Claim: California's policies can significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions through 2030

New Berkeley Lab model finds state will meet 2020 reduction goals

From DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

A new model of the impact of California’s existing and proposed policies on its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals suggests that the state is on track to meet 2020 goals, and could achieve greater emission reductions by 2030, but the state will need to do more to reach its 2050 climate goals.

California's policies can significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions through 2030

California’s policies can significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions through 2030 Image: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

“The big news here is that not only will California meet its 2020 reduction goals under AB 32, but it could achieve reductions of at least 40 percent below that level in the 2030 time frame,” said Jeffery Greenblatt, author of the study and a scientist at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). The paper, “Modeling California policy impact on greenhouse gas emissions,” has been published in Energy Policy.

Greenblatt’s research, which was funded in part by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is the first attempt to comprehensively model all relevant policies in order to assess their combined effect on reducing California GHG emissions, especially through 2030. The research is intended to inform ongoing policy discussions in California by developing scenarios of GHG reductions that result from the aggregation of various policies. Scenario analysis can suggest which combinations of actual and proposed policies result in the largest emission reduction. The study also quantifies the reduction impact of individual policies.

The state’s AB 32 legislation, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires a reduction in state GHG emissions by 2020 to its 1990 level of 431 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MtCO2e/year). Additionally, California Executive Order S-3-05 sets a target of reducing state GHG emissions to 80 percent below this level by 2050. Other state legislation governs specific areas such as transportation, electricity, and fuels.

Greenblatt’s new model, dubbed CALGAPS (California LBNL GHG Analysis of Policies Spreadsheet), indicates that GHG emissions through 2020 could range from 317 to 415 MtCO2e/year, all still below the AB 32 target, “indicating that existing state policies will likely allow California to meet its target,” he said.

By 2030, emissions could range from 211 to 428 MtCO2e/year. “Even if all modeled policies are not implemented, reductions could be sufficient to reduce emissions 40 percent below the 1990 level,” Greenblatt said.

Although CALGAPS did not generally simulate policies that might be put in place after 2030, it did account for emissions through 2050, to understand the lasting impact of existing and potential policies that might be implemented over the next several years.

Accordingly, all of the scenarios Greenblatt modeled fall well short of the state’s 80 percent reduction goal by 2050. However, various combinations of policies could allow California’s cumulative emissions to remain very low through 2050, consistent with U.S. targets promulgated by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. While additional analysis and policymaking will certainly be needed to meet 2050 goals, Greenblatt’s study highlights the importance and potential of near-term action to work towards global climate stabilization targets.

Forty-nine policies in the CALGAPS model

CALGAPS is an energy model that simulates California’s GHG and criteria pollutant emissions from 2010 to 2050. It uses historical and projected future trends in energy consumption, GHG fuel intensities, GHG emissions apart from energy, and policy-based assumptions to calculate how much GHG the state emits under different combinations of policies. The model incorporates 49 individual policies.

“The model divides policies into three types,” Greenblatt said. “Committed policies (S1) are those that have the force of law and are being implemented, such as AB 1493, which mandates efficiency improvements in light-duty vehicles, building energy efficiency standards like Title 24, and the renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which mandates 33 percent renewable electricity generation use by 2020.”

Federal policies such as the Clean Water Act also have a direct impact on state GHG emissions.

Uncommitted policies (S2), the second type, may lack detailed implementation plans or firm financial support, but have all been proposed, such as new efficient and zero net energy building targets, construction of the high-speed rail system, and initiatives by various agencies to, for example, increase biofuels use and continue progress in improving vehicle efficiency.

The third group, potential policies and technologies (S3), include more speculative changes, including several that extend policy initiatives in the committed and uncommitted groups. These policies include more aggressive vehicle efficiency improvements, building electrification, higher RPS targets, and expanded carbon sequestration activities, among others.

“One of the most important results of this study is that the GHG impact of each individual policy is quantified for the first time,” Greenblatt said. “This allows policymakers to compare policies in different sectors and evaluate trade-offs.”

