Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Interesting development in CA

AP reports an important development in the policy battle of regulating greenhouse gases:
California would become the first state to impose a limit on all greenhouse gas emissions, including those from industrial plants, under a landmark deal reached Wednesday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats.

The agreement marks a clear break with the Bush administration and puts California on a path to reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by an estimated 25 percent by 2020.
Given the success of California at independently regulating pollution from automobiles and driving technological advances that have improved emission performance worldwide, it seems possible that this might be the move that forces everyone else on the GHG-regulation bandwagon. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

16 comments:

EliRabett said...

Given the size of their economy they are the piper

Dano said...

Agreed Eli. Detroit will have to re-tool, and everybody knows it.

This will, of course have environmental health benefits aplenty.

Best,

D

George Landis said...

According to many press reports, this appears to be raw politics and retribution directed toward San Joaquin County. Since that is the richest and highest tax base per capita in the state (and the biggest manufacturing base with CO2 emissions), this will "redistribute" some funds to places that "need" it more. Sounds like a certain failed economic philosophy from the early 1900s.

David Graves said...

george landis must have gotten a very bad mark in geography. While San Joaquin County is represented by the dubious Richard Pombo, let's think about his post. "highest tax base per capita". First of all, I don't know what "tax base" he refers to, but SJ County is in the bottom half of per capita wealth, as are pretty much all interior as opposed to coastal county. As for CO2 emissions--how about ports, powerplants and oil refineries? Uninformed would be charitable....

George Landis said...

Mr. Graves, did you forget Stockton is a big port, and that there are many coal fired power plants, and that the bulk of the cement industry and agriculural and oil production industries are there? Perhaps you should read up, and of course Calif. taxes both wealth and income (that's why their economy has been stagnant for many years). I doubt this political ploy by Arnie and his DemoBuds to get him re-elected is going to work to reduce any CO2, and of course enforcement will be a joke, while the industrial bosses will be laughing all the way to the bank as they evade and manipulate the cap and trade pyramid scheme to their best advantage. If you think the bogus power crunch and manipulation was bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet pard.

George Landis said...

Oops, need to correct my error, it was the San Joaquin Valley I intended to say, not just one county in it, sorry for any confusion.

EliRabett said...

You still got it wrong George, care to post the link to the article....

EliRabett said...

Oh yeah, and to make the rubble bounce, exactly how large is the Port of Stockton?

David Graves said...

In the immortal words of Casey Stengel, "and you can look it up." Total tonnage volume of all the inland ports (Sacramento, Stockton, Antioch, Pittsburg) represents 1.2% of the total tonnage of West Coast ports (source: Pacific Maritime Association). Note I cited the source, George. And the Governor who signed the bill says in his re-election ads that california has gained 500,000 jobs since he was elected. (He does not cite a source.) So I guess he doesn't think we are stagnating.

David Graves said...

Now that the rubble has bounced one more time, I think it is appropriate to discuss the public policy response to the threat of climate change. It gets back to probablilities and confidence in forecasted outcomes. If, as the models suggest, California's water supply system just won't work under many future scenarios(see Hayhoe, Cayan et al., PNAS, v. 101, #34, Aug. 24, 2004), to take just one example, isn't the reasonable policy choice to try to go down a different path?

David Graves said...

Bouncing rubble again, but California has ......zero zilch not a single coal-fired power plant....

Dano said...

How come it's almost always silent around here when one of the denialists is asked to provide evidence for their assertions?!?

Odd...

Best,

D

ankh said...

Chuckle. Maybe they're busily looking the facts up so they can present their evidence convincingly.

"in the 1970s,....California banned oil as a fuel for electricity generation and halted construction of coal-fired power plants due to concerns about air pollution ...."
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/39477/

ankh said...

Edited to bring the info up to date:

"... California Senate ... approved a bill that would limit purchases of electricity from coal-fired power plants by the state's electric utilities and large companies.
"...Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger...is expected to sign it. A separate measure to limit greenhouse gas emissions among all heavy industry... also ...passed Thursday.
"Together, the two steps ...make California by far the most active state in combating global warming...."
-- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1693465/posts

David Graves said...

That clause is to prevent the export of emission of carbon dioxide, NOX, sufur dioxide heavy metals and fine particles across state lines, while importing the electricity. On Dec. 31, 2005 the 1580 MW Mohave power plant in operation in Laughlin, NV since 1971, shut down, with its operators (Southern California Edison owned 56% and LA Water and Power owned 10%) apparently unwilling or unable to comply with a consent decree over plant emissions. It used coal slurry shipped 272 miles from the Black Mesa Mine in Hopi nad Navajo country. Is Edward Abbey happy? Check the grandcanyontrust website.

David Graves said...

I just signed up for a photovotaic system for a manufacturing facility in California. The federal tax credits are attractive, and the rebates are substabtial. For both my customers and my staff, taking even this small step is important. They expect us to take some leadership ((as they should) and while I don't think we are somehow "done" with our part, I believe we have taken an important first step.