon Beam for a very good reason. He is not of this planet!
6
If you read the article carefully, you will see that the 50% reduction is from a 1990 baseline. The 2010 goal, which has been met, was 20% from the 1990 baseline; the 2020 goal of 30% from the 1990 baseline is on target to be met. In other words, only half of the 50% goal will need to be met between 2020 and 2030. Also, the processes already in place to meet the 2010 and 2020 goals should make meeting the 2030 goal easier because many of those processes will naturally become more robust as they continue.
That's a laudable goal. On the way to 100%.
1
You may want to compare the job Jerry Brown has done for California with that of your own delusional Sam Brownback.
California's economy is booming, yours?
Brown makes decisions based on science, Brownback on imagined fantasies that don't exist so the solutions don't work. I'll take Jerry every time, thank you very much.
California's economy is booming, yours?
Brown makes decisions based on science, Brownback on imagined fantasies that don't exist so the solutions don't work. I'll take Jerry every time, thank you very much.
2
When I was a young engineering student at the Cooper Union in the early 60s, one of our teachers tried to tell us that human activity was changing the atmosphere as much as it was polluting our ground water and air by depositing untreated waste water into our deep water sources and toxic chemicals into the air we breathe. Most of us scoffed at what Mr Coopersmith tried to tell us, because we were young and had not realized that sometimes you can't go with your "gut" when it comes to right and wrong.
Wasn't it only two or three years ago that a storm flooded most of New York's water-facing subway tunnels for the first time ever? Isn't California facing its most dangerous drought in history and trying to put out more fires destroying more forests than ever before?
And the Arctic Ocean is no longer frozen. It can't be global warming, can it? It must be the Easter Bunny.
Wasn't it only two or three years ago that a storm flooded most of New York's water-facing subway tunnels for the first time ever? Isn't California facing its most dangerous drought in history and trying to put out more fires destroying more forests than ever before?
And the Arctic Ocean is no longer frozen. It can't be global warming, can it? It must be the Easter Bunny.
10
"...while pushing urban planning policies that help enable people to walk to their jobs and to shopping districts."
This is the funniest thing I ever read. Unless you want to bulldoze Los Angeles and start over, there is absolutely no was to reduce the reliance on the automobile.
This is the funniest thing I ever read. Unless you want to bulldoze Los Angeles and start over, there is absolutely no was to reduce the reliance on the automobile.
5
a state of the art bus system with lanes regulated only for buses would be pretty easy. Hefty fines for violators. Raise revenue, and nudge people on to buses. People will refuse? They can enjoy their pink slips.
Forced busing?
They can still drive, no one is forcing them not to, they will just have another hour to commute. It would be really up to the free will of the driver to choose if they would want to bus or drive. No one wolud be forcing them to do anything.
Forced busing?
They can still drive, no one is forcing them not to, they will just have another hour to commute. It would be really up to the free will of the driver to choose if they would want to bus or drive. No one wolud be forcing them to do anything.
It is not difficult to take a train in Los Angeles. Certainly lots of folks commute to downtown that way and there is more housing being built along train lines.
Sure there is. Build mass transit systems that are more energy-efficient than the automobile.
Count on the GOP to explain why nothing can be done, and then to benefit from someone else doing sometnhing.
17
Rely on a New York Times reader to turn every discussion into an attack on the GOP!
But here is something to think about. The GOP is accused of wanting to take us back to the 19th century. But 19th century humans were far less numerous and they were not destroying the planet.
But here is something to think about. The GOP is accused of wanting to take us back to the 19th century. But 19th century humans were far less numerous and they were not destroying the planet.
What a sincere, logical and non-partisan comment. Very, very helpful.
The CA Legislature has an independent science and technology think tank, the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST). CCST has studied in depth what will be required to meet the 2050 goals:
ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.php.
According to CCST there are only two ways to get there. First would be a technological breakthrough in sunlight-to-fuels. Progress is being made at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, but it's unlikely these processes will be scaled up by 2050:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/08/24/another-milestone-in-hybrid-artific...
The other alternative is to double electricity output with zero carbon and electrify the transportation fleet (save for ships, rail and heavy trucks). There is only one way to accomplish that by 2050--nuclear power. I'm a fan of solar power, I've had solar PV on my roof since 2006, but renewables aren't going to get us all the way there.
France gets 80 percent of it's electrical power from nukes. This is not pie in the sky. There are lots of alternative nuclear reactor designs that need to be explored. The sooner we get moving, the more likely we'll have more effectively nuclear power plants in this century, if not by 2050.
If we continue to drag our feet, we'll probably have to be content to build more of the same cold-war-era pressurized water reactors we have now. Unless in 50 years we have the Chinese build the new nuclear plants for us.
ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.php.
According to CCST there are only two ways to get there. First would be a technological breakthrough in sunlight-to-fuels. Progress is being made at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, but it's unlikely these processes will be scaled up by 2050:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/08/24/another-milestone-in-hybrid-artific...
The other alternative is to double electricity output with zero carbon and electrify the transportation fleet (save for ships, rail and heavy trucks). There is only one way to accomplish that by 2050--nuclear power. I'm a fan of solar power, I've had solar PV on my roof since 2006, but renewables aren't going to get us all the way there.
France gets 80 percent of it's electrical power from nukes. This is not pie in the sky. There are lots of alternative nuclear reactor designs that need to be explored. The sooner we get moving, the more likely we'll have more effectively nuclear power plants in this century, if not by 2050.
If we continue to drag our feet, we'll probably have to be content to build more of the same cold-war-era pressurized water reactors we have now. Unless in 50 years we have the Chinese build the new nuclear plants for us.
15
Michael - Excellent points! Unfortunately, despite nuclear power's undeniable safety record [the Navy has used it extensively since 1956 without a single incident] and great benefits, most people operate in the U.S. on emotion, not logic and facts, and they are simply unable to differentiate in their minds between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
1
It must be tiring planning the energy economy for the world's 7 billion people from your kitchen table. I hope you get enough sleep.
1
C'mon we're not serious about lowering carbon emissions. If we were, we would not allow three ton vehicles such as pickup trucks and SUVs with only one driver to make 60-80 mile round-trip commutes on a daily basis. There's no effort here at all, eh?
14
I know, and we have the problem with people who only drive in the city buying carbon-spewing muscle cars in Germany as well. If these people cannot be brought to their senses otherwise, it would be best to hit them where they have the most nerves: in their pockets. Tax those gas guzzlers, or, even better, have a graded tax that is staggered according to how much gas any vehicle emits. You'll see some changes then. Perhaps not among the 1% who can afford anything, but among the 99%, which will help the most.
What about banning most forms of travel on commercial airliners? Jets put out a lot per passenger mile (a round trip SF-NY trip is the same as commuting several months in an SUV). It always seems to be SUVs that get blamed, rarely airliners.
Cars injure and kill more people than guns do. Why shouldn't we address the real, hard problem and just ban cars? And cars are pushing us toward extinction faster than any of our other devices have.
2
How about banning cars of a certain size (that has the chance of a snowball in CA in 85 years).
California already gets 25% of its electricity from renewables like solar and wind, and utilities have contracts to get the 33% they are mandated to get by 2020, (and one of them (PG&E) more by then). Hydro isn't counted in the RPS mandate but its another 20% or so.
The success of the first years of these mandates (20% by 2010, 33% by 2020, and now 50% by 2030), are evidence that California now can turn its attention to mandating more fuel-efficient cars, more EV subsidies, better mass transit options like its high speed rail, and other ideas to meet the 50% reduction in gas.
It can be done, and Obama's fuel efficiency upgrades get the state more halfway there.
The success of the first years of these mandates (20% by 2010, 33% by 2020, and now 50% by 2030), are evidence that California now can turn its attention to mandating more fuel-efficient cars, more EV subsidies, better mass transit options like its high speed rail, and other ideas to meet the 50% reduction in gas.
It can be done, and Obama's fuel efficiency upgrades get the state more halfway there.
20
There is no question in my mind that this is the right thing to do-- good for California, the planet and future generations.
15
California has to lead the way and show that this can be done, there is no alternative but to regulate!The earth is heating and if we don't do these things we are doomed!!! The world looks to the US for leadership and we can live a better way, we have the technology! The oil & gas industry has had a free ride through all of this, let's take away some of their power by doing the right thing!
4
I don't think that the world looks to the US for leadership anymore. I think that they just want us to take responsibility for our contribution to the pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. According to the World Rescources Institute have contributed 27% of the carbon emissions from 1850 to 2011, if I am not mistaken. Our per capita contribution, follows Canada's.
http://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-could-displace-up-to-a-quarter-of-a-...
http://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-could-displace-up-to-a-quarter-of-a-...
1
Gasoline rationing. Bans on minivans. Now these will get Californians' attention. I can hardly wait to see California actually impose a 50% cut in petroleum use.
3
"Kristin Olsen, the Assembly Republican leader" follows a typical conservative tactic: making a statement that is factual, but misleading:
"We [meaning California] are less than 1 percent of the world."
But California is responsible for about 3.5% of worldwide CO2 emissions from human activity. Step up to the plate, Ms. Olsen, and do your duty to all humankind.
"We [meaning California] are less than 1 percent of the world."
But California is responsible for about 3.5% of worldwide CO2 emissions from human activity. Step up to the plate, Ms. Olsen, and do your duty to all humankind.
7
"We don't have a choice" says the billionaire hedge fund manager. Yes we do. We can vote out the anti business liberals who buy into the Obama inspired climate change rhetoric and impose unattainable energy consumption goals without realistic solution strategies. Stop the madness Governor Brown.
5
Californians (and I am one) would be less hypocritical about reducing GHG emissions if they were more realistic about expanding nuclear power, which is the high power density, zero-carbon alternative that never gets mentioned around here--the elephant in the room, as it were.
6
Unfortunately, taxpayers fully insure nuclear power. If taxpayers weren't the backstop, the production would be completely unsustainable and unprofitable.
Explain how we have millions of gallons of radioactive waste flowing into the Pacific from the Japanese nuclear disaster and now showing up in fish caught off the USA west coast.
Explain how we have millions of gallons of radioactive waste flowing into the Pacific from the Japanese nuclear disaster and now showing up in fish caught off the USA west coast.
It's a shame that mandates have to be rolled out on a state-by-state basis in order to spur the shift to renewables. If the US legislature had done its job and instituted a carbon tax, these rather arbitrary mandates on fossil fuels would not be required. But, as normally happens in mid-term elections, Democratic voters had better things to do than vote in 2010 and 2014, and we wound up with a retrograde congress (middle ages, I think).
If you want to bring us back into the 21st century, Democrats - get out and vote! Otherwise, we'll be crying in our beer again.
If you want to bring us back into the 21st century, Democrats - get out and vote! Otherwise, we'll be crying in our beer again.
8
Here is a suggestion. Make the Republicans an offer. The Democrats will co-operate in banning abortion (but contraception and day after pills would stay) and Republicans will cooperate on climate control.
But it will not happen because liberals never want to give anything. Their "secular religion" accepts no compromises.
But it will not happen because liberals never want to give anything. Their "secular religion" accepts no compromises.
The conservative playbook, I will get what I want or I will shutdown (fill in the blank)... the United States, Democracy, Diplomacy or in this case the Planet.
You can keep your minivan. Just replace the other car with Chevy Spark EV that cost $16k. With improving mpgs, EV and solar panel costs, we should be able to cut gas consumption not by 50%, but 70% by 2030 without bending over backward.
8
This is all a waste of time. It really doesn't matter in the big picture what California does. Nothing significant about carbon emissions will be done world wide so let's just enjoy global warming.
3
Nonsense. California is the 6th largest economy in the world.
Many carbon reduction ideas begun in California have spread to other states and other countries. Since the 70's everything from energy efficient building codes to utility decoupling to efficient fridges are now widely accepted nationally.
Both the solar and wind industries both began in California: now global.
Many carbon reduction ideas begun in California have spread to other states and other countries. Since the 70's everything from energy efficient building codes to utility decoupling to efficient fridges are now widely accepted nationally.
Both the solar and wind industries both began in California: now global.
13
There's nothing enjoyable about dying oceans. I walked along the coast of Washington a few days ago, everywhere, dead Common Murres, some in the process of dying. They are dying of starvation because the waters are too warm. In CA, it was the sea lion babies. Last year, sea stars along the coast and up to BC. As I stood on the lookout at Cape Flattery, the Makah guide told me how the rocks used to be covered with sea stars.
As we'd crossed the Hood Canal Bridge, we heard on the radio of how once again there was no oxygen in the Hood Canal, it is dying. This hypoxic death has been going on for 13 years.
The oceans will be full of dead zones. By the way, the oceans produce between 50 and 80% of our oxygen. I can't imagine that this is going to be enjoyable in any way.
And then there is the flooding of low-lying countries. What is going on in Europe may become the new norm. Where will we put 250 million climate refugees. Oh, and perhaps the southwest will produce its own climate refugees.
As we'd crossed the Hood Canal Bridge, we heard on the radio of how once again there was no oxygen in the Hood Canal, it is dying. This hypoxic death has been going on for 13 years.
The oceans will be full of dead zones. By the way, the oceans produce between 50 and 80% of our oxygen. I can't imagine that this is going to be enjoyable in any way.
And then there is the flooding of low-lying countries. What is going on in Europe may become the new norm. Where will we put 250 million climate refugees. Oh, and perhaps the southwest will produce its own climate refugees.
1
Change start small. Look at the impact CA policies already have - Prius was supposed to be a niche vehicle, utilities were never supposed to get power from renewables, solar was a waste of time, electric cars were never supposed to happen
1
Bravo, Gov. Brown, and shame on you, oil industry. The migrant crisis in Europe now is nothing compared to the migrations away from low-lying coastal areas of the US when sea levels rise. Millions will be displaced and likely end up living in refuge camps. In America.
All because a few oil billionaires don't want to lose a penny, and Americans are in love with their big cars.
All because a few oil billionaires don't want to lose a penny, and Americans are in love with their big cars.
11
Practical suggestions:
Gas tax subsidizing electric cars making them impossible to ignore. Gas is closed to the lowest price it has been in years making a disincentive for consumers to manage the weight and fuel efficiency of their choice of vehicle. In some states there are countless people driving hulking pickups around with no passengers or cargo. For those arguing against subsidies for EV's, businesses can take lease deductions for unnecessarily high-end cars and no one from either party is complaining that the government is subsidizing Maserati's or Mercedes. The government is spending plenty of money on less worthy endeavors. This will pay off in way unimaginable to most including economically; it is just not visible now. It will involve starving many of the large-revenue businesses out of existence as we evolve; they will go kicking and screaming (and lobbying).
Requirements for integrated solar on any new roof. Yes, utility-scale installations may be more cost effective, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the benefit of either option. The more invested, the faster costs will drop.
State-based initiatives to lower the burdens of getting permits to install solar. Make it as easy as possible.
For those arguing that other countries have to do their share: we can't wait for them. If we push forward rapidly, they will leapfrog us when the technology and methods are impossible to ignore. We will all benefit.
Gas tax subsidizing electric cars making them impossible to ignore. Gas is closed to the lowest price it has been in years making a disincentive for consumers to manage the weight and fuel efficiency of their choice of vehicle. In some states there are countless people driving hulking pickups around with no passengers or cargo. For those arguing against subsidies for EV's, businesses can take lease deductions for unnecessarily high-end cars and no one from either party is complaining that the government is subsidizing Maserati's or Mercedes. The government is spending plenty of money on less worthy endeavors. This will pay off in way unimaginable to most including economically; it is just not visible now. It will involve starving many of the large-revenue businesses out of existence as we evolve; they will go kicking and screaming (and lobbying).
Requirements for integrated solar on any new roof. Yes, utility-scale installations may be more cost effective, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the benefit of either option. The more invested, the faster costs will drop.
State-based initiatives to lower the burdens of getting permits to install solar. Make it as easy as possible.
For those arguing that other countries have to do their share: we can't wait for them. If we push forward rapidly, they will leapfrog us when the technology and methods are impossible to ignore. We will all benefit.
4
California already has part of your idea: every new roof has had to be at least solar ready since about 4 years ago.
Previously one of the impediments to going solar has been roofs with lots of little gables with too much wasted space not big enough for solar panels (6'X3') or that are facing the wrong way (north), and lots of vents in the way.
There are also lots of impediment-removing state initiatives, like PACE financing so you don't need a high credit rating to go solar (ie to get a loan or a lease or a power contract for your roof solar) as long as you are a homeowner, you just spread the solar payments out over 20 years so it's cheaper than your old utility bill.
Previously one of the impediments to going solar has been roofs with lots of little gables with too much wasted space not big enough for solar panels (6'X3') or that are facing the wrong way (north), and lots of vents in the way.
There are also lots of impediment-removing state initiatives, like PACE financing so you don't need a high credit rating to go solar (ie to get a loan or a lease or a power contract for your roof solar) as long as you are a homeowner, you just spread the solar payments out over 20 years so it's cheaper than your old utility bill.
2
We need to set goals tough enough to save the human species from extinction. If that is inconvenient for the oil industry, so be it. Industry always says change is impossible. Well some some pimply kid with a tweetergoogleuber account and a scholarship from Mr. Steyer is going to invent the next big thing and save us all.
7
You really think the humans are special enough to 'save'? After all we are the ones who are destroying it. I dont deny climate change -- but I do not think it is settled science as it is based on so many assumptions that a slight swing there and we might have not-enough carbon in the atmosphere!
Think about that.
Think about that.
Tamza. The scientists are not lying. They have tested and retested. The physics are real. The science was proven in the 19th century.
Sorry, climate change is settled science - and long settled science at that.
A scientist.
A scientist.
I am a Republican who supports these measures. If California adopts them then automakers will have no choice but to follow the new standards if they wish to sell cars in California. We have seen this movie before with the same cast of naysayers who told us that California's emissions standards would lead to catastrophic job losses. The only thing those measures led to was cleaner air. The job isn't done yet. Let's move forward and the rest of the country and world will have no choice but to follow. Go California!
72
The argument against doing something is so tiresome. We heard the same thing when higher energy efficiency standards were mandated. Couldn't be done. Would cost a fortune. Blah blah blah. How did that turn out? More efficient refrigerators at lower prices. So much for Armageddon.
Recently we've heard the same thing about water restrictions on agriculture. Will kill the industry. Will send prices through the roof. Blah blah blah. What we've found out is things like growing almond trees closer together produces more almonds at less cost using less water.
There are many ways to solve problems IF, and I repeat IF, you want to solve it. Get rid of the Catherine Reheis-Boyd's of the world and hire some engineers. They cost less and, unlike unproductive PR types, will actually produce results.
Recently we've heard the same thing about water restrictions on agriculture. Will kill the industry. Will send prices through the roof. Blah blah blah. What we've found out is things like growing almond trees closer together produces more almonds at less cost using less water.
There are many ways to solve problems IF, and I repeat IF, you want to solve it. Get rid of the Catherine Reheis-Boyd's of the world and hire some engineers. They cost less and, unlike unproductive PR types, will actually produce results.
11
"“My son has asthma — of course I want clean air,” she said. But she questioned why California had to be a leader in an effort that she argued had such significant economic costs."
The economic costs of health care are not going away. As I write this the new premiums are being posted and there is some suggestion that it could be 50%. Isn't our priority to get those costs under control? Lung cancer, asthma, COPD all cost money to treat and there are always fatalities. We are being short-sighted to not see that we must change. Yes, people will lose money, but there are new industries to evolve---so they keep telling us--and they can invest in those industries. Electric cars may be a major player by 2030 and automotive technology will make advances like bringing back the carburetor that got 100+ miles to the gallon. When your paycheck..... etc.
We should all be fighting for the same thing even though we make our living in different areas. To succeed, the issues really need to be brought home to the average person on the street because that is where it have its greatest effect. If the average citizen doesn't buy into the value to what the politicians are doing, forget everything. The conservation of our health starts with each family member.
The economic costs of health care are not going away. As I write this the new premiums are being posted and there is some suggestion that it could be 50%. Isn't our priority to get those costs under control? Lung cancer, asthma, COPD all cost money to treat and there are always fatalities. We are being short-sighted to not see that we must change. Yes, people will lose money, but there are new industries to evolve---so they keep telling us--and they can invest in those industries. Electric cars may be a major player by 2030 and automotive technology will make advances like bringing back the carburetor that got 100+ miles to the gallon. When your paycheck..... etc.
We should all be fighting for the same thing even though we make our living in different areas. To succeed, the issues really need to be brought home to the average person on the street because that is where it have its greatest effect. If the average citizen doesn't buy into the value to what the politicians are doing, forget everything. The conservation of our health starts with each family member.
2
I urge Pope Francis to pray fervently that Democrats wondering whether to act to ameliorate climate change will find divine inspiration to do the right --rather than the expedient-- thing.
At this point in history the states of the West Coast seem to be the center of uncommon common sense in matters that affect the good of ordinary people.
The world is watching what's happening in California. Thank goodness we have Jerry Brown as governor and Democrats in charge of both houses of the legislature. Perhaps constructive leadership has never been needed as desperately as it is now.
I appeal to wavering Democrats: take a risk and vote for the future of our children.
At this point in history the states of the West Coast seem to be the center of uncommon common sense in matters that affect the good of ordinary people.
The world is watching what's happening in California. Thank goodness we have Jerry Brown as governor and Democrats in charge of both houses of the legislature. Perhaps constructive leadership has never been needed as desperately as it is now.
I appeal to wavering Democrats: take a risk and vote for the future of our children.
4
California is "less than 1% of the world": Along with less usage of fossil fuels, mainly oil, in California, the state needs to take an active role in leadership outside the state as well. Recommendations:
First, expand that 1%. Offer incentives to neighboring states to follow California's lead. What type of incentives? Sharing in lower carbon footprint transportation strategies would be a start. Connect major cities in the region with high speed rail; build extreme hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the region; require airlines to submit lower emissions master plans. Make Feed In Tariff the preferred source of electricity.
Wherever possible offer incentives. If all the states had a carbon tax, the money could easily be rerouted to support the purchase of renewables. A carbon tax would mean a small increase in the price of gasoline (gasoline prices already fluctuate drastically, now at the whims of the oil industry. Long term less usage would probably mean lower prices, even with the tax.), but the incentives would save everyone money in the price of vehicles, fuel economy, and installing solar. The major gift that California and its neighbors would give to the world would be to show the Personal Benefit to everyone by switching out of fossil fuels and into renewables. Not only clean air and less CO2, but also a savings in household energy costs. Developing countries and other states would follow.
Leadership from the top; every man improving his lot.
First, expand that 1%. Offer incentives to neighboring states to follow California's lead. What type of incentives? Sharing in lower carbon footprint transportation strategies would be a start. Connect major cities in the region with high speed rail; build extreme hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the region; require airlines to submit lower emissions master plans. Make Feed In Tariff the preferred source of electricity.
Wherever possible offer incentives. If all the states had a carbon tax, the money could easily be rerouted to support the purchase of renewables. A carbon tax would mean a small increase in the price of gasoline (gasoline prices already fluctuate drastically, now at the whims of the oil industry. Long term less usage would probably mean lower prices, even with the tax.), but the incentives would save everyone money in the price of vehicles, fuel economy, and installing solar. The major gift that California and its neighbors would give to the world would be to show the Personal Benefit to everyone by switching out of fossil fuels and into renewables. Not only clean air and less CO2, but also a savings in household energy costs. Developing countries and other states would follow.
Leadership from the top; every man improving his lot.
1
To say that Democrats are split on an issue, and to say that environmentalists and big oil are split on that issue, is to say the same thing twice. Most Democrats are prostitutes to their donors, and do not even approach a position of real leadership on any issue.
Of course Californians, including poorer Californians, will be better off being forced to burn less petroleum, just like we are all better off with tighter smog standards and innovative solar electricity. The stupidest and greediest and most short-sighted Californians are against it now, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea - they've been wrong every other time.
What Democrats lack is any ideological discipline or loyalty to voters that would enable them to steamroll a business like the oil business.
Of course Californians, including poorer Californians, will be better off being forced to burn less petroleum, just like we are all better off with tighter smog standards and innovative solar electricity. The stupidest and greediest and most short-sighted Californians are against it now, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea - they've been wrong every other time.
What Democrats lack is any ideological discipline or loyalty to voters that would enable them to steamroll a business like the oil business.
Whether or not states, namely California, achieve carbon reduction legislature is irrelevant. Change is coming and it's in the form of photovoltaics and wind turbines. It won't require any level of government to force renewable energy upon the country. There's a market out there, filled with good intentions and growing curiosity, but most importantly.. money. Where money is to be made a market will ensue. The cheaper the materials become, the stronger the interest grows, and viola, renewable energy has asserted itself, thus causing the inevitable downfall of Big Oil. An unlimited energy supply is irresistible, and just as its supply is infinite, so is its potential to financially flood of pockets of the proactive and intuitive.
2
Phasing half the state's fleet of vehicles from gasoline engines to electric motors will be remarkably easy and a huge economic boost. This is a state that cut its residential water use in a third in a matter of months.
Central valley petroleum jobs could continue, because with the slack in demand we may be importing less from overseas -- which is more expensive in many ways.
In any case, the economy will be fine. Jobs, in total, will not be lost. What scares the refiners (Koch, etc.) is that Californians increasingly will power our cars with solar, especially in the central valley with its abundant sunlight. That will help everyone -- families, wager earners, polar bears. Well, almost everyone except Big Oil.
Central valley petroleum jobs could continue, because with the slack in demand we may be importing less from overseas -- which is more expensive in many ways.
In any case, the economy will be fine. Jobs, in total, will not be lost. What scares the refiners (Koch, etc.) is that Californians increasingly will power our cars with solar, especially in the central valley with its abundant sunlight. That will help everyone -- families, wager earners, polar bears. Well, almost everyone except Big Oil.
2
The only democrats not supporting the required reduction are tied to oil interests. When does the money stop buying off those politicians? Everyone in political office should be required to release the names of their donors and benefactors.
7
California emits about 1% of the planet's emissions, and about 3% of its' GDP. So this state is already batting 0.33 (the lower the number, the better). The question that remains unanswered is how the rest of the world is going to catch up to the California of today? That is the at a minimum the 2 degrees Celsius question.
2
The alternative to gasoline use such as electric cars is currently available but is costly. However, the components that make them expensive are getting cheaper. There is empirical evidence that the cost of batteries has come down in the last three years and is on a lower cost trajectory. Second, the cost of electricity from solar and wind have plummeted in the last five years; and their intermittency is mitigated by stationary batteries- and they too are coming down in cost. The California grid operator is projecting periods, which occasionally exist even now, when electric generators are paid not to produce and is occasionally paying to absorb electricity to reduce harm to the grid. Lastly, the number of fast charging stations for electric vehicles in urban areas and on California highway corridors from Oregon to Mexico are installed with government help. These three factors are converging to a price point that will make an electric vehicle a practical and economical option by 2025 or 2030 at the most. A gradual approach to transition over to 50 percent reduction by 20230 is doable. China and India are both oil importing countries and would be glad to throw off the yoke of oil dependencies. Both these countries are choking on pollution and have added incentive to follow the fastest track to gasoline alternative. Oil interest opposing SB 350 are fighting for survival and their tactics such as misinformation is understandable but do not withstand close scrutiny.
1
Let's see: The Arctic is melting, Miami is flooding, the Middle East is in tumult driven, in part, by drought, and we're about to get hit by a historically gigantic El Nino. Yes, people, climate change is real, climate change is happening, and we are causing it.
If we can't get our minds around the steps needed to end the twin addictions to oil and coal, we are going to shortly see a whole lot more chaos. You think the flood of refugees heading into Europe is a lot to handle right now? Wait and see what happens when the glaciers of the Himalayas melt, when the rain forests of South America and equatorial Africa burn, and when low-lying nations around the world are submerged.
The time for diffidence ended twenty years ago. The time for urgency is now.
If we can't get our minds around the steps needed to end the twin addictions to oil and coal, we are going to shortly see a whole lot more chaos. You think the flood of refugees heading into Europe is a lot to handle right now? Wait and see what happens when the glaciers of the Himalayas melt, when the rain forests of South America and equatorial Africa burn, and when low-lying nations around the world are submerged.
The time for diffidence ended twenty years ago. The time for urgency is now.
11
It seems to me that when our country was united to fight German and Japanese tyranny, we retooled industries rapidly, tightened our belts and eventually emerged victorious. Unemployment plummeted. Jobs were CREATED. After the war a period of great prosperity followed. Now we are facing a threat that well may be greater than anything we've ever encountered before. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot unit, retool, tighten belts if necessary, create huge numbers of jobs and deal with the situation. And there is absolutely not reason that once again prosperity cannot be the result.
11
The scientific consensus says that the whole planet needs to get to zero fossil fuel use by ~2050 if we want to avoid a catastrophic rate of climate change. In this context, a 50% reduction in oil use in CA by 2030 seems like a modest and necessary step in the right direction. Most studies find the costs from a transition to cleaner energy sources are far outweighed by the health, economic and environmental benefits. The oil industry has a lot to lose, so it's understandable why their lobbyists are working hard against this. All the rest of us have a lot to gain by CA pushing this legislation through, and the rest of the world should consider doing the same if we want a real chance to limit climate change. Some dangerous climate tipping points have already been crossed, and more almost certainly are ahead. We need to transition to a zero-carbon, 100% renewable economy as quickly as we can.
9
Look at what is happening to California, the population continues to age. The workers in Silicon Valley keep concentrating wealth. The industrial base is drifting away. Start up companies that actually need a physical product farm out the manufacturing to China.
So take the economic and demographic trends that exist and are fact today, extend them out another 20 years and California will look like Illinois. The only, only, saving grace California has is weather combined with beach front. If it wasn't for that the state would be a backwater, so the state government can't take any credit for the success of the area.
So take the economic and demographic trends that exist and are fact today, extend them out another 20 years and California will look like Illinois. The only, only, saving grace California has is weather combined with beach front. If it wasn't for that the state would be a backwater, so the state government can't take any credit for the success of the area.
2
More taxes on poor people by the Tom Steyers of the world
3
Hi, ExPeter C, What's the basis for your prediction that reducing the use of fossil fuels will result in more taxes on poor people? I see no reason to think that.
"even Democratic leaders are on opposing side"Ahhh, hackery.
Nagourney writes a piece that even the incompetent are on opposing sides.
See what a fun retorical device for hackery?
The NYT uses "even" to suggest democrats are of one mind and are extreme on emissions and so clearly have gone too Far. Exactly like the republican rentier masters demand.
Well done apparatchicks. The Politburo is not dead. But journalism sure is.
Nagourney writes a piece that even the incompetent are on opposing sides.
See what a fun retorical device for hackery?
The NYT uses "even" to suggest democrats are of one mind and are extreme on emissions and so clearly have gone too Far. Exactly like the republican rentier masters demand.
Well done apparatchicks. The Politburo is not dead. But journalism sure is.
7
EPA fuel economy standards will double from current to 54.5 MPG by 2025, which is the primary source of carbon emissions in CA (most power generation is hydro, nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal already) so a 50% reduction against 1990 seems pretty achievable. More mass transit in LA wouldn't hurt. CARB needs to explain in detail how emissions targets will be achieved (maybe they did but the reporter thought it less interesting than the fighting words).
But count on the right wing to gin up the usual hysterical claims, from death panels to minivan bans. No credibility.
But count on the right wing to gin up the usual hysterical claims, from death panels to minivan bans. No credibility.
12
The two biggest emitters of carbon in most states and countries are the power and transportation sectors. If as you say, most of California's power generation already comes from renewables, then by definition a majority of the remaining cuts must come from the transportation sector. Unless we have dramatic improvements in auto fuel efficiency, then we will see smaller vehicles and possibly the death of mini-vans. That's not hysterical, and it's certainly a very real possibility. Just visit any country in Europe where gasoline has been double and triple American prices for many years, and one will see much smaller vehicles.
2
It sounds like liberal democrats could care less about the effects of this in areas like the Central Valley which is essentially a state of Mexico. The populace is very poor, agriculture is suffering, and there is no public transportation. Maybe people will wake up to the effects of these laws on the less economically fortunate. Driving a Tesla in Newport Beach isn't the same as living in Tulare County driving 100 miles a day for work.
9
True, but the problem with this thinking is that it is short sighted. By continuing to put off the day when we, as a society, take some drastic measures to curb the burning of fossil fuels, we hasten the day when climate change is so drastic that society and economy as we know them will cease to be. That includes the rich and the poor.
2
The central valley is going to be a bone-dry desert by the time this stuff takes effect. And paradoxically enough, most of the reason that will happen is due to the emissions that these rules are trying to limit.
3
Agriculture is suffering because of climate change.
2
Just more evidence that there's really not much difference between the major parties.
3
Several have mentioned China's level of pollution but a significant proportion of that is in producing goods imported by the rest of the world. Pollution transcends borders. It does not stop at the city limits.
11
What few myopic opponents comprehend is that If the fully burdened costs of carbon in the production and supply chain were included in the cost of goods we would see more production in the US and less in China, etc.
I've worked for a US firm in China and visited those factories and tasted -not merely smelled - the air. It reminded me of the midwest industrial city where I was born, or my visits to Los Angeles circa 1970 before emission controls.
I've worked for a US firm in China and visited those factories and tasted -not merely smelled - the air. It reminded me of the midwest industrial city where I was born, or my visits to Los Angeles circa 1970 before emission controls.
13
Defining fully burdened social costs is impossible without bias, which means fully inaccurate. What are the social costs of driving jobs and wealth out of a state (such as California) to the point where people can't eat or live as healthy of a life as they have before? Only a fool of an economist, or someone who doesn't understand opportunity costs and trade offs, will look at a social cost from merely one view point.
As Capt. Penny points out this cuts both ways. If you say you can't do something in the US or make it cost prohibitive but then allow the importation of goods made using that process in another country without tariff then your not really benefiting at least as far as climate change is concerned. Your just shipping the work and jobs to another country and adding additional transportation pollution. I think the only real way to stop climate change short of all of the world leaders suddenly agreeing (unlikely to say the least) is to move away from "free trade" and start to require companies to follow our pollution guidelines if they want to sell a product in the US (note this is the opposite of what TPP does).
2
This entire scientifically proven lie: "Humans cause global warming," has become the greatest ecological disaster in the past 50 years. It has diverted much needed money and resources into the hands of "Carbon Credit," selling banker's pockets, into outlandish CO2 storage schemes & devices, crippled non-environmentally polluting products, and etc. It has diverted resources away from today's real and disastrous pollutions hazards with Air, water, soil, and etc. pollution problems. It's disgusting and those who promote this lie should be ashamed of themselves.
8
You mean, like 99% of the world's credentialed climate scientists?
Whereas all the people saying it is a lie are oil company hacks, bought-and-paid-for Republican and energy state politicians, and demagogues on Fox News.
Oh, yes, right, it's all the credentialed climate scientists who are lying here.
Whereas all the people saying it is a lie are oil company hacks, bought-and-paid-for Republican and energy state politicians, and demagogues on Fox News.
Oh, yes, right, it's all the credentialed climate scientists who are lying here.
70
How about this? Human use of fossil fuels obviously CONTRIBUTES in some measure to global warming and to that end reducing our actions will certainly slow this action. BUT there is an an even more certain reason to reduce our usage... it will give us more time to REPLACE them before they run out and "the lights go out".
11
Wililam Statler, unfortunately, we have far more fossil fuels than we can burn without melting the planet. Forex, IIRC, we can use no more than 1/4 of proven oil reserves.
2
The Western States Petroleum Association has been running extensive and expensive - disinformation radio and TV campaigns designed to scare people. They are obviously well funded. Their disinformation is carefully designed to promote fear rather than understanding.
The only thing they're missing is a Steven King character emerging from behind a gas pump covered in blood armed with a massive knife coming to cut the hose to your gas guzzler.
When WSPA people say, "I can't figure out..." what they mean is, "I don't want to find a solution that cuts into my growth and profits."
I've seen Kristin Olsen speak to a trade association to which I belong. She is intelligent but unimaginative. Her political position requires that she be unwilling to accept reality while refusing to imagine that alternatives to our past behavior are necessary. From my experience such challenges lead to massive new opportunities.
The reality of climate change isn't negotiable.
The only thing they're missing is a Steven King character emerging from behind a gas pump covered in blood armed with a massive knife coming to cut the hose to your gas guzzler.
When WSPA people say, "I can't figure out..." what they mean is, "I don't want to find a solution that cuts into my growth and profits."
I've seen Kristin Olsen speak to a trade association to which I belong. She is intelligent but unimaginative. Her political position requires that she be unwilling to accept reality while refusing to imagine that alternatives to our past behavior are necessary. From my experience such challenges lead to massive new opportunities.
The reality of climate change isn't negotiable.
35
There is no doubt that substantial reduction in carbon use can be accomplished at minimal expense. The previous US experience to increase the miles per gallon of our cars is an excellent example. But after the easy measures are taken, additional progress becomes very costly and very inconvenient. Therein lies the foolishness of any US effort to severely reduce our carbon use while the developing world is still increasing its carbon use.
The entire world should first engage in doing the low cost measures to reduce carbon use. Only when the entire world has done so does it make sense for the US to engage in the severe and costly measures necessary for further substantial reduction in US carbon use. Otherwise, little will be accomplished even if we succeed in our severe measures.
The entire world should first engage in doing the low cost measures to reduce carbon use. Only when the entire world has done so does it make sense for the US to engage in the severe and costly measures necessary for further substantial reduction in US carbon use. Otherwise, little will be accomplished even if we succeed in our severe measures.
9
First of all, it would not be enormously costly to further reduce the carbon emissions from American cars. Just compare American fuel standards to those in other countries. Our cars are designed to be wasteful.
And depending on how much one drives and current oil prices, hybrids frequently *save* the driver money, as do most fuel efficient vehicles.
Secondly, if the world's richest country and second-largest carbon emitter can't be troubled to reduce emissions, how do you think we will convince the third world to?
The fact is, everyone has to reduce emissions, but the United States is still the world's leading nation and far, far richer on a per capita basis than China, and if we don't do it, you can bet that China won't either.
And depending on how much one drives and current oil prices, hybrids frequently *save* the driver money, as do most fuel efficient vehicles.
Secondly, if the world's richest country and second-largest carbon emitter can't be troubled to reduce emissions, how do you think we will convince the third world to?
The fact is, everyone has to reduce emissions, but the United States is still the world's leading nation and far, far richer on a per capita basis than China, and if we don't do it, you can bet that China won't either.
45
But we have already taken many, many measures to reduce emissions. And we should continue to take measures that are cost-reasonable. But very costly, very inconvenient severe measures should not be taken unless the world at least takes the minimal cost measures. Otherwise, the developing world will be increasing emissions much more than we are reducing and little is accomplished except that we bear great additional cost and inconvenience.l
I thought we were supposed to be the leaders of the free world, not the sit-around-and-wait-until-everybody-else-does-something country. Considering the fact that the U.S. is the second largest emitter of CO2, it behooves us to make the greatest changes. And why are we not thinking to make our cities more walkable instead of just increasing miles per gallon of our cars? Why not investment in mass transit? We could clean our air, reduce our emissions and get some exercise in the process. Lowering speed limits would help, too, and save a lot of lives in the process. You may see these changes as onerous and useless, but we cannot sit around waiting for the world to change without changing our world ourselves.
8
California can cut their gasoline use to 0, in fact the entire U.S. can outlaw use of fossil fuels tomorrow and the actual impact on CO2 would be negligible, possibly 10-15% reduction (that's with ZERO CO2 emissions for the entire U.S.!) and the impact on climate change would be completely insignificant, maybe 0.1 degrees centigrade. Of course this is a very inconvenient fact, better to believe the fantasy that buying an electric car or putting solar panels on your house will save the world from destruction. The whole thing is ludicrous, the economic damage done by these "bold" moves will far exceed any damage done by the small amount of warming that will occur. The world will easily adapt and science is likely to find better solutions in the future than trying to impoverish the world now for virtually no significant gain. Modest reductions in fossil fuels and where economically feasible substitution with other sources of energy is appropriate. That's not what this is. It's a goal pulled out of thin air with no plan on how to achieve it and no study of what the effects will be. Severe rationing will be required and it will be interesting to see how the Californians will feel about it when they are waiting in line for 3 hours for 2 gallons of gas! They'll be quickly leaving the state.
11
Why would you be waiting in line for gas if you had an electric car powered by the sun? Or waiting for Uber pool with odds of sharing it with a beautiful girl are much higher than any other chance you'll have to sit next to a beautiful girl?
12
This post is a great example of the psychology of incompetence -- the less people know about a topic, the more they are certain that they have all the answers.
32
Josh enjoy your fantasy. Those are facts based on the amount of U.S. Carbon production and what percentage we produce in the world. Look it up. The effects of these nonsensical approaches are not based on science they are all based on emotions. Reducing California gas usage by 50% will have absolutely no impact on climate change. None. But it's worth making everyone suffer so they can join in this fantasy about saving the dying planet. And of course we have Obama traveling to Alaska in his fuel gulping entourage to explain to the Alaskans that yes, they too must impoverish themselves to jump on the fantasy wagon. Climate change is real, the current solutions are ludicrous. Impoverishing the planet for little gain does not seem like an effective plan to me.
1
It is a fact that oil, gas and coal consumption are a huge part of the climate change problem around the globe.
Scientists have identified proven practices that may help alleviate the problem if we adopt them soon.
The major hurdles to addressing climate change are corrupt politicians and "scientists" that do the bidding of BIG ENERGY.
It is past the time for intelligent societies to address this planet threatening issue.
Scientists have identified proven practices that may help alleviate the problem if we adopt them soon.
The major hurdles to addressing climate change are corrupt politicians and "scientists" that do the bidding of BIG ENERGY.
It is past the time for intelligent societies to address this planet threatening issue.
15
Goven that California's population will continue to increase, how will a per capita reduction of more than 50% be achieved? I think the voters deserve to know that before voting. Will more than half,of,them be forced to buy electric Teslas at $80 k+ each? Personally, I find Californians so flaky that I kind of hope they do,pass it. At least they may learn what it means to turn govt over to the left.
6
First of all, per capita means per person, so it doesn't matter what the population is.
Secondly, Teslas aren't necessary and 15 years from now they won't cost $80,000 (Tesla is already planning to release a $35,000 sedan).
There are more economical ways than a Tesla to reduce gasoline consumption, in fact, most of them *save* you money rather than costing it.
Secondly, Teslas aren't necessary and 15 years from now they won't cost $80,000 (Tesla is already planning to release a $35,000 sedan).
There are more economical ways than a Tesla to reduce gasoline consumption, in fact, most of them *save* you money rather than costing it.
17
Electric and hybrid cars will become less expensive as more people buy them and use them. Tesla's won't always cost $80.000.
2
This article seems so full of code words. The "moderate" Democrats are the ones most influenced by energy-industry lobbyists. Certainly, many people have trouble absorbing a change in direction from 60 years ago, when the "story" was more energy production means a stronger economy. Who cares about pollution?
But I remember the early 70's when the Bay Area was getting Los Angeles-style smog and Los Angeles air was often hard to breathe-- all it took was a temperature inversion.
Many of my fellow commenters have obviously breathed the exhaust of the lobbyists' publicists and believe that it is clean air. Yes, effort is needed everywhere, but California could make a difference and be a model.
The questions are -- will the Democrats in the Legislature hold to Democratic principles, and will Governor Brown push hard enough in the right direction?
But I remember the early 70's when the Bay Area was getting Los Angeles-style smog and Los Angeles air was often hard to breathe-- all it took was a temperature inversion.
Many of my fellow commenters have obviously breathed the exhaust of the lobbyists' publicists and believe that it is clean air. Yes, effort is needed everywhere, but California could make a difference and be a model.
The questions are -- will the Democrats in the Legislature hold to Democratic principles, and will Governor Brown push hard enough in the right direction?
31
It is good to see Democrats arguing over policy. Now if we could only get the Republicans to do the same, we might be able to develope enough dialogue and consequent political consensus to actually make progress on issues of importance in this country.
Self-righteousness and ad hominem attacks produce gridlock. Interactive arguments, even if passionate, are how a political system can develope, enact, and enforce policies to the benefit of most, if not all, our people. If we continue the way we have been going about things, we will continue to be prisoners of the reality that, often, the perfect is the greatest enemy of the good.
Self-righteousness and ad hominem attacks produce gridlock. Interactive arguments, even if passionate, are how a political system can develope, enact, and enforce policies to the benefit of most, if not all, our people. If we continue the way we have been going about things, we will continue to be prisoners of the reality that, often, the perfect is the greatest enemy of the good.
18
This is a typical piece of legislation designed to deceive the public into granting authoritarian power unchecked by democratic process. There are no specifics as to how any of the laudable goal will be accomplished. Authoritarian power is instead granted to the Air Resources Board. And even the bill's backers admit that measures are contemplated like urban planning which will force people to live within walking distance of work.
No matter how laudable the goal, such authoritarian power should never be granted. That is not democracy. That is not the way of a free people.
No matter how laudable the goal, such authoritarian power should never be granted. That is not democracy. That is not the way of a free people.
8
I think it would be wonderful if the California legislature could write, and enact, a bill that sets out exactly how the greenhouse gas emissions in the state will be drastically reduced. However, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about how politics works knows that there is no chance that a legislature could ever agree on that degree of detail. Besides, the entire concept of administrative law and the agencies that carry out statutes is based on the reality that legislatures do have to delegate with some room for discretion and judgment.
It is always creepy to read the hypocritical commentary of California Democrat coal-investment hedge fund job-destroying billionaires; they love to tell the Little People how additional regressive job-destroying taxation is good for everyone. definitely ok for the billionaires who will be untouched; they must think of this stuff while flying in their private jets between their assorted homes and theitr meetings in Davos. CA will meet its goals because in the next 20 years 1/2 the population will move away as the Big Drought settles in and CA becomes a desert north to south. There will be no jobs, no tax base, no rain, no snow, no growth, but Jerry Brown will still have his legacy:The Train To Nowhere.
10
If no action is taken 100% of the population will eventually "leave"
4
50% cut in gas use.
I drive to work on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. I drive home Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The boss will LOVE that!
I drive to work on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. I drive home Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The boss will LOVE that!
2
Invariably, when the NYT defines some governmental policy as "Bold" it means absurdly unrealistic & inanely ideological.
Check.
Check.
8
If fact it is not nearly bold enough and readily implementable. Concerning your last point, I don't recall climate change as being party-specific.
13
Uh, right.
Except that speaking as an engineer, I can tell you that's it's anything but unrealistic, and only an ideologue would claim that taking action to slow global warming is ideological.
Except that speaking as an engineer, I can tell you that's it's anything but unrealistic, and only an ideologue would claim that taking action to slow global warming is ideological.
34
@ Josh,
Speaking as an Engineer anyone who thinks any action California takes will the world climate is a blind ideologue.
Speaking as an Engineer anyone who thinks any action California takes will the world climate is a blind ideologue.
3
Two free, well-maintained freeways connect Silicon Valley with San Francisco where population seems to be growing at a rapid pace. The train service, however, is inefficient, expensive, and slow due to lack of funding. All we need to bring balance is a carbon tax instead of a carbon subsidy which is what we have now.
29
Caltrain is quite adequately funded. Its projects are three times as expensive as equivalent ones in Europe and Asia due to a incestuous relationship between its management, Democrats, environmentalists, and labor unions.
4
“We don’t have a choice — we have to make these changes,” said Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager and environmental advocate who has been championing the bill.
Of course we have a choice. California can indeed cut it's emissions 50, even 80% and it won't make a bit of difference as far a climate change goes. China already produces twice the emissions of the US with India and Africa getting ready to increase theirs dramatically.
Banking on electric cars, especially on imported electricity from other States, could become a challenge as "other States" decide they need to restrict electricity exports to meet their stringent clean air and Carbon emissions goals.
Fracking Natural Gas will help, a lot, and getting the world economy using Natural Gas will help a lot in reducing Carbon emissions (about a 50% reduction).
However, one way California can achieve its goal is to make energy so expensive to live that people voluntarily leave - maybe that's the real goal?
Of course we have a choice. California can indeed cut it's emissions 50, even 80% and it won't make a bit of difference as far a climate change goes. China already produces twice the emissions of the US with India and Africa getting ready to increase theirs dramatically.
Banking on electric cars, especially on imported electricity from other States, could become a challenge as "other States" decide they need to restrict electricity exports to meet their stringent clean air and Carbon emissions goals.
Fracking Natural Gas will help, a lot, and getting the world economy using Natural Gas will help a lot in reducing Carbon emissions (about a 50% reduction).
However, one way California can achieve its goal is to make energy so expensive to live that people voluntarily leave - maybe that's the real goal?
8
Uninformed nonsense. Natural gas, with its 50% carbon reduction and methane leaks, is not nearly sufficient to do the job, and it is from an engineering perspective risible to claim that the only way California can do this is to drive energy prices sky high.
4
If China uses child labor to cut costs would you say that it ridiculous to say we would shouldn't do the same thing because we can't compete etc? Blah blah all these tired excuses are just that, excuses looking for a reason. How about this, how about doing the right thing, investing in things that will make the air and water cleaner while developing new technologies that will lead to new jobs and industries.?
11
Save the Farms,
"However, one way California can achieve its goal is to make energy so expensive to live that people voluntarily leave - maybe that's the real goal?"
This tired old rhetoric has been going on as long as I can remember. Yet California just keeps growing.
Fracking has its own particular set of serious environmental problems. There is no single solution.
"However, one way California can achieve its goal is to make energy so expensive to live that people voluntarily leave - maybe that's the real goal?"
This tired old rhetoric has been going on as long as I can remember. Yet California just keeps growing.
Fracking has its own particular set of serious environmental problems. There is no single solution.
A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds
To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."
A typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.
http://www.lomborg.com/about
To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."
A typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.
http://www.lomborg.com/about
17
Gottfried Org says "the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants" -- that's wrong, even if you're looking at the entire U.S., and it's grossly wrong for California, which uses very little coal-generated electricity. The point about the energy used in manufacturing is, however, well-taken -- but electric cars still come out much better than gasoline vehicles overall.
2
These assumptions are risibly dishonest. Cars, for example, are driven on average more like 165,000 miles than 50,000, and current electric cars aren't indicative for any number of obvious reasons. And you assume that in a future economy, electric cars will be powered mostly by coal-fired power plants, when obviously we will continue the transition away from coal -- a transition that has already begun.
A very dishonest post.
A very dishonest post.
4
The Lomborg link is a clue. Since cigarettes aren't really available to shill for, fossil fuel is the next best thing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just...
1
Why every new construction is not solar and every new car hybrid or electric is just crazy.
But we know why. What a sad commentary on our society.
But we know why. What a sad commentary on our society.
9
Much of the low-hanging fruit is till available to be harvested and what is being proposed in California is largely symbolic until the Chineese and Indians make some very material reductions in their use of coal. That's where the heavy-lifting is if the world collectively is to make serious progress in reducing fossil fuel emissions.
7
Donderington (and the other commenters who say, essentially, that it's pointless for California to take this leading action): two wrongs don't make a right. The failure of China, or India, or any entity, to do as much as it should is no justification for California, or the U.S., or any other entity, to do as much as it can. Whatever happened to the "American Exceptionalism" that conservatives love to trumpet?
8
We continue to be huge emitters, second only to China. As to China and India, well, we have it in our power to force them to reform my levying tariffs if they don't -- but we haven't used that power because then *we* would have to reform ourselves.
4
“The average cost of reducing pollution from consumer products is comparable to other VOC regulations. California's consumer product regulations also give manufacturers the flexibility to find the most cost-effective approach to meeting the regulations on the consumer products that are sold in California. This is one of the ways CARB takes into consideration the economy of California when developing regulations.”
Not to worry CARB is fair to manufacturers in its own words.
Not to worry CARB is fair to manufacturers in its own words.
4
I work in the investment industry--better known as wealth management. Dems... Rep... and anyone in between...it does not matter....teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, very educated people....we take everyone's money, and believe me when I say that everyone's personal bankroll gets invested in coal, oil, and gas to some extent. So, when people are truly serious about cleaning up our act, start with asking who has an invested interest, literally, in supporting fossil fuels.
8
Or short CVX and you'd be up 38% 2015 TR
Raspberry: If you were a competent investment manager you'd get out of fossil-fuel stocks. Amd many wise investors direct their wealth managers to do exactly that.
2
Just pass the legislation, we can find out what is in it later.
12
“In effect we've done is we've created an incentive for countries that do a lot to regulate the emissions to allow emission intensive industries to migrate outside their borders and go to other parts of the world you see this today for example and the mass migration of the steel industry out of Europe and other parts of the world in some cases actually migration that take entire steel mills”
David Victor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_G._Victor
“Here we show that all projects abating gas under the Kyoto Protocol’s Joint Implementation mechanism increased waste gas generation to unprecedented levels once they could generate credits from producing more waste gas.”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2772.html
"The more than a thousand new coal-fired power plants that went up from Guangdong to Xinjiang made Dutch wind turbines and German solar farms seem increasingly irrelevant; all of Europe’s cuts were effectively cancelled out by a few months’ worth of emissions growth in China."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/24/the-weight-of-the-world
David Victor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_G._Victor
“Here we show that all projects abating gas under the Kyoto Protocol’s Joint Implementation mechanism increased waste gas generation to unprecedented levels once they could generate credits from producing more waste gas.”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2772.html
"The more than a thousand new coal-fired power plants that went up from Guangdong to Xinjiang made Dutch wind turbines and German solar farms seem increasingly irrelevant; all of Europe’s cuts were effectively cancelled out by a few months’ worth of emissions growth in China."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/24/the-weight-of-the-world
6
So, Gottfreid Org, what's YOUR solution?
2
Those carbon cuts are anything but bold -- they're a good deal less than is necessary to avoid catastrophe.
It is nothing less than obscene that the oil companies are putting their profits ahead of their country and their planet, and that California Republicans (and some Democrats) are behaving so myopically. And it is equally obscene that the governments everywhere are taking only symbolic action that lulls the public into believing something is being done when, in terms of what is necessary, it is not.
Finally, the notion that economic or personal harm would come from cutting petroleum consumption in half by 2030 is risible. With existing technologies like plug in hybrids and forthcoming ones like economically practical battery and fuel-cell powered vehicles, meeting the goal is easy -- and the costs of doing so minor compared to the costs of warming.
It is nothing less than obscene that the oil companies are putting their profits ahead of their country and their planet, and that California Republicans (and some Democrats) are behaving so myopically. And it is equally obscene that the governments everywhere are taking only symbolic action that lulls the public into believing something is being done when, in terms of what is necessary, it is not.
Finally, the notion that economic or personal harm would come from cutting petroleum consumption in half by 2030 is risible. With existing technologies like plug in hybrids and forthcoming ones like economically practical battery and fuel-cell powered vehicles, meeting the goal is easy -- and the costs of doing so minor compared to the costs of warming.
83
And a great deal more than possible without a massive breakthrough which basis physics won't allow. The costs of "warming" are small in the US, and there are no such vehicles today, and of course there are many vehicles (trucks) which will never be replaced by batteries or fuel-cells. You do know where H2 for your fuel cells comes from?
1
Vulcanalex, with all due respect, you are wrong in every respect.
First of all, what massive breakthrough is needed here, never mind one that physics doesn't allow? I didn't think so: I have mentioned no technology that isn't already being demonstrated. And there are many others that I didn't mention in this short post, everything from natural gas powered vehicles to hydrogen internal combustion engines -- an old technology that works quite well.
Your implication that the costs of warming in the US will be small is a bald-faced lie, as is your use of scare quotes around "warming."
Your claim that there are "no such vehicles" today is meaningless, inasmuch as they are close to introduction and will be on the road long before the 15 years have passed, and inasmuch as even the technologies we already have could meet the goal.
Your assertion that trucks will never be replaced by battery or fuel cell-powered vehicles is risible. as both of these technologies scale well and even if they didn't there are alternative technologies available.
Your implication that I don't know where hydrogen *currently* comes from is both insulting and meaningless, given that it can be produced from plain old water by electrolysis, the power generated by fission or solar cells. The current barrier here is cost, and it is not a fundamental one, any more than the barrier to low-cost fuel cells is.
Your post is uninformed, ideological, and dogmatic, and in a bad cause.
First of all, what massive breakthrough is needed here, never mind one that physics doesn't allow? I didn't think so: I have mentioned no technology that isn't already being demonstrated. And there are many others that I didn't mention in this short post, everything from natural gas powered vehicles to hydrogen internal combustion engines -- an old technology that works quite well.
Your implication that the costs of warming in the US will be small is a bald-faced lie, as is your use of scare quotes around "warming."
Your claim that there are "no such vehicles" today is meaningless, inasmuch as they are close to introduction and will be on the road long before the 15 years have passed, and inasmuch as even the technologies we already have could meet the goal.
Your assertion that trucks will never be replaced by battery or fuel cell-powered vehicles is risible. as both of these technologies scale well and even if they didn't there are alternative technologies available.
Your implication that I don't know where hydrogen *currently* comes from is both insulting and meaningless, given that it can be produced from plain old water by electrolysis, the power generated by fission or solar cells. The current barrier here is cost, and it is not a fundamental one, any more than the barrier to low-cost fuel cells is.
Your post is uninformed, ideological, and dogmatic, and in a bad cause.
11
Thanks Josh for your sage observations and suggestions.
4
>
All this assumes that 2030 actually gets here for mankind, or you'd actually want to be here for it. Since, I've decided on therapeutic suicide in the year 2025, I'll not be here to find out, but best of luck to you.
"That to study Philosophy is to learn how to die"...“He who has learnt how to die has unlearnt how to be a slave.”
Michel de Montaigne
All this assumes that 2030 actually gets here for mankind, or you'd actually want to be here for it. Since, I've decided on therapeutic suicide in the year 2025, I'll not be here to find out, but best of luck to you.
"That to study Philosophy is to learn how to die"...“He who has learnt how to die has unlearnt how to be a slave.”
Michel de Montaigne
1
Any chance you could pull in the date? The year 2025 seems like a long way off.
1
Well I plan on being here, you are welcome to leave in whatever way you wish. Perhaps many who think that CO2 is an issue and so important will either leave or become hermits using no oil and allowing others to use it.
1
Dear bd,
As unoriginal as your reply self-demonstrates, I'm sorry to inform you no. I have plans to live a good life; quality over quantity. As far as 2025 being far off, it will come faster than you think.
As unoriginal as your reply self-demonstrates, I'm sorry to inform you no. I have plans to live a good life; quality over quantity. As far as 2025 being far off, it will come faster than you think.
2
California already has an effective cap and trade program for greenhouse gases that covers 80-90% of the economy. The state could achieve its goals much more simply just by continuing to crank down the cap, and the market could decide where the cuts in emissions should be (maybe not in transportation fuels, who knows). Instead, the state governments insists on layering policy upon policy, some of which conflict with or undermine each other--seemingly intent on outdoing Rube Goldberg. Although I am a strong advocate of action to address climate change, I am sympathetic with WSPA's position in the face of such misguided policy.
6
Quite true perhaps a combination of nuclear and hydro, or offshore wind and wave energy. Lots of positive possibilities that wealthy progressives could invest in. Why don't they instead of using the power of government?
Vulcanalex, your rationality is beginning to break through your fear of "progressive" monsters under your bed. You're absolutely right that there are lots of promising carbon-neutral energy sources, needing only R&D to bring them into the market. The problem is that prices for fossil fuels are artificially low, making it harder for carbon-neutral sources to compete. My source for what follows is "www.priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies":
Simply eliminating the $37.5 billion in subsidies US taxpayers give the fossil fuel industry each year would force producers to raise the prices they charge consumers, immediately making alternatives more competitive, without any other government action.
Then there's the $100s of billions in annual military, health, climate, or local pollution costs that fossil fuel producers are able to keep out of their costs, so consumers don't pay at the pump. That doesn't mean we don't pay them one way or another, though. If we paid the "external" costs every time we filled our gas tanks or paid our utility bills instead of in our taxes, market forces would drive the transition to a carbon-neutral economy in no time.
After eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, the only government action needed is to internalize the externalities by enacting a carbon tax on fossil fuel production. Shouldn't a market-oriented "conservative" support that?
Simply eliminating the $37.5 billion in subsidies US taxpayers give the fossil fuel industry each year would force producers to raise the prices they charge consumers, immediately making alternatives more competitive, without any other government action.
Then there's the $100s of billions in annual military, health, climate, or local pollution costs that fossil fuel producers are able to keep out of their costs, so consumers don't pay at the pump. That doesn't mean we don't pay them one way or another, though. If we paid the "external" costs every time we filled our gas tanks or paid our utility bills instead of in our taxes, market forces would drive the transition to a carbon-neutral economy in no time.
After eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, the only government action needed is to internalize the externalities by enacting a carbon tax on fossil fuel production. Shouldn't a market-oriented "conservative" support that?
One short term partial solution is converting existing cars to natural gas, which pollutes half what standard gasoline does.
The Japanese are offering hydrogen cars whose only exhaust is water.
Tesla is building it's giga battery factory and is soon to offer a reasonably priced sedan.
One payoff is to be able to spit in the faces and start to drain the bank accounts of the pathologically greedy likes of the brothers Koch, Exxon, BP, Shell and Halliburton, the ones who have invested in the massive disinformation campaign to deny a reality known to science for a hundred years.
If California can earn trillions from sand made into silicon it is a reasonable assumption they can accomplish this life saving reduction in green house gases.
The Japanese are offering hydrogen cars whose only exhaust is water.
Tesla is building it's giga battery factory and is soon to offer a reasonably priced sedan.
One payoff is to be able to spit in the faces and start to drain the bank accounts of the pathologically greedy likes of the brothers Koch, Exxon, BP, Shell and Halliburton, the ones who have invested in the massive disinformation campaign to deny a reality known to science for a hundred years.
If California can earn trillions from sand made into silicon it is a reasonable assumption they can accomplish this life saving reduction in green house gases.
22
How about we drain progressive's bank accounts to buy those "affordable" Tesla cars. Just what "life saving" in the US are you talking about and don't we have too many people on this planet so fewer is a good thing.
2
Tennessee
Must be tough to lose your certified commenter status.
Keep up your fight for Koch Propaganda & Pollution, Peabody and Arch Coal, Halliburton and the rest who are gleefully and profitably making our planet uninhabitable for humans.
Keep parroting hate radio and Faux agit prop.
Your cumulative vote totals shows your success.
Must be tough to lose your certified commenter status.
Keep up your fight for Koch Propaganda & Pollution, Peabody and Arch Coal, Halliburton and the rest who are gleefully and profitably making our planet uninhabitable for humans.
Keep parroting hate radio and Faux agit prop.
Your cumulative vote totals shows your success.
9
"The Japanese are offering hydrogen cars whose only exhaust is water."
That's true, but the question is really how much energy does it require to create the hydrogen, and how much CO2 is released when creating it. (It has to be created; it doesn't exist by itself.) All the studies I've seen show that it puts more CO2 into the air during production than would be there if you just used fossil fuels for the vehicle. So somewhere along the line (through fossil reduction or electrolysis) you're going to be putting more carbon dioxide back in the air than if you just fueled the car directly. Maybe at a later time there'll be a way, but for now it's like nuclear cold fusion - it would be wonderful; it just can't be done now.
That's true, but the question is really how much energy does it require to create the hydrogen, and how much CO2 is released when creating it. (It has to be created; it doesn't exist by itself.) All the studies I've seen show that it puts more CO2 into the air during production than would be there if you just used fossil fuels for the vehicle. So somewhere along the line (through fossil reduction or electrolysis) you're going to be putting more carbon dioxide back in the air than if you just fueled the car directly. Maybe at a later time there'll be a way, but for now it's like nuclear cold fusion - it would be wonderful; it just can't be done now.
I see more and more electric cars on the roads in California and within 2-3 years Tesla will have its $35,000 model available with a range of 265 miles or more. I think as technology advances emissions will go down. Also, compared to the East Coast, we don't have harsch winters where we need to heat the homes using fossil fuels. The one downside as I recently read is that China's pollution is reaching the West Coast and undoing what has taken years to get to.
3
Yes and around here 35K is way too much for a car, and you can't tow a boat either. How many a year do you think possible? 250K or so???
2
How many boats can a Surian refugee tow?
Around W. Virginia 35k is too much for a house. Maybe coal ain't such a good business to save.
2
Before worrying about oil and gas, we should tax coal enough to end its use as a way to make electricity, and we should share the proceeds of that tax with unemployed coal miners. Coal makes twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced as does gas. And because coal is essentially carbon, which binds to everything, burning coal sends soot laden with mercury and other toxic heavy metals into the air we breathe, causing thousands of early deaths.
54
Some coal does, but others are closer. And coal can be used in a way that eliminates those real pollutants that you mention. How about we tax say Al Gore and his flying around making CO2?
Vulcanalex, your comments are becoming uglier and uglier. The problem here is not Al Gore and you know it, just as you know that CO2 is not a false pollutant. You are lying in an ugly cause.
7
Coal-fired power has already been ended in California.
(But You're right.)
(But You're right.)
1
These stories crack me up. Progressives clamor for more carbon taxing and regulation and then complain about the high cost of energy. One wonders how Mr Steyer got so rich while being so ignorant of basic economics.
5
By knowing how ignorant everyone else is. Yahoo at $500 anyone? Or maybe a Stockton starter for $750k, yes, you were all that ignorant.
1
Everybody needs to relax. If California can cut it's water use by 31% in 4-5 months, it should have no problem meeting this target in 15 long years. Uber has already finally delivered a carpooling future, self driving cars will be lighter, more efficient and you will be more productive and protected, and you'll still have your sweet minivan to take and cruise on the weekend. Or just strap on your VR and go anywhere you want.
7
Perhaps but when we don't travel so much who will fill those hotels, resorts, etc. Who will employ them either. It is all connected do one thing and you help some and hurt others, perhaps many others.
@ vulcanized: Those displaced people will simply long for the past, migrate and deal with whatever challenges they face. Sound familiar? Syria anyone? Yes, do one thing, and others suffer.
The idea of government is to alleviate misery not create it. Where will it end?
Without a comprehensive and expensive federal investment in mass transportation infrastructure that California desperately needs, this bill is asinine. You cant eliminate one form of transport without having a substitute in place. The loss in taxbase alone, already happening with so-called "green cars" from oil revenues would cripple the ability to pay for the upgrades.
10
Nobody is talking about eliminating cars, just making them use half as much gas in 15 years -- a target that is almost trivially easy. The oil companies of course don't like it because they'd be using less gas, and that means less profit for them.
And the federal government isn't going to be spending all that much on mass transit. Arguably, it shouldn't since the money gets pork barrelled and sent to rural states that don't need it, or it's stolen by people like Gov. Christie, who stole the Hduson tunnel money, and Mayor Beame. who stole the Second Avenue Subway money.
And the federal government isn't going to be spending all that much on mass transit. Arguably, it shouldn't since the money gets pork barrelled and sent to rural states that don't need it, or it's stolen by people like Gov. Christie, who stole the Hduson tunnel money, and Mayor Beame. who stole the Second Avenue Subway money.
5
You should first check the trends of millenials buying fewer cars and rich VC's selling their fleets and going full Uber. My guess is that trend is far more dangerous to auto manufacturers and tax revenues than more cars with different drive trains that don't need 50 heat and fluid sensors.
1
The auto companies could care less about the oil companies. If it were so easy to make a real car that holds four or five people that could get 55 MPG, they would do it tomorrow. The oil companies have zero influence over government MPG policies.
Politicians are elected so we can put their feet to the fire.
If they're not gulping and having to figure out how to do the people's work in the face of industrial opposition, why are they there?
America's energy consumption per capita is DOUBLE Europe's, so a 50% reduction doesn't sound too unreasonable.
If they're not gulping and having to figure out how to do the people's work in the face of industrial opposition, why are they there?
America's energy consumption per capita is DOUBLE Europe's, so a 50% reduction doesn't sound too unreasonable.
28
Well Gee you live in Texas and don't understand that Europe is different? They have mass transit and are not driving like we do. They tend to shop every day not once a week or month. They generally don't drive a long way on vacation. Here 1000 miles is nothing. Lots of differences.
@valcanalex, what's your point? Don't bother trying to limit carbon pollution because America is big? Don't compare per capita resource utilization against other mature economies?
Driverless electric cars are coming. Urban cores are being revitalized, here in America. It's already happening.
And anyway, who drives 1000 miles with any regularity, even in America? Long haul truckers and a few family vacations. Nine times out of ten, it's cheaper and more time effective to fly.
Driverless electric cars are coming. Urban cores are being revitalized, here in America. It's already happening.
And anyway, who drives 1000 miles with any regularity, even in America? Long haul truckers and a few family vacations. Nine times out of ten, it's cheaper and more time effective to fly.
4
Speak for yourself. I live in Southern California, have never owned a car or even had any interest in doing so although cost is not the object. I shop as needed in the nearby stores on foot. The beach is a 15 minute walk away, great museums easily accessible via public transport. You don't have to be a prisoner of the automobile or of petroleum, if you make the effort. I'm sure it's a lot easier to just give up without trying, which is just what the oil companies count on.
"At some point we should work on reasonable cost-effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to improve our air quality. But not at the cost of jobs.”
The longer this issue gets kicked to the curb or even down the road, the priority of not having jobs will be the least of our worries because the planet will become uninhabitable. If we don't get serious about the future, there won't be any tomorrows to worry about.
115
Well Gee what is "reasonable" or "cost effective" and what is "air quality" Let me define all of these and I would be happy, otherwise probably not.
The fact is that the fastest growing jobs in California are green jobs. 54000 people now work in the solar industry, more than the 5 largest utilities combined. And these are good paying jobs, not the kind of Walkart jobs touted in other states. It is totally false to equate reducing carbon with job loss... Reducing oil and other carbon intensive activities is the job accelerator of the present AND the future.
The fact is that the fastest growing jobs in California are green jobs. 54000 people now work in the solar industry, more than the 5 largest utilities combined.
===================
Seriously??
California measure fails to create green jobs
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150817/us-green-energy-promises-9d6a0a...
===================
Seriously??
California measure fails to create green jobs
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150817/us-green-energy-promises-9d6a0a...
Rather than force these types of added cost solutions, why doesn't California give incentives to homeowners, businesses, auto, but and truck drivers and owners to use the renewable energy alternative?
It will only make the state more expensive and uncompetitive for the average person or business. And someone tell the politicians that they need to be responsive to the taxpayers. That state has many programs and pet projects that sap people's budgets' to the breaking point, including all the benefits and costs of the large illegal alien population.
Maybe the politicians can start leading by doing the basics well, and more cheaply before asking their taxpayer citizens for pie in the sky.
It will only make the state more expensive and uncompetitive for the average person or business. And someone tell the politicians that they need to be responsive to the taxpayers. That state has many programs and pet projects that sap people's budgets' to the breaking point, including all the benefits and costs of the large illegal alien population.
Maybe the politicians can start leading by doing the basics well, and more cheaply before asking their taxpayer citizens for pie in the sky.
14
In a way they are. If you buy an electric car you get a $2500 check on top of the $7500 Federal tax credit. I am not familiar with solar panels but I'd like to think you also get some sort of incentive (beside the cheaper electricity).
6
The measures always include incentives. No one should believe the oil business that is fighting to keep polluting.
CA does offer major incentives to businesses and residents to buy green vehicles and energy saving devices, solar panels.
How ironic, since major California industries include entertainment and defense, both of which generate as well as outsource unnecessary carbon production throughout the world. Even if California cut all in-state carbon emissions, the effect on global carbon emissions would be insignificant, as the human population grows to about 10 billion during this century. The root cause of all environmental problems is overpopulation, but there is no leadership to address it.
22
While I agree that overpopulation is a pressing issue, it is essentially independent of the issue of warming in that it is a minority of the world's citizens who are causing most of the greenhouse emissions and even if we were to halt population growth tomorrow it wouldn't make a dent in the warming catastrophe. Conversely, we have the technology to reduce greenhouse emissions to the extent recommended by the IPCCwithout undue cost or damage to our way of life. We simply refuse to use it for political reasons.
9
Well perhaps the best solution is to keep most of the world poor, they are offsetting any improvements that we might make. What technology and at what costs in money, jobs and quality of life?
1
We need to address both.
A 50% reduction by 2030 is certainly ambitious and sounds good in a headline, but as with many other goals how exactly was it set? How does it take into account the realities of technology, economics, people's lives and livelihoods? It sounds like something some advocacy groups, who are willing to live off the grid or extensively change their own lives, have come up with. It is precisely this kind of harsh disconnect that turns off the majority of voters and citizens.
6
California, having the nation's biggest population, standing as the second largest carbon dioxide emitter, and a forward-looking Governor, make it a good candidate to emerge as an environmental leader. Even if this bill does not pass as is, the proposed regulations can serve as a starting point to be revisited in later legislation. Maybe only a watered-down set of standards will survive politically, but that's still better than the status quo.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_em...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_em...
42
I would be really curious what the actual per capita or per family emissions would be under these scenarios. Our household takes a variety of measures to be energy efficient but I have no idea what additional changes would be needed to reach the goal. We live in a highly walkable area, use public transit, foot, bike. We have a high MPG car as our primary vehicle. Our house is well below average for electricity and natural gas consumption. What, exactly, would each family's CO2 budget be?
22
You're still releasing far too much CO2. People don't realize just how much we are going to have to reduce emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. Essentially, we're talking about eliminating most fossil fuels.
That isn't as hard as it sounds. Some combination of fission, solar, and wind power can generate all the power we need. Geothermal heat pumps then allow us to use the electricity for economical heating and cooling. Cars and trucks can be powered by batteries or fuel cells, with hybrids at first until the cost of the storage comes down. Airplanes can run off biofuel or (with a redesign) hydrogen produced by electrolysis.
So we have the essential technology, we just don't have the political will to use it.
For your own home at present you would have to use some combination of solar power and heating in a hyperinsulated home, geothermal heat pumps, etc. Unless you can afford or use a battery-powered vehicle, you probably can't cut back your energy use sufficiently. Even then, the products you buy would have caused CO2 emissions. This has to be approached on the national level, because it requires a change in the sources of power.
However, basic steps like installing solar power, geothermal heat pumps, and better insulation, buying a battery electric hybrid, and so forth are all socially responsible. They aren't enough, but they can help.
That isn't as hard as it sounds. Some combination of fission, solar, and wind power can generate all the power we need. Geothermal heat pumps then allow us to use the electricity for economical heating and cooling. Cars and trucks can be powered by batteries or fuel cells, with hybrids at first until the cost of the storage comes down. Airplanes can run off biofuel or (with a redesign) hydrogen produced by electrolysis.
So we have the essential technology, we just don't have the political will to use it.
For your own home at present you would have to use some combination of solar power and heating in a hyperinsulated home, geothermal heat pumps, etc. Unless you can afford or use a battery-powered vehicle, you probably can't cut back your energy use sufficiently. Even then, the products you buy would have caused CO2 emissions. This has to be approached on the national level, because it requires a change in the sources of power.
However, basic steps like installing solar power, geothermal heat pumps, and better insulation, buying a battery electric hybrid, and so forth are all socially responsible. They aren't enough, but they can help.
4
David MacKay, former energy advisor to the British government, has an excellent online book that walks you through energy. You'll probably want to end up with an electric car, powered by non-carbon energy.
http://www.withouthotair.com/sewthacontentsTHIN.shtml
Alexander Frantzen built a personal calculator based on MacKay's work:
http://energyweneed.com/
And the British government and an international team have a global calculator:
globalcalculator.org
http://www.withouthotair.com/sewthacontentsTHIN.shtml
Alexander Frantzen built a personal calculator based on MacKay's work:
http://energyweneed.com/
And the British government and an international team have a global calculator:
globalcalculator.org
1
"That isn't as hard as it sounds." Really? So what happens in those northeast winters where for two straight weeks there is constant cloud cover and hardly any wind? And do you honestly think we can replace our gas and oil furnaces with electric heat powered by wind and solar?