Energy-efficient californians

If I remember correctly, it's the 6th largest economy in the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Feb 23 2007, 07:48 AM) [snapback]395101[/snapback]</div>

Do the same people who believe in wmds also believe(or hope) that california will fall into the sea?

 

Chogan,

I think it really highlights the character traits of these people. Either way they look at it, they are resistant to change. It's the change that's really the issue. Denial allows them to continue with business as usual. Fatalism does the same. For them, I think they should take stock in FDR's word: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". The arguments aren't ration (though they're very human) because the fear isn't either. But humans are emotional, not rational creatures, so the changes will have to come slower than I would like them to. However, the game is clearly changing. The denial is no longer tenable so the rest of us will just have to ensure that the fatalism isn't justified.

 

Don't know if it said or not, but I would be interested if the article went into the what/whys? I.e., why is CA more efficient? What specific policies?

As a long-time resident but a transplant from another state, I can't think of any specific policies that immediately come to mind that make me as an individual more efficient as a Californian than I was elsewhere.

I suspect the policies have more to do with mandates imposed on business than on individuals. And that more importantly, Californians consume substantially less energy than others because of a favorable climate.

Sorry to rain on the parade, I'm just not so sure the average Californian really lives that much differently than anybody else in terms of energy efficient lifestyle habits. But I'll accept a correction if there is good evidence to support it of which I am not aware.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 23 2007, 02:12 PM) [snapback]395479[/snapback]</div>

Hey Tripp -

You may be right in some cases - but I think skepticism is often healthy, not just "irrational". In fact, I would argue skepticism has injected a much greater degree of precision and realism into the discussion of climate change, in particular. And as climate change science has steadily improved I find it completely logical and rational for the discussion to move from "is this a problem" to "how much of a problem is this" and "how much of it can we control" and "what approaches do we use to control it".

You are right, some people may use this as a shield for business as usual but frankly, the "the sky is falling down" approach promulgated by many Global Warming promoters is irrational in its own right.

A perfect "for instance" -- the environmental lobby's irrational rejection of widespread use of nuclear power as a means for reducing CO2 emissions - even as many scientists, policy-makers and economists embrace it.

Logic suggests that socially attainable behavior change alone will never be sufficient / fast enough to achieve the orders of magnitude reductions in CO2 apparently necessary to completely mitigate anthropogenic climate change. The sooner the environmental lobby pulls their collective heads out of the sand and realizes this, the better.

 

Tim,

Skepticism is a very GOOD thing. I completely agree that the chicken little approach is not useful, in fact it's detrimental. However, the skepticism put forward by the crowd in question is entirely emotion based and not founded in science or logic. The smooth transition from denial to "it's too late" is a clear indication of this.

I agree that the nuclear should option should be explored and pursued in conjunction with a variety of equally (or more) important measures. I doubt we have the ability of be energy independent if we're heavily reliant on uranium/plutonium. Also, nuclear power uses a tremendous amount of water (at least the current techs do) so it may not be practical on a large scale in a lot of areas of the west going forward.

With that said, a lot of people are deeply suspicious of nuclear power because of a variety of issues with business and the environment going back several decades. It's really a trust issue. Personally, I think we can overcome that and move on. The French appear to have a solid record and they get ~75% of their power from nuclear. Our record is also pretty good (except the mining issues from the past in Utah). Safer mining techniques and continuing research into safer more efficient reactors can mitigate many of these issues.

As for CA, I don't know. I know that Concord is hot as hell, but not very cold. Higher electricity rates possibly? It doesn't sound like electricity is cheap in CA.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 27 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]397419[/snapback]</div>

Fair enough Tripp - but emotions run strong on both sides of the issue and am simply arguing the "sky is falling down" is not founded in science or logic either.

As for the electric rates, yes - HIGH in CA vs. other states which obviously mitigates the demand side. But again, this has little to do with our personal decisions here. I hope we Californian's can avoid patting ourselves on the back for our superior energy habits when in fact, as I mentioned, I doubt they are really any better than those in the rest of the country.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Feb 27 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]397426[/snapback]</div>

Well, they may not be voluntary but it would appear that they exist (the habits and corresponding energy consumption reductions). I suppose that you could compare CA per capita energy consumption with states with similar climate regimes (or cut the state into regions and compare those regions to other states).