Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed two high-profile anti-climate change bills — Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 — which double down on California’s already aggressive environmental efforts despite the fact that they aren’t working as planned. According to a recent report from the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Hass School of Business, the state’s “cap-and-trade program thus far has been a disappointment.” Examining carbon dioxide emissions reductions shows California not performing any better than the rest of the country.

Between 2000 and 2013, California’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions fell, on average, 1.5 percent per year, nearly identical to the 1.4 percent per year reduction for the other 49 states. If we just look at 2012 and 2013 — the years California’s signature AB32 cap-and-trade system has been in effect — the news is even worse; California’s emissions increase averaged 0.2 percent per year, versus a decrease of 1.3 percent for the rest of the country. Regardless of whether you examine emissions in absolute, per capita or economic intensity terms, the other 49 states have accomplished at least as much as California has in emissions reduction, but without the Golden State’s intrusive and costly regulations.

California’s underperformance stems from the state’s energy production becoming more dependent on fossil fuels, not less. Oil, coal and natural gas increased from 47 percent of California’s in-state electricity energy generation in 2011 to 61 percent in 2013. This rise is the result of two factors – California’s devastating drought and California’s anti-nuclear stance, which dropped large hydroelectric and nuclear from a combined 36 percent to 19 percent. Large hydroelectric power generation will ebb and flow with the state’s precipitation patterns; nuclear power’s decline, however, is more concerning.

In 2013, Southern California Edison — after significant pressure — announced that it would permanently close its San Onofre nuclear facility. Shutting down this one facility cut in half nuclear power’s share of in-state electricity generation. Currently, environmentalists are targeting the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility, which, if closed by Pacific Gas & Electric, would effectively eliminate all of California’s nuclear power generation. If California policy treated nuclear power the same as other low-carbon energy sources like solar or wind, it would make nuclear power a viable zero-emission alternative, stabilizing the state’s electricity grid, lowering energy costs for consumers and promoting greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

There are may other examples. Environmental objections to infill development (i.e., developing un-used or underutilized urban spaces) encourage sprawl and discourage mass transportation use. Despite a prolonged and historic drought, their resistance to developing new water resources threatens environmental protection efforts. And the movement’s visceral loathing of hydraulic fracturing ignores the reality that the American natural gas boom has been a key contributor to nationwide emissions reductions.

These are examples of faux environmentalism, which seeks to appear green and demonize those who don’t fall in line, rather than foster actual environmental progress. As long as faux environmentalism persists in California, policies like SB32 will struggle to achieve effective and efficient long-lasting green successes.

Carson Bruno is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution studying California politics and policy. Follow him on Twitter @CarsonJFBruno.