Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Earth Government

How California Cuts Greenhouse Gas Emissions - While Its Economy Grows (ca.gov) 140

Posted by EditorDavid from the sunshine-state-of-mind dept.
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."

How California Cuts Greenhouse Gas Emissions - While Its Economy Grows More | Reply

How California Cuts Greenhouse Gas Emissions - While Its Economy Grows

Comments Filter:

  • COST OF GAS (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by GotNoRice ( 7207988 )
    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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      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: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 )
      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:COST OF GAS (Score:4, Informative)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday September 23, 2024 @09:03AM (#64809305) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • Property taxes in Texas can be a big shock. California has it's prop 13 tax rates, which prevent taxes from keeping up with cost of living so that city infrastructures that depend upon prop taxes can be hurting. So pay attention to the total tax bills when deciding to move.

          Personally, my income in California is so much higher than it would be in Texas, that even paying extra income taxes I come out ahead. I could ask my boss to pay me less so that I'm in a lower tax bracket, but that's crazy talk! When _

        • Then your friend really isn't going to like the taxes in Oregon, specifically and especially if they move inside the city limits of Portland, and specifically in Multnomah County.

          It's one of the highest tax burdens in the country [taxfoundation.org], beating New York and San Francisco.

      • Re:COST OF GAS (Score:5, Interesting)

        by psycho12345 ( 1134609 ) on Monday September 23, 2024 @09:07AM (#64809311)
        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 land, less then 20% of the state is really useful for habitation).

        • As a California native, I think it's too crowded here. So please, I beg everyone, do NOT move here! If you live here and are disgruntled, then please move away! If you're here for college, then when you graduate get a job somewhere else! Please, just leave, so that the rest of us can enjoy the nice state without a lot of grumbling.

          We especially don't like all those "It's a nice climate, but I miss having weather" types, ugh, that's subversive talk!

      • 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: (Score:3)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          ... 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.

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

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by XXongo ( 3986865 )
              What does that have to do with the fact that you made up an "axiom" of economics that does not exist?

              • I didn't make it up but noticed that is is an argument that is coming up in discussions - without proof that it is correct. Like an axiom. But that's why I put the quotes around it. My whole point was that it is most likely wrong. At least it clearly contradicts the statement of cayenne8.

      • Re:COST OF GAS (Score:5, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday September 23, 2024 @09:46AM (#64809419) Homepage Journal

        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.

      • 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

        • ... 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.

      • 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]

      • 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: (Score:2)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )
          The last census was in 2020. It wouldn't capture anything anyone on this thread is talking about.
          • The census is estimated nearly instantaneously with various records available to the Bureau. Itâ(TM)s an âoeestimateâ, and only the decennial census is official, but the estimates arenâ(TM)t far from the official census. Census.gov lists daily numbers for just about every city and locality.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shilly ( 142940 )

        If you're going to claim this, you will need to explain why higher gas prices and this purported outflow of the population have not seen the economy shrink.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )
          Because you are taking the numbers presented by the CA government at face value. There has been no census since 2020. All CA numbers of population are estimates. Especially estimates on the number of immigrates from the southern border. Nobody knows the actual numbers of that population but CA is claiming it is enough to make up for all the people who left. Meanwhile, for most Californians all they see is businesses closing down and people leaving (plus new camps). As for the claims about the growing

    • Re:COST OF GAS (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday September 23, 2024 @09:26AM (#64809351)

      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 drive every day for shits and giggles. They do so to commute, and your boss doesn't give a shit if you pay $5 or $4 for gasoline. Cost of fuel does have a long term effect though, but it takes about 5+ years to show any meaningful impact in fuel consumption numbers, and ironically it is mostly driven by those people who can afford a new car and then make the conscious choice to buy something smaller and more fuel efficient.

    • Driving less is mostly the post-covid era; everyone is driving less if they can work from home. The gas prices aren't absurd, and in Silicon Valley it's cheaper than the rural Central Valley. It's not in the $7 range that I've seen, though posibly there are pockets where fuel delivery is difficult. I haven't seen anything pop over $5.50, and even that were the bigger brand name gas stations. Though to be fair, there's often a $0.20 difference between cash versus credit prices (which is way higher than t

  • Here is how (Score:5, Informative)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Monday September 23, 2024 @08:00AM (#64809211)

    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.

    • 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: (Score:3)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        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 magneto/points rather than a modern ignition system. Even more ancient is how the air fuel ratio is adjusted by hand from the cockpit controls.

        The majority of those "1950s technology" aircraft flying around up there aren't new build aircraft using 1950s technology but aircraft that are actually that damned old--the average age of the US GA fleet is +/- 50 years. Most small aircraft pilots would love to upgrade (though I'd say most would want to keep the magnetos and dual ignition) but the costs are prohibitive due to the regulatory regime and technology changes are, at best, difficult to achieve.

    • 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?

    • This is 100% bullshit.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      significantly less people (almost 1M have net left the state in half a decade)

      It's more like a few hundred thousand over a brief 3 year period (which is not that significant in a state that large) and in more recent news the outflow has stopped https://apnews.com/article/cal... [apnews.com] .

      less income (minimum wage increases caused effective wage loss for minimum wage earners)

      The minimum wage increase was so recent I very strongly doubt you have any real data to back this claim up. On a look myself I did find conservative news outlets pointing to lay offs at some fast food locations in California but given that fast food jobs have increased in number over all in the state https:// [ca.gov]

  • A stretch (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maxrate ( 886773 ) on Monday September 23, 2024 @08:09AM (#64809223)
    This article is a bit of a stretch of /. content.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RobinH ( 124750 )
      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: (Score:2, Troll)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

        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?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by RobinH ( 124750 )
          I don't disagree with the story. I'm opining the fact that the current editors at Slashdot are blatantly biased in the stories they choose to post, and the one-sided narrative they assume when summarizing them. I generally have a left-leaning bias, but I respect journalists and editors that leave their personal bias out of their professional work. These editors don't even pretend to be professional.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      What do you mean by that? Is there something wrong with this topic?

      So far, this is one of my favorite Slashdot discussions in the last week. I'm only as far down as your comment, and I've watched people argue, citing statistics and studies, and philosophical arguments about: relative population changes in California versus Texas versus the world, the correlation or lack-thereof of population growth versus economic growth... I've learned the meaning of "border encounter" versus the number of people cross i

  • 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
  • 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? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Monday September 23, 2024 @08:50AM (#64809279)
    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

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

      • The study cited by the Chronicle is playing games with the numbers. Texas has a 6.25% state sales tax, with Houston adding another 2%. That is the *only* tax burden low-income people in Texas face, since they don't pay property taxes. How they get from 8.25% to the supposed 13%, I have no idea, the article doesn't say.

    • "California deficit spending"

      Every state except Vermont requires their operating budget to be balanced.

  • Half the growth of the USA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by locopuyo ( 1433631 ) on Monday September 23, 2024 @08:52AM (#64809285) Homepage
    GDP of the USA increased 150% from 2000 to 2022. Claiming 78% is good is nothing but statistical propaganda.

  • Real Numbers (Score:3)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday September 23, 2024 @09:27AM (#64809353) Homepage Journal

    > 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.

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by 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?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

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

      Why on earth would you cut part of California out of statistics about California? That's simply juicing the numbers so you can get the conclusion you want.

  • 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.

    • They picked about 20years of data. not 5 years of data. That most likely smoothen out the impact of covid.
      But I suppose it would be good to have data from other states, the nation, and other country as points of comparison.

  • Reads like Newsom campaign release... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr_Ken ( 1163339 ) on Monday September 23, 2024 @10:09AM (#64809495) Journal
    It's hard to see this as anything more than political puff piece for Newsom.
    • It really is just something that can be cited in his 2028 presidential campaign.

    • Seriously. We've lost a million people since 2020, which I think might have something to do with the lowered CO2 emissions.

      We also have the highest energy prices and the highest gasoline taxes which would encourage people to not do business here as much as possible.

  • 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).

  • The article says it went from 15% to 30% of renewables for electric generation in one year.

    And for the rest... google "median priced of gasoline in california", and you get about $4.74.

    Guess Newsome and Biden did that, lowered it from $7.

  • climate = poverty (Score:3)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Monday September 23, 2024 @12:40PM (#64809937)

    California has the highest poverty rate in the country, when measured against local cost of living.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you teach your children to like computers and to know how to gamble then they'll always be interested in something and won't come to no real harm.

Close