California is known by many as being among the few crowning achievements of progressivist ideological hotspots. From the glistening, foggy city of San Francisco welcoming and thriving in a culture of shared immigrational ethnic backgrounds to the entertainment flame bubble that is Los Angeles, California has built quite a cultural reputation for itself. Even outside California’s financial contributions to the United States economy, the “cultural voice” can be heard loud and clear as a burgeoning fire of activism for social change. This all is to say though, for all its contributions to progressive ideologies, has California actually been acting on that voice, that identity, in a practical way?
If it’s one thing California is associated with, progressively speaking, it’s the fixation on environmentalism. From the state’s heavy restrictions of plastic bag usage in shopping centers to the very interesting “Senate Bill 100” that passed, stating that all electricity in California would hopefully become solar and wind-powered by the year 2045, it is very clear that California has an identity that it wants to upkeep. Nevertheless, I feel the need to pose the question: What is California’s actual impact? What use are the plastic bag restrictions when 4,000 metric tons of microfibers polluted the environment when we washed our clothes in the year 2019 alone? What use is the advent of Tesla’s electric cars when the pollution from the batteries is nearly as bad? What use is our timber harvesting restrictions when we import clear-cut trees from other countries?
Starting with Timber, California, in all its efforts, has imposed severe restrictions on timber cutting companies. However, something California has in its efforts failed to realize is that more trees don’t necessarily always mean better. Of course, abhorrent practices such as clear-cutting (even this harvest method can sometimes serve a purpose) and allowing for diseased trees to fester should always be avoided, but timber companies actually can serve an environmental purpose. When applied correctly, timber companies can help to filter out unneeded trees, invasive species, and provide controlled burns to help both remove fire-hazardous biomaterial and help to maintain plant diversity. However, when a state places severe restrictions on timber companies’ ability to harvest effectively, (in relation to controlled selective logging, not clear-cutting) not only do unnecessary trees fester and cause more wildfires, but this practice actually ENCOURAGES timber companies to import trees from areas of the world with little to no clear cut restrictions AT ALL. An example of this comes from a report from an Earth Island Journal entry written by Elisa Adler, which states that northern California loggers took their businesses down south to the Sierra San Pedro Martir forests down by Mexico as a result of restrictive California regulations. Although environmentalists were able to successfully suspend roadwork there, loggers to this day are still adamant about having access to the Sierra San Pedro Martir national parks. If they’re to succeed, their logging clear cuts would cause irreparable damage as a result of California’s abstinence approach to environmental regulation.
Of course, we shouldn’t plan on advocating letting timber companies get a free pass since “the policies are bad”; we should hold any business accountable that sacrifices the well-being of not only the planet but the wildlife of other nations for its top dollar. What should be emphasized is regulating tree usage responsibly, and not creating an import economy that can destroy the environment even more than it would otherwise.
Moving on, when fellow Californians think about their response to our plastic bag usage, the biggest thing that comes to mind is most likely the restrictions placed on grocery store plastic bags, or the switch from plastic straws to paper ones. Sometimes areas of California will place an extra cost on the option of a plastic bag, while others will simply not allow for the use of plastic bags at all. That being said, the switch of our usage from plastic to paper might not have the intended consequences we’d think they would. While the paper itself is biodegradable, the actual paper bags themselves take more energy to produce than plastic bags. Yet, all of this is to say, are the plastic bags even necessarily the biggest producer of plastic we should be keeping our eyes on?
We should look more at our plastic bottles, as plastic bottle waste makes up about 75% of all plastic container waste, courtesy of national geographic. Throughout practically every store, we can see entire isles filled up with all assortments and colors of drinks of all kinds… all a plastic wonderland. From the Gatorade we drink to the simple 24 packs of water bottles lining the shelves, we have just as big enemies to combat if we want our Earth to remain sustainable. Microbeads from our bodywash fill the oceans, the very clothes that we wear pile up in the dumpsters of our own plastic vanity. It's sure to say that the plastic enemy that California must face is much bigger than it realizes.
Lastly speaking, California has spoken on its lofty goal of having all power become solar and wind-powered by the year 2045, lofty intentions to be sure. Nevertheless, are solar panels and wind turbines really the oasis we should be striving for? Solar Panels, as they exist in 2021, are beneficial to an investors wallet, as well as the environment in the short term, but what are we to do about the Solar waste? As much of a surprise as it is, Solar panels need the harvesting of lots of irreplaceable precious metals, and over time they become broken. A study reported from HBR.org states that 315,000 metric tons of waste will be produced by residential solar panels alone over a thirty-year period at the rate at which they break down. This is a shockingly large number. For comparison, the RMS Titanic, the British cruise liner that sunk in the year 1911, only weighed 40,823 metric tons.
What are we to say also of wind turbines? These are structures that oftentimes have been built without proper hazard control in regards to seismic earthquakes, tsunamis etc…, and they also require seismic amounts of land to build and uphold. Conventional grid systems for wind turbines are often inefficient and rely on intermittent geological forces. Yet, what about alternative solutions, like nuclear energy? Or advancements to make the systems of renewable energy that we have today more effective and less pollutant? Even the “great and almighty” Elon Musk empire Tesla incorporated, a car company started in California, takes immense resources to be able to automate its electric battery engines on a mass production line that they just usually end up importing anyways to save on costs. Once again, instead of taking the necessary sacrifices to ensure that our level of energy sustainability is environmentally conscious, California’s history has shown that it’s more than happy to engage in planet damaging practices so long as it means not getting its own hands dirty.
As a California-born and raised citizen, I’d like to ask: Is California being environmentally conscious, or are we just saying that we are?
Works Cited:
"Groundbreaking study finds 13.3 quadrillion plastic fibers in California's environment; Exclusive: report reveals as many microfibers as there are stars in the Milky Way -- and they can easily enter oceans and waterways." Guardian [London, England], 16 Oct. 2020, p. NA. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A638607473/OVIC?u=san25259&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=b5bec6f5. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021.
Schulte, Robert H., and Fredric C. Fletcher. “100% Clean Energy: The California Conundrum.” Electricity Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, Mar. 2019, pp. 31–36. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.tej.2019.01.010.
Santarpio, Christina Marshall. “Save the Plastic Bags?: How the California Supreme Court Weakened Environmental Impact Report Requirements in an Attempt to Protect the Environment.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, vol. 39, July 2012, pp. 97–110. EBSCOhost, search-ebscohost-com.cuesta.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=90537148&site=ehost-live.
Adler, Elisa. “US Timber Giants Head South.” Earth Island Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, Fall 1996, p. 16. EBSCOhost, search-ebscohost-com.cuesta.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9610314184&site=ehost-live.
Cook, Bill. “Timber Harvest Methods.” MSU Extension, Michigan State University, 2 Oct. 2018, https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/timber_harvest_methods.
Jessica Mendoza Staff writer. “As Wildfires Challenge California, the Causes Go beyond Climate.” Christian Science Monitor, July 2016, p. N.PAG. EBSCOhost, search-ebscohost-com.cuesta.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=116605005&site=ehost-live.
Parker, Laura. “How the Plastic Bottle Went from Miracle Container to Hated Garbage.” Environment, National Geographic, 3 May 2021, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plastic-bottles.
Bhattacharya, Subhamoy, et al. “Seismic Design of Offshore Wind Turbines: Good, Bad and Unknowns.” Energies (19961073), vol. 14, no. 12, June 2021, p. 3496. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3390/en14123496.
Mumtaz, Sidra, et al. "Indirect adaptive soft computing based wavelet-embedded control paradigms for WT/PV/SOFC in a grid/charging station connected hybrid power system." PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 9, 6 Sept. 2017, p. e0183750. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A503586474/OVIC?u=san25259&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=2925e71c. Accessed 31 Dec. 2021.
Cook, Bill. “Timber Harvest Methods.” MSU Extension, Michigan State University, 2 Oct. 2018, https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/timber_harvest_methods.
Images:
Article Photo: courtesy of Unsplash photographer: Simon Berger https://unsplash.com/@8moments.
