California is about to find out what a truly radical climate policy looks like

[tinrobot]

California has long prided itself on being a world leader on climate change — and with good reason.

Within the United States, California is No. 1 (by far) in solar power and No. 3 in wind power. It boasts the third-lowest carbon dioxide emissions per capita behind New York and Vermont. Since 2000, the state has managed to shrink its overall carbon footprint slightly even as its population grew and economy boomed:

But now California is taking on a far, far more audacious task: trying to prove to the world that it’s possible — desirable, even — to pursue the really drastic emission cuts needed to stave off severe global warming.

The state is already on track to nudge its greenhouse-gas emissions back down to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Then last week, after much fierce debate, the California Assembly and Senate passed a new bill, known as SB 32, that would go much further, mandating an additional 40 percent cut in emissions by 2030:

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12650488/california-climate-law-sb-32

[packman]

1. Damn, you gotta love a progressive, democratic state

with sensible people at the helm.

[DustyJoe]

2. Really ?

After years of being held at bay, smog is making a comeback in Los Angeles. And for the first time in five years, authorities have issued a first stage smog alert warning people in some areas of unhealthy levels of ozone in the air.

"Our air pollution control program is not improving our local air quality at the same pace it had done in the previous five to 10 years," says Barry Wallerstein, director of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Southern California.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129572&page=1

[PufPuf23]

3. The increase in forest fires impacts California air quality. eom

[LouisvilleDem]

4. The next paragraph was interesting

It’s hard to overstate how ambitious this is. Few countries have ever achieved cuts this sharp while enjoying robust economic growth. (Two exceptions were France and Sweden in the 1980s and ’90s, when they scaled up nuclear power.) The EU is also aiming for a similar 40 percent cut below 1990 levels by 2030, though they’ve got a head start.

I wonder if Californians will consent to resorting to nuclear to meet their goals...

[kristopher]

5. They don't need nuclear. In fact, it would be counterproductive.

The field of economically viable options that exists today is radically different than it was even ten years ago. Choosing nuclear now would be both economic idiocy and climate madness.

[bananas]

6. No, we won't consent to nuclear, we're too well-informed to fall for that. nt