• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

California takes on global warming - emission caps, pollutant reduction

Similar to our state's stem-cell funding bill that funds stem-cell research to the tune of $3 Billion dollars, while Bush did nothing, California has just moved to impose caps on greenhouse-gas emissions where Bush's "clear skies" BS pretends that greenhouse gasses like CO2 don't exist and aren't harmful.

It's good to live in a state that knows how to do the right thing.

California takes on global warming

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- California will impose broad caps on its greenhouse-gas emissions under a landmark plan that marks a clear break with the federal government and which backers hope will become a national model.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who helped assemble the plan, called Wednesday's agreement "an example for other states and nations to follow as the fight against climate change continues."

The plan came after weeks of difficult negotiations and was sent to the state Senate, which approved it late Wednesday with a 23-14 vote. If approved as expected by the Democrat-controlled Assembly, the bill would then go to the governor's desk.

"My main objective was getting a bill that the environmental community can champion around the country and say, 'California did this, and you should be too.' And we did that," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, a Democrat.

25 percent cut by 2020

The bill requires the state's major industries -- such as utility plants, oil and gas refineries, and cement kilns -- to reduce their emissions carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by an estimated 25 percent by 2020.

One of the key mechanisms designed to drive the reductions is a market program that will allow businesses to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies.

"Today it feels as if the whole world is watching, and I hope they are," said Ann Notthoff of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the environmental groups involved in the negotiations.

The agreement was announced simultaneously by the governor's office and Democratic leaders in the Senate and Assembly. It gives the governor a key environmental victory as he seeks re-election this fall.

The bill states that the California Air Resources Board -- an 11-member panel appointed by the governor -- must identify "market-based compliance mechanisms" that might be used as part of its plan to reach the cap.

Environmentalists praise bill

The cap was praised by environmentalists as a step toward fighting global climate change. It was criticized by some business leaders, who say it will increase their costs and force them to scale back their California operations.

Republicans blasted the bill, saying the bill would have little effect and make California an expensive place to do business. "This bill is the road to economic ruin for California," Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth said.

The nation's most populous state is the world's 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases and could suffer dire consequences if global temperatures increase only a few degrees. (The process of global warming)

In the absence of federal action, much of the effort to combat climate change has been focused in the states. More than 100 climate-related bills have been held up in Congress, including one that calls for a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
State a leader in cutting auto emissions

California has led the country in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through its renewable energy policies and a 2004 law reducing tailpipe emissions from vehicles.

Ten other states are poised to enact California's auto rule, while more than 20 states have required utilities to eventually generate some power from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal.

The bill includes a so-called "safety valve" sought by Schwarzenegger that would allow California's governor to delay the emission-cap mandate if the state is hit with a natural disaster, terrorist attack or some other emergency.

In addition to the emissions cap, California lawmakers voted to approve related global warming legislation. That bill would prohibit the state from entering long-term contracts with any out-of-state utility that fails to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. The bill passed by a 43-30 vote in the Assembly. It goes to the Senate for final approval.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Linkage
 
Are they are going after old cars? I would hate that if they do. Too few classic cars around for them to make a bill on that. It ticks me off that people even think about getting these smogged (made before smog equipment) or even banned. Really, how many classics do you see? I think I saw 1 old Mustang last night. Nothing pre-75 on my whole 50 minute commute to work this morning.
I think we are loosing enough to accidents, theft and rust. Enough to make lawmakers and lobbyist happy.

Also, really...solar and wind. There isn't enough usable land mass in the entire world for our power.
Nuclear energy ftw.
 
I am curious, how do these business credits work?
I may have to startup a business out there and sell my credits to come indutrial giant.

This will fail, either they wont make the cut or business will simply close up shop and move elsewhere.

 
Though it seems good for the environment I wonder what other consequences this is going to have, particularly the "no deals with outside energy companies" part. Speaking form personal experience someone somewhere is going to find a way out of it. San Francisco ends up having most of its air pollution dumped in the valley due to the natural delta breezes. They also have one of the most lax smog requirements bc of it. (the thinking goes that if their air is clean, it shouldn't matter).

Nuclear FTL. Way too many problems with that one. If something DOES go wrong you're screwed a la Chernoble. Not to mention the waste is around for a couple million years...
 
The cap was praised by environmentalists as a step toward fighting global climate change. It was criticized by some business leaders, who say it will increase their costs and force them to scale back their California operations.
This is the one vulnerability in a state assuming a stance that calls for higher restrictions then the federal government is willing to impose.

Unless Arizona, Nevada and other border states to California choose to impose similar restrictions, you will see an exodus of businesses who will find operating in other states more cost effective given the

I fully support a federal effort to target pollution...there was an article in a recent issue of MIT Technology Review that summarizes the numerous alternative energy sources and technologies that we can deploy TODAY that will significantly cut greenhouse gases and pollution. Of interesting note, and which really blew my mind, are the small steps that households can take to significantly reduce energy consumption...everything from limiting air conditioning use to replacing light bulbs. If everyone collectively did their part now, we can actively prevent an environmental crisis even without government incentives to do so.
 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Unless Arizona, Nevada and other border states to California choose to impose similar restrictions, you will see an exodus of businesses who will find operating in other states more cost effective

Meh... so what, California will "downgrade" from the world's sixth largest economy to the seventh or eighth... big deal!
 
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Unless Arizona, Nevada and other border states to California choose to impose similar restrictions, you will see an exodus of businesses who will find operating in other states more cost effective

Meh... so what, California will "downgrade" from the world's sixth largest economy to the seventh or eighth... big deal!

Exactly. And I'm betting most of this bellyaching by business is just an idle threat.

California, more than any other state, has serious air quality issues. They really can't back away from these reforms if they want any environmentally sound future for their state.
 
Originally posted by: LEDominator


Nuclear FTL. Way too many problems with that one. If something DOES go wrong you're screwed a la Chernoble. Not to mention the waste is around for a couple million years...


Sigh, more poorly educated FUDD. Chernobyl was the worst run, most poorly designed and operated reactor possible. Nothing in the western world came as close to being as shoddy as Chernobyl, yet loons have to connect western and more modern nukes to it.

If you knew anything about nuke power, you would know that a Chernobyl cannot happen in modern reactors to any reasonable degree. The statistical probability is so low as to be impossible.

The waste in reactors can be reprocessed and reduced in potency, much will be safe within a hundred years or so.

Nuke is the best tech we have. Loons will say "what about solar or wind or tidal", all have downsides including chemicals in the manufacturing, not to mention they aren't feasable to power the world.

For the next hundred years or so, nuke is the way to go. Rather than dumping hundreds of tons of radioactive material through coal or other pollutants through other fuels globally, we concentrate it and deal with it in small confined areas. Much better than worldwide distribution.

If it weren't for the loons we'd have probably all of our power from nukes by now, cutting our pollution by a massive amount, which could also lead to pollution free battery powered cars (since even battery powered cars now require fossil fuels) or something else.

You are cutting your nose off to spite your face. Loons FTL!
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: LEDominator


Nuclear FTL. Way too many problems with that one. If something DOES go wrong you're screwed a la Chernoble. Not to mention the waste is around for a couple million years...


Sigh, more poorly educated FUDD.

It's sad, isn't it? We have the gift of limitless energy, but we also have NIMBY idiots who know absolutely nothing about how a nuclear reactor works.
 
What about 3 Mile Island? There are just too many risk factors for me to be behind it. Plus, how do you know that our Nuclear power plants haven't come close to melting down? There was a facility in Illinois I believe that was uncovered to have come dangerously close to chernoble-ing and no one knew about it till decades later. Thus, reasoning still stands; Nuclear Power FTL!
 
Originally posted by: LEDominator
What about 3 Mile Island? There are just too many risk factors for me to be behind it. Plus, how do you know that our Nuclear power plants haven't come close to melting down? There was a facility in Illinois I believe that was uncovered to have come dangerously close to chernoble-ing and no one knew about it till decades later. Thus, reasoning still stands; Nuclear Power FTL!

TMI was overblown and was a series of errors that shouldn't have happened. I find it continually amazing how people, because isolated and extreme cases, happen to not use a newer and safer technology.

How have other countries run reactors for millions of hours and not have had any significant problems? You cling to a couple examples when statistically, its so much safer than that. But you seem like one of the ignorant ones who refuses to fly and drive cars because a few isolated incidents, so here.

A good anology would be for us to stop using airplanes because of crashes and use all cars. Cars pollute more, are less safe, and are overall just fekkin bad.

Just because something was once worse doesn't mean it's not better now. Otherwise we'd completely eschew technological advances and still be driving horse and buggies, or maybe clubbing animals. The difference between a modern human and a neandrathal is the acceptance of failure and committement to improvement.

Too bad we have way too many neandrathals in this country.
 
Originally posted by: LEDominator
What about 3 Mile Island? There are just too many risk factors for me to be behind it. Plus, how do you know that our Nuclear power plants haven't come close to melting down? There was a facility in Illinois I believe that was uncovered to have come dangerously close to chernoble-ing and no one knew about it till decades later. Thus, reasoning still stands; Nuclear Power FTL!

Again, you're talking about things that happened decades ago. Redundant safety features exist now that were not implemented back then. People still fly in airplanes after disasters; take a look at how many safely running nuclear reactors exist worldwide versus the Chernobyls.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: LEDominator
What about 3 Mile Island? There are just too many risk factors for me to be behind it. Plus, how do you know that our Nuclear power plants haven't come close to melting down? There was a facility in Illinois I believe that was uncovered to have come dangerously close to chernoble-ing and no one knew about it till decades later. Thus, reasoning still stands; Nuclear Power FTL!

TMI was overblown and was a series of errors that shouldn't have happened. I find it continually amazing how people, because isolated and extreme cases, happen to not use a newer and safer technology.

A good anology would be for us to stop using airplanes because of crashes and use all cars. Cars pollute more, are less safe, and are overall just fekkin bad.

Just because something was once worse doesn't mean it's better now. Otherwise we'd completely eschew technological advances and still be driving horse and buggies, or maybe clubbing animals. The difference between a modern human and a neandrathal is the acceptance of failure and committement to improvement.

Too bad we have way too many neandrathals in this country.

And thats my point, people MAKE errors. An Analogy of Planes and Cars, that would be true, unfortunately a Nuclear accident has a bit more destructive power should something go wrong.
 
Originally posted by: LEDominator
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: LEDominator
What about 3 Mile Island? There are just too many risk factors for me to be behind it. Plus, how do you know that our Nuclear power plants haven't come close to melting down? There was a facility in Illinois I believe that was uncovered to have come dangerously close to chernoble-ing and no one knew about it till decades later. Thus, reasoning still stands; Nuclear Power FTL!

TMI was overblown and was a series of errors that shouldn't have happened. I find it continually amazing how people, because isolated and extreme cases, happen to not use a newer and safer technology.

A good anology would be for us to stop using airplanes because of crashes and use all cars. Cars pollute more, are less safe, and are overall just fekkin bad.

Just because something was once worse doesn't mean it's better now. Otherwise we'd completely eschew technological advances and still be driving horse and buggies, or maybe clubbing animals. The difference between a modern human and a neandrathal is the acceptance of failure and committement to improvement.

Too bad we have way too many neandrathals in this country.

And thats my point, people MAKE errors. An Analogy of Planes and Cars, that would be true, unfortunately a Nuclear accident has a bit more destructive power should something go wrong.

nuclear reactors aren't as deadly as people perceive them to be. consider the fact that since TMI and chernobyl, no accidents have occurred related to nuclear power, period. this includes reactor operation and waste transportation.

also consider that a nuclear bomb has something like 95% U235, and uranium for reactors is around 2% U235. this means that a sustained, large scale explosion akin to a bomb would not occur (more likely a core meltdown).

nuclear reactors release fewer pollutants into the air than coal power plants. in fact, coal plants put more radioactive material in the atmosphere than nuclear plants do. coal power is responsible for something like 51% of the electricity produced in the US.

while lowering vehicle emmissions is a good effort, consumer vehicles only account for 20% of all CO2 emmissions. where we REALLY would benefit is in the industry. consider that GM's hybrid buses save more fuel than hybrid priuses/insights (if i'm not mistaken)

edit: there were almost 45,000 deaths reported in car crashed in 2004 based on NHSTA data. you may want to weight that against how much a nuclear reactor meltdown could do
 
Originally posted by: LEDominator
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: LEDominator
What about 3 Mile Island? There are just too many risk factors for me to be behind it. Plus, how do you know that our Nuclear power plants haven't come close to melting down? There was a facility in Illinois I believe that was uncovered to have come dangerously close to chernoble-ing and no one knew about it till decades later. Thus, reasoning still stands; Nuclear Power FTL!

TMI was overblown and was a series of errors that shouldn't have happened. I find it continually amazing how people, because isolated and extreme cases, happen to not use a newer and safer technology.

A good anology would be for us to stop using airplanes because of crashes and use all cars. Cars pollute more, are less safe, and are overall just fekkin bad.

Just because something was once worse doesn't mean it's better now. Otherwise we'd completely eschew technological advances and still be driving horse and buggies, or maybe clubbing animals. The difference between a modern human and a neandrathal is the acceptance of failure and committement to improvement.

Too bad we have way too many neandrathals in this country.

And thats my point, people MAKE errors. An Analogy of Planes and Cars, that would be true, unfortunately a Nuclear accident has a bit more destructive power should something go wrong.


Funny, can you name how many people were killed by TMI, which is the best correlation you have to a western reactor?

How many people have died so far from Chernobyl?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident

The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that as many as 9000 people among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, may die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases)[3]. Nearly 20 years after the disaster, according to the Chernobyl Forum, none of the expected increases in leukemia have been found in the population, nor in the solid cancers.


How about airplanes?


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001449.html


Want to count them all?

I did it for you, 20,531 approximately.


 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Similar to our state's stem-cell funding bill that funds stem-cell research to the tune of $3 Billion dollars, while Bush did nothing, California has just moved to impose caps on greenhouse-gas emissions where Bush's "clear skies" BS pretends that greenhouse gasses like CO2 don't exist and aren't harmful.

It's good to live in a state that knows how to do the right thing.
The 'right thing' on stem cells was to spend $3 billion that you didn't have? The 'right thing' on the environment is to impose unrealistic environmental restrictions, such as reducing the CO2 output of power plants by 25% when they will undoubtedly need to increase power output over this same timeframe? This sounds like a very poorly thought out measure constructed by politicians for political purposes, neglecting any and all practical implications, much like the stem cell measure.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Similar to our state's stem-cell funding bill that funds stem-cell research to the tune of $3 Billion dollars, while Bush did nothing, California has just moved to impose caps on greenhouse-gas emissions where Bush's "clear skies" BS pretends that greenhouse gasses like CO2 don't exist and aren't harmful.

It's good to live in a state that knows how to do the right thing.
The 'right thing' on stem cells was to spend $3 billion that you didn't have? The 'right thing' on the environment is to impose unrealistic environmental restrictions, such as reducing the CO2 output of power plants by 25% when they will undoubtedly need to increase power output over this same timeframe? This sounds like a very poorly thought out measure constructed by politicians for political purposes, neglecting any and all practical implications, much like the stem cell measure.

Yep-they should get their asses to church and pray. Couple of hail mary's and all the problems just magically "go away"

:roll:
 
I don't dispute the numbers, but that isn't the point. Just because something hasn't happened or we have gotten lucky by averting disaster doesn't mean that it WON'T happen. And you are right, no one has died from TMI, but how close did we come to disaster. Chernoble still has repurcussions today, particularly economic. Much of the area around Chernoble (Mainly the area closest to the reactor though the area of impact spans 3 countries) is still unusable and you take your chances by living there. You may be willing to weigh a good record against it, but all it takes is one major problem and the devastation is enormous. I don't feel it is worth it.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious, how do these business credits work?
I may have to startup a business out there and sell my credits to come indutrial giant.

This will fail, either they wont make the cut or business will simply close up shop and move elsewhere.

Pessimist! I think it can succeed. There is a lot of great technology out there for reducing emissions and it is believable that it will work out by 2020. California needs to keep pushing clean forms of energy. It was recently, or about to be anyways, overtaken by Texas as far as wind energy.
 
Maybe I can finally get a state grant to build my 100 mile x 100 mile solar array out in the Mojave Desert. I'll generate enough electricity to power the entire country, create a monopoly and then sell for mad money FTW! 😀
 
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious, how do these business credits work?
I may have to startup a business out there and sell my credits to come indutrial giant.

This will fail, either they wont make the cut or business will simply close up shop and move elsewhere.

Pessimist! I think it can succeed. There is a lot of great technology out there for reducing emissions and it is believable that it will work out by 2020. California needs to keep pushing clean forms of energy. It was recently, or about to be anyways, overtaken by Texas as far as wind energy.

We wouldn't have been had they kept the air farm on the altamont. There used to be windmills as far as you could see, now quite a few of them have been taken out though there are still some around.
 
Meh... so what, California will "downgrade" from the world's sixth largest economy to the seventh or eighth... big deal!
It is a big deal...especially given that the state's economy is not entirely stable...all it would take is for a few key industries to pack their bags, and it would set off a fairly significant chain reaction...starting with the implosion of the housing bubble, and rippling down through the entire economy.

California, more than any other state, has serious air quality issues. They really can't back away from these reforms if they want any environmentally sound future for their state.
Some of those problems are simply unavoidable given the air flow through the state...however, I support any initiative to decrease emmissions, even if I have to pay more for it in taxes or whatever.
 
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious, how do these business credits work?
I may have to startup a business out there and sell my credits to come indutrial giant.

This will fail, either they wont make the cut or business will simply close up shop and move elsewhere.

Pessimist! I think it can succeed. There is a lot of great technology out there for reducing emissions and it is believable that it will work out by 2020. California needs to keep pushing clean forms of energy. It was recently, or about to be anyways, overtaken by Texas as far as wind energy.

That cost money, the costs move onto the consumer, if it cant be moved to the consumer the business moves or closes shop.

Do you think the only reason so many factories move to other countries is because of the cost of labor? It is much cheaper to actually run the factory in other countries due to lack of enviornmental laws.

 
The increadibly funny thing about Californias energy laws is that it simply means that everyone builds their plants in other states and ships the power into California, so in reality they arent saving anything. Also, next time California has blackouts, they had better realise that its thier own d@mn fault, the same goes for the fact that their electricity prices are absurdly high.
 
Back
Top