Global Warming Bill Passes California Legislature; Public Health Benefits
August 31, 2006 Thursday 12:51 AM Eastern Time
SACRAMENTO, Calif. Aug. 31
The California Legislature passed AB 32 (Nunez/Pavley) today, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The American Lung Association of California applauds this action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of the serious health impacts of global warming.
Numerous studies indicate that increased emissions of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, as well as elevated smog levels that accompany hotter temperatures will only make health conditions worse. "By passing this bill, we are preventing death and disease from air pollution-caused illnesses, particularly for those individuals suffering from asthma or other lung diseases, as well as heart disease and vector-borne diseases." said Anthony Gerber, MD, assistant professor of medicine at UCSF, and volunteer with the American Lung Association of California.
California already has the worst air quality in the nation, causing serious health problems, including a significant rise in hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, emergency room visits related to asthma attacks, absences from school due to respiratory conditions, and reduced lung function growth in children. According to the California Air Resources Board, the annual health impacts of exceeding state health- based standards for smog and soot include 8,800 premature deaths, 10,200 hospital admissions for lung and heart disease, 340,000 asthma attacks with 3,000 asthma-related emergency room visits, and 4.7 million school absences due to respiratory conditions, including asthma.
"The worst thing we can do is nothing. If we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, public health will be threatened as evidenced on very hot days when emergency room visits rise," said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, assistant vice president of government relations for of the American Lung Association of California. "It is clear that reducing global warming is a vital clean air and public health strategy." Key statewide health and medical organizations agree and have signed a letter in support of AB 32, and more than 100 health professionals signed a similar petition.
AB 32 will create the nation's first statewide cap on global warming pollution, mandating a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas pollution by 2020, and will establish a tracking system to monitor and enforce compliance with the cap. As evidenced by a recent survey, a majority of California voters believe that California legislators must take measures to reduce the effect of global warming. Additionally, economists find significant job and economic benefits, through the creation of new technologies and new businesses.
This is landmark legislation will not only make a huge contribution to solving the global warming problem, it can also make a big impact on policies and actions throughout the United States and the world. And California residents may all breathe a little easier.
CONTACT: Andy Weisser Vice President Communications American Lung Association of California P.O. Box 16400, Encino, CA 91416-6400 P: 818-703-6444 F: 818-703-6466 http://californialung.org
SOURCE
Monday, December 11, 2006
Industry fights emissions bill
Copyright 2006 Business Press
Business Press (San Bernardino, California)
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service
August 14, 2006 Monday
SECTION: BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL NEWS
ACC-NO: 20060814-BP-EMISSIONS-20060814
LENGTH: 978 words
HEADLINE: Industry fights emissions bill
BYLINE: Corey Washington, The Business Press, San Bernardino, Calif.
BODY:
Aug. 14--Inland Empire manufacturers are joining statewide efforts to defeat proposed legislation that would limit greenhouse gas emissions, which they claim would ramp up production costs.
AB 32, authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, believed to be a contributing factor in global warming. The legislation, also called the Global Warming Solutions Act, is similar to the Kyoto Accord, an international treaty that places limits on greenhouse gas emissions among companies in more than 163 countries. The state would become the first in the U.S. to adopt such a measure. .
The Global Warming Solutions Act would require greenhouse emissions decrease to 1990 levels by 2020, or more than 16 percent, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
AB 32 was passed by the state Assembly April 11 and the state Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved the bill June 26. The bill requires approval by the full Senate and Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger has advocated measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Last year, Schwarzenegger signed an executive order to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and 1990 levels by 2020, similar to AB 32.
Manufacturers are concerned the passage of AB 32 would jack up energy costs and equipment expenses that control or monitor their greenhouse gas emissions.
California Steel Industries in Fontana, a steel-products manufacturer, believes the company "embraces" environmental concerns and takes sufficient measures to control any emissions its facility produces, said Brett Guge, vice president of administration. However, AB 32 has not "scientifically proven" any standards the state adopts would actually curb global warming, he said.
"We're constantly monitoring everything from an environmental standpoint," Guge said.
"At this time, there is nothing that limits us or requires any reporting. We are [only] required to report fuel consumption, which can be converted into greenhouse gas emissions," with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guge said.
The immediate impact of AB 32 is exorbitant energy costs that support the facility's production, Guge said. The bill could cut into the company's profits and significantly affect its employee profit sharing program, he said.
Though Guge is convinced AB 32 could harm California Steel Industries' finances, the company has not performed any cost analysis, he said.
If greenhouse gases "are the cause of global warming, I think a lot of manufacturers would say we need to do something about it, but that has not been the case. One state going in alone doesn't change anything because the manufacturers will move into another state--you've just reduced jobs in California," Guge said.
Guge does not foresee California Steel Industries shifting its operations to another state.
"We will do the right thing. It is just that the right thing hasn't been defined," Guge said.
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association in Sacramento believes AB 32 threatens an industry that generates $250 billion a year in revenue and provides about 1.5 million jobs.
The association believes a thorough study should be compiled and presented before AB 32 is accepted, said Gino Dicaro, spokesman for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
"California is the most efficient industrialized state. [AB 32] shouldn't start in California only, it should start as a national policy to reduce the country's greenhouse gases. If California does anything on its own, there should be an economic safety valve to look at the data after one or two years to see what actual efficiencies we're gaining and how many jobs we're losing. If we do that, we'll be protected from a situation where we gain nothing for limited reductions in global warming," Dicaro said.
The state produced the lowest greenhouse gas emissions among industrialized states in 2000, averaging 10.7 tons per capita, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Indiana produced the highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions with 38.5 tons per capita.
AB 32 would fail to reduce global warming because many other states would not adopt a measure that targets an entire industry and disrupt their economy, Dicaro said.
"There are many arguments out there on both sides of the equation and we're not about to debunk the idea [greenhouse gases] are contributing to global warming," he said.
The Natural Resources Defense Council in New York supports AB 32 and has sponsored the bill since its inception, said Craig Noble, a spokesman at the organization's San Francisco office.
Noble considers manufacturers' fear of losing profits because of AB 32 to be an exaggeration.
Passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act would generate revenue for the state, creating new businesses that are "clean high-tech" and assist existing businesses, Noble claims.
The Climate Action Team, an environmentalists group in Sacramento, compiled a report that suggests the state would gain $4 billion and create 83,000 new jobs if AB 32 could reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The findings were supported by a similar, independent study compiled by University of California at Berkeley.
" In most cases, [environmental initiatives] end up being economic drivers. With AB 32, we expect that if it becomes law, it will spur market change," Noble said.
To see more of The Business Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.thebizpress.com. Copyright (c) 2006, The Business Press, San Bernardino, Calif. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2006
Business Press (San Bernardino, California)
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service
August 14, 2006 Monday
SECTION: BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL NEWS
ACC-NO: 20060814-BP-EMISSIONS-20060814
LENGTH: 978 words
HEADLINE: Industry fights emissions bill
BYLINE: Corey Washington, The Business Press, San Bernardino, Calif.
BODY:
Aug. 14--Inland Empire manufacturers are joining statewide efforts to defeat proposed legislation that would limit greenhouse gas emissions, which they claim would ramp up production costs.
AB 32, authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, believed to be a contributing factor in global warming. The legislation, also called the Global Warming Solutions Act, is similar to the Kyoto Accord, an international treaty that places limits on greenhouse gas emissions among companies in more than 163 countries. The state would become the first in the U.S. to adopt such a measure. .
The Global Warming Solutions Act would require greenhouse emissions decrease to 1990 levels by 2020, or more than 16 percent, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
AB 32 was passed by the state Assembly April 11 and the state Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved the bill June 26. The bill requires approval by the full Senate and Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger has advocated measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Last year, Schwarzenegger signed an executive order to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and 1990 levels by 2020, similar to AB 32.
Manufacturers are concerned the passage of AB 32 would jack up energy costs and equipment expenses that control or monitor their greenhouse gas emissions.
California Steel Industries in Fontana, a steel-products manufacturer, believes the company "embraces" environmental concerns and takes sufficient measures to control any emissions its facility produces, said Brett Guge, vice president of administration. However, AB 32 has not "scientifically proven" any standards the state adopts would actually curb global warming, he said.
"We're constantly monitoring everything from an environmental standpoint," Guge said.
"At this time, there is nothing that limits us or requires any reporting. We are [only] required to report fuel consumption, which can be converted into greenhouse gas emissions," with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guge said.
The immediate impact of AB 32 is exorbitant energy costs that support the facility's production, Guge said. The bill could cut into the company's profits and significantly affect its employee profit sharing program, he said.
Though Guge is convinced AB 32 could harm California Steel Industries' finances, the company has not performed any cost analysis, he said.
If greenhouse gases "are the cause of global warming, I think a lot of manufacturers would say we need to do something about it, but that has not been the case. One state going in alone doesn't change anything because the manufacturers will move into another state--you've just reduced jobs in California," Guge said.
Guge does not foresee California Steel Industries shifting its operations to another state.
"We will do the right thing. It is just that the right thing hasn't been defined," Guge said.
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association in Sacramento believes AB 32 threatens an industry that generates $250 billion a year in revenue and provides about 1.5 million jobs.
The association believes a thorough study should be compiled and presented before AB 32 is accepted, said Gino Dicaro, spokesman for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
"California is the most efficient industrialized state. [AB 32] shouldn't start in California only, it should start as a national policy to reduce the country's greenhouse gases. If California does anything on its own, there should be an economic safety valve to look at the data after one or two years to see what actual efficiencies we're gaining and how many jobs we're losing. If we do that, we'll be protected from a situation where we gain nothing for limited reductions in global warming," Dicaro said.
The state produced the lowest greenhouse gas emissions among industrialized states in 2000, averaging 10.7 tons per capita, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Indiana produced the highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions with 38.5 tons per capita.
AB 32 would fail to reduce global warming because many other states would not adopt a measure that targets an entire industry and disrupt their economy, Dicaro said.
