Home | About | Donate

Amids Demands California Goes Beyond 'Climate Capitalism,' Gov. Brown Signs 100% Renewables by 2045 Into Law

Amids Demands California Goes Beyond 'Climate Capitalism,' Gov. Brown Signs 100% Renewables by 2045 Into Law

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Climate groups are praising the work of local organizers after California Gov.

I think the text of the bill calls for planning for 100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources.

That’s why it’s called “The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018” and not the 100 percent renewable energy act.

The OFF Fossil Fuels bill that was introduced in the House calls for 100% renewable energy by 2035. My guess is that the 2035 goal is more in line with the science than the 2045 goal. The biggest source of California’s emissions is transportation so the big challenge in California is to transition to electric vehicles charged with electricity generated by renewable energy. This needs to be done rapidly so transforming the grid rapidly is essential.

I am having mixed emotions and am quite confused by foggy news reporting. Renewable electricity at 100%. How? Renewable energy at 100% is not the same thing. Clean is not the same as renewable. What about carbon emissions from manufacturing clean energy machines? And what about the carbon content of all the commodities in all the products consumed?

I am happy to see aversion to carbon capitalism. I am so weary of carbon con artists, carbon credits, and investor ripoffs with fake clean energy innovations. Real solutions are more important than profits. Real solutions do not need the corrupting influence of profits.


Californians don’t want nukes:

The federal government does not put nuclear power under the heading of “renewable energy.” California, like virtually every other state in the U.S with renewable portfolio standards, excludes nuclear.

“There’s nothing renewable about the waste,” said Becker.

Industry critics also say nuclear has received plenty of money from ratepayers to get plants built in the first place.


That’s optimistic. If we make it to the end of this year I will be surprised.

1 Like

YES! I was born and raised in California decades ago, and I think Jerry is our best governor ever. If any state can move rapidly toward alternative energy sources, it is Governor Brown and California.

CALIFORNIA - Businesses spent millions lobbying before** cap …](https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060057923)

In addition to the efforts by WSPA, here are the leading oil companies and their lobbying expenditures since 2015: Chevron, $8.2 million; Tesoro Corp., $1.5 million; Exxon Mobil, $1.1 million; California Resources Corp. and subsidiaries, $1.1 million; and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, $1 million… .

In the 1930s little kids sent their dimes into Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was in a wheelchair from polio. The March of Dimes funded Dr. Jonas Salk, who in time came up with the world’s first polio vaccine.

This wasn’t polio capitalism. This was polio R&D. As a matter of fact Dr. Salk donated his potential profits so that the vaccine could get out there.

We don’t need climate capitalism. We absolutely need climate R&D, or a lot of our world’s children and grandchildren will have a chronic starvation problem. There’s a difference between climate predatory capitalism and climate R&D, and the sooner you know the difference the better off your kids will be.

Note that I’m pointedly ignoring the (predatory capitalist) fossil fuel troll farm that’s polluting this forum with space-eating junk.

It is a transition. It will take a long time until most manufacturing uses electricity mainly from renewables. But over time more and more manufacturing facilities should be using electricity from cleaner sources. I don’t see any alternative but to go through this transition. Eventually it will be possible to get renewable energy with no carbon emissions from beginning to end but that will take decades. In the meantime we will have to make do with an imperfect situation. I think cap and trade makes a lot sense for reducing emissions. Renewable energy credits are good if they are bundled, which means the credits and producing renewable energy are tied together. Carbon credits are good if done right and there some people who are doing it right. I think profits can play a positive role if things are done correctly. Profits are a great incentive for some people. Without the profit incentive they wouldn’t do useful things. I think it would be a big mistake to reject things just because they are associated with profits. It is the details that matter. There are good ways of doing these things and bad ways.

Politicians are really good at slapping each other on the back while using the same old too little, too late legislation. Sure this is a positive change BUT by 2045 much of California will be in the process of turning to sand and in agricultural collapse. I imagine that the Central Valley will look a lot like the aerial shots of it in the film “Blade Runner 2049”. Vast stretches of brown where crops used to exist that fed the whole country.
It must be remembered that there is a lag time in all of this. The record high temps that happened all over the world this year are the result of inputs to the atmosphere that were released decades ago. Can you imagine what the current levels of CO2 and increasing amounts of methane will do to the atmosphere in the next 30 years during what we are now calling the Anthropocene? Also, remember that while Brown looks so progressive about this he was a cheerleader for the bill that would have greatly expanded fracking in California and he recently voiced his support for expanding the number of gas and oil wells in existing lease tracts offshore. To me, this sounds like having it both ways or one step forward and two steps back. It has been said that “politics is the art of compromise”. That is highly debatable, especially in this era of militant partisanship in our politics and our social relations. The thing is, this planet does not compromise. As Dr. Paul Ehrlich, who wrote “The Population Bomb” reminded us - “Earth bats last”. Our evasions, obfuscations and general delaying tactics mean nothing to a planet that is a collective of the laws of physics, biology and chemistry.

