California Tries to Decrease Fossil Fuel Production, Raising Concerns About Finding Alternative

In its latest move to combat purported human-caused climate change, the California state legislature recently passed the state budget bill for 2019–2020, which in part authorizes the state’s Environmental Protection Agency to conduct studies and identify strategies to manage the decline of in-state crude oil production and decrease demand and supply of fossil fuel.

The move has led some people to question how the state plans to replace the energy generated from fossil fuels.

“California is the only state in America that imports its oil,” Ronald Stein, co-author of the book “Energy Made Easy” and a policy advisor for the Heartland Institute, told The Epoch Times.

Stein said the reason is California’s restrictive climate policies.

“We’re sending 60 million dollars a day to foreign countries for the oil to keep the fifth largest economy in the world moving forward, and this [bill] is going to reduce the production in the state even more. There will be more and more dependency on foreign countries, and instead of spending 60 million a day, with this new bill, they will be spending 90 million dollars a day for oil from abroad,” he said.

California is one of the leading states when it comes to funding efforts to combat allegedly human-caused climate change. State leaders have hailed the funding in the budget as the next step in that fight.

In a video published by BakersfieldNow, Governor Gavin Newsom praised the funding while attempting to quell concerns about how it will affect the economy.

“This is an economy that built this state; parts of this state are dependent on it,” he said. “And I want to begin the transition, but I want to do it thoughtfully, and I want to paint a picture of what the transition looks like.

“I want to be honest with people that we’re not going to leave anybody behind, that we have a plan,” he continued. “That’s why we put money into the state budget to actually put the first state effort and energy into a real plan on transition.”

According to Stein, the state’s hopes of replacing fossil fuel and oil production with green energy sources are not realistic.

“Solar panels and wind turbines cannot operate the military, they cannot operate the airlines and the cruise ships and the merchant ships,” Stein said.

“If you wanted to, you could shut down the oil industry,” he said. “Energy is a world market, but if you shut it down here, you would have to import it from other countries and other states. And other countries and states don’t have the same environmental controls as California, so doing that would actually increase the greenhouse gas emissions.

“Most importantly, though, importing oil from outside the state would increase its cost, which in turn would further drive up the cost of living in California.”

Stein pointed to Germany as an example of problems that arise when states try to replace fossil fuels with green energy.

Germany pioneered a system of subsidies for industrial wind and solar energy, dubbed Energiewende, but last year the country was forced to acknowledge that it had to delay its phase-out of coal. It also announced that Germany would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

Meanwhile, Germans pay more than any other nation for energy. Earlier this year, Forbes reported that the Energiewende program has cost Germany 32 billion euros over the past five years, which equals US$36 billion.

Go to Source
Author: Jehman Clifford