jungle

I took a little time to check your facts today, and found this on the State's own web site:
California with its abundant natural resources has had a long history of support for renewable energy. In 2004, 10.2 percent of all electicity came from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric facilities.

They plan to up that to 20% by 2017. They do buy hydro from other states who have the facility and foresight to produce it.


Let's compare that to the US as a whole with this DOE statement:

Renewable resources (solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass, and waste) currently provide nearly 12 percent of the Nation's electricity supply. Almost 10 of this 12 percent is provided by hydroelectric resources alone. Biomass and municipal solid waste (MSW) together contribute more than 1 percent. All other renewable resources, including geothermal, wind, and solar, together provide less than 1 percent of the total.




Just as a footnote to our gentle readers who didn't read the article linked to the California energy crisis I would like to remind them of the consequences that may await the "enlightened" legislation of free markets.
"...Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) were buying from a spot market at very high prices but were unable to raise retail rates. PG&E and SoCalEd had racked up $20 Billion in debt by Spring of 2001 (PG&E declared bankruptcy in April of that year), and their credit ratings were reduced to junk status. The financial crisis meant that PG&E and SoCalEd were unable to purchase power on behalf of their customers. "



ryane, It might surprise you to learn that our goals are the same in this matter. We have just chosen different paths to meet them.

blastboy

Wow! I haven't checked the forum in a few days. (addiction is dying off) This has certainly become a heated debate. Those pictures of LA is what I saw from my apartment window in Irvine almost everyday. Somedays you can't even see LA because the smog is so dense. The anthropogenic acceleration of global climate change is a big issue should not be taken lightly. However, there are other issues that are indirectly related to global warming that should be dealt with such as massive forest clearing, urban sprawl, eutriphication, dumping of toxic substances, mercury contamination, over fishing (commercially), landfill problems, ground water contamination....The list is huge. The bottom line is we have a toxic planet and if we want to continue to have drinkle water, breathable air and thrivng crops, we (as a planet) need to make changes to have a sustainable environment. Global warming is a big issue but the concern shouldn't stop there. I don't know how anyone can argue with the fact that industrial society is leaving a heavy and dirty footprint on the natural world we enjoy living in so much. Unless someone an prove that dumping motor oil in the ocean is a positive thing. Or maybe having a few micro grams of mercury in your fish is beneficial to your health. Or having garbage juice leak into the ground water from a nearby landfill. The world is a mess but the venture to clean it up isn't hopeless.

jungle

So, where does this leave us? There can be no argument that man and other life pollutes, and the more humans the more pollution.
The industrial revolution made it possible to feed, clothe and support a much larger population than ever before.
That population, like many things in this world, is a two edged sword. It is what gives us strength and at the same time taxes our ability to support it.

Even if we were to halve it next week and demand that everyone live in a primitive, natural way we would still have
pollution and not just a little. So what is the answer? Do you want to decide who lives and who does not? Would you
trust someone else to make that choice for you?
Much of the growth in population is the direct result of the diminishment of the classic Malthusian checks. Famine, disease, environment.
In the last century man himself has provided a newer check on the population- government of the sort that has sought to destroy large segments of it's own population.. It wasn't pretty, but it also wasn't
nearly as effective as the old checks. Sometimes the old checks return for a surprise visit.

At the most basic level it becomes a question of survival of the species and man has proven very good at this.
He isn't as old as some very specialized life, but unlike those forms he can adapt to quickly changing conditions.
Philosophy, religion, politics, science are all methods that we use to construct a concept of what the world is and what
it should be in the future. I have a lot of optimism about our ability to deal with problems and find workable solutions.
I also have an understanding of history that lets me know it won't be smooth. We have advanced in a series
of lurches of pure genius and extreme brutality.


jungle

vagabond

My old friend, calcapt, used to preface his posts with "I'm just a simple airline pilot" or "I only flew the F-14 so what do I know?" I'm going to follow suit and say I'm just a simple (some might even say simple-minded) lawyer and what do I know about global warming? I didn't understand much, if any, of the posted studies, but I know what I am going to do as a single human being - I'm going to assume that everything I do, every breath I take has an effect on this planet. Don't know if it will make an iota of difference, but I resolved long ago to use less, make do with what I have, buy used, recycle, bring my own canvas bag to the grocery store, store rainwater, walk instead of drive, start my own backyard veggie garden, pick up my dog's poop from the park. If nothing else, all this makes me feel good.

blastboy

Vagabond - Don't pick up the poop! It's good for the soil. By the way, I'm curious as to what system you are using to collect rain water?


Jungle - Readng your posts is like reading an ancient greek philosophy book. I like your style of writing. I ask you this; all life pollutes, correct. But mans' bi-products (oil, toxic waste, exhaust) are not recycled in nature the way other species bi-products are. What animals pollute on a scale the way man does? What other species has dumped millions of gallons of oil into the ocean?

I'm not suggesting that we live primitively, but more responsibly. The industrial revolution did exactly what you stated, but with consequences. Man did a great job of building a great society for himself but neglected to consider the huge impact it would have on the world that sustains him. This scale of survival man has achieved is only temporary at best; if everything continues, there will be no need to manually instate a population reduction because it will crash regardless (J-curve).

jungle

By way of simple experiment enclose yourself in a 10x10x10 windowless room with twenty feeder pigs for a month and report back if you can. Motoroil will be the least of your worries.

I wouldn't bet against the most dangerous animal to ever walk the face of the earth as far as future survival or sustainability goes. In the end it may boil down to a struggle of the smart and strong against the weak and dependent. Which way would you bet?

u2drvr

While man's "bi-products" may not be recycled in nature as rapidly as those of other species, they are nevertheless recycled. Don't forget that all of the things we produce ultimately come from nature, we just process and concentrate them. Too many people of an "environmental" bent tend to discount the ability of the planet to heal itself.

We live in a self correcting environment. This is my biggest disagreement with the global warming hysteria...none of the models used to predict global warming take into account the planets tendancy to correct itself. The planet gets warmer, plants grow in greater abundance, use more carbon dioxide and produce more oxygen, CO2 levels go down, the planet cools, and the whole cycle starts over. Man's activities has an influence, but it is very small compared to the what's in nature.

You cannot take man out of the equation. You cannot seperate human activity from nature, because we are part of nature. It's really Hiesenburg's theory on a very large scale. You have to look at the whole picture over a very long period of time.

jungle

Very true u2drvr.

If anyone doubts our deep connection with the natural order I would ask you to imagine a major city without water, power or food for a year. The thin layer of civilization we have applied to ourselves can be stripped away in a heartbeat. You might not like what you find underneath.

Ewfflyer

We can't accurately predict the Weather for the next 24 hr period, so that is all for now

FDXLAG

No other animals but the mother earth does a pretty good job of dumping oil in the ocean and green house gases into the atmosphere.