Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

[GRA]

Via LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-offshore-drilling-20180908-story.html

Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday signed two bills that would block new offshore oil drilling in California by barring the construction of pipelines, piers, wharves or other infrastructure necessary to transport the oil and gas from federal waters to state land.

This locks into law the vows of Brown and other state officials who declared earlier this year they would do whatever it takes to stop the Trump administration from opening California waters to drilling on an unprecedented scale.

“Today, California’s message to the Trump administration is simple: Not here, not now,” Brown said in a statement. “We will not let the federal government pillage public lands and destroy our treasured coast.”

Bills AB 1775 and SB 834 prohibit the State Lands Commission, which has jurisdiction over tidelands and waters extending roughly three miles offshore, from granting leases for new pipelines and infrastructure — the most economical way to transport oil and gas to land. . . .

Polls today show 69% of California residents oppose more drilling off their coast. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates vying to be the next governor have declared that the state's commitment to block new offshore drilling would not change under their leadership.

Oil and gas production from the state’s tidelands peaked in the 1960s and has been more or less declining ever since. The state has not issued a new offshore oil and gas lease since the devastating 1969 spill in Santa Barbara turned public sentiment against offshore drilling. In 1994, the state Legislature passed the California Coastal Sanctuary Act, which prohibits new leasing in state waters. . . .

The Santa Barbara blowout was responsible for a lot of boomers, myself included, developing an environmental consciousness for the first time: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...bara-was-galvanizing-environmentalism-n361911

I was in grade school then, and schools all over the state collected kids' change to help clean up affected birds and mammals. If there's one thing that virtually all Californians get mad about, it's oil spills off our coasts.

 

[RegGuheert]

If there's one thing that virtually all Californians get mad about, it's oil spills off our coasts.

Yet I see a LOT of Californians driving gasoline-powered cars. How about you?

 

[LeftieBiker]

If there's one thing that virtually all Californians get mad about, it's oil spills off our coasts.

Yet I see a LOT of Californians driving gasoline-powered cars. How about you?

Do you only eat organic, fair trade chocolate, Reg? Did you source the lithium you use personally? Humans are nothing if not hypocrites, so you have to either drop out of society or accept that good people are doing harmful things. The way to change for the better that isn't by browbeating them, especially when you are likely little better.

 

[iPlug]

Yeah, humans are strange paradoxical creatures. Commute solo in ICE SUVs and trucks and feel good bringing a few bottles, cans, or cardboard to be recycled.

Wonder how many lawmakers who put this bill through drive electric?

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/6463...-100-percent-renewable-electric-power-by-2045

Reg doesn't seem to be saying he is perfect, just pointing out ridiculousness. Doesn't make him a saint.

If there's one thing that virtually all Californians get mad about, it's oil spills off our coasts.

Yet I see a LOT of Californians driving gasoline-powered cars. How about you?

 

[RegGuheert]

Do you only eat organic, fair trade chocolate, Reg?

No, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

The point is that the gasoline that Californians burn to drive their cars has to come from *somewhere*, as does the electricity, the water, etc. that they use. Eventually something's gotta give.

 

[GRA]

If there's one thing that virtually all Californians get mad about, it's oil spills off our coasts.

Yet I see a LOT of Californians driving gasoline-powered cars. How about you?

You'll note that we also lead the country in the number and % of PEVs (and HEVs), plan to eliminate fossil-fueled electricity generation by 2045, boost the ZEV fleet to 5M by 2030, etc., and of course the whole reason you have a BEV to drive is because of steps California took more than a decade [Edit: two decades] ago; building and appliance energy-efficiency standards were something introduced during Jerry Brown's first go-round as governor in the '70s, and have since been adopted by many other jurisdictions up to the federal level (e.g. Energy Star). Were you planning to hold your own state up as an environmental model we should emulate?

So, while most Californians only get angry over environmental issues when there's a major catastrophe like an oil spill, we are moving away from fossil fuels faster than any other state. Sure, most people are hypocrites to some extent or another, but to what extent does matter.

 

[smkettner]

If the oil is easy they will not need any pipelines.

 

[SageBrush]

Do you only eat organic, fair trade chocolate, Reg?

No, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

The point is that the gasoline that Californians burn to drive their cars has to come from *somewhere*, as does the electricity, the water, etc. that they use. Eventually something's gotta give.

Welcome to NIMBY: Oil spills in AK, tar sands from Canada -- acceptable
Oil spills off California -- not so much.

Even so,
I read the other day that CA is approaching 10% of new cars being hybrid or better.
How is VA doing ?

By the way, the two important events in California that germinated popular environmentalism in that state was LA smog and a large oil spill off the coast (Long Beach, IIRC.)

 

[RegGuheert]

You'll note that we also lead the country in the number and % of PEVs (and HEVs),...

Impressive! To what end? CA's vehicle emissions are still increasing, NOT decreasing:

Emissions from transportation — cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships — keep rising.

...plan to eliminate fossil-fueled electricity generation by 2045, boost the ZEV fleet to 5M by 2030, etc.,...

Do you plan to continue to increase vehicular emissions during those periods, as well?

...and of course the whole reason you have a BEV to drive is because of steps California took more than a decade ago; building and appliance energy-efficiency standards were something introduced during Jerry Brown's first go-round as governor in the '70s, and have since been adopted by many other jurisdictions up to the federal level.

It's true: Californians were the first in the US to pollute their air so severely that everyone in some parts of the state could clearly SEE that something had to be done.

Were you planning to hold your own state up as a model we should emulate?

No. Were you?

So, while most Californians only get angry over environmental issues when there's a major catastrophe like an oil spill, we are moving away from fossil fuels faster than any other state.

No, you aren't. Between 2007 and 2015, CA reduced emissions by about 9% while the US reduced emissions by over 10%.

Sure, most people are hypocrites to some extent or another, but to what extent does matter.

I couldn't agree more. In CA, virtue signalling reigns supreme.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Do you only eat organic, fair trade chocolate, Reg?

No, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Not if you support human slavery and child labor, no. Because the vast majority of chocolate production involves one or both of those. You even have it easier than Californians: it wouldn't be a huge financial hit for you to buy only Fair Trade, organic chocolate. Yet you choose to support slavery and child labor because it's a little easier. Like driving an ICE in California.

 

[SageBrush]

No, you aren't. Between 2007 and 2015, CA reduced emissions by about 9% while the US reduced emissions by over 10%.

They most certainly are, when GDP growth is taken into account. The nice reduction in most states was due to NG replacing coal. CA has already completed that step and the ongoing reductions are from penetration of clean energy.

You should also read the CA legislation mandating the transition to clean energy.
No other state comes close.

 

[SageBrush]

If there's one thing that virtually all Californians get mad about, it's oil spills off our coasts.

Only 70% oppose off-shore drilling. Since about 30% of the popular vote is Repub in CA, the numbers add up.

 

[RegGuheert]

You should also read the CA legislation mandating the transition to clean energy.

CA legislators have been writing laws to legislate emissions for decades. Yet vehicular emissions in CA continue to rise.

Why? A perfect example of why this happens is the massive waste being done by the California legislators deploying hydrogen fuel cells for transportation purposed. Simply put, you cannot reduce emissions by increasing emissions.

 

[RegGuheert]

If there's one thing that virtually all Californians get mad about, it's oil spills off our coasts.

Only 70% oppose off-shore drilling. Since about 30% of the popular vote is Repub in CA, the numbers add up.

Approximately 1% of those 70% drive electric vehicles and produce the electricity to propel their vehicles using photovoltaics on their roofs. Good on them: they are living their convictions (mostly). The rest, like GRA, refuse to purchase an electric vehicle and photovoltaics and then purchase gasoline or diesel fuel to propel their vehicles. Every time they board an airplane, the same thing applies. Every time they cook/heat water/heat their homes with natural gas or propane, the same thing applies. In fact, any time they purchase ANY goods that are transported using fossil fuels, the same thing applies. That gasoline/diesel/jet fuel/natural gas has to come from somewhere.

If they REALLY oppose oil wells offshore (or onshore) of CA, they should stop using fossil fuels altogether. I have little patience for those who say they oppose something, yet refuse to take the steps to reduce their consumption of it. IME, most of those same people are some of the most wasteful people I know.

It seems that 30% of Californians understand that fossil fuels are currently necessary for their way of life and that it HAS to come from somewhere for the time being.

 

[iPlug]

Per EIA (2015) California has the 3rd lowest per capita energy-related CO2 emissions per state (figure 2)

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/


The disconnect between what people claim they support and what they actually do in their lives is an interesting one.

We should vote and support environmental public policies, but at the individual level the contribution here to change is miniscule.

Yet at the personal level, there is much that can be done - the type of vehicle one drives, the energy sources used to heat/cool ones home, air travel, cruises, diet...

No one is perfect, but probably a good idea to strive for better.

 

[SageBrush]

You should also read the CA legislation mandating the transition to clean energy.

CA legislators have been writing laws to legislate emissions for decades. Yet vehicular emissions in CA continue to rise.

Why?

Because the drop in emissions per vehicle is to a large degree offset by more miles driven per capita and a lot more people. Just judging by photos, air quality in the Los Angeles basin has improved a lot since I visited there in the 1970s.
California is definitely heading in the right direction;most of the the rest of country is still mired in AGW denialism and Republican stupidity.

 

[RegGuheert]

Because the drop in emissions per vehicle is to a large degree offset by more miles driven per capita and a lot more people.

California's population trends are virtually indistinguishable from those for the United States (except during the last few years in which California is growing more slowly than the rest of the country).

It seems that Californians consistently imagine themselves more virtuous than the rest of the country, but your claims are simply not borne out by the facts.

 

[SageBrush]

^^
"California boosted economic activity 19 percent per Btu of energy consumed between 2010 and 2015, to $3.29 in GDP for every 10,000 Btu of energy used, compared with $1.75 for the rest of the United States.
"
Taken from a post on a Tesla forum. We can track down the source if you doubt the numbers.

Regarding Electricity generation, CA averages 32% of IOU generation from sustainable clean energy.
Go ahead, compare that to VA, itself the outsized beneficiary of Wind/PV generation from Apple/Google/Facebook/Cisco etc -- you know, those CA companies with their pesky pseudo- environmentalism as you would label it.

 

[RegGuheert]

^^
"California boosted economic activity 19 percent per Btu of energy consumed between 2010 and 2015, to $3.29 in GDP for every 10,000 Btu of energy used, compared with $1.75 for the rest of the United States."

First off, that data in no way is related to the your claim that CA's population is growing faster than the rest of the country which I refuted above.

On top of that, the United States boosted economic activity per BTU faster than California over that same period. Here are the numbers:

US GDP:
2010: $14,964.37B
2015: $18,120.71B

Percent increase in US GDP = 21.1%

US Energy Consumption:
2010: 2235.6 MTOE
2015: 2227.0 MTOE

Percent decrease in US primary energy consumption = 0.4%

In other words, the US increased economic activity per BTU by 21.5% between 2010 and 2015 while CA only increased 19 percent over the same period.

The reason that CA's absolute energy intensity is lower than that of the US as a whole is because information technology and semiconductor technology give a higher return per unit of energy than most other industries. Nothing more.

The bottom line remains: CA is reducing emissions more slowly than the US as a whole. This fact is true even though CA is now growing more slowly and is partly because CA is unable to reduce the energy intensity of their industries as fast as the rest of the US.

It's funny how CA pats itself on its back about its improvement in emissions and it fails to realize they are lagging the rest of the country. What CA excels at is spending massive amounts of the taxpayers money and getting virtually nothing for it. That is why there is a mass exodus going on from CA right now. This new legislation is sure to accelerate that exodus.

 

[GRA]

Do you only eat organic, fair trade chocolate, Reg?

No, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

The point is that the gasoline that Californians burn to drive their cars has to come from *somewhere*, as does the electricity, the water, etc. that they use. Eventually something's gotta give.

Welcome to NIMBY: Oil spills in AK, tar sands from Canada -- acceptable
Oil spills off California -- not so much.

Even so,
I read the other day that CA is approaching 10% of new cars being hybrid or better.
How is VA doing ?

By the way, the two important events in California that germinated popular environmentalism in that state was LA smog and a large oil spill off the coast (Long Beach, IIRC.)

Santa Barbara, as noted. Also the freeway revolt (S.F.) fed into it peripherally, and the Save San Francisco Bay Association (now just 'Save the Bay') the Bay played a large regional role in the Bay Area, among numerous others: https://www.savesfbay.org/history and http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/history.html

Statewide, though, it was the Santa Barbara blowout that gave the major jolt to the environmental movement per se.