LA Times: California is Not Doing Enough about Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Can you think of a state which is more dedicated to climate action than California? Yet even California’s effort is not good enough for eco-extremists.

California is a climate leader. But here’s why it needs to move even faster

By SAMMY ROTHSTAFF WRITER MARCH 18, 202010:51 AM

California is aiming to slash planet-warming emissions faster than ever over the next decade — and critics say state officials aren’t acting with nearly enough urgency.

The Golden State reached its 2020 climate change goal four years early, bringing economy-wide emissions back down to 1990 levels without most Californians noticing that anything was different. But the state’s next target, a 40% reduction in climate pollution by 2030, will be a much bigger lift.

recent report from the research firm Energy Innovation found that the state must cut emissions nearly twice as quickly over the coming decade as it did during the last one, and that current policies won’t get the job done. The think tank Next 10 reached a similar conclusion, finding that the state is on track to meet its 2030 target three decades late.

Despite those findings, the California Public Utilities Commission is considering a proposal to cut power-sector emissions by just 25% during the 2020s, a slower pace than during the previous decade. Commission staff also studied a plan that would aim to cut climate pollution in half, before recommending the less aggressive target.

Climate advocates are alarmed, saying the regulatory agency is poised to let the transition to cleaner energy sources keep chugging along at an unacceptably slow pace. Commission staff say their preferred plan will already be plenty difficult, requiring clean energy infrastructure to replace fossil fuels at an unprecedented speed and scale.

Read more: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-03-18/california-climate-change-move-faster

The reason renewable energy is “chugging along at an unacceptably slow pace” is renewables don’t work; unreliables are not and never will be a viable replacement for dispatchable electricity.

But don’t expect the Californian government to accept the evidence of their own serial failures. The Californian government is determined their state will be a climate leader no matter how many of their own people they hurt through lost economic opportunities caused by their expensive renewable energy failures.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “LA Times: California is Not Doing Enough about Climate Change

  1. Lets reduce CO2 emissions at the natural gas power plants.
    Where there is a will there is a way?
    http://www.SidelSystems.com
    Waste is not waste if it has a purpose!
    For every 1 million Btu’s of heat energy from the power plants combusted natural gas exhaust that is recovered and utilized, 117 lbs of CO2 will not be put into the atmosphere.
    California wants to reduce Global Warming?
    California wants to reduce CO2 Emissions?
    How about Conserve Water?
    All this is possible by Increasing Natural Gas Energy Efficiency

    • Sid-
      Obviously you are not well-informed. There is no need to reduce CO2 emissions because they are planet beneficial. Massive amounts of uncontrolled CO2 is expelled from submariner vents and volcanoes which dwarfs any human contribution by vehicles and power generation. 1500 Terrestrial Volcanoes add to this uncontrolled volume as new research has shown that non-erupting volcanoes and associated volcanic features can contribute significantly to the CO2 and methane content of our atmosphere (Ilyinskaya 2018).
      Too many “experts” are married to the ATMOSPHERIC BIAS theory where they measure the EFFECTS rather than the cause. Massive Geological Forces are the CAUSE of ALL ATMOSPHERIC CHANGES.
      So much for the KING KONG SOLAR CAUSE–sorry Willie.
      Natural Gas is already at its optimum efficiency at 90+% and further gains results in NOX due to excess air requirements.

    • Taking energy from the power plant to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and create a product that isn’t needed, is not a bargain, no matter how many times you tell investors it is.

      Theirs a reason why you have to troll sites like this looking for investors. And it isn’t because what you are selling is in demand.

    • Or we could be sane. Don’t close Diablo Canyon, in fact build 12 more of them! Then we’d have 117% of our State’s electrical needs, all in small (12 acres for the plant; about 600 for the entire site), highly reliable, low cost power plants. And that excess can be used to desalinate water, to solve any drought issues.

  2. > “The Golden State reached its 2020 climate change goal four years early, bringing economy-wide emissions back down to 1990 levels without most Californians noticing that anything was different.”

    We noticed. At least some of us did. As a result we pay $1.20 more per gallon for gasoline that has 10% less energy content to suffer roads that would get third world dictators deposed. Half as many roads as we need for the population density being imposed on Californians. Oh, and “emissions?” Make sure you don’t count Los Angeles Department of Water and Power electric generation in three nearby states.

  3. I’m a climate policy refugee from California, so I’ll strongly dispute the claim that California isn’t doing enough. They’re doing far too much, all of it costly, unnecessary and ineffective even if the effect of CO2 emissions was many times larger than the IPCC’s already insanely large presumption.

  4. California is taking credit for the natural gas switch that would have taken place without any CC edicts and the solar and wind actually being used is an optimistic best guesstimate (and small). The truth is no one can ever do enough to stop fossil fuel usage without going to the impossible zero to make the ecomaniacs happy. It’s part of Alinsky’s method …. never let up and double down when they show weakness.

    • The other adjective that somehow gets a dopey pass is ‘sustainable’, when that first generation of ‘renewables’ couldn’t have been constructed without fossil fuels and then those dreamy sources of only electricity can never even provide the means to replace themselves at the end of their own service lives. This is brain-dead wishful territory!

  5. Absolutely California should do more, its absolutely vital to maintain leadership in whatever it is, and keep yourselves busy wasting your own time and resources . Just leave everyone else alone, and dont expect to propped up when it all goes pear shaped as it surely will.

  6. “Can you think of a state which is more dedicated to climate action than California?”
    Possibly Massachusetts. It claims to be the most energy efficient state. https://www.mass.gov/news/massachusetts-named-most-energy-efficient-state-in-nation-0

    And it plans on being carbon net zero by 2050. Not just electric power but all energy! https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/news-archive/685-massachusetts-introduces-legislation-to-achieve-net-zero-by-2050

    The state is so fanatic there is now a movement to stop all forest management because they claim cutting trees contributes to climate change- forgetting that without wood as a raw material for construction, furniture, etc.- there will be a need for more cement, steel, etc.. all with a higher carbon footprint.

    I doubt there are more than a few climate change skeptics in the entire state.

  7. I happen to agree.

    California, nay the entire CONUS is doing nowhere near enough to promote the faery tale.

    Suicide (see the XR guide) is the best option.

  8. It’s simple, triple the price of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel with taxes immediately. California, you have to fight the climate change hoax with every dollar you have. Nothing else is acceptable!

  9. It’s a rather poor time to be crying “The sky is falling!” as regards climate change™, don’t you think?

    I mean, right now, 99% of all MSM articles, newspapers and TV and radio shows are focused on COVID-19 to the exclusion of pretty much all other “news”.

    What the alarmist have to do immediately is to scream that COVID-19 is the direct result of climate change™ . . . watch for it, coming soon to a MSM theater near you!

    Or maybe Greta Thunberg will be first to chime in with her scoop of the story.

  10. I did the math to show the incredible significance of these efforts. If California is able to meet their 2030 reduction goals they will reduce the global temperature by 0.0 degrees! The magnitude of this temperature reduction is incredible and will be felt throughout the world.

    I truly wish California well in this noble pursuit even though it means the growing season for my vegetable garden will be reduced by 0.0 days. It is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

  11. If the LA Times is so worried about CO2 emissions then maybe they should discontinue daily home deliveries of their paper.

  12. Reduction of Carbon oxide and Renewable Energy

    Why are we installing solar and wind power plants when the cost in not justified by the environmental results?
    Installing solar and wind power is a bad decision. Any reduction of carbon dioxide is a total waste of money. The Obama EPA, admitted during testimony to Congress that any reduction of carbon dioxide by the US would be symbolic. Al Gore agreed. Trillions of dollars for a symbol? Even if carbon dioxide were a factor only a global reduction would matter. All of the US carbon dioxide is just a drop in the global bucket. China alone would overwhelm our reduction and their agreement in the Paris Accord is no reduction until 2030.
    The reduction of global temperatures? The United Nations IPCC and the Obama EPA’s computer model titled MAGICC estimates that reducing the US carbon dioxide emissions to zero will prevent a grand total of 0.018 degrees centigrade by 2100. This is the symbol that they are talking about. Why so little? This is true because developing countries like India, and China will not depress their economy with useless and expensive non-solutions. Cheap energy is required to reduce poverty and imposing carbon emission restrictions would encourage poverty by raising the cost of living. The developing countries are not going to make our reduction of carbon dioxide relevant ever. The reality is that the change of temperature is related to natural forces. I can show you data which indicates that the US temperatures were higher in the 1930’s than now when carbon dioxide was 300 parts per million vs 400 parts per million now. Reduction of carbon dioxide would have no measurable effect on the environment even if the US could make a significant global reduction.
    Another reason reduction of manmade emissions would make no difference is as follows: Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were 55.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (junkscience.com); From Sciencing.com there are approximately 3 trillion tons of dioxide in the atmosphere; that means that 55.3 billion tons divided by 3000 billion tons times 100% is man’s contribution. The answer is approximately 1.84%. This is another reason man’s reduction of carbon dioxide would result in no measurable change in climate.
    When the temperature increases the oceans act like a giant soda and expel carbon dioxide. Temperature increases fist then carbon dioxide increases. This has been verified by ice core samples for millions of years.
    The result of carbon dioxide reduction programs: De-industrialization; the higher cost of energy for the poor, the middle class, business and no measurable effect on the environment.

    The increased cost of power in California [Similar results in Europe]:
    From 2010 to2015; Industrial, up 79%; Commercial, up 49%; Residential, up
    34%..
    A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris Climate Summit. Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release). [If they meet their goals.]

    By the way, the International Energy Agency claims that in 2019 United States recorded the largest emissions decline on a country basis, with a fall of 140 million tonnes, or 2.9%. US emissions are now down by almost 1 gigatonne from their peak in 2000. Emissions in the European Union fell by 160 million tonnes, or 5%, in 2019 driven by reductions in the power sector. This is due to our use of natural gas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *