![]() Gavin Newsom “vetoed a bill to establish a water rate assistance program, citing no identified funding source.” And if you’re looking for additional relief from high water bills, tough luck - CalMatters reporter Rachel Becker notes on Twitter that Gov. If you’re a Los Angeles resident looking for more ways to cut back, and you live in a single-family home, you can now buy a device that tracks your water use in real time for just $24, a steep discount, Alexandra E. And while homes and farms alike have been forced to conserve, the lack of water has had its harshest consequences on California’s rivers and streams, and on the fish and other wildlife they support, Smith writes. 30, and officials say the state’s last three cycles around the sun were its driest since recordkeeping began in 1896, my colleague Hayley Smith reports. Remember from 2013 through 2015, when California had its three driest years on record? Well, that record didn’t last long. ![]() In other words, as long as they build on the surrounding public lands. Tapping into those lines is often the cheapest way for solar and wind developers to ship electricity to urban customers - as long as they build projects close enough to connect. Many of those lines were built across public lands - and now they have spare capacity as coal plants shut down. One possible reason, Mulvaney said, is the existence of long-distance power lines that previously carried coal power to L.A. But he also pointed to the reality that solar and wind energy developers are constantly looking to build projects on public lands, including some of the highest-quality habitat left in the West - despite the opposition they often face from conservationists, and the seemingly not-so-high costs of building elsewhere. It’s a big deal, she said, because it means voters and politicians don’t have to choose between climate action and biodiversity.ĭustin Mulvaney, an environmental studies professor at San Jose State University who has collaborated previously with the Nature Conservancy, told me he was encouraged by the new study’s findings. ![]() Nicole Hill, the Nature Conservancy’s project manager, told me she was “genuinely surprised” the cost difference was so small. The overall cost would be $268 billion through 2050 - just 3% higher than the estimated $260-billion price tag without the additional land constraints. Under those limits, the West could meet its clean power needs with just 21 million acres of solar, wind and other zero-carbon resources. This time, the models spat out substantially different results. So the Nature Conservancy ran the models again, this time blocking renewable energy development in many other areas - including wetlands, critical habitat for endangered species and other lands identified by Nature Conservancy scientists as valuable for wildlife and humans, such as migration corridors and the best agricultural soils. But that finding assumed the only places off-limits to solar and wind farms were areas already protected by law, such as national parks and wildlife refuges. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |