So the people that believe evolution is the only solution for Earth's diversity of life, will not describe an actual evolutionary process as such?

The net effect of this plan is obvious: no property insurance that isn't provided by the state.

No private provider will operate in California if they are required to take on too much risk. Therefore, insurers will remove themselves from that market. Eventually, there will be none (or just one that can be prosecuted as a monopoly) and the state will be the only "insurer." The total cost of ownership increases and only the rich will be able to afford both property & protection.

California has figured out how to socialize an industry without saying they will.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power."
-George Orwell, 1984

Explains why government employees are so high on the list.

Guess what? I did, too, and you're wrong.

If I've learned anything about government, it will always push past any legal limits placed on it, accruing more and more authority simply because there is no agency (in any gov, not just the US) that is willing to push back hard enough against the people that approve their paycheck, and no other medium of legal enforcement against the government. Who watches the watchers? The US is best only because we have hard limits (stemming from the constitution) and public approval/denial (votes) that can be used to apply political, if not legal, pressure.

You can't defeat your enemy by becoming them. You can't obey your way out of slavery.

So, for the record: the first attempt on a presidential candidate in 50+ years (Wallace, 1972) does not merit the Slashdot front page. But his left-leaning opponent dropping out due to party pressure does.

Typical vague terms from an alarmist.

1: The chart supporting that headline is percentages. The same image shows peak hours in the evening (around 8:30 pm). Even in CA, you're not getting much useful solar after 5-6 pm due to elevation, and nothing after 8:30 pm (hmm?). Whereas, net zero demand from this article was around 1 pm. Solar doesn't help during the periods of highest demand.
2: Wind is always blowing: true. Wind blowing where you can setup (either practically or legally) a wind generator: mostly used up in the nations that are trying. Off-shore will never happen because it would still be within sight of the beach properties. Interestingly, normally owned by people that agree with you (NIMBYism).
3: Storage will never be efficient enough. The best "batteries" for municipal storage are the hydro solutions: dams and water batteries (pumping water from low to high and then letting it flow for generation). See point 2 about why those aren't being built. Every other tech is running into material or lifespan issue, or is still "in development." And none of these are solutions unless you can generate more than 100% of demand every day, without fail.
4: "Willing to spend money..." People who talk like this are never serious, because they won't say how much. You are discussing billions, potentially trillions, of US Dollars in upgrades nationally. For the proposals from those holding your position, we're talking a significant portion of our yearly GDP. You would have to tax every person nearly 100% to cover it. Good luck getting that approved in the state people can barely afford to live in.
5: Government regulation: CA is currently making it unaffordable to install home solar. The power companies for the state received approval to change their rates for home installs (Net Metering 3.0), to the point that anyone who didn't finish before the end of last year cannot break even over the equipment's lifetime. Again, these are people that agree with you.

Nuclear is the best option if you want "green" energy for mass usage. Come join us in Reality.

I'm betting it's even more about the kids filming teachers. Can't let the people with authority be seen abusing it.

And the withdrawal was apparently a good thing.

According to the 2020 (end of Trump's term, but pre-covid data) and 2022 UN reports:

The US was the only single country to show a decrease in emissions over 10 years in the 2020 report (page 5). The only measurement that beat us was ALL of the EU being averaged. Brazil was not included in this report and has some concerning spikes in the other, but good luck finding a hard number.

Over 20 years, the US has dropped our per capita by almost 20%. China more than doubled over the same period. 2020 page 6, 2022 page 8

"China emits more than one-quarter of global GHG emissions and has per capita emissions that are around 40 per cent above the global average." Now consider that they have more than 4 times the US population.

There is no way to meet your crazy goals if China doesn't try. And being beholden to foreign governments when we are meeting our goals and they aren't is ridiculous.

https://www.unep.org/emissions...
https://www.unep.org/resources...

"As warming waters devastate coral around the world"

Somebody could do with a dose of skepticism: https://www.aol.com/great-barr...

Yes, I understand this acts like a single data point (the Great Barrier Reef is actually multiple reefs, but whatever), but the GBR has always been used as The Exemplar for reef decay. If it is a good example for one side, the other side can claim the same.

Of course the state with the biggest separation and amount of income disparity is forcing expensive purchases. Let's make the poor buy more expensive used vehicles (a used Tesla is about 2x comparable cars) that need $15,000 replacements within 2 years of purchase, while ignoring that they are the group most in need of budget-minded, individual-use vehicles since they can't afford to live near enough their work to use public transport. I'd like to own a Tesla. But while I can just afford a house in CA, I can't afford an electric vehicle that meets my needs. That's how far ahead of the market these "green" policies are.