Uh, Cap&Trade is a sham and a plurality of people in the State know it. Cap&Trade does not limit emissions, except in the abstract. It will not stop, pause or even hesitate Global warming or the destruction of the planet.
Even Jerry Brown knows it, but he's trying to show how mature a politician he's become. Good luck with that. He'll have to live until he's 100 minimum and outlive anyone who heard his Pacifica radio show in the 90's. Of course the New York Times falls for it, because like most of the political class and the liberal elites who are their masters, the NY Times is captured by the masters of global economy.
A Carbon tax is only way to limit emissions and anyone honest about the subject knows it.
Even Jerry Brown knows it, but he's trying to show how mature a politician he's become. Good luck with that. He'll have to live until he's 100 minimum and outlive anyone who heard his Pacifica radio show in the 90's. Of course the New York Times falls for it, because like most of the political class and the liberal elites who are their masters, the NY Times is captured by the masters of global economy.
A Carbon tax is only way to limit emissions and anyone honest about the subject knows it.
I can't think of a better inverse-leader than Trump. What a great incentive to go our own way, cleaning up the environment and bend the warming curve than to also spite Trump. Just because he wants to go backwards and off a cliff does not mean we need to follow him. He is not more important than humanity now or future generations.
Now, if only we could completely ignore him for the next 42 months.
Now, if only we could completely ignore him for the next 42 months.
california is the anti-kansas, proving that a state can develop a diverse population, a strong safety net, strong environmental protections and a booming economy.
16
California's leadership in climate change is proof of the conservative adage that the States are the laboratories of American federalism.
California, if it were a country, would have the 10th largest economy in the world. So it matters when California sets a standard which nations, including our own, should imitate. If smart states, like California, more to meet the goals of the Paris Accord, it's possible the U.S. will not fall so short of the Accord's 2020 targets..
Now -- If Governor Jerry Brown. long a proponent of California as innovator, would abandon whatever kept him for endorsing single payer health insurance, California could serve as the laboratory for Medicare for All. If France. Canada and Japan can make varieties of single payer work, so can California.
California, if it were a country, would have the 10th largest economy in the world. So it matters when California sets a standard which nations, including our own, should imitate. If smart states, like California, more to meet the goals of the Paris Accord, it's possible the U.S. will not fall so short of the Accord's 2020 targets..
Now -- If Governor Jerry Brown. long a proponent of California as innovator, would abandon whatever kept him for endorsing single payer health insurance, California could serve as the laboratory for Medicare for All. If France. Canada and Japan can make varieties of single payer work, so can California.
5
While I'd be the last person to oppose any attempt to implement a single-payer system for health delivery in California, I'd much prefer a nationwide system were put in place because a single payer system in a single state can be quickly overburdened with a flood of people needing medical care moving to that state. This happened to some degree when California instituted comprehensive tax-funded services for developmentally disabled children several decades ago. I don't think this risk is reason not to try to put such a system in place but it needs to be factored into the planning of any implementation.
2
I used to live in California, but I currently live in Texas.
The last time I filled up with gas a few days ago, I paid $1.78/gallon.
A quick check online, and I see gas prices in California of $2.79, $3.29, etc.
No thank you.
The last time I filled up with gas a few days ago, I paid $1.78/gallon.
A quick check online, and I see gas prices in California of $2.79, $3.29, etc.
No thank you.
2
... this is a small monetary price for environmental quality, stabilization of climate, prevention of illness ...
7
this is short-sighted. california has a lot of advantages texas doesn't. the price of gas in a minor factor.
9
A quick check online, Texas pays on average 1.81% home (property) taxes whereas California is an abysmal 0.63%.
.... you win some, you lose some!
.... you win some, you lose some!
Actions on climate change take years for any tangible effect. And when other states do not follow, it can even take decades for any results.
How about California leading on universal healthcare ?
The result can be felt within a few years. And if California comes up with a sensible model, other governors will be forced to jump on the bandwagon.
How about California leading on universal healthcare ?
The result can be felt within a few years. And if California comes up with a sensible model, other governors will be forced to jump on the bandwagon.
1
California HAS passed legislation for universal health care.
Now comes the hard part...passing the legislation to pay for it. The estimate I saw was $14 billion, but it was unclear as to whether that was per year or per 10 years.
My guess is that the figure will be $14 billion PER YEAR, a figure that will be a real challenge to get that added to California's already staggering tax structure.
Vermont, last year, also passed a universal healthcare bill and choked on the cost which would have just about doubled the amount that Vermonters would have to pay in taxes.
Do you really think the entertainment elite and those that feed off their excesses and the other California liberal elitists are going to accept that sort of tax levels?
Now comes the hard part...passing the legislation to pay for it. The estimate I saw was $14 billion, but it was unclear as to whether that was per year or per 10 years.
My guess is that the figure will be $14 billion PER YEAR, a figure that will be a real challenge to get that added to California's already staggering tax structure.
Vermont, last year, also passed a universal healthcare bill and choked on the cost which would have just about doubled the amount that Vermonters would have to pay in taxes.
Do you really think the entertainment elite and those that feed off their excesses and the other California liberal elitists are going to accept that sort of tax levels?
We HAVE to do such things. Living in Palo Alto since 1973, I've marveled at how well the air pollution controls have worked, particularly in the Los Angeles basin, and in San Jose. We go to Southern California a couple of times a year, and, although starting from real problems in the 1970's, the air is pretty much the same, since pollution controls have made up for increased traffic and other pollutants. It's not a dramatic effect, but what we don't have is the terrible conditions in major urban areas such as Mexico City, Beijing and New Delhi.
And, with last year's respite from our multi-year drought, we have enough water (for now, anyway). Continued effort on water will be required. EPA type rules really do matter. Pruitt, by the way, is a disaster.
And, with last year's respite from our multi-year drought, we have enough water (for now, anyway). Continued effort on water will be required. EPA type rules really do matter. Pruitt, by the way, is a disaster.
11
As an Angelino, I note that it took three successive GOP governors to right the sorry state of affairs ship from Brown's first two terms. Now, it may take four GOP governors due to his obsession with climate chaos nonsense, along with an unusual willingness to discard real science in favor of his current pop science that is more of a mass ideological religion for the far left than anything to do with reality. His politics now are: (a) don't let anyone from D.C. find out how many illegals have entered and voted over the past twenty years (b) get elected as many illegals as possible as they vote in lock step with the far left Democrat ideology; (c) use climate hysteria to gut the petroleum industry for not siding with him earlier & promote solar/wind so that his legacy programs (tunnel/train) get financed; and the always (d) pursuit to emulate his father with lasting infrastructure projects, which he has none so far. The CA GOP needs new leaders desperately as last week's vote shows the party is untethered to its charge and is hopelessly lacking a backbone. Most voters don't vote for losers, or folks that act like losers. Just because you lost at the (rigged) ballot box doesn't mean you quit advocating for your principals & core values. A CA electorate, washed of the illegal voting, might just surprise the petty politicians by throwing them all out one day.
2
Where is a single piece of evidence to support your allegations either that voter fraud is widespread in CA or that voter fraud has affected any electoral outcomes?
8
sorry you're being left behind
They don't call Brown "Governor Moonbeam" for nothing.
The very first thing that Democrats and President Obama did was to propose a national cap and trade program for the entire United States. About 6 republicans in the Senate stopped the U.S: from being a leader, and not just the state of California.
Another example of republicans stopping progress.
Another example of republicans stopping progress.
12
It could be argued that Republicans were just stopping idiocy.
3
Argue it then.
2
@sjaco
Perhaps, but isn't it nice to have fresh air to exhale such an opinion ? Who do we blame when you ( or I ) can't ?
Perhaps as well, we should not be so flippant in regards to our world that we all share.
Just a thought.
Perhaps, but isn't it nice to have fresh air to exhale such an opinion ? Who do we blame when you ( or I ) can't ?
Perhaps as well, we should not be so flippant in regards to our world that we all share.
Just a thought.
Why doesnt the NYT lead on climate change? In an era where the Earth's temperature will rise to 240 degrees and it'll rain sulfuric acid according to Hawking, giving each reporter his own electricity-guzzling computer is untenable. If all reporters shared one computer then the NYT's electrical usage and carbon footprint would be much lower, and the children might yet live
4
Until considering his always combative verbosity, it is difficult to find a sign indicating in which direction Mr Trump is headed. Bluster, with or without insult, is a trait with which he has most always announced his presence and one which until his Presidency appears to have stood him well.
The photo of him sitting alone at the G-20 meeting appears telling of a man who understands he may not have the disposition to be in the club. Without being specious he has always run the show but now has to share the lights with the probability of being upstaged in a play he did not read, understand or even have interest.
It doesn't appear he has any interest in the thought of a hostile opposition and is insufficient a politician to even attempt mending fences in any state which disapproved his candidacy. The odd thing is at more than one point he has had the opportunity to usher in the message he preached and might now be seen as the populist residing in his heart rather than a man in over his head.
I mean no insult whatsoever when I say that no one but a populist in the line of Liberace, could be so garish. Without seeking an excuse, most of us at least understand his absurdity and many even applaud. for we have lived with the same message for decades
I think he is an American and outside his own little kingdom doesn't ascribe to power for its' own sake.
He may even wonder just what it is he won.
The photo of him sitting alone at the G-20 meeting appears telling of a man who understands he may not have the disposition to be in the club. Without being specious he has always run the show but now has to share the lights with the probability of being upstaged in a play he did not read, understand or even have interest.
It doesn't appear he has any interest in the thought of a hostile opposition and is insufficient a politician to even attempt mending fences in any state which disapproved his candidacy. The odd thing is at more than one point he has had the opportunity to usher in the message he preached and might now be seen as the populist residing in his heart rather than a man in over his head.
I mean no insult whatsoever when I say that no one but a populist in the line of Liberace, could be so garish. Without seeking an excuse, most of us at least understand his absurdity and many even applaud. for we have lived with the same message for decades
I think he is an American and outside his own little kingdom doesn't ascribe to power for its' own sake.
He may even wonder just what it is he won.
1
Yes, California, the state, after Florida and New York) with the voting age resident population that is the among the 3 least-represented in the electoral college. Go figure.
Certainly, it's got to make one ask why voters in the states demonstrating the least forward-looking leadership should have the most determinative voice in our presidential elections.
And P.S. Thank you NY Times for shedding the chauvinistic (and, in my opinion, "sour grapes") attitudes of competitive 20th century New Yorkers who resent their former famly, friends, and neighbors who moved to California and found a better life than the one they led back east, leading to that cliched east coast portrayal us all as flakey new age space cadets who smoke too much weed and hang out at the beach. That's the era president Trump is stuck in, with his exclamations about California being "off the deep end." Imagine our national economy without the tech boom, the entertainment industy, and the agricultural products we provide. And then imagine the federal government without the taxes paid by California's huge working population. As a second-generation native, I'm happy to see some recognition for our state's exceptional leaders in both the public and private sectors.
Certainly, it's got to make one ask why voters in the states demonstrating the least forward-looking leadership should have the most determinative voice in our presidential elections.
And P.S. Thank you NY Times for shedding the chauvinistic (and, in my opinion, "sour grapes") attitudes of competitive 20th century New Yorkers who resent their former famly, friends, and neighbors who moved to California and found a better life than the one they led back east, leading to that cliched east coast portrayal us all as flakey new age space cadets who smoke too much weed and hang out at the beach. That's the era president Trump is stuck in, with his exclamations about California being "off the deep end." Imagine our national economy without the tech boom, the entertainment industy, and the agricultural products we provide. And then imagine the federal government without the taxes paid by California's huge working population. As a second-generation native, I'm happy to see some recognition for our state's exceptional leaders in both the public and private sectors.
4
CA is full of it! 'Nuf said.
3
Shame the editorial makes no mention of why California has the political environment to embrace the future, unlike Washington DC and so many other states. We passed the top two open primary and redistricting reform, which has made our politicians beholden to the people, not their political parties.
It wasn't that long ago that California was a dysfunctional laughingstock. After the US Supreme Court threw out our old open primary in 2000, the state fell into ruin. It couldn't pass a budget on time, and everything revolved around the war between Democrats and Republicans. We even recalled a sitting Governor.
Then Governor Schwarzenegger and a host of reform groups (of which my group of independent voters was one) passed Redistricting Reform in 2008 and 2010, and the Top Two Open Primary in 2010. Both over strenuous objections from the parties, particularly the Democratic Party.
Now seven years later, those reforms are deepening California government's nonpartisan commitment to do what is best for Californians, not the political parties. Governor Brown, a quiet supporter of these reforms as he was running in 2010, has largely been the beneficiary. He wisely understood that the electorate wanted and could now demand solutions instead of partisan rhetoric. He has delivered on all counts, and will doubtless be remembered as one of the great leaders in the state's history.
Want to fix Washington DC and every other state? Follow our example and take back your government.
It wasn't that long ago that California was a dysfunctional laughingstock. After the US Supreme Court threw out our old open primary in 2000, the state fell into ruin. It couldn't pass a budget on time, and everything revolved around the war between Democrats and Republicans. We even recalled a sitting Governor.
Then Governor Schwarzenegger and a host of reform groups (of which my group of independent voters was one) passed Redistricting Reform in 2008 and 2010, and the Top Two Open Primary in 2010. Both over strenuous objections from the parties, particularly the Democratic Party.
Now seven years later, those reforms are deepening California government's nonpartisan commitment to do what is best for Californians, not the political parties. Governor Brown, a quiet supporter of these reforms as he was running in 2010, has largely been the beneficiary. He wisely understood that the electorate wanted and could now demand solutions instead of partisan rhetoric. He has delivered on all counts, and will doubtless be remembered as one of the great leaders in the state's history.
Want to fix Washington DC and every other state? Follow our example and take back your government.
13
Sorry - but I disagree withy your surface analysis of Californians and their voting habits or predilections. If you subtract about 5 - 8 million illegal votes, get a handle on the incredible surge in illegals since the CA SC overturned the immigration proposition 19 years ago that CA handedly passed, then you might find a more sensible electorate that is far more conservative than you and your friends. The crowd in Sacramento is only pursuing social projects designed to gain more votes from a huge Hispanic block, irrespective of their citizenship. When the No.1 one Leader in CA Congress Kevin Deleon, brags about how many family members he has that are illegal and that all of them carry FAKE IDs (used to vote) then don't you think the State is in serious trouble? You can knee-jerk my facts, and get repulsed, but truth hurts sometimes and CA is way, way off the rails now.
8 million illegal votes? the whole state has only 38 million people in it.
5
Some of the opposition here to clean energy is not really that. Rather, it is opposition to Nancy Pelosi, the rainbow flag, hard-working immigrants, and Leonardo Decaprio's Prius. I gather, from reading comments written by folks who describe their own regions as "fly-over country," that Californians are a pretty obnoxious lot. It sounds like most of us out here live in big homes somewhere in Beverly HIlls — in houses with solar panels stuck all over them probably. We drive expensive EV's of the kind that are stocked with Grey Poupon. I think we're mostly driving between the beach, our big homes in the hills, and the cafe, where we sip our lattes while shaking our heads over all those deplorables in Kansas and Nebraska — or whatever those states there in the middle call themselves. We hardly qualify as Americans, really. I mean, the majority of us are not even white. I have noticed, however, that there are some people in "fly-over" country who have adopted clean-energy tech despite the awful California gay-liberal stigma that seems to have attached to it. Iowa derives 35% of its electricity from wind power. I didn't realize that Iowa was that gay. Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas are not quite as gay as Iowa, but they too have erected a lot of big phallic wind turbines on their all-American soil. It might be that clean energy just makes sense — no matter how you vote, whom you love, or what color you are.
11
Ho ho ho, thanks commenters for the best and most enlightening discussion ever. The consensus's clear: California is completely, totally, over-the-top nuts.
7
World's seventh largest economy has been waiting 40 years for the 'nut-axe' to fall. If you guys keep waiting to deliver the axe, CA may just have to go to World's sixth largest economy...
6
TMK - I hope you have the conviction to avoid using any California developed products like televisions, personal computers, smartphones, ..., or watch any movies or TV shows made here, or eat any almonds, pistachios, artichokes, avocados, oranges, wine... grown here.
3
The California/Jerry Brown cap-n-trade plan is not as you say "bold" at all.
Just as the ACA was corporate inspired, not bold, so is cap-n-trade not
bold at all. Under cap-n-trade a major polluter with bulging pocket book
in China can buy the "right" to poison a whole province.
Just as the ACA was corporate inspired, not bold, so is cap-n-trade not
bold at all. Under cap-n-trade a major polluter with bulging pocket book
in China can buy the "right" to poison a whole province.
2
To paraphrase Willy Sutton, the reason Californians embrace the future is because "that's where the money is." Look at all the new industries that have come out of embracing the new - whether entertainment, aerospace, silicon chips, internet technology, biotech, or environmental protection and addressing climate change. Fortunes have been made. Incomes climb. We keep inventing and reinventing - in other words, we keep making America great. Again.
12
I firmly support government policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but am doubtful about cap and trade mechanism which relies upon honesty among private companies and is very easy to manipulate. This article mentions my State of Virginia which has no administrative capacity to administer such a cap and trade system and our state dominated in energy policy by a private energy company largely dependent on carbon fuel--coal and natural gas. Virginia can't do a cap and trade.
I much prefer a straightforward U.S. wide carbon tax that would reduce consumer demand for motor fuels and electricity and natural gas. Gasoline prices today in the U.S. are very low, about $2.30/gallon in the East Coast, and a $2/gallon federal tax--roughly a 100% tax--would based on long term, price demand elasticities for motor fuel would cut the quantity sold of motor fuel by about 58%, more than enough to meet the Paris Accord goal. A 100-percent tax on electricity would cut electricity use long term by between 40-80 percent (higher cut in commercial use), again more than meeting the Paris goals. These tax funds can be immediately rebated back to consumers in the form of Social Security tax or income tax cuts.
Keep it simple. Higher fuel prices will encourage consumers to cut carbon emissions and it won't be that difficult to do so.
I much prefer a straightforward U.S. wide carbon tax that would reduce consumer demand for motor fuels and electricity and natural gas. Gasoline prices today in the U.S. are very low, about $2.30/gallon in the East Coast, and a $2/gallon federal tax--roughly a 100% tax--would based on long term, price demand elasticities for motor fuel would cut the quantity sold of motor fuel by about 58%, more than enough to meet the Paris Accord goal. A 100-percent tax on electricity would cut electricity use long term by between 40-80 percent (higher cut in commercial use), again more than meeting the Paris goals. These tax funds can be immediately rebated back to consumers in the form of Social Security tax or income tax cuts.
Keep it simple. Higher fuel prices will encourage consumers to cut carbon emissions and it won't be that difficult to do so.
6
Environmental carbon loading is a serious problem. Actual results and numbers matter.
For ever ton of carbon saved by these policies;4 tons are added by india, 3 by China another 3 to 7 by others. The result is a .05% decrease in the rate of increase of atmospheric carbon at great cost low and middle class folks.
For ever ton of carbon saved by these policies;4 tons are added by india, 3 by China another 3 to 7 by others. The result is a .05% decrease in the rate of increase of atmospheric carbon at great cost low and middle class folks.
4
don't confuse the commentariat with math.
5
There once were a few right-thinking States
Loath to follow the path of their mates
That planned to breathe clear air
Proving that they still care
By passing enforceable mandates
Loath to follow the path of their mates
That planned to breathe clear air
Proving that they still care
By passing enforceable mandates
2
Before Jerry Brown and progressive cronies get too aggressive on CC they owe their voters to show, regarding supposed global warming since 1880:
1) It isn't due to sampling/methodological issues. Most of the global land mass did not have enough temp stations to take adequate samples way back in 1900, and do not now (Africa, S. America, the poles, most of Asia, Russia). For example, in 1900 Africa (20% of total land mass) had lt 50 temp stations, mostly on or near the coast (the US, roughly 25% of Africa's size had 1000 stations then, 9k now --Africa currently has 500).
2) Given the 5x global population growth since 1900 and massive urbanization, the observed global temp increase isn't due to urbanization (hotter temps in urban areas, the urban heat island effect).
3) That adjustments to the temp record aren't biased.
4) Observed increase in temps isn't due to normal variation.
Finally, the US has by far the most extensive ground station network of any area in the world as well as a common methodology. Here is the NOAA temp record 1895 -2016 for contiguous US.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tavg/12/12/1895-2016?...
This is normal variation around a mean. Any upward trend is due to slightly lower temps 1900 - 1920 & higher 2000-2016. Even Hansen admits there was no warming trend in 20th century.
Finally, I'd ask Jerry if he'd buy a stock based on this chart. I wouldn't.
1) It isn't due to sampling/methodological issues. Most of the global land mass did not have enough temp stations to take adequate samples way back in 1900, and do not now (Africa, S. America, the poles, most of Asia, Russia). For example, in 1900 Africa (20% of total land mass) had lt 50 temp stations, mostly on or near the coast (the US, roughly 25% of Africa's size had 1000 stations then, 9k now --Africa currently has 500).
2) Given the 5x global population growth since 1900 and massive urbanization, the observed global temp increase isn't due to urbanization (hotter temps in urban areas, the urban heat island effect).
3) That adjustments to the temp record aren't biased.
4) Observed increase in temps isn't due to normal variation.
Finally, the US has by far the most extensive ground station network of any area in the world as well as a common methodology. Here is the NOAA temp record 1895 -2016 for contiguous US.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tavg/12/12/1895-2016?...
This is normal variation around a mean. Any upward trend is due to slightly lower temps 1900 - 1920 & higher 2000-2016. Even Hansen admits there was no warming trend in 20th century.
Finally, I'd ask Jerry if he'd buy a stock based on this chart. I wouldn't.
3
Ralphie,
I'm a scientist and can play the same data game that you do.
However, a few facts stand out.
I love to ski, and in my lifetime we lost all the middle mountain ski resorts in the Alps. Winters are too warm and short to make them profitable. In this country is pretty much the same. We used to get a few feet of snow in Seattle in the 90's, we got nothing for the last few winters. I love to run, very few freezing morning now.
I do have personal observation of the glaciers in the Alps and in BC that are retreating at a very fast rate. I do not have personal data for the polar caps, but if I believe the pictures posted by NASA they seem to be shrinking at a fast rate.
I understand that is not obviously sufficient to prove the reality of a man made Global Warming, but I like the Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct. Increasing population and use of fossil fuels seems to be the most proximate cause of the observed data.
I'm pretty sure that will not persuade you and others sharing your view point, however, man made climate changes makes a lot of sense in view of the fact that no other compelling explanation is put forward by the skeptics.
I'm a scientist and can play the same data game that you do.
However, a few facts stand out.
I love to ski, and in my lifetime we lost all the middle mountain ski resorts in the Alps. Winters are too warm and short to make them profitable. In this country is pretty much the same. We used to get a few feet of snow in Seattle in the 90's, we got nothing for the last few winters. I love to run, very few freezing morning now.
I do have personal observation of the glaciers in the Alps and in BC that are retreating at a very fast rate. I do not have personal data for the polar caps, but if I believe the pictures posted by NASA they seem to be shrinking at a fast rate.
I understand that is not obviously sufficient to prove the reality of a man made Global Warming, but I like the Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct. Increasing population and use of fossil fuels seems to be the most proximate cause of the observed data.
I'm pretty sure that will not persuade you and others sharing your view point, however, man made climate changes makes a lot of sense in view of the fact that no other compelling explanation is put forward by the skeptics.
9
Claudio -- I assure you I'm not playing a data game. Sample reliability is directly related to its size -- and what we are doing here with ground temp stations is sampling to attain an estimate of the true global temp avg. The best samples are large in size, randomly selected and the measures of whatever it is you are measuring are as error free as possible. Now if you want to argue LT 50 weather stations for Africa. not randomly placed, not established for the purpose for which they are now used and where we don't know (and have reason to doubt) that a common method in data collection was used -- be my guest. I wouldn't trust the historic data from Africa or most of the global land mass (ex US and possibly Europe) for anything. Remember, Africa is 29 million square kilometers. Even today with about 500 (often poorly maintained) stations that means your coverage is roughly 1 for every 57k sq kilometers. That's about an area the size of MA,CT and NJ combined. Hardly sufficient.
As for your personal observations, that's simply anecdotal data. And it's also false logic. If I think A cause B and I see evidence for B that implies some change in A. Not so. Particularly in a multivariate world or where the causal link is not strong. If A accounts for say, 80% of the variance in B, you'd be likely correct but not if the relationship is less strong.
And remember the Kilimanjaro Glacier melt was blamed on CC, turns out it was nearby deforestation.
As for your personal observations, that's simply anecdotal data. And it's also false logic. If I think A cause B and I see evidence for B that implies some change in A. Not so. Particularly in a multivariate world or where the causal link is not strong. If A accounts for say, 80% of the variance in B, you'd be likely correct but not if the relationship is less strong.
And remember the Kilimanjaro Glacier melt was blamed on CC, turns out it was nearby deforestation.
4
"Anecdotes" is not the plural of "data." Your personal experience is meaningless.
4
Attention now turns to the Northeast, where nine states, including New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts, are part of what is known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which, like California’s effort, is a market-based cap-and-trade program that goes beyond state boundaries
===================
Actually this RGGI appears to be in violation of the Constitution , Article I, Section 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
===================
Actually this RGGI appears to be in violation of the Constitution , Article I, Section 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
It isn't a binding agreement. States are individually choosing to abide by the Paris accord; it isn't a contract or agreement amongst states.
5
It isn't a binding agreement. States are individually choosing to abide by the Paris accord; it isn't a contract or agreement amongst states.
====================
RGGI has nothing to do with Paris Accord. It is a compact between states in the Northeast to set a pooled goal for CO2 emissions and to auction off permits
====================
RGGI has nothing to do with Paris Accord. It is a compact between states in the Northeast to set a pooled goal for CO2 emissions and to auction off permits
2
Extremism in support of the good can be a vice. The Democratic party doesn't need a new marketing strategy. It needs to reform its trickle down environmental policies. Clean air and water everyone agrees are good things but the party's positions (and California's) have warped science into a religion. Anyone who disagrees with policies that are harming the poor now in the hope for benefits in the far future is excommunicated. No amount of new marketing will fix this and the poor will sure notice the hit to their wallets and jobs.
5
How is science a "religion"?
Proven science is true regardless of whether anyone believes in it.
Proven science is true regardless of whether anyone believes in it.
5
Many comments are calling California’s cap-and-trade program delusional, and believe that the cap-and- trade fad will remain bicoastal. However, there are many energy and environmentally sane ideas that began in California and now spread not only in the US but are followed worldwide. Energy efficiency of appliances and buildings began in California and now the Energy Star for appliances is the US standard. Even households in the fly-over-country states are using and benefitting from the energy saving appliances. Same with solar and wind electric generation. California had progressive (and that time expensive) support for solar and wind in 1980s. Today wind turbine costs are very low. Texas has the largest number of wind generators -14,000 MW. That is equal to the 14 small nuclear plants capacity, and that happened under Governor Perry who is now the Energy Secretary for the US. The second highest wind installations is in Iowa which is a red state. UAE states including Dubai and other Gulf States are actively installing solar although they have enough oil. Avoiding fossil fuel and attendant emission use is also a national security issue. Money used for oil goes to countries overseas that support terrorism. Natural gas is indigenous and a cleaner fossil fuel. Avoiding dirty fossil fuel is a national security mission and not a politically conservative or liberal issue. Cap-and-Trade helps attain environmental and national security goals too.
7
To add additional perspective to your insightful post, CA leadership in clean energy has occurred as its economic growth has outpaced the national average for the last several years; its 2.9% GDP growth last year was seventh highest in the nation. CA's $2.6 trillion economy in 2016 was the sixth largest in the world. 2017 is forecasted to see CA overtake #5 England's economy. As recently as 2010, CA's economy was the world's tenth largest -- pretty remarkable that a State can go from #10 to #5 in world economic output while simultaneously growing rooftop solar panels to now represent over 50% of all rooftop solar in the entire country, as well as several other clean energy metrics that don't just lead, but dominate the nation's respective outputs. Finally, it's not just you and the oil wildcatter T. Boone Pickens who are on record linking clean energy to national security. The source escapes me as I'm writing this, but a non-partisan study has been done that estimate the actual cost of a gallon of gas to be as high as $15 gallon ($2-$4 direct, $10-$11 non-direct), with the dominate non-direct expense being military spending to ensure safe extraction and shipping lane security for our oil corporations to provide crude to our refineries.
1
To me, as a Californian, the Sad! part is that all states downwind (ie east) from us benefit with a cleaner atmosphere. And I pay for it through higher electric rates. And therefore it is more Red State welfare: the reddest states in the Nation get more for their federal tax dollars than I do. However, I am willing and able to pay for renewables and the science that supports them.
Once The Child King is removed from office, the fake science community that supports *45 will still be there, still in denial. This makes me Sad! too
Once The Child King is removed from office, the fake science community that supports *45 will still be there, still in denial. This makes me Sad! too
14
What this editorial doesn't address is the adverse effect being felt in lower income neighborhoods. Cap and trade is great for the wealthy, but the poor do not reap the benefits
4
The "benefits" of cap and trade are lower co2 emissions. Everyone, including nonresidents, gets equal benefit from this.
2
As a long-term resident of the state and local elected official, I am proud of the leadership role California has shown on climate change. Often lost in the discussion, however, is the economic benefit we are getting. Through programs like community choice aggregation, which encourages local participation in retail energy markets, our support of in-state renewable power (wind, solar, and hydro) continues to bring our electricity rates down below what we would pay for energy from traditional carbon-based sources. This isn't a matter of symbolism. It is just as much about dollars and cents.
5
Often lost in the discussion, however, is the economic benefit we are getting. Through programs like community choice aggregation, which encourages local participation in retail energy markets, our support of in-state renewable power (wind, solar, and hydro) continues to bring our electricity rates down below what we would pay for energy from traditional carbon-based sources.
======================
California has some of the highest electricity rates in the country. Your rates are definitely NOT lower than if you were using natural gas or coal.
======================
California has some of the highest electricity rates in the country. Your rates are definitely NOT lower than if you were using natural gas or coal.
2
It is important symbolically for California to make this statement. The unfortunate fact, however, is that as Californians pay more for renewable energy folks in Idaho will happily pay less for carbon-based energy. To have any real effect, carbon policy must happen at the national level. Symbols are important, but they are not real contributors to a solution.
4
The best way to get through to Secretary of Oil Tillerson is to speak to him and his constituents through the only currency they know: profit. Isolate them--as the rest of the industrialized world is doing--and that little sliver of short-term profit they're gaining from fossil fuel will dwindle as the rest of the world gains from long-term research, development and innovation into the future of renewable energy.
4
California is "taking the lead"? In what? Damaging its economy and encouraging more and more of its non-wealthy residents to leave? Encouraging more of its non-digital-based industry to leave (or be eroded if leaving is not an option)? Congratulations to California on all that.
10
And don't forget California has the highest poverty rate in the US. And that 1 in 3 welfare recipients in the US live in California
1
Issues over the success or failure of "cap and trade" policies notwithstanding, the comments in response to this article indicate that large numbers of people are defiantly opposed to the notion that human activity, as we know it, is leading to rapid global warming and all that comes with it. To those who remain unconvinced I have just one question, i.e., what is the downside to reducing carbon emissions if the technology is affordable and serves to reduce dependence on foreign oil?
7
Sloreader -- not a good argument. The costs to our economy can be huge if it hurts GDP growth, which it likely will. You can use the same argument for anything -- well, this may not really been happening, but what's the harm in spending some $$$ to stop it just in case. I think there's a stronger case for tightening our voting process to ensure voter fraud can't occur and that hacking by any nation (not just Russia) doesn't occur.
The GOOD argument for renewable energy sources, nuclear or any alternatives to fossil fuels is that in the long run fossil fuels are finite and will first become in short supply, then run out. We need alternatives to stretch the life of fossil fuels as far as possible and ultimately be able to replace them.
The GOOD argument for renewable energy sources, nuclear or any alternatives to fossil fuels is that in the long run fossil fuels are finite and will first become in short supply, then run out. We need alternatives to stretch the life of fossil fuels as far as possible and ultimately be able to replace them.
3
Your economics are faulty. Fossil fuels will never "run out", they will just become increasingly expensive. That said, although I agree our elected officials should prevent hacking or interference by anyone in our elections, your suggestion that taxpayer money should be used to investigate virtually non-existent "voter fraud" is truly sad.
4
Cap and Trade has been a revenue generator for the State since 2006. It has raised over $7 billion for the State, but after 10 years since AB 32 was signed into law in 2006,according to the California Energy Commission, has yet to lower our 1% contribution to the world’s GHG’s. It has however been very effective in hitting citizens’ pocketbooks to fund a multitude of governmental pet projects.
Our Legislators crusade to maintain the Cap and Trade “revenue generator” through 2030 provides the public with a dim forecast in the coming years as the burden of additional fuel costs will be falling completely on motorists and businesses. More cost increases that are coming are: A) Starting in November 2017, SB1 will add significant tax increases to gasoline and diesel fuels, as well as higher registration fees to finance transportation infrastructure, B) 4 years from now, according to estimates from the (LAO), Cap and Trade could raise gas prices by another 63 cents per gallon in 2021, increasing to 73 cents per gallon in 2031, and D) California’s LCFS is expected to grow and overtake the Cap and Trade costs.
It’s our Legislators that are causing the price of California fuels to increase, not the oil companies. With the approval to extend the Cap and Trade system to 2030,California’s top politicians will have immense effects on what consumers spend for gasoline and a myriad of other products and services.
Our Legislators crusade to maintain the Cap and Trade “revenue generator” through 2030 provides the public with a dim forecast in the coming years as the burden of additional fuel costs will be falling completely on motorists and businesses. More cost increases that are coming are: A) Starting in November 2017, SB1 will add significant tax increases to gasoline and diesel fuels, as well as higher registration fees to finance transportation infrastructure, B) 4 years from now, according to estimates from the (LAO), Cap and Trade could raise gas prices by another 63 cents per gallon in 2021, increasing to 73 cents per gallon in 2031, and D) California’s LCFS is expected to grow and overtake the Cap and Trade costs.
It’s our Legislators that are causing the price of California fuels to increase, not the oil companies. With the approval to extend the Cap and Trade system to 2030,California’s top politicians will have immense effects on what consumers spend for gasoline and a myriad of other products and services.
8
July 24, 2017
Sadly to say our amateur on the job training Chief Executive in the White House must surely respond to this Editorial as 'fake news.' But for us at the Times regularly and comprehensive cultural reporting inclusive of the Science article and special academic and other professional article we all know and have - yes have verifiable references in the articles of science that have distinguish journals that are respected and with honor that one would not dare to toss into fake tantrums when one is to inept to be informed of the wonderful diversity of News that expands reporting for issues and matters of health and welfare for the common good of our great way of life that instructs actions and professional upgrade to needs that would otherwise allow America to sink into a third world nation. People in Californian are blessed and surely one the greatest States in nation that produced a famous actor body builder Governor that would at whatever age would confront in a match to keep Mr. Trump humble and cool - just to remind everyone a tower of man has many attributes to praise with earned authenticity.
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
Sadly to say our amateur on the job training Chief Executive in the White House must surely respond to this Editorial as 'fake news.' But for us at the Times regularly and comprehensive cultural reporting inclusive of the Science article and special academic and other professional article we all know and have - yes have verifiable references in the articles of science that have distinguish journals that are respected and with honor that one would not dare to toss into fake tantrums when one is to inept to be informed of the wonderful diversity of News that expands reporting for issues and matters of health and welfare for the common good of our great way of life that instructs actions and professional upgrade to needs that would otherwise allow America to sink into a third world nation. People in Californian are blessed and surely one the greatest States in nation that produced a famous actor body builder Governor that would at whatever age would confront in a match to keep Mr. Trump humble and cool - just to remind everyone a tower of man has many attributes to praise with earned authenticity.
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
2
From a demographic stronghold standpoint, policies like this are critical, and I hope to see more of them in Blue states out west and in the Northeast.
While flyover country is probably lost, we progressives can still hold the post-industrial Northeast and the West coast. But to ensure a tight hold, it's going to be more essential than ever to drive out the small businessmen, the salaried middle and upper middle classes, and those whom are neither too poor to escape the costs associated with such programs nor too rich to buy their way out. The "up by our bootstraps" types not only don't like programs like this in principle, but they're also among the most entitled and selfish citizens among us, who through the luck of small successes and privilege have enough - but not so much - to actually be hurt by progressive politics. I understand why they migrate to places like TX, FL, and GA.
As NYC, CA, MA, CT, and D.C. become harder to afford for the middle class, these shortsighted people will inevitably clear out, allowing for even more bold action on the environment, a world without borders, and the pursuit of new rights for various components of the ascendant minority-majority.
So while programs like this should be valued for their commitment to good progressive politics, they also are valuable because they make life harder for people who dislike progressive politics.
While flyover country is probably lost, we progressives can still hold the post-industrial Northeast and the West coast. But to ensure a tight hold, it's going to be more essential than ever to drive out the small businessmen, the salaried middle and upper middle classes, and those whom are neither too poor to escape the costs associated with such programs nor too rich to buy their way out. The "up by our bootstraps" types not only don't like programs like this in principle, but they're also among the most entitled and selfish citizens among us, who through the luck of small successes and privilege have enough - but not so much - to actually be hurt by progressive politics. I understand why they migrate to places like TX, FL, and GA.
As NYC, CA, MA, CT, and D.C. become harder to afford for the middle class, these shortsighted people will inevitably clear out, allowing for even more bold action on the environment, a world without borders, and the pursuit of new rights for various components of the ascendant minority-majority.
So while programs like this should be valued for their commitment to good progressive politics, they also are valuable because they make life harder for people who dislike progressive politics.
4
Hahahahaha!
Fantastic!
Fantastic!
2
AS an Afro-American, I resent this "up by our bootstraps" slur as just as racist as the Trump hate campaign!
It can take just as much fortitude to live life on public assistance as to work hard and pay your fair share of taxes.
It can take just as much fortitude to live life on public assistance as to work hard and pay your fair share of taxes.
2
Kudos for the wise ones in Sacto for taking the lead on this important issue. One of the brilliant ideas of the cap-and-trade was to label it as a permit rather than a tax. The results are the same, but semantics are so important in politics.
Because it is a permit, it in no way restricts the polluting tendencies of a polluter. They just have to pay for the privilege. Some companies have left California because of the costs, but not enough to put a dent in the State's supposed economic locomotive.
With the money flowing into the California coffers, they can now turn to improving the quality of life for their constituents. One area in need of cash flow is the long beleaguered educational system. The goal should be to raise the high school graduation level the way they lowered the smog levels in LA. The bar is pretty low, since they rank #50 in the US. Surely they can muster the leadership to pass Mississippi and take over #49.
It would also be inspiring if California could surge into the forefront of the infrastructural crisis facing the US. They could start by fixing Oroville Dam and other such projects that have been neglected for years. And, please I-80 from the State Line to Sacto is awful. A terrible introduction to the Golden State.
Because it is a permit, it in no way restricts the polluting tendencies of a polluter. They just have to pay for the privilege. Some companies have left California because of the costs, but not enough to put a dent in the State's supposed economic locomotive.
With the money flowing into the California coffers, they can now turn to improving the quality of life for their constituents. One area in need of cash flow is the long beleaguered educational system. The goal should be to raise the high school graduation level the way they lowered the smog levels in LA. The bar is pretty low, since they rank #50 in the US. Surely they can muster the leadership to pass Mississippi and take over #49.
It would also be inspiring if California could surge into the forefront of the infrastructural crisis facing the US. They could start by fixing Oroville Dam and other such projects that have been neglected for years. And, please I-80 from the State Line to Sacto is awful. A terrible introduction to the Golden State.
4
Funny how the NYT doesn't bother to mention that residents in the state of CA pay 50% more on average for electricity than the national average, and that number as the green corruption in CA continues is going up. Around residents of the People's Republic of CA will be paying 2X the national average, and it will continue to rise, and that folks doesn't even count the tens of billions CA Taxpayers are passing out to Democrat donors and supporters to build to keep playing with Wind and Solar.
What's hilarious is that CA has enough unreliable and hugely subsidized and expensive solar that it actually pays surrounding states at peak production times to take some of that solar power so it doesn't overload their grid, which is still mostly supplied by carbon based energy.
However, I'm all for CA taxing its residents more and more, and subsidizing companies run by corrupt Democrat donors, and then paying 2 or 3X the national average for electricity while the rest of us enjoy lower utility bills with electricity produced from clean burning cheaper natural gas.
Maybe by 2035 or 40 or 50, solar and/or wind will have become cheap enough to compete with carbon and then the rest of us can thanks the folks in CA for paying until their eyes bleed.
What's hilarious is that CA has enough unreliable and hugely subsidized and expensive solar that it actually pays surrounding states at peak production times to take some of that solar power so it doesn't overload their grid, which is still mostly supplied by carbon based energy.
However, I'm all for CA taxing its residents more and more, and subsidizing companies run by corrupt Democrat donors, and then paying 2 or 3X the national average for electricity while the rest of us enjoy lower utility bills with electricity produced from clean burning cheaper natural gas.
Maybe by 2035 or 40 or 50, solar and/or wind will have become cheap enough to compete with carbon and then the rest of us can thanks the folks in CA for paying until their eyes bleed.
7
We DO not pay 50% more for electricity! Where in the world did you get this idea? In fact, I pay less for a larger home than my brothers pay in VA for their houses. Of course, one of the reasons being we rarely turn the heat on in the winter (we didn't at all last winter) and summer cooling is much less of a problem here than on the humid east coast. However, that being said, my brothers said they're envious at my electric bill (while shaking their heads at the cost of our real estate).
6
Why is California a leader in dealing with climate change? 1) Jerry Brown 2) Because, for all intents and purposes, there are NO REPUBLICANS in power. That's why. Progress only happens in the United States when Republicans are neutered, removed and kept as far away from the levers of power as possible.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/22/jerry-brown-saves-california-447559.html
Want progress? GET RID OF REPUBLICANS.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/22/jerry-brown-saves-california-447559.html
Want progress? GET RID OF REPUBLICANS.
7
California and other blue states, meanwhile, have to endure a net tax loss to Red states with disastrous policies. It is time to hold back this cash flow.
5
For years, folks that didn't want the feds to govern forced states to pay and deal with universal problems. While I dislike seeing the decimation of the federal gov in its potential to lead on Big Issues, it wasn't, isn't, and states are taking things into their own hands, finally, for humanistic causes. Climate, health care, housing, and maybe even the national acceptance of war and hatred and fear of others?
While everyone wants cheap and clean energy, California is not contributing to the international slush fund that President Obama, I believe illegally, dumped 1 billion dollars into. Does the Editorial board defend that action ? Somehow apparently the state department had this amount extra? Never heard of a better reason to slash their budget. Meanwhile China and India want no part of Paris, they are going to start in 2030. Right. Like most liberals, the California legislature wants to be judged on their intentions, not results. They will spend money, increase the cost of energy, and have zero effect globally.
8
"And always, it seems, there is California, ready to take the lead until there are more responsible adults in the White House." Realize this is an opinion page, but what were the editors thinking. Know they love CA for it's liberal stance on any and every unproven take on how to improve things. But let's step back to reality for a moment...
Birth rate one of the highest in nation - it's people that are polluting the planet and cutting down the trees, right?
Air quality - one of the worst in the nation, yet the cap and trade is supposed to make things better? I pay the state, and then sell my emission allowance to a higher polluter and everything is great, but, I haven't reduced emissions for the state; just status quo. Yes, the state makes a bundle and continues to spend like drunken sailors, but nothing is better.
Crime - it's now okay to smash and grab if no gun is involved. That's called a 'non-violent' crime. Just like jay walking, right? Tell that to the business owner and those that work at the store.
California leads on nothing except high taxes, poor cost benefit, and more illegal immigrants (that now run many cities).
PS Climate change happens. It now happens at a more extreme rate. Why? It's not CO2. It's the producers of CO2 and those that eliminate the worlds ability to remove CO2. That's called over-population and deforestation (as well as excessive water consumption - water eliminates CO2 as well).
Where is CA leading us?
Birth rate one of the highest in nation - it's people that are polluting the planet and cutting down the trees, right?
Air quality - one of the worst in the nation, yet the cap and trade is supposed to make things better? I pay the state, and then sell my emission allowance to a higher polluter and everything is great, but, I haven't reduced emissions for the state; just status quo. Yes, the state makes a bundle and continues to spend like drunken sailors, but nothing is better.
Crime - it's now okay to smash and grab if no gun is involved. That's called a 'non-violent' crime. Just like jay walking, right? Tell that to the business owner and those that work at the store.
California leads on nothing except high taxes, poor cost benefit, and more illegal immigrants (that now run many cities).
PS Climate change happens. It now happens at a more extreme rate. Why? It's not CO2. It's the producers of CO2 and those that eliminate the worlds ability to remove CO2. That's called over-population and deforestation (as well as excessive water consumption - water eliminates CO2 as well).
Where is CA leading us?
7
California leads in job creation, one of the highest in life expectancy, health, capital investment, and quality of life. Most of the people who spout off about California have never been here.
4
California leads on nothing except high taxes, poor cost benefit, and more illegal immigrants (that now run many cities).
================
Actually California has the highest poverty rate in the US at 23.8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate
================
Actually California has the highest poverty rate in the US at 23.8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate
Yes, gas is $4.09 in San Francisco today. $2.19 in Arlington MA.
That's the way to show leadership.
That's the way to show leadership.
17
And mine in Fremont, California is $2.55. *Everything* in San Fran is overpriced. It's the result of being at the center of a jobs boom. Yes, jobs, you know the things 45 promised? Plenty here in CA.
4
Fuel taxes have to be considered. Also refinery supplying local markets.
California's smog reducing fuel is more difficult to refine, but the alternative... using fuel sources available in the other 49 states is much dirtier air. California has a limited number of refiners instate making this cleaner fuel blend, since the higher cost blend is not required outside California.
Lowering price of a gallon of gas $1 to sell dirtier fuel is not worth the price of unhealthy air. Nor is the topography of NJ in any way relatable to California, which is the primary cause of smog in California.
California's smog reducing fuel is more difficult to refine, but the alternative... using fuel sources available in the other 49 states is much dirtier air. California has a limited number of refiners instate making this cleaner fuel blend, since the higher cost blend is not required outside California.
Lowering price of a gallon of gas $1 to sell dirtier fuel is not worth the price of unhealthy air. Nor is the topography of NJ in any way relatable to California, which is the primary cause of smog in California.
3
Not sure if you're being facetious, but California, like most of the world has high gas taxes. This is a good thing. An across the board carbon tax would be better.
3
It is fascinating to read some of the disparaging comments concerning California's leadership toward managing anthropogenic climate change. Those who criticize California's measures as too incremental fail to understand that the nature of the problem IS incremental. Every measure helps---every single one.
Until the free-market accounts, if ever, for its own externalities--i.e. the non-consumable by-products of commerce and industry that adversely impact the environment--then government will have to allocate the cost. Otherwise, that cost will be increasingly monetized in both public and private sectors with the loss of properties in the millions of acres and the displacement of people in the millions of households.
Until the free-market accounts, if ever, for its own externalities--i.e. the non-consumable by-products of commerce and industry that adversely impact the environment--then government will have to allocate the cost. Otherwise, that cost will be increasingly monetized in both public and private sectors with the loss of properties in the millions of acres and the displacement of people in the millions of households.
3
It's called California Derangement Syndrome. People who have never been to California criticize us for . . . our success. That's the only reason I can come up with.
2
Long ago, Californians made a choice, to be the place of limitations and not of expansions that find ways around constraints and other challenges in ways that don't inhibit growth. Thus, they legislate cap-and-trade, something even a Democratic Congress wouldn't do, to limit emissions by constraining growth, making it more expensive, and taking the money for purposes that legislators deem appropriate and not used as incentives to drive even greater growth. They do it in the vain hope of affecting a biosphere that is global, while Mexico, not that far away, spews garbage into air that eventually we all breathe.
So, Texas and Florida grow, making better lives for their people, while California, seeing only limitations, suffers its growth hampered despite its gifts of climate and natural resources; and hunkers down into its increasingly limited and frightened world. Over-taxed, over-sanitized and increasingly divided between its self-satisfied rich and its politically impotent poor.
And the editors applaud. Shame on you.
Once, California represented the embodiment of American manifest destiny, where nothing couldn't be accomplished. Today ... what once were the best schools in the nation are among its worst. But, hey, they have cap-and-trade, so everything must be coming up (stunted) roses.
It's not a GOOD thing that Trump is going one way and much of the rest of the nation is going another. We don't build a better America on a foundation of limitations.
So, Texas and Florida grow, making better lives for their people, while California, seeing only limitations, suffers its growth hampered despite its gifts of climate and natural resources; and hunkers down into its increasingly limited and frightened world. Over-taxed, over-sanitized and increasingly divided between its self-satisfied rich and its politically impotent poor.
And the editors applaud. Shame on you.
Once, California represented the embodiment of American manifest destiny, where nothing couldn't be accomplished. Today ... what once were the best schools in the nation are among its worst. But, hey, they have cap-and-trade, so everything must be coming up (stunted) roses.
It's not a GOOD thing that Trump is going one way and much of the rest of the nation is going another. We don't build a better America on a foundation of limitations.
5
Your comment encapsulates a perfect explanation why California is a technological backwater with poor population that must be supported by tax transfers from red states, with all the middle class and rich people leaving the state long ago, with barely a memory of great companies (google and apple come to mind) that used to exist in the state... Oh, wait...
3
Hey Richard -- you are just making a fool of yourself with rants like this.
"The state is using some of the money its cap-and-trade system generates to pay for a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco." Which politically-connected engineering firm got this contract?
The federal government and some provinces in Canada are signing on to California's carbon scheme. Imagine how easy it will be for the bureaucracy to hide from public scrutiny any failure from this offshore 'magic bean' factory.
The federal government and some provinces in Canada are signing on to California's carbon scheme. Imagine how easy it will be for the bureaucracy to hide from public scrutiny any failure from this offshore 'magic bean' factory.
6
Which politically-connected engineering firm got this contract?
==============
One controlled by Diane Feinsteins husband
==============
One controlled by Diane Feinsteins husband
To all the skeptics, show me one economic study that backs up your false claim that the California economy has been hurt by cap and trade.
The California economy is the envy of the industrialized world. California is proving decarbonization will not only improve our environment, it will also create a stronger California economy.
The California economy is the envy of the industrialized world. California is proving decarbonization will not only improve our environment, it will also create a stronger California economy.
13
Take away Silicon Valley and then tell me what's left of the California economy.
1
Besides information technology.
the Ports of LA and Long Beach (transportation)
Agriculture
Entertainment
Professional and Business Services
Education and Health Services
Financial Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Manufacturing
Shall I continue?
the Ports of LA and Long Beach (transportation)
Agriculture
Entertainment
Professional and Business Services
Education and Health Services
Financial Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Manufacturing
Shall I continue?
3
Agriculture!!!
2
While the debate on cap and trade will go on and on, all I can say from experience is that in the 1960s, due to emissions and pollution, we could not see our beautiful San Gabriel Mountains. Now we can. In the 1970s, a California born Republican president decided to do something and the Environmental Protection Agency was born. This president is doing everything he can to undo it, but California will never go back.
10
It was not CO2 that was obscuring the view of the San Gabriel Mountains. The EPA was a good idea, as was smog controls - but under "progressive" management the EPA has turned into a monster.
5
...in the 1960s, due to emissions and pollution, we could not see our beautiful San Gabriel Mountains...
----------- we couldn't see the golden gate bridge across the bay due to the yellow-brown haze . in the '60s . now we can . . .
----------- we couldn't see the golden gate bridge across the bay due to the yellow-brown haze . in the '60s . now we can . . .
3
CA, the most car dependent state in the country, is going to save the world, LOL.
8
It's red states that depend on the tax dollars it sends to D.C. so the Feds can dole it out to red states that can't balance their budgets and need welfare assistance.
5
Most car dependent state? I doubt it.
2
So reassuring to see state after state dance past President Trump's climate crisis denial. To think we called Californians "fruits and nuts". Not so nutty now!
California truly the golden state.
California truly the golden state.
8
The NYTimes Editorial Board obviously has never actually been to Calfornia.
California is home to every bad idea in America.
Fortunately for California...they have the world's most powerful propaganda machine....Hollywood.
Ironically, California has 800 miles of coastline along the world's largest body of water.....and yet refuses to build de-salinization plants on the ruse that the intake valves might destroy the oceans population of fish!(which coincidently is dying off anyway due to overfishing from Californians).
Meanwhile, out in the desert, a Diane Feistein/Harry Reid inspired boondoggle is underway. Ivanpah. Three square miles of reflector oven, decieptfully labelled as "solar power", that require sucking water out of a protected underground aquifer, in order to generate electricity where nobody needs it.
And all those windmills? 50% of them are out of service due to incredibly complex maintainance...while the other 50% only produce electricity because of generous govt subsidies.
California is home to every bad idea in America.
Fortunately for California...they have the world's most powerful propaganda machine....Hollywood.
Ironically, California has 800 miles of coastline along the world's largest body of water.....and yet refuses to build de-salinization plants on the ruse that the intake valves might destroy the oceans population of fish!(which coincidently is dying off anyway due to overfishing from Californians).
Meanwhile, out in the desert, a Diane Feistein/Harry Reid inspired boondoggle is underway. Ivanpah. Three square miles of reflector oven, decieptfully labelled as "solar power", that require sucking water out of a protected underground aquifer, in order to generate electricity where nobody needs it.
And all those windmills? 50% of them are out of service due to incredibly complex maintainance...while the other 50% only produce electricity because of generous govt subsidies.
8
Not to mention Tonopah Solar Reserve, a $ multi billion boondoggle that sucks in more energy than it produces.
5
You should get your facts straight and educate yourself before you post so you don't advertise your ignorance.
1
Don't forget Ivanpah also fries hundreds of birds
1
I sincerely wish California would stop making it so expensive to live there that people are forced out. Too many move to Nevada and then vote to do to Nevada what they have done to California.
4
It's called supply and demand, and CA isn't unique. A lot of people working in Northern Virginia live in West Virginia due to costs.
Now Virginia taxes (even in the North) are nowhere as high as in CA, but it is still an issue here. And people still come here, like they come to CA, because there's jobs here. And you'd better believe the rest of VA hates us for it—mightily!
Now Virginia taxes (even in the North) are nowhere as high as in CA, but it is still an issue here. And people still come here, like they come to CA, because there's jobs here. And you'd better believe the rest of VA hates us for it—mightily!
2
Disappointing, to see NYTimes's unblinking acceptance of California's story of climate "leadership".
Californians for Green Nuclear Power has first-hand experience with
1) The story of a governor whose sister, Kathleen, sits on the board of Sempra Energy, the $17-billion monolith providing most fossil fuel burned for electricity in our state, with
2) Coordinated fossil fuel-industry efforts to capitalize on the shutdown of the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants, once the source of 22% of California electricity and over one-third of its clean electricity, with
3) Outsourcing of 30% of California electricity generation to other western states, where a blind eye is cast toward millions of tons of CO2 generated, with 4) The recent exposure of engineer Mark Jacobson's plan for generating our state's electricity from 100% "renewable" sources as a fairy tale constructed on behalf of Stanford's Natural Gas Initiative.
California's climate leadership is beginning anew - but parroting official mantras which trade our kids' environmental future for quick profit now doesn't make a tough job any easier.
Californians for Green Nuclear Power has first-hand experience with
1) The story of a governor whose sister, Kathleen, sits on the board of Sempra Energy, the $17-billion monolith providing most fossil fuel burned for electricity in our state, with
2) Coordinated fossil fuel-industry efforts to capitalize on the shutdown of the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants, once the source of 22% of California electricity and over one-third of its clean electricity, with
3) Outsourcing of 30% of California electricity generation to other western states, where a blind eye is cast toward millions of tons of CO2 generated, with 4) The recent exposure of engineer Mark Jacobson's plan for generating our state's electricity from 100% "renewable" sources as a fairy tale constructed on behalf of Stanford's Natural Gas Initiative.
California's climate leadership is beginning anew - but parroting official mantras which trade our kids' environmental future for quick profit now doesn't make a tough job any easier.
6
While I am strongly in favor of funding research into green technologies, does it really matter how efficient we become, if the world's population continues its exponential growth? Neither the right, nor the left would find it politically correct, but the U.N. needs to hold a summit on limiting population growth. Otherwise, none of the more efficient technologies, nor any of our behavioral changes will much matter. Our sheer numbers will overcome any advances we might make.
5
ann, while I am a skeptic re ACGW, if in fact the planet is warming and it is in significant part due to mankind's evil burning of fossil fuels (forget the fact that fossil fuel burning has improved and will continue to improve the lives of everyone on the planet) it is also true that:
TOTAL CO2 Emissions = percapita emissions X population
While we might in the very long term be able to control percapita emissions globally that is unlikely in the short term given the demand in emerging economies for more energy now, so the other lever we have is controlling population growth. But even if we could flatten percapita CO2 emissions at today's levels, if our population growth goes up to 10 billion (we were over 5 billion in 1990, over 7 billion today so reaching 10 billion in 2-3 decades isn't out of the question) emissions would still go up by 40% or so.
TOTAL CO2 Emissions = percapita emissions X population
While we might in the very long term be able to control percapita emissions globally that is unlikely in the short term given the demand in emerging economies for more energy now, so the other lever we have is controlling population growth. But even if we could flatten percapita CO2 emissions at today's levels, if our population growth goes up to 10 billion (we were over 5 billion in 1990, over 7 billion today so reaching 10 billion in 2-3 decades isn't out of the question) emissions would still go up by 40% or so.
1
Ralphie, how do you propose "we" control population growth?
Perhaps Americans, with 5% of global population and over a quarter of its emissions, has a greater responsibility: to get its emissions under control.
Perhaps Americans, with 5% of global population and over a quarter of its emissions, has a greater responsibility: to get its emissions under control.
1
Bob -- don't know how to get the population down, I merely am agreeing that global population growth is an issue along with per capita emissions. But, the US is already reducing its emissions (both total and per capita) whereas emerging economies are increasing total and per capita. The rest of world (primarily emerging economies, particularly India and China) grew emissions at a rate of over 2% annually from 1990 - 2015 while the US was essentially flat (and peaking in 2007 then declining by roughly 15% from 2007 to 2015. Even if the US can decline by another 15% by 2030 say, that will mean very little if global per capita emissions continue to grow -- along with birth rates.
1
The only California is leading at, is imports of Chinese goods at LA and Long Beach.
7
You overlooked the importation of illegal aliens...
1
In California, governors of both parties--even the most conservative--have backed environmental legislation, partly because the Sierra Club was "born" here way back in the 1890s. However, California grew exponentially in the post-World War II period, necessitating action to stop unbridled development--still a work in progress--and because of the consequences of said development: clogged freeways, smog that got so bad sometimes we couldn't play outside, and oil spills off the coast that created havoc and killed wildlife.
9
California will lead directly into oblivion. Complete fools following a lie. Fortunately we have a president who knows how to discern reality from idiocy. Do any of you fools even know that melting ocean ice doesn't even cause sea levels to rise? Have you been so duped that you'll believe a lie if it makes you feel good? Tell me what it's like to wear a dunce cap all of your days.
6
Yes, but melting ice on land--think Greenland and Antarctica--will cause sea levels to rise by a lot.
3
Greenland isn't sea ice.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2016/ArtMID/5022/Arti....
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2016/ArtMID/5022/Arti....
2
California can't take MY federal tax dollars and send them overseas to a climate change slush fund. Let's see California institute a special 10 percent sales tax to send overseas. Meanwhile I can choose not to vacation in California and I urge others to boycott the state tax
6
Perhaps a more appropriate lead sentence would be:
California, a pioneer in receiving the benefits of the Colorado River damming system, has been a long time leader in causing climate change, futility irrigating areas of land that would otherwise be literally defined as desert for about a century.
Try that!
California, a pioneer in receiving the benefits of the Colorado River damming system, has been a long time leader in causing climate change, futility irrigating areas of land that would otherwise be literally defined as desert for about a century.
Try that!
6
Hey, don't forget the Hetch Hetchy boondoggle and the Owens Valley water grab. Frisco and Looney Angeles gotta have water, too. Californians live on the discharge of aqueducts.
2
New York and CA should implement a 10% special sales tax to fund the international climate slush fund that MY tax dollars won't fund thanks tobTrump
4
We have a problem: an excess of our fluid waste is destroying our commons. We, acting together, have to solve this problem. Not as individuals, but together. It's going to cost about 1% of our GDP, its going to require new gov't infrastructure and intrusive laws that impede our behaviors as individuals.
Did you use a toilet today? Because I'm talking about our liquid waste problem, and it is London, 1850. If you used a toilet today, it illustrates how seamlessly and unobtrusively the 'big government' acted to create new infrastructure to solve a problem with our excess fluid waste, at minimal cost, to protect our commons, which includes our neighbors and our children. Now the problem is our gaseous waste. And despite the hysterics of the libertarians, its still a problem we can solve, acting together, at minimal cost. We did it before, we can do it again.
Did you use a toilet today? Because I'm talking about our liquid waste problem, and it is London, 1850. If you used a toilet today, it illustrates how seamlessly and unobtrusively the 'big government' acted to create new infrastructure to solve a problem with our excess fluid waste, at minimal cost, to protect our commons, which includes our neighbors and our children. Now the problem is our gaseous waste. And despite the hysterics of the libertarians, its still a problem we can solve, acting together, at minimal cost. We did it before, we can do it again.
2
Gaseous waste? Perhaps your desire is to limit human respiration?
1
To heck with human respiration. What about photosynthesis?
2
Speaking of photosynthesis - over the last several decades plant mass on the planet has increased by somewhere between 25% and 50% largely due to increases in CO2. The planet loves CO2!
2
Inasmuch as the federal government has exactly zero Constitutional authority to do anything about "climate change," of course it's up to the states. If California wants to bankrupt itself "doing something" about the "climate change" fraud, and put a serious dent in the quality of life of its residents, it's free to do so.
9
What's the fraud part? I'm serious. You can argue that the changes are too far along to stop - there's data for that. Please, with real data, just explain what you mean by fraud. If you have nice juicy data then I'd love to read it, and then it spurs discussion. The word fraud doesn't do much.
5
While the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention climate change, the Supreme Court has found that the EPA has the constitutional authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. See "Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency" (2007).
5
Henry, the Constitution grants federal government more than "exactly zero authority" to promote the general welfare. In its preamble, that's listed as one of the purposes of the document.
2
Nothing done in California will have any significant effect on the climate of the planet. The root cause of all global environmental problems including any effect of humans on the climate is overpopulation, but there is no leadership to address it. If anything, California's massive carbon footprint (e.g from cars, the entertainment, technology, and military industries, etc.) makes a more significant contribution to atmospheric CO2 than some countries, and will continue to do so for economic reasons.
6
An important, in my opinion the most important, reason cap-and-trade was passed is that it is a revenue source. I recently attended an event with a state senator and member of the legislature, and when they discussed cap-and-trade it was principally as a source of hundreds of millions of dollars for their favored programs, which in this case was affordable housing, not climate.
Cap-and-trade is effectively a multibillion dollar tax on Californians, in particular manufactures, that politicians don't have to call a tax.
Whether you favor cap-and-trade or not, or would prefer a straight carbon tax,
you shouldn't ignore the political reason it passed - money.
Cap-and-trade is effectively a multibillion dollar tax on Californians, in particular manufactures, that politicians don't have to call a tax.
Whether you favor cap-and-trade or not, or would prefer a straight carbon tax,
you shouldn't ignore the political reason it passed - money.
5
The Editors do mention that Governor Brown is using part of the loot from the cap and trade to build his High Speed Train from Nowhere to Nowhere. However, I didn't see any mention of fixing the Oroville Dam. Probably just an oversight.
3
For those of us in California who remember the stinging eyes and routine smog alerts, any action to reduce pollution should be greeted with praise. For those of you who live in areas where your pollution is carried elsewhere by winds, you need to recognize your impact on the environment and support actions to curb the damaging effects of man made pollution.
20
The prevailing jetstream flows have always carried pollution from California across the rest of the US. When y'all are enjoying your daily commuter crawl along your freeways-cum-parking-lots, give a thought to the people who are downwind.
2
I remember when it was painful to breathe the air in So Cal back in the 50s and 60s. The cost of doing nothing was unacceptable, for good reason.
3
So you want more pollutants sent your way??
3
Opponents will point out the obvious. As our renewable energy programs are both nascent and limited: First: Cap and trade will raise prices for everyone on the grid.
Second: California doesn't have its own environment. It's got the same air the rest of the world breathes. Its water comes from the same biome as China and Europe and India. One isolated geography cannot remove carbon from the atmosphere put there by operations in other nations. The suggestion is that California can't legislate gravity, so it should do nothing.
But, California is one of the world's largest economies and no doubt industries who trade with it can be compelled, at least in part, to adhere to its dictates. To put it directly: someone has to be the adult here.
People who argue cost believe doing nothing will cost them less, and therefore their quality of life will not degrade. It's the same argument used against Obamacare. Why should "I" pay for things that benefit other people?
If you can find a way to live in utter isolation, with your own air and water and food sources - e.g. - your own gravity - conservatives would have a point.
But as all have to breathe the same air that other people exhale into, that factories belch into *world wide*, someone somewhere has to lead with the concept that inevitably my own private Idaho is a part finite resource - that the health of my community impinges upon me (I don't want to live in a leper colony).
Someone has to lead.
Second: California doesn't have its own environment. It's got the same air the rest of the world breathes. Its water comes from the same biome as China and Europe and India. One isolated geography cannot remove carbon from the atmosphere put there by operations in other nations. The suggestion is that California can't legislate gravity, so it should do nothing.
But, California is one of the world's largest economies and no doubt industries who trade with it can be compelled, at least in part, to adhere to its dictates. To put it directly: someone has to be the adult here.
People who argue cost believe doing nothing will cost them less, and therefore their quality of life will not degrade. It's the same argument used against Obamacare. Why should "I" pay for things that benefit other people?
If you can find a way to live in utter isolation, with your own air and water and food sources - e.g. - your own gravity - conservatives would have a point.
But as all have to breathe the same air that other people exhale into, that factories belch into *world wide*, someone somewhere has to lead with the concept that inevitably my own private Idaho is a part finite resource - that the health of my community impinges upon me (I don't want to live in a leper colony).
Someone has to lead.
13
Lead where? In circles? Off a cliff?
1
California’s extensive fires produce the carbon emissions not manufacturing. Manufacturing has left the state because the cost of doing business (state regulation, taxes, poor infrastructure, etc.) is SOO HIGH.
2
California has the opportunity to lead the way to 24/7 cheap green energy.
New science - and hard to believe resulting technology makes it possible to run engines on atmospheric (ambient) heat without need for fuel. A Ford engine was converted to prove the concept. Two more engines are close to completion and demonstration - with verification and validation by an independent laboratory.
Atmospheric heat is a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy, larger than all of Earth's fossil fuel reserves.
These engines force recognition of the need to modify the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As a result, the pioneering work is attacked as fraud - severely slowing development. Scientists are extremely slow to accept revolutionary breakthroughs. In the past it has taken a generation. We no longer have that luxury.
The Wright Brothers flew in 1903. This newspaper refused to accept that fact until 1908 - as did the majority of the scientific community.
California innovations have changed several aspects of our lives. The concentration of engineers with open minds that spawned the computer revolution is now about to lead the way to 24/7 cheap solar energy that can power homes and vehicles of every variety - without need for fuel or external recharge.
Future cars, trucks and buses, will become mobile power plants, able to sell electricity or power buildings when suitably parked.
