California water or California Greenhouse gas emmisions

California Water or California Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Student Name
Institution Affiliation

Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc469423820 h 3Introduction PAGEREF _Toc469423821 h 4Problem Statement PAGEREF _Toc469423822 h 5Brief Background Discussion Related to the Topic and Study PAGEREF _Toc469423823 h 6Assumptions PAGEREF _Toc469423824 h 10Test Design PAGEREF _Toc469423825 h 11Results of Data Analysis PAGEREF _Toc469423826 h 12Conclusions PAGEREF _Toc469423827 h 18References PAGEREF _Toc469423828 h 19
AbstractResearch shows that the control carbon emissions is imperative for the consequent reduction of the effects of global warming (Leiserowitz, 2006). In California, the rates of carbon emission are very high necessitating the need to effective measures to counter the problem. Furthermore, pollution cuts across the various sectors such as energy, transportation, and agriculture. The ARB was tasked with the mandate of finding solutions through research and innovations. Its response was the creation of a roadmap targeting to have controlled carbon emission by the year 2025 (Greenblatt, 2015). Descriptive statistics and various hypotheses were tested in the analysis to determine the cause and level of greenhouse gas emission. However, the problem is not as simple as the rates of innovations are lower than expected while the demand for a solution is so high. However, the paper demonstrates that there is hope that a reliable solution will be found for the good of all Californians.

California Water or California Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IntroductionIn California, the concerns for seawater desalinization are high with a total of seventeen proposed plants along the coast (Greenblatt, 2015). However, the process of removing water is more energy intensive when compared to other water treatment plants. Similarly, there are associated concerns of greenhouse emissions from the process, therefore, affecting global climate change. California’s climate plan involves the reduction of GHG emissions as well as achieving a reduced carbon level. That means, per capita, this state is required to cut down its rate of greenhouse emissions by about 14 tons of carbon dioxide to 10 by the year 2020 (Greenblatt, 2015). As such, the challenge presented is running the state using clean energy with the use of sustainable technologies. In the process, California will acquire security and independence in its power production. That process will ensure that everyone breaths quality air, uses clean energy and lives in a safe environment.
The increasing rates of pollution by greenhouse gasses cause perceptible changes to the climate and may lead to further complications if no action is taken (Leiserowitz, 2006). The impact of these gasses is particularly significant in California especially in agriculture, forest, and coastal ecosystems. As a result, the economy could be adversely affected, the health of citizens as well as the agricultural sector (Hanemann & Farrell, 2006). With that in mind, the greatest challenge for California is avoiding the impact of greenhouse emissions. Scientists have estimated that a reduction of 65-85% of the global emissions of GHG is required to avoid the harsh consequences of climate change. Such an achievement will require significant changes in current activities for instance, in CHG intense companies and transportation. For this to happen, some form of governmental intervention should take place since environmental protection is a public good (Leiserowitz, 2006). Similarly, research shows that inventions designed to curb environmental pollution require governmental influence.
This paper focuses on efforts needed to identify as well as address the main concerns for California on how to solve the damage caused by GHG (Hanemann & Farrell, 2006). As such, various facets of engineering, environment, economy policy challenge will be looked into. The descriptive analysis used will mainly draw from the identified issues. The paper will detail the problem of GHG and the mechanisms in place to remedy the pollution issue.
Problem StatementIn California, the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is a major concern which requires serious attention as a result of its adverse effects. However, there are efforts by the government and private stakeholders to give solutions to the problem that has an impact on the world’s climate change. More so, there is the need to address greenhouse gas production in California since it affects the economy, agricultural sector, finance, and health. Therefore, the people of this state need to be protected from the dangers of GHG. Therefore, it is upon the State of California to ensure that there are right policies in place to counter pollution through greenhouse gasses.
Brief Background Discussion Related to the Topic and Study
In the year 2006, the lawmakers in California passed the Assembly Bill 32 called the Global Warming Solutions Act. Its role was to ensure that this state commits to the reduction of greenhouse gas levels to 1990 by the year 2020. Since then, California has committed itself to the program of gradually reducing GHG emissions as well as preventing future effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) was tasked with the duty of implementing Assembly Bill 32. According to this board, the ability of the state to reduce its rates of carbon emission to 1990 means that approximately 30% of the normal businesses emissions will be cut. That could also mean that 15% of the current emission from domestic and commercial processes should be reduced. However, ARB’s plan is to enforce a combination of energy efficiency, market-oriented programs, clean transportation and energy (Hanemann & Farrell, 2006).
