California is considering a bill to study the cost to taxpayers of climate-related disasters. Similar measures have already passed in New York and Vermont. (Strikernia/Adobe Stock)
The bill would direct the California Environmental Protection Agency to study how much climate change has cost the state between 1990 and 2024, and assess a one-time fee on oil and gas companies emitting more than 1 billion metric tons of emissions.
Maya Golden-Krasner, deputy director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity in Los Angeles, explained the goal of the bill.
“These are companies that make billions of dollars in profits per day,” Golden-Krasner pointed out. “This bill would take some of the burden off of taxpayers, and put it onto the people who caused the crisis.”
Right now, taxpayers end up footing much of the bill to clean up after natural disasters like mega-fires and floods, made worse by climate change. The money would go into a fund for climate-related programs, including projects to promote energy efficiency, make infrastructure more resilient, create urban green spaces and restore wetlands. The Western States Petroleum Association is among opponents of the bill, saying it will raise fuel costs for consumers and businesses.
The State Building and Construction Trades Council also opposes the bill, saying it will cost jobs.
Asm. Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, a sponsor of the bill, argued the climate projects will create jobs and a one-time fee should not affect gas prices.
“These companies lied to the public for decades,” Addis contended. “They knew that the pollution they were causing was creating climate damage, was leading to global warming. They hid that information, and it’s time for them to be part of the solution.”
The bill has already passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee in March and goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday.
[BenIndy contributor Roger Straw: As I watched this fascinating interview, I thought of my own little bit of paradise, my home, my small-town Benicia, California. Could it happen here, really? Entire towns have been destroyed by wildfire, and over 3 million US residents have migrated in recent years due to the risks and realities of extreme flooding. How many times have I had the conversation with friends and family about where we would move, if we had to leave Benicia, leave California? How many of us have already left for safer locations? Short of leaving here, is my home fire resistant? Is our city safe? How much would it cost for Benicia and PGE and you and me to avoid the fate of Lahaina, Hawaii, how much to bury all of our electrical lines below ground and clear defensible space around every home and business? How much to adequately prepare for sea level rise and storm-wrecked shores? Near the end of this interview, federal grants are mentioned. Are our city leaders planning carefully and reaching out for these grants?]
Before It’s Gone: Stories from the Front Lines of Climate Change in Small-Town America
Destroyed Communities & Climate Migrants: Climate Change Upends Small Towns
Hurricanes, storms, and wildfires are persuading Americans to abandon their homes as nature lashes out against human-made climate change. Over three million Americans have already moved due to risk of flooding, and climate experts say some 13 million coastal residents will be displaced by the end of this century. CBS News correspondent and author Jonathan Vigliotti has reported from the front lines of climate change. He explains to Hari Sreenivasan how American towns might become more resilient and why it’s crucial to listen to the science.
Originally aired on PBS on April 16, 2024
Johnathan Vigliotti, Before It’s Gone, Stories from the Front Lines of Change in Small-Town America
BenIndy highly recommends ‘Jumping Into Solutions’
By Pat Toth-Smith, November 7, 2023
I am pleased to announce the locally produced You Tube and Spotify podcast channel, “Jumping into Solutions” has three new episodes to help you GO ELECTRIC in your home. We feature local Benicians’ who have started on their own paths of reducing their carbon footprint by making their homes as energy efficient as possible. The episodes feature local co-hosts Kathy Kerridge and me, Pat Toth-Smith, neighbors and experts in their fields who answer complicated questions like, how does the technology work and can I afford it?
Switch Is On to Electric Heat Pumps | EP. 2
Here’s everything that you need to know about switching to the energy-efficient, electric water heater pumps and electric home heating/cooling pumps. This episode clears up the questions of how new electric heat pumps work, does it cost a lot of money to install, and can I remove my gas system after installing them?
BENEFITS of Home Solar Panels & Solar Battery Storage | EP. 3
This episode talks about the benefits of going solar at a time when reducing our carbon footprint is vital; it answers questions about affordability, rebates, how solar works with your energy provider, solar battery storage functions and how to use your battery in the event of a power outage? And discussions about the new PG&E changes involving NEM 2 and NEM 3.
Switch to Electric Induction Stoves from Gas Stoves | EP. 4
Did you know, induction electric stoves are more energy efficient than gas and electric stoves and can boil water or heat up food faster than both. They also are healthier than gas stoves because gas leaks can occur when idle and/or outgassing when in use. Many adverse health effects are related to this outgassing of toxic gasses that includes Benzene, Carbon Dioxide and also PM2.5, which can cause resp illnesses and other more serious diseases. Induction electric stoves are safer than gas or electric because energy is transferred to the pot by an electromagnetic field, and the stove turns off after the pot is removed. It answers questions like: How does induction work? What toxic, green-house gasses are released? Are there rebates?
No matter how much the world cuts back on carbon emissions, a key and sizable chunk of Antarctica is essentially doomed to an “unavoidable” melt, a new study finds.
Associated Press, by Seth Borenstein, AP video produced by Teresa de Miguel, October 23, 2023
No matter how much the world cuts back on carbon emissions, a key and sizable chunk of Antarctica is essentially doomed to an “unavoidable” melt, a new study found.
Though the full melt will take hundreds of years, slowly adding nearly 6 feet (1.8 meters) to sea levels, it will be enough to reshape where and how people live in the future, the study’s lead author said.
Researchers used computer simulations to calculate future melting of protective ice shelves jutting over Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea in western Antarctica. The study in Monday’s journal Nature Climate Change found even if future warming was limited to just a few tenths of a degree more – an international goal that many scientists say is unlikely to be met – it would have “limited power to prevent ocean warming that could lead to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
“Our main question here was: How much control do we still have over ice shelf melting? How much melting can still be prevented by reducing emissions?” said study lead author Kaitlin Naughten, an oceanographer at the British Antarctic Survey. “Unfortunately, it’s not great news. Our simulations suggest that we are now committed to the rapid increase in the rate of ocean warming and ice shelf melting over the rest of the century.”
While past studies have talked about how dire the situation is, Naughten was the first to use computer simulations to study the key melting component of warm water melting ice from below, and the work looked at four different scenarios for how much carbon dioxide the world pumps into the atmosphere. In each case, ocean warming was just too much for this section of the ice sheet to survive, the study found.
Naughten looked at melting gatekeeper ice shelves, which float over the ocean in this area of Antarctica that is already below sea level. Once these ice shelves melt, there’s nothing to stop the glaciers behind them from flowing into the sea.
Naughten specifically looked at what would happen if somehow future warming was limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over mid-19th century levels — the international goal — and found the runaway melting process anyway. The world has already warmed about 1.2 degrees Celsius (nearly 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times and much of this summer temporarily shot past the 1.5 mark.
This undated image provided by British Antarctic Survey, shows the North Cove, in Antarctic. (Michael Shortt/British Antarctic Survey via AP)
Naughten’s study concentrated on the part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that is most at risk from melting from below, near the Amundsen Sea. It includes the massive Thwaites ice shelf that is melting so fast it got the nickname “the Doomsday Glacier.” West Antarctica is only one-tenth of the southern continent but is more unstable than the larger eastern side.
That part of Antarctica “is doomed,” said University of California Irvine ice scientist Eric Rignot, who wasn’t part of the study. “The damage has already been done.”
University of Colorado ice scientist Ted Scambos, who also wasn’t part of the study, said this ice sheet “eventually is going to collapse. It’s not a happy conclusion and it is one that I’m only saying reluctantly.”
Naughten doesn’t like to use the word “doomed,” because she said 100 years from now the world might not just stop but reverse carbon levels in the air and global warming. But she said what’s happening now on the ground is a slow collapse that can’t be stopped, at least not in this century.
“I think it’s unavoidable that some of this area is lost. It’s unavoidable that the problem gets worse,” Naughten told The Associated Press. “It isn’t unavoidable that we lose all of it because sea level rise happens over the very long term. I only looked in this study up to 2100. So after 2100, we probably have some control still.’’
No matter what words are used, Naughten said she and other scientists studying the area in previous research conclude that this part of Antarctica “couldn’t be saved or a lot of it couldn’t be saved.”
Naughten’s study did not calculate how much ice would be lost, how much sea level would rise and at what speed. But she estimated that the amount of ice in the area most at risk if it all melted would raise sea levels by about 1.8 meters (5.9 feet).
This 2020 photo provided by the British Antarctic Survey shows the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica. (David Vaughan/British Antarctic Survey via AP)
However, she said, that is a slow process that would play out through the next few hundred years through the 2300s, 2400s and 2500s.
Naughten said that may seem like a long way away, but noted that if the Victorians of the 1800s had done something to drastically change the shape of our world, we would not look well on them.
This type of sea level rise would be “absolutely devastating” if it happened over 200 years, but if it could be stretched out over 2,000 years, humanity could adapt, Naughten said.
“Coastal communities will either have to build around or be abandoned,” Naughten said.
While this part of Antarctica’s ice sheet is destined to be lost, other vulnerable sections of Earth’s environment can still be saved by reducing heat-trapping emissions so there is reason to still cut back on carbon pollution, Naughten said.
Twila Moon, deputy chief scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center who wasn’t part of the research, said she worries that most people will see nothing but doom and gloom in the research.
“I don’t see a lot of hope,” Naughten said. “But it’s what the science tells me. So that’s what I have to communicate to the world.”
Naughten quoted former NASA scientist Kate Marvel, saying “when it comes to climate change we need courage and not hope. Courage is the resolve to do well without the assurance of a happy ending.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.