It is significant that CA has outlined a serious plan to reach
carbon neutrality by 2045. However, it could be more efficient and
faster to be more optimistic about the prospects for renewable
electricity generation and storage (so, phasing out oil and natural
gas faster, and investing that money in renewable technology. It
would also be advantageous to be less optimistic about carbon
capture technologies, and modifying the carbon drawdown plans to
rely more on better-proven methods like soil regeneration and
cultivating carbon-intensive plant life.
The reason for this selective optimism and pessimism is less
about the probability of success (though this alternative
investment strategy is certainly realistic) and more about
mitigating the effects if a certain technology or social change
doesn't pan out. If the current plan fails, say if carbon capture
never effectively works, we have nothing to show for it. While if
solar energy storage fails us, we will simply need to adopt less
energy-intensive lifestyles.
Thank you for your consideration.
Clayton Strawn
|