Both features of Californian life helped forge the state’s fondness for environmental rule-making. In 1947, four years after a series of smog attacks in Los Angeles, Governor Earl Warren signed America’s first statewide air-protection law. Two decades later a catastrophic oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast helped give birth to the modern environmental movement, leading, among other things, to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), approved by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1970.
Over the decades California’s green rules have inspired other states, and even the federal government, to follow. That urge to blaze trails remains strong. In 2006 Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose passion for climate policy was matched only by his love of Hummers, signed AB32, which required a cut in greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. He fought hard for similar federal action. His successor, Jerry Brown, recently urged a meeting of his fellow governors to follow California’s lead.
AB32 has several elements. The most prominent is a cap-and-trade scheme, the world’s second-largest after the EU’s, for substantial emitters of greenhouse gases (mainly large industrial producers). The system, which began on January 1st, will progress through three phases, gradually expanding its reach, lowering the carbon cap and auctioning (not giving away) a growing proportion of emissions permits.
The two auctions so far have gone well. More “non-compliance entities” (financial institutions and the like) are buying allowances, which should lead to a robust secondary market. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which oversees AB32, has seen off one lawsuit, from the left, which challenged the right of polluters to buy carbon offsets. (A second, from the right, elements of which think all the allowances should be given away, not auctioned, still looms.)
From the beginning CARB has presented its scheme as a model for others. Quebec will join later this year, and there are hopes for other western states. Prospects for federal action look dimmer. A cap-and-trade bill (co-authored by a Californian congressman) died in the Senate in 2009. In February Barack Obama urged Congress to try again. But, as he knows well, a Republican House will not back major new climate laws. For the next two years at least, Mr Obama will have to pursue his aspirations through the Environmental Protection Agency. Still, Mary Nichols, the head of CARB, thinks EPA regulation could make California-style carbon pricing start to look attractive to other states.
Cap-and-trade grabs headlines, but making cars cleaner is perhaps where California’s influence is strongest. In 2002 California passed a law requiring carmakers to slash vehicle emissions. Thirteen states said they would follow suit. Worried about the emerging patchwork of rules, in 2009 manufacturers agreed to higher national fuel-efficiency standards. Using such “bottom-up” tactics to motivate industry, says Daniel Sperling, of the University of California, Davis, has been a deliberate strategy of environmentalists.
If so, they have some work to do on another component of AB32. The low-carbon fuel standard (another Californian first), which says that the “carbon intensity” of transport fuels must fall by 10% by 2020, has the oil industry fuming: Chevron calls it “unworkable”. Yet Oregon and British Columbia have passed similar rules, and Washington state and several north-eastern states may follow.
The final big piece of the jigsaw is renewable energy, which under AB32 must provide one-third of California’s electricity by 2020. On March 13th, announcing plans for two large federal solar projects in the Californian desert, Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, called this “the most robust renewable-energy programme probably in the history of the world” and called for a similar national standard.
Such worries as there are focus on implementation or details. Some clean-energy executives, for example, worry that environmental rules change too often and may clash. By far the fiercest debate, however, is over CEQA. For years business groups and some politicians have grumbled that the law makes it far too easy for development projects to be held up by NIMBYs or, worse, business rivals. Horror stories abound; a favourite example of campaigners is the petrol-station owner in San Jose whose expansion plans were stymied when a nearby competitor filed a CEQA lawsuit citing his traffic concerns.
Reformers insist they want to “modernise” CEQA, not ditch it. On March 12th their opponents—unions and NGOs, mainly—rallied in Sacramento, the state capital, to defend the law. The debate is coming to a crunch. Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the state Senate, recently issued a proposal for CEQA reform that had the curious feature of apparently upsetting nobody. That will change as the details are filled in; and with the support of Mr Brown, who has described CEQA reform as “the Lord’s work”, campaigners are optimistic they will find satisfaction this year.
CEQA is a law of conservation, designed to protect sensitive habitats from the incursions of modern industrial living. Newer rules, such as AB32, require a different approach: investment, new technologies and development projects. (Some green projects have even fallen victim to CEQA lawsuits.) It is this way of thinking that now thrives in California, and that the state wants to impress upon the world.
(From the Economist.)