Under Assembly 32 law, California is required to reduce about 427 million tons of greenhouse gas emission (Leiserowitz, 2006). However, irrespective of the fact that this obligation is a daunting task for the ARB, it has a roadmap indicated in the Climate Change Scoping Plan of 2008. In this plan, the authors identified that the state had the duty to provide room for the development of clean energy. The reason being that the expected increase in population as well as economic development. On that note, it would be important to reduce emissions from the usual business processes by offering alternative solutions. In 2009, the emissions and growth had almost stopped as a result of postponed economic downturn (Leiserowitz, 2006). More so, the state used two policies to limit future emissions; the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Pavley Clean Standards. In 2011, the ARB made revisions to their expected GHG emission by 2020 by using estimates for 2006. As such, the reduction targets smaller that the estimated rates by 2020.
In California, almost every sector of the economy is under the scrutiny of the ARB with an emphasis on the industries that have the highest rates of pollution for instance oil refineries (Cooley & Heberger, 2013). Similarly, while there lack mandated reduction emissions for the water industry, there is an estimated 4.8 reduction of MMTCO2e from this sector. This estimate was determined by the Water-Energy Team of the Climate Action Team that is composed of staff from various sectors of the economy (Greenblatt, 2015). The ARB identified that these deductions mostly lie in the electric sector and may be included in its scoping plan (Cooley & Heberger, 2013). However, part of these deductions will be merged with the existing programs for the energy industry. The processing of water for industrial and domestic use takes up a significant portion of the total energy in California. About 19% of the electricity consumption and 33% of natural gas is utilized by the water sector (Cooley & Heberger, 2013). Managers in water processing plants are aware of this consumption rates as well as the risks to the environment. However, there is a strong willingness from the water sector to combine effort in cutting down energy consumption as well as resultant greenhouse emissions by the municipal authorities.
Table 1. The Planned Reductions of Gas Emissions for California’s Water Sector From the 2008 ARB’s Scoping Plan
Measure Reduction (MMTCO2e)
Water Use Efficiency 1.4
Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0
Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9
Water Recycling 0.3
Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2
Public Goods Charge TBD
Total 4.8
Technological Innovations
For California to reach the targets put by Governor Arnold, significant changes in the transport, agriculture, residential, water and electricity industries will take effect (Hanemann & Farrell, 2006). Irrespective of the fact that California is known for technological creations to enhance consumer satisfaction, there is no record of innovations leading to a reduction of carbon emission to the atmosphere. Research shows that there is underinvestment in technologies that protect the environment. The reason is that there are no incentives for individuals with the capacity to offer public goods. However, with governmental intervention, certain demands can be created to allow for the creation of reliable technologies that eventually will create a clean environment (Hanemann & Farrell, 2006). In that way, innovations will be accelerated allowing California to deal with its problem of air pollution. Therefore, in the process knowledge will be transferred allowing more people to understand the new technologies created.
Studies on technological change and climate modeling suggest that assumptions made on the nature and rates of the long-term environment and energy issues are critical for climate change. As such, the concept of the drawback in exogenously specified levels of technology change in models of integrated assessment creates a situation where change is autonomous and independent of economic variables (Hanemann & Farrell, 2006). Research indicates that technological improvements are not independent or free but rely on factors such as development and the demand for particular goods and products. For instance, various strategies can be used in California to counter the rates of petroleum fuels pollution. One such method is the continued use of fossil fuels while controlling and adapting to fuels of less carbon intensity and utilizing technologies for storage and carbon capture (Hanemann & Farrell, 2006). In this case, technology in California will be driven by the need to solve environmental and economic changes as opposed to inventions without a goal,
Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas
One of the significant challenges for the lawmakers of California is the reconciliation of reliable and affordable energy options with substantial reductions of GHG. Evidence shows that the energy industry has the potential to mitigate emissions in line with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan for 2020 and 2050. One such possibility is the adoption of low carbon technologies that will see a great reduction of GHG. When considering the pollution from the transport sector, it is important to seek replacement fuels. Currently, fossil fuels are used which could be substituted with alternatives such as hydrogen. However, despite the low pollution rates from the use of hydrogen, its full-scale implementation is too costly. More so, there has never been an impactful introduction of substitute fuel. Similarly, no fuel system performs best when using different fuels. As such, more technological research should be done to address the issue.
On the other hand, the option of battery-powered vehicles remains an expensive alternative. Also, only a few people accept the idea which means that only a breakthrough in the technology is necessary (Cooley & Heberger, 2013). Another interesting opportunity concerning carbon emissions is the use of hybrid vehicles. These vehicles operate on both electricity and fuel but offer an extended drive range for convenience purposes. Reports indicate that some people in California have taken it upon themselves to customize their vehicles with the capabilities of hybrid cars (Cooley & Heberger, 2013). This initiative does not only reduce carbon emissions but cuts down on the consumption of petroleum fuels. With such minds, the hope for reducing emissions in California is high considering that the potential for new facilitating technologies in the transportation sector is great.
AssumptionsVarious assumptions were made in this paper regarding the matter of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in California. It was assumed that the process of reducing pollution is seamless and goes on uninterrupted. However, the process is not as easy as it seems as the implementation process affects various areas of the economy such as energy and transportation. Therefore, positive progress is asymmetrical and in some sectors it may appear to lag. Similarly, it was assumed that the results from the tests borrowed for analysis were accurate and therefore gave conclusive results. This research has used both descriptive tests and hypothesis testing on multiple groups based on demographics.
Test DesignThe test designs that will be utilized for this research is the descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing. In research, descriptive analysis is important as it allows for the summarization of data to meaningful information and in the process, patterns might emerge. Therefore, it creates room for straightforward interpretation of data. In this paper, the test used were meant to give a clear impression of the ARB and the progress it is making with regards to reducing the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions in California. Afterward, hypothesis testing was employed to determine whether there was positive progress in the reduction of GHG emissions in California as per the roadmap laid by the ARB. This testing was necessary as it acted as the pointer to the conditions that facilitate as well as cripple the efforts to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emission. The task of the ARB is not simple since various factors need consideration.
Results of Data AnalysisDescriptive Analysis
The following section describes an analysis of where statistical methods were used to find the importance of the link between precipitation and the cost of electricity. The tests were the non-parametric Mann-Kendall and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. More so, the two-tailed hypothesis test was used with a confidence interval of 95%. As such, the null hypothesis from the test is that no relationship exists between the energy prices and the rates of precipitation (Cooley & Heberger, 2013). When the test resulted in probability (p) of less than 0.025, the null hypothesis was declined. It was then concluded that there exists a relationship exists between energy costs and precipitation. However, the value of probability exceeded 0.025; the test failed to decline the null hypothesis. More so, it was found that the test lacked sufficient evidence to indicate if there exists a relationship between the price of energy and precipitation in California. In Table 3 below, “…” indicates an insignificant relationship when using a confidence level of 95% (Cooley & Heberger, 2013).
Table 3: Relationship between retail energy prices and precipitation for six utilities in California
Direction of correlation Correlation coefficient Pearson’s R
P-value Mann-Kendell P-value
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) -0.69 <0.001 <0.001
Southern California Edison (SCE) -0.49 0.005 0.003
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) –* +0.31 0.05 0.32
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LAPW&P) -0.38 0.02 0.03*
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) -0.59 <0.001 <0.001
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BGP) –* -0.25 0.15 0.10
The results infer that desalination plants are dependent on hydroelectric power and the cost of electricity increases during the dry season. If the plant works mostly during the dry season than the wet season, the average price of water will increase (Cooley & Heberger, 2013). More so, during the dry season, it is possible that petroleum fuels may be used to operate the plants owing to the high costs of electricity. Since the peak season for the operation of desalination plants is during the dry season, low sales may cause reduced income. Therefore, the relation between the cost of electricity and precipitation is stronger for the utilities that rely on electric energy. For instance, in PG&E, 69% of the variance obtained from the energy prices can only be explained by precipitation as shown by a correlation of -0.69 (Cooley & Heberger, 2013). Furthermore, 22% of its energy comes from hydroelectricity which signifies a lack of correlation between energy prices and precipitation.
Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing of multiple groups based on demographics, the impact of affect, values, and imagery in the perception of risk as well as policy references were studied to understand the influence of GHG emissions in California. The first hypothesis was used to predict the influence of global warming via compelling images on risk perceptions and personal support for the implementation of climate policies. The second hypothesis predicted that values would exert a different but similar influence on the perceptions of global warming risks and individual support for creating climate policies. With that, various regression testing models were designed to test the hypothesis and examine the combined and separate influence of imagery, affect, sociodynamics and values of dependent variables. The variables were; the risk perception index, preferences of climate change policy, policy on climate tax policies.
Global Warming Risk Perception Models
The first model noted that the adverse effect, as well as image effect, were major predictors of climate change perception and a produced 32% variance (F(2, 402) = 93.95, p < .001, R2adj. = .32) as Table 2. That showed as negative affect increased so did perception. In the second model, it was found that various cognitive images such as Politics, Alarmists, Don’t know, Dry and Naysayers, majorly predicted about global warming, and conclusively had 24% variance (F (5, 542) = 34.75, p < .001, R2adj. = .24) (Leiserowitz, 2006). The images of Politics, Naysayers and Don’t Know were associated with a low perceived rate. On the other hand, Alarmists and Dry/Desert were associated with a high perceived risk. Both the first and second models supported the hypothesis that affective imagery has an influence on risk perception.
The third model showed that there were major predictors of the perception of global warming with the inclusion of the Egalitarianism, hierarchism, and individualism variable. The individualism and hierarchism index were performed but could not provide conclusive results. Instead, each variable was regressed based on perception to risk to identify the potential predictor as prescribed in Cultural Theory (Leiserowitz, 2006). The measured were noted to be bivariate correlates with a perception of risk and were added to the model. Therefore, individualism statement was given as “the government should get out of the way” and hierarchism “when the risk is small, it is okay for the society to impose the risk of people without their consent.” In that way, Egalitarianism was correlated with high-risk perception and the other variables with little perception of risk (Leiserowitz, 2006). The total values of the regression model highly predicted that global warming risk perception and a variance of 26% (F (3, 547) = 65.57, p < .001, R2ad j. = .26). As such, this model supported the hypothesis that values have an influence on risk perception.
The fourth model identified six sociodemographic variables that were major predictors of risk perception to global warming as in the case of California. Liberals, minorities, females, environmentalists and newspaper readers view global warming as a huge risk (Leiserowitz, 2006). Conservatives, males, whites and registered voters considered climate change a small risk. The entire sociodemographic model highly showed that global warming influences risk perception and bears a variance of 20% (F (6, 533) = 23.04, p < .001, R2adj. = .20). Lastly, the fifth model combined the above model to examine the variables that strongly predicted global warming perception to risk. After testing, the holistic effect was that no variable was the most powerful (” = 0.32, p <001). However, the Naysayers images were the second most influential variable (” =−0.21, p < .001). The third largest was Negative Image Affect (” = 0.19, p < .001). Lastly, Egalitarianism was the fourth largest predictor (” = 0.11, p < .05), signifying that this group of people perceive global warming as a huge risk. Therefore, the entire regression model showed that imagery, affect, and values were stronger predictors compare to sociodemographic factor (Leiserowitz, 2006). As such, the entire model showed the risk perception from global warming and variance of 46% (F (16, 371) = 22.76, p < .001, R2adj = .47).
Table 2: Regressions on the perception of global warming risk
Independent variables Model 1 Affect Model 2 images Model 3 values Model 4 Sociodem Model 5 full
Holistic negative effect 0.41*** 0.32***
Negative image affect 0.26*** 0.19***
Naysayers -0.32*** -0.21***
Alarmists 0.14*** 0.06
Politics -0.17*** -0.09*
Don’t know -0.11*** -0.07
Dry/desert 0.18*** 0.09*
Egalitarianism 0.45*** 0.11*
The government should get out of the way -0.11** -0.05
When the risk is very small, it is okay for society to impose that risk on society without their consent -0.15*** -0.04
Female 0.22*** 0.10*
White/Caucasian -0.15*** -0.07
Political ideology -0.24*** 0.00
Registered voter -0.13*** 0.04
Member of environmental groupings 0.14*** 0.10**
Newspaper 0.09* 0.04
F 96.95*** 34.75*** 65.57*** 23.04*** 22.76***
Adjusted R2 0.32 0.24 0.26 0.20 0.47
N 403 548 551 540 388
ConclusionsThe control of greenhouse emission in California is a necessary course aiming for the achievement of the greater good. With its full implementation via the roadmap created by the ARB, by 2020 California will be dealing with other problems other than the emission of carbon dioxide. While the issue of emission of GHG cannot be ignored, it is imperative to understand that this state is among the top concerning greenhouse gas emission. As such, it has to do everything that is within its reach to create a clean environment, promote energy innovations and alternatives. Currently, the transport industry leads with the highest rate of pollution from fossil fuels. This problem may be solved by finding alternative sources of energy such as the introduction of electric cars. More so, the issue can be addressed through the provision of reliable modes of transport by the government. That will not only improve the environment but will also reduce the risk of diseases as a result of emissions from the transportation sector. Although the progress of implementation is slow, there is hope that by 2020, GHG emissions will have to reduce below level 1990; as is the target of the ARB.
ReferencesCooley, H., & Heberger, M. (2013). Key Issues for Seawater Desalination in California. Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Greenblatt, J. B. (2015). Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy, 78, 158-172.
Hanemann, W., & Farrell, A. (2006). Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California.
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Climatic Change, 77(1-2), 45-72