Slashdot Mirror
California Governor Says 100 Percent Clean Electricity Not Enough, State Must Go Carbon Neutral (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Monday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill mandating that the state's utilities move to 100-percent zero-emission electricity generation by 2045. Brown also issued an executive order today requiring the state to become carbon neutral by 2045, that is, mandating that the state remove as much greenhouse gas from the atmosphere as it puts into the atmosphere. One of the most interesting aspects of the zero-emissions bill signed today is that it also specifies that California can't increase the carbon emissions of another state to get cheap electricity. It appears that buying electricity from a coal plant in Nevada is fine if that electricity had been supplied prior to the bill's passing, but seeking out new out-of-state natural gas-fired plants to buy from would not be allowed. The bill's ambitiousness is compounded by the executive order that Gov. Brown signed today. The order requires California to become carbon neutral by 2045. "The achievement of carbon neutrality will require both significant reductions in carbon pollution and removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, including sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes," Brown's executive order states (PDF).
They're called "trees"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita
California 58,619
Texas 53,795
Are you iterate much? Also Texas only has that high a per capita due natural resource extraction. The people themselves have negligible contribution due to their failure of an education system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_American_Human_Development_Index
gives an even clearer picture of the failure that is conservative economics.
TLDR in texas the land has value, the people do not.
That's not a random from-my-ass number, that's the level of CO2 that was in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution. The -correct- global average temperature is one that fits well with our established civilization and gives good crop yields, which is one that results from pre-industrial CO2 levels or slightly above.
Temperature itself is only part of the problem of global warming, higher CO2 levels alone are bad for ocean pH, human brain performance, and can even be bad for crop yields, just off the top of my head.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Slight correction: CO2 levels actually reached 410ppm last year.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel