Rod Dreher posted today that he doubts there’s the political will for a major Kennedyesque effort to do something about climate change. An officer in the California Democratic Party’s environmental caucus–the first state to institute an economy-wide cap-and-trade program–and contributor to several progressive publications like DailyKos, ClimateProgress, and Grist, took issue (full storify here):
Bob Jones says: As a California taxpayer and voter (and I am not defending Mr. Miller as I share your skepticism on this front), but he is likely thinking of the push toward clean air standards, which many in California see as having started here in an effort to reduce “Smog” for lack of a better word. Thus, by being the first, an incubator, California was able to reduce the unhealthfulness of its air,and thus created a standards for other communities, and eventually the Federal government, and other countries (just thinking of the catalytic converter on cars as an example). Whether or not this is true is likely another long debate.
At any rate, that is probably the POV from which he is arguing that environmental rule on carbon emissions in California can act as an incubator for national and possibly global change on the matter. Again, this is also not necessarily measurable, but may be where he is coming from.
I’m an engineer and resident of California. A portion of my background is in the design and management of scientific inquiries. The inquiry that motivates California’s policy on CO2 emissions does not have a scientific methodology. This is clear from the absence of reference by this inquiry to the underlying statistical population.
Rod Dreher says: I have never been a climate change denialist, for the record. Arthur Bloom seems to think that because he doesn’t like my conclusion, it must have been reached in bad faith. My point is bleak, sure; but screwing up one’s face and saying, “Bad man!” is not exactly a refutation. If Bloom thinks that China and India are going to put brakes on the economic engine that is lifting millions of their abjectly poor people out of poverty, he’s dreaming. If Bloom thinks we can reverse climate change without China and India — who are about to become greater emitters of CO2 than the US — he’s also dreaming.
I have lived most of my life in California. The state’s Mediterranean climate is a big contributor to the “nice place to live” status it enjoys. But it only would only take a very small upward deviation to make it FAR less livable. The heat wave of 2006 is one example of that, if any were needed. The thing about global warming is that not only does the planet warm overall, but extreme weather events of all sorts become more commonplace, as weather is driven by the energy in the system.
Another example: the forests of the Sierra Nevada are already severely threatened by a bark beetle infestation. Not only do bark beetles do best against trees weakened by drought, but they flourish in warmer temperatures, so the less severe the winters, the better the beetles do. Their range has been steadily spreading upward in the Sierra for some time. Even Californians who couldn’t care less about the loss of forest for it’s own sake should care about this, as deforestation causes erosion that imperils our water supply.
Third example: the Sacramento Delta, currently the hub of California’s water delivery system, will relatively soon be a saltwater marsh due to rising sea levels. There really doesn’t seem to be anything we can do about that. The so-called Peripheral Canal may preserve the fresh water supply (unless the forests die off), but the Delta, as it now stands, is a doomed and dying ecosystem. Just one of many.
Simply put, Californians cannot afford to shrug our shoulders and hope for the best. Efforts like those referenced in the conversation above may be insufficient, but anyone paying attention knows that we’ve got to try something. That or give up on our state entirely.