I have read that aviation is a fast growing emitter of greenhouse gases. If so, it would seem that sector needs to be addressed too, but it apparently has largely been ignored by this California plan, by my own state of Rhode Island that is doing everything possible to encourage more and more use of our airport, and most world leaders who want to keep flying everywhere.
Telling that Fresno is the location in the cow picture. Fresno has consistently awful air. Lucky if you can get out of Fresno to Bay Area or something though San Fran can be in the yellow a bit too often.
Here's looking at you, California. Way to go!
Carpers should note that California is doing very nicely thank you. Clean renewable energy and other programs are the best jobs program going.
I tend to sympathize with nuclear fans, but not on fault zones. Financially it's difficult, because so many people are fearful of it, and it's hard to get the most recent technology, which is much safer and produces less waste.
Carpers should note that California is doing very nicely thank you. Clean renewable energy and other programs are the best jobs program going.
I tend to sympathize with nuclear fans, but not on fault zones. Financially it's difficult, because so many people are fearful of it, and it's hard to get the most recent technology, which is much safer and produces less waste.
6
to all those who demonize cows Back Off u r on the road to paving the dairy and cattle industry....
If the tech industry were every to suffer a major blow, California would be finished economically. So far, so good, but let's see what happens.
You could make a similar claim for basically every city, state and country. If India brings in cheaper manufacturing, China would be finished. If demand for oil drops, the Middle East and much of South America would be finished. etc. etc.
And as far as picking an enterprise to hang your hat on goes, technology is probably the safest bet there is.
And as far as picking an enterprise to hang your hat on goes, technology is probably the safest bet there is.
2
Compare and contrast:
Big fossil is about to be stranded assets. And not before time ...
Big fossil is about to be stranded assets. And not before time ...
2
It's such a silly point to take. At least technology is an activity that uses human creativity and intelligence as it's currency and not a finite natural resource, or cheaper labor which is just a race to the bottom.
I'm happy California bases it's economy on an industry that attracts the best and brightest people to the state.
I'm happy California bases it's economy on an industry that attracts the best and brightest people to the state.
1
This should go beyond these tame measures. Even California's proposals are insufficient.
France and UK are already planning to phase out sale of fuel-burning vehicles. We should do the same, and of course move the sources of electrical energy to cleaner methods.
As for the problem of methane from cows: Encourage and incentivize a vegan diet.
France and UK are already planning to phase out sale of fuel-burning vehicles. We should do the same, and of course move the sources of electrical energy to cleaner methods.
As for the problem of methane from cows: Encourage and incentivize a vegan diet.
3
Really miss the organic produce and more liberal view points, but happy to be on the more conservative East Coast. Still, we should all be trying to live and be more Green. Climate Change is real and a huge problem. Pollution being created today will not reach the upper atmosphere for many, many years and so i worry that this is an irreversible problem, at this point. Our children and the planet deserve better!
While California may have a massive economy, the truth is that the State of California is going broke. Between environmental overreach and excessive taxation pushing job creators to other states, the legacy of prop 13 which created a ridiculous mostly tax free real estate bubble, and the looming disaster of unfunded calpers pensions, combined with rotting infrastructure on a 30 year deferment schedule (weve got broken dams but hey, bullet train right?) and the loony idea of Calexit which would potentially cut federal funding, California is staring at the abyss, and mashing the throttle down. Im not really sure what they are thinking (or smoking) in Sacramento, but they better get a grip and face the music. It wont look good for Democrats if their so-called stronghold is in foreclosure.
6
California has been going broke since 1970.
Typical New York Times! You people can't even get the basic facts right. Today, California generates 30% of its electricity from renewables, not 25% as you "reported."
In 1990, California generated 29% of its electriciuty from renewables, which means that for all its self-righteous lecturing, the state has done very little on the renewables front.
These numbers from from the Department of Energy. If the New York Times wants to know why no one believes what they publish, well, here's a good example of it. You are lazy, and you are wrong. I find similar errors in virtually every article you people publish on a subject I'm interested in.
Find people who can do the job, because you people certainly can't.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
In 1990, California generated 29% of its electriciuty from renewables, which means that for all its self-righteous lecturing, the state has done very little on the renewables front.
These numbers from from the Department of Energy. If the New York Times wants to know why no one believes what they publish, well, here's a good example of it. You are lazy, and you are wrong. I find similar errors in virtually every article you people publish on a subject I'm interested in.
Find people who can do the job, because you people certainly can't.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
8
CA is producing more renewable electricity. But because the population has soared from 29 million in 1990 to 39 million today (and projected to be 45 million in 2030), the increase in renewables hasn't made, and won't make a difference in terms of total percentage.
Of course if they hadn't rolled out the red carpet for illegal immigrants (and their kids who were born in California), they would actually would have made lots of progress.
Of course if they hadn't rolled out the red carpet for illegal immigrants (and their kids who were born in California), they would actually would have made lots of progress.
3
-- Encouraging news from California --
I am taking a break from commenting but offer these 4 URLs -all leading to my recent comments offering concrete renewable energy technology recommendations for California and for my USA - New York plus New England. No interest was shown in these technologies, none of which is ever mentioned in articles like this. All are in widespread use in the Nordic countries.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/california-climate-change-cap-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/california-climate-change-cap-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/us/trump-infrastructure-program.html?c...
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/us/trump-infrastructure-program.html?c...
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/california-climate-change-cap-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/california-climate-change-cap-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/us/trump-infrastructure-program.html?c...
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/us/trump-infrastructure-program.html?c...
California is not a giant laboratory. It is a giant circus. "Moonbeam" just wants his "cap and tax" fraud to supply money for his "choo-choo" which goes from nowhere to nowhere. So what if Cali reduces carbon in the atmosphere? No other state is stupid enough to join them. And then what? It will do NOTHING to solve anything. Billions of hard earned tax payer dollars down the toilet. But hey, no one ever said that Cali wasn't entertaining. Or wasteful.
3
How far can California possibly go on climate? The question should be, "How far does California need to go on climate?"
California's per-capita carbon emissions are worse than 183 other countries of the world (worse than China, all of Europe, five times those of India, twice those of France).
As possibly the most entitled state in the most entitled country in the world, we haven't left the starting blocks.
California's per-capita carbon emissions are worse than 183 other countries of the world (worse than China, all of Europe, five times those of India, twice those of France).
As possibly the most entitled state in the most entitled country in the world, we haven't left the starting blocks.
7
I find it strange that economists all promote cap and trade instead of say replacing VAT with a carbon tax levied on end products(obviously the price that consumers see would have to include the tax)- that would also encourage consumers to consume products in a lower-carbon manner.
By taxing end-products sold locally you have the double advantage of silencing critics who claim the tax would hurt exports, while also pressuring foreign based companies to produce with less carbon.
The one significant disadvantage would be complexity in figuring out how much carbon went into the production.
By taxing end-products sold locally you have the double advantage of silencing critics who claim the tax would hurt exports, while also pressuring foreign based companies to produce with less carbon.
The one significant disadvantage would be complexity in figuring out how much carbon went into the production.
2
"Tax" is a three-letter word. "Cape & Trade" sounds so much more ... genteel ... and mercantile.
And then it is so much easier for politicians to rig C&T by grandfathering in the oligopolies that support them. It's a lot harder to exempt favored entities from taxes; the average Joe can see that one from a long way away.
And then it is so much easier for politicians to rig C&T by grandfathering in the oligopolies that support them. It's a lot harder to exempt favored entities from taxes; the average Joe can see that one from a long way away.
1
If California goes far enough, they can make their rural border counties look at their neighbors across the state line with envy. Then we might see secession movements that make Cali's own threats to secede look timid.
1
We lived in Illinois when we bought our first car as a married couple. It was a Datsun 240Z (well we were young) and when we picked it up at the dealership the service guy had to explain these strange hoses in the engine. Because the car came through California it had to have a catalytic converter on the engine to reduce pollution. I remember wondering if someday all cars would have to have such a thing but thought probably not. California was this strange far away state that did weird things. Well 44 years later and I guess California was a bellwether then even though they were only trying to reduce pollution from cars in their state. Now it's my state and I can only hope that we will be the bellwether state again. At least we are willing to try. Oh and btw you can actually SEE the San Gabriel mountains on most days in LA when, in pictures from years ago, you wouldn't even know there were mountains there the smog was so bad!
6
Datsun 240Zs never had catalytic converters.
2
Sam --- so car parts places are selling mythical parts, eh?
http://www.andysautosport.com/hi_flow_catalytic_converter/datsun_240z.html
And in fact if you bother to go check, CA 240z had them from the '75 model year on.
Why is it that EVERYTHING you have snidely replied is wrong? Why is it that you never bother to check anything, you just blurt something out?
It took me 15 seconds to establish these facts, why can't you?
http://www.andysautosport.com/hi_flow_catalytic_converter/datsun_240z.html
And in fact if you bother to go check, CA 240z had them from the '75 model year on.
Why is it that EVERYTHING you have snidely replied is wrong? Why is it that you never bother to check anything, you just blurt something out?
It took me 15 seconds to establish these facts, why can't you?
1
Yep had one, no converter.
Kudos to Californiia for leading the rest of the country! As a native of the Golden State I applaud all their efforts. Thank goodness there still exists in this country those folks willing to lead. Are you sure Jerry Brown can't run for President in 2020? God knows we need more of this mentality in the rest of country.
8
LOL!!!! Dairy farms? Really? As if there is an invisible barrier which prevents air from flowing from other places into CA. More Socialist drivel. They believe they are gods. They engage in activities which can change the environment, which is true. They also believe the they can predict the outcome, over time, of these activities. Which they cannot. This save the planet stuff is just a fell good meme put forth by the Socialists to get votes.
4
Given the strange political nature of most of this comment, I'm not sure if the first portion or indeed any part of it is meant to be taken seriously. On the off chance that it is, perhaps looking closer at the article might shed some light.
"Some of the reductions in a state proposal to reduce emissions would come from curbing emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from manure piles at dairy farms."
Based on this, it seems unlikely that any invisible barriers are being proposed. To me it seems they are proposing an end to current 'disposal' practices that involve massive open piles or pits of animal waste. It's a very cheap method of disposal, but massive amounts of methane are released during decomposition and many other environmental issues like water contamination come into play. It sounds like they are proposing mandatory sealed storage for large volumes of animal waste, possibly in anaerobic digesters that capture the methane to be used as biogas. It's really a quite interesting process, though not quite as interesting as invisible barriers of course.
"Some of the reductions in a state proposal to reduce emissions would come from curbing emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from manure piles at dairy farms."
Based on this, it seems unlikely that any invisible barriers are being proposed. To me it seems they are proposing an end to current 'disposal' practices that involve massive open piles or pits of animal waste. It's a very cheap method of disposal, but massive amounts of methane are released during decomposition and many other environmental issues like water contamination come into play. It sounds like they are proposing mandatory sealed storage for large volumes of animal waste, possibly in anaerobic digesters that capture the methane to be used as biogas. It's really a quite interesting process, though not quite as interesting as invisible barriers of course.
4
It is not the manure but something more like this. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/17/article-0-1D29733200000578-945...
Can they pull it off? Who knows. But at least they're trying.
8
There are pictures of ice shelves cracking, video of coral reefs bleaching and dying because of the rise of ocean temperatures, and experience that each year has been hotter than previous years. Burning fossil fuels made the U.S. wealthy, and our best argument is now that because developing economies are burning fossil fuels to propel their economies, we should not try and move to clean energy sources? That's the dumbest argument I have ever heard. That's like saying although we know smoking is hazardous for human health, but because the Chinese and Indians are still smoking, we should continue smoking too.