"There are many arguments out there on both sides of the equation and we're not about to debunk the idea [greenhouse gases] are contributing to global warming," he said.
The Natural Resources Defense Council in New York supports AB 32 and has sponsored the bill since its inception, said Craig Noble, a spokesman at the organization's San Francisco office.
Noble considers manufacturers' fear of losing profits because of AB 32 to be an exaggeration.
Passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act would generate revenue for the state, creating new businesses that are "clean high-tech" and assist existing businesses, Noble claims.
The Climate Action Team, an environmentalists group in Sacramento, compiled a report that suggests the state would gain $4 billion and create 83,000 new jobs if AB 32 could reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The findings were supported by a similar, independent study compiled by University of California at Berkeley.
" In most cases, [environmental initiatives] end up being economic drivers. With AB 32, we expect that if it becomes law, it will spur market change," Noble said.
To see more of The Business Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.thebizpress.com. Copyright (c) 2006, The Business Press, San Bernardino, Calif. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2006
California pulls out ahead of the packwith law to reduce greenhouse gases
Copyright 2006 The Morning Call, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
September 4, 2006 Monday
FIFTH EDITION
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 481 words
HEADLINE: California pulls out ahead of the packwith law to reduce greenhouse gases
BYLINE: The Morning Call
BODY:
California emerged last week as the leading state in the nation to address greenhouse gas emissions with legislative approval of caps on carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was ready to sign the California Global Warming Solutions Act -- a signal from a fellow Republican to the Bush administration that limiting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases to voluntary steps only is an insufficient response to climate change.
California's legislation requires major industries, including utility plants, oil and gas refineries, and cement kilns, to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020. However, businesses will be able to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies.
The California Air Resources Board, an 11-member panel appointed by the governor, will identify the "market-based compliance mechanism" that will help the industries comply with the caps. The board will start its work by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases coming from each major pollution source. Regulators then will set limits for each facility and industry, to take effect in 2012, with emissions decreasing in eight years to 1990 levels.
The legislation also prohibits California from entering long-term contracts with out-of-state utilities that don't reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But there is a so-called "safety valve": the governor can delay the mandate on emission caps in case of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or other serious emergency.
California has been of particular interest to environmental groups because the most populated state in the nation also is the world's 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The state previously enacted some renewable energy policies and passed a law in 2004 to reduce tail pipe emissions from vehicles.
Now, California is a model for other states that are frustrated by the inaction of federal officials. There are more than 100 climate-related bills pending in Congress -- stuck in limbo -- calling for a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
California also should be a model for other countries. Though most industrialized countries have ratified the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol for reducing emissions of gases from fossil fuels, with the United States an embarrassing exception, the participating countries aren't doing as well as expected. Reuters reported last week that submissions to the U.N. Climate Secretariat in Bonn showed that emissions from 40 industrial nations rose 1.6 percent overall to 17.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2004, compared to 2003.
That data isn't perfect. It includes Turkey, where emissions are rising, but excludes China and India, two big sources of greenhouse gases. But California's initiative is particularly significant, because the United States is the biggest source of greenhouse gases.
NOTES: Only one edition was published on Monday, September 4, 2006 due to the Labor Day holiday.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2006
All Rights Reserved
Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
September 4, 2006 Monday
FIFTH EDITION
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 481 words
HEADLINE: California pulls out ahead of the packwith law to reduce greenhouse gases
BYLINE: The Morning Call
BODY:
California emerged last week as the leading state in the nation to address greenhouse gas emissions with legislative approval of caps on carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was ready to sign the California Global Warming Solutions Act -- a signal from a fellow Republican to the Bush administration that limiting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases to voluntary steps only is an insufficient response to climate change.
California's legislation requires major industries, including utility plants, oil and gas refineries, and cement kilns, to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020. However, businesses will be able to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies.
The California Air Resources Board, an 11-member panel appointed by the governor, will identify the "market-based compliance mechanism" that will help the industries comply with the caps. The board will start its work by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases coming from each major pollution source. Regulators then will set limits for each facility and industry, to take effect in 2012, with emissions decreasing in eight years to 1990 levels.
The legislation also prohibits California from entering long-term contracts with out-of-state utilities that don't reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But there is a so-called "safety valve": the governor can delay the mandate on emission caps in case of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or other serious emergency.
California has been of particular interest to environmental groups because the most populated state in the nation also is the world's 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The state previously enacted some renewable energy policies and passed a law in 2004 to reduce tail pipe emissions from vehicles.
Now, California is a model for other states that are frustrated by the inaction of federal officials. There are more than 100 climate-related bills pending in Congress -- stuck in limbo -- calling for a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
California also should be a model for other countries. Though most industrialized countries have ratified the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol for reducing emissions of gases from fossil fuels, with the United States an embarrassing exception, the participating countries aren't doing as well as expected. Reuters reported last week that submissions to the U.N. Climate Secretariat in Bonn showed that emissions from 40 industrial nations rose 1.6 percent overall to 17.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2004, compared to 2003.
That data isn't perfect. It includes Turkey, where emissions are rising, but excludes China and India, two big sources of greenhouse gases. But California's initiative is particularly significant, because the United States is the biggest source of greenhouse gases.
NOTES: Only one edition was published on Monday, September 4, 2006 due to the Labor Day holiday.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2006
A Law to Cut Emissions? Deal With It
The New York Times
A Law to Cut Emissions? Deal With It
October 21, 2006 Saturday
By JANE L. LEVERE
In August, Peter A. Darbee, chairman, chief executive and president of PG&E, owner of Pacific Gas and Electric, broke rank with his peers by supporting a measure in California that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely blamed for global warming. Mr. Darbee discussed his decision and other initiatives in an interview on a recent visit to New York. Following are excerpts:
Q. Why do you support California's Global Warming Solutions Act, which will require utilities and other companies to make their operations even more energy efficient?
A. I dove into the issue with our senior team more deeply than other executives. We engaged in a process of scientific inquiry. Out of that we developed a conviction that the earth is warming, that mankind's responsible and the need to take action is now. I've always been one who's been driven by my conscience as to what is the right thing to do. And we came to the conclusion that that was the right thing to do.
Secondly, the thought was, as a leader, what you want to do is anticipate trends in the business environment and then position a company optimally within that context.
Rather than sitting there and denying that global warming is a problem and climate change is a problem, my reaction was to accept it and to go with the flow to understand the trend, and then say, how can I position PG&E to deal with that challenge, and then how can I turn a challenge into an opportunity.
Q. What do you say to critics who contend that this bill will make California's economy less competitive?
A. In the past, California has stepped out and been a leader on environmental legislation, and its economy has continued to grow probably faster than the average state economy in the United States. California will find a way to continue to grow, notwithstanding this piece of legislation.
Q. How can California and companies based there achieve the goals mandated by the bill?
A. Take a look at Fetzer winery as an example. Ninety-five percent of their waste they can keep on-premise and reuse, 5 percent they ship off, and that is a dramatic reduction. When I went there, their whole building was constructed with energy-efficiency in mind. The walls are pretty thick, and if you look up at the skylights, they have windows that open up at night and let the cool air in, cool down the place. The cool air goes into the walls, and then they close those skylights in the morning, and then they put reflector material up to reflect the heat. They have essentially very little need for air-conditioning at all, because the energy that was lost from the walls is then reabsorbed during the course of the day.
Q. Your ''SmartMeter'' program will allow customers to take advantage of electricity prices that will vary by season and time of day. What percentage of your customers do you estimate will use it?
A. We anticipate 15 percent to 20 percent of our customers will sign up for the program voluntarily, but this could go as high as 30 percent to 40 percent, depending on the level of customer satisfaction and the impact of the marketing strategy that will highlight customer benefits.
Q. How prevalent are such programs in the United States?
A. There are some, but they're limited programs; this would be the first really large-scale deployment, ours will be 10 million meters. We've done a trial with about 5,000 meters, and then beginning in 2007, we'll deploy on a large-scale basis and it will take four years to get 10 million meters in. We've taken the leadership role in California; assuming that it is successful, I believe it will spread across the U.S.
Q. You have completed the nuclear reactor technology program at M.I.T. What is this program and what has it prepared you for?
A. It is a monthlong course, which is designed for utility executives that have involvement with nuclear reactors. The idea is not to teach you to run one; what it does is give you a pretty good understanding of how a nuclear reactor works, the extreme importance of safety to your employees and the public, it gives you an idea of the things that can go wrong in a nuclear reactor, and it gives you the capability that as you're interacting with the people that operate the nuclear reactor, that you can be more effective in managing them, understanding of the facility. We have two nuclear reactors in San Luis Obispo.
SOURCE
A Law to Cut Emissions? Deal With It
October 21, 2006 Saturday
By JANE L. LEVERE
In August, Peter A. Darbee, chairman, chief executive and president of PG&E, owner of Pacific Gas and Electric, broke rank with his peers by supporting a measure in California that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely blamed for global warming. Mr. Darbee discussed his decision and other initiatives in an interview on a recent visit to New York. Following are excerpts:
Q. Why do you support California's Global Warming Solutions Act, which will require utilities and other companies to make their operations even more energy efficient?
A. I dove into the issue with our senior team more deeply than other executives. We engaged in a process of scientific inquiry. Out of that we developed a conviction that the earth is warming, that mankind's responsible and the need to take action is now. I've always been one who's been driven by my conscience as to what is the right thing to do. And we came to the conclusion that that was the right thing to do.
Secondly, the thought was, as a leader, what you want to do is anticipate trends in the business environment and then position a company optimally within that context.
Rather than sitting there and denying that global warming is a problem and climate change is a problem, my reaction was to accept it and to go with the flow to understand the trend, and then say, how can I position PG&E to deal with that challenge, and then how can I turn a challenge into an opportunity.
Q. What do you say to critics who contend that this bill will make California's economy less competitive?
A. In the past, California has stepped out and been a leader on environmental legislation, and its economy has continued to grow probably faster than the average state economy in the United States. California will find a way to continue to grow, notwithstanding this piece of legislation.
Q. How can California and companies based there achieve the goals mandated by the bill?
A. Take a look at Fetzer winery as an example. Ninety-five percent of their waste they can keep on-premise and reuse, 5 percent they ship off, and that is a dramatic reduction. When I went there, their whole building was constructed with energy-efficiency in mind. The walls are pretty thick, and if you look up at the skylights, they have windows that open up at night and let the cool air in, cool down the place. The cool air goes into the walls, and then they close those skylights in the morning, and then they put reflector material up to reflect the heat. They have essentially very little need for air-conditioning at all, because the energy that was lost from the walls is then reabsorbed during the course of the day.
Q. Your ''SmartMeter'' program will allow customers to take advantage of electricity prices that will vary by season and time of day. What percentage of your customers do you estimate will use it?
A. We anticipate 15 percent to 20 percent of our customers will sign up for the program voluntarily, but this could go as high as 30 percent to 40 percent, depending on the level of customer satisfaction and the impact of the marketing strategy that will highlight customer benefits.
Q. How prevalent are such programs in the United States?
A. There are some, but they're limited programs; this would be the first really large-scale deployment, ours will be 10 million meters. We've done a trial with about 5,000 meters, and then beginning in 2007, we'll deploy on a large-scale basis and it will take four years to get 10 million meters in. We've taken the leadership role in California; assuming that it is successful, I believe it will spread across the U.S.
Q. You have completed the nuclear reactor technology program at M.I.T. What is this program and what has it prepared you for?
A. It is a monthlong course, which is designed for utility executives that have involvement with nuclear reactors. The idea is not to teach you to run one; what it does is give you a pretty good understanding of how a nuclear reactor works, the extreme importance of safety to your employees and the public, it gives you an idea of the things that can go wrong in a nuclear reactor, and it gives you the capability that as you're interacting with the people that operate the nuclear reactor, that you can be more effective in managing them, understanding of the facility. We have two nuclear reactors in San Luis Obispo.
SOURCE
United States: Climate Change: California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006
Copyright 2006 Mondaq Ltd.
All Rights Reserved
Mondaq Business Briefing
September 7, 2006
LENGTH: 1752 words
HEADLINE: United States: Climate Change: California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006
BYLINE: By Michael Barr, Tim Wright, William R. Huss, Peter H. Wyckoff, David R. Farabee and Kevin M. Fong
BODY:
Yesterday, on the last day of its two-year session, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." Passage by the Legislature followed an "historic agreement" between the legislative leadership and Governor Schwarzenegger. The Governor is now expected to sign the bill into law during September. Once signed, the bill will become effective on January 1, 2007 and will establish the first comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory program in the United States. The California program will directly regulate GHG emissions from most industries in California and will affect business and the economy throughout California, the nation and the entire globe.
The bill does not contain elaborate findings on the nature or scope of global climate change. The bill assumes that GHG reductions are necessary and beneficial.
Unlike nearly all other environmental laws, the bill does not contain detailed control measures. Instead, the bill establishes a statewide "greenhouse gas emissions limit" measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents during a given year. The level of the limit must be "equivalent" to the statewide GHG emissions level in 1990. To make this approach work, by January 1, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) must "determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emission level was in 1990," based on the ARB's evaluation of the "best available scientific, technological, and economic information on greenhouse gas emissions." The ARB must then develop an implementation program to achieve the limit by 2020, and must adopt GHG control measures "to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions from sources or categories of sources."
The bill's GHG emissions limit remains in place until otherwise amended or successfully appealed. It is widely assumed that levels of statewide GHG emissions must be reduced by approximately 25% to achieve the AB32 greenhouse gas limit, but it is impossible to determine that number until the ARB performs its highly complex - and possibly highly uncertain and contentious - re-creation of 1990 GHG emission levels. The bill requires ARB to determine GHG emissions both inside and outside of California, considerably complicating ARB's task.
Here is a brief timetable of the major ARB actions required by the bill.
Key AB32 Implementation Dates
On or Before:
Action
June 30, 2007 (9 months)1
ARB must list discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures. [new H&SC Para. 38560.5(a)]
January 1, 2008 (15 months)1
*
ARB must determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is "equivalent" to that level, to be achieved by 2020. [new H&SC Para. 38550]
*
*
ARB must adopt regulations to require the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. [new H&SC Para. 3853
*
January 1, 2009 (2 years)2
ARB must prepare and approve a "Scoping Plan, as that term is understood by the [ARB]" for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions from sources or categories of sources of GHG by 2020. [new H&SC Para. 38561(a)]
January 1, 2010 (3 years)2
ARB must adopt regulations to implement the measures identified on the June 30, 2007 list of discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures. [new H&SC Para. 38560.5(b)]
January 1, 2011 (4 years)2
*
ARB must adopt GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures by regulation to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit. [new H&SC Para. 38562(a)]
*
ARB may adopt a regulation establishing a system of market-based declining annual aggregate emission limits for sources or categories of sources that emit GHG emissions, applicable from 01/01/2012 - 12/31/2020, inclusive. [new H&SC Para. 3856
*
January 1, 2012 (5 years)2
Operative date of GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures to be adopted by ARB by 01/01/2011. [new H&SC Para. 38562(a)]
Every 5 years after 01/01/2009 - first update due by January 1, 2014
ARB must update its "Scoping Plan" for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions of GHG emissions at least once every five years. [new H&SC Para. 38561(h)]
2020
Date for achievement of statewide GHG emissions limit [new H&SC Para. 38550]
The State of California has already started to take steps which should assist ARB to meet this timetable. For example, the Governor's Climate Action Team prepared a comprehensive "Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature" dated March 2006.3 This Report describes over 40 measures to achieve GHG emissions reductions in California. In AB32, the Legislature expressed its intent that the Climate Action Team (CAT) established by the Governor continue its role in coordinating overall climate policy in California.
From the initial CAT list of measures developed to date, it is clear that AB32 can have dramatic and farreaching effects on individual facilities of all kinds in California, on broad categories of industries in California and on the entire economy of California and perhaps the nation. In just one example of the bill's scope, the bill provides special requirements for utilities and energy facilities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. The bill assigns to California the emissions of GHG "from the generation of electricity delivered to and consumed in California, accounting for transmission and distribution line losses, whether the electricity is generated in state or imported." Thus, GHG emissions from coal-fired or gas-fired powerplants located outside of California throughout the West - and even in Canada or Mexico - may be attributed to California's GHG emissions inventory.
To attempt to moderate the economic impacts of the program, this bill includes several key provisions:
*
GHG emissions reduction measures must be "cost-effective." "Cost-effectiveness" is defined to mean "the cost per unit of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases adjusted for its global warming potential." Very significantly, however, the bill does not include a cost cap.
*
*
At the Governor's request, the bill includes a provision allowing the Governor to defer deadlines for compliance with individual regulations year by year in the event of "extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events, or threat of significant economic harm." The Governor can also declare emergencies resulting from the program, as Governor Davis did during the California energy crisis of 2001.
*
*
Again at the Governor's request, the bill includes market-based compliance mechanisms. ARB may, but is not required to, include market-based compliance mechanisms in its GHG control regulations. However, the bill also includes significant limitations and hurdles which may limit the vlaue of market-based GHG compliance mechanisms in California.
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to adopt methods for quantifying "voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions." The ARB must also identify opportunities from "all verifiable and enforceable voluntary actions."
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to take into account the relative contribution of different sources and source categories to statewide GHG emissions and must "recommend a de minimis threshold of greenhouse gas emissions below which emission reduction requirements will not apply."
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to appoint an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise ARB on research and development opportunities, including funding, partnership, technology transfer, investment, and incentive opportunities. However, it is not clear how ARB can or must use the Committee's advice to achieve "the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions."
*
The bill contains explicit savings clauses. For example, the bill does not affect any state agency's existing authority to require GHG emission reductions, and public agencies are not relieved of their duty to comply with applicable Federal law. Also, the bill explicitly states that nothing in the bill "shall limit or expand the existing authority of any [local or regional air pollution control or air quality management] district." The Legislature contemplates legal challenges to the bill and provides that its provisions are "severable."
Despite the scope and importance of the bill, it leaves much unsaid. It delegates an unprecedented level of discretion to a state agency (ARB) to determine the goals of the program, the means of achieving those goals, and even the penalties for failing to do so. The bill does not assure that the ARB has adequate additional resources to accomplish all of its tasks on time, with adequate public input, and in compliance with the "cost-effectiveness" and other requirements of the bill. The bill authorizes the ARB to impose fees on GHG sources. According to early estimates of costs to establish this new program, the ARB may need 100 new employees and $10-20 million in budget resources during the current fiscal year alone.
Conclusion
It is now clear that California is committed to establishing a major GHG emission reduction program which will ramp up and take effect over the next few years. However, in its haste to pass this legislation, the state threatens to repeat its electric deregulation debacle of 2001. One long-time California political pundit characterizes AB32 as "political symbolism with consequences."4 It is unclear whether AB32 will fail like California's electric deregulation program or, instead, will succeed in "developing a market-based system that makes California a world leader in the effort to reduce carbon emissions."5
Live Link
State of California Climate Action Team Report
Footnotes
1. From October 1, 2006.
2. From January 1, 2007 effective date.
3.See http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html.
4. Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, August 30, 2006.
5. Governor Schwarzenegger, Press Release, August 30, 2006.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your
specific circumstances.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
101 West Broadway
Suite 1800
San Diego
CA 92101-8219
UNITED STATES
Fax: 619236 1995
E-mail:
lisa.christensen@pillsburylaw.com
URL:
www.pillsburylaw.com
(c) Mondaq Ltd, 2006 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com
LOAD-DATE: September 11, 2006
All Rights Reserved
Mondaq Business Briefing
September 7, 2006
LENGTH: 1752 words
HEADLINE: United States: Climate Change: California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006
BYLINE: By Michael Barr, Tim Wright, William R. Huss, Peter H. Wyckoff, David R. Farabee and Kevin M. Fong
BODY:
Yesterday, on the last day of its two-year session, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." Passage by the Legislature followed an "historic agreement" between the legislative leadership and Governor Schwarzenegger. The Governor is now expected to sign the bill into law during September. Once signed, the bill will become effective on January 1, 2007 and will establish the first comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory program in the United States. The California program will directly regulate GHG emissions from most industries in California and will affect business and the economy throughout California, the nation and the entire globe.
The bill does not contain elaborate findings on the nature or scope of global climate change. The bill assumes that GHG reductions are necessary and beneficial.
Unlike nearly all other environmental laws, the bill does not contain detailed control measures. Instead, the bill establishes a statewide "greenhouse gas emissions limit" measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents during a given year. The level of the limit must be "equivalent" to the statewide GHG emissions level in 1990. To make this approach work, by January 1, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) must "determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emission level was in 1990," based on the ARB's evaluation of the "best available scientific, technological, and economic information on greenhouse gas emissions." The ARB must then develop an implementation program to achieve the limit by 2020, and must adopt GHG control measures "to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions from sources or categories of sources."
The bill's GHG emissions limit remains in place until otherwise amended or successfully appealed. It is widely assumed that levels of statewide GHG emissions must be reduced by approximately 25% to achieve the AB32 greenhouse gas limit, but it is impossible to determine that number until the ARB performs its highly complex - and possibly highly uncertain and contentious - re-creation of 1990 GHG emission levels. The bill requires ARB to determine GHG emissions both inside and outside of California, considerably complicating ARB's task.
Here is a brief timetable of the major ARB actions required by the bill.
Key AB32 Implementation Dates
On or Before:
Action
June 30, 2007 (9 months)1
ARB must list discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures. [new H&SC Para. 38560.5(a)]
January 1, 2008 (15 months)1
*
ARB must determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is "equivalent" to that level, to be achieved by 2020. [new H&SC Para. 38550]
*
*
ARB must adopt regulations to require the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. [new H&SC Para. 3853
*
January 1, 2009 (2 years)2
ARB must prepare and approve a "Scoping Plan, as that term is understood by the [ARB]" for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions from sources or categories of sources of GHG by 2020. [new H&SC Para. 38561(a)]
January 1, 2010 (3 years)2
ARB must adopt regulations to implement the measures identified on the June 30, 2007 list of discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures. [new H&SC Para. 38560.5(b)]
January 1, 2011 (4 years)2
*
ARB must adopt GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures by regulation to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit. [new H&SC Para. 38562(a)]
*
ARB may adopt a regulation establishing a system of market-based declining annual aggregate emission limits for sources or categories of sources that emit GHG emissions, applicable from 01/01/2012 - 12/31/2020, inclusive. [new H&SC Para. 3856
*
January 1, 2012 (5 years)2
Operative date of GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures to be adopted by ARB by 01/01/2011. [new H&SC Para. 38562(a)]
Every 5 years after 01/01/2009 - first update due by January 1, 2014
ARB must update its "Scoping Plan" for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions of GHG emissions at least once every five years. [new H&SC Para. 38561(h)]
2020
Date for achievement of statewide GHG emissions limit [new H&SC Para. 38550]
The State of California has already started to take steps which should assist ARB to meet this timetable. For example, the Governor's Climate Action Team prepared a comprehensive "Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature" dated March 2006.3 This Report describes over 40 measures to achieve GHG emissions reductions in California. In AB32, the Legislature expressed its intent that the Climate Action Team (CAT) established by the Governor continue its role in coordinating overall climate policy in California.
From the initial CAT list of measures developed to date, it is clear that AB32 can have dramatic and farreaching effects on individual facilities of all kinds in California, on broad categories of industries in California and on the entire economy of California and perhaps the nation. In just one example of the bill's scope, the bill provides special requirements for utilities and energy facilities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. The bill assigns to California the emissions of GHG "from the generation of electricity delivered to and consumed in California, accounting for transmission and distribution line losses, whether the electricity is generated in state or imported." Thus, GHG emissions from coal-fired or gas-fired powerplants located outside of California throughout the West - and even in Canada or Mexico - may be attributed to California's GHG emissions inventory.
To attempt to moderate the economic impacts of the program, this bill includes several key provisions:
*
GHG emissions reduction measures must be "cost-effective." "Cost-effectiveness" is defined to mean "the cost per unit of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases adjusted for its global warming potential." Very significantly, however, the bill does not include a cost cap.
*
*
At the Governor's request, the bill includes a provision allowing the Governor to defer deadlines for compliance with individual regulations year by year in the event of "extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events, or threat of significant economic harm." The Governor can also declare emergencies resulting from the program, as Governor Davis did during the California energy crisis of 2001.
*
*
Again at the Governor's request, the bill includes market-based compliance mechanisms. ARB may, but is not required to, include market-based compliance mechanisms in its GHG control regulations. However, the bill also includes significant limitations and hurdles which may limit the vlaue of market-based GHG compliance mechanisms in California.
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to adopt methods for quantifying "voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions." The ARB must also identify opportunities from "all verifiable and enforceable voluntary actions."
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to take into account the relative contribution of different sources and source categories to statewide GHG emissions and must "recommend a de minimis threshold of greenhouse gas emissions below which emission reduction requirements will not apply."
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to appoint an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise ARB on research and development opportunities, including funding, partnership, technology transfer, investment, and incentive opportunities. However, it is not clear how ARB can or must use the Committee's advice to achieve "the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions."
*
The bill contains explicit savings clauses. For example, the bill does not affect any state agency's existing authority to require GHG emission reductions, and public agencies are not relieved of their duty to comply with applicable Federal law. Also, the bill explicitly states that nothing in the bill "shall limit or expand the existing authority of any [local or regional air pollution control or air quality management] district." The Legislature contemplates legal challenges to the bill and provides that its provisions are "severable."
Despite the scope and importance of the bill, it leaves much unsaid. It delegates an unprecedented level of discretion to a state agency (ARB) to determine the goals of the program, the means of achieving those goals, and even the penalties for failing to do so. The bill does not assure that the ARB has adequate additional resources to accomplish all of its tasks on time, with adequate public input, and in compliance with the "cost-effectiveness" and other requirements of the bill. The bill authorizes the ARB to impose fees on GHG sources. According to early estimates of costs to establish this new program, the ARB may need 100 new employees and $10-20 million in budget resources during the current fiscal year alone.
Conclusion
It is now clear that California is committed to establishing a major GHG emission reduction program which will ramp up and take effect over the next few years. However, in its haste to pass this legislation, the state threatens to repeat its electric deregulation debacle of 2001. One long-time California political pundit characterizes AB32 as "political symbolism with consequences."4 It is unclear whether AB32 will fail like California's electric deregulation program or, instead, will succeed in "developing a market-based system that makes California a world leader in the effort to reduce carbon emissions."5
Live Link
State of California Climate Action Team Report
Footnotes
1. From October 1, 2006.
2. From January 1, 2007 effective date.
3.See http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html.
4. Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, August 30, 2006.
5. Governor Schwarzenegger, Press Release, August 30, 2006.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your
specific circumstances.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
101 West Broadway
Suite 1800
San Diego
CA 92101-8219
UNITED STATES
Fax: 619236 1995
E-mail:
lisa.christensen@pillsburylaw.com
URL:
www.pillsburylaw.com
(c) Mondaq Ltd, 2006 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com
LOAD-DATE: September 11, 2006
Pro: 'Green' strategy can generate greenbacks galore for Calif. economy
Copyright 2006 The Salt Lake Tribune
All Rights Reserved
The Salt Lake Tribune
September 14, 2006 Thursday
SECTION: OPINION; Columnists
LENGTH: 729 words
HEADLINE: Pro: 'Green' strategy can generate greenbacks galore for Calif. economy
BYLINE: By Wayne Madsen
BODY:
(The writer is addressing the question, "Will California's new limits on greenhouse gas emissions help the state's economy and reduce global warming?")
WASHINGTON - A "green economy" represents the best of two disparate worlds - safeguarding the environment while creating a new industrial base resulting in economic growth and prosperity.
And the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, passed by Democratic and Republican legislators and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, takes a huge step in bringing California into line with the emission caps and greenhouse gas reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol.
Despite claims to the contrary, the nation's first sweeping carbon curbs law - far from hurting California's huge economy - will provide a boost to its burgeoning "green business" sector. Other states should consider following suit.
California, as the world's 12th-largest greenhouse gas polluter, simply bypassed the foot-dragging Bush administration in adopting its own environmental policy in line with reigning international standards.
The state is set to cap its carbon-dioxide emissions by 2020 at 1990 levels - an eyebrow-raising 25 percent reduction. Mandatory reductions come into effect in 2012. Under the new law, the California Air Resources Board will monitor greenhouse gas emissions and set policies for carbon credit trading.
Although there is an opt-out clause in the California law if an economic crisis is declared, the new emissions mandates provide an impetus for eco-friendly, profit-making businesses.
Creating what likely will be the world's largest "green industrial" base will spur the construction of power plants that do not burn environmentally-destructive coal and oil.
Clean-burning natural gas utilities will be among the first to get a much-needed economic boost from the new law. Under the act, natural gas-powered plants that emit less pollution can sell "carbon credits" or "carbon permits" to more pollution-intensive coal and oil-burning plants that will be more expensive to clean up.
Already, the Chicago Climate Exchange, the first greenhouse credit trading market in North America, is seeing business pick up in the trading of credits by companies that are voluntarily participating in the program. California's law is spurring other states to adopt similar measures and will pump even more cash into Chicago's exchange and perhaps create other eco-commodity trading centers in the United States.
California provides numerous incentives for businesses to go green and, so far, the program has been successful. Many environmentally conscious customers opt to do business with green-certified companies. Venture capitalists, seeing the potential for huge profits in the growth of less-polluting industries, championed the global warming bill's passage.
The new law also will provide a kick-start for the renewable energy industry, including solar, wind and geothermal power generation. There will be incentives to develop cleaner fuels, such as those containing ethanol and other cleaner-burning ingredients.
A University of California at Berkeley study concluded the California law will pump as much as $74 billion into the state's economy and create 89,000 jobs by 2020 - creating, in effect, a boom that rivals the state's original Gold Rush.
And California's new green industries may find lucrative overseas markets for eco-friendly technologies with China and India looming as potential cash-rich customers - a development that should dramatically slow America' skyrocketing trade-deficit.
California's mammoth power-generating industry also is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The technology it develops to meet that objective holds promise of becoming a lucrative cash crop as well.
However, new ideas on eco-friendly energy initiatives are not popular with many obstinate oil industry and chamber of commerce leaders - individuals, who, under the Bush-Cheney administration, all too often have become pampered fat cats.
The tide is finally turning against the corporate naysayers who've repeatedly sabotage the drive to produce a cleaner, healthier planet.
California - always a global trendsetter - now has found one trend that transcends surfboards and Barbie Dolls and just may eventually save Mother Earth.
---
Wayne Madsen is a contributing writer for the liberal Online Journal http://www.onlinejournal.com.
LOAD-DATE: September 15, 2006
All Rights Reserved
The Salt Lake Tribune
September 14, 2006 Thursday
SECTION: OPINION; Columnists
LENGTH: 729 words
HEADLINE: Pro: 'Green' strategy can generate greenbacks galore for Calif. economy
BYLINE: By Wayne Madsen
BODY:
(The writer is addressing the question, "Will California's new limits on greenhouse gas emissions help the state's economy and reduce global warming?")
WASHINGTON - A "green economy" represents the best of two disparate worlds - safeguarding the environment while creating a new industrial base resulting in economic growth and prosperity.
And the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, passed by Democratic and Republican legislators and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, takes a huge step in bringing California into line with the emission caps and greenhouse gas reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol.
Despite claims to the contrary, the nation's first sweeping carbon curbs law - far from hurting California's huge economy - will provide a boost to its burgeoning "green business" sector. Other states should consider following suit.
California, as the world's 12th-largest greenhouse gas polluter, simply bypassed the foot-dragging Bush administration in adopting its own environmental policy in line with reigning international standards.
The state is set to cap its carbon-dioxide emissions by 2020 at 1990 levels - an eyebrow-raising 25 percent reduction. Mandatory reductions come into effect in 2012. Under the new law, the California Air Resources Board will monitor greenhouse gas emissions and set policies for carbon credit trading.
Although there is an opt-out clause in the California law if an economic crisis is declared, the new emissions mandates provide an impetus for eco-friendly, profit-making businesses.
Creating what likely will be the world's largest "green industrial" base will spur the construction of power plants that do not burn environmentally-destructive coal and oil.
Clean-burning natural gas utilities will be among the first to get a much-needed economic boost from the new law. Under the act, natural gas-powered plants that emit less pollution can sell "carbon credits" or "carbon permits" to more pollution-intensive coal and oil-burning plants that will be more expensive to clean up.
Already, the Chicago Climate Exchange, the first greenhouse credit trading market in North America, is seeing business pick up in the trading of credits by companies that are voluntarily participating in the program. California's law is spurring other states to adopt similar measures and will pump even more cash into Chicago's exchange and perhaps create other eco-commodity trading centers in the United States.
California provides numerous incentives for businesses to go green and, so far, the program has been successful. Many environmentally conscious customers opt to do business with green-certified companies. Venture capitalists, seeing the potential for huge profits in the growth of less-polluting industries, championed the global warming bill's passage.
The new law also will provide a kick-start for the renewable energy industry, including solar, wind and geothermal power generation. There will be incentives to develop cleaner fuels, such as those containing ethanol and other cleaner-burning ingredients.
A University of California at Berkeley study concluded the California law will pump as much as $74 billion into the state's economy and create 89,000 jobs by 2020 - creating, in effect, a boom that rivals the state's original Gold Rush.
And California's new green industries may find lucrative overseas markets for eco-friendly technologies with China and India looming as potential cash-rich customers - a development that should dramatically slow America' skyrocketing trade-deficit.
California's mammoth power-generating industry also is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The technology it develops to meet that objective holds promise of becoming a lucrative cash crop as well.
However, new ideas on eco-friendly energy initiatives are not popular with many obstinate oil industry and chamber of commerce leaders - individuals, who, under the Bush-Cheney administration, all too often have become pampered fat cats.
The tide is finally turning against the corporate naysayers who've repeatedly sabotage the drive to produce a cleaner, healthier planet.
California - always a global trendsetter - now has found one trend that transcends surfboards and Barbie Dolls and just may eventually save Mother Earth.
---
Wayne Madsen is a contributing writer for the liberal Online Journal http://www.onlinejournal.com.
LOAD-DATE: September 15, 2006
Global warming bill tops lawmakers' summer agenda.
Copyright 2006 Environment and Energy Publishing, LLC
Greenwire
June 26, 2006 Monday
SECTION: SPOTLIGHT Vol. 10 No. 9
LENGTH: 1571 words
HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA: Global warming bill tops lawmakers' summer agenda
BODY:
Arthur O'Donnell, special to Greenwire
Legislative deadlines and continued delays to finalizing a $130 billion state budget package are driving California lawmakers into a frenzy of activity this week in Sacramento.
The session's marquee bill is the "California Global Warming Solutions Act," which reflects and expands on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) policy for cutting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Committees in the Assembly and Senate face a Friday deadline to take up measures that have been passed by the opposite house, and July 7 is supposed to be the last day of business before a monthlong summer recess. However, if a budget is not passed by that date, lawmakers may be called into special session.
Committee meetings this week are packed with energy and environmental measures that deal with a range of issues from soot and greenhouse-gas emissions to toxic materials and volatile energy prices. Last-minute deals and amendments abound as bill sponsors struggle to keep proposals alive or move provisions from defeated measures into other vehicles. As is common in the Capitol during this period, there is no guarantee that a surviving measure will resemble its original contents.
A prime example is A.B. 457, the gasoline-price anti-gouging bill introduced this month by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D). The bill passed the Assembly last year as a state pension reform bill; but it has been gutted and amended three times -- covering such disparate issues as nonprofit fundraising and train-automobile collisions -- before being taken over and rewritten by Nunez.
Besides gasoline, A.B. 457 could also apply price controls to a range of commodities and fuels used in transportation or power generation, including coal, ethanol and natural gas, following the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor. It also covers all points on the fuel supply chain, from production and refining to distribution and retail sales.
Because of all the changes and its possible impacts on interstate commerce, the bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for vetting this week. Even if A.B. 457 survives in the Senate, it would need to be sent back to the Assembly for concurrence before the end of the session in September. Global warming, toxics, perchlorate
The global-warming bill, A.B. 32, would require reporting of emissions by utilities and industry, establish a baseline emissions inventory, and direct the Air Resources Board and other agencies to set firm dates for significant reductions.
After A.B. 32 passed the Assembly and was delivered to the Senate, it was substantially amended to try to resolve opposition from business groups, by allowing industry and stakeholder involvement in the regulatory process and by adding language that the rules must "minimize costs and maximize benefits" for the economy.
The air board must incorporate industry and community input to set interim emissions limits that phase in beginning in 2012, with deeper cuts to CO2 expected in 2015. The Senate's Environmental Quality Committee will take up A.B. 32 today.
Also on the committee's agenda is A.B. 2202, which would prohibit the sale of electronic plug-in or battery-operated devices that contain heavy metals and other hazardous materials as defined by European Union standards.
While current law calls for phase-out of hazardous waste in electrical components, this bill would set 2010 as a deadline for the state ban. The California Manufacturers & Technology Association and retailer groups oppose the bill on the grounds that it will drive up costs and interfere with interstate commerce.
Less controversial is A.B. 492, which would have originally required that companies handling perchlorate-tainted materials to register and file business plans with state toxics control agencies. The perchlorate sections of the measure were gutted earlier this month, and its original author has abandoned the bill. The amended measure now loosens some insurance requirements for companies seeking state compensation for cleanup of underground petroleum storage tank leaks.
Also, A.B. 289, a bill that would have required manufacturers to conduct expensive tests on bioaccumulation patterns of thousands of chemicals used in their processes, was recently scaled down to allow state agencies to request such information from manufacturers. But it gives companies up to a year to comply with requests and sets up a process for treating the provided data as a trade secret. Cross-border fee on electricity
The Senate Energy Committee this week will take up A.B. 2338, which would impose a tenth-of-a cent per kilowatt-hour fee on electricity imported from Mexico. The cross-border import fee would be used to mitigate air-quality effects of power plants that were built without meeting state requirements for "best-available" emission control technologies.
Energy committee chair Martha Escutia (D) at a hearing last week insisted that the bill be amended to extend the import fee to power from Arizona and Nevada as well. But when no other committee member would move it to a vote, A.B. 2338 was rescheduled to this week.
Although the session featured many water-related bills, including several dealing with the threatened Bay Delta system and levee reconstruction, most of the measures were superceded by the $4 billion water-bond bill A.B. 140, already signed into law, that will be part of the huge infrastructure bond initiative package this fall.
One water measure that finally made it through the Assembly for consideration in the Senate Natural Resources Committee this week is A.B. 2208, albeit in a watered-down version. Originally meant to clarify state policy that the beneficiaries of new water projects and upgrades should bear the full cost, and specify user fees to do so, the bill now tells the Department of Water Resources to report on recommendations for applying user fees.
