FAIL: California’s expensive global warming law lags in results compared to other states

From Investor’s Business Daily

Governor Brown’s money hole. From 2007 to 2015, California managed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 9%. But the rest of the country cut them by more than 10%.

For more than a decade, California has won high praise from environmentalists for its stringent greenhouse gas restrictions.

But a new report shows that despite the enormous costs of this effort, the state is doing a worse job at cutting CO2 emissions than the rest of the country, while badly hurting its working families.

Back in 2007, California became the first state to cap CO2 emissions when then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB32, which mandated the state cut greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. Schwarzenegger called it “a bold new era of environmental protection.”

Not to be outdone, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill last year requiring the state to cut emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

So, what happened? From 2007 to 2015, California managed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 9%.

But the rest of the country cut them by more than 10%, according to a new report from the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California.

On a per capita basis, 41 states outperformed California on CO2 cuts over those same years.

Full story here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gordon Weir
June 29, 2018 11:06 am

I lay all this fiasco at the feet of their State Governor. To paraphrase Lucy Van Pelt: Of all the Jerry Browns in the world, he’s the Jerry Browniest.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Gordon Weir
June 29, 2018 12:32 pm

If its Brown, flush it down…

June 29, 2018 11:10 am

And their record will be worse after Diablo Canyon shuts down. Another .fact affirming that the AGW cult is not trying to reduce CO2, just shut down Nuclear Power Plants.

Tom Halla
Reply to  UzUrBrain
June 29, 2018 11:18 am

The green blob has been anti-nuclear for a long time. Remember, cheap and abundant power is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.

Reply to  UzUrBrain
June 29, 2018 12:55 pm

And elsewhere on the internet “Receding Lake Mead poses challenges to Hoover Dam’s power output” Loss of that capacity, which can only serve buffer for about a few days upon loss of wind/solar, will make things even worse. But that’s alright as they will import power from elsewhere.

June 29, 2018 11:21 am

They got rid of their coal before 2007, others have done it since then.

These results will get worse as their nuclear fleet retires.

Joel Snider
June 29, 2018 11:40 am

Hmmm. Achieved the opposite result of what they claimed they were shooting for. Who could have seen that one coming?

Leo Smith
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 29, 2018 12:13 pm

Anyone who could actually Do Sums

Of course that excludes the whole membership of the Democrat party and most of the Republicans too.

Reply to  Joel Snider
June 30, 2018 6:24 am

Joel : You don’t think that they actually ACHIEVED exactly what they wanted ??
They are committed to REDUCING the Western Culture and Civilisation to
ASHES after all …………..seems like it’s a step along that way ??!!

June 29, 2018 11:41 am

Pot grow houses are intensive when either legal or illegal so are the 3-families per house living plans.

June 29, 2018 11:43 am

Wealthy interests clearly seem to be running the state, … and running the state into the ground.

June 29, 2018 12:00 pm

When they started to mandate renewable energy, they could not have predicted fracking. Fracking has reduced more CO2 emissions than all renewables combined. So, a million acres in California are off limits to fracking.

The Interior Department entered into a legal settlement in May with the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD). The Bureau of Labor Management had effectively banned fracking on 1 million acres of federal land in California. That area of California will continue to be off-limits to drilling. link

California shoots itself in the foot without even going to the bother of pulling the trigger.

Bryan A
June 29, 2018 12:07 pm

I guess Gov. Brown can’t hold his breath

June 29, 2018 12:28 pm

Brown was on TV last week, 60 Minutes, I think, bragging about his climate and general success. At the same time he said that the wildfires are a result of climate change.
If he is so good at controlling the climate, how could this happen?

Dave in Maine
Reply to  Billy
June 29, 2018 12:53 pm

Why would we celebrate the reduction of this essential gas more of which would help California’s produce industry?

Reply to  Billy
June 29, 2018 2:42 pm

Hmmm… Those big fires were due to downed power lines. That is the official finding. I guess more fake news.

Reply to  Joel
June 30, 2018 2:47 am

Ah, but what downed the power lines? Ay? Ay?

comment image


Reply to  Schitzree
June 30, 2018 6:34 am

( Wind bursts of 67 mph are NOT that unusual one would think !!?)
“In one fire in Mendocino County last fall, investigators said Potter Valley experienced wind speeds up to 67 mph, causing many tree branches to fall, triggering numerous 911 calls reporting fires, according to Cal Fire’s report.
“An arc from a conductor was witnessed along with the start of a vegetation fire,” the report said. A second fire also was “from an overhead conductor.”
The two sparked a third, merged, and burned 10 miles (16 kilometers), the report said.
A responding firefighter said the smoke was blowing sideways and he had to veer around numerous tree branches in the road to get to the fire area.
One homeowner told the firefighter “he saw a tree illuminate when the conductors arced.”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Trevor
June 30, 2018 10:50 am

Maybe it would be satisfactory if they put it in all caps, and included lots of exclamation points. Sheesh.

June 29, 2018 1:07 pm

well Mexicans claim it belongs to them anyway….
…might as well look and act the part

Eric Brownson
June 29, 2018 1:50 pm

I have written to and personally asked a number of California politicians and bureaucrats to tell me how much “climate change” will be averted as the result of AB32. I haven’t received an answer from any of them.

Reply to  Eric Brownson
June 29, 2018 11:02 pm

Try this source for information.

U.S. Senate Committee On Foreign Relations, April 22, 2008

Testimony by Dirk Forrister, IETA

Emissions trading & California (CARB)

Scroll down to: February, 2008

Reply to  Barbara
June 30, 2018 7:38 am

Parliament of Canada
House of Commons

Standing Committee On Environment And Sustainable Development, November 23, 2006

Re Emissions trading: Chicago and Montreal Climate Exchanges, including history.


Reply to  Barbara
June 30, 2018 5:38 pm

Parliament UK
House of Commons

Environmental Audit Committee, 31 March 2009

“The role of carbon markets in preventing dangerous climate change.”

Follow the links for more information on this topic.

“Memorandum Submitted by The Corner House” , 8 Feb 2010, has U.S. information.

Reply to  Barbara
June 30, 2018 2:26 pm


COP 23

List of Participants and Organizations, 17 November 2017, 318 pages.


June 29, 2018 2:50 pm

Bringing working families down a notch or two in the name of social/climate justice is virtuous. Unless, of course, they are in the country illegally, in which case it is heinous.

June 29, 2018 3:31 pm

I am adding this failure to a long list of California failures I’m keeping, such as education, housing, homelessness, high taxes, poverty, etc., as California continues its ever-steepening slide into oblivion. I weep for the California I once knew in the fifties. However, having been under progressive control most of the intervening years, what else should one expect?

Reply to  JON R SALMI
June 30, 2018 6:50 am

JON R SALMI : How did “we” FAIL and allow “THEM” to grab almost
ALL THE GOOD WORDS like “green” and “progressive” when “they” stand
for the exact opposite !
“They” are actually the “ashes” ( or the “water-melons” ) and the “regressives” !!
SAD !!

June 29, 2018 4:05 pm

The linked report is well worth reading, even if you only read the conclusion starting on p87. It should be mandatory reading for everyone working in this field. Here are a couple of extracts from the conclusion:
“Despite its surprisingly ineffective record, the state still intends to push ahead with policies and seems determined to ignore adverse effects on the large proportion of its population already burdened by higher energy, housing and other costs, including minority, less affluent, and less educated residents.”
” the state must stop pretending that massively costly programs with relatively small, if not minute GHG reduction benefits like high speed rail and urban densification are praiseworthy and effective means for addressing climate change while the state exports people, jobs, and the goods and services it consumes to higher-emission locations.”

Reply to  krm
June 29, 2018 4:32 pm

one of the fun points in the report…..Calif needs to build 3 million new homes because of their housing shortage

Nick Stokes
Reply to  krm
June 29, 2018 5:11 pm

“The linked report is well worth reading”

Starting with the introduction:

David Friedman and Jennifer Hernandez are attorneys in the West Coast land use and environment practice group of Holland & Knight LLC, an international law firm. The practice group periodically publishes analyses of California legal and policy data in support of its continued study of the use, and abuse, of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, which allows anyone (even anonymous entities, and entities such as business competitors and labor unions seeking to advance non-environmental objectives) to file a lawsuit alleging inadequate environmental evaluation of any type of project requiring any discretionary approval from any state, regional or local agency. As confirmed by several research studies including those completed by the firm, California courts have upheld approximately half of such CEQA lawsuit challenges in reported appellate court cases decided over the past 15 years, most commonly ordering reversal of project approvals pending further environmental studies. The top target of CEQA lawsuits statewide are housing projects located in existing California communities. More transit projects than roadway projects are sued under CEQA, and the most frequent “industrial” target of CEQA …

IOW it is written by a couple of lawyers who have a practice opposing environmental lawsuits.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 29, 2018 5:34 pm

look up ad hominem

Nick Stokes
Reply to  MarkW
June 29, 2018 5:49 pm

I’m sure they are good lawyers. But they are advocates. Literally.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2018 2:55 am

Next, Nick will play ‘Six degrees from Koch Bros’.

Honestly, I don’t know why we need any of the Climate Faithful posting here. It’s not like we don’t already know what they are going to say.


Rob Dawg
June 29, 2018 4:35 pm

Everyone knows that the coal plants the Los Angeles Dept of Power and Lighting owns in neighboring states don’t count against California’s total. Right?

J Mac
Reply to  Rob Dawg
June 29, 2018 6:08 pm

Right! Their out-of-state CO2 emissions can’t cross state lines, even though the electricity produced does!

Nick Stokes
June 29, 2018 5:23 pm

The main reason why CO2 emissions went down in the US was the conversion of coal burning electricity generation to natural gas. California had very little coal generation to convert.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 30, 2018 4:59 am

So why does no-one advocate banning cars in California if they are so convinced that emissions must be lowered, reduced to zero, or we will all drown or roast?

And if they are so convinced that California reducing or eliminating emissions will make an important contribution to lowering global emissions?

Why did they want Exxon etc to keep on making and selling gasoline, and for everyone in the state to carry on using it and emitting huge amounts of CO2, as long as they paid a tax for their contribution to the destruction of humanity?

Why are none of these dedicated savers of the planet prepared to propose that Chinese emissions must be reduced, imminently and enormously, say from something like 10 billion tons a year to something like 1 billion. By 2030 or 2040. To save the planet?

Surely it is obvious to anyone who looks at what people say is the problem and what they propose the world does about it, that there is a total disconnect.

They simply cannot believe what they say they believe, if they carry on as they do.

What is going on here? Its complete nonsense. Its like those cults who claim to believe that there is no such thing as illness, but get a checkup ever year, and whenever they get a fever, call the doctor and load up with antibiotics.

J Mac
June 29, 2018 5:58 pm

The plants need more CO2. Feed the plants!

June 30, 2018 12:32 am

California has the activist problem in pure and clear form.

If the California greens really believed that it is necessary to take the state to zero emissions, they would be advocating phasing out the cars and the freeways. It is necessary, to get there, and it would also be effective, it really would get a substantial part of the way there.

Ask yourself why they are not advocating this.

If someone or some group claimed to believe that there was a huge threat from a new form of measles, it was catastrophically dangerous, with a high death rate, and there is a well established vaccine for this variant, but refused to advocate funding for a vaccination program, what would you conclude?

Imagine that they published articles all the time about the danger, and then proposed useless actions such as individuals should lay in a stock of breathing masks. Or maybe even urged to do things which will add to the likelihood of transmission, like get together in large social events to discuss the problem.

At some point you would start asking if they were really serious about it.

The time to start asking this about climate is now. Either start advocating the measures which you should believe are necessary and effective, or STF up.

June 30, 2018 6:19 am

the Hon Malcolm Turnbull PM…………………. and his
Minister for the Environment and Energy the Hon.Josh Frydenberg MP.
I feel sure that they WOULD BENEFIT GREATLY from this information
and that it may introduce some form of reality into their vision of ENERGY for the future

Verified by MonsterInsights