California’s Climate Agenda Sets an Impossible Example

California has acted decisively and aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change, with a state goal to reduce emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
–  Excerpt from Introduction, Governor’s Budget Summary, 2018-19

Indeed it has. Glowing tributes to Governor Brown’s legacy understate how long California has been proclaiming itself the leader in fighting “climate change.” It actually began with Brown’s immediate predecessor, Gov. Schwarzenegger, who pivoted left after failing to reform public employee unions in 2005. Schwarzenegger promoted, then signed, AB 32, in 2006. This so-called “Global Warming Solutions Act,” set the initial targets for greenhouse gas reduction, empowering the California Air Resources Board to monitor and enforce compliance with laws and regulations aimed at achieving these reductions.

Other significant legislation followed. SB 107, also passed in 2006, mandated a “renewable portfolio standard,” wherein by 2010 at least 20% of California’s electricity would come from renewable sources.

The legislation has been unrelenting. SB 1, 2006, mandated utilities pay rebates to homeowners that installed photovoltaic panels on their roofs. AB 118, 2007, funded the “Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program,” the first step towards mandating a minimum percentage of electric and hybrid vehicle sales. SB 375, 2008, the “Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act,” directed cities and counties to increase the housing density of their communities.

When Jerry Brown took over as Governor in 2010, legislation accelerated. SBX1-2, 2011, raised the renewable portfolio standard to 33% by 2020. AB 1092, 2013, mandated electric vehicle charging stations in new multi-family dwellings. SB 1275, 2014, set a goal of 1.0 million “zero emission vehicles” by 2020. SB 350, 2015, raised the renewable portfolio standard to 50% by 2030. SB 32, 2016, set a greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 398 extended the “cap and trade” program to 2030.

This is just a partial list. High speed rail, water rationing, “urban containment” policies, a virtual prohibition on any conventional energy development, retrofit mandates for trucks and dwellings, and much more – all of it has come down from Sacramento in an attempt to “address climate change.”

But will any of this work? Is California setting an example that the world can follow?


The short answer is no. Renewables alone cannot possibly power the global economy. Using data on energy from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, along with population data from the World Bank, the following graphics make this clear.

Population and Energy Consumption – 2015

In the above chart, row one shows the US population of 320 million, which is 4.4% of the world total. Just over 7.0 billion people are living in the rest of the world “ROW.” Row two shows that in 2015, using million metric tons of oil equivalents, the US consumed 2.2 billion “MTO equivalents,” which was about 17% of all energy consumed worldwide. That is, in 2015 the average American consumed nearly 4.5 times as much energy as the average person living in the rest of the world. Expressed as kilograms of oil in row three of the chart, the average American burned 6,947 “KGO equivalents,” while the average for someone living in the rest of the world was only 1,558.

Most people would agree that access to cheap energy is a prerequisite for economic development, which in turn sets in motion a cascade of positive effects on societies – individual empowerment, female emancipation, access to clean water, healthcare, education, reduced infant mortality, fewer infectious diseases.

If one accepts that argument, the next chart makes the reasonable assumption that residents in the rest of the world will need to increase their per capita energy use by 60% over the next 20 years. It also makes the plausible assumption that Americans will continue to embrace energy efficiency, and reduce their per capita energy use by 28% in the next 20 years – still consuming twice as much per capita as people in the rest of the world.

Population and Energy Consumption – 2035

Based on these assumptions regarding individual energy consumption trends, as can be seen on the above chart, total global energy production will need to nearly double by 2035, from 13.1 billion metric tons of oil equivalents to 25.5 per year. This is based on World Bank projections for 2035 that estimate the US population at 377 million and estimate the total world population increasing to 9.8 billion

Can windmills and solar panels make that happen? They’ll have a long way to go. The last chart, courtesy of BP’s most recent Statistical Energy Review, shows the mix of global energy production today.

