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

[GRA]

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

They've always used pipelines in the past, so there seems little reason for the economics to change enough to allow offshore tanking now, especially when the companies know the state will fight them every step of the way if they try. From 2015, the most recent major spill here:

Burst Oil Pipeline In California Severely Corroded, Investigators Say

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... gators-say

[GRA]

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.

Yup, which just shows how much more needs to be done, and is why Gov. Brown set the goal of 5M ZEVs, why we're requiring trucks, ports, ag equipment etc. to clean up, building high-speed rail in the central valley to connect the state's major metro areas (a boondoggle given the way it's being done, but a good idea generally to eliminate much regional flying), and so on.

...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

That's kind of the point of 5M ZEVs, don't you think?

...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

No, we were the first to pollute air in some regions like the LA basin due to auto traffic combined with natural features and weather that naturally trapped smog, and decided to do something about it. Other parts of the country don't have that, so LA acted as the canary in the (gas) mine. Of course, lots of other areas had pollution as bad or worse, but that wasn't due to auto exhaust, it was due to coal-fired industry e.g. Pittsburgh, chemicals or what have you.

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

No. Were you?

Not likely, especially since a large part of VA's economy still comes from tobacco, so as far as contributing to public health risks go, I see VA still allows smoking indoors in public areas.

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%.

Uh huh, and how were our economies doing at the same time, i.e. pollution per $?

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.

No argument there, but we also do take actions to fix the problem, after first admitting that there is a problem, something that most other parts of the country were generally more loath to do because it interfered with 'business as usual'.

[GRA]

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.

Yes, 70% oppose offshore drilling, but as I wrote most Californians get mad about coastal oil spills. They aren't mutually exclusive statements. There is inevitably a difference between those who care about such things much of the time and work to ban such, and those who only notice such matters when it's brought to their attention in a way they can't avoid. In other words, most people, no matter the subject or cause, are not activists, so out of sight is out of mind. That such a large % of Californians still feel strongly enough about offshore oil drilling to oppose it despite the relative rarity of spills shows just how much the effect of major ones affect the public's psyche.

[GRA]

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.

I'm curious, Reg. If California hadn't taken all the steps to reduce emissions that we have over the decades despite a growing population (supposedly we hit 40M this year) that's almost tripled in my lifetime, do you think that our air would be better? That seems to be what you're implying.

[GRA]

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.

Sure fossil fuels are necessary now, and will be for some time. As for the rest, just because everyone doesn't have PV on their roofs hardly means that they don't care. They can opt for green energy from their utility, reduce usage in other ways (like not using a car for routine needs), engage in car or ride-sharing/walk/bike/use public transit, choose not to fly, live in a smaller dwelling, etc.

Everybody has a variety of conflicting priorities which make us all mutual sinners, you no less than anyone else. After all, you talk a lot about energy efficiency and conservation but are personally responsible for bringing several extra humans into the world, who will inevitably use a lot of energy and resources throughout their lives. Anyone who doesn't live naked outdoors and eat nothing but food they've grown themselves without benefit of any tools, machinery, pesticides or fuel and forego having children is part of the problem, but they can also be part of the solution.

[GRA]

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

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissio ... /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.

Yup.

[downeykp]

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

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissio ... /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.

Yup.

Nice work GRA. Unlike most of the rest of the country California sees that air quality can be a problem with +/- 40million people. They have and are trying to be proactive when it comes to smog. I remember coughing my ass off in 1980 living in the San Fernando Valley. The joke at that time was "I don't trust any air I cant see". I drive through the area every year now and the air is a lot harder to see.

[GetOffYourGas]

Everybody has a variety of conflicting priorities which make us all mutual sinners, you no less than anyone else. After all, you talk a lot about energy efficiency and conservation but are personally responsible for bringing several extra humans into the world, who will inevitably use a lot of energy and resources throughout their lives. Anyone who doesn't live naked outdoors and eat nothing but food they've grown themselves without benefit of any tools, machinery, pesticides or fuel and forego having children is part of the problem, but they can also be part of the solution.

Human lives are not the problem. Humanity is not just a scourge on the earth that needs to be contained. If it was, why not eliminate it entirely so that the rest of the living creatures can go on without any artificial pollution?

[GRA]

Everybody has a variety of conflicting priorities which make us all mutual sinners, you no less than anyone else. After all, you talk a lot about energy efficiency and conservation but are personally responsible for bringing several extra humans into the world, who will inevitably use a lot of energy and resources throughout their lives. Anyone who doesn't live naked outdoors and eat nothing but food they've grown themselves without benefit of any tools, machinery, pesticides or fuel and forego having children is part of the problem, but they can also be part of the solution.

Human lives are not the problem. Humanity is not just a scourge on the earth that needs to be contained. If it was, why not eliminate it entirely so that the rest of the living creatures can go on without any artificial pollution?

The sheer number of humans on the planet, along with their high densities, is the underlying cause of all major human-based environmental impacts. For example, early cars didn't present a significant pollution problem despite being far dirtier than current cars, because there were so few of them, and they were a lot less of a public health issue than the huge quantities of horse manure and urine on the ground in urban areas (itself due to large numbers of humans present at high densities). It was only when the number and density of cars increased that smog became significant. Same goes for coal and the industrial revolution. Coal-based air pollution didn't become more than a local issue until far more people gathered in greater densities were burning much larger quantities of it, leading e.g. to the London 'pea-soup fogs' so beloved of Sherlock Holmes. But such 'fogs' were hardly benign:

Mystery of London fog that killed 12,000 finally solved

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... /95375738/

It may be possible to eliminate the deleterious environmental effects of large numbers of humans at high density, but it will always be easier to do so if the numbers and densities are smaller. Since we don't yet have the ability to eliminate those effects, our only other option is to reduce the size of the problems by reducing the number of people contributing to them.

As to eliminating the human race entirely from the earth, there are more than a few scientists who've pointed out that our survival as a species isn't required; it's our egos that make us think our continuation is important. In short, it matters to us, but the earth would get along just fine without us, as it did for the several billion years before we arrived.

As far as what the ultimate sustainable human carrying capacity of the earth might be, there are so many variables it's impossible to give a single figure. I've seen extreme estimates from as few as 100 million up to several trillion; even more credible estimates still have a range of something like 2 to 30 billion, which is too wide to be much use to us. We've either already overshot by a wide margin and are due for a crash, or else we've still got some breathing space to get our act together.

[GRA]

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

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissio ... /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.

Yup.

Nice work GRA. Unlike most of the rest of the country California sees that air quality can be a problem with +/- 40million people. They have and are trying to be proactive when it comes to smog. I remember coughing my ass off in 1980 living in the San Fernando Valley. The joke at that time was "I don't trust any air I cant see". I drive through the area every year now and the air is a lot harder to see.

I first visited Disneyland in 1965, before the Clean Air Act and all the air quality regs were passed, and it was pretty bad then, but it's a hell of a lot better now: https://goo.gl/images/WydIFL

Some other pics: https://www.google.com/search?q=la+smog ... 58#imgrc=_

It was never as bad in the Bay Area, but it still used to be pretty bad. We still have 'Spare the Air' alerts here every so often, although in winter they tend to be due more to people using their fireplaces (illegal on such days) rather than auto traffic, as is the case in summer.