4
With respect to electric cars and electricity from lithium batteries -- the amount of CO2 liberated when an 85kWh battery (i.e. a Tesla battery) in refining and manufacture is equal to that of a gasoline powered, 25 mpg vehicle driven for one year. Sorry, that's how the stoichemistry works out.
4
Either your idea of how FAR that "25 mpg car" drove in a year is extraordinarily low, or you better go back and take freshman chemistry over again.
There is roughly 63 kg of lithium in a 70 kWh Tesla Model S battery.
Lithium Carbonate is Li2CO3 .. so for every two moles of Lithium atoms there is one mole of CO2
Natural Lithium has an atomic mass of 6.9 ... predominantly Lithium7. let's call it 7. There are 9,000 gram moles of lithium in that Tesla battery. (due to kilograms to grams)
And the CO2 released from the carbonate would be 4,500 gram moles.
The molecular mass of CO2 is 44 gram/moles .., so converting to kg of CO2 we get 198 kg of CO2.
A gallon of gasoline produces 19.6 lbs, 8.8 kg of CO2 (EPA number)
so ... 198 kg / 8.8 kg = 22.5 gallons
So you really think that car fills up it's fuel tank once or twice in a year, that's all?
at 25 mpg it drives 563 miles in a year?
So "Sorry, that's how the stoichiometry [spelled right, REALLY] works out."
Now did you do the calculation and goof it up somehow, badly? I don't think so; instead I think you are parroting an article in Wattsupwiththat that is badly translated from NyTeknik, and which you do not understand at al. And that has NOTHING to do with stoichiometry (that you cannot spell) directly. It is estimating the total energy spent to obtain that lithium, mining and all, assuming that more than half of that energy came from fossil fuels.
Parroted nonsense from blogs...
There is roughly 63 kg of lithium in a 70 kWh Tesla Model S battery.
Lithium Carbonate is Li2CO3 .. so for every two moles of Lithium atoms there is one mole of CO2
Natural Lithium has an atomic mass of 6.9 ... predominantly Lithium7. let's call it 7. There are 9,000 gram moles of lithium in that Tesla battery. (due to kilograms to grams)
And the CO2 released from the carbonate would be 4,500 gram moles.
The molecular mass of CO2 is 44 gram/moles .., so converting to kg of CO2 we get 198 kg of CO2.
A gallon of gasoline produces 19.6 lbs, 8.8 kg of CO2 (EPA number)
so ... 198 kg / 8.8 kg = 22.5 gallons
So you really think that car fills up it's fuel tank once or twice in a year, that's all?
at 25 mpg it drives 563 miles in a year?
So "Sorry, that's how the stoichiometry [spelled right, REALLY] works out."
Now did you do the calculation and goof it up somehow, badly? I don't think so; instead I think you are parroting an article in Wattsupwiththat that is badly translated from NyTeknik, and which you do not understand at al. And that has NOTHING to do with stoichiometry (that you cannot spell) directly. It is estimating the total energy spent to obtain that lithium, mining and all, assuming that more than half of that energy came from fossil fuels.
Parroted nonsense from blogs...
4
Lee:
Wouldn't the production process to extract the lithium require energy that might/would release CO2? If so, could that account for the difference between your numbers and what's in the article?
My chemistry knowledge is pretty rudimentary, so I would defer to your expertise.
Thanks.
Wouldn't the production process to extract the lithium require energy that might/would release CO2? If so, could that account for the difference between your numbers and what's in the article?
My chemistry knowledge is pretty rudimentary, so I would defer to your expertise.
Thanks.
John, yes of course the production uses energy, indeed if you read my last paragraph I acknowledge that. The article that he is parroting (by way of a bad translation on a blog site) is about that, though I dispute its accounting -- that's another story.
But jackinnj doesn't talk about actual energetics of mining and refining. No ... he tries to sound all big-word definitive ("You can't beat stoichiometry!" ... but you sure can misspell it and fib about the implications!)
Another obvious point here: that lithium in the batteries is very efficiently recycled into new batteries, once that one wears out. This recycling is already in high-gear, and working well. The fossil fuel he is comparing it to ... is never recycled ... (except by nature), duh. The whole comparison is innately inappropriate: apples to oranges.
If you read all the "anti" posts here, every last one of them is some fake argument like this one, or bizarre "whataboutism" (the OJ Simpson trial) or just pure ad hominem nonsense.
But jackinnj doesn't talk about actual energetics of mining and refining. No ... he tries to sound all big-word definitive ("You can't beat stoichiometry!" ... but you sure can misspell it and fib about the implications!)
Another obvious point here: that lithium in the batteries is very efficiently recycled into new batteries, once that one wears out. This recycling is already in high-gear, and working well. The fossil fuel he is comparing it to ... is never recycled ... (except by nature), duh. The whole comparison is innately inappropriate: apples to oranges.
If you read all the "anti" posts here, every last one of them is some fake argument like this one, or bizarre "whataboutism" (the OJ Simpson trial) or just pure ad hominem nonsense.
1
"California wants to go beyond even President Barack Obama’s proposals" "even"? Irresponsibly misleading. It was a good start but President Obama's proposals were not nearly enough to curb climate change---if you don't deny 99% of scientists.
3
A lot of per-capita going on, so a gentle reminder that California is the most populous state in the country, and China the most in the world.
So instead of addressing their out-of-control population problem, which in California is also the highest for both legal and illegal immigrants, California kicks itself upstairs in any economic ratio that looks good when low, by shoving that high population number in the denominator and proudly puffing chest as a world-class economic power. Using that same reasoning, their eccentric governor repeat self-declares himself as international statesman and sets off on foreign trips.
This from the folks who bemoan Trump. Ha, ha.
That same population btw also responsible for eating-up over 15% of the Medicaid budget. And welcoming immigration for use as cover for avoiding racial parity.
Short summary: California ducks its real problems by changing the topic and going after imaginary problems. Problems happily endorsed by its universities who always ready to publish more junk scientific reports dime a dozen.
Listen, energy production and consumption is a sure fire sign of wealth and prosperity. Not pollution. So thanks for the laughs guys. Now go solve some real problems. Bah.
So instead of addressing their out-of-control population problem, which in California is also the highest for both legal and illegal immigrants, California kicks itself upstairs in any economic ratio that looks good when low, by shoving that high population number in the denominator and proudly puffing chest as a world-class economic power. Using that same reasoning, their eccentric governor repeat self-declares himself as international statesman and sets off on foreign trips.
This from the folks who bemoan Trump. Ha, ha.
That same population btw also responsible for eating-up over 15% of the Medicaid budget. And welcoming immigration for use as cover for avoiding racial parity.
Short summary: California ducks its real problems by changing the topic and going after imaginary problems. Problems happily endorsed by its universities who always ready to publish more junk scientific reports dime a dozen.
Listen, energy production and consumption is a sure fire sign of wealth and prosperity. Not pollution. So thanks for the laughs guys. Now go solve some real problems. Bah.
4
You're just another cynical trumpflake. Go stick your head back in the tar sand.
1
It would be far easier for California to make these changes if the whole nation was doing the same, or even anything remotely like it. Of course, under Trump, it seems that the US is thumbing its nose at reality and stampeding toward flagrant stupidity.
But that seeming is largely Trump's tweet charade, and the truculent kabuki of some of his appointees and a few other crazy Republicans: Pruitt and Lamar Smith conspicuous examples.
The reality is that most Americans and most of the USA is starting to take steps; California is is "pushing the envelope" but not alone.
The fact of the matter is that wind and combined-cycle natural gas are the lowest-cost electricity that can be produced. Solar is not far behind, and residential solar (where in effect the owner is "paid" by the avoided retail price) is now economic without subsidy throughout much of the southwest ... and spreading rapidly.
Battery cars are close to tipping from novelty to the mainstream. They have large advantages, particularly for cities.
It will be far easier for California to get to 50% renewable electricity than this article's vague tone of difficulty (if not impossibility) suggests. California already hits greater than 50% during the spring, when solar production is high and before the summer air-conditioning demand peak kicks in.
Wind turbines in Wyoming (and the transmission) are getting built now, solar continues to go in at high rates... CA will make that 50% easy.
But that seeming is largely Trump's tweet charade, and the truculent kabuki of some of his appointees and a few other crazy Republicans: Pruitt and Lamar Smith conspicuous examples.
The reality is that most Americans and most of the USA is starting to take steps; California is is "pushing the envelope" but not alone.
The fact of the matter is that wind and combined-cycle natural gas are the lowest-cost electricity that can be produced. Solar is not far behind, and residential solar (where in effect the owner is "paid" by the avoided retail price) is now economic without subsidy throughout much of the southwest ... and spreading rapidly.
Battery cars are close to tipping from novelty to the mainstream. They have large advantages, particularly for cities.
It will be far easier for California to get to 50% renewable electricity than this article's vague tone of difficulty (if not impossibility) suggests. California already hits greater than 50% during the spring, when solar production is high and before the summer air-conditioning demand peak kicks in.
Wind turbines in Wyoming (and the transmission) are getting built now, solar continues to go in at high rates... CA will make that 50% easy.
5
Well good for California to push ahead on programs it deems important while Washington seem incapable of coming up with any plans and unable to execute them if it did have viable ideas.
Too bad their health care initiative got squashed by the vested interests.
Too bad their health care initiative got squashed by the vested interests.
3
States were labeled "laboratories of democracy." And as California tries to find new ways to cut GHG emissions, the Red states are diligently seeking new ways to limit women's access to family planning services and new areas where one should be free to carry and to use a gun.
5
Here in beautiful Napa Valley we say drink wine, not milk! Good for all adults in moderate amounts and perfect with a steak.
2
Perhaps. But what goes better with wine than cheese? And where does cheese come from?
And the steaks come from what kind of animal?
goats
New York and DC have lower emissions because many people don't have cars. They can rely on excellent public transportation. Every community that seeks to be green will ultimately need to focus on public transportation.
5
I think Excellent is really pushing it--I do not think that anyone in NY or in DC would argue that the public transportation is excellent these days. The Times itself has been reporting NY metro issues non stop this summer and DC metros are not any better.
I agree that the focus needs to be on better, more reliable public transportation but certainly do not look to NY or DC as leading examples.
I agree that the focus needs to be on better, more reliable public transportation but certainly do not look to NY or DC as leading examples.
2
As someone born and raised in CA and now a long-time resident of NY (and who routinely travels from Albany <-> Kew Gardens Queens) ... I am sorry to say that nowhere in any of this is the public transportation better than a bad joke.
Surely you have read the articles in this newspaper about NYC's travails with Amtrak and its subway system, New Jersey Transit, and the LIRR?
Surely you have read the articles in this newspaper about NYC's travails with Amtrak and its subway system, New Jersey Transit, and the LIRR?
2
Wind and solar are great when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining!
The most reliable source of carbon free energy is nuclear. Precaution must be taken when building and locating any nuclear power plant. Sodium-cooled reactors can be located away from population centers, large bodies of water (oceans, rivers, man-made lakes, etc.), and earth quake faults.
BTW, clean coal technology exists (and has existed for years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/coal_cct2.html
The most reliable source of carbon free energy is nuclear. Precaution must be taken when building and locating any nuclear power plant. Sodium-cooled reactors can be located away from population centers, large bodies of water (oceans, rivers, man-made lakes, etc.), and earth quake faults.
BTW, clean coal technology exists (and has existed for years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/coal_cct2.html
2
The real question is will California go nuclear fission in the short term and pump money into nuclear fusion research for the long term, or will they follow Germany's lead and drive energy prices through the roof by attempting to do it all with "renewables". The data are pretty clear that current wind and solar technology can not produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels, and E-vehicles are only as clean as the power source they plug into.
3
We should thank the Germans for buying lots of solar when it was expensive and driving costs down.
1
Having shut down nuclear, the Germans are now returning to coal-fired power plants, and will therefore miss their EU 2020 carbon emissions target. No rescue from solar there.
California now has the opportunity to lead the way to 24/7 cheap green energy and rapid replacement of fossil fuels.
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.
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. Future vehicles might eventually pay for themselves.
A few bold souls can speed the development process and launch a new industry - 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.
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. Future vehicles might eventually pay for themselves.
A few bold souls can speed the development process and launch a new industry - to the surprise of almost everybody. See: aesopinstitute.org
4
We've seen this post before and its nonsense.
When someone talks about overturning the Second Law, hold onto your wallet and walk away. As fast as you can.
A scientist
When someone talks about overturning the Second Law, hold onto your wallet and walk away. As fast as you can.
A scientist
2
Politics can run on hot air, and so can balderdash. Reality requires energy.
2
To the surprise of almost every scientist, The Second Law of Thermodynamics has loopholes. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES under MORE at aesopinstitute.org
AESOP is slandered by a Troll calling himself a “Physics Review Board”. This is the work of an ‘anonymous’ dogmatic person who has published slanderous rants (about me personally) and denigrates AESOP’s breakthrough new science. Unfortunately, new science and technology always attracts this kind of cowardly attack. (Trolls get up to 2 years in jail in the UK.)
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
The Wright Brothers flew in 1903. This newspaper and almost the entire scientific community did not believe it until 1908.
Anyone can attempt to duplicate the conversion of a four cylinder engine. See NO FUEL PISTON ENGINES at aesopinstitute.org and scroll down to the end. A Wisconsin engine is the inventor's current choice.
AESOP is slandered by a Troll calling himself a “Physics Review Board”. This is the work of an ‘anonymous’ dogmatic person who has published slanderous rants (about me personally) and denigrates AESOP’s breakthrough new science. Unfortunately, new science and technology always attracts this kind of cowardly attack. (Trolls get up to 2 years in jail in the UK.)
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
The Wright Brothers flew in 1903. This newspaper and almost the entire scientific community did not believe it until 1908.
Anyone can attempt to duplicate the conversion of a four cylinder engine. See NO FUEL PISTON ENGINES at aesopinstitute.org and scroll down to the end. A Wisconsin engine is the inventor's current choice.
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.
1
California's extensive fires don't "produce" any new carbon, but recycle carbon which was pulled from the air (as CO2) to grow the trees which are burning. It would be returned anyway after the trees die and decompose.
Manufacturing has left California, "reducing" emissions by outsourcing them. Jerry Brown and others in Sacramento point at that as an accomplishment. An accomplishment it is, no doubt, but not one of which Californians should be proud.
Manufacturing has left California, "reducing" emissions by outsourcing them. Jerry Brown and others in Sacramento point at that as an accomplishment. An accomplishment it is, no doubt, but not one of which Californians should be proud.
2
It ain’t brain surgery, rocket science, or nuclear physics.
Forest fires release CO2!!!!!!
Wildfires Release as Much CO2 as Cars
https://www.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html
We need to regulate forest fires!
https://theruggedindividualist.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/we-need-to-regul...
Forest fires release CO2!!!!!!
Wildfires Release as Much CO2 as Cars
https://www.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html
We need to regulate forest fires!
https://theruggedindividualist.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/we-need-to-regul...
Please stress in future articles the cost of climate change. Cost of taking action must be considered in the context of the cost of continuing to add underground carbon to the atmosphere. Otherwise excellent article.
12
Recent work suggests that the initial stages of human-increased levels will actually benefit the economy by reducing winter deaths and improving plant growing conditions and drought tolerance. Thus, over the next few decades at least, the "costs" of human-caused climate change will be negative!
This this is an outstanding effort and I'm so proud of them standing up to climate issues in the face of a disastrous federal policy. Thanks, California, for working to save my life and be a great example to others.
11
If California actually reduces the carbon intensity, that's great. The strength of the economy will let them lead the way.
On the other hand, if they just force dairy cattle, cement production, refineries and coal power plantsto other states while importing milk, cement, gasoline and electricity, it's false economy. Nothing changes.
It will take changes in consumption patterns, as well as a shift to nuclear, to really move the needle. The carbon issue is worldwide and doesn't get better if California shifts emissions outside their borders. Like all of the imports from China.
On the other hand, if they just force dairy cattle, cement production, refineries and coal power plantsto other states while importing milk, cement, gasoline and electricity, it's false economy. Nothing changes.
It will take changes in consumption patterns, as well as a shift to nuclear, to really move the needle. The carbon issue is worldwide and doesn't get better if California shifts emissions outside their borders. Like all of the imports from China.
3
Count me in as a proud born and raised 63 yr old Californian!
I'm also very proud of Gov. Brown's role in climate change policies, especially now that U.S. policy is going backwards, against all science and the rest of the world. Its incomprehensible how some comments here denigrate California's successes!
As the WORLD'S 6th largest economy with a highly diverse population, world-class universities, attracting forward-thinking, innovating companies and high-tech, medical and bio-tech research; suppling approx. 50% of all produce consumed by the rest of the U.S., and $126 billion a year in tourism revenue, seems California is doing more 'right' than 'wrong'.
I'm also very proud of Gov. Brown's role in climate change policies, especially now that U.S. policy is going backwards, against all science and the rest of the world. Its incomprehensible how some comments here denigrate California's successes!
As the WORLD'S 6th largest economy with a highly diverse population, world-class universities, attracting forward-thinking, innovating companies and high-tech, medical and bio-tech research; suppling approx. 50% of all produce consumed by the rest of the U.S., and $126 billion a year in tourism revenue, seems California is doing more 'right' than 'wrong'.
15
50% of all produced consumed is because of the a huge amount of water allocated for agriculture (just wait until the next drought). And produce from CA is shipped by carbon-spewing tractor trailers. Not exactly environmentally friendly.
1
You're right Joe.
But California isn't responsible for the rest of the nation not growing their own produce. I guess you all in Westchester will just have to figure out how to supply yourselves with year-round fruits, lettuce, tomatoes, almonds, etc.
But California isn't responsible for the rest of the nation not growing their own produce. I guess you all in Westchester will just have to figure out how to supply yourselves with year-round fruits, lettuce, tomatoes, almonds, etc.
2
Well, if they'd give up lettuce in favor of more cabbage and kale, problem solved. Cabbage grows happily in New York, doesn't need the same watering, and produces a lot more nutrients.
It was a pleasant surprise to learn that New York State has the lowest per capita carbon dioxide emissions. This also explains why Gov. Cuomo was in no rush to allow fracking for natural gas. Technology and vision is not his strongpoint. The efforts in California seem to be divided between the political (cap and trade) and the truly useful (advances in technology).
At some point, self-driving cars should be able to share (and eventually replace) the right of way of the rails for most travel with a fraction of the energy; and while maintaining the convenience of door to door transport. Rubber on the road is an engineering nightmare that could be minimized by some progressive engineers that understand something beyond the digital world. The patents for self-driving cars may be valuable but the patents for maximizing autonomous transportation via rail (or rail equivalent) will be worth much more. Think bigly for the little guy (not the Musk hyperloop).
At some point, self-driving cars should be able to share (and eventually replace) the right of way of the rails for most travel with a fraction of the energy; and while maintaining the convenience of door to door transport. Rubber on the road is an engineering nightmare that could be minimized by some progressive engineers that understand something beyond the digital world. The patents for self-driving cars may be valuable but the patents for maximizing autonomous transportation via rail (or rail equivalent) will be worth much more. Think bigly for the little guy (not the Musk hyperloop).
2
Why are you surprised when the largest metropolitan area the US has a subway and commuter rail system that an incredible amount of people use every day.
With respect to Cuomo, he actually is not against fracking. He is running for president in 2020 and needs the environmental money and vote. So he says he is against fracking. And the collateral damage is New York's southern tier, which remains an economic quagmire.
With respect to Cuomo, he actually is not against fracking. He is running for president in 2020 and needs the environmental money and vote. So he says he is against fracking. And the collateral damage is New York's southern tier, which remains an economic quagmire.
1
From Wiki - "The electricity sector in France is dominated by nuclear power, which accounted for 72.3% of total production in 2016, while renewables and fossil fuels accounted for 17.8% and 8.6%, respectively."
What do the French know that California doesn't know? Incredible that only 8.6% is fossil fuel. And they are major exporters of electricity.
And it's not just California. What does Germany do have the Japanese nuclear disaster, which was caused by a tsunami? Close all their nuclear power plants, and become more reliant on coal when the renewable sector can't produce adequate electricity.
What do the French know that California doesn't know? Incredible that only 8.6% is fossil fuel. And they are major exporters of electricity.
And it's not just California. What does Germany do have the Japanese nuclear disaster, which was caused by a tsunami? Close all their nuclear power plants, and become more reliant on coal when the renewable sector can't produce adequate electricity.
8
Huge elephant in room of course is whatay to do with aging nuclear plants and spent fuel not to mention the potential for accidents. What does the rest of the world do with its spent fuel anyway?
3
This would be a great thing if it were not for the debacle of the AREVA EPR reactor construction cost overruns.
That bankrupted AREVA, and together with the fiasco of the Westinghouse APRs under construction in the US, new nuclear reactors are DOA now, in the western world.
That bankrupted AREVA, and together with the fiasco of the Westinghouse APRs under construction in the US, new nuclear reactors are DOA now, in the western world.
1
Yucca Mountain has long been ready for long term waste storage. Now that Seen Reid is no longer in power, it can finally be used.
There's an unmentioned issue with California, which is methane from cattle. Methane is a highly destructive greenhouse gas, which needs to be controlled if we are to get anywhere with greenhouse emissions. CA is doing two things. The first first simply offsets a net result of less methane:
1. it exports its cattle, which simply displaces the methane.
The second is unexplained:
2. "Milk production *per cow* in California has increased 55.1 percent from 1986 to 2016" (quoted from http://www.californiadairypressroom.com/Press_Kit/Dairy_Industry_Facts)
The state is doing something to its animals to get them to increase milk production to an unusual, of not abnormal and unhealthy, amount.
1. it exports its cattle, which simply displaces the methane.
The second is unexplained:
2. "Milk production *per cow* in California has increased 55.1 percent from 1986 to 2016" (quoted from http://www.californiadairypressroom.com/Press_Kit/Dairy_Industry_Facts)
The state is doing something to its animals to get them to increase milk production to an unusual, of not abnormal and unhealthy, amount.
3
Methane from biological sources like cattle is not "unmentioned", it's not that much of an issue. The carbon in methane comes from the air, as plant respiration fuels growth. Cows eat grass, then graciously return its carbon to the air. And the cycle continues, as it has for millions of years before.
Though methane is significantly more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, it's a far less stable compound. Over the course of a century or two, natural chemical reactions recombine its carbon atom with oxygen to form CO2, which for practical purposes lasts forever. And the cycle continues.
