| Snark of the day. |
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Even California Can't Meet Climate Change Goals |
| 2013-11-07 |
| The author is whining about not doing enough. I present it as an example of how much it's going to cost, notwithstanding the need. For climate change optimists, California is indeed the golden state when it comes to aggressive policies designed to avoid Give us more power and control! We will save you! That's the number scientists believe must be met to keep climate change in check. "This is quite a stringent requirement, and even if we aggressively expand our policies and implement fledgling technologies that are not even on the marketplace now, our analysis shows that California will still not be able to get emissions to 85 metric tons of CO2-equivalent by 2050," said Jeff Greenblatt, a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who wrote the report. Greenblatt assumes that Californians will drive 30% fewer miles in 2050, and if they're still driving gasoline-powered cars, their vehicles will get about 78 miles per gallon. About 17 million cars would need to be zero-emission vehicles--powered by batteries or fuel cells. The state had better hope that fracking works out; 45% of all heavy-duty trucks would be powered by natural gas under the most optimistic scenario. They'd prefer that truck would run off unicorn natural gas, none of that nasty fracking, please! Coming soon, with additional funding grants - The study does identify policies that were not considered under the third scenario because of a lack of data on their impact. Those included making all buses electric or powered by fuel cells, converting trains to run on natural gas, self-driving cars, and the mass deployment of solar panels and energy storage in every home to radically cut power plant emissions. Nor were their any cost estimates associated with the proposed changes. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #13 "Is this just stupidity or arrogance?" No reason it can't be both, Alan. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-11-07 21:06 |
| #12 Don't worry. CO2 "science" is atmospheric homoeopathy. That's good. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2013-11-07 17:52 |
| #11 Back in the 80s when it was all about the rain forest I wondered why didn't all these groups start buying up rain forest so it couldnt' be logged. I know that's a capitalist answer but with all the money they raised for awareness they could have bought a large chunk of forest and saved it. I bet they could have gotten the UN or Brazil to work on their behalf to get a discount or tax exemption. Except it wasn't ever really about the trees. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2013-11-07 14:41 |
| #10 I hate to admit but I do know the answer to the question. Unfortunately once the answer has been stated there is nothing else to say...and where's the fun in that. The answer, of course, is that there are the stupid greenies who believe their own bilge and there are the leadership greenies who are more accurately labeled water-melons, green on the outside and red in the middle. For the leadership it is, as CF points out, all about control and power for me but not for thee. Once you have identified the totalitarians and tyrants what is left to say on this issue? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2013-11-07 14:15 |
| #9 You are assuming of course that it's about the environment. Not the case. The environmental protection agency and vast majority of other 'enviromental groups' don't give a rats arse about protecting the environment. Controlling people's lives on the other hand... Oh yeah! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-11-07 12:41 |
#8 There are so many opportunities they overlook. For example, have you ever flown at night? Notice how bright it is? Think of how much electricity from the nasty fossil-fuel plants we could eliminate if we just turn off all the lights when we went to bed. Like they do in North Korea.
| |
| Posted by: Bobby 2013-11-07 12:40 |
| #7 Now RandomJD, you know the problem with your question. You KNOW they don't think, because thinking is against their religion. If they start thinking, they become heretics when they realize everything they believe is a lie and wrong. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2013-11-07 12:36 |
| #6 AlanC, I've often wondered about that. Do pious greenies really believe that restricting greenhouse gas emissions on this or that small patch of land will make much difference in world where industrializing behemoths like China and India have no intention of following suit? Even if they're correct about the problem and the solution, it hardly matters if most of the rest of the world blows it off. Like swearing off smoking with the left hand but not with the right. What's the point? I mean, other than OWG. Do they even think about it? |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2013-11-07 12:18 |
| #5 The author is a sham. If he really cared about emissions he would render himself carbon neutral immediately. His lack of action clearly states that he is only out for his own good. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2013-11-07 11:52 |
| #4 Don't worry. CO2 "science" is atmospheric homoeopathy. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-11-07 10:38 |
| #3 ...no, just a separate 'reality'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-11-07 09:50 |
| #2 So these bozos think that California's 410,000 sq. KM area can offset the 149 million sq KM area of the entire earth (not counting oceans)? Is this just stupidity or arrogance? OR did I miss something and California has a totally separate climate from the rest of the world? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2013-11-07 09:33 |
| #1 California will just have to take more radical steps, like banning the sale and use of fossil fuels and turning off their electric grid. Turn away all ships attempting to dock at their ports. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2013-11-07 09:17 |