California’s ambitious climate policies are driving up the cost of living for its residents. Taxes, regulations, and the costs of purchasing emission allowances under the Cap-and-trade program have resulted in gasoline and electricity prices far exceeding the national average.
Many Californians believe that the high energy prices are a price worth paying to prevent climate disasters. However, the reality is that California’s climate action won’t save us.
California contributes only about 0.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so the impact of the state’s policies is very limited. Furthermore, despite California’s emissions declining, other states that have not implemented expensive climate policies are reducing emissions at a similar, if not faster, rate. For example, since 1990, Ohio has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 22%, while California has only reduced by 12%.
Moreover, the partial decrease in California’s greenhouse gas emissions is actually due to shifting emissions elsewhere. While we have significantly reduced oil extraction and refining, the emissions saved are largely offset by increased imports of crude oil and gasoline. These oil tankers produce significant emissions during transportation, which are not accounted for in California’s climate statistics.
Some may argue that California should further reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and lead other states and countries to follow suit. However, such thinking implies an assumption: if we do not greatly reduce carbon emissions, we will face climate disasters. And this assumption is worth further examination.
Climate change has been a topic of concern for decades now. We can look back at the predictions made by climate scientists and activists and see if the failure to control greenhouse gas emissions globally has truly led to the consequences they warned about. In fact, since 1990, global greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 45%, demonstrating a global failure to address the issue.
Yet, this failure has not brought about the catastrophic consequences that were expected. In 1989, a UN Environment Program official stated that if global warming trends were not reversed by the year 2000, some countries might disappear from the Earth’s surface due to rising sea levels. However, 36 years later, even the country with the lowest elevation, Maldives, still stands above sea level.
In 2009, Al Gore predicted that by the summer of 2016, there was a 75% chance that the entire Arctic ice cap would completely melt. However, in reality, the Arctic ice cap area has never dropped below 1.3 million square miles, and this year even rebounded to 1.8 million square miles. This may also explain another failed climate change prediction—the global polar bear population has not decreased, but rather remained stable or slightly increased, making extinction unlikely in the coming decades.
Locally in California, climate activists quickly attributed the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles in January this year to climate change, but this link is at most indirect. We now know that the fire was caused by a previous arson incident not being fully extinguished, coupled with a lack of sufficient water sources and manpower at the scene. While dry and windy extreme weather indeed fueled the fire, and such climatic conditions may be related to climate change, Southern California has experienced similar weather patterns long before climate change became a prominent issue.
Whether climate change exacerbated the fires or not, the only practical solution is to strengthen preparedness. While rising carbon concentrations in the atmosphere may lead to a slight increase in average temperatures, relying solely on the policies of the California state government cannot change this trend. With technological advancements and population declines in the latter half of the century, global carbon concentrations may naturally stabilize before the most severe disasters occur, without the need for California’s leaders to impoverish residents through taxation.
(Note: This article represents the author’s personal views and does not necessarily reflect the position of The Epoch Times.)
◇