A few bold souls can speed the process - to the surprise of almost everybody. See: aesopinstitute.org
New science - and hard to believe resulting technology makes it possible to run engines on atmospheric (ambient) heat without need for fuel. A Ford engine was converted to prove the concept. Two more engines are close to completion and demonstration - with verification and validation by an independent laboratory.
Atmospheric heat is a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy, larger than all of Earth's fossil fuel reserves.
These engines force recognition of the need to modify the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As a result, the pioneering work is attacked as fraud - severely slowing development. Scientists are extremely slow to accept revolutionary breakthroughs. In the past it has taken a generation. We no longer have that luxury.
The Wright Brothers flew in 1903. This newspaper refused to accept that fact until 1908 - as did the majority of the scientific community.
California innovations have changed several aspects of our lives. The concentration of engineers with open minds that spawned the computer revolution is now about to lead the way to 24/7 cheap solar energy that can power homes and vehicles of every variety - without need for fuel or external recharge.
Future cars, trucks and buses, will become mobile power plants, able to sell electricity or power buildings when suitably parked.
A few bold souls can speed the process - to the surprise of almost everybody. See: aesopinstitute.org
The second law of thermodynamics has been throughly tested, as has the greenhouse effect. Fake green technology is just as bad as climate denial. There are many truly greener technologies that qualified scientists and engineers working on, and will be encouraged when carbon is priced out more appropriately. Truth will win, and competition will pick the winners, if polluters are made to pay.
4
SECOND LAW SURPRISES under MORE at aesopinstitute.org provides evidence that may be of interest to scientists and others who might question the dogmatic assertion above.
Conventional ignorance is now a danger to human survival. Since that affects all of us and those we love, opening minds to new facts and new evidence is not a minor matter.
Long after Galileo many scientists rejected what he achieved.
Nikola Tesla wrote: “In this present world …a revolutionary idea or invention is hampered in its adolescence – by want of means, by selfish interests, pedantry, stupidity and ignorance. It is attacked and stifled, and passes through bitter trials and tribulations. … All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed, only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”
"Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every artistic innovation was denounced as fraud and folly." Robert Anton Wilson
Conventional ignorance is now a danger to human survival. Since that affects all of us and those we love, opening minds to new facts and new evidence is not a minor matter.
Long after Galileo many scientists rejected what he achieved.
Nikola Tesla wrote: “In this present world …a revolutionary idea or invention is hampered in its adolescence – by want of means, by selfish interests, pedantry, stupidity and ignorance. It is attacked and stifled, and passes through bitter trials and tribulations. … All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed, only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”
"Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every artistic innovation was denounced as fraud and folly." Robert Anton Wilson
Great to see the Times highlighting the efforts. Unfortunately, your summary of the leadership and effort in California's policies is undercut by your editorial board's insistence on taking shots at the White House throughout this piece. These read as childish complaints. California and other states are demonstrating that American democracy does not come down to one man.
9
Unfortunately, the public needs to be reminded time and again about each and every one of the ways the Trump administration is rudderless in helping the citizens of America and the world deal with this threat. If only we could expand on the achievements but that would also mean having a functional GOP. Alas, kudos to states that buck the trend.
8
Supposing that ACGW is real --
1) CA by itself won't do much despite its posturing over how bigly their economy is.
2) Reducing emissions is more about individual consumer choice here in the US than fed actions. Tell big Al to reduce his carbon footprint. Tell the pols to quit flying home every weekend. Etc.
3) At the same time, it is true that the PA was more symbolism than anything else, and does nothing to curb India or China -- or emerging economies which keep increasing their CO2 emissions at a rapid pace. Meanwhile, US CO2 emissions have fallen since 2007 and if they keep at this rate we'll meet the 2025 PA targets regardless of whether we are in or out.
4) What is CA going to do about all those cars and sprawling homes?
1) CA by itself won't do much despite its posturing over how bigly their economy is.
2) Reducing emissions is more about individual consumer choice here in the US than fed actions. Tell big Al to reduce his carbon footprint. Tell the pols to quit flying home every weekend. Etc.
3) At the same time, it is true that the PA was more symbolism than anything else, and does nothing to curb India or China -- or emerging economies which keep increasing their CO2 emissions at a rapid pace. Meanwhile, US CO2 emissions have fallen since 2007 and if they keep at this rate we'll meet the 2025 PA targets regardless of whether we are in or out.
4) What is CA going to do about all those cars and sprawling homes?
4
You asked: "What is CA going to do about all those cars and sprawling homes?"
According to US census data, the largest homes in the country are located in the Northeast, followed by homes in the South. The high cost of real estate in California discourages construction of very large homes. More than half the electric cars in the country are in California. As everyone knows, California's vehicle emissions standards are the toughest in the country.
According to US census data, the largest homes in the country are located in the Northeast, followed by homes in the South. The high cost of real estate in California discourages construction of very large homes. More than half the electric cars in the country are in California. As everyone knows, California's vehicle emissions standards are the toughest in the country.
6
California's green delusions are out of control. Whatever the truth of climate change, and it is very unsettled, California will have zero impact on the global climate. The impact they will have is to increase inequality. Raising gas taxes will hurt the people least able to afford the burden, and the move to bail out Tesla is nothing less than forcing the poor to subsidize the delusions of the rich. Basic utility (water and electricity) bills are far higher here than in neighboring states and these costs are being pushed up again to feed these sanctimonious green delusions of the well off.
18
The "sanctimonious green delusions of the well off" ? Really? I'm proud of Jerry Brown and the government of California for taking on the sanctimonious ignorance that runs so much of the the turf in America. Hiding behind a concern for the poor is typical Republican thinking and a cynical smoke screen. Shame on you, DBrown.
31
Would you say that currently more evidence supports rapid changes in the environment than it's not happening? Zero impact sounds a bit off. I'd agree with "little impact." But isn't little impact important? It's like saying don't vote in an election where it's already settled because it makes no impact. You can argue that. I'd argue that over time those little impacts can amount to something more.
1
Yeah there is absolutely nothing we can do. It's all in gods plan. When the earth is uninhabitable, he will come down and lead us all into heaven.
2
We can beat this global warming thing. If every human plants 10 trees that would equal 70 billion trees. That would cover 437,500 square miles or about the area of the country of Columbia. The question is, do human beings have the will to fix the problem?
4
I am from CA and now live on the East Coast. Of course, I prefer the Left and hope this country will someday be more Socialist as the Alt-Right is terrifying, and not just for women. Good for CA but i will say this: when i left the weather was getting warmer. There used to be smog in LA over the ocean but when I left my hometown of SF there was an orange haze over the ocean that never existed in my life-time. Creepy. Winters are much warmer there now. I left because although a more liberal mind-set creates a better society, too many people were moving to the Left Coast and the cost of living was getting insane. Capitalism is not healthy for people or for the environment. There is hypocrisy, even in CA but my hope is that the rest of this country starts to shift to more progressive and intelligent policies and politics. Climate change is real.
Go Green!
Go Green!
42
Of course the CA lead on climate change has a few critics at home
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lomborg-california-climate-ch...
Its a nice idea that really isnt going to do much of anything unfortunately.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lomborg-california-climate-ch...
Its a nice idea that really isnt going to do much of anything unfortunately.
4
First step in combating climate change: get all the SUVs off American roads. I know suburban liberals will scream, but hey, let's see how serious they really are about climate change. When those low mileage, road clogging behemoths are gone we can talk about carbon taxes.
4
Larry -- while I'm a skeptic re CC, the fact that there are so many SUV's and vans in blue states like CT and NY seems at the very least weird.
Not only weird, but annoying. You go to the store in your nice fuel efficient sedan and park. You come back out and there's a like chance that on one side will be an SUV -- both sides is a good bet. So you try to back out and you can't see any oncoming cars in the parking lot because of these behemoths.
While there are many states where you need 4 wheel drive to get around in the deep mid winter, that doesn't mean you need an SUV or one that is on steroids.
Not only weird, but annoying. You go to the store in your nice fuel efficient sedan and park. You come back out and there's a like chance that on one side will be an SUV -- both sides is a good bet. So you try to back out and you can't see any oncoming cars in the parking lot because of these behemoths.
While there are many states where you need 4 wheel drive to get around in the deep mid winter, that doesn't mean you need an SUV or one that is on steroids.
2
Suburban liberals might scream, but so would country conservatives.
1
Not only SUVs, but gigantic trucks, with oversized tires. Never understood the point of having such behemoths. You can't see around them when you're backing out of parking spaces or driving behind them on the freeway. Possibly the allure is that drivers feel superior because they're higher than anyone else.
3
Also, California led the way in auto emissions standards, setting
the pace so that it's just not worth it for an auto manufacturer to
make a special more-polluting car for the troglodytic "non-CARB" state, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emission_standards#cite_note-5
Further, California's building code standards and especially for light bulbs rule:
http://www.govtech.com/fs/California-Becomes-First-State-to-Set-Standard...
So if you are an manufacturer of bulbs or LED's (Cree out of North Carolina seems to be the most efficient here), why bother to make special old-fashioned carbon-burner ones with century-old filament tech for the more backward states?
the pace so that it's just not worth it for an auto manufacturer to
make a special more-polluting car for the troglodytic "non-CARB" state, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emission_standards#cite_note-5
Further, California's building code standards and especially for light bulbs rule:
http://www.govtech.com/fs/California-Becomes-First-State-to-Set-Standard...
So if you are an manufacturer of bulbs or LED's (Cree out of North Carolina seems to be the most efficient here), why bother to make special old-fashioned carbon-burner ones with century-old filament tech for the more backward states?
7
according to the latest reports (peer reviewed by EPA and NOAA scientists no less), human caused climate change is complete bunk, and the temperature data on which its fraudulent premise is based has been fudged:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-re...
that is why climate change is not a hoax -- it's merely the greatest scientific and financial fraud ever perpetrated on an innumerate and scientifically illiterate public by leftists who'd like to transfer $15 trillion of u.s. taxpayer money to corrupt despots around the world in payment for climate 'reparations'.
one doesn't need climate change to justify sensible energy and environmental policy: e bikes -- particularly pedal assist -- are the future (and should be the present) for much of personal transportation, both urban and rural.
and if you live in warm, sunny weather, it makes good sense to make use of solar power for as much of your domestic energy supply as possible.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-re...
that is why climate change is not a hoax -- it's merely the greatest scientific and financial fraud ever perpetrated on an innumerate and scientifically illiterate public by leftists who'd like to transfer $15 trillion of u.s. taxpayer money to corrupt despots around the world in payment for climate 'reparations'.
one doesn't need climate change to justify sensible energy and environmental policy: e bikes -- particularly pedal assist -- are the future (and should be the present) for much of personal transportation, both urban and rural.
and if you live in warm, sunny weather, it makes good sense to make use of solar power for as much of your domestic energy supply as possible.
7
Wrong on every point.
PS I live in New England and power my home and vehicle with solar panels.
PS I live in New England and power my home and vehicle with solar panels.
4
Cap and trade is a boondoggle created by investment bankers. There is no need and no real benefit from a market for "pollution mitigation". A middle man is not required. Taxing carbon is the most direct and efficacious way to reduce man made greenhouse gases. Why does the Times fawn over this nonsense?
5
I think taxing the hot air produced by Democrats/Leftists would be more efficacious.
2
Bipartisan in California?!
1
The Ophra's and Jerry Brown's and all the 1 percent millionaires will run their air conditionong at 68, drive SUVs and fly in private jets gladly trading their carbon emissions for comfort. But the 99 percent regular schlomps will be sweltering, paying sky high utility bills and piling into their smart cars on their allotted day they can travel. That is how California will "save the planet."
7
Jerry Brown walks to work.
1
It's not just the millionaires in California who support good environmental policy. Do you know anything about Jerry Brown's lifestyle? You should research that. He lives pretty simply. California ranks 42nd in the nation in electricity costs. Also, for many of us living on the California coast, air conditioning is not necessary. A whole-house fan draws the cold ocean air into the house in the morning. Then, before the temperature outside rises, the windows are closed to trap cool air inside the house. I drive a plug-in EV because it saves me money and because I enjoy a clean environment. Where I live, all my electricity derives from carbon-free sources, thanks to the hard work of environmentally responsible city and state government officials. I don't feel that we're trying to "save the planet" here in California. We're just doing what makes sense for us. People in other states can do what suits them.
1
What about the natural gas leak at Porter ranch???
1
California leads with nothing except continual taxes as they are #1 in fleecing their taxpayers.
3
Great buy and sell carbon emissions, a program for the RICH, so that Al Gore, and Decapria, and all the other rich Hollywood folks can use their private jets, Mercedes, bentely and live in their 20,000 + square foot homes. While the rest of us suffer because of lack of electricity, and pay 3 or 4 times as much of the electricity.
5
How much is this going to cost me?
The question you ought to be asking is how much will doing nothing about climate change cost you, your children, and your grandchildren.
The answer is a lot more than doing something.
The answer is a lot more than doing something.
It's amusing how ONLY the Republican Party hates cap and trade. Just them. Only one political party.
But they can't explain why.
They just hate it.
But they can't explain why.
They just hate it.
2
"...And always, it seems, there is California, ready to take the lead until there are more responsible adults in the White House..."
This is certainly meant to read 'less corrupt politicians bankrolled by big business and the Wall Street Casino Boys'? And, by the way, arguably the least 'adult' guy in the White House is already 70.
This is certainly meant to read 'less corrupt politicians bankrolled by big business and the Wall Street Casino Boys'? And, by the way, arguably the least 'adult' guy in the White House is already 70.
3
Good news.
3
Missing word in second to last paragraph -- should be 'R.G.G.I., as it IS known for short'
Americans believe lies. What can you do about that? Americans have uninformed opinions they continually share. What can you do about that?
When stupid is allowed at the grown up table, the entire table gets brought down. Stupid never elevates, is accelerates downward.
When stupid is allowed at the grown up table, the entire table gets brought down. Stupid never elevates, is accelerates downward.
1
California is the new US
3
Democratic governance does indeed work in States.....within a Republic.
This is where the proverbial "rubber meets the road" isn't it Editors..
Democracy does NOT work within an oligarchical climate as dictated by
those Oligarchs who control our US Congress using Citizens United to
buy their representatives........what do you think Editors....democracy
works within States ....with actual total voter imput.....
Democracy does not work...when total national imput is overwhelmed by
campaign financing of the few who buy representation..
That is the reason why California has taken the lead on Climate change
and the pay to play for in the US Congress is at a stalemate...
Of course the logic makes sense...
so how about you...Editors....study Plato and state your case.
This is where the proverbial "rubber meets the road" isn't it Editors..
Democracy does NOT work within an oligarchical climate as dictated by
those Oligarchs who control our US Congress using Citizens United to
buy their representatives........what do you think Editors....democracy
works within States ....with actual total voter imput.....
Democracy does not work...when total national imput is overwhelmed by
campaign financing of the few who buy representation..
That is the reason why California has taken the lead on Climate change
and the pay to play for in the US Congress is at a stalemate...
Of course the logic makes sense...
so how about you...Editors....study Plato and state your case.
Stop. Cap and trade will never work. To think that it will is delusional. To think that the majority of states will adopt it let alone even consider it is idiotic. California is an anomaly...it has certain built in advantages. The majority of states aren't moving in this direction.The point of cap and trade is to increase the price of energy. At least admit that. Cap & trade is designed to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy we use in America. That is the goal. For it to “work,” cap and trade needs to increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumers to use more expensive forms of energy. President Obama’s former OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress that “price increases would be essential to the success of a cap and trade program.The majority of U.S. voters will never go for this. If Democrats start pushing this it will blow up in their face and translate into more defeats in 2018 and 2020. Cap-and-trade is political Kryptonite for Democrats. We have been here before. Cap and trade was a big reason the Democrats lost the House in 2010. Look at where the Republican pickups came 19 Seats from the “Rust Belt” from Pennsylvania along the Great Lakes to Wisconsin. The overall reality in that climate change legislation is hard to pass even in good times. It's really a killer in an economic downturn, where citizens & business fear higher costs, even slightly higher costs, & may see no concrete benefits. Wake up Dems there's still time.
13
Utility companies should wise up and create their own wind and solar farms instead of charging those who already use solar more for something they aren't getting. I'll bet they world be granted land for such projects.
Nonsense. The "point of cap and trade" is to reduce our carbon footprint. The overall cost of energy, when other expenses are factored in (like less health issues with a cleaner atmosphere) is lessened by a decrease in the mess we make while we are generating said energy. Other opinions are of course considered by California Democrats, but the real cost of energy generation cannot be measured just by looking at your electric bill.
Those "more expensive" forms of energy will eventually become cheaper than the energy we are using right now. Nonrenewable energy is, by definition, nonrenewable--eventually, the world will run out, and our supply will be subject to the whims of the countries that have large quantities of it. By switching to renewable energy now and using cap-and-trade to limit the usage of fossil fuels, California is molding the future. Solar and wind power may require startup costs, but in the long run, they will become far, far more practical than fossil fuels.
There's no guarantee the cap and trade won't drive up energy prices. Will it create a bubble so speculators could later short it. Easy money with climate change as a Trojan Horse to the next financial debacle?