Among the most impactful policies, the study finds–those with reductions in excess of 20 MtCO2e each in some years–are the AB 1493 vehicle efficiency standards, the 33 percent RPS target, building efficiency targets, phasing out imported coal electricity and phasing out hydrofluorocarbon gases.

Another important insight was the idea of looking at cumulative emissions. As the paper states: “Due to early emissions reductions, S3 achieves lower cumulative emissions in 2050 than a pathway that linearly reduces emissions between 2020 and 2050 policy targets.”

The less ambitious S2 pathway achieves lower cumulative emissions through 2040. Greenblatt concluded: “Additional policies beyond those in S3 would be needed to continue reduction beyond 2050, but focusing on cumulative reductions may offer a more flexible policy framework.”

###

Advertisements

107 thoughts on “Claim: California's policies can significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions through 2030

      • I read somewhere that North Korea wants to get involved in carbon markets, because of their low carbon footprint.
        Maybe California could buy some of North Korea’s carbon credits!

      • I didn’t see their prediction that by 2030, the economy of California would place it in the top 100 Countries of the world, if it was a separate Country.
        With that high International standing California should have no trouble meeting its carbon emissions goal for 2030, or 2050.
        They say it only takes about 1,000 years after the end of mankind, for Mother Gaia to completely obliterate any sign that man ever existed.
        Well not counting the Pyramids of course.

      • California is currently the 8th largest economy in the world, down from fifth. Give Moonbeam time; he’ll reach 100 come Hell or high water. Oh, they’ve had both recently haven’t they? Nevermind.

    • Well. That depends. These Californian policies are great . . . for Texas. To my American friends in the Northwest. Enjoy the snow! sarc> This may be the last year you will see it. /sarc

    • No, one gets paid for not developing. Get with the program dude.
      If everyone in California reversed the great ‘Westward Migration’ then the few remaining in California can claim enough UN Carbon ‘dollars’, for economic decay, to fill up the ‘SA fault’. Win win for those not funding this garbage.
      Sorry, just had to do it ….

      (No, I’m not sorry)

      • That is the socialist way. However their short term near sightedness is that the money to pay not to produce has to come from producers in the first place. That is why they are running billions of dollars in deficits and 27% of the population is on government assistance.

      • So philjourdan,
        When did the percent of the USA population on Government Assistance drop down to only 27% ??
        Right now, there are 93 million American who are no longer in the work force, or are underemployed.

        • That does not mean they are all on “government assistance”. Some are retired. And they do not count earned SS benefits as “government assistance”. It is not. It was paid for by the retirees.

      • Counting all forms of assistance, before Obamacare, the last figure I saw was 49%. With Obamacare, I expect that number to increase substantially.
        My favorite stop for fiscal figures:
        http://usdebtclock.org/
        They have added some more employment numbers. Scary.

      • Well Phil,
        I am not retired, but I do collect Social Security, and what’s more I continue to pay into the SS fund, and also I get to pay income taxes on my SS income.
        I’ve been paying into the SS fund for over half a century, and I can assure you that I have not paid in as much as I have already received out of it.
        And it was NEVER ever invested into any profit making enterprise, but it was stolen and spent by the rats in DC. So It went down the tubes a long time ago.
        Only people who die young, put in more money to SS than they take out.
        That’s why the system is insolvent.
        g

        • “Only people who die young, put in more money to SS than they take out. That’s why the system is insolvent.”….not really. There’s actually been a surplus that was planned for to fund the ‘baby boomers’ bubble that is now starting. Unfortunately the SS trust fund has been used to pay for things other than SS and the fund is now just paper/bonds/promissory notes that make up our deficit. And we know where the deficit is headed. At least that’s my interpretation of what’s happening to SS.

    • Well if it just California, they will simply move elsewhere, creating a slight increase in emissions, from the process of moving.

    • I wonder if the exodus is in the model. If it isn’t they COULDa/Woulda/maya/mighta/shoulda reach their targets by 2020. 30yrs early. The only people left in CA will be the idiots like Geoge C et al.

  1. C’mon folks, let’s get those emissions per capita down to Chinese and Indian levels.
    The 30% of the population who will no longer have electricity or a house or a vehicle will not mind.

  2. Buying electricity from out of state will also contribute substantially, probably more than all their other actions combined.

      • They didn’t say they wouldn’t import electricity, just switching from coal based electricity to something else.

    • They are already greatly importing coal power. Shutting down coal and hydo power plants while not building nuclear or natural gas leaves them with the sole answer of increasing their electricity imports.
      That’s the issue, they are taking the renewable standard as an input, not trying to model how it’s actually going to work. It’s a pretty sweet deal when you can just say “Step 2 works” and skip to “Step 3 Profit”.

  3. Prompts a few questions (mainly sarcastic):
    Are the high speed trains to help people leave quicker to look for jobs elsewhere?
    Will there be wagon trains heading east?
    These may be mandatory reductions but what happens if they are not met? (the models can always be rigged like temp records I suppose)
    How will they run the models when there is no electricity? (at night – no wind)
    It does really need somebody to completely ruin their economy with green stupidity for things to change. California is challenging for the lead. UK policy is equally stupid and enshrined in a law all parties endorsed.

    • + 1 “Will there be wagon trains heading east?” That’s a good one Gerry. Imagine a horse drawn wagon (Oxen can’t be found) heading slowly east with appropriate banners.
      That would bring a lot of publicity to the AB32 and the consequences of it. AB32 was “sold” on the idea that what was involved was reducing pollution and the general public did not know the difference between CO2 and smog. This is a perfect example of the underinformed voter.

    • No one, no one, can out stupid California and they’ll prove it. Not only will the ‘Bullet Train’ exceed cost estimates by more than the Chunnel it will manage to carry fewer passengers and lose more money once operational. Never underestimate California stupid.

    • Well Gerry, you British folks just don’t understand the concept; it just makes too much sense to Merkins.
      You see the California high speed rail is only going to run from Nowhere to Nowhere Else.
      Now you don’t understand, that is not like running from Lands End to John O’ Groats
      They are talking about going from Bakersfield to Palmdale.
      Now Bakersfield is where in California, we once used to drill for Orl, and that will orl be gone, and Palmdale is that ghost town where they once used to build air planes; and that will all be turned back into desert, as air planes are not carbon neutral.
      So guess how many people will daily ride the Flying Brownsman from B to P.
      Nah it isn’t going anywhere near the border, and likely the first extension to the border, will most likely connect Tijuana to San Francisco, to speed up the escape of California paid welfare funds to the other half of divided families.
      Yes you will be able to use your EBT cards on the Flying Brownsman. (that’s Everybody But Taxpayers cards).
      This morning the price of a Senior Coffee at MacDonalds, on the El Camino, in Sunnyvale, jumped from 60 cents to 69 cents.
      So now it is quite correct to say to somebody:
      “That; plus 69 cents will get you a cup of coffee at MacDonalds.” Well it will me!
      That’s a 15% hike in one day.
      So it really doesn’t affect the economy, to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour; the prices WILL rise to absorb the surplus, and everything will remain just the same. Well the Government will collect more taxes of course.

  4. “…the state is on track to meet 2020 goals, and could achieve greater emission reductions by 2030, but the state will need to do more to reach its 2050 climate goals.”
    YACM (Yet Another Climate Meme) Now it’s “emission reduction”, to make us forget the original meme was “global warming” => CAGW =>”man-made CO2 causes climate disasters”, which nowadays isn’t as compelling as it was in the 90’s.
    Since we have all accepted the fact that “climate change is real”, and [except for those pesky skeptics] subliminally believe that changing-climate is compelling ‘proof’ of CAGW, the warmists continue to hypnotize their fellow sheeple by merely getting them to focus on “getting those numbers down”.
    It’s exactly the same ploy used by Big Pharm to get us hooked on their expensive cholestorol-lowering statin drugs. Yes, these drugs do lower your cholesterol levels, but, except for patients who have already had a heart attack, there is no proof that they help prevent heart disease in folks with low-cholesterol, who otherwise have no prior history of heart disease. (If there was proof you’d hear about every night in their TV ads).
    So, Big Pharm focuses on “getting those numbers down”, convinced that you already believe in the cholesterol myth. The true fact is: these drugs can cause more harm than good in healthy or elderly patients.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uffe_Ravnskov

    • The makers of Pravocol actually did a study of that station and showed it did reduce the rate of heart attack. The others just made other stations and assume theirs work better because they are stronger.
      The mechanism is probably different though, instead of reducing heart attacks by lowering cholesterol, the stations seem to lower the rate because they have an antiinflammatory effect on arteries. Your body uses LDLs for both fuel, and for patching wounds, this is normally a good thing, but if your artery is chronically inflamed, the body keeps adding LDL to the affected area until a potentially clogging plaque is formed.

  5. Well, at least they can claim to be making a difference to the climate while they aren’t. And that’ll make it all worth it if they can get enough teachers and politicians to say it.

  6. Looking at it from a different perspective, isn’t it nice to have 38 million fruitcakes in one location where you can test out the nuttier ideas that come out of academia?

    • And you can cpmpare it with Germany and my 150%-People. But It’s already dawning to them that It’s not so easy with the Energiewende, especially when they are now bulldoziering the atomic power plants. We have been low in CO2-footprint, but now we are developing towards more output – using lignite to replace nucelar power.
      But rich nations have enough money to play around a bit – It’s not hitting the poorest. And the others can check what they will find out.

      • So Johannes, you now can “ignite the lignite”. That could be the plot of the next great German Opera.
        And put a little thought into giving us a noun that is a good bit longer than Energiewende, or we’ll stop thinking you are really German.
        When they run out of Coal in Essen, you make sure and give us advanced warning Johannes ! We’ll make room for Y’alls in California, which will be wide open space by then.
        G

    • Joe Crawford,
      Not all 38 million are fruits & nuts. There are lots of normal folks in California, including Anthony and yours truly. Our fight is your fight, because if we lose this one… you’re next.

  7. Does California count all their electricity imported from other states when calculating their GHG reductions? Seems to me the number should be based on energy used not energy produced?

  8. Good for California and the US I say.
    The sooner you guys close down power stations, industry, heating and electricity the longer the UK has to turm around before we all die. Who needs water or heat?
    Sadly without a strong and functioning USA the world gets much more dangerous.
    Over in the UK the Greens are now talking 100% marxism (but at least nothing about polar bears or plants or things) When they gain power the Queen will go, there will be no limit on immigration, we will see rocketting tax as a good thing (! understand).
    PS. How soon and what does it take to impeach Obama (what are your treason laws like?).

    • The UK Greens aren’t talking Marxism. They are way more crazy than that.
      Marx wanted economic growth. The Greens want stagnation – no growth.
      Marx wanted international cooperation of the workers. The Greens want local production of everything (food, clothes, medicines, bicycles, everything).
      Marx had nothing to say about abolishing the armed forces. The Greens want the army replaced by a local defence force.
      Marx had nothing to say about legalising loyalty to enemies of the (Marxist) state. The Greens want to legalise membership of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
      Marx did support the Green policy of state control over education and the banning of religion from schools. But then, so does the not-very-Marxist USA.

      • M Courtney,
        That is more proof, if you need it, that this is all being orchestrated by the erstwhile Soviets. They never went away, they just changed their names.

      • dbstealey, the Soviets wanted economic growth. Their greatest crimes were because they were frustrated that they weren’t getting it.
        The UK Green Party opposes any economic growth. The suffering that causes is itself, their greatest crime.
        It is completely different. The badness is comparable in no way at all
        (Except, perhaps, magnitude).

    • The Greens talking 100% marxism ? and then some !!
      Apologies for being “UK parochial” but ……..
      The leader of the UK Green party (yesterday on BBC) stated they believe that there is nothing wrong and it completely acceptable for someone to be a member of ISIS / ISIL / IS (call it what you will) or any other terrorist organisation.
      That was around 48 hrs after another leading Green (and a greenpeace employee) called, on the Guardian website (in true ISIS style) for Matt Ridley to be beheaded because he is a denier rather than a ‘Believer’ in Global Warming.
      In the UK, at least, the parallels in thought process of the Greens and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists now seem strikingly, and worryingly similar – deny the prophet and we will behead you, deny global warming and you should be beheaded .
      Seems that the problem with some extreme religious beliefs is that its believers end up wanting those who don’t share their belief to be ‘disappeared’.
      There was a graphic shown on Guido fawkes blog the other day with a matrix of the penalties for various crimes under ISIS and in Saudi Arabia – showing them to be identical, including beheading, stoning etc. The UK greens would now apparently sit quite comfortably within at least part of that matrix. (BTW the Guido Fawkes blog is primarily insider political information and widely read and followed by UK politicians)

      • OK, you Brits need to clean house, but I think we need to avoid this kind of generalization against Greens in general. Most that I know are well meaning, if somewhat clueless, and tend to be horrified by the unintended consequences of their policies once they are convinced that these consequences are real.
        Remember, not evil, just wrong, until proven otherwise.
        Now, that said, the British Green Party leadership seems to have met that standard of proof. Good luck across the pond y’all.

      • benofhouston, We Brits are trying to clear house.
        I am of the left. I support preserving common access to the countryside and so its preservation. And I oppose the UK Green party.
        I won’t speak for those on the right but… I hope they share my wish to conserve and also oppose the UK Green party.
        Fairly sure my hope ain’t in vain.

      • So Old England,
        I recommend that you buy Fig Tree futures, and start to brush up on your tree climbing skills.
        Just think, free clean green renewable energy, and the leaves also work as a substitute for clothing !
        Remember “There’ll always be an England ! ”
        G

  9. Models, models everywhere,
    And all their minds did shrink;
    Models, models everywhere,
    Nor any worth a blink.
    -apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge

  10. Presumably, this is dependent on the complete de-industrialisation of the state causing a mass exodus of all those capable of creating wealth.
    So the future is an agrarian state with oxen pulling the ploughs, occasional expensive electricity supplies, accompanied by smug left wing politicians boasting, “I/we did this to save the world.”
    And the impact on global temperatures? Two fifths of one eighth of a number closer very close to zero.

  11. ““One of the most important results of this study is that the GHG impact of each individual policy is quantified for the first time,” “
    I find no mention of what the “impact” of lowering GHG’s will be.
    Unless, of course, they mean that the impact of “lowering GHG emissions” will be, tada! => “lower levels of GHG”, (provided you have instruments sensitive enough to detect and measure a very tiny difference).
    So what will be the impact on the Earth’s climate? Oh, I see, they really don’t want to “quantify” that at all.
    Because it will be zero.

    • Exactly. They want you to think “lowering GHG” is synonymous with “averting climate catastrophe”. It becomes its own goal, no further explanation required.
      The same way that “expanding government” has become synonymous with “helping people”, so anyone who suggests cutting government becomes Scrooge.

  12. I always wonder how does all the regulation affect Hollywood?
    Surely the movie industry must be a pretty large energy consumer and at some point the regulations are going to cut too deeply into the industry’s profit margin.
    Will we have a future where people will say “I remember when this was all movie sets”?

    • how does all the regulation affect Hollywood?

      Hollywood is make believe. They talk about all the good they are doing and make believe it is true. The day CARB shuts down any movie with A-listed stars for carbon emissions, that will be the day California shuts down CARB.
      CARB knows this, so they pick on people that cannot fight back. People that need to work for a living don’t have time or money to spend arguing in court the damage the regulations are causing.

    • “California – the next Detroit.”
      Detroit’s downfall was far more about corporate hubris than any government action, California is also the US venture capital center, which leads to job creation. For example, in 2011 CA drew more than 50% of all VC investment made in the US.

      • Chris, nice try!!
        The same companies are building cars in more friendly states. It was the unions that killed Detroit along with the long term Democratic Party dominance over the state milking business.

      • Well that den of California VC investors are the leftists who put California down a rat hole.
        You would think that Silicon Valley would be the Conservative capital of the known Universe.
        Well I think that T J Rogers is a Conservative; but I couldn’t name any other local entrepreneur that I think is.
        Remember there are some thinkers who are proud to say they voted for the first Black POTUS, and then admit that they even did it twice for good measure.
        Then there are all those California citizens who actually voted four times to have Governor Moonbeam as their leader into the future; even though the State Constitution says you can only run for Governor for two terms.
        And no I don’t care a whit that this restriction went on the books during his legitimate terms in office. For exactly the reason to be rid of him and get some competence in Office.

    • ferdberple,
      I agree, it seems there will be no prizes for anyone who guesses which state is going to shed it’s population over the next 20 years – and – like Detroit, the only ones remaining will be on welfare or just passing through to view the desolation.
      Cheers
      Roger
      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  13. It’s somewhat of the topic but quite interesting. Here you can listen a todays radio interview of radio CBC Toronto:
    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2015/01/26/fat-doesnt-make-you-fat-nina-teisholz-has-a-big-fat-surprise/
    There it is reported that researchers who didn’t agree with the “consensus” that unsaturated fats are the main cause of heart attacks were systematically hampered in their careers and lost research grants…
    Sounds familiar?

    • Sorry: I meant “OFF the topic” of course…
      But maybe not so much after all because the crusades against unsaturated fats and for biofuels have one common profiteer: The plant oil industry…
      Cui bono?

      • Sorry again – nobody is perfect: It should read “SATURATED” fats in both of my statements above…

  14. Johanus
    I have my nieces, nephews, and grand children read “The Cholesterol Myth” to help them understand
    lying with statistics. Big Pharma, but first Big Retail, put the cholesterol myth in the public mind, just as the “water melons” put AGW in the public mind.
    The damage of Statins is being seen now to a large extent because it has a head start on AGW..
    Increased diabetes and Parkenson’s are just two of the many side effects of statins.
    The damage done by the AGW crowd is also slow to be recognized by the MSM.

    • Yes, statins cause more harm than good. They seem to have benefit in treating patients with prior heart attacks, but that benefit is rather slight and likely has nothing to do with lowering cholesterol.
      Cholesterol, like CO2 and “fatty foods”, all have been wrongfully maligned by the ‘mainstream’ media and science. We can’t live without them.

  15. I am curious, if the stated ranges of 2030 Emissions ranges between 211 and 428, and I assume those represent the margins of error, I would expect those nice modeled curves to be wide swaths covering fully 1/3 of the scale. I see no such representation. By claiming a Reduction of Emissions that potentially is NO Reduction at all by 2030, exactly how are the stringent remediation efforts to be measured?

  16. I am not sure if these policies are meant to deliberately meant to hurt the poor or if it is just one of the unintended consequences. (after all, a poor, dependent voter is a reliable voter)
    In the state’s new Energy Code, the goal for their next Code update is to mandate ‘net zero’ energy use for residential construction by 2020 & commercial construction by 2025.
    (I think it is a typo and should read that they are going to mandate net zero residential construction by 2020 & commercial construction by 2025).
    These codes are written by what I like to call bureaucratic ‘box people’, the ones who only know how to check boxes, don’t use any common sense, don’t know how anything is built, and think that the process is the destination and not a guideline to solving a problem.
    I have seen first hand how their new code is punishing the middle class homeowner who is just trying to maintain their house. The extra costs and burdens aren’t a problem for big builder that can amortize them or a large number of units or the McMansion owners who are spending a million bucks anyway.

  17. Not having seen or read the report I wonder if they took full account of all the energy intensive businesses which have, are or will relocate outside the state ?
    If they did then hopefully they have included a section showing how much in the way of ‘carbon emission reductions’ are not reductions at all but merely exported to another state or elsewhere in the world .

  18. I think the real bottom line here is that somehow everyone decided that the world is a mathematical creation. That is, that it is digital, and not analog in any manner. Just as digital music sounds “similar” to analog sound, it isn’t the same. Just as digital photos are similar to analog photos, they, too, are not the same. And, of course, digital worlds, as represented by computer models may be similar to Earth, but they are the same.
    Everything in our way of life has gone from reality based to being “digitized.” You will live 6% longer if you don’t do this or that, based solely on mathematical simulation and statistical analysis. I would not be surprised to have some researcher come out with I will live 2.5% longer if I urinate holding it with my left hand as opposed to my right hand, based on some half baked concepts that were able to be represented mathematically.
    Nearly all research today is done on a computer, not working with reality. We are so used to decimal fractions that we see such BS as an increase in world temperature of .02 degrees and have totally disconnected from the fact that that is far less than the margin of error of the process used to arrive at it. I seriously doubt that the measurements were in .0001 degrees plus/minus, that there was less than one layer of processing used to arrive at the calculated value, and I am sure that the margin of error for each process will add up to something far greater than a one hundredth. Yet we swallow this bogus garbage because it was “mathematically derived on a computer” using programs that can have 16 digits of accuracy.
    No wonder I gave up on science and scientists since they don’t exist any more. They are right up there in mythology with politicians that care for their constituency.

  19. Rock on Governor moonbeam rock on.
    That will mean more business for the rest of the country. Don’t worry though you’ll always have food stamps and Obamacare.

  20. Entirely irrelevant on the global scale whether or not California emits CO2 or not. China, India and other developing nations will completely drown it out.

  21. But of course California is “on target,” so long as they are aiming to shoot themselves in the foot.

  22. To the average California resident, the only tangible result of this policy will be skyrocketing electricity and gas prices. We are already seeing it.

  23. I live in neighboring Nevada, and California’s policies have a big effect on this state.
    The number one problems is the economic refuges who flee east to escape California’s repressive regime. While these people are generally welcome, they have the nasty habit of wanting to bring California’s culture — including it’s regulatory zeal, political correctness and love of big government, with them. What the hell is wrong with those people? Why do they want to recreate the same mess they’re fleeing?
    In the past, California lobbied to keep the Mojave power station in Laughlin running full steam ahead so southern California wouldn’t experience rolling power blackouts (or at least fewer of them). The Mojave station, long since closed, was an old coal-fired plant that would have been too dirty to operate in California. California didn’t care how dirty the power was. It didn’t pollute their air.
    California still does not have enough generating capacity to supply the high summer demand for electricity. They suck power away from the neighboring states and help make our electricity more expensive to boot. At least we get some jobs out of it.

  24. Johanus – see my comment at “Wayne Delbeke January 26, 2015 at 10:22 am”. Totally agree with you. Also Gentle Tramp – I posted that link on another thread. Very interesting and actually something I learned nearly 50 years ago when I took “The Philosophy of Science” as a requisite in my engineering courses in order to make sure we understood that the “science” always needed to be questioned and updated. Always ask why? Children drive us crazy with that question, but they have it right.

  25. The goals are nonsensical, unnecessary and very expensive. It is already too late for common sense to influence the outcome, chaos will ensue enabling a future California the chance to start from scratch, unless Jerry “governor for life” Brown I still in office.