It also states that "transportation, power transmission and recreation" interests also benefit from an improved levee system-signaling an attempt by the author to spread out the pain of potential user fees, which have been vehemently opposed by water agencies and agricultural groups. Assembly takes up air-pollution bills
On the other side of the Capitol building, the Assembly Natural Resources Committee today will take up two controversial air-pollution bills. S.B. 1252 is aimed at counteracting the possibility that the U.S. EPA will exempt rural areas from federal regulation of fine particulate matter, leaving states to enforce limits.
California is the only state with ambient air quality standards for PM 10 and fine particulates PM 2.5, noted a legislative analyst. This bill would allow the Air Resources Board to impose additional civil penalties of up to $25,000 for violations of state soot-control standards. Agricultural groups, including the Wine Institute, say that existing state penalties are already burdensome and this measure is "redundant, unnecessary and punitive."
In addition, the committee will hear S.B. 1205, the "Children's Breathing Rights Act." This bill also faces strong opposition from business interests because it increases fines for violations of pollution limits from non-vehicular sources to $10,000 per incident (from $1,000), and to $50,000 for pollution from stationary sources required to have an operating permit under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act (up from $10,000). It also applies a $100,000 fine to "serious violators," defined as anyone who purposely disconnects or dismantles monitoring devices or who makes false statements in connection with obtaining a permit.
The bill would have required that 10 percent of all fines and penalties be deposited into a "Children's Breathing Rights Fund," but it was amended to authorize local air districts to direct a portion of fines or settlements into the fund. S.B. 1205 also requires the state air board to maintain an Internet site documenting pollution violations and mandates that local districts provide data to the state regarding such violations.
Finally, the major Senate bill of this two-year session, S.B. 1, the "Million Solar Roofs" bill appears to be languishing on the floor of the Assembly. Amended more than a dozen times since it was introduced in December 2004, the bill now more closely reflects the California Solar Initiative policy endorsed by the California Public Utilities Commission earlier this year. However, it would cap at $3.2 billion the costs of programs to add 3,000 MW of solar power by 2017, and it requires full participation by public-power utilities. The bill prohibits the CPUC from using any of the funds to support solar research and development projects. It also alters CPUC policies regarding "net metering" sales of excess solar energy to utilities.
While it no longer guarantees union wages for solar installers, the issue that nearly killed the bill last year, S.B. 1 would change state contractor-licensing rules to ensure that installers are certified to work on solar units.
S.B. 1 was repeatedly scheduled this month for an Assembly floor vote, but it has been sidetracked by budget issues, lack of support from Assembly Republicans and strong opposition by the CPUC. Action on the bill may be deferred until after the summer recess as its author tries to secure more votes.
O'Donnell is an independent energy and environmental writer in San Francisco.
LOAD-DATE: June 26, 2006
Greenwire
June 26, 2006 Monday
SECTION: SPOTLIGHT Vol. 10 No. 9
LENGTH: 1571 words
HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA: Global warming bill tops lawmakers' summer agenda
BODY:
Arthur O'Donnell, special to Greenwire
Legislative deadlines and continued delays to finalizing a $130 billion state budget package are driving California lawmakers into a frenzy of activity this week in Sacramento.
The session's marquee bill is the "California Global Warming Solutions Act," which reflects and expands on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) policy for cutting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Committees in the Assembly and Senate face a Friday deadline to take up measures that have been passed by the opposite house, and July 7 is supposed to be the last day of business before a monthlong summer recess. However, if a budget is not passed by that date, lawmakers may be called into special session.
Committee meetings this week are packed with energy and environmental measures that deal with a range of issues from soot and greenhouse-gas emissions to toxic materials and volatile energy prices. Last-minute deals and amendments abound as bill sponsors struggle to keep proposals alive or move provisions from defeated measures into other vehicles. As is common in the Capitol during this period, there is no guarantee that a surviving measure will resemble its original contents.
A prime example is A.B. 457, the gasoline-price anti-gouging bill introduced this month by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D). The bill passed the Assembly last year as a state pension reform bill; but it has been gutted and amended three times -- covering such disparate issues as nonprofit fundraising and train-automobile collisions -- before being taken over and rewritten by Nunez.
Besides gasoline, A.B. 457 could also apply price controls to a range of commodities and fuels used in transportation or power generation, including coal, ethanol and natural gas, following the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor. It also covers all points on the fuel supply chain, from production and refining to distribution and retail sales.
Because of all the changes and its possible impacts on interstate commerce, the bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for vetting this week. Even if A.B. 457 survives in the Senate, it would need to be sent back to the Assembly for concurrence before the end of the session in September. Global warming, toxics, perchlorate
The global-warming bill, A.B. 32, would require reporting of emissions by utilities and industry, establish a baseline emissions inventory, and direct the Air Resources Board and other agencies to set firm dates for significant reductions.
After A.B. 32 passed the Assembly and was delivered to the Senate, it was substantially amended to try to resolve opposition from business groups, by allowing industry and stakeholder involvement in the regulatory process and by adding language that the rules must "minimize costs and maximize benefits" for the economy.
The air board must incorporate industry and community input to set interim emissions limits that phase in beginning in 2012, with deeper cuts to CO2 expected in 2015. The Senate's Environmental Quality Committee will take up A.B. 32 today.
Also on the committee's agenda is A.B. 2202, which would prohibit the sale of electronic plug-in or battery-operated devices that contain heavy metals and other hazardous materials as defined by European Union standards.
While current law calls for phase-out of hazardous waste in electrical components, this bill would set 2010 as a deadline for the state ban. The California Manufacturers & Technology Association and retailer groups oppose the bill on the grounds that it will drive up costs and interfere with interstate commerce.
Less controversial is A.B. 492, which would have originally required that companies handling perchlorate-tainted materials to register and file business plans with state toxics control agencies. The perchlorate sections of the measure were gutted earlier this month, and its original author has abandoned the bill. The amended measure now loosens some insurance requirements for companies seeking state compensation for cleanup of underground petroleum storage tank leaks.
Also, A.B. 289, a bill that would have required manufacturers to conduct expensive tests on bioaccumulation patterns of thousands of chemicals used in their processes, was recently scaled down to allow state agencies to request such information from manufacturers. But it gives companies up to a year to comply with requests and sets up a process for treating the provided data as a trade secret. Cross-border fee on electricity
The Senate Energy Committee this week will take up A.B. 2338, which would impose a tenth-of-a cent per kilowatt-hour fee on electricity imported from Mexico. The cross-border import fee would be used to mitigate air-quality effects of power plants that were built without meeting state requirements for "best-available" emission control technologies.
Energy committee chair Martha Escutia (D) at a hearing last week insisted that the bill be amended to extend the import fee to power from Arizona and Nevada as well. But when no other committee member would move it to a vote, A.B. 2338 was rescheduled to this week.
Although the session featured many water-related bills, including several dealing with the threatened Bay Delta system and levee reconstruction, most of the measures were superceded by the $4 billion water-bond bill A.B. 140, already signed into law, that will be part of the huge infrastructure bond initiative package this fall.
One water measure that finally made it through the Assembly for consideration in the Senate Natural Resources Committee this week is A.B. 2208, albeit in a watered-down version. Originally meant to clarify state policy that the beneficiaries of new water projects and upgrades should bear the full cost, and specify user fees to do so, the bill now tells the Department of Water Resources to report on recommendations for applying user fees.
It also states that "transportation, power transmission and recreation" interests also benefit from an improved levee system-signaling an attempt by the author to spread out the pain of potential user fees, which have been vehemently opposed by water agencies and agricultural groups. Assembly takes up air-pollution bills
On the other side of the Capitol building, the Assembly Natural Resources Committee today will take up two controversial air-pollution bills. S.B. 1252 is aimed at counteracting the possibility that the U.S. EPA will exempt rural areas from federal regulation of fine particulate matter, leaving states to enforce limits.
California is the only state with ambient air quality standards for PM 10 and fine particulates PM 2.5, noted a legislative analyst. This bill would allow the Air Resources Board to impose additional civil penalties of up to $25,000 for violations of state soot-control standards. Agricultural groups, including the Wine Institute, say that existing state penalties are already burdensome and this measure is "redundant, unnecessary and punitive."
In addition, the committee will hear S.B. 1205, the "Children's Breathing Rights Act." This bill also faces strong opposition from business interests because it increases fines for violations of pollution limits from non-vehicular sources to $10,000 per incident (from $1,000), and to $50,000 for pollution from stationary sources required to have an operating permit under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act (up from $10,000). It also applies a $100,000 fine to "serious violators," defined as anyone who purposely disconnects or dismantles monitoring devices or who makes false statements in connection with obtaining a permit.
The bill would have required that 10 percent of all fines and penalties be deposited into a "Children's Breathing Rights Fund," but it was amended to authorize local air districts to direct a portion of fines or settlements into the fund. S.B. 1205 also requires the state air board to maintain an Internet site documenting pollution violations and mandates that local districts provide data to the state regarding such violations.
Finally, the major Senate bill of this two-year session, S.B. 1, the "Million Solar Roofs" bill appears to be languishing on the floor of the Assembly. Amended more than a dozen times since it was introduced in December 2004, the bill now more closely reflects the California Solar Initiative policy endorsed by the California Public Utilities Commission earlier this year. However, it would cap at $3.2 billion the costs of programs to add 3,000 MW of solar power by 2017, and it requires full participation by public-power utilities. The bill prohibits the CPUC from using any of the funds to support solar research and development projects. It also alters CPUC policies regarding "net metering" sales of excess solar energy to utilities.
While it no longer guarantees union wages for solar installers, the issue that nearly killed the bill last year, S.B. 1 would change state contractor-licensing rules to ensure that installers are certified to work on solar units.
S.B. 1 was repeatedly scheduled this month for an Assembly floor vote, but it has been sidetracked by budget issues, lack of support from Assembly Republicans and strong opposition by the CPUC. Action on the bill may be deferred until after the summer recess as its author tries to secure more votes.
O'Donnell is an independent energy and environmental writer in San Francisco.
