API says California is "energy rich, decision poor"; should follow Texas's example

[wtmusic]

[div style="float: left; padding-right: 12px;"]

"...His (Jerry Brown's) party remains obliged to powerful environmental interests that have blocked development, largely through scare tactics designed to generate public doubt and fear. The same influences are at work in New York.

The fact is our industry is subject to federal environmental standards, contrary to suggestions otherwise (debunked in detail here). At the same time energy-producing states have strong, efficient regulatory regimes in place, tailored for each state’s geology, hydrology and other characteristics. And they’re doing a good job, which federal officials acknowledge.

It’s time for California, New York and perhaps other states to make energy policy decisions based on fact. Both states have vast oil and natural gas reserves that could put residents to work in good jobs and stimulate their economies. The energy-jobs-economy model that's working in Texas, Pennsylvania, North Dakota and other states can work elsewhere, too."

http://theenergycollective.com/mark-green/222031/energy-rich-decision-poor?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

Thanks for advice on how we can become more like Texas.

[AndyTiedye]

1. Cough

[FBaggins]

3. Is that really a comparison you want to make?

Aren't most of the top ten worst cities for air pollution (in the US) in California (and none in Texas)?

[CreekDog]

5. Oh are you saying California's environmental laws aren't as good as Texas'?

or are you saying the California approach doesn't work as well as in Texas?

come on, come on, tell us what your point is.

[FBaggins]

7. Nope.

Note that I replied to AndyTiedye and not the OP?

come on, come on, tell us what your point is.

I thought it was pretty clear. But I can spell it out for you:

If you check the American Lung Association's 2013 ratings for most-polluted cities, you'll see only three TX cities in the top 25 for ozone, and none make the list for year-round or short-term particle pollution. CA, OTOH, has the top 6 (and 11 of the top 25) for Ozone, 8 of the top 10 for year-round particle pollution, and the top 5 (and 9 of the top 25) for short-term particle pollution.

So let's try again:

When making the (valid) point that you would rather live with CA's environmental record than TX's... using a photo of air polution/smog over Dallas is a mistake. While Dallas is the worst in TX... it doesn't hold a candle to cities in CA. Thus it isn't a good way to illustrate the point. How about...

Better now?

[cprise]

8. I for one have no illusions

...that CA environmental policy (like CAFE) is mostly a reaction to the pollution that you cite.

FWIW, I think it would be more instructive to compare pollution around the Gulf of Mexico to California... and not just air quality.

[muntrv]

2. 3 words: DEEP WATER HORIZON.

[XemaSab]

4. We already produce massive amounts of oil and gas

Fracking and additional offshore drilling are not the solution.

[limpyhobbler]

6. The American Crack Institute recommends you should spend all your money on crack.

seems legit

(-norm MacDonald said that I think)