SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:18PM
I'm growing tired of this historically ignorant argument. We have seen Progressive policy destroy everything it touched for a century now. How many more centuries do we have to keep running this experiment? How many more times must we endure the "ok they failed but we will succeed because we are better, smarter, more enlightened people and we can make it work." It doesn't work, it isn't going to start working because Jerry Brown is a better tyrant than FDR or LBJ, isn't a murdering monster like Stalin or Mao. When a hapless fool like Brown fails a Stalin is always waiting in the wing to replace a failed Lenin; ready to do the 'hard' things their predecessor lacked the faith to do. The top down command and control all these schemes are a poorly disguised pretext for is the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:41PM
> We have seen Progressive policy destroy everything it touched for a century now.
All your hoping and wishing can't change the fact that those stupid liberals in California have made it the most prosperous state of the union.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RedGreen on Sunday September 11 2016, @07:43PM
"We have seen Progressive policy destroy everything it touched for a century now."
Yes them damn nasty progressives how dare they have introduced women, blacks and other minorities voting, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, labour rights, Medicare among other policies. Certainly has led to a decline of civilization as it stood at the turn 1917 and their magnificent achievements that have been reversed now.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @10:43PM
To be fair, the progressives were only one part of a coalition that went for the civil rights movement.
While I won't go so far as to say that progressive politics is a one-way road to ruin, it's far from clear that the progressive movement's best days aren't behind it.
In 1900, the idea of regularising the labour market was timely and readily justifiable. Similarly, antitrust legislation was sorely needed. Reducing classism in an effort to improve the capabilities of all levels of society made a lot of sense, with results well proven in WWI, for example.
On the other hand, the low hanging fruit has already been harvested. Universal franchise? Done. Child labour laws? We have them. Social medical schemes for the indigent? In place and operating. And so on and so forth.
We have reached the point where it is incumbent on progressives to explain what their big plan is, and why it is so important. Global warming? Maybe a worthwhile cause, but not a good enough reason to swallow an open-ended continuing progressive programme whole. Stamping out "rape culture" (whatever that may be - it seems to be change every time I hear a new speaker) is possibly a worthy goal, but what babies will be thrown out with this bathwater? I rather like freedom of speech, and that includes the freedom to say things that make others uncomfortable.
So let's hear it: what exact policies do progressive political approaches recommend to us, and what will we gain that might justify the losses involved in implementation?
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Sunday September 11 2016, @10:45PM
This legislation is the continuation of a 2005 executive order signed by the state's previous, Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, which said (emphasis added)
That the following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are hereby established for California: by 2010, reduce GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels [...]
--https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=1861 [ca.gov]
It's essentially adding the intermediate step of: by 2030, reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels.