The state accounts for less than 1% of global emissions, so its climate heroism can have no serious effect on climate change, which the state’s politicians blame for wildfires and rising sea levels. Plus its cuts are partly illusory since they drive manufacturing jobs to other states, which then produce greenhouse emissions on California’s behalf.
California legislators answer that they are setting an example for others, but why would others emulate a policy of cost without benefit? Gov. Jerry Brown is under pressure to do more, such as ban fracking and oil drilling in the state. Wouldn’t other oil-producing jurisdictions just be more excited to produce oil, including oil for California drivers, if California abandoned the market and created higher prices for those who continue to produce?
. . . What if its pols wanted to do something nonfraudulent about a problem they claim is so dire? Are there any options?
Yes. A new study partly funded by Bill Gates has dramatically cut the estimated cost of removing CO2 directly from the air to as little as $100 a ton. According to the study, much of this expense could be recaptured by converting the CO2 into low-carbon motor fuel.
Assume California recovered 80% of its costs. For $500 billion a year, or 20% of state gross domestic product, California could solve the alleged problem for the whole world, reducing global emissions by half and meeting the widely touted goal of holding warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius according to prevailing climate models.
View Article