Skip to main content

California is home to AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 authored by State Senator Fran Pavley that caps and trades carbon pollution, mandates lower carbon fuel, higher mileage from automobiles, energy efficiency, and puts the state at the forefront of the clean energy economy.

bendy straw milkshakeCalifornia is also home to 15 billion barrels of oil that now can be easily recovered using modern fracking technology. The state has always had some oil, as anyone who's ever seen There Will Be Blood or cleaned up a Santa Barbara spill can attest. But the wells got old, and most of the good milkshakes got drank, until fracking - the art of using a very long bendy straw - came along. And now Venoco, Occidental Petroleum, and others are salivating at the thought of fracking up California. The New York Times' story on vast oil reserves now within reach has gotten national attention. Rightwing papers are asking: could the Monterey Shale save California? (never mind that California saved itself by depriving Republicans of their hostage-taking abilities). From the Times:

Comprising two-thirds of the United States’s total estimated shale oil reserves and covering 1,750 square miles from Southern to Central California, the Monterey Shale could turn California into the nation’s top oil-producing state and yield the kind of riches that far smaller shale oil deposits have showered on North Dakota and Texas.
California's 15 billion barrels of easily fracked oil are roughly four times the size of the Bakken formation. It's enough to bedazzle Democratic lawmakers. Once known for their environmentalism, they're rushing to gut, oops, I mean amend, the California Environmental Quality Act, just in time for the embarrassment of fracked-up blood money.

Alas, neither the New York Times nor any of the pieces predicting untold riches for the state bother to calculate what burning all this shale oil will do to the climate.

What will 15 billion barrels of oil do to the state's efforts to fight global warming?

I did the math.

20121007monterey_thumbAn Environmental Protection Agency calculator explains that burning one barrel of oil releases 0.43 metric ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Burning 15 billion barrels thus releases 6.45 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. Think of it as a very, very large, fat-and-sugar-loaded, milkshake sitting on a table waiting to be drank.

Generally, AB32 set a goal of rolling back emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state set a baseline of 507 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, and a goal of reducing that to 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This PDF explains how the 507 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year was calculated along with estimated savings from various programs within AB32, e.g., the Pavley (high miles per gallon) standards will save 27.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. It's a smart, well balanced diet for the state's carbon footprint.

In other words, releasing 6.45 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the equivalent of delaying a planned reduction of 80 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year - for 80 years.

And that's just fracked up.

I hope that Fran Pavley, California's fiercest climate hawk, will declare that high-fat milkshakes have no place in a balanced diet, and champion the fight for a moratorium on fracking up the Golden State.

Originally posted to Climate Hawks on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:44 AM PST.

Also republished by California politics, Dream Menders, and DK GreenRoots.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  lets build some thorium powered (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    remembrance

    nuclear plants instead.  Much more efficient than burning oil.

  •  To be fair (7+ / 0-)

    On a side note, CEQA is an absolute mess.  I work with it pretty regularly and a lot of what it contains is not particularly protective of the environment.  A substantial proportion of CEQA litigation has nothing to do with the environment at all.  Two of the biggest opponents of CEQA reform are labor unions and grocery store chains.  Why?  They use CEQA suits to either "greenmail" builders into juicier contracts or to keep competitors out of the towns in which they own stores, respectively.  Then we have the infamous case of the cranky guy in SF blocking bike lanes because there wasn't enough CEQA analysis of the impacts on how it'd make care driving harder.  How does THAT protect the environment?  Not sure how to deal with that issue, though, and I'm not sure any of the proposals do a good job with this issue.

    Also, CEQA predates almost all other environmental laws, which means it duplicates what a lot of other subesquent laws specialize in.  Thus, one has to analyze water impacts to get the water permits (404 and Porter Cologne Acts) and then analyze it all over again separately for CEQA just to see if there are conditions that should be incorporated that weren't already incorporated in the other permits already.  Similarly, air and some biological resources are subject to duplicate analyses.  Surely, those could be better integrated.

