Good news in CA (mitigating climate change)

[billvon 2,384]

The Calufornia legislature just passed a CO2-emissions reduction bill, and the governor is expected to sign it into law. It calls for a 25% cut in total CO2 emissions by 2020, rolling emissions back to 1990 levels.

As has happened before, where CA goes, other states follow. Eight other states are now seriously considering greenhouse gas reduction laws, and two more have begun debating the issue in their state senates. California is already the 12th largest emitter of CO2 in the world. Combining that with emissions reductions in 10 other states could make a real impact on greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

[TheAnvil 0]

Cool...I wonder how they intend for this to occur. Mandating biodiesel everywhere diesel gasoline is sold, perhaps?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[StreetScooby 5]

So, CA isn't going to have any new power plants built. The power plants in neighboring states that supply CA's energy needs are going to reap a windfall, as they should.

This is a prime example of political posturing at its worst, in practical terms.

We are all engines of karma

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The Calufornia legislature just passed a CO2-emissions reduction bill...

Quote:

The California legislation also provides a statewide market system designed to make it easier for heavily polluting industries to meet the new limits. They would be able to buy "credits" from companies that emit lower emissions than the caps allow, rather than having to invest in cleaner new technologies.

Corporate opponents in California, moreover, say the legislation could cripple their industries and raise electricity prices. Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, said mandates will only increase the cost of doing business.

"The economic graveyards of California are littered with the jobs that are the unintended consequences of good intentions by legislators and governors," said Stewart.

In Washington, utilities lobbyist Scott Segal sounded a similar note, saying the measure would raise electricity prices and hurt the most vulnerable consumers: "When power shortages occur and rates go up, the people who are hurt the most are the ones least able to afford it."

Bush's top environmental adviser, James L. Connaughton, said in a statement that "...it remains concerned about "any program that moves jobs and increases emissions in other states or other countries - an open question for California's proposed legislation."

So nothing would really change, except that the polluting companies will have to spend more money, and therefore raise prices on their products and services, which will therefore cost consumers more. And all of this for no change in pollution, while driving businesses and jobs out of state, and costing consumers more of their hard-earned money.

Congratulations, California!

Ahhh, but the tree-huggers feel sooo much better now.

References:

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=8239

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/opinion/15259057.htm

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19472

[akarunway 1]

Quote

So, CA isn't going to have any new power plants built. The power plants in neighboring states that supply CA's energy needs are going to reap a windfall, as they should.

This is a prime example of political posturing at its worst, in practical terms.

How true. >http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.htmlYou tell me. We are building them as I type A lot on hold tho for various reasons. They want long term energy contracts before they construct them

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[billvon 2,384]

> So, CA isn't going to have any new power plants built.

Sure they are. Nuclear, geothermal, hydro, solar and wind are all completely unaffected by this bill. It is safe to say that CA won't be building any more coal plants - which is a good thing.

>This is a prime example of political posturing at its worst, in practical terms.

They said the same thing about emissions controls for cars. But they worked; the air is a lot cleaner now.

[billvon 2,384]

>So nothing would really change, except that the polluting companies
>will have to spend more money, and therefore raise prices on their
>products and services, which will therefore cost consumers more.

And clean companies will charge consumers LESS since they don't have to pay for any credits. Clean companies make lots of money, dirty companies go out of business (who wants more expensive electricity?) consumers save money and californians get jobs installing the cleaner power plants/kilns/more efficient lighting etc.

Cleaner air, cleaner companies, more jobs. I can see how some people would _hate_ that.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So, CA isn't going to have any new power plants built. The power plants in neighboring states that supply CA's energy needs are going to reap a windfall, as they should.

This is a prime example of political posturing at its worst, in practical terms.

Well, if it means that we can get a couple more nuclear power plants built, then I'm all for it.

We've got four reactors in two facilities in Cali that supply about 17 percent of all power in the state. A couple more plants that utilize newer technologies could probably bring that total up to 50 percent.

This would result in millions of tons per year of carbon emissions being eliminated.

The problem is with the legislature. Back in the 70's, during the anti-nuclear bullshit (China Syndrome days), the California Legislature passed Public Resources Code section 25524.1, which prevents a land use permit for all nuclear fission thermal powerplants (except Diablo Canyon and San Onofre) unless the Energy Commission finds that the feds have a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel.

So, until Yucca mountain opens, or unless some other long term disposal technology is developed, California won't allow nuclear power unless the statute is changed.

It's kind of amazing that the public is now in favor of building more nuclear reactors. I guess the pretty solid history of their safe use has displaced some of the earlier fears and emotions...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Well, if it means that we can get a couple more nuclear power plants built, then I'm all for it.

Agreed.

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 18]

Sad really to think people have bought into this ....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

The problem is with the legislature. Back in the 70's, during the anti-nuclear bullshit (China Syndrome days), the California Legislature passed Public Resources Code section 25524.1, which prevents a land use permit for all nuclear fission thermal powerplants (except Diablo Canyon and San Onofre) unless the Energy Commission finds that the feds have a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel.

Quote

You make a good point here. The other thing to notice is that this is the same type of hype GW nuts are using today. In 10 years, when this is all debunked they will say. Oh well, better safe than sorry

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[rushmc 18]

For your consideration

I am sure you will get a different take from it than I

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf#search=%22NOAA%20ocean%20cooling%20report%22

Please pay special attention to the number
5 Disscusion of this report

Edited to add:
I do not claim billvon that this report debunks your claims. But there are a couple of very interesting conclusion one can draw from this widely unreported info that is to or has come out in a scientific magazine.

We can discuss if you reply.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[miked10270 0]

Don't you have all that "Surf" stuff in Cali?

The reason I ask is that we build the Pelamis wave-power generators where I live.
Although, in this particular case, what works for Cali, Oregon & Wash may not be as successful in Az, Idaho & Nevada!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Cool...I wonder how they intend for this to occur. Mandating biodiesel everywhere diesel gasoline is sold, perhaps?

There's some interesting reading in this month's Scientific American magazine -- It's an issue dedicated to energy and carbon. There are many ideas in it that, if combined, could help California achieve their goals by 2020.

I don't expect any plan to be perfect, but I am glad that some states are taking some initiatives. Here in Canada, Ontario is phasing out coal-fired plants by 2009 and we are all bitching about how it's going to hurt our electric generating capacity, because we have had energy crises in past summers. But I think somehow, we are going to manage to get through it all -- after all, this summer we didn't have any major power crises requiring a brownout or rolling blackouts. And there's talk of new nuclear being built. (Much better and safer kinds of plants) And wind power is being added very quickly now that it's getting very cost effective. (We only have about 1/50th of the world's wind power though -- Germany is far ahead of us at 18 gigawatts, 30% of the world's wind power concentrated in that one country.) ... And yes, I realize that the booming Alberta oilsands is going to negetate a lot of the greening elsewhere in Canada. (Still not a reason to forget about improvements elsewhere.)

Bickering aside, we HAVE to do something in the next hundred years, even if gradually... There will be imperfections. Such as California may import electric power from more-polluting states. But eventually those other states will probably slowly clean up; possibly encouraged by national legislation and new technologies once they become GLARING standouts next to cleaner states, and of course, maybe California eventually factoring in for the carbon footprint of imported power...

Nothing is perfect, but I think it is good for states of a country to take environmental initiatives that the country's national goverment may not...

[billvon 2,384]

>Please pay special attention to the number 5 Disscusion of this report . . .

An interesting report showing short-term fluctuations in ocean temperatures. You may have missed a few parts in this report though:

"While there has been a general increase in the global integral of OHCA during the last half century, there have also been substantial decadal fluctuations, including a short period of rapid cooling (6 ´ 1022 J of heat lost in the 0–700 m layer) from 1980 to 1983
[Levitus et al., 2005]."

Translation - the ocean has been (on average) getting warmer over the past 50 years, but there are fluctuations. (The fluctuations are what the report is about.)

"The recent cooling of the upper ocean implies a decrease in the thermosteric component of sea level. Estimates of total sea level [Leuliette et al., 2004; http://sealevel.colorado.edu], however, show continued sea-level rise during the past 3 years. This suggests that other contributions to sea-level rise, such as melting of land-bound ice, have accelerated."

Translation - ice is continuing to melt at increasingly rapid rates, causing a sea-level rise (and diluting parts of the ocean with fresh cold water.) It is so significant that it greatly overwhelms the 'shrinkage' caused by a cooler upper ocean surface.

This is important because once the fluctuation reverses itself, then we will see a rapid rise in sea level, since the increase in ocean temp and the melting ice will then add their effects.

Not many scientists are worried about short-term weather patterns and short cooling/warming cycles; they've been around forever. What they _are_ concerned about is a steady, longer-term increase in the earth's average heat balance caused by an increase of greenhouse gas. That "signal" is just one of many that influence the weather. But it's always there, and it's getting stronger every year. That's what this (and other) CO2 mitigation strategies are attempting to ameliorate.

[rushmc 18]

Ya billvon, I find those same conclusions but there was another as well. What sparked this was an interview I heard (I can't remember where for sure. I thought NPR but I can't verify this). They were interviewing one of the team members of this report and he made a comment that I have heard before.

His comments were made in the context of the ocean releasing 20% of the gathered heat in one year. He said something to the effect that they identified a not known (or understood) mechanism by which the ocean can release massive amounts of energy.(heat) This same mechanism is not fully understood and is not taken into account by most if not all global warming models.

Where this is leading to? I don't know, but once again something comes to light that shows we really know less than we would like or care to admit to......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,384]

Interesting factoid from this summer -

At one point this summer, so much arctic ice melted that you could have sailed a boat from Norway to the North Pole. Pretty cool and scary at the same time.


--------------------------------
Satellite views show big gaps in Arctic ice
Ships could have sailed to North Pole this summer, scientists say

Updated: 11:01 a.m. PT Sept 20, 2006 (Reuters)

PARIS - A warm summer and late storms in the past few months briefly opened a channel in the Arctic ice big enough to allow a ship to sail to the North Pole, the European Space Agency said Wednesday.

The agency said satellite images showed “dramatic openings” over an area bigger than the British Isles in the Arctic’s sea ice, which normally stays frozen all year.

“This situation is unlike anything observed in previous record low ice seasons,” Mark Drinkwater of ESA’s Oceans/Ice Unit said in a statement.

Late-summer storms had fragmented between 5 and 10 percent of the Arctic’s perennial sea ice after it survived the summer melt season, ESA said. The agency’s satellite images were taken between Aug. 23 and Aug. 25.

“It is highly possible that a ship could have passed from Spitzbergen or northern Siberia through what is normally pack ice to reach the North Pole without difficulty,” Drinkwater added. Spitzbergen is a Norwegian island in the Arctic Ocean.

. . .

The smallest amount of ice recorded in the Arctic annually fell to less than 2.1 million square miles (5.5 million square kilometers) in 2005, from about 3 million square miles (8 million square kilometers) in the early 1980s.

NASA said last week that Arctic sea ice was likely to recede this year close to 2005’s low. A stormy August slightly slowed the 2006 melt.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

A supplemental pictoid for your factoid, Bill.
From the Beeb
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5344208.stm

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson