To Fight Climate Change, California Says 'We're Launching Our Own Damn Satellite' (latimes.com) 308
An anonymous reader quotes the Los Angeles Times:
Jerry Brown closed his climate summit in San Francisco on Friday with a dramatic announcement: California will launch its own satellite into orbit to track and monitor the formation of pollutants that cause climate change. "With science still under attack and the climate threat growing, we're launching our own damn satellite," Brown said in prepared remarks. "This groundbreaking initiative will help governments, businesses and landowners pinpoint -- and stop -- destructive emissions with unprecedented precision, on a scale that's never been done before...."
The state will develop the satellite with the San Francisco-based Earth-imaging firm Planet Labs, a company founded by former NASA scientists in 2010. The state may ultimately launch multiple satellites into space, according to the governor's office.... Robbie Schingler, co-founder of Planet Labs, said the project will inform "how advanced satellite technology can enhance our ability to measure, monitor, and ultimately, mitigate the impacts of climate change..." Brown's announcement came in quickly delivered remarks at the close of the three-day gathering and received a standing ovation from many in the audience.
Governors from 17 states (and from both political parties) also pledged to spend $1.4 billion to lower auto emissions, using money from Volkwagen's legal settlement over falsifying clean-air performance data. New York City also announced that its pension fund would invest $4 billion in companies offering climate change solution over the next three years.
And 26 states, cities and businesses said they'd procure non-polluting vehicle fleets by 2030, while ChargePoint and EV Box pledged to build 3.5 million new charging stations around the world.
The state will develop the satellite with the San Francisco-based Earth-imaging firm Planet Labs, a company founded by former NASA scientists in 2010. The state may ultimately launch multiple satellites into space, according to the governor's office.... Robbie Schingler, co-founder of Planet Labs, said the project will inform "how advanced satellite technology can enhance our ability to measure, monitor, and ultimately, mitigate the impacts of climate change..." Brown's announcement came in quickly delivered remarks at the close of the three-day gathering and received a standing ovation from many in the audience.
Governors from 17 states (and from both political parties) also pledged to spend $1.4 billion to lower auto emissions, using money from Volkwagen's legal settlement over falsifying clean-air performance data. New York City also announced that its pension fund would invest $4 billion in companies offering climate change solution over the next three years.
And 26 states, cities and businesses said they'd procure non-polluting vehicle fleets by 2030, while ChargePoint and EV Box pledged to build 3.5 million new charging stations around the world.
There goes the pension fund. (Score:2, Informative)
New York City also announced that its pension fund would invest $4 billion in companies offering climate change solution over the next three years.
What could possibly go wrong?
Re:There goes the pension fund. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: There goes the pension fund. (Score:2, Informative)
On average, they didn't happen with the same frequency and severity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I recently read that the biggest contributor to the growth in CO2 emissions is ... air conditioners.
Most new ACs are being installed in India and China, where most electricity comes from coal. They are cheap and terribly inefficient.
ACs could, in theory, use a third the electricity that they do, for the same cooling capacity.
A good, reliable, efficient, and inexpensive AC could do more to cut CO2 emissions than LED lights and VSDC motors combined.
That is were we should be investing more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Average Chinese air conditioners are better than average American air conditioners for example. That will only get better as more newer ones are installed.
Re: (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong?
What could go wrong is political wrangling introduces a mayor with a different view and instead decides to invest the pension fund in coal companies.
I just hope they don't invest in American companies offering climate change. The last thing you need is the New York City pension fund being destroyed by the Orangutan sitting in Washington.
Re: (Score:3)
He sounds just like Trump (Score:3)
"This groundbreaking initiative will help governments, businesses and landowners pinpoint -- and stop -- destructive emissions with unprecedented precision, on a scale that's never been done before...."
That sounds like exactly what Trump would say to sell one of his own initiatives. The words like "groundbreaking," "unprecedented," and "never been done before" sure have a very used car salesman sort of ring to them.
Re:He sounds just like Trump (Score:5, Funny)
No, more like:
"I will launch the best satellites ever to catch losers and cheaters in Jiiina and other shit-hole countries who fart our way without telling us. AND I'll make Canada and Mexico pay for it! I know rockets, believe me, know them really really well. They'll launch the best satellites; gold plated eagles and Jesuses; you'll be proud, proud as it orbits above your patriotic head as we all look up together as Americans to watch solar eclipses without those fake CNN glasses they claim you should use to protect your eyes from socialistic rays. Totally rigged business, and you look silly wearing them. I like people without wimpy eyes who don't go blind. Space Force will MASA!"
Oooh shiny object! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Now THAT was a boondoggle.
OTOH, given how poorly AMTRAK serves the passengers, it might have been justifiable if they'd tried for quality and durability rather than speed. (They *aren't* going to compete with an airplane anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta do something to distract from the $100 billion 100 MPH train from Bakersfield to Modesto!
Rail makes sense. Caltrans has plans to improve and repair rail all over the state. Adding more highway lanes doesn't solve anything, all it does is move problems to other locations. Public transport is safer and yes, ultimately cheaper (if you count the cost of pollution) than everyone commuting in their own cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Caltrans has plans for all kinds of things. Right now, we're seeing them focus on hundreds of billions of dollars for rail that goes, essentially, nowhere and there is zero plan or even an idea how to reach the biggest population in the State (where over half the people live). The Caltrans from Ventura to Los Angeles takes 2 hours, leaves really early in the morning only (4 departures, all before 7:45 AM), and has 3 afternoon return trips, again 2 hours, only one of which is after 5 PM (and doesn't get yo
Re: (Score:2)
Caltrans has plans for all kinds of things. Right now, we're seeing them focus on hundreds of billions of dollars for rail that goes, essentially, nowhere and there is zero plan or even an idea how to reach the biggest population in the State
The biggest population in the State's big problem isn't getting to the rest of the state, but getting around their own home area. There are fully funded plans to address that situation [curbed.com], although I'm skeptical that they can make much of a difference. I think they're going to need elevated PRT, or for Elon to come dig 'em a bunch of tunnels if that's even feasible given the location, to really change the fact that people are stuck in traffic jams.
Jerry Brown, paragon of climate virtue... (Score:2, Informative)
Jerry Brown's Secret War on Clean Energy [environmen...ogress.org]
Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Jerry Brown's Secret War on Clean Energy [environmen...ogress.org]
Oh, dear. An organisation called "Environmental Progress" that just advocates for nuclear power plants and nothing else? Where were they when nuclear waste was dumped in the middle of a formerly pristine national park in the middle of Australia?
Maybe that's the progress part....
Re: (Score:2)
Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power
Nuclear is "clean" like coal is "clean". It isn't. Mining the uranium produces massive strip mines which are never restored to their original condition, and the tailings always wind up contaminating ground water. We still don't have a solution for the waste — Yucca was never a good site over the time period involved, and breeder reactors are expensive and dangerous to operate. Unless these things change, Nuclear continues to be a boondoggle at best.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting how nuclear advocates almost never talk about uranium mining...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You however do yourself no favors by lying through your fucking teeth.
Grow the fuck up, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So only one member of the democrat party??? (Score:5, Insightful)
A Groundbreaking Bullshit Detector (Score:2)
"This groundbreaking initiative will help governments, businesses and landowners pinpoint -- and stop -- destructive emissions with unprecedented precision, on a scale that's never been done before...."
I'm assuming you're building the worlds largest Bullshit Detector, because that's about the only thing that's going to keep one-sided politics from influencing and controlling whatever the fuck you plan on doing with satellites.
The problem isn't finding evidence that we humans are doing plenty to fuck up our atmosphere and environment. The problem is convincing enough of the greedy fucks in charge to give up their precious money in order to do something about it. For the worlds largest polluters, revenue
Re: (Score:2)
The worlds largest polluters is people.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are free to print money, and the value of currency is artificial.
And that's exactly how Zimbabwe saved itself from poverty.
Galactical level Virtue signaling detected (Score:2)
So let me get this right... The State of California is going to spend tends of millions of tax payer dollars to fabricate and lance a new weather satellite, expend mega tons of CO2 emissions to do so, placed even more space junk into an already crowding upper atmosphere, and lock the tax payers into a plan that will force them to spend millions of rollers to maintain and monitor that satellite... all to repeat the same data collection that NOAA is already doing now. Because Drumpf!!!
Is really the plan?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you're missing a lot.
expend mega tons of CO2 emissions to do so
A megaton is 1,000,000,000kg. A typical launch for example on a Falcon 9 produces 200,000kg. You're off by a factor of 10,000x.
placed even more space junk
Space junk serves no purpose. Therefore this isn't space junk.
into an already crowding upper atmosphere
There's a lot of upper atmosphere to put things into. Especially satellites that are carefully tracked and eventually re-enter and burn like the ones we are talking about here.
and lock the tax payers into a plan that will force them to spend millions of rollers to maintain and monitor that satellite
Oh noes! We can't science with taxpayer money. How would a rich state that represents the 5th largest economy in the worl
Sure they will (Score:2, Interesting)
...because that's a prudent use of the taxpayer's money: "Virtue signaling".
Oh yeah, and there's this: https://californiapolicycenter... [california...center.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you don't like is virtue signalling. Your complaints about virtue signalling are virtue signalling. It's a completely meaningless statement.
Say why you don't think this will make any real difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you asserting that there isn't a great deal of public posturing going on in American political culture today? Really?
Why was his virtue-signaling? It came as a capstone announcement to a climate change "summit" with maximum press in attendance.
"Brown's announcement came in quickly delivered remarks at the close of the three-day gathering and received a standing ovation from many in the audience."
If it was simply about actually getting something done, they'd have lined it into the budget (you know, the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to assume it's an honest question, and not just one of the ones being virtue-signaled believing it's clever to assert ignorance of the mechanics: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=virtue+si... [lmgtfy.com]
Um, what? (Score:2)
It's like he spun the random tech solution wheel ...
"We'll fix it with ... a satellite!"
It's like saying you'll fix everything with blockchain, only fifty years out of date.
Wow, no one has posted this yet? Okay then... (Score:5, Funny)
To fight climate change, California says "We're launching our own damn satellite! With blackjack, and hookers!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm as shocked as you are. Damn Millennials, forgetting the classics so quickly.
Jerry Brown (Score:2)
America's "rocket man."
Sweet! A Magic Jellybean-Powered Rocket! (Score:2)
No, wait ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/1... [cnbc.com]
Oh. It's all a ruse. I guess it'll be rocket fuel after all.
typical pretend science (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Methane is several hundred times more damaging" Actually, it's not although it does "decay" into a CO2 molecule and two water molecules after a decade or so. The belief that it is some sort of a demon greenhouse gas seems to be be due to a misunderstanding. How can you check that? Take a look at the IR absorbtion spectra for H2O, CO2, CH3(Methane). The are available on the NIST web site and elsewhere.
Because California isn't going broke... (Score:2)
Let's just pile on yet ANOTHER multi-zillion dollar boondoggle!
Sure, why not? (Score:2)
I‘m from tiny Luxembourg and even we have >60 Satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really scratching my head as to why people are scoffing at the idea of a state with the domestic product of 43 Luxembourgs coughing up the cash to launch a single satellite.
Great. Just great. More divisiveness. (Score:2)
So now in addition to losing objective journalism where media was supposed to be objective and we are now all used to media outlets having inherent bias we'll have science with bias also - where the mission is to "prove this" instead of "find truth." *sigh*
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
CA will tax consumed goods/.services based on which nation/state
That is probably unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
deally, CA will tax consumed goods/.services based on which nation/state the worst sub-part/service comes from. In doing that, it will reward nations/states that have cleaned up, while punishing those that have not.
You cannot have a State or Country-specific taxation in California, per the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Want to hammer China for their high CO2 emissions?
You keep describing it that way, but in fact, no. We don't want to do that. What we want is to hammer high CO2 emissions, not China. If we tax CO2 emissions, not China, then it's legal. If the manufacturers fail to provide a reasonable measurement of CO2 emissions, then a number will have to be invented. The only reasonable basis for the invention of that number is country of origin, but what will be taxed is the CO2, not the country of origin. The taxes will be levied against the consumer. They should be s
Re:Finally, but they need multiple (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Even pretending it wasn't completely illegal to do. How would you possibly measure it? The CO2 emitted for that product?
The total emissions of the country regardless of what the product is? That's just blatantly discriminating against larger countries (obviously you're targeting China). You will tax Americans more than Australians and Canadians? You will tax America at the second highest level in the world behind China?
And you think anyone will vote for your plan?
Based on per capita, then you're just shoo
Re: Finally, but they need multiple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Finally, but they need multiple (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Finally, but they need multiple (Score:2, Informative)
That statistic is of course deliberately deceptive. When you include personal and corporate income exemptions, the numbers flip. If you remove military salaries, it flips. Clearly, California running off military installations is a red state welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitching about "undeserving" people getting "your" money is something that conservatives do. Luckily Californians are all in favor of wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor.