11 comments:
California is taking a robust attempt at diminishing green house gases. It seems that they are thinking in the right direction, but are insure of how to go about eliminating this horrifying gas. The CEQA to me sounds like the better option, which helps to protect sensitive habitats from the incursions of modern industrial living. We need to protect our environment as well as reduce carbon emissions. We cannot just put up millions of wind turbines and plaster millions of solar panels everywhere if it affects those habitants on the earth. We need to find better ways on how to satisfy both of these issues and at least California is debating about unlike the rest of the world. It is good to see that California because of the states beauty is heading in the right direction. This is excellent because if California can take strides then the other states and eventually the rest of the world would be able to follow. My only skepticism is that renewable energy is not ready for the lime light. It will be very difficult to have one third of California’s energy produced by solar panels or wind turbines by 2020. To me 7 years is not enough time to develop this technology to where we can use it for mass energy production. Only time will tell if we are able to do this. If we can do this without harming other wildlife that would be the most ideal solution and also we need to think about space efficiency. We cannot afford to cover a large part of our earth with solar panels because it would require heavy maintenance and would dramatically affect wildlife. I am glad that California is thinking and doing something about this scary issue, the federal government as well as the rest of the world should put this on the forefront and find a solution.
Nicholas Brodeur
Pace University
California is taking robust attempts at diminishing its carbon emissions. The article uses LA as an example, it is a city where you can spend all your day in traffic, yet you are close to the natural world at the same time, it is close to both the Pacific Ocean, and the mountains which border the city. From a glance, it appears California is attempting to go in the right direction in terms of reducing its carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is unsure of how to do so. We are entering a tipping point within society in that we need to make serious changes soon, or our world and climate will be changed forever; some environmental changes are already in effect and becoming permanent. We may feel like we are making changes with the installation of wind turbines, and solar panels, however, they are just a bandaid, as we are not making changes to our lifestyle, we just expect these renewables to fix our problem, but they will only work for so long until we actually change the way we live. The CEQA option sounded like the best option, as it protects natural habitats and ecosystems from the dangers of modern living and subsequent expansion. Natural habitats of animals and subsequent ecosystems should not have to alter or lose their habitat because of humans materialistic lifestyles, we should alter our habitat around them so we don't encroach upon them; humans are smart and resourceful, its time we started using these skills to make actual environmental change. It is good to see however that California is on the way to change, the state offers many natural features to be enjoyed and not be lost for future generations. The one thing that does concern me about the potential progress California is attempting to make is that they are basing a lot of their change off renewable energy, expecting it to account for 1/3 of California's energy production by 2020. Renewable energy such as wind turbines and solar are positive options, but they are not that developed in terms of having a firm industry backing, and the government needs to put more weight behind it to make it a more viable option. It can become a more viable option, but seven years is not enough time to really develop the renewable energy sector as it is still in its infancy. It is positive to see a state making such progress towards dropping carbon emissions however, if every state in America became as proactive imagine the positive environmental changes and steps that can be made both in terms of sustainability, and providing future generations with a healthier planet to live on. "Leave only your footprints.."
California is one of the few states in the USA that is really taking climate change seriously. California has been a pioneer in the environmental movement, especially with the creation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970. AB32 seems to be an excellent, but rather ambitious, plan. The cap-and-trade scheme for substantial emitters of greenhouse gases outlined in AB32 is a great idea in theory. However, as we can see from the very similar system adopted by the European Union, it does not seem to be working out very well. Although, maybe some alterations can be made to the California system that could in turn help the EU. It is better to keep trying this cap-and-trade action so that way we can see how the system can be altered in order to prosper and function at its optimum level. The most optimistic and ambitious part of AB32 is the fact that it wants renewable energy to supply California with one third of its electricity by 2020. This is an excellent goal, but it seems unlikely considering renewable energy sources only produces less than one percent of USA energy.
California's green initiative is very strong and inspires many other states to improve their green policies. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970 was the stepping stone to kick off the environmental awareness program present in California. This led to AB32 being signed in 1990 which required a cut in greenhouse gas emissions. These are significant documents that had a type of domino effect in the US. The California Air Resources Board was another influential program instituted which oversees the laws of AB32."California’s high taxes and endless regulations have long earned it a reputation for business-unfriendliness" which means they have been regulating businesses in order to keep the environment healthy. California is doing many things in order to limit their ecological footprint and help with our current ecological problems.
California may want to be leader of a green revolution but its economy is among the weakest in the country. I think that California's efforts may be over ambitions. CEQA causes industries who want to enter into California and provide jobs less incentive to do so. Although creating cleaner more advanced high tech industries is the ultimate goal, California needs to create more balanced public policies and regulations that give industries more incentive to move into California while still being clean. Maybe by lowering the minimum wage without losing AB32 which promotes investment, some give and take is needed.
Although climate change is experienced all over the word, California is one of the several places that experience this "smog" due to the excessive transportation, hot and sunny weather and the topography in that area. Fortunately, they are highly considering new ways to help prevent this ugly smog, which tends to ruin the air quality and view of the wonderful landscapes and city. However, with huge goals, many road blocks tend to come in the way. AB32 is a method focused on decreasing carbon emissions in many different ways and many of those techniques are declined or fought against legally by house representatives and big businesses. Aside from these issues however, the goals of AB32 would be wonderful to pursue. But the next question is how much will these road blocks prevent or slow down the goals of AB32? It is hard to say, but with a goal to reach 1/3 of energy production to be produced by renewable energy is a major commitment. In addition, it is hard to determine how the economy will be affected from these changes. Although I am all for renewable energy, 1/3 of all of California's energy coming from these sources by the next 7 years is a tremendous change and may put a hefty burden on the economy during this time. It will be interesting to see the progress that this state makes by 2020. Hopefully they will succeed with their goals and encourage other states to do the same and even more.
California is setting a good example of how they are moving into a green economy by implementing more green policies, like through the CEQA act, which protects the environment from what the author calls “modern industrial living.” I believe that this act has the right ideas because we have seen that in many of the cases, the very reason for environmental degradation is the uprising of the industrial world. People are putting aside nature and its beauty for what they now believe is even more beautiful, which happens to be more material things such as latest technology and making money. These are the very things that pollute and harm the environment through the process of being made and transported all over the world. Nowadays everybody and anybody drives a car and that is why traffic and noise pollution and destruction of landscapes for highways are becoming more and more, and I feel that this act at least tries to protect some of the environment from being damaged even more by cars and carbon emissions.
California is setting a good example for making changes especially during vast climate changes. However even though they are moving in the right direction I doubt these environmental changes and regulations will continue to work effectively. The article stresses the traffic problem in CA, but people will not trade a car for a bike and people will especially in CA will not switch to public transportation since its not as organized as say in nyc. Yes, the government in taking action to this pollution problem but in reality technology will out win in most situations. Having lived in the tri-state area all my life, being surrounded by constant traffic, factories, active business. and what is known as the concrete jungle, I can not imagine these California type regulations being implemented in our area at least for now....
Alexandria Kolodko
Tania Leal
I'm surprised that only one state is taking initiative to eliminating climate change. With recent events and many examples in the news having to do with the weather, you could assume more of the eastern side of the states would be less reluctant to hesitate on greener laws.
What should be noticed is that many are going the way of greener business so competition should not be a fear and instead begin the revolution of being the start of something that could be profitable.
Nowadays, most smart cars are considered "different-looking" but what if higher end companies began making their own models? Loyal customers might consider buying the greener model if they could have the brand name and save money at the same time.
I for one applaud California's attempts to further enforce the original groundwork laid out by NEPA with their AB32 and CEQA movements. These policies are lain out with the best intentions- to evaluate the environmental impact of our attentions and discern which are truly in the best interest of the public. However, it is difficult to discern the difference between those who impede progress because it is detrimental to the natural world and those who are throwing up roadblocks because it is in their own best interests to do so. These pieces of legislation are crucial because they temper our (sometimes) lofty business ambitions, but must also be viewed with a lens that takes into account the spirit of the law and not only the word of the law. These laws are designed to "green" our practices, but can cause grief if applied in the wrong manner. As a society we must evaluate our practices in terms of their inherent rightness so that we can continue to reform as time elapses. I agree with setting limits and changes that occur gradually so that we can update our technology and practices as the rest of the world does, but also keep in the back of our minds the fact that our actions will always have consequences- if not now, then for others or our ecosystems.
I agree that california is setting a great example by implementing these policies. These are the initiatives that other states and even countries should take. I recently recall reading an article that discussed how Switzerland is so green, and are so efficient in terms of recycling, they need to import garbage from norway in order to burn and produce energy. I feel like the standards set in california are those that the rest of the states follow years later. If i recall correctly, California actually has higher and earlier targets for the CAFE emissions. The regulations are a great way to decrease carbon emissions and also decrease our reliance on gasoline vehicles. Europe may not have these standards, but the price of gasoline there is more than double ours, which makes people self conscious about the vehicles they drive. Because we don't have prices like europe, we need cafe standards to encourage carmakers to produce more efficient vehicles, and consumers to purchase less gas-reliant vehicles.
Post a Comment