GCC: California cap-and-trade spending doubles to $1.4 billion in 2018; xEV rebates, affordable housing, wildfire preven

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
California cap-and-trade spending doubles to $1.4 billion in 2018; xEV rebates, affordable housing, wildfire prevention, public transit
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/03/20190327-cct.html

. . . The state’s cap-and-trade program, which began in 2012, was re-authorized and improved in 2017 to ensure California continues to meet its ambitious climate change goals and that billions of dollars in auction proceeds keep flowing to communities across the state through California Climate Investments.

To date, $9.3 billion in cap-and-trade proceeds has been appropriated to 20 state agencies that have distributed $3.4 billion to projects that are either completed or under way across the state. These “implemented” funds have leveraged an additional $10.8 billion from other sources.

From rebates for electric and plug-in vehicles to energy efficiency and solar installations that are reducing home energy costs, more than 125,000 individual projects were completed in 2018. . . .

Last year, the state doubled the number of affordable housing units under contract for construction to 3,200 units, and tripled the number of trees planted in urban areas to 50,000 trees, compared to the previous year.

Cap-and-trade funding was also used to create more fire-resilient communities and ecosystems. These wildfire resilience projects create fire breaks around communities and use thinning and prescribed fire to remove flammable vegetation in fire-prone areas of the state, especially the western edge of the Sierra National Forest.

Nearly $2 billion of the $3.3 billion in implemented investments—57%—is benefiting the state’s most vulnerable populations, exceeding the 35% investment minimum required under statute.

Senate Bill 535 established a minimum investment to benefit communities designated as disadvantaged by the California Environmental Protection Agency when the cap-and-trade investments began. In 2016, Assembly Bill 1550 replaced and expanded those minimums to include low-income communities and low-income households.

The latest report shows state agencies are exceeding those requirements, with 39% of investments benefiting and located within disadvantaged communities. Additionally, 16% of investments benefit and are located in low-income communities.

Projects funded to date are achieving the overall goal of California Climate Investments by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 36.5 million metric tons, roughly equivalent to taking eight million cars off the road for a year.

The report includes statistics on a variety of other environmental and economic benefits from these investments. For example, outcomes expected over the life of the projects that received funding in 2018 alone include:

  • Conserving 85 billion gallons of water through water efficiency projects, enough to supply the cities of Sacramento and San Diego for a year.

    Saving 161 gigawatt hours of electricity through energy efficiency projects, enough to power more than 15,000 homes for a year.

    Planting more than 3.6 million trees over time through urban greening and other forest health programs. . . .
Direct link to report:
Annual Report to the Legislature on
California Climate Investments
Using Cap-and-Trade
Auction Proceeds
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtra...7.1847980852.1553820186-2008794783.1553820186
 
They need to start doing controlled burns and selective cutting and replanting.
Aka forestry.
Oh and obey the laws. I work with some one who used to live in one of the areas that burned, he moved out of california the 1990s but when he lived there you had to maintain a 100 foot standoff between the woods and any structures.
In a lot of the news footage and satellite images I saw it looks like people open their back or side door to the woods.
So that 100 foot rule had been removed or is just ignored.
 
Oilpan4 said:
They need to start doing controlled burns and selective cutting and replanting.
Very true.
And if you think that is the main story rather than AGW then you are as stupid as Trump. And that is saying a lot.
 
I wish I was half as supid as trump.
He is worth billions of dollars and is president.
If he is stupid what does that make hillery who couldn't beat him and only worth maybe a hundred million?

With AGW you have 2 choices. Deal with it or fix it.
Since there are just enough noisy useful idiots to stall expanding nuclear power we will likely never get away from carbon based fuel until the lights start go out. Then people will change their minds real quick.
Even if the US mitigated all carbon emissions china will still take us to 600ppm no problem.
So fixing it is off the tabe. To think otherwise is delusional.

So that leaves dealing with it.
Controlled burns and selective replanting or committing forestry in fire prone California is dealing with it. If they do nothing then they can burn for all I care, reap what you sow.
 
Need I remind you that you voted for a moron who says that AGW is a hoax ?
That China is a signatory to the Paris Accord while your favored moron has declared his intention to withdraw and subsidize 'beautiful, clean coal' ?
 
Let's all try to keep this civil. I find myself sort-of agreeing with both sides: that these projects have to take place for there to be any hope of mitigating the disaster that is already inevitable, and that the most likely outcome is runaway global warming that destroys the ecosphere within two centuries or so - but getting very bad in this century - because people aren't wired to act rapidly against anything but a threat that they recognize on the gut level as both immediate and personal. Failing that, denial is so much easier...
 
Oilpan4 said:
With AGW you have 2 choices. Deal with it or fix it.
Since there are just enough noisy useful idiots to stall expanding nuclear power we will likely never get away from carbon based fuel until the lights start go out. Then people will change their minds real quick.
Even if the US mitigated all carbon emissions china will still take us to 600ppm no problem.
So fixing it is off the tabe. To think otherwise is delusional.

So that leaves dealing with it.
Controlled burns and selective replanting or committing forestry in fire prone California is dealing with it. If they do nothing then they can burn for all I care, reap what you sow.

40 years ago I would have agreed. Back in the 1970's I was one of very few people worried about the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causing a changing climate. I didn't see any realistic alternative to nuclear power with hydrogen as an energy carrier for cars and airplanes.

In about 1988 I had a long discussion with a solar advocate. The conclusion I took was that solar really did have a chance of replacing fossil fuels. Two main issues and one other problem: The cost needed to keep going down and the storage problem needed solving. The other problem is ramping up production of solar cells. Unlike wind, solar doesn't have a significant climate problem. There far more than enough locations with low cloudiness, cheap land and lots of sunshine. This doesn't entirely replace the need for nuclear power, but reduces nuclear to 10% of the total, or maybe even 1% of the total.

I don't see any reason to change this conclusion. Solar is getting cheap enough. Storage problem for daily storage is solvable with batteries, concrete block and cranes, loads of concrete on electric trains, and probably others. Seasonal storage might be solvable with flow batteries or hydrogen.

The ramping problem is multi-fold. If you don't make many solar cells, they are expensive. To make cheap solar cells, you need to make a lot, and you need experience making solar cells. So how do you sell the expensive solar cells so you get the experience needed to build more efficient larger plants to make them cheaper? Repeat multiple times.


I don't see any realistic way for the world to avoid 600 PPM. So dealing with it is a requirement, not an alternative. Yet we better fix it before we recreate the climates of the PT or the PETM, or even warmer. An ELE just sounds like a bad idea.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/639

China isn't the biggest problem. Unlike the USA, China doesn't tolerate noisy idiots. Which can be a strength, unless the noisy idiots turn out to be correct. China is the biggest installer of hydro, wind, solar power and nuclear power in the world. Yes Chinese burning of coal is still rising. China is very vulnerable to climate change, with much good land close to sea level and more. So they are more motivated than the USA to see a solution.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I wouldn't be so sure that locations that are mainly sunny now will stay that way as GW accelerates...

Is this just a guess, or do you have a reason for that opinion?

If so, share it.

Clouds are expected to shift towards the poles. Great for solar, bad news for warming.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/cloud-patterns-are-shifting-skyward-and-poleward-adding-global-warming
 
Increased storminess means increased average cloud cover. GW means increased storminess. Larger storms also bring with them longer lasting cloud cover per storm. And when things get really bad...Venus.
 
Oilpan4 said:
They need to start doing controlled burns and selective cutting and replanting.
Aka forestry.
Oh and obey the laws. I work with some one who used to live in one of the areas that burned, he moved out of california the 1990s but when he lived there you had to maintain a 100 foot standoff between the woods and any structures.
In a lot of the news footage and satellite images I saw it looks like people open their back or side door to the woods.
So that 100 foot rule had been removed or is just ignored.
To quote from the article:
Cap-and-trade funding was also used to create more fire-resilient communities and ecosystems. These wildfire resilience projects create fire breaks around communities and use thinning and prescribed fire to remove flammable vegetation in fire-prone areas of the state, especially the western edge of the Sierra National Forest.
There is no question that more people are living at the urban/rural interface than ever before, and more attention has to be paid to fire prevention.

However, one of the things that Pres. Trump chose to ignore when blaming the state for the severity of our fires is that most of the forestland in the Sierra and elsewhere that has been burning is national forest, i.e. the federal government's responsibility. Controlled burns have been practiced for years here, at least on federal lands, but we are dealing with the aftereffects of a five year drought that killed approximately 130 million trees. One of the signs I often see driving through Yosemite in fall is "Controlled Burn - Do Not Report". But conditions have to be right for that, and even when it's believed they are, sometimes they get away - here's one such example from 2009 in Yosemite:
Big Meadow Prescribed Fire: A prescribed fire ignited by Yosemite National Park fire managers on Aug. 26, 2009, escaped and grew beyond the predetermined 91-acre fire perimeter to burn a total of 7,425 acres. Specifically, the Big Meadow Fire escaped into the scar of the 1990 A-Rock Fire. Once the fire burned beyond the perimeter, NPS firefighters began suppression efforts—ordering additional resources, including air tankers, helicopters, bulldozers, fire engines, and additional firefighters. The fire was 100% contained on Sept. 10, 2009.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Increased storminess means increased average cloud cover. GW means increased storminess. Larger storms also bring with them longer lasting cloud cover per storm. And when things get really bad...Venus.

Got a reference, or is this just your guess?
 
WetEV said:
LeftieBiker said:
Increased storminess means increased average cloud cover. GW means increased storminess. Larger storms also bring with them longer lasting cloud cover per storm. And when things get really bad...Venus.

Got a reference, or is this just your guess?

A source for basic meteorology?

https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#GWCLOUDCHANGE

Meteorologists have long associated greater cloud cover, higher cloud tops and denser, more reflective clouds with regions of more vigorous storms. Both the tropics and the low-pressure areas at midlatitudes are regions of severe weather. The frequency and strength of storms are also related to such climatic factors as average wind speed and direction, temperature, humidity, sunlight and topography. By comparing satellite observations of cloud variations with meteorological data, it may be possible to establish correlations between these conditions and the cooling and heating properties of clouds.

For my belief, based on living one of the most changeable sub-climates in the US? Just observation...and the amazing jump in mega-storms the US is now getting. It tends to be pretty cloudy during hurricanes, Nor'easters, extended "fetches" and other similar events...
 
LeftieBiker said:
A source for basic meteorology?

https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#GWCLOUDCHANGE

Meteorologists have long associated greater cloud cover, higher cloud tops and denser, more reflective clouds with regions of more vigorous storms. Both the tropics and the low-pressure areas at midlatitudes are regions of severe weather. The frequency and strength of storms are also related to such climatic factors as average wind speed and direction, temperature, humidity, sunlight and topography. By comparing satellite observations of cloud variations with meteorological data, it may be possible to establish correlations between these conditions and the cooling and heating properties of clouds.

For my belief, based on living one of the most changeable sub-climates in the US? Just observation...and the amazing jump in mega-storms the US is now getting. It tends to be pretty cloudy during hurricanes, Nor'easters, extended "fetches" and other similar events...

The closer to the pole you are, the more cloud cover might increase. Near the pole isn't prime solar locations... Prime solar locations are closer to the equator.

Subtropical cloudiness is expected to decrease.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/376
 
Just think if that area went another 10 or 20 years with out a controlled burn.
When the campfire started no one had any idea it was coming until it was on top of them.
Continuingto do nothing is just making the next one potentially the biggest ever.

600ppm now that's change I can believe in.

SageBrush said:
Need I remind you that you voted for a moron who says that AGW is a hoax ?
That China is a signatory to the Paris Accord while your favored moron has declared his intention to withdraw and subsidize 'beautiful, clean coal' ?
I was out of state setting up my farthers funeral the week of the election and didn't vote and really could care les at the time.
Our copy of the Paris climate accord should be burned in a coal fired power plant.
When the AGW dooms dayers say "we have to seize control of everything to implement our agenda or the world ends in 12 years" thats is a scam. Everyone who agrees with them is one of those lunatics standing on the side of the road holding a dirty cardboard sign that says "the end is near" written in poop.
 
The closer to the pole you are, the more cloud cover might increase. Near the pole isn't prime Solar locations... Prime solar locations are closer to the equator.

Subtropical cloudiness is expected to decrease.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/376

Um, you may want to check the date on that. In climate science, prediction from10 years ago is old & unreliable speculation. This was the era, IIRC, right before the rapid acceleration that so many scientists didn't see coming.
 
Oilpan4 said:
When the AGW dooms dayers say "we have to seize control of everything to implement our agenda or the world ends in 12 years" thats is a scam. Everyone who agrees with them is one of those lunatics standing on the side of the road holding a dirty cardboard sign that says "the end is near" written in poop.
Not doomsayers -- mainstream scientific opinion from some of the brightest humanity has to offer. They don't say "the end is near," they say that business as usual for the next 12 years will use up the remaining carbon budget to keep AGW below 1.5 C.

I realize that you are a scientific illiterate who has trouble with arithmetic but I find it impossible to understand why you blindly follow a psychopathic traitor instead of the world's experts.
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
This was the era, IIRC, right before the rapid acceleration that so many scientists didn't see coming.
Nonsense. Google " AGW tipping points."

I did, and after a page and 3/4 of documents from this decade (all after 2011, IIRC) it goes to French documents. I'm not saying that no one knew about AGW or tipping points. I'm saying that predictions before about 2010 were for the additional catastrophic weather we have been seeing for so long now generally assumed it to be about 15-25 years away. Those who were more pessimistic were marginalized and largely ignored, in part because it was far easier politically to kick the ball down the street when the street wasn't ending ten feet in front of them...
 
LeftieBiker said:
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
This was the era, IIRC, right before the rapid acceleration that so many scientists didn't see coming.
Nonsense. Google " AGW tipping points."

I did, and after a page and 3/4 of documents from this decade (all after 2011, IIRC) it goes to French documents. I'm not saying that no one knew about AGW or tipping points. I'm saying that predictions before about 2010 were for the additional catastrophic weather we have been seeing for so long now generally assumed it to be about 15-25 years away. Those who were more pessimistic were marginalized and largely ignored, in part because it was far easier politically to kick the ball down the street when the street wasn't ending ten feet in front of them...
You are misreading the science. Predictions are bounded by statistical uncertainty. While tipping points have been known for longer than the 20 years I have followed AGW, the climate sensitivity* has been more difficult to pin down. It is only fairly recently that the climate sensitivity band that underlies the Paris accords has reached the (IIRC) 90%+ certainty threshold.

Start here for some light reading
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/6/1786.full.pdf?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled published in 2007
And then follow the bibliography

* The increase in mean global temperature with a doubling of atmospheric CO2
 
Back
Top