How California Cuts Greenhouse Gas Emissions - While Its Economy Grows

In 2022 about 346,000 electric cars were reportedly sold in California. But the same year its greenhouse gas emissions dropped a whopping 9.3 million metric tons — the amount produced by 2.2 million gas-powered cars — lowering emissions 2.4% from the year before. "The biggest drop came from transportation, due largely to the increased use of renewable fuels," according to the state's Air Resources Board, touting a newly-released report. (And electricity sector emissions also fell by 2.6 million metric tons, or 4.1%, "even as electricity usage rose," according to The Hill — "a dichotomy that the regulators attributed to an increase in solar and wind power generation.")

So despite a growing economy, "the latest data underscores a continued trend of steady emissions decline..." according to a statement from the Board. "Between 2000 to 2022, emissions fell by 20% while California's gross domestic product increased by 78%, pointing to the effectiveness of the state's climate change and air quality programs." And the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted per unit of economic output ("carbon intensity") has also dropped 55% in the last 20 years: [In 2022] the electricity sector had its lowest carbon intensity since 2000. Wind and solar now represent 30% of generation and in-state solar increased by 15% from 2021, driven by requirements under the state's Cap-and-Trade Program and Renewables Portfolio Standard. Furthermore, California increased its battery storage by 757% from 2019 through 2023, bolstering its renewable energy efforts. The storage capacity is enough to power 6.6 million homes for up to four hours.

Industrial emissions declined by 2%, also falling to the lowest level in 22 years. While refinery emissions remained essentially flat, emissions from oil and gas extraction declined, as did emissions from other fuel use, cement manufacturing, and cogeneration facilities. [The Hill says 2022's industrial emissions were 21.7% below year-2000 levels, according to the report.]

Livestock emissions, which are responsible for 70% of agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions, peaked in 2012 and once again saw reductions in 2022. The decrease is driven by the use of methane digesters funded by the California Climate Investments and incentivized by the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which capture emissions at the source and convert them to clean fuel.

Landfill methane emissions also continued to decline in 2022. This decline can be attributed in part to the state's efforts to reduce disposal of organic waste, as well as the California Landfill Methane Regulation, which requires landfill operators to monitor and capture emissions escaping from their facilities.
One local news site calls the drop in emissions "shocking," but adds that "the trend is expected to continue. In the second quarter of 2024, 118,181 zero-emission vehicles were purchased in the state, good for about one-quarter of all new car sales."

California governor Gavin Newsom said his state "is proving that climate action goes hand-in-hand with economic growth. We've slashed carbon pollution by a whopping 20% since the turn of the century all while building the world's fifth largest economy. Cleaner air, more good jobs — that's the California way."

COST OF GAS

[GotNoRice]

The article is so focused on congratulating and giving credit to anything having to do with green energy, it ignores one very very obvious reason why emissions from vehicles fell - the massive increases in the cost of gas. Many places in CA saw gas costs in the $7 range. Yeah... that means people will be driving less, and it's not because green energy is amazing. If green energy was so amazing, then electricity would be cheaper, and electric cars would practically sell themselves. Instead, CA *ALSO* has some of the highest electricity costs, in addition to gas costs... So you're screwed no matter what you drive...

Re:

[drinkypoo]

The article is so focused on congratulating and giving credit to anything having to do with green energy, it ignores one very very obvious reason why emissions from vehicles fell - the massive increases in the cost of gas.

Most of the vehicle emissions are from commuting. They are not leisure trips that people are skipping.

Many places in CA saw gas costs in the $7 range.

False. A very few remote places in CA got fuel prices this high. Even here in Humboldt prices only got up to about $6/gallon, and we pay some of the highest fuel prices in the state.

If green energy was so amazing, then electricity would be cheaper

I see you're familiar with neither PGE or the CPUC.

Re:COST OF GAS

[cayenne8]

It might also have to do with millions of people LEAVING California over the past few years too....to states with lower taxes and less onerous regulations.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

It might also have to do with millions of people LEAVING California over the past few years too....to states with lower taxes

You mean like Texas? A friend of mine who moved there found his taxes were even higher than in California, now some years later he's moving to Oregon.

Re:

[psycho12345]

Classic libertarian, right wing comment. If it was losing millions, but its population has barely changed, that must means millions are moving in at the same time? California has one of the highest (f not the highest) retention rates, people tend to move there and stay there. Outflows for the first time is probably a healthy thing, couldn't keep increasing the population in the relatively tiny amount of area to live (most of California isn't really habitable, it is very mountainous or has huge agricultural

Re:

[cayenne8]

If it was losing millions, but its population has barely changed

Funny, can you come up with a different explanation why CA has a huge U-Haul shortage other than the mass of people using them to move OUT of state and no one bringing them back into the state with move back to CA?

Re:

[bickerdyke]

Let's assume this is true for the sake of the argument.... Then the headline "...while its economy grows" would proof the liberal "axiom" wrong that economic growth can only come with population growth.

So one of this two has to be wrong.

Re:

[XXongo]

... Then the headline "...while its economy grows" would proof the liberal "axiom" wrong that economic growth can only come with population growth.

There is no such axiom.

Re:

[bickerdyke]

The why my parent mention " millions of people LEAVING California over the past few years" like it was a bad thing?

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

https://www.macrotrends.net/gl... [macrotrends.net]

The percentage decline isn't enough to account for these changes in emissions, unless it was a small number of mega-polluters moving their businesses elsewhere. In which case I feel sorry for the people they set up their new carbon factory next to.

Re:

[wcrisman]

If you look at the graph for world population (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/world/population) and California population (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/states/california/population) you will notice that they appear to be identical. Population in California has dropped off slightly over the last couple years in much the same way that the world population has dipped a little in the last few years. Your insinuation that the reason for the decline is related to taxes an

Population [Re:COST OF GAS]

[XXongo]

... in much the same way that the world population has dipped a little in the last few years.

The world population has not dropped.

The rate of increase has slowed, but a slower increase is still an increase.

Re:MILLIONS YOU SAY?

[ArchieBunker]

Of course fake news says millions of people have left California.

Back in the real world, the population of California grew is 2023. https://apnews.com/article/cal... [apnews.com]

Re:

[BishopBerkeley]

Census results prove you wrong. www.census.gov. There are many people moving to California because, what do you know, we have jobs and clean air, as the report testifies.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Completely false. Gas consumption in California in 2022 is virtually unchanged from 2021 despite being at record high prices. You're more than welcome to look at the raw data:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/h... [eia.gov] - which incidentally shows that no gasoline wasn't in the $7 range, it peaked at $6 and spent most of the year closer to $5

And here's a link showing gasoline consumption was within year to year variance post introduction of work from home due to covid: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data... [ca.gov]

People don't driv

Re:

[wcrisman]

The cost of gas is up everywhere. The cost of gas in California is not rising faster than elsewhere in the US. It is the relative cost of gas that would affect people's habits and from the numbers I have seen the only thing that stopped people from driving was not having to go in to work (Covid). I think you are also over estimating the percentage vehicles contribute to the overall problem.

Here is how

[guruevi]

In the most recent data, California experienced recessionary conditions in 2022 and the first half of 2023.

The state faces three overlapping challenges: rising unemployment, growing fiscal strains and population outflows.

So basically: significantly less people (almost 1M have net left the state in half a decade), less income (minimum wage increases caused effective wage loss for minimum wage earners), less economic activity across the board (over 350 large companies, including Fortune 1000), that is how California reduces its output of emissions. The rest shows that the 129 active dairy digesters are not enough to show a difference, they could convert all together process less than 100 pounds of methane a day (at a cost of $200M) and they convert it to⦠natural gas to burn, so you are taking methane and burning it.

Re:

[buck-yar]

We need food to live, but we how much do we really need aviation? Open Radarbox or ADSBexchange and see how cluttered the skies are with airplanes. Every so often I see a commercial airliner fly over, but there's alway the buzz of unmuffled Cessnas as they fly around non stop. General aviation is mostly a rich persons hobby. Cessnas haven't changed much since the 1950s. The motors are fairly large, 5.2L but only puts out 150-200hp. This is because of the inefficiency. Most of the ones in the sky use a magne

Re:

[thegarbz]

So that is a cool narrative you're pushing for half the summary, now how does that account for the increase in GDP - the other half of the summary?