    What reforms ultimately get implemented will be subject to a big fight, but not all of them are necessarily bad for the environment.  In fact, there are several ways to strengthen CEQA, for example by requiring post-construction demonstrations that mitigations are still working, etc.  That can be done now, but the mecahnisms in the statute aren't that strong.

    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

    by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:24:05 AM PST

  •  But, yes, fracking needs to be blocked (7+ / 0-)

    taht oil needs to stay where it is.

    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

    by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:24:36 AM PST

  •  Diary confuses consumming oil and producing (3+ / 0-)

    The better policy is to reduce oil consumption, while the US reduces the amount of oil it buys from foreign sources.

    The need for reducing oil consumption is clear from climate change issues, do this with fossil fuel taxes (that offsets other taxes), requirements for fuel efficient vechiles, and research to reduce the cost of alternative enegergy.  But, even after all this, we will still get a large share of our energy from oil for many decades to come.

    The reason we must reduce foreign sourcing of oil is to reduce the pressures to take military actions that take the lives of US and foreign people, as well as the spending of government funds for the military.  This use of the military to protect foreign oil supplies also makes the US less safe, as people we oppose seek to retaliate in thye US.

    There is also the moral issue of accepting the envirmental costs from getting the oil that we use, rather than imposing the enviromental damage on other people.  Regulate oil production to reduce this enviroment damage.

    Lastly, the oil industry has a disproportionate share of good paying jobs to those without a college education.  I would much prefer to see the money we spend for oil be used to hire 1 million US workers.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:45:53 AM PST

    •  Reducing consumption requires reducing supply (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RLMiller, trykindness, Calamity Jean

      unless we tax the bejeesus out of fossil fuels, stopping the supply is the best way to increase price, which is the best way to reduce demand.

      And, no, we don't need to get a large supply of our energy from fossil fuel for decades unless we choose to do that.  

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:09:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's just not true. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RLMiller, BusyinCA

        Never has been true and there's no way you'll get it done.

        But yes, tax the bejeesus out of fossil fuels.

        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

        by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:20:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well we better bloody well figure it out (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RLMiller, Calamity Jean

          However, California's on tap to pass the 50% non fossil mark soon.  This claim gets made that it can't be done, but there's never any credible evidence why building renewables and going electric, like we are actually doing right now, is some how magically impossible.  

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:36:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And you can't see how misleading that is? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BusyinCA, RLMiller

            It doesn't include transportation, where most oil is used.

            What's the number if you include transportation and manufacturing? You don't know and you don't want to know.

            It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

            by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:15:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are these great gadgets (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RLMiller

              They're called electric cars.  They cost one third as much to run as fossil fuel cars.  As prices come down as they have been doing, and as electricity prices continue to drop, obviously this transition will gain substantial ground.

              Now, California weighs in at 360 billion VMT, which even at the realatively modest 3 mi/kwh (what the LEAF gets now, the Tesla Model S tops 4 mi/ kwh) works out to an energy demand of 120 billion kwh or 120 TWh ( if I've gotten my exponents right. )    [ Note, starting with Californias gasoline and diesel comsumption gets us roughly a similar number.  Using the 33.7 kwh eq/ gallon gets us to around 70 billion kwh or 70 TWh given California's consumption of 20 billion gallons annually. So lets ball park this total demand at 100 billion kwh. Now this back of the envelope is only to get a sense of the scale as it ignores reductions in VMT from planning (SB 375, etc), improvements in efficiency, etc.)
              California generates right now a total of 200 TWh annually.  Of that 40% is nuclear plus renewables, or 80 TWh or roughly enough to power most of those VMT right now

              Of course that's a lot of cars and trucks to build, transmission and generation and some storage.  However, with renewables and EVs increasing by rates like 50% year on year (that's before beating grid parity which on current trends will happen here by 2015).  

              If there is the political will to do it, then we could have swapped out significant portions of the energy infrastructure within 10 years espcially if we leave fossil fuels in the ground by law which will force investment to power source that will still be cheaply available by 2025

              Still think it can't be done?  

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 05:33:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  VMT = "vehicle miles travelled" (0+ / 0-)

                TWh = Tera Watt hours or quadrillion watt hours or billion kilowatt hours.
                EV= electric vehicles.
                Grid parity is roughly the price point at which renewables can be delivered at the price currently available.  IN parts of LA, distributed generation solar (panels on your house) have hit that now).

                I think that's the complete glossary

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:46:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  You'd think that's all we'd see! (0+ / 0-)

                But no. I go to price one and it's about the same price as a new Vette. Something to do with us very nearly clearing all the reachable branches of the battery technology tree and them not wanting sued when one of those batteries decides to catch a-fire.

                Extrapolate that to 18-wheel trucks. Except you can't, because the space-weight problem folds inward on itself and your payload is reduced by 60% on flat land. Throw in a mountain or two and you're hauling 30% of the Chinese-built crap that nobody needs anyway... across the country, and then 220,000 miles later you replace those batteries or THOSE will catch afire, at a cost of about what a total decked-out all-the-bells-and-whistles diesel 18-wheeler rig costs.

                Quit pretending technology has progressed further than it has.

                Want to burn less oil? Then BURN LESS OIL.

                Stop wasting it.

                It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:05:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Stop pretending (0+ / 0-)

                  It hasn't progressed at all and never will.   Want to stop burning oil?  Stop pretending its impossible without moving back into caves.  That myth serves only one interest: that of oil companies.  

                  I suppose I should tackle your vaguely coherent of truck technologies next

                  Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                  by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:34:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  They have clever gadgets for that too (0+ / 0-)

                  For moving intercity freight. They call these trains

                  They also have 60,000 pound payload electric trucks that cost 1/9 th as much to operate. Not too far from a semi, actually.  Then there are these guys

                  Maybe is should admonish you to stop saying things are impossible when people are already doing them.  

                  Again, the issue isn't that it can't be done, its that it isn't because of a combination of economic power from entrenched players and the recent arrival of technologies that haven't had time to penetrate.   However the idea that it cannot be done is taking a real beating these days

                  Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                  by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:42:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Can't be done, huh? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RLMiller

                  Really?  Someone forgot to tell the Aussies.  So how fast a transition will we see now that renewables are cheaper?  The electricity sectors a ton of the problem

                  Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                  by Mindful Nature on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:38:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Once again you're leaving out transportation (0+ / 0-)

                    Also you're letting this get personal, which is where I exit the conversation.

                    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                    by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:10:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You didn't seem to read my rather lengthy (0+ / 0-)

                      discussion of transportation, including the "you'll never be able to build trucks" argument, which is rebutted by the fact that people are already building them

                      It is striking to me just how much news of the "this is happening and is faster than anticipated" that I have little patience for the doomsaying that has little relationship to the actual evidence at hand.  

                      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                      by Mindful Nature on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:34:35 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh Jeeez (0+ / 0-)
                        "you'll never be able to build trucks"
                        You'll never be able to find where I wrote that.

                        But for now, find me an implementation of heavy road  transport that isn't diesel. I mean without getting emotional.

                        YOU quoted a 50% number that didn't include transportation. That's misleading when commenting in a diary about oil production. It's obfuscation.

                        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                        by Fishgrease on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 12:44:32 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Read, friend (0+ / 0-)

                          cold hard numbers.  Pretty rich for you to accuse me of being emotional.

                          I quoted you a very detailed break down of California's TRANSPORTATION budget.  YOu ignored it completely.

                          I also put forward both the options of trains, which can be also run with electric motors, and 60,000 pound payload electric trucks.  THose are the facts that you completely and utterly ignored. They are the cold, hard, rational facts that utterly undercut your argument (for which you have presented zero data).

                          Don't deign to lecture me about being ungrounded in reality.

                          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                          by Mindful Nature on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 04:17:08 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  That would be (0+ / 0-)

                          Here:

                          Never has been true and there's no way you'll get it done.
                          and here:
                          Extrapolate that to 18-wheel trucks. Except you can't, because the space-weight problem folds inward on itself and your payload is reduced by 60% on flat land.
                          to which I showed you people who are building right now truck that carry, not 40% payload, but 75% of the payload.  In otherwords, plenty enough.  You tried to rebut that with stories of batteries catching fire, ignoring what diesel fuel does when exposed to a spark.

                          You also said this:

                          What's the number if you include transportation and manufacturing? You don't know and you don't want to know.
                          to which I replied this:

                          Now, California weighs in at 360 billion VMT, which even at the realatively modest 3 mi/kwh (what the LEAF gets now, the Tesla Model S tops 4 mi/ kwh) works out to an energy demand of 120 billion kwh or 120 TWh ( if I've gotten my exponents right. )    [ Note, starting with Californias gasoline and diesel comsumption gets us roughly a similar number.  Using the 33.7 kwh eq/ gallon gets us to around 70 billion kwh or 70 TWh given California's consumption of 20 billion gallons annually. So lets ball park this total demand at 100 billion kwh. Now this back of the envelope is only to get a sense of the scale as it ignores reductions in VMT from planning (SB 375, etc), improvements in efficiency, etc.)
                          California generates right now a total of 200 TWh annually.  Of that 40% is nuclear plus renewables, or 80 TWh or roughly enough to power most of those VMT right now

                          In otherwords, I have presented actual data and real facts.  You've presented zero evidence for your positions that these things cannot be done.

                          And let's review this little gem

                          What's the number if you include transportation and manufacturing? You don't know and you don't want to know.
                          I'm sorry, who's getting personal and emotional here?

                          I've consistently refuting your arguments with data.  Please recognize you're wrong on these points and revise your position accordingly.  THanks.

                          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                          by Mindful Nature on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 04:57:43 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  For reference (0+ / 0-)

                I finally found data on a new big solar plant going up now in California.   Ivanpah has a nameplate capacity of 394 MW and is expected to produce (as in, they've signed contracts to deliver) a little over 1 TWh by itself. Brightsoyrce is building two others in California.  That's just one company and one kind of plant

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:06:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Another policy is to reduce oil consumption. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fishgrease, RLMiller, trykindness
      The better policy is to reduce oil consumption,
      They aren't mutally exclusive, so there's no paticular need to compare them.
  •  Maybe it's just me (7+ / 0-)

    but fracking in what's already earthquake-prone California seems pretty stupid.

    Filibuster reform, 2013 - woulda, coulda, shoulda.

    by bear83 on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:10:03 PM PST

  •  Great Diary (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RLMiller, Calamity Jean, BusyinCA, navajo, DWG

    Citizens have a right to set the laws and regulations in the state where they live.

    Tell your elected officials you'll judge them on this.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:17:01 PM PST

  •  Great diary, thanks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RLMiller

    Couple of points:

    First of all, as a bit of an aside, what ARB is calling the 2020 baseline (507 MMtCO2e) has already taken into account (used up, so to speak) a couple of the listed measures (the 26.1 Pavley and 12.0 RPS are what brought the baseline estimates down to 507 from 545). The measures to be implemented need to be additional to that (as per the pdf you link to).

    More importantly, the choice, in general, to work with an emissions reduction budget at all (i.e., the standard choice) rather than a cumulative carbon budget is problematic, and your comparison helps show why.  

    For example, consider this:

    If the "baseline" 2020 estimate were instead 600 or 700 MMtCO2e -- i.e., if we were starting from a much tougher place -- the CA 15 billion-barrel carbon pool would seem smaller. We'd need, say, a "200-value combo pack" of measures, instead of an "80-pack" in 2020, to close the gap between the baseline (say, 627) and the AB32 target (427). So, the oil would only set us back 32 years (6.5 billion/32 = abt. 200 million)...

    The comparison makes it seem as though, in that case, the CA oil wouldn't be AS bad a thing. Meanwhile, in the real world, the oil is even worse news in that case, because of where we're starting from (ignoring the possibility that a world in which we had the ambition to close such a much larger gap would indicate that we're actually starting in a better place, but anyway....).

    Analogously, suppose you were targeting an arguably more appropriate 30% below 1990 levels by 2020, i.e., roughly 300 MMtCO2e, starting from the official 507 baseline? Again, you would need a "200-pack," making the CA oil worth about "30" again, measured in "AB32 years," rather than the original 80. That is, again, the tougher our challenge, the less of a problem the oil seems to be, even though, in reality, the oil is instead more of a problem, the greater our 2020 ambitions.

    States -- along with the rest of us -- need to start thinking in terms of the cumulative carbon budgets from which the Do the Math campaign derives, rather than in terms of frames built around counting emissions reductions from some quasi-business-as-usual "baseline." We need to think about emissions from the bottom up, not from the top down, so to speak (I realize this is an idiosyncratic use of "bottom up" and "top down"):

    If we do such and thus, how much will we be emitting?
    Not:
    If we do such and thus, how much will be be reducing emissions based on a quasi-BAU, imaginary, counter-intuitive, and counter-productive, projected "baseline"?
    Notice that with the "bottom-up" thinking, the more ambitious our cumulative carbon budget, the larger the California-oil carbon pool looms. That is, the "bottom-up" frame matches reality, always a good sign.

    Thanks again; your comparison seems to be a great tool for communicating a central problem of conventional (top down) carbon accounting.

  •  ...very good...thank you!... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RLMiller

    Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

    by paradise50 on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:54:58 PM PST

  •  At the end of the day, most Americans couldn't... (0+ / 0-)

    ...care less about climate change, so much as they care about convenience.

    If you look around here you will find that people who pretend to take climate change seriously are not interested in inconveniencing themselves, but are rather content to put responsibility on future generations.

    To wit, a classic:   I'll be 104 in 2050, and I want to live in a world powered by renewable energy

    This fellow told me to "kwitcha bellyaching" when I described experiencing Hurricane Sandy, informing me - also classic - and I quote:

    If you had solar cells on your rooftop right now, assuming your house was not damaged, you wouldn't be wondering when the electricity would be coming back on.
    Um, um, um...

    You really can't get any more removed from reality than that.

    In any case, the battle against climate change is lost.  

    What exactly are the people here prepared to tell Californians?   That they should all buy $80,000 Tesla electric cars?   That they should swear off gasoline?

    Despite all the cheering here for the Tesla Electric car, and the presumption that we could all live risk free - assuming one's McMansion isn't destroyed in a hurricane with two hundred year old trees flying around like toothpicks, 2012 was the second worst year ever observed for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, despite the long standing "we can live without oil because wind and solar are so great" myth.

    The result of the bizarre faith based belief in solar and wind energy is that more oil, coal and gas is being burned than ever before.

    The fact is that modern Americans, Americans on the right, and Americans on the left - here in fact - only hear what they want to hear.

    And what they want to hear is that gas prices are low and affordable.

    This is certainly not my position, but then again, I'm pretty educated about energy issues, something that as I know full well, can only lead to expressions of contempt.

    As the above example shows, Americans couldn't give a fuck about the future, never have, and never will.   Everything will be fine by the time we're 104.   Blissful..

    To quote General Sherman in another context about the destruction of a way of life - a noxious way of life to be sure - "you may as well appeal against a thunderstorm..."  or appeal against a hurricane, when it comes to make anything more than a rhetorical effort to address climate change.  

    Ah, if only we all had $80,000 worth of solar cells on our McMansion roofs - and a few tons of toxic metals in batteries to go with them - we would need no appeals against hurricanes.

    What will be done to fight climate change is pretty much what has been done already:   Nothing.

    Have a nice Friday and weekend.

  •  You all know I sometimes defend fracs. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RLMiller

    Here, I can't do that. With California's complex and unique geology, they haven't done their homework. Yet, anyway.

    But lets say they iron all that out and I'm convinced all the fracs there would be totally safe.

    I still think the voters of California should be able to decide what goes on in their state. You do that by quizzing EVERY politician, present and future to see if they agree. Let them know this means their phoney-baloney jobs.

    Do your voter education, too.

    Just like RLMiller is doing right here.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:14:45 PM PST

  •  Kudos on a great diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RLMiller

    The math of this fracked shale oil gives me nightmares.

    Be radical in your compassion.

    by DWG on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:11:57 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site