Perhaps a little too polemic for some tastes: Source: Office of Planning and Research - Climate Change: Just the Facts
I was disappointed in the website because it mainly restates information available elsewhere. If Calif. net CO2 emissions went to zero, the well-mixed global air concentration would decrease measurably (because measuring technology is so good) but the effect on radiation balance would be difficult to demonstrate. Emphasize instead the things that Calif. has done in the past: environmental regulation -> technological innovation -> economic benefits. Vastly reducing vehicle emissions with catalysts (etc.) is just one example. Calif. seems well placed to innovate on 'smart building' energy conservation, battery technology, and several other areas. Grow the funding (i'll let others decide how) and sell the goodies. Calif. is already innovating on biological C sequestration in rangelands, forest and agriculture. Showing others how may not be as much of a 'profit center', but it scales up really well. Also missing seemed to be discussion of the 'water future' of the state. Short supply in the south, and the Sacramento delta at risk of innundation. These are things that with greater need of state-level response, and with with greater potential for solving at that level. So, I fear that Moonbeam kinda missed the boat here. A shame, because he was right about the technology of satellite communication - that's how he got his name
If you follow Richard Muller, he would suggest that exaggeration about climate change is part of the cause of the skeptic backlash. At the same time, Muller agrees with the 3-point statement, but not sure if he thinks we need urgent change to renewables as the fix. Muller has a new book, ENERGY for Future Presidents, which may contain some nuggets. But my thought is CA might be better off focusing on smog as the key motivator of enviro regs.
Payment for dealing with climate change effects: less water; more wildfires, and; more power costs. Bob Wilson
So you say Brown wants citizens of california to pay for less water, more wild fires, and higher energy costs. Wouldn't it make more sense to move people out of the fire zones and do better water management, build enough power plants so that it doesn't need transmission line losses from other states, and to work with refiners to provide gas to the state. Somehow this just seems like bad politics. California needs to stop the insanity. That would be too easy. California needs to build more wind turbines not tilt at wind mills.
Are these "free?" One of the objections John Christy raises to dealing with climate change is that it is too expensive. But this just ignores the expense of 'climate change' costs. Ultimately it comes down to who's ox is gored. Whether dealing with climate change effects are funded by some carbon-tax scheme or another lottery or just lay it on the individuals, I really don't care. I was addressomg why California might want a "carbon tax" to raise revenue to pay for dealing with some of the effects. Bob Wilson
Yes fires and high energy prices are free, you get them just for living. California is near the top in electricity prices, unemployment, and regulation. It might be best for the government to govern for their more immediate problems. They are likely causing more climate change with some of their policies. One thing that is quite free, is proper regulation of utilities. When climate change legislation causes you to underinvest in power, then you cause more ghg to be generated in other states. The same goes for the mismanagement of oil companies. What is low carbon fuel? It means you make it hard on in state refinteres, so that they will refine more expensive "lower carbon" fuels in state, and the higher czrbon generation happens outside the state. Both of these things increase ghg and prices. Bad governance is not excused by claiming you are doing it to save the planet. I didn't even know Christie raised objections in California. New Jersey even has a worse regulatory environment than california. This is the fault of neither governor, their was bad government in NJ and california before they took office. But they could be governing much better. None of the money is going to mitigate effects of climate change. It is going to expand the california government. The government there is encouraging things that will make it less able to adapt to climate change.
Source? Actually the same question goes back to the "mojo" post claiming it was just a bid for carbon-tax money. An equally valid hypothesis, pay for the increased cost of California government due to GHG. An attempt to keep it from shrinking. California did a pretty good job of bootstrapping the Prius. Thanks California! Bob Wilson
Sure Here is what california says is being done with some of the money. It is to expand government to regulate ghg. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/adminfee/ab32coi_fee_faq.pdf The money is not used to mitigate the effects of climate change. The policies do not really affect climate change, which means they do not reduce the clances of bad effects happening. What do they do? They give money to expand ARB and other government agencies to increase regulation and oversight. They also have the net effect of raising the price of electricity and gasoline, often in ways do nothing to actually decrease global ghg emissions. Climate change will cause more air conditioning to be used, which means more efficient natural gas combinined cycle power plants should replace aging steam power plants, and total power generated increased to reduce electricity imports. This would allow california to reduce chances of black outs do to low rains affecting hydro. It would also decrease the cost of electricity. The law about ghg is in many ways reducing california's ability to react to changes, and increasing the ghg it will produce in the future. That is unless the policies reduce population and employment sufficiently so that more ghg/kwh is spread over fewer kwh. LCFS proposals and forcing oil companies to build money losing hydrogen fueling stations increase the cost of gasoline. It also means under investment in refineries to process Higher carbon oil. Since light sweet crude is getting more and more scarce, califonrian gas prices are more likely to spike, even without an oil shortage. They did this summer. The standards reduce ghg in the state in the short term, but the ghg are simply moved to other parts of the world. Now instead of this they simply could have an oil tax, and use the money to help mitigate some of the effects of climate change. It would be easier to collect and there would actually be a direct tax, instead of simply a cost born from oil companies forced to do things in more expensive ways. Both of these impacts are already helping california have some of the highest unemployment figures of any state. And what is up with the provision to cut down trees. Companies can get ghg credits by cutting down old growth forests and creating tree farms. How does that help the environment?
Thanks! Living in Alabama, I don't follow California politics closely. It does look like these "fees" are just a tax by another name. As for whether or not their projected use addresses global climate change, some look to be somewhat ambigiuous . . . interpretation. Bob Wilson
Its worse than taxes, taxes are more honest. These come with higher regulatory barriers and costs that is causing under investment. Say your goal is to reduce ghg in California, while doing as little harm to the economy as possible. You would likely build efficient combined cycle natural gas plants. These are as low in ghg as you can get, as low in fossil fuel consumption as you can get and would lower energy prices. Instead these regulations cause under investment. The grid is unstable in southern california because it is using much more power than it is producing. The net is a increase in ghg coming from other states and higher costs for people living in the state. California urges power conservation due heat wave - chicagotribune.com It sounds really good in a political speech that you are reducing ghg. Instead of fixing some real problems politicians have their hands out again. California has a low carbon grid, and in a nation wide cap and trade system that was done right, they would not be punishing electrical utilities that want to add more natural gas to the grid. I find the only way to meet their 2020 goal of reduction is to move the ghg emission outside the state. This does nothing to reduce climate change. Even if they did reduce ghg in net as the AB32 law defines, when you consider how small the amount is compared to world wide production, its easy to realize it will do nothing to combat climate change. This is pure politics.
Most of the responses here including mine, say in one way or another how California is 'doing it wrong'. OK. but we are commenting because there is a govt. website that is trying to inform (or at least influence) to some degree. We could probably find about 40 other states where state policy is 'just do the 2nd half of the 20th century again, no reason to change a thing'. It could be argued that even a crawl towards the future is better than sitting down and turning towards the past. That the crawl is financuially inefficient, I'd be inclined to agree
After spending 21K$ (back in 2008) on getting roof top Solar put on my roof, and spending 40K$ on getting one of the first few thousand Plug-In Hybrids in the world, in order to implement my solution to global warming and peak oil, I now find out that we all are probably wrong in our approaches to this life and death problem. Don't laugh, just read this well done slide show on supporting info. on Lenr. A lot has been happening lately that most people have been missing because of the prejudice that was built up back in 1989 when it was difficult to reproduce Pons and F. experiment. LENR
I was mainly commenting about the california government energy policies. Some are good, but a lot are bad. I have no problems with the encouragement of Solar, or the recent conversion to finally add more wind. My problem is the hostility to natural gas, while favoring importing out of state power including coal generation. Cap and trade, and renewable portfolio goals simply can not work when they are set up to allow pollution to be moved out of state, while leaving the state under invested in infrastructure. The people crafting the policies don't seem to understand market dynamics or how the utilities and oil companies will react, or perhaps they personally gain from the poor policies. This adds both costs and ghg. Texas by contrast has a governor that is openly adversarial to climate change, yet the electrical policies and private initiatives in the last decade have added more wind and solar than California. Texas also has some pretty bad politicians, but at least the governor has less power. Total Electricity System Power California got about 4.3% of its in state power from wind and solar in 2011, while texas got 8.5% from wind, and both Iowa and South Dakota produced over 15% of their power from wind. California does produce a significant percentage of electricity from geothermal, biomass, and small hydro to reach 16.6% of their in state electricity from renewables last year. Texas lacks good geothermal or small hydro potential, but can greatly increase solar, wind, and biomass. If you can add gigawatts of wind and sun, and build an IGCC with nt only CCS but fertilizer and sulfuric acid production to make products from polution in a state with Rick Perry as governor then their must be desire to clean up the grid.
