Cause, effect, and carbon
“As fires rage up and down the state of California, costing our taxpayers billions of dollars and threatening our families’ health—- the need for California to move to 100% clean, renewable energy could not be more urgent,” said Mr. de León in a statement.
Sen. Kevin de León, a Democrat who is waging a long-shot run for a U.S. Senate seat against incumbent Dianne Feinstein.Reported in the Wall Street Journal
The context is
California passed legislation Tuesday that would make it the first large state to mandate completely carbon-free electricity generation, with a target of 2045.My understanding is that nuclear does not count as “carbon free.”
Just to belabor the obvious, the central part of our state has been living under a blanket of smoke most of the summer. Smoke causes an immediate and local pollution problem, which is a direct threat to human health — fine particulate matter. Yet the state has cut its firefighting air fleet and budget over the past few years, and also let fuel accumulate in forests over the winter.
California contributes maybe 1% of global carbon emissions. Guesstimate for yourself how much California carbon-free energy by 2045 will do to reduce wildfires in your grandchildren’s lifetime. “Urgent?”
If you think global warming is real, and that it will increase wildfires, it seems you would be rushing to spend money on putting out fires.
Instead, our state government seems to regard wildfires as punishments for our carbon sins, that only praying to the Temple of Carbon with largely symbolic billions of dollars can salve. Actually doing something about problems the West has always had — wildfires — that may be moving north a bit due to global warming seems to be regarded as an immoral act.
I am also interested by the fantastical cause-and-effect thinking going on here, and the flight from any vaguely quantifiable dollars per unit of effect. And this from the self-described “party of science.”