You’ve probably heard the news wherever on the planet you are. California’s legislature is commiting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels (so, by 25%) by the year 2020. I’ve got a class to prepare, and so can’t spend a huge amount of time writing a long cheerleader-type post about this, but I am so delighted. (Stories in the BBC, LA Times and New York Times, for example.)
This is so important for so many reasons. Besides the obvious one of us just getting on with the task of doing this sort of thing, there is the symbolism. This flies in the face of the Bush administration’s lack of leadership on the whole issue, and will help nullify that lack of leadership, since the other states will be able to look to California’s lead on this as a powerful example. The world takes notice too, since California is -as an economic force in its own right- the number 8 economy in the world. None of this will happen if the economics are not done correctly.
The point is that it can make economic sense (despite fears that possible resulting increase in energy prices might scare businesses aay from California) if it is carefully managed (a point made very well in the speech by the Kevin Nobloch, th President of the Union of Concerned Scientists delivered to the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies last month. I meant to report on that here, but I did not. Sorry.)
First of all, to do nothing will push us further into economic uncertainty and possible huge problems. This is sometimes really obvious. For a random and very visible example, in California, our water supply for general use and irrigation of the farmnig industry (a huge contributor to the number 8 position) depends a lot on snow pack. With that reducing a great deal due to warming trends, can we afford to ignore it? Another snow-based example, given in the aforementioned speech in Aspen, is the reduction in the number of snow days in Aspen in recent times. The ski-industry-supported people in the audience (i.e., almost everybody) sat up at that point. So ignoring the problem is a mistake.
Second, there are other serious economic considerations. If you sit around and wait for the rest of the world to construct new industries -and the jobs that go with them- in the technological and scientific areas of cleaner fuels, energy efficiency, emissions reduction, etc., you’ll miss the boat. Those industries will happen, somewhere on the planet, and they will be huge. The smart choice is to get in on the act early, and create those industries and jobs in your back yard. This is what California is choosing to do. This is great!
-cvj
In case you’re not aware, the case has been decided as per the following news in brief taken from the April 10, 2007 issue of EOS:
“Court rules on U.S. greenhouse gas regulation The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants’ under the federal Clean Air Act and that the U.S. government has the authority to regulate them. Twelve states and several non-profit organizations had sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after EPA ruled in 2003 that it lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. The Court, in its 5-4 ruling, objected to EPA’s “laundry list of reasons not to regulate†greenhouse gases and said that EPA “offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.†EPA was ordered to revisit its decision on regulating greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. The full Court opinion on Massachusetts vs. EPA is available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf.”
Pingback: How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb? - Asymptotia
Pingback: Government Gets Stern - Asymptotia
Pingback: Well, That’s a Novel Approach - Asymptotia
Hi… I think that this was mentioned int he talk of the Union of Concerned Scientists President’s talk in Aspen. I am not following it… but will keep an eye out… thanks!
-cvj
Read the following in the Sep/Oct 2006 issue of CALIFORNIA, a publication of the California Alumni Association at UCB as excerpted below:
“… among a group of the nation’s leading climatologists who have signed an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court in support of the 11 states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts, that have sued the EPA for failing to regulate greenhouse gases, primarily the high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere … In late June, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case this fall.”
Anyone following the case?
Bee,
I very much agree with you. And so do many people who are advocating for energy alternatives. It is indeed the case that one of the best alternative energy resources is the maximize the energy that you don’t use. I’m amazed by how much energy my own house leaks during both Summer and Winter, for example. When I lived on the East coast, in Princeton and later in Lexington, I was always appalled by how much the heat I used to keep warm was pouring out through the windows, walls and doors. And yes, it is true that the greater part of our energy consumption in the USA is not for transport.
Candace,
Yes, this is why the world is watching, Everyone recalls how dramatically California turned around the air quality by stepping forward on the issue. This is one of the reasons I have the word “again” in the post’s title.
Best,
-cvj
This sort of reminds me of California in the early 90s with their pioneering Clean Air Act.
I think Bee means American homes are badly “insulated”.
Anyway that the lifestyle mentalities of Americans and Europeans are diametrically apart is legendary where American consumerism trumps the build-to-last philosophy of most European countries.
Arnold has taken a bold step. Let’s hope this is the beginning of many bold steps to come.
Dear Clifford,
On the danger of sounding very German, I don’t even think the main issue are the cars. If the gas prize rises to European levels it might actually cause some people to over-think whether they really need a car suitable to transport the national baseball league in case they come for dinner. And I have seen some of these hybrid things which are kind of cool. So I have hope there will be a rethinking some time soon.
No, I actually think for most of the warmer part of the US the main problem is that the ‘houses’ are very badly isolated, if at all. Meaning, during the summer the air condition is constantly running, and during the winter the heating is permanently on. Worse, this also goes for most offices/public buildings and stores. For me it was shocking to see how people live here! A window has to CLOSE, frames should not be made of metal, outside doors should not have rims on all sides. And if you ask me, I’d also say a HOUSE has to be build of stone, not of wood. And don’t give me the earthquake argument, if the Japanese know how to do that, maybe ask them.
Another major issue which I’d say is typically American is the habit of producing things that have to be replaced very soon, the lack of quality. Start with appliances over household stuff, the shear amount of wrappings, but also look at streets/highways where the pavement constantly has to be fixed, houses and stores that are crashed down and rebuild frequently, all the things that are permanently broken, but hey, there’s always a customer service hotline. And yes, these permanent replacements waste energy.
Gee, I DO really sound German here 😉
Best,
B.
PS: btw, did you see the latest Sciam-issue on the Future of Energy?
Hi,
I’m pretty sure that there will always be a degree of uncertainty on this issue, but it seems safe to say that there is wide agreement that there is significant change to the climate brought about by our actions, and that those changes are not positive, taking everything into account.
-cvj
OK, I see your apology here for not writing the climate change piece.
You mentioned economic uncertainty. But is the scientific uncertainty settled?
The Aug 22 issue of EOS (Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change?) reports on “at least eight recent developments, largely based on observed changes, point to a higher probability of more serious impacts.”
Yes, but an earlier step to take along the ay would be for him to get rid of all the Hummers he has …..-cvj
That is great. Schwarzenegger should teach his folks to turn off their car’s engine while shopping, even if this means (Gee!) the air condition stops working…
What does this mean for cars? Will it be impossible in California to buy anything with more than 25 horsepower? 🙂
Hey, I just saw “True Lies” again the other night, on HBO. It’s still a really enjoyable movie.
-cvj
So now you are a Schwarzenegger fan? 😉