California is handling climate change all wrong – Bjorn Lomborg



While the L A Times is busy hyping Governor Brown’s success in extending its expensive and bureaucratically onerous cap and tax law from 2020 to 2030 Bjorn Lomborg director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center has an article in the Times showing how California’s climate alarmist schemes are incredibly wrong.


However Lomborg clearly articulates the irrelevancy that California’s go it alone approach produces.


Further Lomborg exposes the terrible costs that Californian’s will pay now and in the coming years while failing to achieve any worthwhile global benefits. Meanwhile the Times celebrate’s Governor Brown’s political savvy in being able to foist such a costly and worthless scheme upon the people of California.



Lomborg believes that California’s climate alarmist scheme’s driven by Governor Brown are misguided and that the state should instead take a more realistic and productive approach to address its climate concerns.

“California is embracing huge costs while doing virtually nothing for the environment. While the approach might look good, it doesn’t help much. If, instead, California were to develop green technologies so cheap they could actually outcompete fossil fuels, the whole world would switch to them.”

Original Story at LA Times here.

206 thoughts on “California is handling climate change all wrong – Bjorn Lomborg

  1. “Climate leadership” by definition is show business not substance. And show business is something that C
    alifornia excels in. Moonbeams and all.

    • Let them virtue signal themselves into poverty. Send the refineries to the states that show economic leadership.

      • Well notice that Brown’s earth shattering climate breakthrough achievement, doesn’t actually do a darn thing until 2020 , at which time it starts extending the already existing foolishness out to 2030, which is about the time that the Chicoms have to start to think about not building one coal fired plant every month.
        Way to go Jerry; why don’t you offer everybody a free McD’s Senior coffee after 2020 as well.
        I guess you might be out of office by 2020, so maybe the adults will be able to fix up your mess.

    • California has been the leader and trend setter in many things concerned with human health, physical fitness, nutrition, … generally any area related to human well being. Other states model themselves after California in these areas. Sadly, this is one instance when such a move to mirror California would seem to defy all reason.
      Even great leaders can trip up and fall on their faces, and I think we are seeing this here.
      CONCLUSION: You stop following the leader, when they fall on their face.

      • Nobody cared about human health or fitness until Californians discovered it?
        Is that really the story you want to go with?

      • Perhaps ‘Nobody cared about [making money out of] human health or fitness until Californians discovered it?”

      • Nobody cared about human health or fitness until Californians discovered it?
        Is that really the story you want to go with?

        That’s NOT the story I told. Those are words you shaped in a way that I did not shape them, and then put them in my mouth, so to speak. So, NO, this is NOT the story I want to go with, because it”s NOT the story I told to begin with.
        I can tell you, as a former long-time fitness instructor on the East coast, that health clubs always looked to what was coming out of California to use in modeling their programs on the East coast. All things hip were California born. So, I was NOT talking about the fundamental interest in health. I was talking about how this interest was STAGED and PACKAGED as a product or service to sell — show business, in other words, — what California does best.

  2. We’re up against the liberal machine….where anyone that doesn’t agree is not showing “leadership”..
    following along somehow is….
    yet, they don’t realize every time they do this….they are just reminding people of who and what they are

    • There is nothing to lead.
      There are no Republicans in the California State Legislature, and there haven’t been for decades.
      So the Dems are running a candy store with them eating all of the product.

      • You can thank the vast network of State and local colleges. Probably the most collegiate institutions anywhere in the world. While everyone was thanking California for giving affordable college education to the masses the Marxists were laying their groundwork. It’s in their playbook. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

  3. I now understand what “Virtue Signalling” means.
    All show, no substance and to hell with the cost to the Plebs.

    • We called it “Posing” when I was a boy.
      “Posturing” in Academia.
      Now some want to call it “Virtue Signalling”, but I think that makes it less clear than either of the terms used previously.

    • D.J. Yes, California is the land of make-believe. It makes me sad to think about what California used to be in the 60’s and 70’s. They led in almost everything from agriculture to zoos. Their Universities were top and their infrastructure was too. In the 40’s and 50′ and 60’s they also contributed much to the allied victories in WWII, the cold war, and ultimately the space race. California was clean, and their economy led the nation.
      How very far they have fallen from Ronald Reagan in the 70’s to Gov. Brown today.
      California is a good case study of what happens with uncontrolled illegal immigration and their leftists votes turning a California to a leftist Democrat state. This sad example shows the great dangers of progressives and essentially a one- party state.

      • California is not just a leftist state. They have a state religion they have incorporated into their government and based major policies on. The state government is so far away from the Constitution and common sense the place is going to turn into a Detroit-like situation. In the 60’s voters there elected a communist who wanted to turn Detroit into a Soviet-style utopia. He did.

  4. Focus on making it cheaper, he says…
    Well, the more of it gets installed the cheaper it gets…
    In India solar power is now much cheaper than coal power.
    In Germany and the UK renewable power schemes are being built entirely without subsidy.
    It is cheap enough now.
    And Lomborg ignores the fact that people who install their own power get it much cheaper (for free).
    which is why so many firms, like Walmart or IKEA or Jaguar in the UK install their own solar power. (And they are not all grid connected and subsidised either)

    • Oh dear. Griff is like a 19th century religious fundamentalist with his homilies and proverbs.
      The more of it gets installed the more expensive it gets Griff.
      To those who have to pay for it. The consumers.

      • Griff,
        Just for curosity’s sake Just how is Rooftop Solar less expensive or even “FREE” as you indicate?
        A system at my house that would replace my Metered Electricity and be “FREE” (no power purchase from the utility) would cost me $70,000 – $80,000 for Materials and Labor (installation) + permits. (I’ve already looked into it) Just how is an $80,000 investment in materials and labor a cost savings or equal to “FREE” when it will take 35 years to recoup the expence in “FREE” electricity generation?

      • I live in California. The more cheap renewable energy we get, the more I pay for electricity.

      • Griff is exposing his McDonald’s University economics degree again. Solar is actually cheaper than coal in India, who knew? Not the people creating and selling electricity for a living, that’s for sure. Solar provided 12 GWh of electricity in India last year, whereas coal provided 944 GWh. The prior year it was 7.4 and 896 GWh respectively, a growth of 5 versus 48 GWh. This may come to a shock to someone with a McDonald’s U degree, but if solar were more profitable than coal, utility companies would be installing more solar than coal capacity.

      • To Griff, propaganda is truth, so long as it says what he wants to hear.
        That’s why he’s always touting press releases and bragging about how politicians are promising to repeal the law of physics.

      • You could give it away with free installation and it still would be intermittent and unreliable. How would it have worked during the prolonged rains last winter?

    • +Griff Germany would have to be as bad as South Australia to show how well alternative energy works.

        • Sure. If you’re willing to pay big bucks to your suppliers for instant-on instant-off generation, two things happen. Your grid gets more reliable, and your electricity costs go through the roof. Welcome to Germany. Color me unimpressed. People need CHEAP reliable energy. Why is that is so hard to grasp?
          Best to you,

      • “But, as I never tire of telling you, Germany has the world’s most reliable electricity grid.”
        Germany imports electricity from France. South Australia imports electricity from Victoria. If these grids are so reliable why do they have rely on places for power?

      • But as we never tire of telling you, that is only because Germany is hooked into a much larger grid that doesn’t rely on renewable power sources.

      • Willis, as Griff never tires of telling us, it doesn’t matter how much electricity costs in Germany because the people have been trained to no longer use the stuff.

        • A truism: It all depends on what you are used to.
          Smaller homes and apartments, smaller or nonexistent personal autos, small and compact country and, until recently, a homogenized populace. Too bad they will have to pay more in the future to protect themselves against Russia and the Caliphate. Oh, wait! Demographics show they will BECOME the Caliphate.

      • A reliable grid is more about infrastructure design, maintenance and management than it is about the sources of electricity when you are interconnected with several neighboring grid systems.

      • Well a McDonalds education would likely be better than what you can get at California State Schools, and most of the privates as well. Our universities turn out more watermelons than any other sort of produce.

    • Well, the more of it gets installed the cheaper it gets…

      These are no longer fledgling industries where there is a lot of low-hanging fruit available with respect to cost reduction. Without subsidies they can’t compete. Period. Even with subsidies, they compete badly. The market has to be completely distorted, moving into command economy territory, before they are “profitable”. Simply increasing production volume is not going to make it cheaper at this point.

      • But increased production means increased toxic wastes from manufacturing them, and who knows how China will dispose of them.

    • “{Well, the more of it gets installed the cheaper it gets…”
      You’re definitely not paying attention, Griff. Take away the subsidies and no amount of economics at scale will make renewables cheap enough to compete. The only hope mankind has going forward is nuclear, fission now, fusion in the future. The trillions targeted for wasting on renewables and redistribution would be far better spent on fission and fusion research, especially since the ‘green’ movement pushing renewables is only justified by incredibly sloppy science based on unwarranted assumptions and that can be proven false in a multitude of ways. Although it certainly seems that the alarmists reject the scientific method and the power of falsification which is why so many serious errors persist to this day.
      The mental masturbation those on the alarmist side go through to justify their position can only be described as an addiction to insanity.

      • Like most leftists, Griff repeats economic says as if they were magical mantras. In this example he’s heard that increased volume will result in lower costs, so he repeats it over and over again.
        In reality, economies of scale aren’t linear, they are closer to logarithmic. The biggest gains come from the first increases. Later increases result in fewer reductions.

    • In my opinion, Griff is more like a 19th century snake oil salesman – promoting something which, at best, does not treat the problem yet wastes money which could have been put to better use.
      Fundamentalists of the same era believed in what they advised and lived accordingly.
      “Renewable energy” advocates cannot possibly be so stupid as to believe their hype, and their lifestyles reveal their lack of belief.

      • I’m pretty sure he’s paid to come here. Nobody in their right mind would show up here regularly with such idiotic ideas and statements only to have their head handed to them repeatedly, and then come back around a few days later.

        • I’ve said this before….he’s successfully trolling. The object is to divert and take up band width with contradictory and inflammatory statements.

      • Grrr…When I made my comment at 9:11 it was a reply to Leo Smith at 8:29. I wasn’t responding to Griff.

      • And you might look at how Germany reformed it FIT system and replaced it with auctions -which now are producing ‘no-subsidy’ offshore wind tenders.
        And I will repeat once more -Germans use less of that expensive per unit electricity than US households., plus over 1 million households have their own solar and many, many more have shares in renewable cooperative windfarms

      • And rooftop solar is far more costly to install for “FREE” electricity than monthly bill it replaces. Amortized over a 30 year period, bought and paid for rooftop solar costs about $225 per month over 30 years

      • Adding to Bryan A’s comment…
        At the end of the 30 year payoff, the panels are largely just toxic waste to be dealt with and it’s time to replace them. How sustainable is that?

      • Science …
        Love that plot, it debunks all false claims about cost of wind/solar period.
        Please ,Don’t make any nonsense claims about making more of a bad idea makes it cheaper, especially when the 13th century technology requires a back up or a battery which add to the cost.
        These figures don’t lie.

      • Why does Griff’s comment about Germans using less of that expensive electricity sound so much like Sanders proclaiming that the breadlines in the communist east were a sign of how good the bread was?

    • In India solar power is now much cheaper than coal power……for India
      …and coal is cheaper than gas…..for India
      Did you even stop and ask yourself why?

      • Chinese manufacture of any goods at all does not meet basic environmental standards. Not phones, not ipads, not TVs, not furniture… nothing of what the US imports in vast quatities and I am very sure nearly all of you have in your homes.
        please join in campaigning against the pollution generated in building those items…

      • Absolutely, Don’t buy any item stamped “Made In China” stick with things that are “Made In America”

      • Whatever the cost is, it probably can’t be accomplished fast enough to keep everyone supplied with replacements by the time they no longer function, so the public expenditure and environmental damage will compound itself.

      • First little Griff tells us about how cheap solar is, then he says that it doesn’t matter that China doesn’t follow the standards of the rest of the world, but that doesn’t matter because the rest of the world will.
        He’s not smart enough to realize that he’s contradicting himself again.

      • “. . . stick with things that are “Made In America”
        That includes the guy cutting your grass and providing other labor around your house.

      Mar 14, 2017
      “For us it’s a very good business, but for the German people it’s very bad,” Dürrmeier says of the government policy that has turned intermittent sunshine into an all but sure thing for his wallet. Germany’s solar-subsidy scheme pays him a set price for every kilowatt-hour of electricity he produces with his solar panels and sells into the grid. It guarantees him that price, which when he started was several times the prevailing electricity rate, for 20 years.”.
      January 20, 2017
      Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), the development bank owned by the German government, today announced that it will restart subsidy payments for PV + storage applications within Germany.”.
      March 31, 2017
      Over the winter, Germany’s weather dependent power system reached the very brink of collapse, as breezes became zephyrs and the sun spent the day-time hiding behind clouds and snow flurries.
      [] Germany’s power grid almost collapsed in January due to poor performance from wind turbines and solar panels, according to data from a major trade union.
      [] The country’s power grid was strained to the absolute limit and could have gone offline entirely, triggering a national blackout, if just one power plant had gone offline, according to Vassiliadis [head of the union which represents power plants].
      “The renewables could not even offer five percent [of total power demand.] Coal, gas and nuclear power kept the country almost in the first place under the electric current,” Vassiliadis said.
      Germany was forced to recommission coal power plants to simply keep the lights on.
      (Updated June 2017)
      [] the term “subsidy” is difficult to define. What matters in practice is the overall impact of all subsidies and taxes on the absolute level of prices and costs, and the resultant impact on the competitiveness of different fuels or technology. [] A feed-in tariff (FIT) obliges energy retailers to buy any electricity produced from specified (e.g. renewable) sources at a fixed price, usually over a fixed period of time (e.g. 20 years in Germany). [] In Germany for instance, the grid operators buy the renewable kWh at the specified FIT rate and then sell them on the open market. The difference between the sales proceeds and the FIT they have paid to various suppliers is compensated by the end consumer through an ‘EEG-surcharge’ being applied to bills. [] In Germany, the cost of subsidies for solar power is expected to reach €46 billion by 2030. [] In Germany the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) of 2000, revised in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2012 and 2014, governs subsidies. Germany applies a mixture of incentives for renewables, but principally relies on wholesale FITs, which are guaranteed for up to 20 years.
      Costs of the EEG are distributed among consumers via the EEG Surcharge. Under its latest iteration (EEG 2014), the EEG stipulates that grid connection of renewables has priority, but that the operator of the renewable plant has to bear the related costs.
      The rapid expansion in supply of electricity from renewables has led to a significant rise in costs.
      [] Germany in 2010 legislated for a tax of €145 per gram of uranium or plutonium fuel for six years, yielding €2.3 billion per year (about 1.6 c/kWh), a levy on nuclear generators of €300 million per year in 2011 and 2012, and €200 million 2013-16, to subsidise renewables []
      So, where does the “no subsidies” idea come from? Here, perhaps …
      April 16, 2017
      No Subsidies Needed in Germany’s Latest North Sea Wind Deal”.
      But it might be a good idea to read the details:
      German consumers will soon begin receiving subsidy-free electricity from two large wind farms in the North Sea, after Danish wind giant Dong Energy won a government tender to build about 700 MW of capacity at the OWP West and Borkum Riffgrund West 2 projects. [] Dong also expects wholesale electricity rates to increase from their current threshold of $40/MWh ($0.04/kWh).
      “The biggest uncertainty may be future electricity prices,” the Times warns. “Dong, without disclosing precise figures, says it expects power prices to rise in Europe, as nuclear and coal-fired power plants are retired, increasing demand for new sources.
      IOW, renewables are ‘competitive’ if prices are forced up by removing the competition from the market! The article ends: “Analysts, though, say that fast-growing renewable energy sources like wind and solar may bring electricity prices down.”. My question is: In which country will these reduced prices be enjoyed – Germany or Cloud-Cuckoo land?

      • A splendid conflation… note that the solar farms and windfarms don’t get subsidies like Herr Dürrmeier any more.
        If Dong expects rates to rise, it is not the subsidy free wind farm causing that rise.
        The biggest driver of European electricity rises is rises in natural gas prices.

      • While European Gas prices do fluctuate (what comodity doesn’t) it shre has been a meteoric rise from 59p per thern in 2014 to 56p per therm in 2017

      • Wasn’t this the theory behind Obama’s loaning millions of taxpayer dollars to solar companies? Solyndra and others were planned to be profitable because Obama’s regulations would destroy fossil fuel industries. Unfortunately for them, the pesky natural gas industry refused to cooperate and the whole solar industry Obama hyped so strongly wound up in a very expensive trash bin. How many more times will we see Governments use this lame approach betting against innovation?

    • “In India solar power is now much cheaper than coal power.”
      There’s not a 1-to-1 equivalence even if the price per kw is the same without subsidies. Coal kws have more value overall because they are dispatchable. Non-dispatchable kws (like solar and wind) burden and destabilize the system once they exceed a certain threshold.

        • Griff–that is special pleading. Germany is part of a northern European grid, which include France with nuclear, Poland with coal, and so forth. Any “reliability’ is not due to the actions of Germany and Denmark alone.

      • Without the costly backup provided by standby dispatchable sources (like coal plants) they most certainly do destabilize the grid. You and that article are simply ignoring those costs, which the article accurately describes as – “It’s about the mind-set,”

      • Griff has been told that many, many times.
        Propaganda is more important than reality to him.
        I’ve lost track of the number of times he’s offered a politician making a speech as proof that something is possible.

      • Yes Germany is part of a large grid…
        But note Germany exports more to France than France to Germany.
        It is not the fossil fuel contributing…
        (I don’t believe Poland exports power to Germany or the ‘day ahead’ European electricity market – have to check)

      • “Griff has been told that many, many times.
        Propaganda is more important than reality to him.”

        Actually, his wallet is more important than reality to him.
        You don’t imagine he would continue to tell the same old thoroughly debunked lies over and over again despite making himself look an absolute crackpot unless he was benefitting from it, you?
        Some people will do anything for money, including attempting to destroy the professional reputation of scientists who do not subscribe to the ‘consensus’.

    • Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just not able to understand what “cost” really means?
      And where in the UK is there no subsidy? The price is artificially high because of various subsidies and imposed costs. You don’t need to get a cash subsidy of you can get a higher price that covers your higher costs.
      And how is something free if you have to pay to install it and connect it? I do;t have to do that with my electricity you know, here in the UK – do you?
      Just either willful lies or basic ignorance.

      • “I’m telling you that now we are seeing no subsidy schemes.”
        But unfortunately for you, based on prior experience of your out-and-out mendacity, nobody believes a single thing you post.

    • In India:
      243 GW of coal-fired generation capacity were under development in India in mid-2016, with an additional 178 GW proposed
      100 GW of Solar are planned by 2022. (However Coal runs at capacity close to 90% and solar only runs when the sun is up,) In practicle terms they are installing a minimum six times more coal power than solar.
      Using solar as a secondary source of power actually makes sense. You would not want to increase the percentage of solar beyond the amount required to balance the lesser power demand at night. Solar would allow your Coal plants to run more efficiently. They would not need to throttle down as much during the evenings since you would be using some solar during the day. And you would still need auxiliary generators to provide peak power for the evenings.
      What does not make since is thinking that because solar is at parity or 10% cheaper that it is a cheaper 24×7 solution. When you factor in the cost of power storage the price doubles compared to Coal.

    • Griff, tell that to the people of Ontario where they export “cheap” wind power to the state of New York at 2 cents per kwh while they pay the turbine operators a mandatory 18 cents per kwh. The citizenry is so up in arms with the ballooning cost of renewable power that the premier has had to start dishing out electricity rebates (paid for in taxes by the same people who receive them).
      Great stuff, that “free” wind, isn’t it?

    • We’ll loose money on every installation we put up…….but we’ll make it up with volume!

    • Time after time, Griff shows up and makes idiotic points with total conviction. After a bit of back and forth, somebody delivers an absolute killer blow! painful to watch. Griff goes down! He disappears from the thread having utterly failed to score! I think he’s about 0 for 2000. He has to be paid to come here! At some point in the future he will pop up again, like the little masochist gophers at the carnival shooting range!

    • Grrrif says,

      And Lomborg ignores the fact that people who install their own power get it much cheaper (for free)

      Reminded me of a story by Patrick F. McManus I read some years ago. He was an outdoor humorist.
      If I remember correctly, the gist of it was that one of his city friends wanted to go deer hunting to get some “free meat”.
      After he paid x amount for the permit and x times x to buy the gun and x to buy …. he asked, “When do I get my free meat?”
      (Again, if I remember correctly, he missed the shot.)

      • When I lived in Oregon, there was a story of a guy wanting the free heat of a wood stove. Same stuff, but with an added hospital bill for chopping his foot.

    • Griff, solar power is much more expensive and it does nor work.In Germany electricity is 3 times more expensive than in most other countries due solar and wind power schemes.

      • Due to the way they introduced it/started their subsidies.
        They’ve reformed that programme – check it out.
        and I say again: Germans use less electricity and also are highly likely to have their own solar and/or a share in a community renewable scheme. that cuts the bill/raises their income

    • Then why do we need a 100 billion fund to compensate developing countries for using renewables instead of fossil fuels? If these renewables are cheaper anyway? Some one is being very dishonest and someone is making a lot of money for doing nothng. Could it be you Griff?

    • “In India solar power is now much cheaper than coal power.”
      [snort – gasp]
      The laws of physics are somehow different in India? Why are they building massive coal generation capacity then, if Indians have perfected the magic pudding?
      New homes on India have mandated solar, they claim. But looking out from a rooftop in Mumbai, Pune or Delhi you see solar water heating. Not PV. The Aussies worked out in 1950 that solar hot water works.

    • Just how long is your nose, already, Griff?
      UK renewable schemes without subsidy?
      Don’t make me laugh.

    • I would believe that Walmart installations were subsidized just like they were in schools and universities across the country. In Arizona they are really expensive parking shades people fight over to get to park under. Meanwhile, the high temperatures inhibit their ability to produce electricity. I suspect that in 7 or 8 years they will no longer produce enough energy to power the fluorescent lights used to light up the area at night. But customers in Arizona will insist they leave them up because it lowers the startup demand on their car air conditioners during the summer.

    • Solar is cheaper in India than coal? That must be why India plans to increase coal consumption. Germany is forced to increase coal consuption, too, and has scaled back its wind energy because wind and solar can’t provide base power. Japan is also building more coal plants. And of course in Germany where the cost of electricity is 4 times what it is in the US because of government distortion of the energy markets I don’t doubt that wind plants can be run without subsidies, but that’s not because wind energy has gotten any cheaper but because consumers are getting screwed.

  5. That fact that Lomborg says Trump is not showing leadership is one of those things that makes me respect him less. Trump’s statement at G20 was a clear indication of leadership on the issue, and Jerry Brown has never shown anything approaching leadership, he merely panders to the “cause du-jour.”

      • He’s an economist, and he’s been saying that the cost of remediation is orders of magnitude less than the cost of elimination for decades.
        His point has always been that even if the worst case scenario does happen, the cost of adapting to the changes is much cheaper than the cost of eliminating CO2 emissions.

        • And it will be done with “cheaper” dollars from a more wealthy population. Also effectuated by now-unimaginable technologies.

      • @Fair – I disagree. Consumers have been promised that new technologies for solar power to make them cheaper and more efficient were just around the corner since the 70’s. Most of us quit waiting for it years back. There is no magic wand. Turbines have proven themselves to be a waste of money, also.

      • Unfortunately, yes. That’s one of the more common themes in human history. Our story is often tragic.

  6. Expensive, burdensome, ineffective, sounds good in a speech, satisfies donors, kicks back money to said donors. That is Governor Brown’s checklist for policy proposals.

  7. Asking scientificaly illiterate California to “develop green technologies” after they deemed vaping to be a “dangerous alternative to cigarette smoking” is like asking Bill Nye to explain global warming. Besides, green alternatives to fossil fuels that are cheap and around the corner
    eliminates any reason for carbonphobic types to do anything other than sit on their asses and wait for the new technolgies to take over – for purely economic reasons. Noone can seriously contend that electric cars are not the future, the relatively near future. They are intrinsically superior in every way except for battery costs and recharge times, both of which are on the verge of disappearing.
    And power generation is clealy moving towards relatively small , factory built and cheap to build and to operate nuclear reactors that are inherently safe – just recently Holtec has been in contact with both Canadian and Ukrainian utilities and nuclear powers suppliers about approving and constructing their SMR reactors, and around the world development of several versions of Thorium/uranium molten salt reactors is moving foward – by at least a half dozen companies and
    two govts (China, India). But, of course, global warmists are never going to become folk heroes and planet saviors following this practical and logical approach. So they ignore the obvious future and propose 18th century technology solutions -wind and solar, which couldn’t be more inappropriate in today’s technological world. What’s next – horse-drawn buggy commutes ?

    • And do not forget that limitless, clean energy from fusion power is less than 10 years away!

    • “Noone can seriously contend that electric cars are not the future, the relatively near future. They are intrinsically superior in every way except for battery costs and recharge times, both of which are on the verge of disappearing.”
      Actually, any reasonable, informed person will question whether EVs are the future due to the reasons you mentioned, plus their range.
      Can you share with me what new developments have happened in battery technology to make the claim that all of the above limitations are on the verge of disappearing … without us first smoking a bowl of hopium together?

      • Wake me up when you can charge a battery in 5 minutes at the next main intersection and your wheels can go 350 miles on a charge with the A/C on. Also wake me up when the grid has been massively modified to handle all this charging, and the road tax and licence fees start to be applied to EVs.

    • Vaping was significantly decreasing the amount of money the state was getting from cigarette taxes. It had to be eliminated.

    • As soon as the problems with battery life, battery cost, battery charging time and driving range are solved, then the world will fall in love with electric cars.
      Wake me when most of the pre-conditions have been met, then will see if your belief pans out.

      • We’ll need another scientist like Tesla was. Of course we all know what those in power did to him, so…

  8. To me it just shows that what the religion is after has nothing to do with climate. If depopulation and world governance is what it is about, and that is what it seems to be, then I can understand Brown’s posturing as him being a great choice for the leader of the new world order. There really is nothing to show me that Californians mean anything at all in the way their government is operating. It does appear to be a great “resume” for governing a 3 tier world caste system with the wealthy elite at the top, and a vastly reduced world population at the bottom, there only for supporting those above them.

    • If they succeed in driving California’s standard of living down to the level of Mexico then they’ll save a lot of money on border controls, wall or no wall.

      • California’s border with Mexico is a lot shorter than it’s border with the rest of the states.

      • I wouldn’t worry, Mark. When they destroy the economy for good, its going to be hard for people fleeing DPR Cal to flee to an English-speaking state.

        • That is why smart individuals (productive people) and unsubsidized industry are getting early starts, Andrew.

  9. If Brown were to promote Increased natural gas energy efficiency he could be doing 3 good environmental things and 1 good economy thing.
    By increasing the efficiency of the large natural gas appliances means that the heat energy in the combusted exhaust gets recovered and utilized, instead of being blown into the atmosphere as hot exhaust.
    For every 1 million Btu’s of heat energy that is recovered from the exhaust and is utilized, 117 lbs of CO2 will not be put into the atmosphere.
    California’s large commercial buildings and industry and the power plants consumed 1.9 Trillion cu.ft of natural gas last year, venting into the atmosphere exhaust between 250F and 1,500F.
    In every 1 million Btu’s of combusted natural gas are 5 gallons of recoverable distilled water. Today that water is being vented into the atmosphere and coming down as rain in the Mid West and East Coast. California could really use that water.
    Then there all the jobs that would be created installing these Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery Systems across the state.
    Reduced global warming and Reduced Co2 emissions and Water conservation and then the Jobs. Just by increasing natural gas energy efficiency. Seems pretty simple. Maybe to simple for the State to grasp?

    • If it makes sense to do so, it is already been done.
      Where it doesn’t make sense to do so, it’s just another unneeded expense for no benefit.

      • Gee, MarkW, are you implying that people actually can think for themselves and make rational economic decisions? If so, amazing. Now we should tell that to the green socialists in charge of CA.

  10. California is embracing huge costs while doing virtually nothing for the environment. While the approach might look good, it doesn’t help much. If, instead, California were to develop green technologies so cheap they could actually outcompete fossil fuels, the whole world would switch to them.

    Well obviously! Why didn’t we think of that before? And all we have to do to make green technology cheap is subsidize it using revenue obtained by taxing fossil fuels! How simple and easy. Thank you Governor Brown — what leadership!
    Next, if we believe Elon Musk’s assertion that AI robots will soon be able to do any job better than humans is just assign them the task of developing new actually-cheaper-without-subsidies green technologies that humans haven’t been able to figure out. Oh, and make them pay our taxes too.
    My definition of a truly smarter AI robot is one that wouldn’t vote for Jerry Brown. At least that goal is probably achievable.

    • Don’t look past the fact that the subsidies that are be paid currently to so-called “sustainable energy producers” are being paid using money from taxes and/or fees that are being collected either directly or indirectly from economically productive enterprises whose operations are being powered mostly by energy from fossil fuels.

  11. And to think America used to be admired by most of the world for its light touch government, its opportunities, its freedom, its positive outlook, its classless foundation, and its courage. Trump seems to be trying to rekindle some of that but bam pots like Brown don’t seem to understand what made America great and will undermine the rest of the country “to achieve slightly more than nothing”.
    But then I guess even the nut jobs get the same opportunity to rise to the top in America as everyone else. Mind you, from what I gather most Californians are a bit nutty. Members of this illustrious, company excepted of course.
    However, keep going guys, the end is nigh, the wheels are beginning to fall off the bandwagon in the US and the EU. And, of course, the climate is on our side.

  12. The words “green technologies” and “cheap” do not belong in the same sentence. Or even the same universe.

  13. IMHO the most important issue to take note of is that the LA Times even printed this editorial. I subscribe to the LAT (know the enemy) and was flabbergasted that they would even deem to print such blasphemy.

  14. “…California were to develop green technologies so cheap they could actually outcompete fossil fuels…”
    Sadly, that’s not the point of climate pushers. They do not want competitive green energy. They do not want cheap energy. They want expensive energy that will force the world into a mold of their own design, where the vast majority will be peasants, and they will lead austere, “sustainable” lives producing the goods and services required by the Rulers and the aristocratic elite who keep them in power.

  15. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    NO SH*T Sherlock.
    1. It rained in CA in absolute contradiction of Jerry and the expert climate nut bags “Permanet Drought” assurances.
    2. Bjorn needs to rethink his PC derived CO2-AGW belief system. He knows it’s BS. Cut him until he jumps off the PC fence.

  16. If conversations I’ve had around town (San Luis Obispo county, CA) the past few months are any indication, Brown won’t be returning to office and neither will most of the State legislature. It seems the Progressives somehow sense this and they’re doing as much damage as possible before they get the boot.
    It’s one thing to make ineffectual campaign promises and maybe get a few token environmental regulations passed that mostly don’t have much impact on John & Jane S. Public, but he really screwed the pooch with his $0.14/gallon gas tax. No one has anything good to say about Brown these days. I expect to see a referendum on that very soon.
    It doesn’t take genius to see California has the highest fuel taxes in the country and the worst roads. The schools are horrible and there are local Sheriffs making upwards of $300,000/year in retirement. The CalPERS government employee pension plan has been abused beyond all recognition, and sales taxes are pretty much 10% everywhere.
    “Business as usual” isn’t going to work in CA anymore, and folks know it. Now Brown wants to continue his ridiculous “cap and trade” tax to prevent “climate change” while he’s shutting down the last of the state’s nuclear power plants. It’s just too crazy or words.
    I read about all these polls from the LA Times, San Francisco Chron and the Sacto Bee showing the Progressives have all sorts of public support, but it always reminds me of an old Bloom County cartoon from Brown’s first reign. Steve Dallas and Lola are fishing when Steve asks here why he never sees anyone that supports them? “Who are these people!” he says.
    The next panel is a woman going through survey questions with Bill the Cat. She asks:
    “Leprechauns are –
    a) Not real.
    b) Hiding in my pants.”
    While Bill (wearing a rubber kitchen glove on his head and a pair of jockey shorts) holds open the waist band of his shorts and gestures frantically at his crotch…

  17. As a play for revenue, it was handled expertly. It’s their job to do and pseudo-science is just a prop. Next up we have the soda tax for Medicaid funding followed by the candy tax for whatever else needs patching in the budget list.

    • By 2040, those “other renewables” will double or even triple!!! Just you watch. By 2040, wind and solar will be up to 3-5%… Right up there with EV’s… /Sarc

    • Even this meagre amount is probably dubious. Is this nameplate supply or actual? And I doubt it doesn’t show how poorly the supply matches the demand> Atrocious for wind and solar!

      • Pretty slick double negative there, eh? Not sure what exactly I didn’t doubt not happening are you?

    • That’s deceptive because it is all global energy use, showing heat and transport as well as electricity.
      do it again for electricity only and then show the electricity graph for Spain, UK and Germany.
      Different picture.

      • Energy use is exactly that, energy used globally. Spinning it to your preferred iteration is the actual deception. There is zero chance that wind and solar can replace the demanded energy globally. You could try to cover the entire planet with solar panels and wind farms. You can bet that anthropogenic forcing would indeed change the climate.
        I do find it interesting that you cannot make wind and solar energy producing products exclusively with wind and solar energy. Think about that for a minute……

        • “…I do find it interesting that you cannot make wind and solar energy producing products exclusively with wind and solar energy. Think about that for a minute……” But, but, but they told me it was sustainable!

  18. Progressive politics are making California the laughing stock of America. They have captured the majority just by fooling Los Angeles and San Fransisco into believing the Marxist plan. It won’t end when Brown leaves as it’s endemic.

  19. Griff really loves it when poor folk pay for rich people’s things, solar, electric vehicles.

    • In the UK government also pays for poor people to have the same things as the rich.
      On council estates – which is I guess public housing to US folk – you can tell the houses still council owned, not sold off to occupiers, because they are the ones with the solar panels…

      • In the UK they put poor people in tower blocks with zero solar panels, but plenty of inflammable insulating panels: Grenfell Towers.
        John Doran.

      • “In the UK government also pays for poor people to have the same things as the rich.”
        More outright lies.
        Ever heard of food banks**, Griff?
        The scandal of Britain’s fuel poverty deaths
        Thousands of people die each winter in the UK as a result of being unable to heat their homes. Are we doing enough to help them?
        The social cost of fuel poverty is massive, and growing. In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors. And not being able to heat your home also takes a huge toll on health in general: those in fuel poverty have higher incidences of asthma, bronchitis, heart and lung disease, kidney disease and mental health problems.
        Admittedly from 2013, but things have not improved since, in fact the government has cut the cold weather payments to the sick and elderly, and the percentage of energy bills due to “Green” surcharges has increased substantially.
        But hey, that’s OK by Griff and his pretentious, patronising, odious, misanthropic ilk, they’ve got a planet to save, so a few tens of thousands of weak, the poor, the sick and the elderly dying of a combination of illness, malnutrition and cold doesn’t matter a flying dog’s gonad to the likes of him.
        Especially when he’s getting paid for it, of course…
        ** “Since, I think 2010, the number of people relying on food banks has gone up from the tens of thousands to the millions.”
        BBC Question Time audience member, 27 April 2017

      • Yes catweazle, we have a terrible govt.
        But I’m pointing out that public housing can and does provide for solar panels and low cost renewable energy for the poorer people in UK society: the argument I am replying to being (I summarise) ‘only rich people can have solar and the poor can’t afford it’. Which is not the case.

  20. On a tragic-comedy side note, the wind was blowing too hard for wind turbines two days ago in central Kansas.
    Now we’ve all heard the wind industry paid for myth that the payout on a windfarm is 8 months, but anyone can simply look at an individual wind farm and calculate its EPBT. For this windfarm, which cost $450,000,000 to build, has a nameplate capacity of 249 MW and efficiency of around 29%, with a regional electricity cost of $0.12/kWh, the payback time is 5.9 years. That doesn’t even consider maintenance costs, including two fires already costing $2,000,000 (2.6 years worth of electricity for a single turbine). No wonder huge wind energy subsidies continue.

  21. ossqss: There must be some confusion on the definition of renewables. BP’s world energy report shows renewables (wind, solar and biomass) at 2.4%. You have a massive 13.8%. Can somebody clear this one up?

  22. Passing a law that requires a reduction of GHG emissions by 40 percent in 2030 in California is a patently insane effort by California to attempt to modify the effects of the Solar System on California’s long-term climate. All relevant scientific information was ignored, which would indicate this action was taken by legislators who are either scientifically illiterate or hope to reap financial benefits from solar panel and windmill interests or both. One could argue that all those legislators who voted for the law should be removed from office for malfeasance. They should be judged guilty of acting in a way that is demonstrably harmful to the public and a violation of the public trust.

  23. You can run (in California) but you can’t hide. And even if you do make it across the border voting with your feet, they will still find you the next time they control the White House with all the puppet strings re-attached and policies copied into federal law. It’s only a matter of time. Live it up now, but row well and live 41.

  24. From the LATimes article:
    “Even if California succeeds in making the new cuts and sticks to them for the rest of the century, according to calculations using a standard model of the U.N. Climate Panel, they will amount to a difference of .008 degrees Fahrenheit

    • “they will amount to a difference of .008 degrees Fahrenheit“
      Can it get any more ridiculous?! California wants to turn their whole economy upside down in an effort to reduce global temps by 0.008F, and ALL their efforts will be negated by China and India building a few more coal-fired power plants. So what’s the point Governor Brown?

  25. So when does California start writing checks to the Green Climate Fund, also part of the Paris Accord?

  26. The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect caused by gases with LWIR absorption bands but such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system including the Earth. The AGW conjecture is science fiction. Hence the action that the state of California is taking will have no effect on climate.

    • Are you taking into account the latest RSS figures for the upper atmosphere which show the same warming as surface temps?

      • Griff
        Yes you’re right – the RSS “satellite” data has indeed been changed to simply mirror the surface temperature datasets.
        It’s also amazingly economical – satellite data in which you don’t even need a satellite.

    • Perhaps he could pass legislation to end the California Pandemic of Mexican Restaurants and Taquerias. They are certainly a vast source of human flatus

  27. This argument:

    At the moment, California’s greenhouse gas emissions account for less than 1% of global emissions

    Even if California succeeds in making the new cuts and sticks to them for the rest of the century, according to calculations using a standard model of the U.N. Climate Panel, they will amount to a difference of .008 degrees Fahrenheit (.0044 degrees Celsius)

    Is by all due respect not a very good one for doing nothing.
    Imagine just for a second that we had a very dangerous problem that definitely should be dealt with by all countries.
    Using this argument that “If X cut all emissions it won’t matter at all because they are so small compared to the rest of the world”.
    Since X can be replaced by any sufficient small region in the world, it means that nothing should be done anywhere.
    China can use the same argument by simply analyzing each province separately. “Since Yunnan only constitutes a minuscule part of the world’s emissions it is meaningless to do anything at all there. The same goes for all provinces in China as well as all states in the US and EU and everywhere.

  28. This argument:

    At the moment, California’s greenhouse gas emissions account for less than 1% of global emissions

    Even if California succeeds in making the new cuts and sticks to them for the rest of the century, according to calculations using a standard model of the U.N. Climate Panel, they will amount to a difference of .008 degrees Fahrenheit (.0044 degrees Celsius)

    Is by all due respect not a very good one.
    Imagine just for a second that we had a very dangerous problem that definitely should be dealt with by all countries.
    Using this argument that “If X cut all emissions it won’t matter at all because they are so small compared to the rest of the world”.
    Since X can be replaced by any sufficient small region in the world it means that nothing should be done anywhere.
    China can use the same argument by simply analyzing each province separately. “Since Yunnan only constitutes a minuscule part of the world’s emissions it is meaningless to do anything at all there. The same goes for all provinces in China as well as all states in the US and EU and everywhere.

  29. Judging by the mask of rage permanently fixed on governor Brown’s face I would say he has serious psychological issues of rage and psychopathy. Folks like him brainwashed into the “climate to kill us all” cult-meme probably find it impossible to look at the sun, the sky, clouds or the sea without seeing a mortal enemy busy scheming against them. They become permanently enraged by the simple existence of the natural world. Thus their thrashing rage response to the simple mention of the word “natural” in any discussion of climate change. A whole generation afflicted by this dangerous psychopathic neurosis is a threat to our future way beyond anything the climate itself could present.

  30. Clearly “Griff” is paid, and benefits from the green blob. Most people have to work, and I mean real work.

  31. Are we really to believe that renewables don’t make electricity more expensive?
    I just visited Australia on business. I saw this letter in the Australian (a newspaper) on Monday July 17, 2017:
    “Life in a cold climate.
    Mornings have been bitterly cold lately. Intrigued by her silence, I checked on my wife on Saturday to see if she was alright. I found her sitting in her office, her head covered to the eyebrows by the hood of a thick jumper. I immediately felt ashamed, sad and angry.
    With the price of electricity going through the roof, little essentials that were making our lives comfortable in our old age have been turned off, starting with the heater.
    What’s happening? Instead of providing us with cheap and reliable energy, governments are presiding over the sale of our gas to nations that provide their people with cheap and reliable electricity.
    We now turn off all lights, my wife spends her evenings reading under a heavy blanket and I watch the Tour de France in the dark, rugged up in an old sleeping bag. As I ponder on our predicament, I recall that in the 1970’s when I migrated here, all I could hear was that I had arrived in the lucky country. But we don’t say that anymore. Bitterness has replaced happiness, shame has replaced pride, sadness has replaced joy. My wife is cold. I am cold.”

    Jean-Pierre Zajac, Uhima Beach, NSW.

  32. Griff,
    Many of the respondents on this website are highly experienced professional’s in the energy field and if you are serious about opening a sincere discussion you would do well to take note and be a little more circumspect. Lose your knee-jerk regurgitation of vested interest propaganda rubbish, it impresses nobody.
    If you don’t change your behaviour you just confirm to all here that you are simply a vacuous mouthpiece with questionable tenets.

    • Take it from one of those highly experienced professionals, Mike: Griffie knows less than nothing about electric power systems and constantly regurgitates misinformation. If Griffie says it, you know it is wrong.

    • And they seem not to be taking any notice whatever of new information which contradicts their entrenched opinions.
      I notice you and they don’t trouble for the most part to put up opposing evidence, just post stuff like the above.

  33. Meanwhile California’s homeless population is exploding. Places in Oakland have become seemingly permanent encampments for the homeless. Block upon block of tents and mounds of garbage. Go to any major city in the state you’ll find the same. The problem extends to everywhere and it is endemic.
    It used to be alcoholics, drug users and the mentally ill. They’ve been joined by healthy 20-30 year olds who have found that living on the street is more doable than having a home.
    I’ve been here all my life. This is getting bad and the state continues to squeeze dollars out of whoever they can.
    It is untenable. I have a prediction of my own. This state is headed for a major social and financial meltdown.

  34. I found the article by Bjorn Lomborg interesting in the mathematical sense.
    CA represents less than 1% of global emissions. Let’s assume 1%. (I have found it to be 0.9915%).
    CA plans to cut emissions by 40%.
    That will result in a 0.0044C drop in temperature.
    Cost is $13-22.5 billion per year.
    Cost when factoring in GDP loss is about $50 billion per year.
    So, what if every country did what CA planned to do, namely cut emissions 40% while losing $50 billion of their GDP? Surely, we would stop warming above 2C which is identified as that dangerous tipping point.
    Mathematically, to get there, we just assume CA produced 100% of global emissions. Then, if all countries cut by 40%, that would result in a 0.44C drop in temperature. This is no where near 2C. It is less than a fourth of a way there.
    Cost is 1.3-2.25 trillion PER YEAR for all nations.
    Cost when considering in Global GDP loss is about $5 trillion PER YEAR for a total reduction in temperature of 0.44C. We would still hit the 2C warming tipping point, just a ~25% later despite wasting $5 trillion PER YEAR.
    Problem for CA is not all countries have committed to a 40% reduction. In fact, several countries have committed to only reducing emissions after 2030, when CA would undoubtedly be bankrupt.
    If Trump did not pull out of Paris Accord, the US would undoubtedly be bankrupt too. All the power to you CA for going down this wasteful path…..

  35. Don’t worry ! In my country, NORWAY, the temperature in older Stone Age was above the dangereos temperature level set by UN Climate … In the mountains there were trees and plants which now have collapsed because the present climate is to coold ! The sea level rose to 90 meters higher and the stone age people had no politcians or journalists to save Thea either

Comments are closed.