For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “He’s Getting Squeezed From All Sides”
Democratic political consultant on Newsom and the pending farmworker election bill
- State Struggles with Heat Wave; Reporters Get Hot at Newsom
- Biden Support for Farmworker Election Bill Has Newsom “Seething”
- Governor Won Big with 11th-Hour Energy / Air Quality Legislation Package
- Air Board Bolsters Clean Energy Measures; Carbon Capture Debated
- Leading Energy Economist on Climate Change: “Doable Steps”
- California’s Master of Disaster Retires
- Voters’ Guide for November Election
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) harvests California policy, legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week. Please feel free to forward this unique client service.
FOR THE WEEK ENDING SEPT. 9, 2022
State Struggles with Heat Wave; Reporters Get Hot at Newsom
CalMatters & Politico’s California Playbook
The prolonged heat wave increased scrutiny on the Newsom administration’s communication — or lack thereof.
The governor on Wednesday gave an apparently unplanned press conference in Los Angeles to discuss energy and the heat wave after speaking at a high-profile technology conference in Beverly Hills.
But Newsom’s press office didn’t notify state Capitol reporters or some local TV stations until after the governor’s remarks had already started, limiting their ability to attend or cover the event.
This prompted an outpouring of frustration from journalists who noted that the governor’s office hadn’t made Newsom available for questions or shared information about his availability as California’s grid faced its most serious threat of the summer — even as the office asked reporters to leverage their “media reach” to encourage people to conserve energy and help avoid blackouts.
Asked why the governor’s office hadn’t notified statehouse journalists about the press conference, Newsom spokesperson Erin Mellon said in a text message with reporters that “he had time” after the tech event “and wanted to address press. … We called the press we could reach in time to get to where he was.” Newsom’s office didn’t respond to a further request for comment.
Jessica Millan Patterson, chairperson of the California Republican Party, said in a statement: “Gavin Newsom’s strategy during this energy crisis seems to be: if you can’t stand the heat, enjoy the A/C, throw on a sweatshirt and hide from reporters. Quick tip for reporters trying to get a hold of Newsom: replace the word California with Florida, Texas or any other red state, and he’ll happily answer your questions.”
Newsom said during the press conference: “If you’re certain networks, you’re not interested in facts, because they get in the way of your argument. … They want to double down on the Texas approach, which is more coal, more natural gas. You saw how well that worked last February — all that coal, all that natural gas, and you had three full days of blackouts there. I’m not trying to cast aspersions here, I just want some objective facts.” (However, California has also relied heavily on natural gas during the past week.)
California made it through the worst day of a September heat wave — one that shattered heat records across the state, including Sacramento’s nearly-century-old temperature high of 114 degrees.
But we didn’t make it out completely unscathed. According to California’s Independent System Operator, peak load demand hit more than 52,000 megawatts, surpassing the previous record of 50,270 megawatts set in 2006. But the silver lining on this cloud was a big one — the ISO didn’t have to call for rolling blackouts from providers.
Throughout Tuesday, as temperatures climbed , statewide usage ticked up higher and higher. By 4 p.m., power giant Pacific Gas & Electric had sent out advance notice to 525,000 customers to prepare for outages.
The Department of Public Health advised most schools in the state to cancel outdoor and unconditioned indoor activities. Then Cal ISO issued a level 3 warning, stopping just short of calling on operators to institute rolling blackouts. Not everyone was spared, however — PG&E reported several outages throughout the state starting in the late afternoon.
Newsom chose not to go before live cameras or take questions from the press. Instead, he issued a pre-recorded statement early in the day, urging Californians to conserve energy. By 8 p.m., ISO had ended its level 3 alert, saying consumer conservation played a “big part in protecting electric grid reliability.”
The emergency only served to put an exclamation point on lawmakers’ recent moves to shore up the energy supply in the wake of worsening climate change. Despite bold efforts in the past decade to transition the state’s reliance from fossil fuels to renewable resources, it was clear yesterday that gas-powered electricity is still a critical part of the grid, and even then, it is not always enough to keep the lights on.
The heat wave has also highlighted the limited nature of the state’s renewable energy sources. At its peak point, renewable energy accounted for more than a quarter of the state’s supply. But as the sun went down and demand increased, that number quickly dropped off, with natural gas accounting for more than half of the supply, according to the state’s independent system operator.
Many Republican lawmakers tied the looming threat of blackouts to “a failed energy policy championed by the Democrat super-majority in Sacramento,” as Assembly GOP Leader James Gallagher of Yuba City put it. “It’s rich to watch them now scramble to keep the lights on by firing up brand-new natural gas plants and extending the life of California’s only remaining nuclear power plant, which they previously advocated for closing,” Gallagher said in a statement. “This crisis was both avoidable and predictable.”
Biden Support for Farmworker Election Bill Has Newsom “Seething”
Politico
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent the past year taking on top Republicans. Now, he finds himself at odds with President Joe Biden and other leading Democratic figures over pro-union legislation in his home state.
Biden delivered an indirect but embarrassingly public rebuke for the ambitious governor by calling for passage of the bill, which would make it easier for farmworkers to unionize, as Newsom signaled he may veto the legislation for a second time.
To add further insult, Biden delivered his message just before Labor Day as Newsom was preparing to buff his pro-union credentials by signing a bill vehemently opposed by the restaurant industry that will help set wages and working conditions for the state’s fast-food workers.
The governor is privately seething over the Biden endorsement, said five people with knowledge of the governor’s thinking who spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose internal discussions. Newsom’s office declined to comment for this story.
Biden headlines a growing list of top Democratic officials who have backed the measure, including Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Now, Newsom must choose between the state’s powerful agricultural interests and a celebrated union — all while under a glaring national spotlight amid intense speculation about his presidential ambitions that he stoked with recent high-profile sparring with Republican governors.
“He’s getting squeezed from all sides,” said Steve Maviglio, a longtime Democratic consultant who served as communications director for former Gov. Gray Davis.
Newsom Won Big With 11th-Hour Energy / Air Quality Legislation Package
CalMatters
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s last-minute legislative plan for tackling the climate crisis was largely victorious as lawmakers approved laws to set interim targets for 100% clean energy, regulate projects to remove carbon from the atmosphere and smokestacks, and end new oil drilling near communities.
One ambitious bill for tackling climate change, however, was shot down by the Assembly: AB 2133 – which would have ramped up goals for reducing greenhouse gases — failed at the last minute.
Five of the six climate and energy bills pushed by Newsom made it to his desk. He now has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto them.
“This was a very big and historic win. It has taken this state decades to get to this point,” said Sen. Monique Limón, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, who authored SB 1137, a bill that requires setbacks around new oil and gas wells and steps to protect residents at old wells.
The moves by the Legislature come as California is experiencing the dire effects of climate change. Higher temperatures and extreme heat waves, more frequent and prolonged drought and severe wildfires are plaguing the state, straining the state’s power grid, threatening the environment and posing risks to vulnerable communities.
Newsom, who is up for re-election and in the final stretch of his first term, urged the Legislature with only about three weeks left in the session to pass the six proposals and approve $54 billion in spending for his climate initiatives. Before that, lawmakers said he had mostly stayed quiet on their bills and hadn’t backed them.
Here are the bills:
Several controversial bills aiming to cut emissions and help California transition to renewable energy were among top priorities debated by the Legislature Wednesday.
AB 1279 codifies the state’s existing goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Carbon neutrality means a balance between the carbon added to the atmosphere and the carbon removed.
But a more aggressive pace of cutting greenhouse gases failed in the Assembly. AB 2133 would have set California’s target at 55% below the state’s 1990 emissions, up from the current 40% target. Some legislators said setting a more aggressive goal was unrealistic when the state is not on track to meet the existing one and it was too fast of a pace that would put people in the oil and gas industries out of work.
California enacted another greenhouse gas bill, AB 32, in 2006, requiring the state to set a target for emissions to drop to 1990 levels by 2020. As with the discussion Wednesday about the new bill, that bill was criticized at the time for not having a clear plan. But then the state took steps to achieve its goal earlier than the law required.
Nevertheless, just before midnight, the new bill couldn’t garner enough support and fell four Assembly votes short of the 41 that it needed to pass.
California’s fight against climate change requires a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the elimination of fossil fuels. Planet-warming gases – carbon dioxide, methane and other smog-forming pollutants – trap heat in the atmosphere, exacerbating severe weather events and causing global changes in temperature and precipitation.
While environmentalists applauded many of the measures, many groups have also criticized Newsom for not acting faster to phase out fossil fuels and cut emissions.
The oil and gas industry also lobbied heavily against Newsom’s climate initiatives, criticizing them as “too aggressive.”
“This is an extraordinarily aggressive goal that would require large-scale transformation of California’s entire economy,” said Kevin Slagle, a spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Association, a trade group representing the oil industry. “It is a regressive mandate that will hit those at the lower end of the income spectrum the hardest.”
Sen. Bob Hertzberg, a Democrat from Los Angeles, laid out for his colleagues the contentious measure that didn’t pass, taking them through a painstaking recounting of the climate change policy accomplishments California has already achieved.
“Opponents will tell you that we are moving the goalpost. We are,” he said. “The opponents will always tell you that ‘it’s impossible,’ that we will never get there. California has a pretty good track record of knocking the impossible on its tuchus.”
Republicans in both chambers shot down the measures.
Sen. Brian Dahle, a Republican from Bieber who is also running for governor, was one of the most outspoken opponents of the bills that are Newsom’s climate priorities. As he had done all day in response to the bills, Dahle bemoaned the lack of details in the legislation, questioning if those goals were achievable and how they could be accomplished.
Dahle mocked the approach of the bills, adding that without a more detailed plan, passing the bills would be like “setting a target, taking victory lap, waving your magic wand and sprinkling some pixie dust.”
Authored by Sen. John Laird, a Democrat from Santa Cruz, SB 1020 sets interim targets for generating clean energy. A current law already requires 100% of retail electricity to be fueled by renewables such as wind and solar by 2045. The new law would add 90% by 2035 and 95% by 2040. In addition, all state agencies must source their energy from 100% renewable sources by 2035, ten years sooner than law now requires.
The question remains, however, if California’s electrical grid can handle the surge in energy demand.
Slagle, of the Western States Petroleum Association, said the governor’s approach was flawed and ignores the reality of the grid’s volatile reliability.
“The governor’s ‘climate package’ depends on energy reliability, so it is inconsistent that on one hand he is aggressively gutting energy reliability and affordability in California and on the other he is pushing actions like this to help try to maintain the grid,” he added.
The state is expected to see a 68% increase in energy consumption by 2045, according to the California Air Resources Board. To handle that increase, the agency estimates that the state needs to expedite renewable energy projects. Power lines and more battery storage capacity also need to be improved. To maintain reliability when wind and solar aren’t available, the state will need more backup dispatchable power to account for energy losses.
Without those investments, California would have to keep relying on climate-warming fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. It’s a concern Newsom has highlighted in his support for extending the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, a clean source of energy that provides about 10% of the state’s electricity. He said the state needs more sources of clean power while it makes progress on transitioning to renewable energy.
“The reality is we’re living in an era of extremes,” he said at a press conference on Wednesday. “Getting Diablo Canyon extended for a short period of time will provide us the capacity to stack all these renewables. That energy does not produce greenhouse gases. That energy provides baseload, reliability and affordability.”
A separate bill, SB 846, that aims to keep the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant operating was approved by the Legislature and is now on Newsom’s desk for his signature. It would keep the plant open until 2030 and give its operator, Pacific Gas & Electric, a $1.4 billion loan to do so. The plant is a carbonfree source of energy, although nuclear power opponents are concerned about accidents and nuclear waste issues.
A disagreement on methods to extract carbon has pitted the oil industry against environmentalists as California deliberates on how to reduce the millions of metric tons of carbon that are already in the air.
One approved bill, SB 905, directs the California Air Resources Board to develop a program and set regulations for carbon capture, utilization and storage projects at polluting industries, such as oil refineries. The practice is supported by the oil industry but environmentalists say it has the potential to do more harm than good and prolongs the lives of fossil fuels.
Another bill approved by the Legislature, AB 1757, would require the state to set targets for removing planet-warming carbon from the atmosphere with nature-based methods, such as planting trees, restoring wetlands and scaling up public landscaping and urban forestry projects. The bill received widespread support from environmentalists, who say nature-based solutions to combating the existing amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the air is a better approach than relying on engineered technologies.
“Natural carbon sequestration is the only way to draw down and sequester carbon this decade while combating heat, drought, and wildfires,” said Ellie Cohen, CEO of The Climate Center, an environmental advocacy organization that lobbied for the bill.
But farmers and grower associations opposed the bill, saying it would be economically unfeasible for them. They say the state could develop targets based on technologies that are not accessible for most farmers and drive small farms out of business.
The late push from the governor’s office was enough to overcome — just barely — the entrenched opposition that twice has shot down other bills to establish buffer zones around oil and gas wells.
Considering the power wielded by California’s fossil fuels industry, the victory for a public health bill — which, if signed by Newsom as expected, will prohibit new oil and gas development in neighborhoods — is considered a heavy political lift.
The bill, SB1137, prohibits new or extensive retrofitting of existing oil operations within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, nursing homes and hospitals.
The bill stalled in the Senate on Wednesday morning, and voting was put on hold while its authors scraped around for votes. Members were vacillating, said Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat from Long Beach and the bill’s co-author.
“We were looking for votes all day, it was a mess,” she said.
Previous legislative incarnations of setbacks fizzled, but those attempts did not have the benefit of Gov. Newsom’s blessing.This time around, Newsom included the setback bill, sponsored by Gonzalez of Long Beach and Limón of Santa Barbara, in his climate package and it gained urgency.
It also requires operators to take certain steps at the thousands of existing wells within that buffer zone. Included is a plan to monitor toxic leaks and emissions, and install alarm systems. In addition, new requirements would include limits on noise, light, dust and vapors.
The bill had been labeled a “job killer” by the state Chamber of Commerce, a criticism that has been taken up by a wide variety of trade unions. Other opponents during Wednesday’s heated hearings, including state Sen. Shannon Grove, a Republican from Kern County, said it would increase importation of oil from countries that don’t have robust environmental regulations.
Dahle noted the long history of drilling in California, which in its early days took place in rural areas that are now built up and populated. He said it’s unfair to crack down on existing oil operations.
“These oil wells were there before the communities were there,” Dahle said.
Air Board Bolsters Clean Energy Measures; Carbon Capture Debated
CalMatters
Responding to concerns of Gov. Gavin Newsom and environmentalists, the California Air Resources Board has bolstered its climate roadmap with several new strategies, including offshore wind development, climate-friendly housing construction, cleaner aviation fuels and reducing miles traveled.
The changes to California’s proposed climate change scoping plan also include fast-tracking projects by 2030 to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and from the smokestacks of polluting industries. No such projects exist in California and the practices are controversial.
Unveiled in May, California’s draft scoping plan outlines an expansive list of strategies to combat climate change and fulfill a state mandate to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The plan includes a bold commitment to eliminate 91% of fossil fuels. The strategies would cost an estimated $18 billion in 2035 and $27 billion in 2045.
Air board officials have delayed taking action on the plan until the end of the year, instead of later this month as scheduled. They now expect to hold a second public hearing and vote in mid-December.
A major strategy is to reduce greenhouse gases by accelerating California’s transition to renewable energy. Newsom directed the air board to include a provision that avoids the need for 10 gigawatts of new natural gas production by ramping up construction of offshore wind projects.
The goal is to scale up renewables yet stabilize the electric grid’s reliability. During this week’s prolonged heatwave, California has teetered on the edge of rolling blackouts triggered by demand for electricity surpassing supply.
The air board’s move to strengthen the scoping plan builds off Newsom’s call for more stringent climate measures that he pushed the Legislature to pass before the session ended last week. The governor’s push for more action to address climate change comes as the state faces more extreme heat, drought and wildfires.
“Time and time again, California has shown the world that climate action and economic growth can work hand in hand,” Newsom said in a July 22 letter to Air Resources Board Chair Liane Randolph. “We now need to take even bolder action than outlined in the draft plan. The plan will be an incredibly ambitious and actionable blueprint for climate action in our state.”
In an Aug. 29 letter to Newsom, Randolph said the air board is “fully committed” to taking the necessary steps to reduce emissions as quickly as possible.
“Achieving carbon neutrality is California’s most ambitious climate goal ever,” she said.”It requires slashing our greenhouse gas emissions and an unprecedented deployment of low-carbon technology and energy.”
Shifting away from fossil fuels is central to the state’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality. But supplementing that power source with renewables continues to face challenges.
Electricity use is expected to soar as much as 68% by 2045 California under the state’s proposed plan. That means backup dispatchable power is needed to account for energy losses when wind and solar can’t produce enough electricity.
Without major improvements and investments in clean energy, air board officials previously said California would have to keep relying on natural gas. But the air board scrapped a provision in the scoping plan that would allow for the construction of an additional 10 gigawatts of natural gas capacity to support the power grid. Instead, the governor directed air board staff to include a goal of at least 20 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2045.
Currently no offshore wind projects exist off California’s coast. But plans for future projects are under development. The California Energy Commission, the state’s primary energy agency, released a report in August setting goals to provide between 2,000 to 5,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and 25,000 megawatts by 2045 – enough electricity to power at least 3.75 million homes in 2030 and 25 million homes by 2045.
The scoping plan’s changes also include a goal of 3 million climate-friendly homes by 2030 and 7 million by 2035.
Climate-friendly homes use more energy-efficient systems, such as replacing gas appliances with electric ones and adding solar rooftop panels. The plan requires half of those investments to be installed in low-income and disadvantaged communities.
The plan also includes a goal of 6 million heat pumps in homes by 2030. A heat pump converts thermal energy from outside, “making the cool space cooler and the warm space warmer,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy. They are a more efficient alternative to furnaces and air conditioners.
The updated scoping plan also prioritizes the need to reduce emissions from cars, airplanes and other modes of transportation. Transportation in California is the largest contributor to the state’s greenhouse gases, accounting for about 50% of all emissions.
Cutting smog-forming pollutants and greenhouse gases from vehicles is a primary goal that prompted the air board to ban sales of all new gas cars by 2035. But reducing the number of miles people drive is also critical to cutting emissions — and that means finding ways to persuade Californians to rely less on their cars.
The state’s goals for vehicle miles traveled in California would increase from 46.8% below 1990 levels by 2030 to 50% below 1990 levels by 2030. Another important change aims to address planet-warming emissions from air travel: Increasing a clean aviation fuel target from 10% to 20% in 2045.
Michael Wara, director of the climate and energy policy program at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, said the state’s transportation targets “are tremendously exciting and ambitious,” but he worries about its ability to meet them, particularly reducing miles driven.
“The new targets are quite aggressive and the question now is, will the Air Resources Board have the authority and the resources to follow through to accomplish that?” he said. “We have a history of setting VMT (vehicle miles traveled) targets in the state of California that we don’t meet. The plan is relying on something where we don’t really have a method of accomplishing the targets that are being set.”
Rajinder Sahota, the Air Resources Board’s deputy executive officer for climate change and research, acknowledged that the state has failed to reduce miles driven because of inadequate public transit and car-centric urban planning.
She said the proposed changes in the plan related to miles traveled send a strong message to local planning agencies to implement policies that align with the state’s goal. She said the agency is drafting an analysis to assess uncertainties in achieving the climate targets.
Danny Cullenward, an economist and vice chair of the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee, a group of experts appointed by the governor and top legislators, said the state’s low-carbon fuel standard, which the air board plans on strengthening, is an important tool for decarbonizing transportation.
“We need more than triple the pace of our emission reductions to get on track,” he said. “So really, it’s the tightening of these existing policies that are going to address some of the oil and gas sector emissions.”
One highly contentious issue still divides environmentalists and state officials.
At a Sept. 1 advisory meeting, several environmentalists groups re-emphasized the importance of direct emission reductions and nature-based solutions to suck carbon out of the air. But they said the use of technologies to capture carbon emitted by industries should be eliminated from the plan altogether.
“California cannot simultaneously phase out fossil fuels and at the same time facilitate costly carbon capture projects that lock in fossil fuel infrastructure,” said Martha Dina Arguello, executive director of the nonprofit Physicians for Social Responsibility and co-chair of the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, which advises the board on the scoping plan.
The updated draft plan now includes eliminating 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2045 using technologies to remove it from the atmosphere and capture it from smokestacks.
SB 905 — a bill Newsom is expected to sign – directs the air board to develop a program that puts guardrails on carbon capture, utilization and storage projects while streamlining the permitting process. The bill has angered some environmentalists, who say the technology is unproven, prolongs the use of fossil fuel plants and “poses risks of carbon dioxide leaks, groundwater contamination and increased air pollution,” according to Arguello.
The oil industry has largely supported the use of carbon capture and storage as a strategy to reduce emissions from oil refineries and other industrial sites, saying it is the only available technology that can decarbonize some sectors of the economy. They also say it would ease the job losses that would occur from phasing out fossil fuels.
Globally just 27 carbon capture and storage projects are operating.
Environmentalists also raised concerns about the amount of energy needed to run the projects. Removing 80 million metric tons of carbon would require about 100 terawatt-hours worth of energy, according to the air board’s estimates.
“That’s more than one third of the total electricity produced by California’s grid in 2021,” said Faraz Rizvi, campaign and policy manager at the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. “The current draft scoping plan and the governor’s targets far exceed that, calling for 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide removal in 2045.”
Sahota of the air board said the state would beef up its renewable energy supply to provide that electricity without fossil fuels.
Sahota stressed that both natural and engineered carbon strategies are necessary. She said the state will prioritize nature-based methods first, rather than carbon capture at industrial plants.
The plan — which erroneously said carbon capture had already begun in California — was corrected to project startup in 2028.
At the urging of environmentalists, the staff added a community vulnerability metric to determine the effects that carbon capture projects would have on disadvantaged communities near polluting industries.
“Having that community vulnerability metric really adds in a missing piece of the social cost of carbon that looks at the additional burden facing some of the communities in the state,” Sahota added.
At a five-hour committee meeting last week, Randolph, the agency’s chair, also called for a more rapid advance of the phaseout of oil refining and extraction in the state.
She said forming an interagency working group that would work with local jurisdictions could expedite that goal and develop a strategy to offset the economic and job impacts.
Leading Energy Economist on Climate Change: “Doable Steps”
LA Times
Vaclav Smil rarely agrees to interviews. Too many in the media have portrayed him as a tool of Big Oil, he says — because he insists on pointing out how deeply dependent humanity is on fossil fuels and how difficult it will be to give them up.
The economist and professor emeritus at Canada’s University of Manitoba heats his house with solar energy. He’s no global warming denier. He recognizes the need to move away from plastics, but asks readers to note how often they touch plastic every day and ask themselves how rapid they think the switch can be.
His mission: lay out facts. “I’m not an optimist or a pessimist,” he likes to say. “I’m a scientist.”
Smil, 79, has spent a lifetime studying the history of energy — from wood to coal to oil to gas and nuclear to wind and solar — and has written dozens of deeply researched books.
He’s highly regarded and frequently cited in academic circles and counts Bill Gates among his most famous fans.
Smil recently switched to a new publisher, and his two latest books, “Numbers Don’t Lie” and “How the World Really Works,” were written and edited to be more accessible to a wider readership.
The Times interviewed Smil via email. Following are excerpts, lightly edited for length and clarity.
Much of the climate debate, you write, is dominated by catastrophists who are certain humanity finds itself on the eve of destruction, and utopians who fervently believe that technology will save the human race. How should the rest of us think about real solutions to serious energy and environmental problems?
Nothing can be more counterproductive than any certainty regarding complex affairs.
Uncertainty and unpredictability will always remain the most fundamental attributes of human existence.
In managing our energy affairs we should constantly favor doable steps: not wasting 40% of our food grown with high energy expense, not to heat or cool the universe in poorly designed but oversize houses, not to waste fuel and materials driving SUVs (nearly two tons of mass to move, usually, a single body), not to design cities that demand lengthy commutes, not to keep amassing rarely used products, not to travel mindlessly.
Instead we continue, and expand, our wasteful ways while trying to come up with miraculous — and in the near-term most unlikely — solutions, everything from running on hydrogen to controlled fusion. Good luck with that.
Many people and policymakers seem to think with enough money and willpower, we can rapidly switch to renewable energy. You believe this is a delusion, and the transformation will take decades.
It’s not a matter of belief. What is decisive is the size of the global energy system, its economic and infrastructural inertia.
Fossil fuels now supply about 83% of the world’s commercial energy, compared to 86% in the year 2000. The new renewables (wind and solar) now provide (after some two decades of development) still less than 6% of the world’s primary energy, still less than hydroelectricity.
What are the chances that after going from 86% to 83% during the first two decades of the 21st century the world will go from 83% to zero during the next two decades? Especially as a few weeks ago China announced additional 300 million tons of new coal production for 2022, and India additional 400 million tons by the end of 2023. We are still running into fossil fuels, not away from them.
You drive a Honda Civic with a small, efficient engine. While not opposed to electric vehicles, you take issue with those who buy them thinking they’re doing their part to solve global warming, mission accomplished.
There are no EVs. They are battery vehicles reflecting the electricity’s origins. If I were to buy an EV in Manitoba, it would be a 100% hydroelectricity, truly zero carbon energy, car. In North China it is a 90% coal car, in France it is a 70% nuclear car, in Russia mostly a natural gas car and in Denmark a 50% wind car et cetera.
But that is only as far as the direct energies go. Indirect energies going into the production of steel, plastics, glass and batteries are still mostly fossil fuels, because the world’s primary energy use is now still 83% dependent on fossil carbon. The notion that any EV is a zero-carbon car is nonsense.
“How the World Works” goes into what you call the Four Pillars of Modern Civilization: ammonia, plastics, steel and concrete. It seems most people think of only electricity generation and transportation in relation to fossil fuels and climate change.
You are quite right, most people think of decarbonization as just an electricity problem. They do not realize the amount of energy used directly, as fuels and electricity, and indirectly as feedstocks to make materials that define modern civilization.
Without modern nitrogen fertilizers we could feed only about half of today’s humanity. They start with ammonia, and ammonia synthesis is based mostly on natural gas. No material is made in larger quantity than cement, the key ingredient of concrete, the ubiquitous construction material. Steel comes second and iron smelting needs coke made from coal. Synthesis of plastics needs natural gas and oil as feedstocks and fuel.
Making just these four materials requires nearly 20% of the world’s total energy supply generating about 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative, non-carbon, ways of making these materials are known — but none is available for immediate large-scale commercial deployment. Decarbonizing this massive demand cannot be done in a matter of years.
Some might agree with your conclusions and then become hopeless about humanity’s ability to address climate change in any meaningful way. What would you say to them?
Old Romans knew it well: Where difficult matters are at stake, the change is best affected by slow but relentless progress.
Evolutions are always preferable to revolutions and gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo. [The drop of water hollows out the stone by frequent falling.] We should persevere in doing many small things, and eventually they add up.
But so far, we are not even seriously trying — see the ascent of SUVs, the pervasiveness of excessive flying, and food supermarkets that now average 40,000 items. That all requires plenty of carbon.
California’s Master of Disaster Retires
LA Times
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, catastrophic wildfires, earthquakes, mass shootings and other devastating crises over the last decade, Mark Ghilarducci has been the guy standing beside Govs. Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom as they tried their best to update and assuage the fears of an anxious, disaster-laden state.
When the coronavirus outbreak first began to wash across California, Ghilarducci huddled with Newsom and his top advisors almost daily as the world struggled with how to respond to the mysterious, deadly contagion — scrambling for ventilators, scarce N95 masks and other essential personal protection equipment and wrestling with the monumental decision of whether shut down the state to stem the spread.
When the Camp fire exploded in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in 2018, Ghilarducci was the one who got the call from Cal Fire leaders telling him the blaze had blown past containment and into the town of Paradise. Eighty-five people perished in what was the deadliest wildfire in California history.
He briefed President Obama near the fallow farm fields in the Joaquin Valley in 2014 when drought held California in its firm grip, and did the same with President Trump when he came to California after the Camp fire and President Biden in the aftermath of the 2020 Caldor fire that forced the mass evacuation of South Lake Tahoe.
Now, after years of phones calls in the middle of the night, missed birthdays and vacations cut short, Ghilarducci is stepping down as director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services at the end of the year.
For those who may be unfamiliar with Ghilarducci, he’s spent nearly 40 years in emergency management and public safety, working in some capacity for six California governors going back to Republican George Deukmejian. He served in the Federal Emergency Management Agency during the Clinton administration, and led the federal search and rescue operations after the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He was as an advisor to Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
“I’ve seen so much, from terrorism, from natural disasters, from human-caused disasters, technological disasters. Lives ripped apart. Sadness,” Ghilarducci said. “I’ve also seen the best come out of that. As much as we are thinking that we’re at each other’s throats … I’ve seen people come together, people who have lost everything still stepping forward to help other people who have lost everything.”
Ghilarducci said California has an unfortunate abundance of both natural and manmade threats that could strike at any time and, because of that, the state has spent decades and invested billions of dollars preparing for all contingencies. But he knows, given what he’s seen, that it’s impossible to be “prepared enough.”
“In 2020 we had 12 or 13 major wildfires going. We had the COVID response, a statewide pandemic, and we had civil unrest throughout the state. All happening simultaneously. I mean, any one of those would have been a major response for the state but we were managing them all simultaneously,” he said.
This week, Ghilarducci shared more insights and experiences from his life.
Ghilarducci said the No. 1 worry that keeps him up at night is “the big earthquake that we have not yet seen here in California.” A major earthquake in Los Angeles not only would be devastating to California in damage and lives lost but, given the state’s significant economic influence, the catastrophic impact would also reverberate across the nation and throughout the world.
Imagine the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach being shut down or California’s aging, half-century-old aqueducts and natural gas and petroleum pipelines and interstate railways snaking through Cajon Pass damaged or destroyed.
“There’s work that needs to be done in the area of preparedness, whether it’s infrastructure hardening and seismic retrofitting,” he said. “Think about this: Some of the gas lines alone in the Southern California basin are 100 years or older.”
The good news is that California has been preparing for earthquakes for decades, Ghilarducci said. Caltrans has retrofitted almost all the overpasses in California to ensure they are seismically sound and the state has invested heavily in an earthquake early warning system. The warnings won’t shield California from a disaster, but may allow trains to slow down, companies to shutdown manufacturing lines, doctors to stop medical procedures and cities to shut off water and power.
The director emphasized, however, Californians must do what they can to prepare. Have a family plan in place so everyone knows where to meet if separated during a disaster. Know the best evacuation routes. Have adequate food, water and medical supplies to last for several days, and an emergency power supply.
“There’s something I call the 911 syndrome. People just think that if there’s an event, they just dial 911 and they’re going to get all this help,” he said. “In big disaster events, that’s just not going to be the case. You’re really are going to be on your own for a little bit.”
Ghilarducci said the Camp fire that destroyed the town of Paradise should serve as a warning to people around California that wildfires are becoming more intense, more explosive and more widespread. The year before, the Tubbs fire shot out of the Santa Rosa foothills, leaped over Highway 101 and decimated the Coffee Park neighborhood, killing more than 20 people. The 2018 Carr fire in Redding, which burned over 200,000 acres and killed at least eight people, became so intense that it conjured a fire tornado with 143-mph winds.
Is it going to get worse?
“I think that the answer to that is yes and no. Look, we’re in a 12th year of drought…. We’re not seeing the moisture that we need. The climate is changing. We have hotter days, more windy days. Winds are a big factor. Our infrastructure is old in some areas,” Ghilarducci said. “We’re not going to fire-fight our way out of the problem. This has got to be something where we as society need to change the way we do business.”
Ghilarducci praised Newsom not only for recognizing the threat California is facing with monstrous wildfire, and providing the resources to put more “boots on the ground” and modernizing the state’s firefighting capabilities, but also the governor’s recognition that climate change poses an “existential crisis” to our way of life in the state.
Voters’ Guide for November Election
California’s Nov. 8 general election might seem like a long way away, but consider this: Mail-in ballots will be sent to every active, registered voter by Oct. 10 — just a little more than a month from now. Here to help you make sense of it all is CalMatters’ Voter Guide: