Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Californication

California plans to cut 169 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2020

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 3:51 PM on 26 Jun 2008

How do you return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 while promoting jobs, competitiveness, and public health? Conservatives in the U.S. Senate think it can't be done. California knows it can.

The Air Resources Board has just published their "Scoping Plan." How do they cut 169 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2020? Efficiency, efficiency, renewables, renewables, and even some conservation:

ca-ghg.jpg

Given that the single biggest source of California's GHG emissions is transportation, surging oil prices will make it that much easier for them to achieve this target and increase the savings for California consumers and businesses.

Unlike U.S. Senate conservatives, Californians understand that the multiple benefits of action -- and the cost of inaction -- greatly exceed the costs of action:

California has a long and successful track record of implementing environmental policies that also deliver economic benefits ... the overall savings from improved efficiency and developing alternatives to petroleum will, on the whole, outweigh the costs. This balance is largely driven by current high energy costs and the degree to which measures increase energy efficiency throughout the economy and move California toward ultimately cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels ...

The potential costs of implementing the Plan pale beside the cost of doing nothing. Looking globally, the Stern Review issued by the Treasury of the United Kingdom estimated that " ... if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five percent of global [gross domestic product (GDP)] each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20 percent of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action -- reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change -- can be limited to around one percent of global GDP each year."

And again, this "cost" is not a net loss of 1 percent of GDP, but a shift in spending, which has multiple benefits:

The Plan will also provide a wide range of public health and environmental benefits anticipated from reducing greenhouse gases. Preliminary analysis indicates that the total economic value associated with public health benefits is likely to be on the order of $2 billion in 2020. The estimated reduction of combustion-generated soot (PM 2.5) associated with the recommended regulatory measures is 10 tons per day, and the estimated reduction of oxides of nitrogen (a precursor to smog) total 50 tons per day. These reductions in harmful air pollution lead to the following estimated health benefits in 2020:

· 340 fewer premature deaths
· 9,400 fewer cases of asthma-related and other lower respiratory symptoms
· 780 fewer cases of acute bronchitis
· 57,000 fewer work days lost
· 330,000 fewer restricted activity days

Kudos to the state of California.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

No Coal Plants To Convert?

Other states such a Virginia are taking the smartest, faster and cheapest route -- replacing one or two old coal plants with cleaner more modern ones.

In a single stroke, they can, percentagewise, do everything that California government uses draconian measures to do.


Huh?

"-- replacing one or two old coal plants with cleaner more modern ones.

In a single stroke, they can, percentagewise, do everything that California government uses draconian measures to do."

How about showing us the math?

I tell you what Jabailo

I tell you what Jabailo, lets look at the economy of California and that of Virginia in ten years, and the percentage of growth in each, and then you tell me about evil draconian measures.

And you know what Mr. Libertarian?  You will find that government will do OK setting the boundaries of the new playing field (carbon regulation), and in turn, private individual entrepreneurs will kick ass competing within that field.  With freedom and creativity.

And you will have the freedom to choose what color your solar panels or wind turbine will be, so they match your house.  See?  Lots of freedom.  After all, do you whine about having to buy a catalytic converter and seat belts on your car today?

Your portrayal of a Big Brother doesn't wash.

Oh, I forgot to tell you:  In small letters stamped on the side of your panels and turbines will be written, "Made In California"

Just in 3 days

... California wildfires have put out more than 2.5 million tons (estimated) in GHG's from wildfires. Overall, fires nationwide have spewed out 20 million tons and it's still June. Last year, fires produced nearly 100 million tons of GHG's.

Just thought I'd give you folks some badly needed perspective.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

California already did.

California got rid of their "old coal plants" long ago. However, CA currently does import a substantial portion of their utility power from coal-fired plants in neighboring states. But they're working to eliminate that as well.


Rico is right...

...California doesn't have many coal plants to begin with, jabailo.  Most of their energy comes from renewables, natural gas, and nukes.

While this plan is very good, one wonders what steps they will take to make sure it happens?

Good plan

Notice the items on methane control.  Should that read 20 tons CO2 GHG equivalent, or has the 21x (methane GHG effect/CO2 effect) factor already been taken into account?

California is way ahead as usual.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks