Initial plan released to reduce California emissions by 25% by 2020
An initial plan to accomplish California’s goal of rolling back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 was released by the state’s Air Resources Board on Thursday. The plan, which would result in a 25% reduction from current emissions levels, targets businesses and citizens, alike.
Some of the key proposals include: a statewide cap-and-trade system, an increase in fees on water usage, stricter tailpipe emissions standards, and a mandate that utilities generate 1/3 of their electricity from renewable sources. READ MORE
A California wind renaissance?
The Tehachapi Wind Farm, one of three major wind plants in California, is slated to get a new transmission line that will permit it to grow an additional 4,500 MW.
Anyone who has driven up highway 14 north of Los Angeles is familiar with the thousands of iconic windmills dotting the landscape off to the west side of the road. This wind farm was originally built in the early 1980’s and previously had 5,500 wind turbines. However, due to technology advances, only 3,500 turbines are required to do the same job today. READ MORE
Schwarzenegger’s Global Climate Summit to help prepare for replacement to Kyoto Protocol
California Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Global Climate Summit is this Tuesday and Wednesday. The summit, which is in Beverly Hills, is expected to have 700 participants ranging from governmental leaders, scientists, environmentalists, and industry representatives, from around the US and the globe.
Schwarzenegger has called the conference in order to help create a framework for UN negotiators to use when the meet Poznan, Poland two weeks, in hopes of crafting a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol. READ MORE
Los Angeles and Central Valley smog cause more deaths than car accidents
A simple $90,000 study found that more deaths in two major regions of California are caused by respiratory illness stemming from particulate pollution in the air than from car crashes. The study, conducted at Cal State Fullerton analyzed the data already on record for two of the state’s major air pollution centers– the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air Basin. These two regions– basically the southern half of the agricultural Central Valley and the Los Angeles basin, are notorious for particulate pollution.
The study concluded that by just meeting federal ozone and particulate standards in these two regions, $28 billion would be saved annually from premature deaths, missed work, and other health related costs. READ MORE
CA Props 7 and 10 fail
These two environmental measures faced widespread opposition even from environmental groups. Both props were highly funded by out-of-state billionaires and were intended to decrease air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Opposition rose from surprising places, including the Sierra Club, NRDC, and even small renewable energy companies. READ MORE
Don’t forget geothermal!
One form of renewable energy that has been often ignored by the candidates this election is geothermal. The LATimes gives a good overview of this high potential energy source today. This renewable process has been getting more press lately since the Dept. of the Interior announced last week it was opening 190 million acres of federal land to possible geothermal energy production.
Basically, geothermal energy production taps into underground steam that is naturally superheated in the earth’s crust to power surface turbines that generate electricity. Since heat from the earth’s center is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited, there is enormous potential energy to be derived from this process. There are two main stumbling blocks: READ MORE
New solar plant opens in Bakersfield, CA, test-run for much bigger plant
A new solar energy plant opened near Bakersfield, CA yesterday. While the plant itself is relatively small– it can generate 5 MW of electricity, which is enough for just under 4,000 homes, it is a trial run for a much larger plant slated to begin construction in Central California next year. READ MORE
CA Prop 7 Opposed by Strange Coalition of Energy Co.’s and Environmentalists
Usually when I see a political ad that is warning of impending doom and gloom, with an ominous background soundtrack, I become suspicious and end up voting in favor of whatever the scary voice was warning me against. I thought this would probably be the case with California Prop 7, after I saw one of those dark ads, warning against “another costly energy scheme” (especially when I noticed it was funded by big power companies, such as PG&E and Southern California Edison).
However, soon after seeing this dark ad against Prop 7, another anti-Prop 7 ad aired, except this time it had a representative of the Sierra Club urging voters to oppose Prop 7. No doom and gloom background music, just her group’s position, which is: READ MORE
Berkeley study finds vast economic benefits from climate laws
A UC Berkeley report delivered to the California state legislators last week found that The Global Warming Solutions Act (passed in 2006), which aims to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, could grow the annual Gross State Product by $74 billion and create 89,000 new jobs by 2020. READ MORE
Proposed emissions bill could preempt state laws
Last week the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a draft of their proposed climate change bill. As a lawyer, and a Californian, one particular part caught my attention: the provision dealing with preemption of state laws that regulate emissions. Since California leads the country in many environmental regulations, and has often come into conflict with the federal government over these laws, it is important to understand this issue. READ MORE
Palin opposes cleaner ports fee in California
Politicians opposed to environmental regulations often argue that “business” and the “economy” are put too much at risk to permit legislation. Despite the arguments that cleaning up the environment, in of itself, could become the next big growth industry, many of these politicians continue to have a knee jerk opposition to all environmental laws.
At this point it is almost old hat to mention this, but Sarah Palin is clearly one of those politicians. In a letter sent to Gov. Schwarzenegger last month, in her capacity as Alaska Governor, Palin requested that Schwarzenegger veto the CA bill recently passed that would impose a $60 fee on large cargo containers moving through the ports of LA, Long Beach and Oakland. These three ports handle more than 40% of the entire country’s goods and are a massive source of pollution in the state. In fact, the two ports of LA and Long Beach account for the single biggest source of air pollution in the entire region, also creating a dramatically higher risk of cancer in local populations.
The proposed fees are intended to raise $400 million each year that would be put towards decreasing some of this pollution, through cleaner burning trucks and trains, as well as creating more efficient container off- and on-loading systems.
Palin argues that because Alaska is dependent on California ports for much of its goods (since they are so remotely located), that these fees would disproportionately harm her state. Of course, protecting her state’s economy is a legitimate concern, but given the massive environmental impact being imposed on the environment and communities surrounding the California ports, a relatively modest fee on these huge shipping containers seems exceedingly reasonable.
A bigger concern to be taken from Palin’s position is that she may just be hostile to any environmental regulations that arguably have a “financial” impact. Not only does this ignore the fact that it is oftentimes not a zero-sum game, but it also shows that she may just be reflexively against all environmental regulations. If she is opposed to a reasonable fee imposed on discreet port pollution, it is hard to imagine her ever supporting a comprehensive tax on all carbon emissions. This is not a good sign, to say the least.
California consumes 3rd most oil in world, yet has only lukewarm support for increased drilling
The debate over whether to lift the federal ban on offshore drilling has been heating up lately. Looking at this issue, an LA Times columnist noted this week that California is guilty of hypocrisy and NIMBYism over its relatively tepid support for lifting the ban. This is because California, as an entity, is the third biggest consumer of petroleum in the world, behind only the United States and China.
While California is one of the biggest petroleum producers in the U.S. (behind Texas and Alaska), the state still produces only 39% of the oil that it consumes. Apparently, a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, indicates that only 51% of California voters support increased offshore drilling.
It seems to us that the major disconnect between many of Californians’ opposition to offshore drilling and their embrace of a car-centric lifestyle stems from the lack of a real alternative to petro-fueled cars. While, there are some extreme examples of NIMBYs wanting their green cake and eating it too, many Californians are leading the push to get off oil. For example, California has the highest percentage of hybrid owners in the country, and the entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley are leading the push to implement clean technology in transportation.
However, with that said, the reality of the world today is that gas is still the overwhelmingly primary means by which cars are powered. The status quo of widespread reliance on petro-fueled cars and no increased drilling is not maintainable. Yet, it is this very fact, and the financial pain that it is causing right now, that we should use as inspiration to make a dramatic shift off of oil, instead of acquiescing to the current political winds.
California to sue EPA over ship, jet and farm equipment emissions
California announced yesterday that it intends to lead a number of states in filing a lawsuit against the EPA for its failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ships, planes and farm equipment. The announcement, made by Attorney General Jerry Brown, comes on the heels of a series of environmental disputes between California and the federal government. This is also not the first dispute between the parties dealing with the EPA’s stance towards greenhouse gas emissions.
An EPA spokesman responded to Jerry Brown’s announcement by stating, this “is certainly typical of the attorney general of California. If they don’t like how we make a decision on something, they sue and hope the courts will mandate toward their position. It works sometimes, and sometimes it doesn’t work.”
Apparently, greenhouse gas emissions from the sources in dispute here (ships, off-road engines and jets), are greater than those released by every registered vehicle in the United States. This is clearly an important issue for state governments, and could just be the beginning of these state vs. federal government disputes, depending on the results of the presidential election.
Tesla Motors to build factory for new electric sedan in California
At a time when American carmaker General Motors’ stock price has dipped to a level not seen since 1954 and Toyota is on the verge of overtaking GM in domestic auto sales, Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that green automaker Tesla Motors will be building the production facility for its highly anticipated second generation vehicle, dubbed the Model S, in California. The state government was able to woo Tesla by offering it a multi-million dollar incentive package, including sales tax exemptions and grants for new worker training. The Model S is slated to begin production in two years and will be a fully electric sports sedan that seats five.
From around the web:
- This funny (and creepy) ad is from the WWF.
- Some British towns impose criminal fines for improper garbage disposal.
- California outlines broad global warming plan, aiming to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.
- McCain on the environment, a mixed bag this week.
- Government finds that climate change poses a threat to our national security.
- Utah looks at shortening work week to 4 ten hour days to save resources.
-
Private Leaders
