We have no reason to think that CLIMATE change is harmful if you look at the world as a WHOLE. Most places, in fact, are BETTER off being warmer than being colder. And historically, the really bad times for the environment and for PEOPLE have been the cold periods rather than the warm periods.
Hydroelectric dams remain the way many poor countries gain access to reliable electricity, and both solar and WIND MIGHT be worthwhile in some CIRCUMSTANCES. But there is nothing in either their history or their physical attributes that suggests solar and wind in particular could or should be the centerpiece of efforts to deal with climate change.
I have run large organizations, I know what it takes to CREATE a healthy BUSINESS climate, and I have more EXPERIENCE than Jerry Brown doing that. So it'll be a stark contrast, a career politician vs. someone who has met a payroll, gotten a return on INVESTMENT, knows how to use technology to do more with less.
Once you digitize data, you can actually analyze patterns and RELATIONSHIPS in geographic SPACE - relationships between certain health patterns and air or water POLLUTION, between plants and CLIMATE, soils, landscape.
The CLIMATE ISSUE is for the STATE. It is an OBLIGATION for all GOVERNMENTS.
Climate change is not an excuse for the EPA to ignore the bounds of law and ISSUE ILLEGAL regulations that will COST jobs, shutter INDUSTRIES, and have little to no positive impact on the environment.