California’s carbon crusade faces resistance due to its real world impact

For the past two decades three California governors have committed the state to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to battle climate change.

The official goal is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 via legislation, regulation, education, disruption and appropriation, so we’re roughly at the halfway mark.

Conceptually, scrubbing carbon from the state’s economy, particularly transportation and utility sectors, has enjoyed broad popular support. But as the self-imposed deadline looms, specific strategies to reduce emissions are encountering resistance as Californians feel their real world impacts.

The once-brisk sales of battery-powered cars, for instance, have hit a plateau. They still account for about 20% of all new car purchases, but to meet Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decree of eliminating sales of gas-powered cars by 2035 they would need to increase exponentially.

The slowdown in EV sales is attributed to their cost, the lack of handy charging stations and the phaseout of federal subsidies even before Donald Trump became president again with a vow to bolster hydrocarbon production.

Conversion of the state’s electric power system to renewable sources such as wind and solar is doubly tricky. Not only must the state phase out natural gas-fired generation while still meeting current needs, but it must expand output to cover demand from many millions of electric cars it assumes will be purchased and install enough battery backup capacity to cover demand when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

Two simultaneous events this month frame the issue.

A new study, published in the Renewable Energy journal, found that in 2024, from late winter to early summer, renewable energy sources with battery backup supplied 100% of the state’s demand for up to 10 hours on 98 of 116 days, a record.

The study was hailed by clean power advocates as proof that a 100% renewable grid is possible.

But as it was being celebrated, a huge battery facility at Moss Landing, near Monterey, was destroyed by a fire so intense that firefighters had to let it burn out.

Moreover, after the fire died, researchers at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories found high concentrations of toxic heavy metals in the nearby mudflats and marshes.

The toxic pollution is drawing critical attention in the scenic Monterey Bay region. County supervisors voted unanimously that another battery bank be shut down pending an investigation of the fire’s causes and effects.

Vistra, owner of the destroyed Moss Landing plant, wants to build another plant at Morro Bay, another scenic coastal community in San Luis Obispo County. Local voters passed a ballot measure last year to block its construction, but the firm has said it would bypass that opposition by seeking a direct state permit.

The state’s blueprint for meeting its carbon emission goal assumes that offshore windmill farms will supply oodles of clean power, but that approach is also facing some headwinds.

As CalMatters reported, Morro Bay is also the epicenter of growing opposition among coastal residents, who see it as a form of industrialization that would change the look and character of their communities. Offshore windmills would require extensive on-shore support facilities, plus new high-voltage power lines to carry the juice to urban areas.

Finally, there’s another potential conflict that’s developing below the political radar — whether solar farms should replace crops on San Joaquin Valley farms as farmers face declining water supplies. Much like coastal opposition to battery banks and offshore windmills, rural communities are wary about a solar panel conversion that would alter their economies and lifestyles.

There’s no question that eliminating California’s carbon footprint is technologically possible, given enough financial investment. But is it politically possible?