The California Economy Will Boom
By Loren on Feb 10, 2009 in Uncategorized
One of the oft repeated criticisms of those people advocating a smaller carbon footprint is that they will cause the California economy to suffer or crash. If you are among those doomsday theorists, please read Fred Krupp’s book, Earth: The Sequel. The book is an exciting chronicle of the myriad of technologies under development in California and elsewhere which will forever change how we power America and ultimately the world. Too often we are lead to believe that the future of our power grid is fossil fuel and in some minor role solar power and wind energy. After reading Earth: The Sequel, I have a whole new enthusiasm about what is possible, and even likely, within a relatively short time.
Imagine that one day it may well be possible to paint the south side of our homes with electricity producing solar collecting coverings. Likewise we may soon grow algae in large ponds alongside power plants. The algae will grow on a feed of carbon dioxide from the power plants exhaust, and then create biofuels to power our engines. A San Diego company has already successfully flown a commercial airliner (without passengers) using a blend which contained algae based biofuel. These technologies will create the green jobs we hear so much about, and power America without adding to the atmosphere’s carbon overload.
Let’s assume for the moment that the people who say that increased fuel standards will sink the Detroit automakers. It is likely that smaller (for the moment) California automakers will fill the void. One of the exciting young companies is BSST which holds patents for thermoelectric waste energy recovery systems for automobiles. My understanding of engineering is almost nonexistent, still I’m able to understand the basics of the model. It’s easy for any of us to accept that our car’s engines create substantial amounts of heat. 70% of the energy it takes to run a car is lost to the atmosphere as waste heat. BSST has developed the means to recapture that heat and use it to generate electricity to be redirected to moving our cars down the road. The benefit is a 12% improvement in fuel economy, and jobs.
Building and maintaining our homes uses far more energy than operating our cars. Another California company Serious Materials makes dry wall among other things. Drywall you say, big deal! It is a big deal. Manufacturing drywall the old fashioned way is hugely energy intensive and 50 billion square feet of the stuff is made in America each year. Half the cost of making it is for the energy used to cook it. A full 1% of the U.S. energy consumption is to make drywall. Serious Materials uses self heating slurry to make their Ecorock drywall. No external heat is needed in the process so the energy savings is 90%. These kind of changes will save energy, reduce carbon output and create new jobs.
Biomimicry is the idea that nature has something to teach us. Many things actually. By mimicking the spiral of a calla lily flower or the way kelp is built to withstand ocean currents, engineers are designing new and far more efficient fans, and mixers. Jobs and better energy efficiency by accepting that eons of development by nature have designed organisms to work well. A gecko can stick to virtually any surface and release at will. By mimicking the design of gecko feet, new glue less adhesives are being developed. Lotus leaves are amazing structures. Their design causes water to bead and roll off. As the water leaves it cleans the leaf. Scientists are mimicking the leaves surface design to invent coverings which one day may be used in things like cars to allow water to bead up and clean the car as the water sheds. And for all you boaters, how about hull paint which mimics shark skin? The paint could allow hulls to be cleaned while traveling at very low speeds.
There is amble reason to be excited about the future of our economy as new technologies get the funding needed to both reduce carbon in the atmosphere and reduce or dependence on foreign oil and coal.
So what do you think? Are we doomed or might we be saved by our unfortunate circumstances?
Thanks for tuning in, logging on and speaking up.
This just makes common sense! The only reason these things aren’t already being done is because the industries that pollute own our lawmakers. When our political system actually goes back to democracy rather than those with money setting the rules, we can help heal our planet. Way to spread the word Loren!
[Reply to this comment]
In response, on February 20, 2009, Evelyn Cummings said:
Agreed!! Good work Loren!
Randy | Feb 12, 2009
Randy, I would argue that your point is somewhat correct. Unfortunately, we live in a country where it is economically beneficial for industry to pollute. What company is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars getting rid of their waste in an eco-friendly manner, when they can just dump it in the ground without any repercussions? This I believe stems from poor policy making and a lack of awareness. I don’t know if it’s a question of democracy, or moreover a question of consciousness. We as Americans need to be conscious of our inconspicuous polluting habits–and this is a prerequisite for mitigating the problems associated with global warming. Recognition will lead to revolution.
[Reply to this comment]
Ben | Feb 14, 2009
Irrespective of whether one believes in apocalyptic climate change, or the imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels, long-term human survival depends on being better environmental stewards. The more of us there are, the clearer that will become. California is a technology powerhouse and it’s time we trusted in our ability to innovate new energy sources.
[Reply to this comment]
In response, on February 16, 2009, David L. Caster said:
Actually, the exact quote is:
David L. Caster | Feb 16, 2009
While the development of new and emerging technologies in California to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help clean up the enviornment is a great and worthy goal, the sad fact is, with the way the current state budget and economic mess is going, any busniess that starts up here is not likely to stay here.
California is among the top ten high tax states in the union, coming in at either #6 or #8, depending who you ask. The steep marginal tax rates on its most productive workers has resulted in a negative outflow of highly skilled workers from California to other western states, even as the immigration of less skilled and undocumented workers strains the school systems and socials services. By the end of 2008, the on-going recession threw over 250,000 workers from the tax rolls to the welfare queue. Unemployment jumped in January to 9.3%. The trend line is negative.
The outflow of skilled labor, influx of non-skilled labor, increase of joblessness and overall reduction in taxable economic activity has resulted in a state budget shortfall of $40 billion. In the face of all this economic bad news, the state government proposes a $20 billion tax increase.
Unless the state government can fix it’s financial mess, the busniess climate in California is hostile to new businesses.
[Reply to this comment]
Rey | Feb 18, 2009
A major problem pointed out by many observers is that “global consumer growth capitalism,” the form of capitalism we currently practice is not congruent with the ecological environment in which it functions and on which it depends. For example, economic measures such as GDP, consumer price index, and so on, do not take into account ecological realities. Whether or not the system can shift and change as these ecological realities impose themselves upon us, no one knows. On the positive side, capitalism has shown itself to be extraordinarily adaptable and resilient. As David notes above, “necessity is the mother of invention.” (But when necessity presents herself, will she be mild or harsh?) Conservatives generally argue from this side. On the negative side, the needed changes in norms and values may be too fundamental for the system to adapt without deliberate changes effected by humans. If we wait for the system to adapt on its own, in some cases, it may be too late to avert catastrophic events which may then force a shift at great human (and possibly ecological) cost. This is the claim being made regarding climate change. I do not know the answers to these questions. Probably no one knows for sure. Prediction is difficult. There is a large literature on this issue of economics and ecology. Many very smart people are looking at it.
In any event, I appreciate Loren’s enthusiasm for technology and its potential for promoting both economic and ecological goods. But I do not think that it is the whole answer. Somehow we are going to have to change the way we think and feel about values, about who and what we are, and what “the good life” is. Perhaps this can be done through technological development and the market. I don’t think so. There is no way to avoid these fundamental questions.
[Reply to this comment]
In response, on February 19, 2009, Ben said:
Many scientists repeat the phrase “later is over”. Necessity has presented herself, and the scientific community agrees that now is the time to act. If we wait any longer, it will be too late.
“If we wait for the system to adapt on its own, in some cases, it may be too late to avert catastrophic events which may then force a shift at great human (and possibly ecological) cost.”
-John! These things are happening as we speak!! Global warming has caused increased rates of desertification and is leaving many third world communities with very little water to drink or use for crops. The state of third world countries is deplorable. Industrialized nations are emitting 10x more pollutants, while the impoverished are forced to face the consequences. We need to reevaluate our daily way of living and adopt a much more sustainable lifestyle.
In response, on February 20, 2009, John Mustol said:
Ben, I agree with you, although I am unsure of some of substance of some of your statements. As I have commented previously in this blog, even though global climate change is uncertain, probabilistic, and controversial, I think the “precautionary principle” is the most moral way to go. I personally ride a bicycle most of the time, have gotten my electric bill down to $15/mth, have become a vegetarian, and so on. But I agree that our techno-capitalistic system by itself cannot meet the challenge.
You also seem to allude to the issue of justice - the imbalanced distribution of resource consumption and pollution production between rich and poor in the world. You are correct that this is a urgent and serious problem that ought to concern every person of good conscience - especially those of who are rich - me and probably most of the people who read this blog. But dealing with justice, like dealing with ecological problems, is not purely a matter of technology. It involves norms, choices, values, ultimate concerns. In our pluralistic democracy, do we have the resources to effect the needed moral and spiritual (if I may use the term) changes needed without some kind of Darwinian meltdown occurring?
In response, on February 21, 2009, Ben said:
John, I completely agree with you. Your effort to reduce your carbon footprint is really commendable–and it is too bad that we can’t get more people to do what you are doing! Ultimately though, I do not think people will change their lifestyle unless they absolutely have to. Even though most people believe in global warming, most are not majorly effected by it–so they feel no need to change how they live. I think a cap and trade system for industry would be a great way to get the ball rolling. Change will not be spontaneous, I think government needs to intervene.
In response, on February 22, 2009, John Mustol said:
Ben, I agree with you. Legislative action is essential, and I support candidates, laws, and policies that reflect ecological responsibility and foresight. I quote myself on this blog, Jan. 20, “The Climate Clock is Ticking”: “People do not, in general, willingly give up power and wealth. Besides the occasional saint and a small minority of people who will behave differently for religious or moral reasons, the material behavior of the vast majority of us is governed by self-interest and circumstances (the market, the government, or chance).”
But if I understand democracy (rule by the people), laws and policies are to manifest the values, priorities, and character of the people. (I recognize the corruption of our system by monied interests and elites, but that is another issue.) This brings us back to my basic argument: Do we have the moral and spiritual resources to effect the needed changes in our values, priorities, and character to address the Ecological Problem without having to go through some kind of Darwinian catastrophe? I quote one of the most penetrating writers in America on this issue, Wendell Berry, writing in 1977: “The basic cause of the energy crisis is not scarcity; it is moral ignorance and weakness of character.” This is from Berry’s book, The Unsettling of America, which I highly recommend to you, to Loren, and to all who read this blog. As Berry said 32 years ago: our problem is not technical or economic, it is spiritual – a matter of character. (After all, what is the real root cause of our current economic crisis?) What is needed is not more technology, or more capitalism, or more legislation. What is needed is a change of heart – a really big change of heart.
John Mustol | Feb 19, 2009
Thanks John,
I’ll look for the book. Sounds like a great read.
[Reply to this comment]
loren nancarrow | Feb 24, 2009
In case there is any doubt, Cap and Trade is an economy killer and CARB is at the forefront of this travesty;
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/.....rnia-jobs/
President Barack Obama reiterated his promise to impose invasive and strict carbon caps on our nation’s economy last night. He failed to mention what effect they would have on our nation’s economic recovery. Fortunately for the rest of the nation, but unfortunately for them, California has already adopted strict new carbon capping rules. The result? They are a jobs killer. The New York Times reports:
Only a few years ago, CalPortland planned on keeping its plant here operating as long as Mount Slover’s limestone held out. … But the company says the plant’s future is now uncertain. The recession has sent cement prices plunging, lowered profits and forced CalPortland’s drivers to cut back on hours. And the company says it faces new expenses: the cost of meeting California’s new requirements that manufacturers take steps to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.
State regulators have projected that retrofitting the state’s 11 cement plants would cost $220 million and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12 percent per ton of cement. But CalPortland’s executives say it would cost more than that to retrofit the Colton plant alone.
“We don’t have enough limestone left to invest $200 million,” said James A. Repman, the company’s president.
The key to this story are the completely unreliable cost predictions by the state. When the left tries to cram the world’s biggest carbon tax down the throats of the American public, they are going to have tons of “scientific” studies claiming to show that carbon capping will be a net gain for the economy. As California’s experience shows, these studies the left puts out are worthless. The New York Times reports:
State regulators predicted in an economic analysis last fall that the climate law would create 100,000 jobs in the state and increase per-capita income by $200 annually by 2020. The upfront cost for the first five years after the law takes effect, they estimated, would be $31.4 billion, about $8.5 billion more than the savings in those years. But if carbon-control costs were spread over the lifespan of the new equipment, the $25 billion in annual costs in the year 2020 would be more than offset by $40 billion in savings.
…
But the projections were strongly criticized as unrealistic by the affected industries and by independent economists who reviewed the analysis — including two from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, which supports the emission reduction goals.
In one withering review, Matthew E. Kahn of the University of California, Los Angeles said the analysis unconvincingly portrayed the law as “a riskless free lunch.” Another economist, Robert N. Stavins of Harvard, said the regulators were “systematically biased” in ways “that lead to potentially severe underestimates of costs.”
All of the left’s “green job” claims are nothing but phantom job creation. Carbon capping is a jobs killer, not a jobs creator.
Cap and Trade has already collapsed in Europe as the economy starined under the weight of this mistaken concept of regulating CO2 as a pollutant.
[Reply to this comment]
Rey | Feb 27, 2009
The best way to understand what’s really going on and what we’re actually facing in the future is to educate ourselves by “reading” books written by people who have made it their life’s business to study “energy”, who controls it and what is truly viable in terms of costs to produce it. If it cost more to make it than what it puts out it is not viable. Read “A Presidential Energy Policy” by Michael Ruppert, just released at Amazon.com Then you will trully know what’s going on…and how we can survive it!
[Reply to this comment]
mrsp | May 5, 2009
P.S.: There won’t be any jobs if we can’t breathe.
[Reply to this comment]
mrsp | May 5, 2009