from the always-smiles-and-never-frowns dept.
from the better-for-you-and-for-mother-earth dept.
January 5, Jerry Brown gave the inaugural address for his unprecedented fourth term as governor of California. Brown opted to combine his inaugural address and the State of the State into one surprisingly to-the-point speech.
The Center for American Progress reports
Brown listed three main goals to be accomplished within the next 15 years: First, to increase the amount of electricity the state derives from renewable sources from one-third to 50 percent. Second, to reduce petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent. And the governor's final goal is to double the efficiency of existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner.
Greentech Media notes
California is already on target to meet the greenhouse gas reduction goals called for in AB 32, the state law passed in 2006, Brown noted. But "these efforts, impressive though they are, are not enough" to meet the goal set by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a majority of climate scientists to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2050, he said.
"If we have any chance at all of achieving that, California, as it does in many areas, must show the way. We must demonstrate that reducing carbon is compatible with an abundant economy and human well-being," he said. "All of this is a very tall order. It means that we continue to transform our electrical grid, our transportation system and even our communities."
Brown didn't outline specific policy initiatives he would promote to achieve those goals in his relatively short speech. But he did lay out a list of initiatives he would support as part of his program, including "more distributed power, expanded rooftop solar, micro-grids, an energy imbalance market, battery storage, the full integration of information technology and electrical distribution, and millions of electric and low-carbon vehicles."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 07 2015, @08:45PM
Anyone want to take odds?
One way to look at it is every prez since at least Reagan says we're going to Mars or the moon or something and its all conveniently forgotten about.
An alternative is he gets campaign contributions from transmission line companies coincidentally running to plants right over the state border, not all that unlikely.
Another option is they're due for a city destroying earthquake, last one a century or so ago, so after the city gets "new orleans"-ed away and not rebuilt, I could see demand cratering. So just playing the odds he has to do nothing to drop usage, taking all the credit for mother natures work.
There's also possible financial issues with pensions, reliance on real estate bubble, reliance on social media bubble, etc, such that the place could just get Detroit-ed away.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 07 2015, @09:55PM
One way to look at it is every prez since at least Reagan says we're going to Mars or the moon or something and its all conveniently forgotten about.
True, but there is no urgency in going to Mars.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 07 2015, @11:37PM
One way to look at it is every prez since at least Reagan says we're going to Mars or the moon or something and its all conveniently forgotten about.
True, but there is no urgency in going to Mars.
No urgency moving to "renewable energy", either, unless you count the way the purveyors of AGW alarmism "urgently" need your money deposited into their bank accounts. If the using alternative energy sources were really so urgent, he would be calling for cutting red tape and reprocessing restrictions and rolling out more nuclear plants.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 08 2015, @12:45AM
I have no doubt that I will live to see a $250 oil barrel, probably even a $500 one, unless someone puts me out of my misery prematurely.
I don't expect that my salary will have enough time to quadruple before that happens.
At that point, I sure hope that the "AGW alarmism" will have reduced the impact of an oil spike on my grocery bill...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07 2015, @10:12PM
One way to look at it is every prez since at least Reagan says we're going to Mars or the moon or something and its all conveniently forgotten about.
Increasing the percentage of renewable energy from 33% to 50% isn't so crazy. Especially if energy consumption continues to increase much of that quota can be handle simply by making all new power generation use renewables and unlike oil, the cost per watt of capacity for things like solar has been on a steep downward trajectory for decades.
Besides, your examples are of binary goals - either you got to Mars or you didn't. But if Cali only makes it to 48% renewable energy by 2030 that's still 15% more than they are now. Failure is still an improvement over the status quo.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday January 07 2015, @09:03PM
Anyone listening to that speech should take away one message.
GET. OUT. NOW!
If you are still in CA and aren't finalizing your escape plans you will get no sympathy when you finally flee with nothing.
Just one request, when you flee please realize it was YOUR fault and don't just bring the same stupid with you when you resettle somewhere else. Ok?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07 2015, @09:57PM
Get in while the technologies are still young and grow your business as the industry matures.
N.B. It seems so odd to me that wannabe plantation capitalists[1] who celebrate things like "World's richest man" can't recognize a big opportunity to make money in a green field area.
[1] John Steinbeck quote about temporarily embarrassed millionaires goes here.
I also note that installer crews for solar is an area where initial cash outlay is not huge and is well suited to a worker-owned cooperative.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 08 2015, @02:51PM
N.B. It seems so odd to me that wannabe plantation capitalists[1] who celebrate things like "World's richest man" can't recognize a big opportunity to make money in a green field area.
It's only a "big opportunity" as long as the opportunity exists. Just because a California governor flaps his lips doesn't mean such an opportunity exists or that it'll exist for long enough to justify the effort.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 07 2015, @10:10PM
Beg you pardon? Mine? Not at all, it's San Andreas'es.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07 2015, @10:21PM
All you had to do is follow the train, CJ!
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday January 08 2015, @03:20AM
I actually live in Washington State now. I've lived all over California.
I had some good reasons to live. I can thinks of good reasons why today's residents would want to leave now.
But why would _this_ make someone want to leave?
Both polar caps are melting. The ocean is becoming acidic due to dissolved carbon dioxide. The warming of the ocean has resulted in the melting of the methyl hydrate on the ocean floor, so that gaseous methane bubbles up. Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. The sea surface level is rising.
What are you doing to contribute to the solution?
I myself am researching ways to refactor software so that it uses less electric power. In general making your software faster will do that but not always.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday January 07 2015, @09:50PM
Sounds like Jerry Brown is going to add to California's voluminous legal code to make the state even less competitive and cause even more residents [nytimes.com] to flee. [aei.org] The state is so dysfunctional there is a minor movement to divide it into six parts. [wikipedia.org]
Why doesn't gewg_ [soylentnews.org] or our editors use his account for these submissions?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07 2015, @10:01PM
...doesn't know the password for that account because he has never signed up for a S/N account.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08 2015, @12:26AM
why not? Take too long?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08 2015, @12:29AM
I am not gewg_
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 08 2015, @12:51AM
The US is so dysfunctional that there is a bunch of secession movements... what's your point?
An independent California would be the 8th biggest economy in the world. If some people want to flee because they pay more than a quarter of the equivalent European's taxes, let them...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday January 08 2015, @02:44PM
If some people want to flee because they pay more than a quarter of the equivalent European's taxes
At a glance, the US collectively has around 29% of its GDP going to tax revenue [wikipedia.org]. The highest of the EU countries is Denmark with 48% of GDP going to taxes (from same source). California apparently taxes around 18% of state GDP [usgovernmentrevenue.com] compared to 15% of GDP for all of the US states' tax revenue. So tax-wise, it appears that the average Californian pays about 10% more per GDP than the average of the entire US. In comparison, Texas (a comparison commonly given) tax revenue is about 12% of state GDP, meaning that the California economy is experiencing about 20% more taxes than the Texas economy.
Now, that's only one part of three. There's also the matter of what is done with that money. California has a lot more trouble providing basic services like law enforcement, health care, or education IMHO. And then there's the regulation, which is what this story is about. My opinion is that the regulation in California is a lot harder, more costly, and just plain sillier to comply with than corresponding regulation in Texas. For example, your business don't have to hang up warning signs in Texas that you have a microwave on the premises, or that the cleaning compounds that your janitors use, in the uninformed opinion of the state of California, contain cancer causing compounds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07 2015, @10:21PM
I only post anonymously and sign my name. Also I like to listen to the Spice Girls and the Backstreet Boys and my favorite language for embedded development is PHP. Also I'm totally the real gewg_ and not someone impersonating him/her.
-- gewg_ (see! the real gewg_!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07 2015, @11:12PM
Stay classy, Ethanol.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08 2015, @02:31AM
Cute.
California is an electricity importer from other states. It already doesn't meet its own power needs. People in nearby states already pay more because some of their local production is being sent to CA.
This will go well.
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday January 08 2015, @04:04AM
In general, bigger power plants are more efficient than smaller ones. There are many fundamental reasons for this.
I live in Washington, work in Oregon. Both states send lots of hydroelectric power to California.
Electricity here is dirt-cheap compared to California.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08 2015, @04:15AM
Next time you fly into LAX (or any large city), look down at all the roofs that not only are not being used to collect solar energy for use but are absorbing sunlight as heat (which then has to be pumped back out of the building, using up electricity).
Interestingly, the peak use of air conditioning corresponds with the time of day and season of the year when available solar energy is at a maximum.
Current practices are like walking past $20 bills on the sidewalk.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 08 2015, @03:06PM
Next time you fly into LAX (or any large city), look down at all the roofs that not only are not being used to collect solar energy for use but are absorbing sunlight as heat (which then has to be pumped back out of the building, using up electricity).
We can actually look with Google Maps [google.com]. The first thing I noticed about the images at a very high scale was that the urban areas have a higher albedo at visual frequencies than the surrounding natural terrain. And there's a lot of white and gray roofs. I didn't see a lot of $20 bills lying around except in residential areas which may be constrained by zoning or home owner associations from having high albedo roofs.
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday January 08 2015, @03:13PM
Southern California is heavily Hispanic; traditional Hispanic architecture stays cool a lot better in warm climates than does, say, traditional British architecture.
While not everyone is Latino, it is quite common for Southern California Anglos to prefer the Mediterranean architecture, maybe they think it looks nice, or fits with the neighboring architecture, or maybe some Anglos even understand that Latinos know better than Anglos do.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 08 2015, @05:37PM
CA lead the charge on reducing SOX/NOX reductions in car exhaust before anyone. The reason we don't have severe smog and acid rain in cities across the country is bacause of CA's tight emissions requirements.