Global Energy Production by Source – 2016

It’s hard to find the renewable slice on this graphic that shows global energy production by type for the last 25 years. On the right, where the 2016 mix is depicted, renewables are the minute orange slice, just below coal (grey), and hydroelectric (blue). As is obvious, coal, natural gas (red), and oil (green), constitute the overwhelming majority of energy produced in the world.

It is difficult to imagine 50% of this chart to be represented by renewables by 2035, when even under minimal scenarios to provide adequate energy for economic development, global energy production needs to double. But how green are renewables?


To answer this, an unlikely source provides an illuminating perspective. From the website of the “Deep Green Resistance,” a critique of green and renewable power is offered with a lucidity that eludes California’s policymakers. If the “deniers” of the right have no credibility with California’s green movement, perhaps the deep greens do. Consider these excerpts from the Deep Green Resistance website’s “Green Technology & Renewable Energy” FAQs:

“Aren’t renewables better than fossil fuel?

It’s debatable whether some ‘renewables’ even produce net energy. The amount of energy used in the mining, manufacturing, research and development, transport, installation, maintenance, grid connection, and disposal of wind turbines and solar panels may be more than they ever produce.

What about solar power?

Solar panel production is now among the leading sources of hexafluoroethane, nitrogen triflouride, and sulfur hexaflouride, three extremely potent greenhouse gases which are used for cleaning plasma production equipment. As a greenhouse gas, hexaflouroethane is 12,000 times more potent than CO2, is 100% manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen Triflouride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and Sulfur Hexaflouride is 25,000 times more powerful than CO2. Concentrations of nitrogen triflouride in the atmosphere are rising 11% per year.

What about wind power?

One of the most common wind turbines in the world is a 1.5 megawatt design produced by General Electric. The nacelle weighs 56 tons, the tower 71 tons, and the blades 36 tons. A single such turbine requires over 100 tons of steel. This model is a smaller design by modern standards. The latest industrial turbines stand over 600 feet tall and require about eight times as much steel, copper, and aluminum.

What about hybrid and electric vehicles?

The production of electric cars requires energy from fossil fuels for most aspects of their production and distribution. This requirement is perhaps even more extreme with electric cars as there is a need to manufacture them to be as lightweight as possible, due to the weight of the battery packs. Many lightweight materials utilized are extremely energy intensive to produce, such as aluminum and carbon composites. Electric/hybrid cars are also charged by energy that, for the most part, comes from power plants using natural gas, coal or nuclear fuels. A recent study by the National Academies, which analyzed the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors, has shown that the lifetime health and environmental impacts of electric vehicles are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars.”

These are hard facts. Most of what the Deep Green Resistance advocates may be considered dangerous extremism, but their assessment of renewable energy is accurate.

Where California’s mainstream greens depart from the deep greens is in their optimism. But a realistic energy solution must combine the optimism of mainstream greens with the lucidity of the deep greens.

Renewables are not “greener” than conventional energy, particularly if conventional energy is produced using the cleanest technologies available. If the all the governments on earth enforced on their peoples the experiment that California is committed to – 50% renewable energy by 2030 – the result would be the collapse of civilization that the deep greens not only predict, but wish to hasten.

An “all-of-the-above” energy strategy is the only way to offer humanity the possibility of peaceful economic development.

Back in the 1990s, when environmentalism had not yet matured into the polarizing climate change bogeyman that it has become, one of the most reputable environmentalist journals was produced by the WorldWatch Institute. Back then, they consistently advocated “methane” (natural gas) as the “transitional fuel” to power the global economy until breakthrough technologies such as fusion power or satellite solar power stations became commercially viable. More recently, environmental activists such as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore have advocated nuclear power as an essential part of our global energy future.

There is no place on earth more capable of developing clean fossil fuel and nuclear power than California. Californians have a choice. They can impoverish their population by creating artificial scarcity of land, energy and water, enforcing draconian restrictions on all development in the name of fighting climate change. Or they can face reality, and become pioneering partners in a new age of clean energy development from all sources. That would set a viable example for the world to follow.

 *   *   *

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>




Anti-Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

Security Code: