Of all 50 states, it would be difficult to match California’s posturing as a “green” state with the nation’s most stringent environmental policies. Burdensome laws and regulations are imposed by elected officials and bureaucrats who try to outdo each other by burnishing their environmental bona fides. But how much of this posturing is really posing? Worse yet, how many of these policies actually damage the environment?
The pursuit of effective environmental policies requires clear thinking and critical analysis that transcend sound bites and superficial conclusions. Regrettably, that doesn’t happen often in California and here are the most glaring examples.
First on the list is California’s High-Speed Rail Project. This project was justified almost entirely on environmental grounds. A carbon-free rail project (false) that could travel from L.A. to San Francisco in about two hours (false) and would replace thousands of cars on the road (false) sounds great, but sober international transportation experts now doubt the project will ever be completed.
In the meantime, the massive amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction and the destruction of valuable farmland in the Central Valley exposes HSR for the truly environmentally damaging effort that it is.
Second, for some strange reason, California does not count hydroelectric power as a “green” energy source. This makes no sense whatsoever and deters the development of additional projects that are reliable (not dependent on sun or wind) sources of carbon-free energy.
Third, in California, it is accepted as gospel that urban transit is better for the environment than individual automobiles. Whether that is true depends on innumerable factors that make broad pronouncements suspect. Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation is an expert in all matters involving surface transportation and has this to say about transit today: “But what I want to question is the premise that shifting huge sums to mass transit and passenger rail would make America greener. There’s growing evidence that it would not. For example, cars are presumed to be more polluting (both conventional emissions and CO2) than mass transit—but that is no longer so.”
Third, in California, it is accepted as gospel that urban transit is better for the environment than individual automobiles. Whether that is true depends on innumerable factors that make broad pronouncements suspect. Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation is an expert in all matters involving surface transportation and has this to say about transit today: “But what I want to question is the premise that shifting huge sums to mass transit and passenger rail would make America greener. There’s growing evidence that it would not. For example, cars are presumed to be more polluting (both conventional emissions and CO2) than mass transit—but that is no longer so.”
Fourth, few dispute that solar energy is a legitimate piece of the green energy puzzle, but California’s green policy advocates tend to elevate solar to an exalted status where it really doesn’t belong. For one thing, there is a finite amount of energy that falls on a square meter of the earth’s surface no matter how efficient a solar panel may be. To replace all current power plants with solar would require dedicating millions of acres, robbing that land of use for other purposes such as natural habitat. Moreover, the vast majority of solar panels are produced in China and manufactured using coal-produced electricity. (And, of course, slave labor.)
Fifth, environmental activists are loath to cut down trees. Green policies which hinder rational timber harvesting have had disastrous results. Catastrophic fires not only killed hundreds of people and destroyed thousands of homes in California, but also destroyed countless wild animals including, no doubt, many on the endangered species list.
Sixth, California has irrationally declared war on natural gas with many municipalities banning new gas hookups for business and residential use. Gas-fired power plants are also disfavored notwithstanding their superior efficiency relative to coal-fired plants where California still gets some of its energy. The gains made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in the last two decades have been largely attributed to the shift to natural gas for electricity production.
Seventh, what about wind? Like solar power, wind energy is a partial solution to clean energy but it too has its faults. Some members of the Audubon Society refer to wind turbines as “Avian Cuisinarts” for the number of birds that are killed daily by the fan blades including endangered eagles and condors.
Finally, no discussion of the foolishness of California’s green policies would be complete without noting the rejection of reliable, carbon-free nuclear power. There may have been legitimate reasons for deciding to close Rancho Seco, Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, but the new generation of nuclear reactors are safe, reliable and clean. Regrettably, it is doubtful that one would ever be built in California no matter how much sense it makes.
Kermit the Frog famously said it isn’t easy being green. Perhaps he was right but it doesn’t mean we can’t approach the legitimate environmental problems facing California with a lot more serious thought and a lot less posing.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.