The usual predictable answer from our resident apologist.

Since you brought up the Polio vaccine, I wondered if you have seen the info about it.
I tried to post a link (that I just watched), and YouTube claims the link is dead.
If you’ll go to YouTube, search, “Polio Vaccine Cancer Virus”, CDC, you will find it. Scary.

Mmmm we won’t be here by 2045…

I am not in denial. Humanity is facing a catastrophe. These politicians and venture capitalists do not believe what they are saying. The Gov has goals but no plans. Going through the motions is not good enough and belies the message. The California grid is already saturated with peak solar electricity and the price of power goes to zero and clean power is then curtailed to zero. Zero profits. There is a big difference of working for money compared to profits from scarcity. Debt financing at 4% interest can finance clean energy R&D plus deployments instead of doubling the price of clean energy with obscene profits and CEO pay.

Humanity needs an honest big plan for the elimination of all carbon emissions, not just electricity in California. That plan would prioritize the least cost path of carbon emission mitigation. Pick the low hanging fruit first. USA spends $1tn per year on fossil fuel. At 4% interest the USA clean energy system could be financed at $25tn. Clean energy is cheaper than fossil fuel. We need to get past the lip service and do the work.
Webinar: Concentrating Solar Thermal Power with Built in Storage
A New Era for Solar - Sarah Kurtz, PhD, NREL
Webinar: Renewable district heating and local heat planning

Most of the CO2 emissions in manufacturing things are due to energy inputs - mostly electricity. Sure, there are things like cement and steel and aluminum making for which chemical processes inherently produce CO2 or CO, but nobody is saying that human CO2 emission have to go to absolutely zero. Getting electricity generation, transportation and building heating changed to zero CO2 emissions is probably adequate.

This measure by California measure only addresses electric generation though. What about transportation?

US electricity is 16% of total energy. Most industrial process energy is heat. Aluminum smelting is an electrical process. Washington State had 5 nuclear plants under construction. BPA told me that retrofitting the alumina pot lines with more efficient modern technology would have saved more electricity that from all 5 nuclear plants. Low hanging fruit.

Some don’t. Some are fine with the kind of nukes they’ve had. Some don’t want the old-tech nukes but are willing to keep an open mind about advanced nukes.

“The federal government does not put nuclear power under the heading of “renewable energy.” California, like virtually every other state in the U.S with renewable portfolio standards, excludes nuclear.”

Quite so. Which is why, in order to allow nukes, this bill could not be called a 100 percent renewable bill, and that’s also why the text specifies that the clean energy should come from renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources. The last bit is specifically including zero-carbon sources which are distinct from renewable energy sources.

The Sacremento Bee puts it this way: “It establishes a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045, which could include other carbon-free sources, like nuclear power, that are not renewable.”

““There’s nothing renewable about the waste,” said Becker.”

Actually, if we were to consume spent fuel in fast reactors, it could become a renewable resource because if we ever ran out of spent fuel, we could just make more.

“Industry critics also say nuclear has received plenty of money from ratepayers to get plants built in the first place.”

All of their energy options are going to require lots of money. Old-tech nuclear is not going to be in the competition for any of that. But California is home to at least three private advanced reactor companies, and they also have the Livermore Labs and some university nuclear engineering departments, so of course the bill leaves the door open for future forms of nuclear which may be competitive.

Cap & trade is just a big scam. A license to pollute. It should be Cap & Reduce!!


The majority of Californians don’t want nukes forced on them by politicians and their Big Nuke contributors. California is the only state that still resembles a democracy.

I did not speculate on whether the people of CA wanted or opposed this bill as it was written. I was just pointing out that it was written to include zero carbon resources along with renewables, so it wasn’t a 100 percent renewables plan, and did not represent itself as such, so calling it that was inaccurate.