Now that you unnderstand why deniers deny. Energy prices and votes. Votes because the only people willing to pay higher energy prices can afford them. California should send a delegations to Texas to figure out to build more wind and solar farms an France to build nuclear power plants. Replacing coal plants with natural gas. It's cleaner.
Now that you unnderstand why deniers deny. Energy prices and votes. Votes because the only people willing to pay higher energy prices can afford them. California should send a delegations to Texas to figure out to build more wind and solar farms an France to build nuclear power plants. Replacing coal plants with natural gas. It's cleaner.
wonderful and admirable how California and other states and the world just ignore what Trump says and goes ahead with saving our planet and its people.
128
"goes ahead with saving our planet"
As if anything California (or any other individual state) plans to do is going to be anything but a spit in the ocean when it comes to affecting climate.
As if anything California (or any other individual state) plans to do is going to be anything but a spit in the ocean when it comes to affecting climate.
pieces of paper and nice-sounding words are not going to save anything.
California is truly the leader of this nation with regards to climate. There are some nefarious groups inside the golden state however trying to take it down. The secessionist movement is growing (see "state of Jefferson) and the middle of the state up its spine is bona fide trump country. Ironically these trump supporters are mostly cattle ranchers whose ancestors were granted land from the government. Now that they have the land they don't want anyone to have what they do. The Mountain Democrat newspaper is as hard line conservative as you wold find in any state. The vitriol from their editorial pages about Obama and Clinton still, to this day ,is written. The hatred of Obama (color would be the reason) and Clinton still drives these folks. Trump signs are still up all over the lower elevation sierra ranges. If we can't start changing the hearts and minds of the people within California, how is the democrat party going to win over the rest of the country?
49
It's the Democratic party.
We can't change the minds of Anti's in the Central Valley; they're doing what they want to do: developing robots to pick DNA-altered fruit (draining the Sierra while they do it); fighting a bullet train between San Diego, L.A. and San Francisco; producing overgrown poverty centers where small growers once made a living, and so on and on, including the erection of a fake-republican party somewhere between hell and Fresno. Like all modern conservatives, they want to conserve their ducal holdings. They're doing a good job of that.
2
I suspect this is more of an anthropological issue in changing the hearts and minds of some Republicans. My experience with similar hard-liners in Texas is that most don't agree with the Republican Party, but they vote for the GOP like they belong to some sort of cult.
For those who do not think or have the capacity to change, they will never look forward. They are stuck in the same rut they entered under Reagan when a President had untried ideas that might have warranted a chance. Unfortunately, they stopped paying attention before the results came in, which were disappointing.
For those who do not think or have the capacity to change, they will never look forward. They are stuck in the same rut they entered under Reagan when a President had untried ideas that might have warranted a chance. Unfortunately, they stopped paying attention before the results came in, which were disappointing.
Good luck and best wishes New York & California.
If you wish to pay for all of the fashionable nonsense tied up in the Paris Accord, then a lot of us in fly-over land are cheering you on. As long as you do not interfere with the US Constitution or expect anyone else to play along, you should do whatever you like.
Your dime, your time, your rhyme.
If you wish to pay for all of the fashionable nonsense tied up in the Paris Accord, then a lot of us in fly-over land are cheering you on. As long as you do not interfere with the US Constitution or expect anyone else to play along, you should do whatever you like.
Your dime, your time, your rhyme.
22
A lot of you in flyover land collect more taxes from wealthier blue states like CA, than you contribute. Displacing the switch to renewable energy on to others does nothing to help solve this problem, and climate change effects us all including you. Part of what we need is a better election system at the federal level as well, including more access to polls on election day.
1
Perhaps the "fly-overs" should pay attention to the robust in the black economy in California and while you are busy cheering and consider what an extraction-based economy has done to your state and its people. California contributes more to the national good than we take. The "fly-overs" take more than they give, so keep cheering us on while we continue to pursue strategies that grow an economy because you need our dollars to prop up your welfare economy. Maybe your cheers will keep us from leaving the "fly-over" banana republic based on extraction and religiosity for an independent robust non-theocratic rationally planned healthy economy. #exitcalifornia
3
Please, then, don't expect my federal tax dollars to pay for your flood insurance, your disaster relief, or any other economic losses incurred as a result of rapidly changing climate. Good luck and best wishes to fly-over land.
2
I'm frankly unimpressed by liberal market-based efforts to combat climate change. The data shows that without massive overhaul to polluters--whether on a national or merely state-wide scale--climate change will not be slowed to the extent necessary to (a.) mitigate the mass-extinction of the Anthropocene and (b.) reduce the damage caused to the world's most vulnerable communities (whether these are the people who depend on cheap agricultural products that will be heavily affected by changing temperatures and resource-availability, or whether they live in the way of rising ocean levels). What really deserves an editorial are states who are reconfiguring their entire economies to face the challenge of climate change.
1
Not to mention the states that are building immense scaffolds to hold the sky up when it starts to fall.
1
What are they doing in the Great American State of If?
If the Democratic Peoples Republic of California were an isolated independent sovereign nation state then this greenhouse gas climate change reduction effort would have meaningful significance.
If the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states were planning on secession then they might also matter.
If cap and trade was not reliant on economic free market capitalist forces to have some impact on behavior then it might be material.
If we were not so reliant on fossil fuels then carbon emissions of carbon dioxide and methane would not be impacting climate change.
If there were not so many human beings and so much socioeconomic inequality then climate change would not matter.
If the Democratic Peoples Republic of California were an isolated independent sovereign nation state then this greenhouse gas climate change reduction effort would have meaningful significance.
If the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states were planning on secession then they might also matter.
If cap and trade was not reliant on economic free market capitalist forces to have some impact on behavior then it might be material.
If we were not so reliant on fossil fuels then carbon emissions of carbon dioxide and methane would not be impacting climate change.
If there were not so many human beings and so much socioeconomic inequality then climate change would not matter.
1
While the states can lead in some ways and certainly should be doing so, given the intellectual bankruptcy of the GOP in Congress and the White House, for the US to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector in a timely and efficient manner, federal leadership is still going to be required.
That the federal taxes on gasoline and diesel remain at 1993 levels is one example of a need for national leadership.
Ironically, in Trump we have a Republican leader who actually briefly called for raising these taxes before his party silenced him. Doubling or tripling the current 18.4 cents a gallon (gasoline) and 24.4 cents a gallon (diesel) tax rates would be a good start, though an even higher rate might well make the most sense. The additional revenue generated by the tax could be split equally between funding highway infrastructure repairs and programs that will help the US transition away from fossil fuels. For example, revenue could be used to annually construct tens of thousands of recharging stations for electric vehicles on interstate highways and elsewhere, and some funds could be used to develop and implement electric vehicle technology for long and short-haul trucks.
Over time, as the demand for gasoline and diesel fuels declines, these fuel tax revenues will dramatically decline, so it will also make sense for the federal government to be prepared to implement some kind of toll or fee system for cars and trucks that do not pay the fuel tax.
That the federal taxes on gasoline and diesel remain at 1993 levels is one example of a need for national leadership.
Ironically, in Trump we have a Republican leader who actually briefly called for raising these taxes before his party silenced him. Doubling or tripling the current 18.4 cents a gallon (gasoline) and 24.4 cents a gallon (diesel) tax rates would be a good start, though an even higher rate might well make the most sense. The additional revenue generated by the tax could be split equally between funding highway infrastructure repairs and programs that will help the US transition away from fossil fuels. For example, revenue could be used to annually construct tens of thousands of recharging stations for electric vehicles on interstate highways and elsewhere, and some funds could be used to develop and implement electric vehicle technology for long and short-haul trucks.
Over time, as the demand for gasoline and diesel fuels declines, these fuel tax revenues will dramatically decline, so it will also make sense for the federal government to be prepared to implement some kind of toll or fee system for cars and trucks that do not pay the fuel tax.
3
Good for California. May the politicians of other states also find the courage to fight for our planet.
5
PA should also implement a carbon tax or cap and trade system. I am curious about the declining quantity of cap and trade permits over time. Does CA have their system set up to eventually no longer issue pollution permits? If so, construction companies and engineers have a limited amount of time to become creative in developing equipment that does not require fossil fuels.
Changes in climate are normal, natural, cyclical, and beyond human ability to control. Liberty and prosperity are rare, precious, hard-earned, and within our ability to preserve. Hysteria and resultant action regarding the former are undermining the latter. Don't be a climate hysteric!
11
Liberty & prosperity in Los Angeles are only possible because of snowpack in the Eastern Sierra. That snowpack is then exported to The City of Angels in the form of water. Ironically, the expropriation of these resources by William Mulholland has impacted the freedom & liberty of those who live in places like Lee Vining, June Lake, Bishop & Lone Pine, CA. That's right. Grazing, the watering of crops, and even fishing rights are controlled by Angelenos many hundreds of miles away, far removed from any feedback loop that demonstrates the consequences of this longtime resource grab.
So it's a much more complex situation than some are willing to acknowledge. If the snowpack in the Sierra continues to decline, as predicted, all the hubris and the rhetoric of the climate deniers will melt away with it, and LA will have to live with draconian water restrictions. That will greatly impinge on this so-called freedom. You see, with freedom comes responsibility. Most Americans don't grasp this simple concept.
So it's a much more complex situation than some are willing to acknowledge. If the snowpack in the Sierra continues to decline, as predicted, all the hubris and the rhetoric of the climate deniers will melt away with it, and LA will have to live with draconian water restrictions. That will greatly impinge on this so-called freedom. You see, with freedom comes responsibility. Most Americans don't grasp this simple concept.
7
You can't control climate.
But you CAN control population -- ZERO POPULATION GROWTH.
This planet has too darn many people on it. California has too darn many people in it.
With a reasonable population, there would be no need for "cap and trade". Or a Paris Accord.
Why does the left NEVER EVER EVER talk about Zero Population Growth?
But you CAN control population -- ZERO POPULATION GROWTH.
This planet has too darn many people on it. California has too darn many people in it.
With a reasonable population, there would be no need for "cap and trade". Or a Paris Accord.
Why does the left NEVER EVER EVER talk about Zero Population Growth?
2
Maybe you should take the lead to save our precious and delicate planet.
1
California is apparently really making progress, good for them, but my Rhode Island experience suggests watch out for feel-good gestures while various policies subvert climate goals. For example RI is in that RGGI compact and or Governor and other officials say they support the Paris agreement, and have taken some good steps, but: our Governor is encouraging a new fossil fuel natural gas power plant in the woods in the western part of the state even though many say it is not needed; and though transportation is the largest sector emitting greenhouse gases, we are building a new interstate highway interchange to facilitate Citizens Bank to move most of its employees out of the metro area also to our western woods where all will have to drive and further sprawl pressures are anticipated; we are doing nothing to improve our statewide bus system which is attracting fewer and fewer commuters, our downtown state university offers "free" parking for all students, faculty, staff, but no transit incentive, the same for all state employees; we are spending hundreds of millions to rebuild an expressway through a poor urban neighborhood blighted by that expressway; our leaders oppose plans to improve high-speed rail on the Boston-NY corridor in parts of southern RI and eastern CT where speeds and capacity is constrained, even though the service is already electrified....
2
Chapter Five ofJohn Naisbitt's 1982 book, "Megatrends," discusses ways in which states then --- and even more so now --- are obviating inertia/paralysis in the national government in many areas. California's activism in adapting to climate change, or negating some of its effects, is a typical of this trend. Speaking of energy programs, Naisbitt said that if the "national" government ever develops an energy policy, and it doesn't comport with state-regional policies, it will be dead on arrival. The same thing seems to be true today with respect to environmental protection policy.
California is leading the way in helping to solve this calamity and in no small way due to Governor Jerry Brown's leadership. Unfortunately, weather in this country, like politics, moves quickly from left to right and from bottom to top, at least on a map. All of the garbage the western, southern, and mid-western states dump into the atmosphere ends up in the northeast at some point. It will take a united states to solve this problem, not a something-less-than-48-contiguous-states-approach. The most effective and cheapest way for the northeast to clean its atmosphere is for the pollutants not to arrive in the first place. That takes a leader and a country where the winds shift to the left, just a bit.
2
It is important to keep in mind that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the power sector are far less than half US GHG emissions. Electricity generation accounts for about a third nationally and about 20% in California, even when imported out-of-state generation is included. So California's climate program addresses multiple greenhouse gases from many sectors and sources, including the largest, transportation. Despite the welcomed popularity of renewable energy, it is this broader, inclusive model that other states need to follow.
4
California is broke. California has become a Marxist state. The USA must not bail out California.
8
California has a large productive economy. The state now ranks as the sixth largest economy in the world, behind The U.S., China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that California's GDP was $2.5 trillion in 2015, up 4.1 percent from a year earlier.
11
But they are still broke... expenses and unpaid liabilities FAR exceed their income. Soon it will be a two tier state... the rich and the poor living off subsidies. The middle class is leaving in mass.
2
The commenter above was referring to the debt, not the size of the economy. CA owes $460 Billion and has an unhealthy debt to GDP ratio of 17.45%. Your expectations are probably set by the catastrophic nature of NY's finances which has a debt to GDP ratio of 23%, so you don't think this is too bad.
This is an excellent start by states that account for over a quarter of the U.S. economy. Hopefully, under the leadership of California's Governor, Jerry Brown, more will be done. Here on Long Island, for example, there are proposals for a major wind farm off of the south shore; those plans need to be accelerated. We are also on the cusp of a electric car revolution and again states like California and New York can take the lead by encouraging consumers to switch to those vehicles with increased or extended tax incentives as well as increasing registration fees over time for fossil fuel polluting vehicles. For the sake of our nation and the planet the states must do as much as they can. Our lives may depend upon it.
17
Why I don't care about "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever it is that we are calling it today, and neither should anyone else:
1. We don't know if it is even happening. We probably have at best 200 years of good worldwide temperature data.
2. We don’t know what is the correct global temperature. Climate alarmists assume that today’s temperature, or maybe whatever it was 20 or 40 years ago is the exact correct temperature, and the earth should maintain that temperature forever, when we know that has never been the case.
3. We cannot predict what is going to happen with the climate in 20 years or 100 years. Existing climate models have been proven ineffective.
4. If it is happening, we don't know that humans are causing it. Evidence tells us that the climate has changed significantly at times when humans clearly had no impact on it. Current changes we are seeing today may be the result of other natural phenomena that have caused the changes down through the millennia.
5. If it is happening, it may not be a bad thing. Why do we presume that melting glaciers in Greenland is bad? I think Greenland would be happy to have more usable land. An increase of 2 degrees or 4 degrees in most places in the world would be viewed as a pleasant change.
6. If it is happening, and humans are causing it, I don't think we have the ability to stop it.
1. We don't know if it is even happening. We probably have at best 200 years of good worldwide temperature data.
2. We don’t know what is the correct global temperature. Climate alarmists assume that today’s temperature, or maybe whatever it was 20 or 40 years ago is the exact correct temperature, and the earth should maintain that temperature forever, when we know that has never been the case.
3. We cannot predict what is going to happen with the climate in 20 years or 100 years. Existing climate models have been proven ineffective.
4. If it is happening, we don't know that humans are causing it. Evidence tells us that the climate has changed significantly at times when humans clearly had no impact on it. Current changes we are seeing today may be the result of other natural phenomena that have caused the changes down through the millennia.
5. If it is happening, it may not be a bad thing. Why do we presume that melting glaciers in Greenland is bad? I think Greenland would be happy to have more usable land. An increase of 2 degrees or 4 degrees in most places in the world would be viewed as a pleasant change.
6. If it is happening, and humans are causing it, I don't think we have the ability to stop it.
10
Your Alfred E. Neuman (What? Me Worry? to the younger folks) attitude is great, as long as your assumptions (widely discredited, by the way) are true. And if they are not, and we might be able to do something, but don't... A bit scary to those of us who are sentient. And a 2-to-4 degree change in at least the bottom two thirds of the country would NOT be a welcome change. It is pushing up against too warm already. As you said, prediction is difficult. Where are we going to move all the orchards and farmlands if it becomes too warm for successful growing? Not an implausible scenario. Try getting a good crop of tomatoes when it is consistently above 90 degrees. Lots of the potential areas up north lack sufficient water, although that could change (there's that pesky unpredictability again). Wouldn't it be easier to try to protect the climate we have?
4
If we do nothing the worst case scenario is disaster. I believe we should listen to scientists and the statistics. Every year statistically is getting hotter. What if we blow our chance to reverse that trend? By using California as a role model we might in fact get other states to come on board.
1
I'm so sick of this kind of thinking (courtesy of the republican party and the fossil fuel industry).
A 4C degree increase in global temperatures will wipe humanity off the face of the planet, possibly in the lifetime of a baby born today. If there are solutions to climate change, let's try them. Our children deserve hope, not ignorance and foot-dragging.
But you, Kurt, and those like you, prefer to damage our atmosphere to the point of no return. If there is a god, may she have mercy on your soul.
A 4C degree increase in global temperatures will wipe humanity off the face of the planet, possibly in the lifetime of a baby born today. If there are solutions to climate change, let's try them. Our children deserve hope, not ignorance and foot-dragging.
But you, Kurt, and those like you, prefer to damage our atmosphere to the point of no return. If there is a god, may she have mercy on your soul.
1
Given the recent revelations that so much climate data has been fudged ("adjusted") to bolster the arguments of the "Climate change" global industrial complex, I think any state that "leads" on Climate Change is a laughingstock at this point. What is there to lead?
Even if global warming existed at all. And that's highly dubious at this point. Not one scientist in the world can tell anyone what percentage of warming can be attributed to human activity. And without knowing the extent & causation, how can any responsible government develop a policy to fix the problem? They can't. Settled science indeed.
Even if global warming existed at all. And that's highly dubious at this point. Not one scientist in the world can tell anyone what percentage of warming can be attributed to human activity. And without knowing the extent & causation, how can any responsible government develop a policy to fix the problem? They can't. Settled science indeed.
7
A reply to me from Gunmudder landed here by mistake. I am on a trolley in Göteborg using a Smartphone so hard to provide links. Trump Infrastructure are key words to headline yesterday. My final comment there has 3 coherent replies. Do not really understand what you Gunmudder are trying to say.
So...pollute with abandon? Get off Fox News long enough to get an occasional bit of accurate news. The data aren't faked. There is consensus. You are right, they can't tell to the percentage point how much of the change we are responsible for. They are pretty confident that we are contributing, however. That contribution didn't exist in earlier climate change. Now that we have an X factor, we can't just go on our merry way assuming all will be fine. You are apparently willing to simply gamble on the future. I wish to actually do my part to help shape it.
Nonsense. What evidence?
1
Lots of bluster here about CA trying to make a difference in the future of the world. I love living in NM, but it is not CA when it comes to making progress on anything. In this land of sun and wind, we have a Republican governor who has wrecked the state and continues to do so because of her ties to fossil fuels. No matter what people think of climate change or how it is occurring, it is happening and the longer we avoid it, the harder it will be to control. I regard climate change as the moral issue of our time. Cap and trade may not be the perfect answer, but at least CA is attempting solutions while states like TX and NC only want to regulate bathrooms.
73
I don't know how hard you worked to sound so reasonable and unassuming in your comment, but I find it deeply admirable. Thank you!
Thanks for the reminder of California's leadership on climate change and the fact that "...Mr. Christie is on his way out...".
29
It's sad that a relatively weak example of climate action leadership from California is head and shoulders above all other states in the U.S., possibly the world. In many ways, I am disappointed in humanity because of our lack of an effective response to the climate challenge. Our responses to other global challenges is similarly meek. Maybe it is time for an upgrade of our collective human mindset.
4
@Carol S - Philadelphia I raised a question about mindset - @ Trump Infrastructure yesterday. Can't give link since my Bus4You is arriving in Göteborg. Question fits here at my comment comparing country 1) SE with country 2) MANHVT ( my 2 countries). Not sure that CA comes out on top but curious. Only-NeverIn Sweden.blogspot.com Dual citizen SE US
I am proud to say I'm a California in heart and soul. I grew up where the happening happened. Over the years California has led in environmental efforts, legal efforts in workplace protection, integration, education, research, technology, and many other areas. Is it's no wonder it's such a rich state. But that has led to overpopulation and sky rocketing home prices with some odd results like owning a home in Carmel on a 40 by 100 lot (standard size) now selling for 6 to 7 million dollars but bought back in the 60s for under $60,000. Compare property taxes with the next house there bought last year. The 1960s unit might pay property taxes of $1000 annually while the current buyer might pay $60,000 annually. All this thanks to Proposition 13 passed long ago. No other state has come close to such an action. Passing it did have consequences for the government but today California is recovering, more so than other states.
Yes the country can learn a lot from California, especially how we can save the planet. But I wish they could do more about the traffic.
Yes the country can learn a lot from California, especially how we can save the planet. But I wish they could do more about the traffic.
1
At present California's Cap and Trade system is the only broad-based CO2 emissions control system in the USA. It applies to much more than just electric power plant emissions, but there is the irony than many environmentalists believe that oil and natural gas producers (and particularly refineries) got a very sweet deal.
RGGI is quietly reducing CO2 emissions and most of the citizens in the member states don't even know about it. That's a great sign that it is not causing any noticeable economic harm.
In New York, and for New York City and its environs particularly, the huge challenge ahead is shutting down Indian Point. Cuomo and DiBlasio have both campaigned on doing it, and the deal has been struck ... but the frank truth of the matter is that nobody has a coherent plan to replace the lost power without producing a lot more CO2 -- the default will just buy fossil power, much of it from out of state.
Put bluntly -- it's going to take a lot of solar cells and a lot of wind-turbines to replace Indian Point ... and also significantly improved transmission. New York, both City and State, is moving much too slowly on what it will take to replace Indian Point.
RGGI is quietly reducing CO2 emissions and most of the citizens in the member states don't even know about it. That's a great sign that it is not causing any noticeable economic harm.
In New York, and for New York City and its environs particularly, the huge challenge ahead is shutting down Indian Point. Cuomo and DiBlasio have both campaigned on doing it, and the deal has been struck ... but the frank truth of the matter is that nobody has a coherent plan to replace the lost power without producing a lot more CO2 -- the default will just buy fossil power, much of it from out of state.
Put bluntly -- it's going to take a lot of solar cells and a lot of wind-turbines to replace Indian Point ... and also significantly improved transmission. New York, both City and State, is moving much too slowly on what it will take to replace Indian Point.
2
If you close down nuclear plants....which is clean energy....you will have to replace it with coal-fired plants.
This is very typical of left liberal thinking.
This is very typical of left liberal thinking.
For what it's worth, Alberta, Canada, home of the oil sands, has also brought in a carbon tax thanks to the NDP, a left of center party.
28
In many ways CA is leading the way for progressive Democrat policies in this nation and will be able to provide evidence of the actual economic results of these policies
If only Republicans were interested in actual evidence to guide their own policies. Right now their party is under the vice grip of right wing ideologues who are their primary donors. These donors have sewn up most senators and congress members from the south and the non-coastal west and pressure them to do anything to reduce most roles of the federal government, obviously including any action on climate change.
Now, if only CA can manage to pass single payer, universal health care. Somehow we are incapable of comparing our system's efficiency to Canada's, but maybe CA would be impossible to ignore.
If only Republicans were interested in actual evidence to guide their own policies. Right now their party is under the vice grip of right wing ideologues who are their primary donors. These donors have sewn up most senators and congress members from the south and the non-coastal west and pressure them to do anything to reduce most roles of the federal government, obviously including any action on climate change.
Now, if only CA can manage to pass single payer, universal health care. Somehow we are incapable of comparing our system's efficiency to Canada's, but maybe CA would be impossible to ignore.
57
It must be nice to sit in NY and hope for another state to take actions for which it has neither the resources nor the capacity.
California is already up to its neck in debt obligations, and we are currently running an annual deficit which is actually against state law. Adopting single payer healthcare would requite an immense investment of funds, estimated to be roughly the same as our entire state annual budget. In other words, taxes on Californians would have to be doubled.
There is nowhere near majority support for this type of action, for good reason. It is completely irresponsible. Even if it achieved savings in the long-term, it doesn't matter if it bankrupts the state in the process.
Please stop pushing your hopes and dreams onto another state. If NYers want single-payer so badly, go ahead and adopt it first yourselves.
California is already up to its neck in debt obligations, and we are currently running an annual deficit which is actually against state law. Adopting single payer healthcare would requite an immense investment of funds, estimated to be roughly the same as our entire state annual budget. In other words, taxes on Californians would have to be doubled.
There is nowhere near majority support for this type of action, for good reason. It is completely irresponsible. Even if it achieved savings in the long-term, it doesn't matter if it bankrupts the state in the process.
Please stop pushing your hopes and dreams onto another state. If NYers want single-payer so badly, go ahead and adopt it first yourselves.
2
Paul, you are merely echoing the talking points of the right wing Cabal I mentioned- show me the data. It is just not helpful to pretend that what Canada has that saves them 40% per capita on health care costs compared to the U.S. while COVERING EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN is too expensive.
Whether your money goes to the state government or to private insurers to manage your health expenses, only government haters or employees care one way or another.
What most Americans care about is having the most efficient and effective health care possible for the least money over all. All the actual evidence I've seen points to single payer, government run health care as the best approach.
Whether your money goes to the state government or to private insurers to manage your health expenses, only government haters or employees care one way or another.
What most Americans care about is having the most efficient and effective health care possible for the least money over all. All the actual evidence I've seen points to single payer, government run health care as the best approach.
2
Today in California, power consumption will peak at 42,000 MW in the afternoon. Renewables, which only exist due to government subsidies, account for not even 10% of the total. Natural gas, nuclear, and hydro always comprise the lion's share of power generation. California, like other states, will continue to rely on cheap, plentiful natural gas to power its grid. I don't believe my tax dollars should be used to subsidize wind and solar power generation.
10
Tax dollars have subsidized the fossil fuel industry for a century or more. The US Gov't, in order to remain a world leader, must subsidize the alternative energy industry. Otherwise, expect the US to fail as other countries soar into the green energy future.
1
Like Germany, for example, the nation that made a fetish out of subsidizing wind and solar to a massive extent? It shut down its nuclear power station program after the Japanese disaster and guess what it is replacing it with? Nine coal-powered stations. Fossil fuels and nuclear represent the only method of providing reliable basic 24/7 power.
There is a 24/7 renewabe alternative. See my comments.
I was a fan of Jerry Brown back in 1992 when he ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for president. If he were twenty years younger -- even if he were 10 years younger -- he would be a terrific candidate for president in 2020. Someone like him is just what the Dems need to get their mojo back.
80
Agreed. Jerry Brown has always been a transformational thinker, and it is a crime that the media always echoed the right-wing nonsense about "Governor Moonbeam" and the like.
Personally, I voted for him in the Democratic primary in 1980, but he was clearly ahead of his time. Unfortunately, he still is.
Personally, I voted for him in the Democratic primary in 1980, but he was clearly ahead of his time. Unfortunately, he still is.
...a fan of Jerry Brown back in 1992 when he ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for president. If he were twenty years younger -- even if he were 10 years younger -- he would be a terrific candidate for president in 2020. Someone like him is just what the Dems need to get their mojo back...
--------- remember, though, that he was governor when prop 13 (stole all the funding for ca schools ) was passed . . .
--------- remember, though, that he was governor when prop 13 (stole all the funding for ca schools ) was passed . . .
1
In addition to the benefits pointed out by this encouraging editorial, California's leadership at the state level provides synergistic encouragement for climate responsibility at the municipal and corporate levels.
To cite one of hundreds of possible examples, one of the nation's largest home builders, LA-based KB Home, has evolved into the greenest such company in the U.S., thanks to the innovative environment in which it has grown. Energy Star and WaterSense compliance combined with optional gray-water recycling, solar panels with battery backup, video security doorbells, and modular construction that allows future changes in the functioning of rooms have all been pioneered at scale in California and then disseminated to other markets across the country.
Far from being idealistic tree-huggers, companies like KB promote innovation and cost savings for their customers, many of whom are blue collar, first-time home buyers. If Republicans in Congress were really champions of the people who voted for them, they would follow their forward-thinking California counterparts, drop their idealistic fanaticism, and embrace, rather than run from, a positive, climate-friendly future.
To cite one of hundreds of possible examples, one of the nation's largest home builders, LA-based KB Home, has evolved into the greenest such company in the U.S., thanks to the innovative environment in which it has grown. Energy Star and WaterSense compliance combined with optional gray-water recycling, solar panels with battery backup, video security doorbells, and modular construction that allows future changes in the functioning of rooms have all been pioneered at scale in California and then disseminated to other markets across the country.
Far from being idealistic tree-huggers, companies like KB promote innovation and cost savings for their customers, many of whom are blue collar, first-time home buyers. If Republicans in Congress were really champions of the people who voted for them, they would follow their forward-thinking California counterparts, drop their idealistic fanaticism, and embrace, rather than run from, a positive, climate-friendly future.
27
Interesting how the economically strongest states are the ones with the environmentally strongest regulations.
164
I don't know, though, if there exists a correlation between the two facts. This child probably has many fathers.
The Editorial Board would do itself a big favor by hiring a scientist.
A scientist would not co-mingle topics of science with topics of state-sponsored shakedowns.
A scientist would not co-mingle topics of science with topics of state-sponsored shakedowns.
15
A third major carbon-reducing methodology besides cap-and-trade and a carbon tax is the fee-and-dividend method proposed by James Hansen and supported by several members of Congress. It is superior to cap-and-trade because the latter is not fair, formidable and fast enough.
It is this third method of fee-and-dividend that underlies the transformational climate proposal presented by Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation". This Tierra fee-and-dividend proposal not only shows a very challenging pathway to the dealing with the looming climate catastrophe, it also presents a challenging pathway to the unjust, unsustainable, therefore, unstable international monetary system the glue that binds the monetary, financial, economic and commercial systems. Bill McKibben wrote about this Tierra proposal on May 17, 2011: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.”
It is this third method of fee-and-dividend that underlies the transformational climate proposal presented by Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation". This Tierra fee-and-dividend proposal not only shows a very challenging pathway to the dealing with the looming climate catastrophe, it also presents a challenging pathway to the unjust, unsustainable, therefore, unstable international monetary system the glue that binds the monetary, financial, economic and commercial systems. Bill McKibben wrote about this Tierra proposal on May 17, 2011: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.”
1
Chris Christie and Paul krugman can both wait for incremental changes. Before they know it our sea side beaches will submerge in the Atlantic. The massive ice break in Antarctica, the unprecedented melting of polar ice in Alaska, sea levels will rise before Christie and krugman can say Uncle Sam! Paul proposed small tiny changes in our lives instead of the sweeping changes American citizens wanted, almost instinctively. But no, he said be patient, let Hillary make slightest change in policy, by continuing down the path of status quo. Now he and NYT are belatedly crying wolf.
2
Petey for goodness sakes go visit Holland. It's 6 feet plus below see level and doing great. Have you ever heard of technology. You know Rome was once a swamp until the Roman engineers drained it. Stop the doomsday nonsense and enjoy life.
Allan, those are tiny cities. The entire Atlantic and maybe Pacific coastline is way huger than Holland or Roman engineering's capabilities.
1
Just a reminder that melting sea ice, whether in Arctic polar ice cap or in Antarctic ice shelves, does not change sea level.
Perhaps this Cap-and-Trade Program is better than others. I fear that it is too late and the warming of the Earth's surface has passed a point of no return.
There will have to be lots and lots of supervisors of the programk, but "quis custodiet ipsos custodes"?
Of California-emanating leads on anything, I am suspicious: I am one of those who consider the coastal cities of California to be the foci of evil (e.g., drugs) that spreads over the rest of the country.
There will have to be lots and lots of supervisors of the programk, but "quis custodiet ipsos custodes"?
Of California-emanating leads on anything, I am suspicious: I am one of those who consider the coastal cities of California to be the foci of evil (e.g., drugs) that spreads over the rest of the country.
1
It is really nice that CA can show how to lead on climate change. CA also seems to seek leadership in other categories as well. It is one of the last in high school graduation rates. It is one of the leaders in negative net migration rates, exporting many of its poor to Texas, while few very wealthy move in. It is one of the worst in job creation, one of the worst for business start ups. It is number 1 or one of the worst in poverty rankings. It has one of the highest unemployment rates. The State's water mis-management is well known. It has one of the worst highway systems in the country, and it has one of the highest tax rates, and one of the largest state bureaucracies and pension burdens. But, one must not forget, as the NYT in its typical non-biased style points out the most important point, CA can show how to lead on climate change.
12
Scott K: 1 of the most cogent, well written rebuttals to the silliness of this editorial, which indicates to me that these are essays written by 25 year old ivy league graduates who have never learned to think for themselves, and are simply parroting a viewpoint dictated by the apostles of political correctness who own the Times newspaper. 1 question not answered in the editorial is how do you reconcile open borders and massive influxes of newcomers into California with the need to preserve the environment? More people means more pressure on said environment. Contradiction here which is not answered or resolved. Sierra Club, whose "raison d'etre'" is conservation of the ecosystem, has yet to take a stand on increased immigration into the state for fear, my hunch, of being accused of being anti immigrant, xenephobic. Good job of writing.
3
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report for June 2017, California's unemployment rate is 4.7 - that, I believe is actually less than 5%, which is considered "full-employment"
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Also, California's graduation rate is just over 83%, at the moment, while it looks like Atlanta's rate dropped to 71%.
http://www.ajc.com/news/local-education/graduation-rates-most-atlanta-hi...
According to Business Insider, " California holds the No. 4 position for the highest rate of new entrepreneurs and No. 6 for density of startups in the U.S".
I think you are relying on statistics that are several years old.
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Also, California's graduation rate is just over 83%, at the moment, while it looks like Atlanta's rate dropped to 71%.
http://www.ajc.com/news/local-education/graduation-rates-most-atlanta-hi...
According to Business Insider, " California holds the No. 4 position for the highest rate of new entrepreneurs and No. 6 for density of startups in the U.S".
