The formation of new oil and natural gas drilling sites have reached historic low points in 2020 in California. Although the pandemic surely played a part, a spokesperson said, “global commodity prices, our state’s economy and local judicial decisions in Kern County have all contributed to the decline.” The graph shows a steady decrease in oil and natural gas drilling. However, 68 percent of California’s oil and natural gas is imported from other countries. The article notes that these countries do not follow California’s environmental or safety standards, presenting a bigger threat to the environment.  

This obviously seems like a good development, and is hopefully a sign of a serious shift in the state’s energy future. However, it is concerning that such a large percentage of our oil exports come from foreign countries. Emissions are emissions, and environmental damage is environmental damage. Less domestic drilling means little if we are just importing that oil and natural gas. It highlights the need to find reliable, domestic sources of clean energy. Climate change is a global issue, and it’s important we use metrics to measure success and promote practices with that in mind. 

At the end of January, President Biden signed executive orders with a wide range of new directives with regards to climate change. Included was an order to electrify the government’s  650,000 strong fleet of vehicles, as well as to pause all federal oil leases. The administration has cast it as a move to create jobs as much as about climate. Furthermore, Biden said he would reserve 30 percent of federal land and water for conservation purposes and promote renewable energy. The article notes this will affect California’s handling of new environmental moves, and give support to the Democratic legislature in regards to a political approach to combating climate change. 

The US will have the most strength fighting this with both state governments and the federal government working in tandem to best reach their shared climate goals. Federalism demands such cooperation for our efforts to truly be the most successful. However, executive orders are generally thought of as not as powerful as law, because all it takes is the next executive order to overturn it. That means the next election could overturn such efforts, which is concerning given the magnitude of the problem, and the required magnitude of the efforts necessary to solve it.

A new bill going around the California state legislature would see the creation of wind turbines on the coast of California. Although California has led the way on many new environmental technologies and renewable energy, it currently has no offshore wind capacity. Environmentalist, labor, and industrial groups have come together to promote a bill that would require 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2030. They aim to increase it to 10,000 megawatts by 2040. That would be double the current electrical generation of all wind farms in California. David Chiu, an assemblyman from San Francisco, leads the effort to pass the bill. He told constituents that the “wind off California’s coast has enormous potential to meet clean energy goals, combat climate change, and provide good paying jobs.” 

This seems like a promising development. Political attention and political capital is being paid to the creation of more alternative energy sources to get the state off gas and oil. However, I do think it is important to make sure that the state is promoting the most effective solution, rather than a random hodgepodge of different proposals. An organized plan for alternative energy is important to make sure that we are fighting climate change the best and fastest way, and so we are not spending exorbitant sums of money unnecessarily that could go to other social programs or stay in households. While I applaud the efforts of individual congresspeople to work for more renewable energy sources, it seems like it would be best if the government supported a comprehensive plan for renewable energy in the state.

This article explains how the changing of the administrations has impacted the future of California’s desert. As Trump’s term drew to a close, he removed protection from millions of acres to lands and allowed solar and wind farming construction on them. Conservations, expectedly, slammed the move, painting it as a final Trumpian effort to promote private industry over conservation efforts and wildlife. However, the answer for the Biden administration may not be that simple. President Biden has committed to fighting climate change, and a big part of that is going to be a transition to other energy sources such as solar and wind that will need new land to be built on. However, Biden has also endorsed plans to protect America’s lands and wildlife. This policy fight has left the Biden administration at a difficult juncture. 

This feels very relevant to the future of conservation and clean energy. Conservations and clean energy advocates have consistently sparred over land usage. Conservations don’t want to build on natural land, but it is necessary for large-scale clean energy to be successful. This is surely a preview of a battle that will continue to play out and grow as more investment is focused into clean energy development, and more land is developed, leaving conservation advocates even more adamant on defending the pockets of natural environment that are left. A frequent problem is that many species are specific to small areas, meaning that there are many areas where a species can be endangered by the construction of wind turbine farms or solar farms. 

Trump’s plan to divert water drew heavy fire from endangered species advocates. The plan helped his political constituents — farmers who disliked the water restrictions from Sacramento’s delta to the Central Valley, believing it to restrict their yields, profit, and business. Trump aimed to drastically increase the amount of water available to these farmers. However, federal regulators believed they were being sidelined by the Trump administration in the process. They warned this would hurt endangered species as their habitats would be degraded, but were ignored. It caused an internal uproar, and larger anger in state politics. However, the plan was finalized in late 2019 for new California water management.   

I thought some of the language surrounding science was very interesting. Those who were against the move to divert water claimed they were “standing up for science”. I think it’s important to realize that (while the two should obviously be connected) political preferences and science are separate. One can understand the damage of diverting water (as informed by science), and still support the move because they think the gain to farmers is worth the damage to one species of fish. One can understand the science of climate change, and still support low regulation on emissions in developing countries so those countries can quickly grow their economy, saving lives and promoting a better quality of life. It seems dangerous to label one side as scientific and the other side as misinformed on the basis of “you disagree with me and science is involved.” Sides certainly can be (and often are) misinformed, but that doesn’t seem like it ought to be the first response. But politics aside, the actions taken by the Trump administration on this particular matter are illegal. It violates the Environmental Protections Act of 1975, given that this water plan would be an action taken by the federal government that would be damaging to endangered species, it would be an unlawful act. This is the very issue that our class was spoken to about by the knowledgeable agent at the marine biology institute about the delta smelt.