Climate Change? Nahhh ...

A lot of this is just words. I guess they’re meant for me.

I didn’t deny human-caused climate change. I did say globalism and travel have an effect on it.

Here’s a climate change article that agrees.

Why climate change is globalization’s biggest challenge yet | SPERI

The vast investment needed to decarbonize the economy will generate jobs and growth in the short-term. But the kind of economy and society that we transition to will ultimately need to be much less dependent upon economic growth. Instead, it needs to be based on reduced consumption, sharing of resources, sustainability and global solidarity.

Now here’s my larger point: We don’t actually have the widescale appetite to do this. We have the appetite for house on fire analogies and vague nods to experts and Trump-shaming - that doesn’t cost much - but the actual work of reducing consumption or not living on beautiful, forested hills or not traveling wherever we want...there’s no real appetite for that.

 

The feds don’t control the number of cars in California. There are 15 million registered vehicles in the state.

Newsom is free to take a big bite if he thinks Californians are game.

The Green new Deal FAQ was the real tell. Overreaching and inapt as it seemed, it was a kind of idea vomit on how to drastically address climate change. It was disavowed in hours, and there’s a reason: It was scary.

 

Apparently I need to move again. This is also a good use of data journalism and WWW-directed production, if you’re into that sort of thing.

edit-1st add: If you think the Green New Deal is scary, this’ll really make you wet your Depends.

 

That's why California sets its own mileage and emissions standards.

The California Air Resources Board and The Clean Air Act don't require the buy-in of every citizen or every voter.

Nor does the Green New Deal.

 

It's odd that on a board with so much sports discussion that marginal gains for things outside of sports are dismissed out of hand. We should be pushing for them in regards to climate change.

Thousands of businesses have improved their production and bottom line through marginal gains via Lean concepts. We could do the same to climate change with things like increased MPG standards in vehicles.

 

You can certainly see why conservatives want nothing to do with CARB or the EPA, championed and signed into law as they were by infamous progressives Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

 

President Science Denier at one point spouted off that he was going to not allow California (and other states) to set their own mileage and emissions standards.
Oh, I'm sorry, let me introduce you to federalism.

 

Well, there's only one thing left to do: take over Canada. Third time's a charm, baby!

 

Huh, I wonder if there are tough emissions standards for cars in California

California Emissions requirements

 

The Green New Deal as legislation, IMO, wouldn't make a giant dent, although it may be an effective jobs-ish program. (For people who don't want to be professional Twitter justice warriors). The FAQs or appendix or fact sheet or whatever you want to call it was much closer to what it probably takes to make a real dent. And it's scary.

Climate change, to the extent anyone believes it, is a hard-ass problem. Once upon a time, acid rain was a problem. Scrubbers were put in smokestacks, pollutants were reduced and no one hears about it anymore.

Still a problem? Yep.

Another issue: Nuclear Power. It'd help on the climate change front. Don't see much movement for it because it's not an emerging market or anything the left can virtue signal.

 

The only sacrifices that need to be made are the ones made by industry. That's magic climate change. Silver bullet laws to save the world. The only things we need just happen to be all the ideas we have.

 

Or because we still don't know what to do with the radioactive waste it generates. One of those.