A stretch

[maxrate]

This article is a bit of a stretch of /. content.

Re:A stretch

[RobinH]

This is a new generation of editors. They didn't buy into the ethics of journalism. They buy into the idea that as a gatekeeper of an information platform they're morally obligated to push a political agenda.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Lol

I disagree with the story, therefor it is wrong

How is a story talking about decreasing pollution in a state that was famous for it's smog and bad air political?

sad cheerleading

[prof_robinson]

CA also holds the record for the largest surplus to deficit swing in history. In just under 2 years, it went from a 100billion surplus, to a 47billion deficit. They've lost millions of people fleeing the green paradise. Not to mention the same article here, states that EV sales are about HALF what they were last year... so it's not exactly a "trend that will continue". It's hard to say what the true statistics or causes are - they're buried under a ton of biomass at this point - but nobody should think for

The real truth

[CEC-P]

It's an in-debt, tax nightmare, mismanaged hell-hole in reality. But for this specific article, they're doing the typical strategy of changing how they measure it and calling the delta between them progress. Like if renewable fuel production emissions happened out of state, oh well, not going into the numbers. And industrial emissions are down 2% because sales are down 2% because the Dems keep printing money.

At what cost?

[sinij]

California deficit [apnews.com] spending [apnews.com] and high cost of living [forbes.com] is how this is being paid for. To me, this is not money well spent. At that cost they could have had fully nuclear power grid and completely eliminated power generation emissions.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

The numbers aren't as clear as you make them out to be. https://www.houstonchronicle.c... [houstonchronicle.com]

Half the growth of the USA

[locopuyo]

GDP of the USA increased 150% from 2000 to 2022. Claiming 78% is good is nothing but statistical propaganda.

Re:

[timeOday]

You must be comparing real to nominal.

Nominal GDP in the US increased by 148% from 2000 to 2022

https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]

Nominal GDP in California increased by 160% from 2000 to 2022

https://usafacts.org/metrics/g... [usafacts.org]

Re: Half the growth of the USA

[reanjr]

Should really compare real to real, since inflation can affect different areas in different ways.

Re:

[thegarbz]

You're not comparing the same thing. You're looking at "Real GDP change". For the USA that was $10.3tr to $25.7tr a 150% increase as you say.
From the same data source over the same timescale 2000 - 2022 here's the numbers for California: $1.69tr to $3.167tr a 187% increase.

This should come as no surprise as California has a huge impact on the GDP of the USA being by far the economically largest state. But it's the opposite of the point you're trying to make. California's GDP has outperformed that of the USA

Real Numbers

[bill_mcgonigle]

> 2000 to 2022

OK, factor out Big Tech which is their Saudi Arabia to get a normalized comparison to other states.

Now adjust for public debt and unfunded liabilities compared to other states.

Then add net positive or negative funds flow from the Federal government, including military operations, as compared to other states.

So, what do the numbers look like then? We should care if they're positive or negative so we can understand if their policies are broadly applicable. We just don't want to use cooked numbers that would make a corporate banker proud.

Re: Real Numbers

[reanjr]

Ok, then you also gotta remove oil from Texas, agriculture from Nebraska, and finance from New York.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

why not do the math and show up everyone here instead of JAQing off

considering CA is the #1 state for manufacturing

it also is one of the states with the lowest percentage in terms of federal funds as percentage of budget (48/50)

you're trying to juice the numbers in every which way to make your point but even then it falls flat on its face

maybe california is actually a nice place... i know that flies in the face of 30 years of conservative agitprop but maybe theyve been lying to you?

Sorry Gavin...

[andyring]

Correlation Causation.

What ALSO happened in that timeframe? COVID. With millions upon millions of people working from home and not driving or taking any form of transportation whatsoever into work.

Reads like Newsom campaign release...

[Dr_Ken]

It's hard to see this as anything more than political puff piece for Newsom.

We're at 262 g CO2 per kWh

[atomicalgebra]

That's a failure. Much better than Germany, but still no where near a decarbonized electrical grid. If we want to stop burning fossil fuels we are going to need new nuclear. Sun Desert and Rancho Seco are perfect spots(plenty of water and no seismic activity).