Najib Abou Ismail

PSC 100
11-20-2014
POSITION PAPER

Increasingly intense drought in California, all of the southwest, and even into the Midwest have
everything to do with human made climate change as the climatologist James Hansen said.
Analysis conducted by leading experts in the field concludes that California will face significant
economic costs from global warming if we fail to take action said Michael Hanemann, an
economist at the University of California, Berkeley! The problem is seriously important and
scientists are blowing the whistles! On the other side we still face opposition from other
scientists and critics! The critical Allen Surper says: many other issues are much more
important than global warming. We need to get our perspective back. There are many more
pressing problems in the world, such as hunger, poverty, and disease. By addressing them we can
help more people at lower cost with much higher chance of success than pursuing drastic climate
policies at a cost of trillions of dollars!
I think California have a choice: either continue contributing to a dangerous scary rate of global
warming by its actions of emitting one of the largest quantities of pollutants, or lead the nation
and the world by taking a fast action and making significant cut in emissions!
Fifteen years ago California depended on fossil fueled power plants to supply eighty percent of
the states electricity supply. Today that percentage has been sliced in half. Over thirty percent of
Californias electricity is supplied by a mix of cogeneration, hydroelectricity, geothermal,
biomass, solar and wind.
At one time, California incentives to stimulate the development of renewable energy, such as
Californias 1977 solar tax credit, were the highest in the nation. When coupled with the forty

percent federal solar tax credit, California homeowners in the late 1970s benefited from large
subsidies when installing these energy saving technologies. Such incentives have expired and
today America imports more oil than at any time in history!
Californias twenty-five percent tax credit for wind energy system expired in 1987, but created a
2.5$ billion industry consisting of 16,000 wind turbines that represent nearly 1,400 Megawatts of
generating capacity. These wind power plants generate nearly two billion kilowatt hours per year,
deliver nearly as much energy as a medium sized nuclear power plant, and cost a fraction of what
conventional sources require to operate , maintain, and fuel. These wind power plants offset
eleven million pounds of air pollutants and 1.8 billion pounds of greenhouse gases per year.
Fossil fuel power sources in California still continue to enjoy federal and state preferences.
California, for instance, is the only state in the lower 48 that does not impose an oil severance
tax. These governmental allowances continue in spite of growing evidence that fossil fuels are
responsible for much of our current environmental and energy dilemmas!
Last year, the California legislature passed a modest ten percent solar tax credit (SB 227) limited
to facilities which generate electricity. Earlier solar tax credits also applied to residential water
and pool heating, so-called passive solar systems, and other similar conservation approaches.
Because of the mixed success of past renewable development programs, and the increasingly
complex nature of utility power procurement practices, a comprehensive evaluation of the roles
of state institutions, interest groups and current policies is needed to formulate a coordinated
California energy policy since California continues to set the trend in energy policy, its response
may have national and international repercussions!

California should adopt new energy and conservation policies regardless of complimentary or
contrary policies emerging from Washington D.C. California now ranks as the third largest
consumer of gasoline in the world!
In august 1989, the California energy commission (CEC) adopted an interim report on global
warming. The report states that a temperature increase of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1
degrees Fahrenheit) is possible by the year 2080! They added: our final report will include
recommendations to California legislature on methods to delay possible global warming and to
deal with its effects. A coordinated state energy plan is a logical response to the global
warming threat argues Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto), author of the legislation
mandating the CEC study!

After deep research in this topic that Im really concerned about I decided to take my position
supporting policies that help cutting emissions in order to reduce the effect of global warming (I
think that was clear so far)! During my research I faced some opposing critics and scientists to
consider global warming issue in the priority! The critic Allen Serper clarify his opposing side
saying: statements about the strong, ominous and immediate consequences of global warming
are often widely exaggerated! This is unlikely to result in good policy he continues we need
simpler, smarter and more effective solutions for global warming rather than excessive, if well
intentioned efforts. Large and very expensive CO2 cuts made now will have only a rather small
and insignificant impact farther into the future.
Another field expert support the same side as Allen says: we have become so accustomed to the
standard story: climate change is not only real but will lead to unimaginable catastrophes! While

doing something about it is so costly, but morally right. We perhaps understandably expect that
anyone questioning this line of reasoning must have evil intentions. Yet, I think- with the best of
intentions, it is necessary that we at least allow ourselves to examine our logic before we embark
on the biggest public investment in history!
The first question came on my mind here after reading Allens position was: why is the effect of
cutting emissions so little?
I searched to find an answer! So maybe I can support my opposing side a little bit in their
argument! A critic posted regarding this question on Yahoo answers the following response: the
emissions from the developed world matter less and less, as china, India and other developing
countries dramatically grow their economies. Yet neither China nor India seems likely to accept
real limits anytime soon. They have other and bigger priorities, such as food and improving
living conditions. Chinas office of global environmental affairs point out: you cannot tell people
who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to reduce their emissions!
Serper implies we need to remind ourselves that our ultimate goal is not to reduce greenhouse
gases or global warming, but to improve the quality of life and the environment. We all want to
leave the planet in decent shape for our kids. Radically reducing greenhouse emissions is not
necessarily the best way to achieve this!

Dear Professor Allen and all other expertise that support your argument! After taking the best of
your arguments! Unfortunately your romantic way of taking the side will not ever cancel real
witnessed FACTS!
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that an ever increasing body of
evidence support projections that global warming trends will cause the sea level to rise two

meters by the year 2010. As local temperature arise, scientists predict that proportionately more
of Californias precipitation will come in t5he form of rain! A shift from snow to rain in the
winter would cause flooding during the wet season and would intensify summer droughts due to
decreased snowmelt! A small temperature increase of 2 degrees Fahrenheit could result in
flooding much of the central Valley, reducing some of the worlds most productive farmland into
saline pools and spillways!
The (EPA) warns that air quality throughout California will continue to diminish if warming
trend persist. Ozone levels in San Francisco could rise three times above levels that are already
in excess of health standards.
California is the 12th largest source of global warming emissions in the world, exceeding most
entire countries. California has a responsibility to reduce its global warming emissions, and by
doing so can lead the United States, and the world, in developing the innovative policies and
technologies needed to avoid the most dangerous impacts of global warming. Two independent
teams of the states top economists calculate the significantly reducing global warming emissions
can boost the states economy by billions of dollars and create tens of thousands of jobs in the
coming decades. A report from the Sacramento Bee publication!

Finally, after defining what the controversy is about, explaining its importance, supporting my
argument, addressing particular policies and proposed policies in California that affect or may
have an effect on global warming, dealing with the best arguments on the other side of the issue,
I would like to conclude!
The threat of global warming offers a silver lining in the gloom and doom because, even if
exaggerated, policymakers can use the threat for needed action. The global warming threat may

prompt California and the rest of the world to finally adopt policies which make inherent
economic and environmental sense Daniel Borson said!!
The following is a quote made by Al Gore, I would like to end with: the climate crisis also
offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had privilege of
knowing. A generation mission, the exhilarating of completing moral purposes, a shared unified
cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so
often stifles the restless human need for transcending, the opportunity to rise

Citation:
1- Joe Romm posted on January 31, 2014 ( Climate Press Blog)
2- Ted, Schellenberger, Michael (Publication title : The Sacramento Bee) first page, E.5 ,
YEAR 2010
PUBLICATION DATE: Oct 31, 2010, California Forum section.
3- California State Assembly, Natural Resources Committee, Global Warming- A Blueprint
for State Response, April 1989
4- M. Eaton, J.V. White, P. Brodie, The Green House Effect: The Need For California
Leadership, Sierra Club Fourth Annual Green State of the State Report, January 1990
5- Environmental Protection Agency, Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on The
United States, Volume One and Two, Oct 1988
6- Allen Serper, (Dec, 25, 2007). Global Warming.