Re: Finally, but they need multiple (Score:5)
What about Texas?
Texas is one of the very few red states which "pays its own way", except it doesn't. It only manages that because of the oil industry, which is a massive polluter at every level. Also, it would probably be a blue state by now if not for gerrymandering.
Re: (Score:2)
So, drinkypoo, why are you ignoring the $80 billion in state and local tax credits given to California when you claim they give money to other states?
I'm not. Even with that, California is still one of the states that gives the most out and gets the least back. It's about the net, stupid.
Re: Finally, but they need multiple (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Finally, but they need multiple (Score:2)
If you think that the M1 and the F35 are state-level projects, you're horribly confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Satellites are subject to international agreements. Lasy I checked, that is a federal matter.
So what? That doesn't mean that the federal government is the only entity allowed to launch and operate satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally, but they need multiple (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah the Cole and Ohanian paper again, but with an extra heaping of customized unhinged exaggeration ("and that's likely an under estimate as it comes from UCLA"). Since the legislation was signed in June 1933, three months after FDR entered office (March 4 in those days), and the Great Depression did in fact end no later than June 1940 when the US per capita GDP had recovered to its pre-depression level (the NBER, who is the semi-official self-designated shot-caller for recessions places it much earlier, but there are good reasons to disregard their definition). I guess since the paper is from UCLA economists he believes FDR actually signed the legislation before he took office perhaps.
As Ohanian himself sighed 12 years after the paper was published [ucla.edu]:
“People on the right would say, ‘Hey, look — these guys from UCLA — which is not perceived as some traditionally conservative place — said Roosevelt was to blame for the Depression continuing,’” Ohanian said. “Then people on the left would say, ‘Oh, these guys are conservative, paid mouthpieces for the Koch Foundation,’ which, of course, we were not. But neither side really understands what we did. “
Now this complaint by Ohanian admittedly does nothing to clarify the matter of "what he did" and no explanation at all is found in the entire press release I linked to. You might however want to read this discussion of Ohanian and Cole's claims [uneasymoney.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Ah the Cole and Ohanian paper again, but with an extra heaping of customized unhinged exaggeration ("and that's likely an under estimate as it comes from UCLA"). Since the legislation was signed in June 1933, three months after FDR entered office (March 4 in those days), and the Great Depression did in fact end no later than June 1940 when the US per capita GDP had recovered to its pre-depression level (the NBER, who is the semi-official self-designated shot-caller for recessions places it much earlier, but there are good reasons to disregard their definition). I guess since the paper is from UCLA economists he believes FDR actually signed the legislation before he took office perhaps.
Gee how might that happen ?
Hoover did not stand idly by after the depression began. To fight the rapidly worsening depression, Hoover extended the size and scope of the federal government in six major areas: (1) federal spending, (2) agriculture, (3) wage policy, (4) immigration, (5) international trade, and (6) tax policy.
https://www.econlib.org/librar... [econlib.org]
What do you know they had virtually the same policies.
You'd hit a lot harder if you actually knew your history, points for trying to slip that by though
Re: (Score:2)
You should learn to read
Economists today, however, hold a different view of the effects of Smoot-Hawley. While economic historians generally believe the tariff was misguided and may have aggravated the economic crisis, the consensus appears to relegate it to a minor status relative to other forces.
Re:Finally, but they need multiple (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it be unconstitutional?
1. Import-Export Clause of The US Constitution [wikipedia.org]
2. Tax and Spending Clause of the US Constitution [wikipedia.org]
States can't collect tariffs, can't tax based on origin, and can't have their own foreign policies.
Nothing illegal about that.
Bullcrap.
Before you continue arguing for tossing out these constitutional clauses, because, hey, Jerry Brown is a great guy, you should consider that they could then be abused by your opponents as well. If California can have their own foreign policy, then why not Texas and Oklahoma?
The Constitution was well thought out and well written. We water it down at our peril.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It has NOTHING to do with location other than the CO2 that emits from there.
This is a direct violation of the WTO membership treaty signed by the US. Tariffs can't discriminate on "process and production methods".
Nations do it ALL THE TIME.
California is not a nation.
Re: (Score:2)
> It really takes a special kind of person to consider an old document
No. You are just an arrogant moron with no sense of history and a high opinion of himself just because of the year you were born in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have just described the entire United States Defense budget since 1950, which probably adds up to over $50 trillion squandered, and nothing but misery around the world to show for it. And some very wealthy defense contractors, of course.
At least when California does a public works project, people get some jobs and there isn't a body count in the 100s of thousands.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is needed is multiple like OCO2/OCO3. Then monitor around the world. Seriously, a number of nations cheat. With the sats, it will be possible to find out which ones. Ideally, CA will tax consumed goods/.services based on which nation/state the worst sub-part/service comes from
There are many reasons to go into space: To gain new knowledge, to help our ships at sea steer a safer course, to explore and learn new techniques of mapping and observation, to discover new tools of science and medicine, to expand the furthest outposts on the new frontier, for the growth of science and education.
Some may go to space not because it is easy, but because it is hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one they ar
Re: Finally, but they need multiple (Score:2)
Most likely the satellite will be hovering over CA taking pictures for "citizen watch projects".
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly possible for California to design a satellite and pay someone for launch and ground station support services. But I don't see any definition of what they actually expect the satellite to do that couldn't be done cheaper, more easily, and more flexibly with sensor packages mounted on scheduled airliners flying between the state's numerous major airports or black boxes mounted in CHP vehicles.
Frankly, I can't see a lot of evidence that the folks in California have the slightest idea what they
Re: (Score:2)
He's termed out. Gavin Newsom will be elected in November. And if you think Brown is bad, wait til you see Newsom!
Re: (Score:2)
America is reducing it's CO2 faster than anyone else despite your hate-on for the country.
This is despite the mindless hysterics over leaving the Paris agreement.
Now if we are "importing more CO2" then it hardly makes any sense to let China off the hook. Now does it?
Re: Hey politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
Remote sensing does a lot for everyone, including poor people. At last count 10 people were dead from tropical storm Florence. But we've known for days exactly where it was going to hit and when. Imagine what it would be like if the first indication was hours instead of days in advance.
That's what it was like when I was a kid, Nobody had maps showing that a tropical depression over by the Azores was going to hit North Carolina five days from now as a major hurricane,
So it turns out knowledge is actually valuable in practical ways to ordinary people. It's not some kind of luxury just for namby-pamby smart people.
Re: Hey politicians (Score:2)
We had weather bouys and observation stations before we had satellites. We've been able to predict and warn about hurricanes days in advance for a really long time (mid-1800s) so unless you're Dorian Grey you should have known about hurricanes and even tropical storms days in advance all your life.
What has changed is people's attitude and fear of these events. I remember playing in the living room and seeing a neighbors' gutter flying by when my parents brought us up to the second floor. I remember flooding
Re: (Score:2)
And they didn't work very well by modern standards. It's simply not possible to get a comprehensive view of an ocean area that's tens of millions of square miles in extent with buoys. You can't really piece together an accurate picture of a storm's track unless you have an extensive network of densely located stations.
The reason we don't do it that way is that satellites are cheaper.
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Informative)
Fuel consumption on a Falcon 9 (surely their launch vehicle of choice) is equivalent to ~70 typical diesel cars (8l/100km) driving a typical 20k km/year for 1 year.
E.g., not a tiny amount of emissions, but not some vast amount either.
Re: (Score:3)
Whaa, your diesel's consume 8L/100km? I know people who had petrol cars more efficient than that who switched to diesel due to petrol's inefficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he was using Volkswagen diesel mileage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Water vapor is a very effective greenhouse gas, far more effective than CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how he thinks water vapor is a gas of any kind :)
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash (Score:2)
CO2 isn't pollution either.
For pollution see all the stuff that is man-made that has been introduced into the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
So while you're correct, that ball was still foul as fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:satellite (Score:5, Funny)
There are three stages (Score:2)
1. Post WW2 when veterans decided California was nicer than [insert where they came from here].
2. When a ton of people descended upon California during and after "the Summer of Love" aka hippie invasion.
3. The state and federal governments screwing up immigration epically.
Add in the "food pyramid" effect - basically the bottom of society is a lot larger than the top.
Re: (Score:2)
California is the 8th largest economy on this planet.
You think a couple hundred million dollars is going to dent a state with a domestic product measured in trillions?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the most stupid two non-arguments ever on that subject.
Re: (Score:2)
I like visiting certain parts of California, but there's no way I'd ever live there, because the government is WAY too irrational.
And yet you live in the USA.