  26. The 80% emissions reduction target is not stringent enough – and even the most extreme model gets a 70% reduction by 2050. The 80% reduction would still have (based on 50 million population) 1.6t/CO2 per capita in 2050. The IPCC AR5 synthesis report stated that globally there needs to be 40% to 70% reduction in 2011 emissions. That implies 1.1 to 2.2t/CO2 per capita. As the rich countries are responsible for most of the accumulated emissions so far, they should be aiming at less than the minimum to atone for this.
    Commitment to such low levels of fossil fuel emissions is the aim of COP21 in Paris later this year.
    The lower level of 1.1t/CO2 is the emissions of the average African today. The upper level is the emissions of the average Indian.

    • Well the USA is certainly NOT responsible for “most of the accumulated emissions so far” or any significant part of it.
      The USA is a NET carbon sink; and we are the ONLY land based one of any size on this planet.

  27. The abstract says less than the summary given by AW above , but I have no reason to think that the study is not the culmination of detailed and careful research.
    However what appears to be missing is the human aspect , what , in similar detail , will be the effect on the quality of life of the residents of California .Is that covered?
    You might argue that the hardships of Californians is of little consequence in the greater global scheme of things , and it is difficult to envisage the inhabitants of , say, Orange County , experiencing anything other than a passing irritation if you believe the TV documentaries about their lifestyles.
    The consequences of the ongoing state policies , especially the projected enhancement of the renewables program will be watched closely by legislators elsewhere , particularly in UK and the “Real Housewives of Manchester” are in a far worse state already to overcome the effects of Green policies than their “Real” counterparts in Orange County.

  28. I think the biggest reduction in California GHGs will occur after the expansion of the Panama Canal is complete. Considering the considerable reductions in other CA manufacturing since the mid-60s, I expect the petroleum refineries to shut down in my lifetime. CA is a great place to live if you already have a lot of money or are making a lot of money out of state, but I don’t think it is much of a place any more for the aspiring non-rich.

  29. Sure, they can cut their green house gas emissions by killing off jobs and industry…… until the impoverished and unemployed burn down Watts… and Compton… and a lot more of the LA basin, in the economic riots of 2021!

  30. There is little doubt California will meet its 2020 and 2030 emissions goals. As the legislature continues to enhance California’s reputation as the state with the worst business climate, business and industry will leave, and California’s so-called green house gas emissions will likely exceed the goal of 80% of 1990 emissions. It’s easy. Drive out business. Kill agriculture. Terminate mining. Cali is doing all that and more.

    • Europe has embraced that by having economic stagnation and high unemployment. How the mighty Euro has fallen.
      @ Mac if they burn down Watts etc., they won’t meet the goals (all that co2) . Gosh!!! Whoa, they could outlaw rioting as an environmental crime.

  31. Does anyone remember a couple weeks ago about the satellite that measures co2? Ok, seems no one is refuting NASA’s claim that they can’t tell where the co2 came from, while just a few years ago they could. Now the problem here is, that if they can’t tell, what are they going to do about the California wildfires? One produces as much co2 as the entire state does in a year. Some study a few years back, from Berkeley I believe.

  32. Under the California regulations, do they count emissions in neighboring states that produce energy for the California grid?
    I remember how upset California was at Arizona and New Mexico during the “rolling brownouts” years ago, even though they hadn’t bothered to built a new power plant in decades.
    If they can use out-of-state electricity “emission-free”, then trying to reduce statewide emissions is a farce.

    • Do they count emissions floating across from China?
      Researchers have known for a long while that some of the pollution found in California comes from other parts of the world, particularly China as pollution and dust becomes swept across the Pacific.

  33. This study was paid for (in part) by the Lung-Nazis (aka California Air Resources Board) that somehow got the authority to stop people from using wood fires, BBQs, special gas that raises the price in CA by 30-40 cents per gallon and who knows what else.
    I wonder if the conclusion was a foregone one….or what would have happened the the ‘researchers’ next grant had they come up with a ‘we are way ahead of the curve’ scenario? OR worse yet, this is all BULLSH*T!!!

Comments are closed.