Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday September 11 2016, @04:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the setting-the-pace-for-usa dept.

Southern California Public Radio (KPCC-FM) reports

California will now be the nation's example for reducing climate change after Governor Jerry Brown signed sweeping legislation [September 8] that will require the Golden State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2030. The law replaces a previous bill signed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger which required the state to be at 1990 emissions levels by the year 2020.

The law, SB 32 [1] also gives more authority to California's Air Resources Board to regulate emissions. A separate law the governor also signed yesterday gives lawmakers more power over that board.

[...] The Germans have a tougher target of 55 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. [California's is] the same level of ambition as the EU as a whole.

[...] The governor had tried to slip into this bill a late amendment authorizing the extension of cap-and-trade but that was rejected by lawmakers and instead the bill is silent. However, the bill could be an important cudgel for Brown in trying to negotiate an extension of cap-and-trade.

[...] implications of the law on employment in Southern California [...] The state, since the end of the recession, has been growing jobs at a 50 percent faster rate than the nation as a whole. There are studies showing that the renewable standards have created 30,000 jobs in some of the hardest hit rural areas of the state.

[1] Main content is behind a script. archive.li handles that.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday September 11 2016, @05:44PM

    by Francis (5544) on Sunday September 11 2016, @05:44PM (#400332)

    Was there any doubt about that happening? Now, if President Obama were to sign off on removing the ACA, that would be a newsworthy signature. But, in this case, I don't think there was really any question about the governor signing the bill into law.

    It's also rather interesting that if the previous governor had just signed that bill the cuts wouldn't have been as drastic. But, in the mean time there's been a ton of additional pollution coming from California as well as other places and a larger cut was necessary for the same effect. There probably is more cut than that, but they could have saved a lot of head aches for business if they had just taken the deal they were offered.

    Also, in CA, this is probably less of an issue than it is for other places as they have an abundance of solar power available if they just build the necessary collectors.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday September 11 2016, @05:57PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 11 2016, @05:57PM (#400336) Journal

    Also, in CA, this is probably less of an issue than it is for other places as they have an abundance of solar power available if they just build the necessary collectors.

    So as usual, they committed to something that they didn't plan for. When California goes belly up, I sure hope you're paying attention and understand why.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday September 11 2016, @06:04PM

      by Francis (5544) on Sunday September 11 2016, @06:04PM (#400339)

      Khallow, comments like this are why nobody takes you seriously.

      This bill grants them an additional 10 years to make the cuts necessary to hit the targets. The previous bill would have required them to hit the target by 2020, but this one requires them to hit the new target by 2030. Between energy efficient upgrades, buying electricity from renewable sources and increasing renewables, I'm sure they can do it by 2030.

      What's more, solar projects have gotten rather cheap in recent years and probably even more so if production capacity is expanded knowing that places like CA are buying large numbers of solar cells.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:10PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:10PM (#400357) Journal

        Between energy efficient upgrades, buying electricity from renewable sources and increasing renewables, I'm sure they can do it by 2030.

        And departure of business and people.

        I'm not speaking of the present either, but of the future, including the year 2030.

        What's more, solar projects have gotten rather cheap in recent years and probably even more so if production capacity is expanded knowing that places like CA are buying large numbers of solar cells.

        We will see. But California is doing more than just a bunch of short-sighted environmental policies. They still have a massive, unaddressed pension fund liability at state and local levels; a huge minimum wage law that activates in a few years; a long history of making stupid decisions; and no fiscal discipline (who's paying for all this again when they can just leave the state?).

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:36PM (#400367)

          Yeah California is so terrible. [bloomberg.com]
          That's why it:

          • Has a GDP that, all on its own, would qualify as the 6th largest in the world
          • Had a 3.29 percent growth rate last year, which was 30% more than the US as a whole
          • Created 483,000 new jobs, more than #2 Florida and #3 Texas combined

          Go ahead leave california, I'm sure south dakota has plenty of opportunity.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday September 11 2016, @08:22PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 11 2016, @08:22PM (#400379) Journal
            It'll be quite the object lesson then, won't it when California goes down in flames?

            Let us note [stlouisfed.org] that Texas increased in real GDP from 1997 to 2015 from $613 billion to $1,586 billion. Meanwhile California increased from $1,342 billion to $2,207 billion. Among other things, that is a larger absolute increase in GDP for Texas than California managed over an almost two decade period! I think that puts your three quarter (not annual!) change into perspective. Twenty more years like that in relative growth and Texas will have a larger economy!

            Also, while California would place as the sixth largest economy in the world just ahead of France, Texas would place as the tenth largest just ahead of Canada. It's not far behind right now. Florida would be 16th place, ahead of Indonesia.

            Let's look at employment. In June, 1996 [bls.gov], California had an estimated 15.4 million employed. That went up to almost 16.5 million employed in June, 2016. Texas went from 9.6 million to 12.0 million over the same period. Again, more absolute increase in employment over the last two decades.

            Notice the pattern here. The writer saying that the criticism of California is bunk, used three quarters of a year as economic evidence. While if we look at evidence from a much longer period, we see a remarkable slowdown in California's economy compared to twenty years ago coupled with surging growth (which just in absolute terms, starting from a smaller economic base, beats California) from Texas with very different attitudes concerning business and regulation.

            There is a saying which applies here: Rome didn't fall in a day. California with all its burdens can yet still grow today. But bad decisions continue. What will happen in twenty years when Texas is the biggest economy by state and California still cripples its businesses with ever growing nonsense? Will they stay then? I think we already have seen the start of a massive exodus from California. At some point, it'll reach critical mass and there won't be a point, for a lot of industries to stay in California. That includes the high tech industries.

            I think in a generation we will see the end of the California miracle.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @06:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @06:04PM (#400340)

      WTF?

      How do you go from there being plenty of potential for solar power to "committing to something they did not plan for?"

      > When California goes belly up, I sure hope you're paying attention and understand why.

      California is kicking ass. Its the parts of the country that think more like you do which are struggling.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:14PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:14PM (#400358) Journal

        How do you go from there being plenty of potential for solar power to "committing to something they did not plan for?"

        You miss the obvious. They haven't built it yet. Even if the cost of installation does continue to decline, there's still various sorts of bureaucratic and ideological obstacles.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:25PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:25PM (#400362)

          And if they had already built it you'd be bitching that they built something they don't need.
          You are such a child.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:38PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:38PM (#400369) Journal

            And if they had already built it you'd be bitching that they built something they don't need.

            You are quite prescient. California did do that via partial funding/subsidy of dead end renewable energy projects (for a small example, giving $25 million to the Solyndra bankruptcy) and they indeed didn't need them. But who knew that California would be just as clueless about energy policy as anything else they do?