The only serious issue is fossil fuels. Humankind uses them to generate 40 billion tons of CO2 every year, with carbon which hasn't seen the light of day since dinosaurs roamed the earth, since temperatures were 18ºF hotter than they are today. They threaten to render one-sixth of all species on earth extinct, including Homo Sapiens, with changes to climate lasting 100,000 years.
The only serious alternative source of energy is nuclear fission.
Though methane is significantly more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, it's a far less stable compound. Over the course of a century or two, natural chemical reactions recombine its carbon atom with oxygen to form CO2, which for practical purposes lasts forever. And the cycle continues.
The only serious issue is fossil fuels. Humankind uses them to generate 40 billion tons of CO2 every year, with carbon which hasn't seen the light of day since dinosaurs roamed the earth, since temperatures were 18ºF hotter than they are today. They threaten to render one-sixth of all species on earth extinct, including Homo Sapiens, with changes to climate lasting 100,000 years.
The only serious alternative source of energy is nuclear fission.
5
This is untrue. The power of methane to destroy cannot be underestimated.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-i...
https://www.edf.org/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-i...
https://www.edf.org/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
2
JS, you're correct that fossil-fuel methane (politely known as "natural gas") is a problem - it adds carbon to the atmosphere buried for millions of years before humans evolved.
Biological methane (cow flatulence) adds no new carbon. It's the same carbon which helped to grow the grass the cow ate yesterday.
Biological methane (cow flatulence) adds no new carbon. It's the same carbon which helped to grow the grass the cow ate yesterday.
1
Thank goodness Trump is leading us out of the Paris Climate Accord.
Thanks goodness California is leading the way on reducing pollution.
The United States is not homogeneous enough for a one-size-fits-all solution. Each state's unique economy, location, and geography requires somewhat unique solutions. What works for California may not work for Michigan, and what works for Pennsylvania may not be appropriate for Florida.
Some base pollution controls must be dictated and enforced from a federal level, since nature doesn't recognize political boundaries. Beyond that, states should have the flexibility to be laboratories of innovation.
Best wishes for success to California.
Thanks goodness California is leading the way on reducing pollution.
The United States is not homogeneous enough for a one-size-fits-all solution. Each state's unique economy, location, and geography requires somewhat unique solutions. What works for California may not work for Michigan, and what works for Pennsylvania may not be appropriate for Florida.
Some base pollution controls must be dictated and enforced from a federal level, since nature doesn't recognize political boundaries. Beyond that, states should have the flexibility to be laboratories of innovation.
Best wishes for success to California.
4
The Times recently published an article stating that air conditioning (yes air conditioning) has the biggest impact on climate change. Why? I believe the article stated only 10% of Indians have air conditioning, when every Indian (1.3 billion people), wants air conditioning. There are a couple of billion other people around the world who also want it.
Guess what? Leaders of these hot countries would love to provide the necessary energy to allow everyone to have an air conditioner. And it's happening, with new coal power plants in India and China popping up all the time.
So here's a hint, California. Everything you do in the next 20 years will be more than offset by developing countries do in the next couple of years.
Guess what? Leaders of these hot countries would love to provide the necessary energy to allow everyone to have an air conditioner. And it's happening, with new coal power plants in India and China popping up all the time.
So here's a hint, California. Everything you do in the next 20 years will be more than offset by developing countries do in the next couple of years.
9
Are you suggesting that California give up then? Necessity is the mother of invention and California will reap the rewards in the form of new technologies and businesses at the forefront of next generation energy. Steam engines? Gone. Fossil fuels? Gone next. It will happen and those with vision will see their economies grow fastest. China knows this. Too bad for the American people that Trump seems to be betting on the past.
6
joe
What you say is not true, and certainly not inevitable.
But even it were, your contention that California's excellent plan is useless because it will only offset rapid growth somewhere else is just plain crazy.
Things are bad enough now. If California's efforts prevent them from getting worse that is a significant victory, and one worth the effort.
China, for all its rapid growth, has just closed or cancelled development of over 100 coal fired power plants. China is also the world's largest consumer of renewable energy.
Thanks to President Trump, they are eating our bacon in wind energy infrastructure and reaping both massive sales world wide in what will soon approach a Chinese monopoly and giving the lie to the fiction that renewable will never replace the airborne pestilence that is coal.
Under Trump we have foregone thousands of jobs, and lost the potential for a significant share of a gigantic global market.
What you say is not true, and certainly not inevitable.
But even it were, your contention that California's excellent plan is useless because it will only offset rapid growth somewhere else is just plain crazy.
Things are bad enough now. If California's efforts prevent them from getting worse that is a significant victory, and one worth the effort.
China, for all its rapid growth, has just closed or cancelled development of over 100 coal fired power plants. China is also the world's largest consumer of renewable energy.
Thanks to President Trump, they are eating our bacon in wind energy infrastructure and reaping both massive sales world wide in what will soon approach a Chinese monopoly and giving the lie to the fiction that renewable will never replace the airborne pestilence that is coal.
Under Trump we have foregone thousands of jobs, and lost the potential for a significant share of a gigantic global market.
2
Someone has to lead the way. Thankfully, California has taken up that challenge. The rest of the world will follow......eventually.
1
If we are truly serious about climate change then you also have to factor beef cattle production into the equation. It's not just dairy and Americans don't want to give up, limit their beef intake or pay the real price for it, which is not $5 a pound for hamburger.
3
If the CA Democrats in the legislature really cared about the environment, why have they opened the welcome mat to millions of illegals, who produce more CO2 than they did in Mexico and other poor countries, clog the highways which causes more pollution, and raises real estate prices, which causes the need for more housing construction and more greenhouse gases?
11
Virtually, all crops in CA are picked by immigrants from Mexico. They are a plus to our vibrant economy and very industrious. Growers have said that even a wage 3 times minimum was not enough to entice American citizens to take harvesting jobs. Fields lie fallow because the Feds have closed off the supply of H2B Visas and farmers can't find enough agricultural workers.
4
Most illegal immigrants work in the fields? I don't believe that for one minute. I'm talking about the ones who live in Los Angeles and other cities.
2
Without "illegals" and other immigrants, your food would be much more expensive, no matter what percentage work in the fields. Virtually all of the crops here in California are planted, tended and harvested by immigrants, no matter how many live in cities.
They didn't pass laws to "test a contentious theory about economic growth," they did it because it was the right thing to do, and it turns out it doesn't hurt growth. But the forces of the right will never acknowledge this - they can't stand it when the hippies are right again. The theory is no longer contentious.
7
As aggressive as the California plans might sound, 50% reduction by 2030, they still might not be far enough. Bear in mind that the world, not just California, needs to reduce emissions by roughly 90% by the 2040 to 2050 if the worst case scenarios laid out by the IPCC are to be avoided (even with that, our children will be living in a world that will continue to warm).
Nevertheless, California is at least taking climate seriously and trying to do something. The rest of the country and the world still has its collective head buried in the sand, trying to ignore civilization's greatest problem.
A scientist.
Nevertheless, California is at least taking climate seriously and trying to do something. The rest of the country and the world still has its collective head buried in the sand, trying to ignore civilization's greatest problem.
A scientist.
4
Emissions from China, India and the rest of the developing world will be far higher in 2040 than they are today. People want and demand electricity for air conditioning, refrigeration, and all the other goodies we enjoy, and their governments are going to do everything they can to get them. So it doesn't matter if CA has zero emissions in 2040, correct?
1
I'm a Californian since 1952. We have made lots of mistakes but the state makes continuous long-term efforts towards positive outcomes in all aspects of living for healthy future. Did you see The Times images of badly damaged brain hemispheres that were initially thought to be those of NFL players? Well they are actually images of GOP lawmakers brains. We are leaving those folks behind in the ashes of history.
7
If you really are serious about solving climate change you don't retire nuclear plants, you make them safe and efficient, and you build new nuclear plants using newer technologies such as Per Peterson's off the shelf components design for fast load response, Thorcon for thorium, and IFR to burn up the spent fuel which is waste but is not really waste at all but is worth trillions as fuel in an IFR plant. CA has about 50,000 MW demand served by roughly 10,000 MW hydro, 5,000 MW wind, 10,000 MW solar, 2200 MW nuclear, 40,000 MW gas, and about 5000 MW of other energy sources. I find that if CA wants to pick up an additional 10,000 MW of load it will require 30,000 MW of new solar and 30,000 MW of new storage with 14 hours run time at full output. This storage is needed because solar will begin to start serving base load. So CA has a long way to go before it can pick up all 50,000 MW of its demand with renewables. It would be a lot easier to achieve if nuclear were left in the schedule.
15
Quite right about nuclear. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes this point. Limiting warming to 2 degrees C becomes much harder when you start taking options like nuclear off the table.
And I think you'll find most scientists supporting expansion of nuclear power - its the NIMBY types that oppose it.
And I think you'll find most scientists supporting expansion of nuclear power - its the NIMBY types that oppose it.
5
But, is it safe? What about disasters like Fukashima?
1
Caused by a tsunami. Not happening in in-land California.
2
Liberal logic: reduce greenhouse gasses by closing all nuclear plants. Sure!
12
Your own lack of logic is showing. The nuclear plant is being closed because it is old and because nuclear power generates waste that poses environmental risks not related to climate change. For centuries. The article does not state or imply that the closing of Diablo is related in any way to the effort to reduce greenhouse gasses. Because it isn't.
4
The nuclear plant in San Onofre was not closed by evil liberals but by So Cal Edison after defective parts were found to be causing leaks. The nuclear waste in tubes is sitting next to a beautiful beach and is a soft target. There is currently no plan to move it as it is too hot and no one wants it. Maybe Rick Perry can come up with a solution. The problem with nuclear energy is where to store the waste. Maybe you can get your community to take it. We would pay you.
2
Susan Im doing a study now on CA pushing solar as much as possible. The only problem with getting all our energy from solar is there are cloudy days and we don't really have a good way to store the energy. There is some research going on with storage but nothing like Jacobson envisions in his studies. Also get used to a lot more transmission lines from the desert areas to cities since all that solar power has to be delivered to the load centers. There are scant lines now. Maybe Elon can get it all together. We will have to wait and see. But in the meantime its better to diversify and get maybe a third of our energy from nuclear. If you really want to solve climate change this is the best path. Develop all non co2 sources.
Good for California to take on the dairy farms for their methane production. Methane is emitted from all cows - you may not know that it's mainly through belches from the mouth and less so from the rear and the manure - and is 25X more powerful than carbon dioxide in creating greenhouse gases. Beef cattle are the same and other farm animals are less so. Sorry, dairy industry, you are a major source of GHG in the US and around the world.
Dairy farms are already environmental disasters with all the manure they produce and energy required to produce milk. The methane production is on top of this. Dairy prices need to have a carbon price of methane that is 25X more than the price of carbon. This can be phased in over time but we need to do this to properly capture the true environmental cost of dairy production in order for dairy methane to not evade its responsibility for global warming. If dairy methane is not priced properly, that's unfair to other foodstuffs and industries that are paying their fair share.
Good for California to do this. As the 8th largest economy in the world and a very lucrative market the golden state can drive the agenda for climate change. To be fair nobody should escape - including dairy. The dairy lobby will push back hard. Indeed, the world will be watching very carefully. Go California go!
Dairy farms are already environmental disasters with all the manure they produce and energy required to produce milk. The methane production is on top of this. Dairy prices need to have a carbon price of methane that is 25X more than the price of carbon. This can be phased in over time but we need to do this to properly capture the true environmental cost of dairy production in order for dairy methane to not evade its responsibility for global warming. If dairy methane is not priced properly, that's unfair to other foodstuffs and industries that are paying their fair share.
Good for California to do this. As the 8th largest economy in the world and a very lucrative market the golden state can drive the agenda for climate change. To be fair nobody should escape - including dairy. The dairy lobby will push back hard. Indeed, the world will be watching very carefully. Go California go!
5
California is the same State where 12 people found OJ innocent, despite the DNA evidence to the contrary. Is it any surprise that their legislators would believe the climate change hoax?
8
So just because OJ had a star defense attorney that cost him 10 million dollars there is no such thing as global warming? Of course, why haven't people figured that out.
2
This is ridiculous. The OJ Simpson trial has nothing to do with climate issues. None of the 12 jurors were state legislators, it can say nothing about what the legislators or the general public believe about anything.
Apparently this is "conservative logic."
Why not talk about Joey B. and Amy Fisher ... keep it close to home? Remove the log in thine own eye?
Apparently this is "conservative logic."
Why not talk about Joey B. and Amy Fisher ... keep it close to home? Remove the log in thine own eye?
1
Wow, that is some serious what-aboutism!
1
California will succeed for several reasons. CA attracts the best and brightest to its Universities. CA has had consistently elected Democrats that control its legislature and care about using clean renewable energy and a clean environment. CA is large with millions of acres of untapped land that can be used to collect the suns energy. Entrepreneurs, engineers, and venture capitalists like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs and hundreds of others are moving the state forward toward a future of clean, renewable energy. And the people of CA want a future for their children that offers a healthy environment. Hopefully other states will notice and follow.
9
California's population is 39 million, and based on past trends it will have over 50 million in 2040 (largely because of the welcome mat given to illegals). Not sure how healthy the environment will be then when you can barely get around most parts of the state with 39 million people.
7
yes, cutting back on meat and milk production is the key. and it's also the elephant in the room whenever a discussion of climate takes place.
17
Agreed.
California is a shining example to the world of what can be achieved if the political will exists to make a difference. I applaud Governor Brown for his remarkable vision. How quickly people forget what a terrible place it was to live in not long ago thanks to its shocking air quality. With this many people on the planet, we simply HAVE to learn how to lighten our collective footprint or the consequences we are already suffering will simply grow more dire by the day.
20
Parentheses "some environmental groups opposed the bill." Your own link shows that over 50 California environmenttal groups opposed, plus the Sierra Club. "Some" national groups supported it (e.g. NRDC and EDF) who are heavily focused on the concept of cap and trade. When will the national media stop ignoring or minimizing the local communities and grassroots who make up the constituencies of the environmental movement.
4
Most of this opposition stems from three things:
* the view that major polluters get a sweetheart deal in "grandfathered" exemptions
* that refinery and oil production got a particularly sweetheart deal
* and that this does nothing about environmental justice for the communities that have been damaged, particularly by refineries
All of this is obvious to any reasonably-well-informed observer. I don't believe this is ignored; it is just the sad fact of politics that money interests, particularly of profitable extractive industries, are hard to oppose.
If it is any consolation remember that electric cars are an existential threat to the oil industry. Half of all the electric cars on the road in the US are in California. California's ZEV mandate has been "yuuuge." Tesla wouldn't exist except for this, neither would the Chevy Bolt.
It now looks as though electric cars will win on their own merits. I'm starting to think about buying one, and I am not an "early adopter" ... cannot afford to be.
Electric cars will eventually shut down those refineries -- but the sad outcome of that will not bring environmental justice to their communities, anymore than the shutdown of the steelmaking around Pittsburgh did, or the shut down of played out coal mines in Appalachia does.
Extractive industries always leave the mess for somebody else to pay.
* the view that major polluters get a sweetheart deal in "grandfathered" exemptions
* that refinery and oil production got a particularly sweetheart deal
* and that this does nothing about environmental justice for the communities that have been damaged, particularly by refineries
All of this is obvious to any reasonably-well-informed observer. I don't believe this is ignored; it is just the sad fact of politics that money interests, particularly of profitable extractive industries, are hard to oppose.
If it is any consolation remember that electric cars are an existential threat to the oil industry. Half of all the electric cars on the road in the US are in California. California's ZEV mandate has been "yuuuge." Tesla wouldn't exist except for this, neither would the Chevy Bolt.
It now looks as though electric cars will win on their own merits. I'm starting to think about buying one, and I am not an "early adopter" ... cannot afford to be.
Electric cars will eventually shut down those refineries -- but the sad outcome of that will not bring environmental justice to their communities, anymore than the shutdown of the steelmaking around Pittsburgh did, or the shut down of played out coal mines in Appalachia does.
Extractive industries always leave the mess for somebody else to pay.
1
Cutting California's emissions by 40% by 2030 (which is impossible, by the way), will represent a pimple in the grand scheme of carbon emissions. And they already have the lowest per capital emissions in the US.
This unrealistic and fairly useless goal is more about the religion of environmentalism ("keep it in the ground") than anything else.
This unrealistic and fairly useless goal is more about the religion of environmentalism ("keep it in the ground") than anything else.
7
Before we fall all over ourselves in an attempt to sing the praises of California and their climate efforts, we must first remember that the state likely has one of the highest, or possibly the highest per capita carbon emission rate. It also sucks the Colorado river, and others dry. Just go and take a look at the Los Angeles basin, and you will wonder just how any state could allow such a cancer to grow so out of control. Brown has the right idea, but the climate effort is to make up for what CA has done to itself over the past 100 years.
6
The article clearly states that California's per capita emissions are the 3rd-lowest in the nation. I certainly agree that California needs to figure out its water situation, though; perhaps a portion of its renewable power should be diverted to desalination plants.
5
SNillissen:
"...we must first remember that the state likely has one of the highest, or possibly the highest per capita carbon emission rate."
Please get your facts straight, California has the third lowest CO2 emissions rate per capita in the county, second only to New York and DC.
"...we must first remember that the state likely has one of the highest, or possibly the highest per capita carbon emission rate."
Please get your facts straight, California has the third lowest CO2 emissions rate per capita in the county, second only to New York and DC.
8
Looking through the "anit" comments here, it is striking how they are all no-fact snark and/or "whataboutism." This one takes the cake though, because its claim is contradicted by facts presented in the article -- California's per capita CO2 emissions are lower than any other state except New York's (Washington DC hardly counts, and is not a state).
California does have water problems, but that has little to do, directly, with CO2 emissions.
California does have water problems, but that has little to do, directly, with CO2 emissions.
2
Most of my friends in the U.S. wish that California would begin a formal process of division from continental America.
This would allow Californians a peaceful exit from a country they seem to despise, as well as relieve the rest of the nation from supporting the millions of illegal immigrants they allow and encourage.
There is no need for war. Peaceful division should be considered first.
This would allow Californians a peaceful exit from a country they seem to despise, as well as relieve the rest of the nation from supporting the millions of illegal immigrants they allow and encourage.
There is no need for war. Peaceful division should be considered first.
9
Lots of Californians would agree, so they would have to stop subsidizing with their taxes to the Federal government all of the poor states. The rest of the nation does NOT support the immigrants in California. Check out which states pay the most in income taxes and which states receive the most Federal aid and then speak.
9
As a California native, I'm amazed at those outside of California calling us "worthless". They do this on their smartphones, invented in California....or their computers, invented in California....on the internet, invented in California....and they do it on Facebook...not invented in California.
We developed stealth technology, many advanced weapon systems, the Apollo Lunar lander.... A few miles from where I live people at JPL are exploring Mars with the Curiosity rover and in the other direction a few miles sits the animation desk that Walt Disney penned his first Mickey Mouse cartoon. 400 miles north Elon Musk is developing a hyperloop train capable of 700 miles per hour.
From the day back in the 30's when Bill Hewlett and William Packard started a two person company in a small garage in Palo Alto California has lead free thinking and a creative attitude nurturing new innovation that has taken us forward to places that we could have never envisioned a century ago.
If the rest of the country wants to break off from us we can still offer you all of this amazing stuff....for a higher price.
We developed stealth technology, many advanced weapon systems, the Apollo Lunar lander.... A few miles from where I live people at JPL are exploring Mars with the Curiosity rover and in the other direction a few miles sits the animation desk that Walt Disney penned his first Mickey Mouse cartoon. 400 miles north Elon Musk is developing a hyperloop train capable of 700 miles per hour.
From the day back in the 30's when Bill Hewlett and William Packard started a two person company in a small garage in Palo Alto California has lead free thinking and a creative attitude nurturing new innovation that has taken us forward to places that we could have never envisioned a century ago.
If the rest of the country wants to break off from us we can still offer you all of this amazing stuff....for a higher price.
4
"Most of my friends in the U.S"
Those 3 or 4 people aren't representative of the majority of us, who admire California's culture of innovation.
I recall, back when California was under right-wing control (Governor Reagan), landing at LA airport and being shocked to see the thick brown air I was about to breath, depressed about the seeming unbreakable grip of its polluting car culture.
I remember that beside the shower at the exit to a beach near Santa Barbara there was a jug of smelly solvent we could use to wash the tar balls off our feet, which fouled the beach due to an oil drilling accident when drilling was allowed just offshore.
California has been transformed. Wise people will follow their path.
Those 3 or 4 people aren't representative of the majority of us, who admire California's culture of innovation.
I recall, back when California was under right-wing control (Governor Reagan), landing at LA airport and being shocked to see the thick brown air I was about to breath, depressed about the seeming unbreakable grip of its polluting car culture.
I remember that beside the shower at the exit to a beach near Santa Barbara there was a jug of smelly solvent we could use to wash the tar balls off our feet, which fouled the beach due to an oil drilling accident when drilling was allowed just offshore.
California has been transformed. Wise people will follow their path.
1
This is excellent news! Further proof that the federal government doesn't need to be involved.
2
How much is all this great stuff going to cost us CA residents? We already pay $1 more per gallon of gas at the pump than the rest of the country.
14
Buy a hybrid next time. My Accord Hybrid which is a good sized car gets 42mpg hwy/city with AC going.
3
Yep ... or even get an electric.
How many miles do you drive a day, and why?
How many miles do you drive a day, and why?
1
Yeah that's my state representing! The rest of this country is a dinosaur.
7
Let's talk about our elected officials who brag about breaking laws before I hand them any compliments on managing environmental issues.
We have a State Senator in Kevn de Leon who goes on NPR and brags about his family of illegals stealing the Social Security Numbers of law abiding citizens and how it's no big deal, certainly not enough to constitute deportation. In the same breath we hear about his bright idea of declaring CA a sanctuary state simply to spite Trump and risk cutting us off from federal funding while taxpayers like me continue to bankroll the state and make up the difference.
A state of lawlessness, but OK, let's lead the way in environment policy. That totally makes it up.
We have a State Senator in Kevn de Leon who goes on NPR and brags about his family of illegals stealing the Social Security Numbers of law abiding citizens and how it's no big deal, certainly not enough to constitute deportation. In the same breath we hear about his bright idea of declaring CA a sanctuary state simply to spite Trump and risk cutting us off from federal funding while taxpayers like me continue to bankroll the state and make up the difference.
A state of lawlessness, but OK, let's lead the way in environment policy. That totally makes it up.
