California is on fire. This Republican ‘solution’ will only stoke the flames
California is on fire, and Republicans have a solution: pour gasoline on the flames.
As smoke choked the air – and as 180,000 people evacuated their homes and millions more endured blackouts – two Northern California legislators took the opportunity to continue the Republican Party’s ongoing war against … clean energy.
State Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Tehama, and Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, want to halt “a popular state law Democrats passed last year to get 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2045,” according to a story by The Sacramento Bee’s Bryan Anderson.
The lawmakers complain that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. should invest in modern infrastructure that doesn’t require blackouts to prevent wildfires. Can’t argue with that.
Here’s where they go wrong: They want to kill California’s crucial investments in clean energy and, theoretically, force PG&E to “harden its grid and buy better equipment” with the money.
There’s a saying in politics: “Never let a crisis go to waste.” This cynical stunt certainly fits the mold of a strategy tailor-made to exploit popular anger during a crisis. But, if taken seriously, it would only worsen California’s problems.
Gallagher actually said canceling the state’s ambitious plan to get to 100 percent clean energy would be “smarter climate policy.” This makes no sense unless you’re in the slim minority of Californians that rejects science.
Most Californians know global warming will increase the frequency and severity of disasters like the Kincade Fire. They know this is why we must transition to carbon-free energy. That’s exactly what California set out to do with Senate Bill 100, which aims to transition the state to 100 percent carbon-free electricity.
Of course, Nielsen and Gallagher know their idea has no chance in wildfire hell of passing the state Legislature. Even if it did, experts said it would provide no new funding for infrastructure.
“The misguided proposal to end California’s commitments to renewable energy would not result in the savings claimed by proponents because it assumes that the electricity needed to serve customers would otherwise be available for free,” said Matt Freedman of The Utility Reform Network (TURN).
PG&E would still need to buy electricity. Gallagher and Nielsen apparently just want to make sure it’s not clean. That’s bizarre, since even Republican states like Iowa and Texas have raced to become clean energy leaders.
“How predictable,” said Kathryn Phillips of Sierra Club California. “The Republicans’ best suggestion is to block renewable energy – something we know will help us avoid even worse climate events.”
Kevin De León, who authored SB 100, called it a “boneheaded idea.”
“This is another opportunistic example of Republicans, who have always come up short on dealing with the realities of facts and science, exploiting the tragedy of these families that are fleeing the devastating effects of the wildfires because of extreme weather patterns brought to you by the consequences of climate change,” he said.
True. It’s a publicity play intended to redirect public anger away from PG&E and toward California’s climate change policies. But there’s a method to the California Republican Party’s madness.
It works like this:
- Pick a main cause of public disenchantment (homelessness, fires, traffic, etc.)
- Blame it on Democratic policy (taxes, climate change, taxes, etc.)
- Run to the press with an ill-conceived (and hopeless) proposal.
- Pray that Fox News or the Wall Street Journal turn it into a national meme.
It’s an effective way to get publicity. But such tactics rarely shift public opinion or achieve legislative results.
The numbers are clear: A 2018 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 62 percent of Californians say “global warming is extremely or very important to them personally.” The poll found that environmental issues were a key issue in the governor’s race where Gavin Newsom crushed Republican John Cox … with nearly 62 percent of the vote.
Here’s the truth: We need modernized and upgraded utility infrastructure to prevent outdated equipment from causing wildfires. We also need clean energy sources to eradicate the emissions that harm public health and create extreme weather patterns that worsen fire disasters.
Half measures achieve nothing. We need both solutions to address the crisis.
Gov. Jerry Brown described California’s climate crusade as a matter of “extinction.” Earlier this year, the United Nations reported that 1 million species of animals and plants are at risk of extinction due to loss of habitat, exploitation and global warming.
Of course, California Republicans know a lot about endangered species – because they are one. The party that spawned two presidents is hanging on by a thread. Barely.
Its embrace of extreme, senseless and unpopular policies has driven it over the edge into political irrelevance. Instead of offering real solutions, as Republican climate champion Arnold Schwarzenegger did, their plans seem strangely designed to worsen our problems.
As Schwarzenegger has pointed out, it’s a recipe for political death.
When it comes to survival strategy, perhaps we don’t need advice from the party hurtling itself headlong toward extinction.
Editor’s note: This piece has been updated with comments from Matt Freedman of TURN to reflect the fact that the proposal would not provide any new funding for infrastructure.
This story was originally published October 29, 2019 at 9:31 AM with the headline "California is on fire. This Republican ‘solution’ will only stoke the flames."