I think you are relying on statistics that are several years old.
3
Some of your numbers seem off. For instance, California's unemployment rate in March was 4.9%, about the same as the country as a whole, and below the unemployment rates of New Mexico, Alaska, Alabama, and Louisiana, and about 10 others. And while Cali is not a top job creator, it's ahead of Alaska, West Virginia, Wyoming, Connecticut, Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Vermont according to one recent poll. And states like Alabama and Mississippi have far higher poverty rankings. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Yesterday at Trump Infrastructure I presented exact comparisons of what is done my 2 countries: 1) SE, 2) MANHVT with 1 far along the road to fossil free and 2) mostly not but with small samples of using (1) post-fossil tech.
So MANHVT here is the 24/7 365 path to fossil free
a) Heat pumps (HP) instead of furnaces. Best Ground-source geothermal HP (see Champlain & St.Michaels edu in VT also VT state systems)
b) Solid-waste incineration not old like Milbury MA but advanced as in LINKÖPING SE
c) Food waste and sewage conversion to biogas (also Linköping)
Your move Governors and King Bernie!
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
So MANHVT here is the 24/7 365 path to fossil free
a) Heat pumps (HP) instead of furnaces. Best Ground-source geothermal HP (see Champlain & St.Michaels edu in VT also VT state systems)
b) Solid-waste incineration not old like Milbury MA but advanced as in LINKÖPING SE
c) Food waste and sewage conversion to biogas (also Linköping)
Your move Governors and King Bernie!
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Gee Larry, with a population of 9+ million compared to California's 38+ million you have done a wonderful job even if I can't find any record of you at the "Trump Infrastructure" or what ever you think it was. I'm sure your vast experience in consensus building in the EU leaves you scratching your head due to different regional needs and ideas but hey, don't worry, your tips will be passed on to the "governors and Bernie"!
2
"it sends a strong signal to the world that millions of Americans regard with utmost seriousness a threat the Trump administration refuses to acknowledge, let alone reckon with."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. In the best tradition of American marketing, the NYT is trying to put lipstick on a pig. It is not just Trump. The American federal government has a long tradition of being pro-pollution. Remember Kyoto? The Senate is at least as bad if not worse then Trump. When Americans actually take their responsibilities seriously, the rest of the world will know; now is not that time.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. In the best tradition of American marketing, the NYT is trying to put lipstick on a pig. It is not just Trump. The American federal government has a long tradition of being pro-pollution. Remember Kyoto? The Senate is at least as bad if not worse then Trump. When Americans actually take their responsibilities seriously, the rest of the world will know; now is not that time.
4
The US did not sign on to Kyoto, but reduced their emissions more than many of the countries who did. We need action not empty words and more feel good global initiatives that go no where. It will be interesting to see if "Paris" has any more real meaning beyond the piece of paper it's written on. Let's hope so.
1
This submission will connect very well with my first when that is reviewed and put "in print" here.
I commend The Editorial Board for recognizing the importance of calling attention to steps already taken in other countries:
"The California program is linked with a cap-and-trade system in Quebec; Ontario will join next year. (A carbon tax is another way to put a price on greenhouse emissions; British Columbia, Finland and Ireland use this approach.)
If you follow that link you will see that Sweden is also listed. The information given about Sweden refers explicitly to the way the carbon tax is handled there to promote one of the technologies I refer to in the comment awaiting review. From that source:
Fuels from renewable sources such as ethanol, methane, biofuels, peat, and WASTE are exempted (Osborn). As a result the tax led to heavy expansion of the use of biomass for heating and industry."
Solid waste, a renewable-energy fuel, is incinerated to heat cities and to produce electricity. This technology results in lower C emission than fossil fuels and that is only the beginning. No methane-emitting landfills, no long-distance transport of oil or natural gas, no ripping up landscapes as encouraged by you know who. Only normal solid-waste collection enhanced in my city by advanced recycling and separation of food waste from solid waste so the food waste can become biogas.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
I commend The Editorial Board for recognizing the importance of calling attention to steps already taken in other countries:
"The California program is linked with a cap-and-trade system in Quebec; Ontario will join next year. (A carbon tax is another way to put a price on greenhouse emissions; British Columbia, Finland and Ireland use this approach.)
If you follow that link you will see that Sweden is also listed. The information given about Sweden refers explicitly to the way the carbon tax is handled there to promote one of the technologies I refer to in the comment awaiting review. From that source:
Fuels from renewable sources such as ethanol, methane, biofuels, peat, and WASTE are exempted (Osborn). As a result the tax led to heavy expansion of the use of biomass for heating and industry."
Solid waste, a renewable-energy fuel, is incinerated to heat cities and to produce electricity. This technology results in lower C emission than fossil fuels and that is only the beginning. No methane-emitting landfills, no long-distance transport of oil or natural gas, no ripping up landscapes as encouraged by you know who. Only normal solid-waste collection enhanced in my city by advanced recycling and separation of food waste from solid waste so the food waste can become biogas.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
7
@ myself - as is often the case, the 2d or 3d submission referring to a submitted first gets into print before the first as is the case here. No hurry.
1
@Larry Lundgren: No se ofenda, but would have appreciated more your views on Swedish government's policy, like Angela Merkel's, of admitting hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Middle Eastern countries who do not share our Western values. Brought in without prior approval through a referendum of those who actually have to bear the increased tax burden, and adjust to higher crime rates.Understand there are numerous no-go zones, "zones interdites"where native born citizens fear to tread, and that Denmark is now complaining that the Swedish problem is having a spillover effect in terms of thousands of immigrants now choosing to resettle there. Governing elites throughout EU are mighty generous with other people's money, and wonder how Junker and Merkel would feel if Syrian immigrants, mainly young males, camped out on their front lawns. What are you opinions on this pressing issue?
California's budget deficit (Feb 2017: $1.6B) reveals just how well cap-and-trade works.
9
A simple cut-in-paste from a previous comment, provided for perspective and context: Since 1987, CA has contributed more than one half trillion dollars more to the federal budget than what it has gotten back from the federal government.
89
California's GDP is roughly $2.6 trillion dollars. That puts it around the UK and France.
A $1.6 billion budget deficit is a rounding error in a economy of that size.
A $1.6 billion budget deficit is a rounding error in a economy of that size.
50
Roger: but that's very misleading.
Let's say that I and 3 of my neighbors go to lunch at Denny's -- and we are joined by Bill Gates.
Before Gates arrives, the average net worth of that table is about $45,000 -- AFTER Gates arrives, it goes up to $10 BILLION average.
California LOOKS artificially richer and healthier than it is due to ONE industry -- the tech industry, which is insanely overvalued today, with people paying billions to own a tiny company like Snapchat or Instragram with 70 employees.
APPLE, not General Motors or General Electric or even Walmart, is now the most valuable corporation IN THE WORLD -- based entirely on the value of the iPhone. They employ a lot of people, not nothing remotely like GM or GE or Walmart.
California's "great value" or GDP is smoke & mirrors. The tech industry WILL crash again, as it is insanely overvalued.
Also: explain how a state with a GDP that size, can manage to have 24% of the population living in poverty....more poverty proportionally than Alabama or Mississippi.
Let's say that I and 3 of my neighbors go to lunch at Denny's -- and we are joined by Bill Gates.
Before Gates arrives, the average net worth of that table is about $45,000 -- AFTER Gates arrives, it goes up to $10 BILLION average.
California LOOKS artificially richer and healthier than it is due to ONE industry -- the tech industry, which is insanely overvalued today, with people paying billions to own a tiny company like Snapchat or Instragram with 70 employees.
APPLE, not General Motors or General Electric or even Walmart, is now the most valuable corporation IN THE WORLD -- based entirely on the value of the iPhone. They employ a lot of people, not nothing remotely like GM or GE or Walmart.
California's "great value" or GDP is smoke & mirrors. The tech industry WILL crash again, as it is insanely overvalued.
Also: explain how a state with a GDP that size, can manage to have 24% of the population living in poverty....more poverty proportionally than Alabama or Mississippi.
4
I would like to point out some other ways in which California leads the nation.
CA has over 50% of all of the roof top solar panels in the whole country. Put another way, the other 49 states, collectively, have less rooftop solar than CA.
CA has over 50% of the nation's solar power plant production.
CA has over 80% of all of the nation's hydrothermal electrical production.
Without California's contribution, the US would be behind Japan in total green power production.
Since 1987, CA has contributed more than one half trillion dollars more to the federal budget than what it has gotten back from the federal government. If that half trillion dollars could be kept and spent in CA, we could do even more to make this the best state in the country, like having universal health care, and free college tuition for all.
CA has over 50% of all of the roof top solar panels in the whole country. Put another way, the other 49 states, collectively, have less rooftop solar than CA.
CA has over 50% of the nation's solar power plant production.
CA has over 80% of all of the nation's hydrothermal electrical production.
Without California's contribution, the US would be behind Japan in total green power production.
Since 1987, CA has contributed more than one half trillion dollars more to the federal budget than what it has gotten back from the federal government. If that half trillion dollars could be kept and spent in CA, we could do even more to make this the best state in the country, like having universal health care, and free college tuition for all.
188
California is also sunny, mild and warm all year round -- an accident of nature.
You can't have solar in cold, gray overcast states where it is WINTER for 7 months of the year!
You can't have solar in cold, gray overcast states where it is WINTER for 7 months of the year!
2
California also leads the nation in illegal aliens living there.
2
Also has 1/3 rd of all the welfare cases, a huge unfunded pension deficit, crumbling infrastructure, and sky high electricity prices. Truly hilarious editorial from the deck of the Titanic.
3
Cap and trade remains superior to a carbon tax.
The tax trusts the government to do the right thing with the money collected. Cap and trade puts market forces on the side of forests, efficiency gains, electric transport, and progress toward a sweeter smelling and less overheated atmosphere.
The tax trusts the government to do the right thing with the money collected. Cap and trade puts market forces on the side of forests, efficiency gains, electric transport, and progress toward a sweeter smelling and less overheated atmosphere.
15
A zero net carbon tax--where the money collected is refunded equally to all tax-payers is really the best and most efficient system. Cap and trade is a boondoggle and is incomprehensible to the average person.
2
"Cap and trade remains superior to a carbon tax.
The tax trusts the government to do the right thing with the money collected."
A carbon tax works well where people have good reason to trust that their government will do the right thing at least most of the time. Given that our federal government has long been doing the bidding of those who write the largest checks, our skepticism of government is well-placed. But Canadians, Swedes, New Zealanders, Norwegians, Danes and others have reason to place greater trust in the actions of their governments.
The tax trusts the government to do the right thing with the money collected."
A carbon tax works well where people have good reason to trust that their government will do the right thing at least most of the time. Given that our federal government has long been doing the bidding of those who write the largest checks, our skepticism of government is well-placed. But Canadians, Swedes, New Zealanders, Norwegians, Danes and others have reason to place greater trust in the actions of their governments.
2
I don't trust the government with new revenues either. That's why I support *revenue-neutral* Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment, see citizensclimatelobby.org.
CF&D would return all the revenue from the carbon 'fee', and the border-adjustment tariff on embodied fossil carbon in imported goods, to taxpayers in equal amounts as a periodic dividend. In effect, people who buy more fossil fuels than the national average would pay those who buy less.
Zealous auditors would track the revenue collected from domestic fossil fuel producers and and importers of manufactured goods, all the way to the dividend distributions; as long as there's no revenue left over, the government won't get any extra money.
Since everyone gets the same size dividend, higher prices at the gas pump will motivate fossil fuel consumers to reduce their consumption any way they can. Because the revenue stays in the economy, it's available for investment in carbon-neutral energy supplies like rooftop solar, and supporting infrastructure like advanced batteries for electric cars and home power storage. The BAT keeps US-based manufacturers competitive, and encourages our trading partners to follow our lead.
Ask your elected representatives to support CF&D with BA. It will harness market forces, namely consumers' natural thrift and the lure of profit for entrepreneurs, to drive our transition to a carbon-neutral economy as fairly as possible, in the shortest time, at the lowest overall cost.
CF&D would return all the revenue from the carbon 'fee', and the border-adjustment tariff on embodied fossil carbon in imported goods, to taxpayers in equal amounts as a periodic dividend. In effect, people who buy more fossil fuels than the national average would pay those who buy less.
Zealous auditors would track the revenue collected from domestic fossil fuel producers and and importers of manufactured goods, all the way to the dividend distributions; as long as there's no revenue left over, the government won't get any extra money.
Since everyone gets the same size dividend, higher prices at the gas pump will motivate fossil fuel consumers to reduce their consumption any way they can. Because the revenue stays in the economy, it's available for investment in carbon-neutral energy supplies like rooftop solar, and supporting infrastructure like advanced batteries for electric cars and home power storage. The BAT keeps US-based manufacturers competitive, and encourages our trading partners to follow our lead.
Ask your elected representatives to support CF&D with BA. It will harness market forces, namely consumers' natural thrift and the lure of profit for entrepreneurs, to drive our transition to a carbon-neutral economy as fairly as possible, in the shortest time, at the lowest overall cost.
No wonder California real estate prices are through the roof.
Who doesn't want to live in a functioning rational place with a do the right thing approach AND a climate worth saving?
Who doesn't want to live in a functioning rational place with a do the right thing approach AND a climate worth saving?
169
We need a higher carbon price worldwide to accelerate the inevitable move to renewables and low carbon alternatives. Trump and the US Oil & Gas industry are trying to get gains on their expensive assets to the detriment of humanity. Maybe we should pay them off to do the right thing? This is only about money for the already wealthy Kochs & Co. More and better jobs are created through renewables.
36
The market based "cap-and-trade" carbon reduction mechanism though not perfect but combined with other climate change initiatives like shifting to the renewable energy sources, fuel efficiency transport, carbon tax, and other mitigation/adaptation efforts, even this could play an effective role to combat the climate change challenge. The strides taken by California toward a clean future and the similar greenhouse gas emission reduction legislative moves by many other states, and cities in America do really strengthen the common global resolve to fight climate change, whatever the negative approach of the Trump administration could be about the whole issue of climate change. Even the radical shift towards clean energy that's clearly discernible on the part of business world and the technology sector too could be a sign that all the important sectors of society have invested their effort and energy heavily into meeting the climate change threat.
31
People outside of California are more impressed with Governor Brown than most people in California. And for sure, people who feel that cap and trade is the silver bullet should ponder the fact that during the last decade, California refineries have moved to dirtier (higher sulfur) feedstocks and significantly increased their GHG and particulate matter emissions. Overall, we are making progress but it could be much faster if Governor Brown cared more about emission reductions and less about his image
6
Cap & trade is no silver bullet but its recent renewal by the California legislature is something for Californians to be proud of, given the disgraceful stance taken by the Trump administration.
As for Governor Brown, this Californian has nothing but praise for the man: He's consistently achieved previously-unthinkable political miracles and he's shown a lifelong commitment to ever-improving the State of California. If the U.S. had more politicians of his vision and integrity, the country would be in a much better position than the one we find ourselves in today.
As for Governor Brown, this Californian has nothing but praise for the man: He's consistently achieved previously-unthinkable political miracles and he's shown a lifelong commitment to ever-improving the State of California. If the U.S. had more politicians of his vision and integrity, the country would be in a much better position than the one we find ourselves in today.
103
I'm very impressed with what Governor Brown has done, and I live in California. His latest approval ratings are at 61% of California registered voters. For years, California was hampered by Republicans, both in the legislature and as Governor. In those days, when Republicans didn't were standing in the way of everything, the approval ratings of the California Legislature were down to 14%, almost as bad as those of the Congress, where Republicans not only obstruct, they now are trying to take us backwards. Now California's Legislature enjoys an approval rating of 57%.
California has more to do, and it will take much more work to restore it's educational system and transportation system, and we still have many Republicans who will complain about everything progressive. But obstructionist Republicans can no longer stop progress completely. Too bad much of the country hasn't learned the lesson.
California has more to do, and it will take much more work to restore it's educational system and transportation system, and we still have many Republicans who will complain about everything progressive. But obstructionist Republicans can no longer stop progress completely. Too bad much of the country hasn't learned the lesson.
3
Otherwise, California's fight to limit greenhouse gases is misguided.
Consider the following statistics. Population of California in 1950 about 10.6 million. Current population about 39 million.
That's right. Population has almost quadrupled since 1950. Other things equal that would correspond to an increase in greenhouse emissions of 300%.
It makes no sense to claim to be fighting global warming while at the same time setting up LA and SF as sanctuary cities which defy the laws of the US restricting illegal immigration.
Have any of you readers actually been to LA? Do you realize that it is under a constant blanket of smog, that traffic on the extensive freeway system grinds to a halt because of congestion?
Do you realize that LA drains the Colorado River dry so that it never reaches the ocean? Yet California does not have enough water.
Liberals and NY Times pundits live in a dream world.
We live on a finite planet. Yet the NY Times prevents the open discussion of America's overpopulation problem. We have raped the California environment because of too many people.
Why not at least have a discussion of too many people in the state? Why decry those who proclaim that the US has reached its limit on the number of people as racists and bigots?
Liberals are engaged in hate speech against Mother Earth. It is time for America to consider alternatives.