15
"State Senator in Kevin de Leon who goes on NPR and brags about his family of illegals stealing the Social Security Numbers of law abiding citizens and how it's no big deal, certainly not enough to constitute deportation."
I did some googling and couldn't find anything about this. Can you provide a link?
I did some googling and couldn't find anything about this. Can you provide a link?
@Dwalker,
Yes, I sure can if the moderators would be so kind as to approve this post:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-kevin-deleon-future-20170212-s...
Yes, I sure can if the moderators would be so kind as to approve this post:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-kevin-deleon-future-20170212-s...
I'm so proud of my state.
One thing they could do would be to clamp down on individual auto polluters more--publicize more heavily the phone number to report vehicles emitting too much pollution. And really crack down on drivers who have below standard tail pipe emissions. Just the other day I saw an old truck chugging down the 101 belching black pollutants. If I had remembered that number where you report polluting vehichles, I would have immediately called. Getting those old polluters off the roads would help. If you're out there Gov. Brown, please promote that vehicle pollution reporting hotline. And follow through with strict controls.
Thank you for leading he way.,.
One thing they could do would be to clamp down on individual auto polluters more--publicize more heavily the phone number to report vehicles emitting too much pollution. And really crack down on drivers who have below standard tail pipe emissions. Just the other day I saw an old truck chugging down the 101 belching black pollutants. If I had remembered that number where you report polluting vehichles, I would have immediately called. Getting those old polluters off the roads would help. If you're out there Gov. Brown, please promote that vehicle pollution reporting hotline. And follow through with strict controls.
Thank you for leading he way.,.
10
"California is responsible for only 1 percent of global emissions." Only??? The state of California is responsible for 1 out of 100 of emissions from the entire earth. That is huge!!
9
Sue: California has the 6th largest economy in the world, and a population of more than 38,000,000. 1% isn't bad, although we are working to bring that number down considerably.
8
I'll make a prediction. This will never work. And there's little chance other states will adopt these strategies. The point of cap and trade is to increase the price of energy. 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. 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. When climate policy starts to hurt economically, even the greenest states will back away. When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time. That is the inconvenient truth. Climate policies must flow with the current of public opinion rather than against it. It's scary that Democrats can't understand this basic concept. This is an election year. No Democrat in their right mind is going to push this outside of California. Voters will punish any politician who supports higher energy prices. They did in 2010 & they will again in 2018.
15
Actually, other states are following California's lead. We either reduce our emissions or a large portion of your state will be underwater in the coming years. What will it cost Florida to protect itself?
3
Very few states are following your lead. The majority have Republican governors and/or Republican controlled legislatures. Even the Democratic controlled states are reluctant to do cap & trade because it will raise gas prices. 2018 is an election year & voters will retaliate at the polls. When you say we either reduce our emissions or a large portion of Florida will be underwater in the coming years....well that's a lie. I was born & raised here. I've been going to the same beach for 40 years zero change in sea level. But we are way ahead of the game if the worse happens because we deal with hurricanes on a constant basis. Really the only city at risk is Miami Beach because it is built on a dome of porous limestone. There is little land out here that rises more than six feet above sea level. Many condos open straight on the edge of the sea. But that's poor planning & greed...a toxic mix. The city has a robust plan that includes sea walls, more trees, raised streets & elevated sand dunes all of which could help block incoming sea water. Politically speaking, it’s always easier to shell out money for a disaster that has already happened, with clearly identifiable victims, than to invest money in protecting against something that may or may not happen in the future. Voters reward politicians for spending money on post-disaster cleanup, but not for investing in disaster prevention, & it’s only natural that politicians respond to this incentive. Another inconvenient truth.
5
Ed -- the sea level has been rising by about 3.5 mm/year over your lifetime. in 40 years that's 14 cm, or a little less than 6 inches.
It's not surprising you haven't noticed it, but it's real, and there are good physical reasons to expect that the rate of sea-level rise will increase.
At present predicting the future rate of sea-level rise is somewhat uncertain, unfortunately the longer-term consequences of mankind's big CO2 insult on the atmosphere are not: the sea-level will go up "bigly;" it's already "baked in."
Neither you nor I will live to see it, but the southern half of Florida, and much of its coastal land elsewhere, are now destined to go underwater. The east coast of the US will retreat inland ... all the way from Brownsville TX to Maine ... the east coast is flat with shallow rise, because in our current geological epoch of plate tectonics -- the American plate is moving west. The west coast is steeper to[ it will lose less land area.
Yes, politically speaking ... it is always easiest to do the cheapest and greediest thing. People the world over are doing that; putting excess CO2 into the air. And Florida, low-lying land, will pay the price.
Florida is now America's disappearing state .. due to the greed of the world ... along with a lot of other low countries and river deltas (some very highly populated, like Bangladesh) around the world.
It's funny that your governor won't admit the words "climate change."
It's not surprising you haven't noticed it, but it's real, and there are good physical reasons to expect that the rate of sea-level rise will increase.
At present predicting the future rate of sea-level rise is somewhat uncertain, unfortunately the longer-term consequences of mankind's big CO2 insult on the atmosphere are not: the sea-level will go up "bigly;" it's already "baked in."
Neither you nor I will live to see it, but the southern half of Florida, and much of its coastal land elsewhere, are now destined to go underwater. The east coast of the US will retreat inland ... all the way from Brownsville TX to Maine ... the east coast is flat with shallow rise, because in our current geological epoch of plate tectonics -- the American plate is moving west. The west coast is steeper to[ it will lose less land area.
Yes, politically speaking ... it is always easiest to do the cheapest and greediest thing. People the world over are doing that; putting excess CO2 into the air. And Florida, low-lying land, will pay the price.
Florida is now America's disappearing state .. due to the greed of the world ... along with a lot of other low countries and river deltas (some very highly populated, like Bangladesh) around the world.
It's funny that your governor won't admit the words "climate change."
1
Duh, Yes. California consistently beats its own aggressive deadlines for renewable energy, adoption of electric cars, etc. I have solar on my roof, as do several neighbors, and my town is working class. Several electric cars in my neighborhood, too (Bolts, Leafs), even one Mirai (fuel cell). We're. on board, we love our Guv, and hope the rest of our (slightly backwards) country will follow our lead.
13
Has anyone correlated how many trees need to be in place to mitigate the cattle CO2 emissions? Maybe a better balance between trees and animals would help the most in cycling carbon in the atmosphere rather than allowing a runaway buildup of greenhouse gases to occur. Clearly, a good first step is to reduce headcount by eating less meat overall.
6
Trees don't take up methane.
Methane in the atmosphere is oxidized to CO2 however ... with a half-life of roughy 12 years ... comparing methane consequences to CO2 consequences is a bit "apples and oranges"
Methane in the atmosphere is oxidized to CO2 however ... with a half-life of roughy 12 years ... comparing methane consequences to CO2 consequences is a bit "apples and oranges"
1
The future will not include coal, gasoline, oil or nuclear fission and the future is coming quicker than many think. California is as usual leading the way while parts of the rest of the US drags it's feet so billionaires can have a few more profitable quarters. Florida real estate will be underwater (literally) within the lifetime of folks here today and they still don't get it. I am surprised the junta in DC has not eliminated the protections for whales so they can be hunted again for their oil as in days of old.
3
Many of us in California look forward to the time when Jerry Brown is history, the California Air Resources Board has been judicially muzzled, and the nanny government currently populating Sacramento has been voted out. The under-reported story of the backlash against AB32 & SB32, and the intrusion of state government into lifestyle choices and personal values. California has become an experiment into socialism, which has a dark side.
23
a minority of Californians agree with you . the majority accept our leadership role.
15
We only wish it were 'an experiment in socialism'. Then we might have decent universally accessible healthcare, too. Even for sorehead losers whose understanding of 'freedom' is that it consists in the right to drive their SUVs wherever, whenever.
14
You can sit and gripe and wish and wait for that to never happen or pack up and move to state without a state income tax, little government "intrusion," and a Republican governor like Texas. By the way, Texas leads the nation in the production of wind energy.
Amazing what a state or country can do when not held back by antiquated Republican talking points and special interests, which prioritize leaving everything to the supposedly free market. Yes, we Democrats and progressives here can lean toward the loony at times. And yes, Gov. Brown can sometimes be a too-cautious counterweight. But the upshot is nevertheless a state government and environmental policies that, for all their foibles, are looking toward the future rather than being weighed down by fossil fuel perspectives and the past. Even if the state doesn't quite meet its goals, it's heading in the right direction. And it remains a great place to live.
50
Oh yes, without those "antiquated" Republicans stopping them, the Democrats are out in full force using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers for illegals (no one asked me) and we have Kevin de Leon publicly bragging about his family of illegals stealing SSNs from tax abiding citizens and how it's not a big deal.
There's more to life than pursuing green energy.
There's more to life than pursuing green energy.
10
The reason California can afford to go so far on setting environmental legislation is because of the tax base, how strong their economy is and the never ending amount of people that move to it every year. States that are struggling to keep the population up do not have the tax dollars to support this amount of environmental enforcement needed to get results. I love what they are doing, but for the rest of the USA, this model probably can not be followed.
4
Or maybe, just maybe, you could figure out why so many people want to move here, and do what you need to do to get them to stay home!
Some hints: Vibrant, livable cities; respect for intelligence and education; creative industries with interesting, well paid jobs; and well-defended voting rights.
Please do something as soon as you can. The competition for housing here is tremendous.
Some hints: Vibrant, livable cities; respect for intelligence and education; creative industries with interesting, well paid jobs; and well-defended voting rights.
Please do something as soon as you can. The competition for housing here is tremendous.
1
I was born in SoCal. I am a proud UC alumnus, and lived in Cali until my career required a move. When people hear where I am from, a newsworthy CA initiative is sometimes mentioned, punctuated with "they will never be able to do that" [in a slightly pejorative tone].
In response, I attempt to describe the spirit and mindset of CA residents by referring to the Bixby Creek Bridge. It is a great example because it is iconic--almost everyone has seen (at least) a picture or drawing of that bridge. Given the nature of the landscape and the engineering required, I'm guessing back then (the Great Depression) many said, "A bridge there? It can't be done." CA not only found people who could design a bridge at Bixby Creek, they finished it remarkably under-budget. The Bixby Bridge is still considered an engineering triumph. Now earthquake retrofitted, the bridge continues to draw tourists and artists who are understandably captivated. I've traveled over the bridge several times. It is always a breathtaking journey.
From my perspective, where else but CA? A man once known as "Moonbeam" reemerges as the respected Governor Brown, with an ambitious goal to reduce pollutants/emissions well below 1990s levels. I'm willing to bet CA will recruit the people they need and get that job done. The people of CA will reap the aesthetic beauty of the State and economic benefits of those innovations in the same way the Bixby Bridge has brought folks over the Creek for almost 90-years.
In response, I attempt to describe the spirit and mindset of CA residents by referring to the Bixby Creek Bridge. It is a great example because it is iconic--almost everyone has seen (at least) a picture or drawing of that bridge. Given the nature of the landscape and the engineering required, I'm guessing back then (the Great Depression) many said, "A bridge there? It can't be done." CA not only found people who could design a bridge at Bixby Creek, they finished it remarkably under-budget. The Bixby Bridge is still considered an engineering triumph. Now earthquake retrofitted, the bridge continues to draw tourists and artists who are understandably captivated. I've traveled over the bridge several times. It is always a breathtaking journey.
From my perspective, where else but CA? A man once known as "Moonbeam" reemerges as the respected Governor Brown, with an ambitious goal to reduce pollutants/emissions well below 1990s levels. I'm willing to bet CA will recruit the people they need and get that job done. The people of CA will reap the aesthetic beauty of the State and economic benefits of those innovations in the same way the Bixby Bridge has brought folks over the Creek for almost 90-years.
41
I too was born in SoCal, am a UC alumnus, lived and worked in the state until I was 25, then went to Washington state for 15 years, then moved to New York.
I have mixed feelings about all of this -- in particular I could never buy the house I grew up in now, nor would I particularly want to live there. And California has damaged its public universities and made them considerably more expensive to attend.
But there is no denying that California has been the world's engine of great technical invention and innovation, and it has managed social diversity and opportunity much better than most other states.
I have mixed feelings about all of this -- in particular I could never buy the house I grew up in now, nor would I particularly want to live there. And California has damaged its public universities and made them considerably more expensive to attend.
But there is no denying that California has been the world's engine of great technical invention and innovation, and it has managed social diversity and opportunity much better than most other states.
1
Anyone genuinely concerned about the environment, global warming, climate change, etc. should become a vegan.
Environmentalism starts in your kitchen - Go Vegan!
Environmentalism starts in your kitchen - Go Vegan!
7
This, right here! It's amazing that these so-call greens complain about Trump's energy policy and the damage to the environment. But you can tell how uninformed they all are on the subject when they never discuss how raising livestock contributes to greenhouse gases.
It's better for the environment for Hummer driver to be a vegan versus a Prius driver to eat meat. But you'd never know it based on talking to "resistance".
It's better for the environment for Hummer driver to be a vegan versus a Prius driver to eat meat. But you'd never know it based on talking to "resistance".
5
I'm very happy that vegans are helping the environment so much. It really makes me feel better about eating great tasting steaks!
5
California is a glorious model for other states. Decisions about the climate should rest with the voting age public, including the use of propositions, not with a few elected people who can be paid off.
6
This all sounds lovely but as someone who has lived here for 14 years, it seems like just a start when so much more can be done.
It is well known that Governor Brown is tight with the fossil fuel industry. Many days here in the San Gabriel Valley, the air smells of oil and my neighbors and myself have developed chronic coughs. The amount of homes I see throughout my area who have solar panels is pitiful. We would get them but we are so thrifty with energy, the local electric company is not interested in buying energy from us via solar panels. A new system should be devised for us to sell our energy to areas which could benefit.
California needs to truly step up and ban fracking, which is happening here near our water tables.
What worries me is that if California is a leader then other states must really be behind the times.
The clock is ticking for climate change and what we all across the United States need to do is get past the insane politics and work together at the level we did to help win World War II.
Our future as a species depends upon it.
It is well known that Governor Brown is tight with the fossil fuel industry. Many days here in the San Gabriel Valley, the air smells of oil and my neighbors and myself have developed chronic coughs. The amount of homes I see throughout my area who have solar panels is pitiful. We would get them but we are so thrifty with energy, the local electric company is not interested in buying energy from us via solar panels. A new system should be devised for us to sell our energy to areas which could benefit.
California needs to truly step up and ban fracking, which is happening here near our water tables.
What worries me is that if California is a leader then other states must really be behind the times.
The clock is ticking for climate change and what we all across the United States need to do is get past the insane politics and work together at the level we did to help win World War II.
Our future as a species depends upon it.
12
It's fracking which has enabled the reduction of carbon levels so far, by making natural gas cheaper than coal. This has been a huge gift to the planet and bought us valuable time to develop alternatives.
9
BTW, a little known fact--strip mining of coal is the 4th largest source of methane emissions in the US accounting for about 10% of US methane release. Coupled with carbon dioxide reduction, this is an incremental greenhouse gas benefit of natural gas displacing coal. Yes, natural gas production itself is a source of atmospheric methane release, but the avoided coal strip mining methane release must be netted against it.
The GDP of California's total business production is 14% of the USA's total GDP, or 7.3% of the entire world's GDP (2Q2015 data).
Given the broad expanse of California's economy, from hydrocarbon production and refining through agriculture, viniculture and the information economy, they should be applauded for their greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Yes, they do have problems bringing the pricing of their electric and natural gas grids into the 21st century. But they have been successful leaders in reducing carbon emissions, and have not crashed their economy. Indeed, as others here have commented, California has exceeded the economic growth of the remainder of the USA while creating these emissions reductions.
Best,
--Keith
@KeithDPatch
Given the broad expanse of California's economy, from hydrocarbon production and refining through agriculture, viniculture and the information economy, they should be applauded for their greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Yes, they do have problems bringing the pricing of their electric and natural gas grids into the 21st century. But they have been successful leaders in reducing carbon emissions, and have not crashed their economy. Indeed, as others here have commented, California has exceeded the economic growth of the remainder of the USA while creating these emissions reductions.
Best,
--Keith
@KeithDPatch
14
I hope you realized how off your figures were. CA has a GDP of abut $2.3T, versus the US total of $16T, so 14% is more or less correct. That could only translate to 7% of the world GDP if the US was half of the world total. It is not. The world's GDP, as estimated by the CIA, is about $78T, which means California is slightly under 3%. Still big, but not as important as you think.
6
As the 6th largest economy in the world, California's is larger than France's.
2
Before California every got busy, federal Democrats & President Obama offered a national cap and trade program that would have led the world. The senate ( republicans ) blocked that progress. ( as usual )
Having said that, I think people don't realize what precariousness the country ( let alone the state of California ) is in. I mean, if people suddenly couldn't get their almonds ( and other nuts that soak up water at an alarming rate ) that people would revolt.
California has to be far beyond any other place in conservatism and cutting edge green technologies\programs. While they are doing so, they are growing the economy with said businesses that want to be at the forefront of saving our planet.
Just good business.
Having said that, I think people don't realize what precariousness the country ( let alone the state of California ) is in. I mean, if people suddenly couldn't get their almonds ( and other nuts that soak up water at an alarming rate ) that people would revolt.
California has to be far beyond any other place in conservatism and cutting edge green technologies\programs. While they are doing so, they are growing the economy with said businesses that want to be at the forefront of saving our planet.
Just good business.
44
Carbon release from any source is a dead gamer. Cap & Trade won't change it. Carbon caps won't change it. Any human activity of any kind will only accelerate it. Only massive human extinctions will mitigate it.* The game has long been over; only engineers know it. See: Global Heating.
* And then: only if the decomposing bodies do not release carbon, methane, and water vapor into the air. Good luck figuring out that necessary process.
* And then: only if the decomposing bodies do not release carbon, methane, and water vapor into the air. Good luck figuring out that necessary process.
2
As usual, California is the bellwether and as it goes, so will the nation go. Eventually. But if we do succeed on this front, it will be in large part because here, we're able to keep the wretched Republicans corralled in a pen where they can't do much damage. If there's another lesson to be gained from watching this state's work on climate change, it's that with the GOP in its current deranged state, progress on pretty much anything can be made only when they are reduced to an impotent minority. Republicans cannot be trusted with any significant amount of power or authority - and while one-party rule will ultimately prove problematic (cf. Illinois), for the immediate future it's the only option given the state that the GOP is in. A party that serves only the wealthy and feels no moral obligation to the rest of us cannot be allowed to hold the reins. Vote Dem in the midterms, and help the nation move forward!
60
So much for happy California cows. I doubt though they generate near the methane that Jerry Brown does.
8
Thank you California!
5
Yes, thank you for a thoughtful, considered plan to limit climate change in contrast to our president's never ending joust with windmills.
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 impact of humans on the climate, is overpopulation, but there is no leadership to address it. Even California ignores for business reasons the consequences of unregulated population growth, and California's important industries (e.g. entertainment, technology, military) and activities (e.g. driving) are major contributors to global environmental pollution.
19
Thank you Governor Brown for your leadership on climate change. Proud to be a Californian.
91
Kudos to California’s legislature and governor for aiming to reduce the amount of pollution emitted per person. The problem is that the number of people keeps rising. So, even if the amount of pollution, per capita, is reduced, the overall amount will continue to increase.
The U.S. Congress needs to stop giving people discounts on their taxes for having lots of children. I would suggest that discounts be discontinued after 2 or 3 children. Right now, the I.R.S. even pays cash to people (including illegal immigrants) who do not earn enough to pay federal income taxes. (In 2010, according to the Inspector General of the Treasury Department, the I.R.S. gave $4.2 billion, in cash, to illegal immigrants under the Additional Child Care Tax Credit. The amount is likely much higher this year because more illegal immigrants have moved here, and because the size of their families keeps increasing.)
As a society, we should say that we will no longer subsidize an ever-increasing number of children who are born after a certain date. If a woman or a man has more than 2 or 3 children, they will not be able to claim additional deductions or ask for cash for the additional children.
We should also make artificial birth control inexpensive and available to everyone.
If we stop having such large families, then lowering the per capita emissions will make a difference.
The U.S. Congress needs to stop giving people discounts on their taxes for having lots of children. I would suggest that discounts be discontinued after 2 or 3 children. Right now, the I.R.S. even pays cash to people (including illegal immigrants) who do not earn enough to pay federal income taxes. (In 2010, according to the Inspector General of the Treasury Department, the I.R.S. gave $4.2 billion, in cash, to illegal immigrants under the Additional Child Care Tax Credit. The amount is likely much higher this year because more illegal immigrants have moved here, and because the size of their families keeps increasing.)
As a society, we should say that we will no longer subsidize an ever-increasing number of children who are born after a certain date. If a woman or a man has more than 2 or 3 children, they will not be able to claim additional deductions or ask for cash for the additional children.
We should also make artificial birth control inexpensive and available to everyone.
If we stop having such large families, then lowering the per capita emissions will make a difference.
19
Factory farming of animals for meat is a major contributor to global warming. Also, in states like California with chronic water shortages, the biggest user of water is large-scale factory farms. Meanwhile, people are told to take fewer showers and not water their lawns due to the shortage! Raising animals for their meat is bad for the environment, in addition to the other reasons it's bad. Real environmentalists don't eat meat.
7
We need more research into things like a cattle feed that would lower the emissions, rather than more regulation and fines. France is studying how onions can lower a cow's methane production. Now it's a matter of how much can you give them without changing the taste of the milk. If we had something similar to DARPA grants for things like this, we could find a better way out of this mess.
Like the EPA telling Alaskans to not use fire wood, though there isn't much of a choice out in the middle of no where. The EPA hasn't done anything to help, they just threaten to impose fines.
More carrots, less stick is needed.
Like the EPA telling Alaskans to not use fire wood, though there isn't much of a choice out in the middle of no where. The EPA hasn't done anything to help, they just threaten to impose fines.
More carrots, less stick is needed.
1
This is some heavy lifting to get to the 2030 goals. An order of magnitude annually more than needed to meet 2020 targets.
People will say it can't be done, that it will kill the state's economy to go it alone. But they said the same thing about California well out in front of the US on air pollution in the late 60s.
People will say it can't be done, that it will kill the state's economy to go it alone. But they said the same thing about California well out in front of the US on air pollution in the late 60s.
9
The next obvious improvement is for policy makers to expand the activities of organized power markets throughout the West. Greater diversity of generating resources for electricity will reduce carbon emissions, lower costs and enhance reliability. It's good policy in every aspect.
California leaders should allow expansion of the Independent System Operator. Other states should welcome these opportunities. A regional market brings long-lasting benefits to consumers and the environment.
California leaders should allow expansion of the Independent System Operator. Other states should welcome these opportunities. A regional market brings long-lasting benefits to consumers and the environment.
1
Thanks to Gov. Brown California is in the mist of a major Boom. Everywhere I look, I see growth, low unemployment, and cranes. LA/Long Beach Ports are registering record high cargo, the recently passed gas tax will inject $5 billion in road and infrastructure repair, and Cap & Trade will help spawn new industries. Now we do have our problems, high real estate prices and homelessness come to mind. On a recent trip to Palm Springs I couldn't help but marvel at the wind turbines along the interstate. People in this desert community have cut their carbon foot print dramatically, and talking to the locals it's had an economic impact on the Coachella Valley. As far as Texas, no one here cares if a company moves there, we do feel sorry for employees who may have to relocate.
13
Those wind turbines have been there a long time. And in my visit to Palm Springs, but coming and going, there wasn't a single turbine that was spinning. Something to think about before you decide to put natural gas in the trash bin.
2
California is ahead of the vanguard in many fields. Trump hates California like he hates anything that is a benefit for mankind. Solar is the way to go, even though there may be some pollution from manufacturing solar once it is there it lasts a long time. Tesla is working on batteries for homes, that will make them less reliant on the usual power company grids. Those employed by power companies will need to seek other employment and be retrained. Everything Trump is doing is detrimental to the environment and the world, California is a place of innovation and a model in environmental regulation. Trump now is allowing the fishing industry on the east coast to be devastated.
30
Tesla already sells them, they're called Powerwall. I'm considering one.
This writer has a subtle bias as he repeatedly mentions the possibility of California failing or stumbling. The policies California government is putting in place will make this a better place to live and stronger economically. New technologies and businesses will evolve because of these very regulations.
Also, reducing greenhouse gases through intelligent legislation is the only responsible course of action for the world to be following. We must take action such as the state of California is taking if we wish to see a viable and fulfilling future for humanity.
Also, reducing greenhouse gases through intelligent legislation is the only responsible course of action for the world to be following. We must take action such as the state of California is taking if we wish to see a viable and fulfilling future for humanity.
36
The wild card here is the California voter. People in our state have a high tolerance for this type of experimentation, unless it costs money, at which point they tend to oppose it. The gas tax increase has already resulted in a recall election for one senator and a statewide repeal campaign against the tax increase itself. So the jury is out so far on just how much CA voters will accept.
4
It needs to be left to the people - either way - so that legislation isn't rescinded every other election.
The gas tax will help us improve our infrastructure, which was sadly neglected for many years when the Republicans could kill anything that would make the state better. Republicans will try to go back to those days, but hopefully they will be kept under control.
1
For 2014-2015, California's GDP grew by 11.5%, while during the same time Texas grew by 8.8%. According to EIA estimates for 2014, per capita energy-related CO2 emissions were 9.2 metric tons for California and 23.8 metric tons for Texas. While this doesn't conclusively demonstrate that states with low CO2 industries produce more economic growth than states with high CO2 emissions, this data makes it absolutely clear that low carbon emissions doesn't impede economic growth in a state. (If anything, the reverse is probably true!)
120
Correlation is not causation. Determining the effect of California's environmental regulations on its economic growth would require a massive econometric study and involve the analysis of thousands of variables. A snippet simply will not do.
5
You used a very short time period, which can mask long term trends. I went to the BEA site, and was able to access date that shows avg annual changes per capita over various timeframes. I chose 2005-2015, since 10 years would seem to provide the long term perspective. California had avg annual growth per capita of 0.7%, whereas Texas had 1.7%, more than double the rate.
5
As a follow up to my previous posting (of it gets posted), I got curious abut the other states. The top 6 growth states for 2005-2015, in order, were ND, OK, OR,TX, NE, and KS. Only Oregon could be considered as a blue state.
5
The doom and gloom group will always say regulation kills growth. The exact opposite is true. By cleaning the air, through regulations, more people want to live in California driving the economy. New companies are created 80 times faster than they leave the state Our 6the largest economy in the world PROVES that regulation leads to sustainable economic growth.
76
Highest state income and local taxes
2-4 mm illegal aliens (they didn't come here for the air quality, btw)
Chronic water shortages
Poor performing K-12 schools and diminishing access to university education (even if you've paid state taxes your entire life)
High energy prices
High real estate prices
High unemployment in the Central Valley
Poor infrastructure and roads (but still building that high speed rail to nowhere)
Is California a great place or what?!
2-4 mm illegal aliens (they didn't come here for the air quality, btw)
Chronic water shortages
Poor performing K-12 schools and diminishing access to university education (even if you've paid state taxes your entire life)
High energy prices
High real estate prices
High unemployment in the Central Valley
Poor infrastructure and roads (but still building that high speed rail to nowhere)
Is California a great place or what?!
18
Regulation means more useless, parasitic, overpaid, underworked government bureaucrats who will take their 10 to 20% of all tax money off the top before any of it ever gets spent for the intended purpose.
2
I'd like to see a chart comparing population growth to pollution levels, not just in California but other states and even data from other countries.
Regarding the GDP of California, per capita it is just above the United States as a whole, and behind other states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, Delaware, and others. I don't know how exceptional it really is.
Regarding the GDP of California, per capita it is just above the United States as a whole, and behind other states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, Delaware, and others. I don't know how exceptional it really is.
We cannot solve climate change without atomic energy. The world's leading climate scientists have called it the only viable path forward on climate change. California's last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, will end up being be replaced by natural gas which will increase emissions. Brown's cap and trade plan will not reduce emissions in any meaningfully way and will disproportionally hurt working people.
22
To reach the proposed savings from buildings the lowest fruit is leaky poorly insulated rentals with older HVAC systems. Perhaps there is a clever funding system to make that work? After all that work does pay for itself in a few years. However a full solution will be development of expanded solar, possibly a very distributed system, with sufficient battery capacity to smooth out sunlight variation. A technical target I think California will achieve and in so doing reach clean air goals. become more efficient, nicer to live in, more productive and more competitive economically.
3
The LCOE of electricity via nuclear power stations is not competitive now when compared to natural gas or renewables. With renewables and storage continuing their cost reduction trend, there is no rational economic reason to invest in nuclear power which requires that plants be operated for 40+ years to recover the investment. Solar and wind are, for better or for worse, much simpler technologies when compared to nuclear. However, how we integrate these resources into our energy landscape is cutting edge. It just happens that these technologies are also cheaper and much quicker to deploy. In my estimation, working-class people will be disproportionally hurt if nuclear plants *are* built.
I'm a Californian and am not intrinsically against nuclear energy. I do think, though, that the older nuclear power plants aren't safe enough in a state prone to major earthquakes--no one wants a Fukushima here. California could take the lead in new nuclear technology, some of which is very promising. I'm particularly fascinated by the plants that use spent fuel rods. As I understand it, the technology is intrinsically safer and would greatly reduce the nuclear waste problem.
1
I do not know whether greenhouse gasses cause global warming or not, but I accept the judgement of the many scientists that have studied the matter and concluded that they do cause global warming.
In general, I would support substantial efforts by the US to reduce our emissions if it would be effective to combat global warming. Unfortunately, it will not be effective. The US has been reducing its total CO2 emissions since at least 2008. But the developing world has been increasing theirs even faster since then. China alone is now the world's largest emitter of CO2, more than twice as much as the US. The Paris Climate agreement gave world approval to China continuing to increase its CO2 emissions until 2030. If the US eliminated 100% of our emissions, China alone will increase theirs by more than our total emissions.
China is making some effort to restrain emissions. Their plan is to continue increasing their emissions until 2030 but the increase will be about 14% less than their increase would be if they made no effort at all. That is outrageous. China is the largest polluter on the planet, emitting 30% of total world CO2. China burns about 50% of the entire world consumption of coal, in large part to produce electricity.
No matter how severely the US and Europe cut their emissions, the world climate is doomed because of the behavior of the developing world, especially because of China.
In general, I would support substantial efforts by the US to reduce our emissions if it would be effective to combat global warming. Unfortunately, it will not be effective. The US has been reducing its total CO2 emissions since at least 2008. But the developing world has been increasing theirs even faster since then. China alone is now the world's largest emitter of CO2, more than twice as much as the US. The Paris Climate agreement gave world approval to China continuing to increase its CO2 emissions until 2030. If the US eliminated 100% of our emissions, China alone will increase theirs by more than our total emissions.
China is making some effort to restrain emissions. Their plan is to continue increasing their emissions until 2030 but the increase will be about 14% less than their increase would be if they made no effort at all. That is outrageous. China is the largest polluter on the planet, emitting 30% of total world CO2. China burns about 50% of the entire world consumption of coal, in large part to produce electricity.
No matter how severely the US and Europe cut their emissions, the world climate is doomed because of the behavior of the developing world, especially because of China.
16
Sorry, but China is undertaking a number of serious efforts to deal with their high pollution, and we should be encouraging them, not disparaging them.
1
From a NY Times July 1, 2017 article:
"Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.
Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."
Moreover, India's coal-based power production expansion plans rival that of China.
The important point is that California's initiatives are utterly naïve from engineering, cost-effectiveness and impact standpoints. It is reasonable to expect that at some time in the future California will backtrack after great public push-back when it becomes realized that the costs to California are unmanageable while not making a justifiable contribution to climate change control on a worldwide-basis. It is adolescent and laughable to believe that the developing world will look to California to show the way.
"Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.
Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."
Moreover, India's coal-based power production expansion plans rival that of China.
The important point is that California's initiatives are utterly naïve from engineering, cost-effectiveness and impact standpoints. It is reasonable to expect that at some time in the future California will backtrack after great public push-back when it becomes realized that the costs to California are unmanageable while not making a justifiable contribution to climate change control on a worldwide-basis. It is adolescent and laughable to believe that the developing world will look to California to show the way.
9
I heartily disagree that the world is doomed even if the US and Europe do all they can. You see, technology progress, cost reductions and global supply chains for the benefit of developed countries indirectly affects almost all others. In addition, emissions reductions are not a zero-sum game. Instead, populations around the world are experiencing the burden of local air pollution first-hand.
By helping advance the state of the art and creating markets for advanced products, the impacts of the US and Europe expand far beyond their borders. A great example is the cell-phone industry which, once led by developed nations, has been developed to create the most cost effective tool to communicate in some of the most remote regions in the world - at 4G speeds.
By helping advance the state of the art and creating markets for advanced products, the impacts of the US and Europe expand far beyond their borders. A great example is the cell-phone industry which, once led by developed nations, has been developed to create the most cost effective tool to communicate in some of the most remote regions in the world - at 4G speeds.
8
If we, however, are really interested in fighting climate change then we must not ignore the root of the problem--humans. The NYT published an article a week or so ago stating that improving air conditioners would have the biggest impact on climate change. This ignores the fact that each additional person on Earth will contribute way more CO2 than any air conditioner.
Family planning needs to be a priority. For those who may be offended and think that it is a human rights issue, no one is advocating that we do what China did to enforce its one child policy. There are legislative ways to encourage people to have less kids. Within the US--instead of giving tax credits for having children, tax credits should be given to those without children, or maybe have 1 child. You break even if you have 2 children but then you are taxed higher and higher when you have more than 2 children. People should also get tax credits for adopting children.
Because population increases are predicted to mainly occur in sub-Saharan African over the next 5-10 decades, developed countries should emphasize the importance of educating girls in sub-Saharan Africa as increased education is directly linked with having less children.