A Unified West Coast Arun Gupta Summary

Last summer the Obama Administration finalized climate regulations for new and existing power plants under the clean air act. Those regulations targeted coal-fired power plants, the cost of energy went up significantly for all Americans but especially Utahns. The increase expense of energy has put more strain on the family, individuals, and businesses will destroy jobs and strain economic growth. All these consequences have been for nothing. No matter what you believe on the subject of man-made greenhouse emissions, the regulations will have a negligible impact—if any—on global temperatures. If the states would have more power over the regulation of emissions, it would lead to an economic growth not only in the nation but especially in Utah. Having more power on the state level is sometimes not even enough. For example Salt Lake County has a very high concentration of emission. Utah county has significantly less emission being released into the atmosphere. But we are taxed the same amount as they are. Sometimes putting power in the states can not adequately solve problems, but putting more power on the local level can lead to a more democratic

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

For Californians, a trip out-of-state comes with many surprises, one of them being gas prices. As any amateur economist knows the reason for the staggering prices is due to additional taxes added on by the state. California being the proactive state that it is has initiated multiple regulations on fuel and not one of them is forgiving to buyers. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, gas prices in the state are well above the national average due to the harsh regulations of the government. People respond to incentives, and the residents of California make decisions by comparing costs and benefits.

When it comes to the government, when planning for peak oil and climate change they have to identify the expected and potential impacts so that recommendations can be tailored for maximum effect. Governments should not only look at developing public transit and other land-use and infrastructure changes that may be needed for reducing fossil-fuel use, but should also carefully evaluate large investments in roads, airports, and other infrastructure dependent on fossil fuels. At a minimum, governments need to consider scenarios with much higher fuel prices than exist today when running models to determine demand for various options.The lead government body (e.g, the city council) should establish benchmarks and continually monitor how peak oil and climate change are unfolding and affecting the community, to see what adjustments to the plan are warranted.

The idea of advancing an economy has been a staple in political ideology since the dawn of democracy and politics itself. We as citizens of California are becoming global leaders in climate consciousness, and our efforts are involved in the advancement of eco-friendly systems, in this case, an eco-friendly mode of transportation that will theoretically increase the convenience of interstate travel as well as boost an economy that is already ranked the 8th most prosperous economy in the world. On both ends of the spectrum, both pro and con proponents of high-speed rail travel in California agree that the economic advancement of California is our best

We are a global leader on environmental issues. But as the other states continue to debate as to whether or not climate change itself is real, our efforts to reduce carbon emissions are rendered useless. This country accounts for less than 5% of the world’s population but consumes 1/3 of the world’s paper, a 1/4 of the world’s oil, 27% of the aluminum, 23% of the coal, and 19% of the copper (“Yes California”). If we declared independence, California will be able to negotiate treaties to reduce the human impact on our climate and build global resource

BLM-California has a strong history of meeting the nation’s growing energy needs, including renewable energy production,

California since the gold rush has been known as the “Golden State” where it’s flooded with multicultural richness from the beaches to the mountains. California today is the most densely populated state with 38.8 million residents and is still rising, however, not only is the population ever increasing so are gas prices. Allysia Finley an editorial writer from The Wall Street Journal states, “The national average is $2.76 a gallon, while the Golden State drivers pay $3.88. Eco-virtue is expensive” (Finley 1). Gas prices in California has left an effect of overpriced due to many contributing factors: regulation over the environment, overconsumption, and how rational people think at the margin.

The Drought, along with a recent string of powerful Earthquakes, has provided the momentum for about a dozen of local Governments across California, the third largest oil producing state in the country. Over concerns with the environmental effects Fracking has. And as the drought continues the amount of water used is troubling. At the same time, a bill that would declare a statewide moratorium on fracking has been gathering support in the State Senate, a year after a similar effort failed. “Even if we don’t get a moratorium, just the threat of a moratorium discourages investment.” (Onishi 1) So the anti-fracking activists will take this fight, whether it’s a big win. Or a narrow defeat.

Last year alone, oil and gas companies put hundreds of millions of gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids into the earth. Many of these fluids were found to contain harmful chemicals such as carcinogens- substances that directly cause cancer. This is why hydraulic fracking has been the topic of heated debate over the past few years. This process of drilling for natural gas has become increasingly popular over the past decade, and has in turn produced many questions about the safety of its wells and the chemicals that are used in drilling. Under current regulations, hydraulic fracking is permitted to be conducted at drilling sites that are located very close to residential areas. The chemicals used in the drilling process have been leaking out of wells, and have contaminated drinking water for some communities. In addition, it pollutes the air by putting methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Concerned about the safety of fracking, cities such as Longmont have shown great opposition to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA)’s regulations. In fact, Longmont citizens voted to put a ban on fracking within city limits in 2012. This ban has been met with retaliation from COGA, who sued the city because of the ban. If fracking isn’t allowed to be banned by cities that don’t want it, then the regulations need to change in order to make the practice both prosperous and safe for the community.

A woman stood at the doorway and watched until the shiny car pulled away out of sight. She turned around and returned to her seat at the table. She stared at the empty space where the contract had been and replayed the deal the man had presented to her. The oil company was ready to give $2,500 an acre plus 15 percent royalty in exchange for the rights to frack on her land. She had heard stories of people becoming rich from fracking and about how the oil industry saved towns like her’s. The deal sounded too good to be true; simply allow the workers to drill a few holes and be on their way, and she would be richer. It was described as a chain of events with minimal consequences. The woman, however, had done her research. She knew the horrors this could bring to her community. She didn’t regret turning the deal down and sending the man away. She had rehearsed what she would say the day the man in the shiny car inevitably knocked on her door. While the oil company wanted to present fracking as a get-rich-quick scheme with few ramifications, her decision ultimately resulted from her loyalty to the greater good of her community outweighing her own personal motives.

As we know, California is fighting to have an emission standard implemented on the state

California is one of the most progressive states in America, and is constantly evolving and advancing in fields such as technology, food, and entertainment. The biggest change in California is not one of those three but rather the climate. Climate change is a term coined by physicist Gilbert Plass during the 1950’s to describe the total change in global climate patterns. In his research Plass discovered that the earth was heating up due to carbon dioxide emissions trapping heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere. What he really discovered was the connection between climate change with global warming and the greenhouse effect. California specifically has contributed significantly to carbon dioxide emissions and the warming of the earth. We

It seems as humans evolve and advance, we also use nature to our advantage, and do not use any of our new-found technology to find ways to replenish those supplies which we so willingly take. Today, California is a test of our capability to adapt to human caused climate change. California’s first efforts to adapt started with the Assembly Bill 32 (the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act), which has goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Then the state later drafted its first climate

Since, fossil fuels have been a part of our environment for some time now, they have been the main resource we’ve needed and used to keep our country running. The truth of the matter is, since we obtain fossil fuels from plants and animals that lived millions of years ago they will soon be gone. As indicated by Eric McLamb, founder, chief executive officer, and president of the ecology communications group, “The problem is fossil fuels are nonrenewable. They are limited in supply and will one day be depleted.” People realize that the crisis of running out of fossil fuels is upon us; however, these same people are timid about moving on to renewable energy. One main reason is because individuals do not believe renewable energy is cost efficient. For instance, solar energy is known to be fairly expensive, particularly more expensive than the conventional energy used now, which makes people uncertain about changing to renewable energy.