LOAD-DATE: June 26, 2006
Incoming Leader of Senate Environmental Committee Pledges Shift on Global Warming Policy
SOURCE
SACRAMENTO, Calif., November 9, 2006 - Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday promised major policy shifts on global warming, air quality and toxic-waste cleanup as she prepares to lead the U.S. Senate's environmental committee.
Also on abc7.com:
Daily Newsletter | Breaking News Alerts | Eyewitness News team Bios
"Time is running out, and we need to move forward on this," Boxer said of global warming during a conference call with reporters. "The states are beginning to take steps, and we need to take steps as well."
Boxer's elevation to chairwoman of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee comes as Democrats return to power in the Senate. It also marks a dramatic shift in ideology for the panel.
The California Democrat is one of the Senate's most liberal members and replaces one of its most conservative, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe had blocked bills seeking to cut the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, calling the issue "the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people."
Environmentalists were overjoyed at the change.
"That's like a tsunami hit the committee," said Karen Steuer, who heads government affairs at the National Environmental Trust, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. "You can't find two members or people more ideologically different."
As chairman, Inhofe tried to overhaul the Endangered Species Act and supported the Bush administration's 2002 rules to roll back provisions in the Clean Air Act. He also promoted legislation that would have allowed the government to suspend air and water quality rules in response to Hurricane Katrina.
Boxer said she intends to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gases, strengthen environmental laws regarding public health and hold oversight hearings on federal plans to clean up Superfund hazardous waste sites across the country.
On global warming, Boxer said she would model federal legislation after a new California law that imposed the first statewide limit on greenhouse gases and seeks to cut California's emissions by 25 percent, dropping them to 1990 levels by 2020.
"Some of the practical solutions are in the California approach," Boxer said.
A top environmental aide at the White House signaled Thursday that the administration would work with her. George Banks, the associate director for international affairs at the Council for Environmental Quality, has requested a meeting to discuss global warming, Boxer said.
President Bush has opposed a federal mandate to limit greenhouse gas emissions from industry and automobiles, saying such steps should be voluntary.
"We look forward to working with Congress in bipartisanship on all issues," said Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality. She declined to discuss specifics related to the upcoming global warming discussion.
Some environmentalists said major changes in policy won't occur before 2008.
"On the issue of global warming in particular, we're going to need a new president before we see major progress," said Eric Antebi, spokesman for the San Francisco-based Sierra Club. "But this Congress can really lay the groundwork for that and make incremental changes."
Copyright © 2006 KABC-TV and The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
SACRAMENTO, Calif., November 9, 2006 - Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday promised major policy shifts on global warming, air quality and toxic-waste cleanup as she prepares to lead the U.S. Senate's environmental committee.
Also on abc7.com:
Daily Newsletter | Breaking News Alerts | Eyewitness News team Bios
"Time is running out, and we need to move forward on this," Boxer said of global warming during a conference call with reporters. "The states are beginning to take steps, and we need to take steps as well."
Boxer's elevation to chairwoman of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee comes as Democrats return to power in the Senate. It also marks a dramatic shift in ideology for the panel.
The California Democrat is one of the Senate's most liberal members and replaces one of its most conservative, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe had blocked bills seeking to cut the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, calling the issue "the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people."
Environmentalists were overjoyed at the change.
"That's like a tsunami hit the committee," said Karen Steuer, who heads government affairs at the National Environmental Trust, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. "You can't find two members or people more ideologically different."
As chairman, Inhofe tried to overhaul the Endangered Species Act and supported the Bush administration's 2002 rules to roll back provisions in the Clean Air Act. He also promoted legislation that would have allowed the government to suspend air and water quality rules in response to Hurricane Katrina.
Boxer said she intends to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gases, strengthen environmental laws regarding public health and hold oversight hearings on federal plans to clean up Superfund hazardous waste sites across the country.
On global warming, Boxer said she would model federal legislation after a new California law that imposed the first statewide limit on greenhouse gases and seeks to cut California's emissions by 25 percent, dropping them to 1990 levels by 2020.
"Some of the practical solutions are in the California approach," Boxer said.
A top environmental aide at the White House signaled Thursday that the administration would work with her. George Banks, the associate director for international affairs at the Council for Environmental Quality, has requested a meeting to discuss global warming, Boxer said.
President Bush has opposed a federal mandate to limit greenhouse gas emissions from industry and automobiles, saying such steps should be voluntary.
"We look forward to working with Congress in bipartisanship on all issues," said Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality. She declined to discuss specifics related to the upcoming global warming discussion.
Some environmentalists said major changes in policy won't occur before 2008.
"On the issue of global warming in particular, we're going to need a new president before we see major progress," said Eric Antebi, spokesman for the San Francisco-based Sierra Club. "But this Congress can really lay the groundwork for that and make incremental changes."
Copyright © 2006 KABC-TV and The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The greening of a Governator
Copyright 2006 Minnesota Daily via U-Wire
University Wire
October 5, 2006 Thursday
SECTION: COLUMN
LENGTH: 791 words
HEADLINE: The greening of a Governator
BYLINE: By Holly Lahd, Minnesota Daily; SOURCE: U. Minnesota
DATELINE: MINNEAPOLIS
BODY:
Of all the sport utility vehicles to loathe, the Hummer lumbers over them all as the most despised vehicle on the road to environmentalists. Hailed as the vehicle of personal freedom by some, despised as an obstructive gas guzzler by others, the vehicle has a sizable presence on the road and in public discussion. But last month one of the biggest proponents of the Hummer, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, changed his tune about the SUV. Weeks after signing the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), the Governator announced he would sell his eight Hummers. From buying the first hummer on the market to becoming a global warming convert, what spurred Arnold's change? And what does this mean for the Hummer?
Schwarzenegger's history with the Hummer has the makings of a TV melodrama. He was the one who pushed for the Hummer to be made available after the first Gulf War, modeled after the military Humvee vehicle. He even bought the first one on the market in 1992. Over the years he has bought eight Hummers, with a total value of $950,000. The excessive purchases show his obsession with the Hummer, which he has described as "an incredibly precise and forceful machine."
In 2002, the mammoth Hummer H2 was introduced. Hummer's official website says this about the current H2 model: "In a world where SUVs have begun to look like their owners, complete with love handles and mushy seats, the H2 proves that there is still one out there that can drop and give you 20." This is ironic, as the H2 is one of the most inefficient cars on the road, getting one of the poorest miles per gallon rating of any vehicle on the market. Because the Hummer weighs 6,400 pounds, it is placed in the work truck category. This means that the Hummer qualifies for massive business-use tax breaks and that General Motors does not have to report the Hummer's official gas mileage. But Hummer owners report barely getting 10 mpg. If the H2 were a person, it would probably more closely resemble its overweight, sluggish owner than the fit military man it attempts to personify.
The Hummer is a lightning rod for environmentalists, symbolizing over consumption, greed and elitism. It is also the focus of many eco-terrorism campaigns. Hummer dealerships have been the target of arson fires, and numerous Web sites describe how to tamper with a Hummer's tailpipe using a tuna fish can.
For years, environmentalists have lambasted Schwarzenegger for his love for SUVs. As he began his run for governor in 2003, his campaign appearances in giant SUVs and Hummers were not too popular with earth-conscious Californians. In an effort to remedy this, Schwarzenegger announced that he was working with GM to develop a hydrogen-fueled Hummer. The resulting H2H runs on hydrogen and is now shared between GM and the state of California. While it is a great engineering feat, the H2H is not intended for production and will not likely help the Hummer's public image.
To add to the drama, and perhaps causing Schwarzenegger's decision to sell, is the high-profile lawsuit against auto manufacturers in California. The state is currently suing six auto manufacturers, including GM, for monetary compensation due to the global warming emissions their cars produce. The state estimates that 30 percent of California's carbon dioxide emissions come from transportation sources. With his state suing GM, Schwarzenegger wisely decided to sell his beloved gas guzzlers.
Schwarzenegger obviously is not the typical American, since he could afford eight Hummers in the first place, but for fun let's extrapolate his actions to the level of the average American. If the Governator can give up his eight Hummers, can we get rid of our incandescent light bulbs for compact fluorescents? If Schwarzenegger can make such a change, can we change our driving habits? How about reducing our electrical consumption? The answer is quite simply, "Yes."
If the man who bought the first Hummer can sell them because of global warming, what are we willing to do? Schwarzenegger's persona is larger than life and this fantastic turnaround is, too. But his act shouldn't exist in a vacuum. If Schwarzenegger is selling his Hummers, the future doesn't look bright for the massive vehicle. The real concerns surrounding global warming and gas prices have taken precedence over the appeal of owning the road.
The greening governor of California made the right choice to sell his Hummers. Can the combination of high gas prices and increased public understanding of global warming cause a suburban Hummer revolt, too? Instead of selling them, Schwarzenegger could donate the Hummers to the military, where giant Humvee-style vehicles are actually appropriate.
(C) 2006 Minnesota Daily via U-WIRE
LOAD-DATE: October 5, 2006
University Wire
October 5, 2006 Thursday
SECTION: COLUMN
LENGTH: 791 words
HEADLINE: The greening of a Governator
BYLINE: By Holly Lahd, Minnesota Daily; SOURCE: U. Minnesota
DATELINE: MINNEAPOLIS
BODY:
Of all the sport utility vehicles to loathe, the Hummer lumbers over them all as the most despised vehicle on the road to environmentalists. Hailed as the vehicle of personal freedom by some, despised as an obstructive gas guzzler by others, the vehicle has a sizable presence on the road and in public discussion. But last month one of the biggest proponents of the Hummer, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, changed his tune about the SUV. Weeks after signing the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), the Governator announced he would sell his eight Hummers. From buying the first hummer on the market to becoming a global warming convert, what spurred Arnold's change? And what does this mean for the Hummer?
Schwarzenegger's history with the Hummer has the makings of a TV melodrama. He was the one who pushed for the Hummer to be made available after the first Gulf War, modeled after the military Humvee vehicle. He even bought the first one on the market in 1992. Over the years he has bought eight Hummers, with a total value of $950,000. The excessive purchases show his obsession with the Hummer, which he has described as "an incredibly precise and forceful machine."
In 2002, the mammoth Hummer H2 was introduced. Hummer's official website says this about the current H2 model: "In a world where SUVs have begun to look like their owners, complete with love handles and mushy seats, the H2 proves that there is still one out there that can drop and give you 20." This is ironic, as the H2 is one of the most inefficient cars on the road, getting one of the poorest miles per gallon rating of any vehicle on the market. Because the Hummer weighs 6,400 pounds, it is placed in the work truck category. This means that the Hummer qualifies for massive business-use tax breaks and that General Motors does not have to report the Hummer's official gas mileage. But Hummer owners report barely getting 10 mpg. If the H2 were a person, it would probably more closely resemble its overweight, sluggish owner than the fit military man it attempts to personify.
The Hummer is a lightning rod for environmentalists, symbolizing over consumption, greed and elitism. It is also the focus of many eco-terrorism campaigns. Hummer dealerships have been the target of arson fires, and numerous Web sites describe how to tamper with a Hummer's tailpipe using a tuna fish can.
For years, environmentalists have lambasted Schwarzenegger for his love for SUVs. As he began his run for governor in 2003, his campaign appearances in giant SUVs and Hummers were not too popular with earth-conscious Californians. In an effort to remedy this, Schwarzenegger announced that he was working with GM to develop a hydrogen-fueled Hummer. The resulting H2H runs on hydrogen and is now shared between GM and the state of California. While it is a great engineering feat, the H2H is not intended for production and will not likely help the Hummer's public image.
To add to the drama, and perhaps causing Schwarzenegger's decision to sell, is the high-profile lawsuit against auto manufacturers in California. The state is currently suing six auto manufacturers, including GM, for monetary compensation due to the global warming emissions their cars produce. The state estimates that 30 percent of California's carbon dioxide emissions come from transportation sources. With his state suing GM, Schwarzenegger wisely decided to sell his beloved gas guzzlers.
Schwarzenegger obviously is not the typical American, since he could afford eight Hummers in the first place, but for fun let's extrapolate his actions to the level of the average American. If the Governator can give up his eight Hummers, can we get rid of our incandescent light bulbs for compact fluorescents? If Schwarzenegger can make such a change, can we change our driving habits? How about reducing our electrical consumption? The answer is quite simply, "Yes."
If the man who bought the first Hummer can sell them because of global warming, what are we willing to do? Schwarzenegger's persona is larger than life and this fantastic turnaround is, too. But his act shouldn't exist in a vacuum. If Schwarzenegger is selling his Hummers, the future doesn't look bright for the massive vehicle. The real concerns surrounding global warming and gas prices have taken precedence over the appeal of owning the road.
The greening governor of California made the right choice to sell his Hummers. Can the combination of high gas prices and increased public understanding of global warming cause a suburban Hummer revolt, too? Instead of selling them, Schwarzenegger could donate the Hummers to the military, where giant Humvee-style vehicles are actually appropriate.
(C) 2006 Minnesota Daily via U-WIRE
LOAD-DATE: October 5, 2006
Copyright 2006 Business Wire, Inc.
Business Wire
August 31, 2006 Thursday 6:53 PM GMT
DISTRIBUTION: Business Editors; Environment Writers; Government Writers
LENGTH: 1039 words
HEADLINE: Planktos Inc. Offers California Affordable Green Tech to Fulfill New Global Warming Law - Ecosystem Restoration: The Life-Giving Key to CO2 Reduction and Economic Progress
DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO Aug. 31, 2006
BODY:
-Thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, the world's eighth-largest economy and 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) has boldly jumped to the forefront of the international climate change battle. California's Global Warming Solutions Act just passed today pledges to reduce the state's GHG emissions by a whopping 25% by 2020, targeting an annual reduction of over 125 million tons.
Although some critics claim such mandatory reductions could harm the state financially, a closer reading of the legislation reveals a hidden win-win-win solution for the climate, economy and natural environment, too. Specifically, the new law supports atmospheric CO2 reductions via eco-restoration projects like growing new forests and other forms of plant life.
San Francisco Bay area eco-restoration firm, Planktos Inc., has been working to deliver ocean and forest restoration as the most beneficial, cost-effective and largest volume answer to both global warming and the equally severe CO2 crises in the sea. The company will soon be launching a pilot series of commercial scale phytoplankton restoration projects to revive failing ocean life and produce millions of tons of tradable low cost GHG emission offset credits (aka "carbon credits") to finance the work. Restoring these tiny ocean plants, that the company calls the ocean forest, to 1980 levels of health and activity will generate billions of tons of CO2 sequestering biomass and feed the entire marine ecosystem from the bottom up. Our plummeting populations of fish, whales and sea birds might well rejoice that California's climate change solutions may now help rescue them, too.
The Case for Ecosystem Restoration
1) Troubled Waters: While the public and politicians have finally focused upon the approach of global warming, they continue to ignore our greatest CO2 threat, the here and now calamity of accelerating oceanic collapse. The CO2-driven acidification and iron starvation of the seas are decimating the phytoplankton on which all life depends. These tiny marine plants generate most of our oxygen, remove more than half our CO2, and are the foundation of the entire marine food pyramid. Plankton desperately need trace micronutrients, especially iron, to grow and photosynthesize, and have traditionally received it in wind-borne dust from arid regions of the world. Modern agriculture and high CO2 levels have increased drylands groundcover to such a degree that 35% less iron rich dust is reaching the sea than two decades ago. This has already caused a 25% drop in plankton life in the hardest hit regions of the North Pacific, and a 6-9% dieoff worldwide. The knock-on effects are immediate and lethal, starving fisheries, great whales, millions of sea birds, etc. The climatic effects are equally formidable. Compared to 1980 baselines, plankton photosynthesis is now pulling down 3 billion fewer tons of CO2 each year, an amount equivalent to about half of our annual manmade CO2 emissions worldwide. In other words, simply restoring plankton populations to the strength they enjoyed a few decades ago would remove four to five times more CO2 from the atmosphere than universal compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, and generate gigatons of fish and whale food in the bargain.
2) Disappearing Forests: According to UN studies, we have now lost nearly half of the Earth's natural forests, most of them within the last 30 years. Although a few are being replanted--often with "tree farms" or worse, the pace is entirely too slow and the overall impacts on biodiversity, wildlife habitat, water supplies and the global carbon cycle remain pernicious and immense. While large-scale mixed-growth forest restoration in protected reserves seems to offer so many ecological and climatic benefits, this approach has at times been disdained or opposed by both high tech geoengineering advocates and source reduction purists.
3) The Real Meaning of GHG Mitigation Plans like California's New Legislation and the Kyoto Protocol. Critics accurately observe that even universal compliance with California's law or the Kyoto Protocol would do little to solve the true enormity of CO2's global threats. Happily, the real value of such reforms lies not in their minimalist reduction targets, but in their creation of well funded markets for CO2 reductions that generously incentivize innovations for climate redress. Overseas robust Kyoto-spawned markets are already stimulating immense creativity, and even promise major funding to address the sea and forest crises, which would likely remain unheeded if not for their new found "carbon credit" value.
According to Russ George, founder and CEO of Planktos, Inc, a pioneer in the eco-restoration field, "Whether source reduction and/or techno-wizardry can cool the atmosphere a little or a lot, neither hybrid cars nor underground CO2 injection, have any lasting environmental merit beyond the direct greenhouse gas reduction involved. Ecosystem restoration, in contrast, not only reduces atmospheric CO2; it simultaneously regenerates the most vital ecologies on Earth. Now thanks to California's leadership, it can also soon perform this healing in a profitably self-funding way."
"Our wounded planet desperately needs ecosystem restoration first and foremost," says Mr. George. "It is the most important triage decision of our day. Its large effect and low cost also deliver us from the Scylla and Charybdis dilemma of choosing between environmental or economic apocalypse, and we can begin making a big difference right away. Of course, eco-restoration cannot solve the whole climate problem, and conservation and source reductions also have key roles to play. Indeed all approaches are urgently welcomed now because we clearly need the large CO2 reductions California's legislation prescribes both to heal the climate and rescue the seas."
For more information on the science and economics of environmental restoration, please see the Planktos website at www.planktos.com. Planktos is dedicated to marine and terrestrial ecosystem renewal, and is a subsidiary of Solar Energy Limited which trades on the NASDAQ as SLRE.ob. (OTCBB:SLRE).
CONTACT: Planktos, Inc. Russ George, 650-638-1975 russ@planktos.com
URL: http://www.businesswire.com
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2006
Business Wire
August 31, 2006 Thursday 6:53 PM GMT
DISTRIBUTION: Business Editors; Environment Writers; Government Writers
LENGTH: 1039 words
HEADLINE: Planktos Inc. Offers California Affordable Green Tech to Fulfill New Global Warming Law - Ecosystem Restoration: The Life-Giving Key to CO2 Reduction and Economic Progress
DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO Aug. 31, 2006
BODY:
-Thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, the world's eighth-largest economy and 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) has boldly jumped to the forefront of the international climate change battle. California's Global Warming Solutions Act just passed today pledges to reduce the state's GHG emissions by a whopping 25% by 2020, targeting an annual reduction of over 125 million tons.
Although some critics claim such mandatory reductions could harm the state financially, a closer reading of the legislation reveals a hidden win-win-win solution for the climate, economy and natural environment, too. Specifically, the new law supports atmospheric CO2 reductions via eco-restoration projects like growing new forests and other forms of plant life.
San Francisco Bay area eco-restoration firm, Planktos Inc., has been working to deliver ocean and forest restoration as the most beneficial, cost-effective and largest volume answer to both global warming and the equally severe CO2 crises in the sea. The company will soon be launching a pilot series of commercial scale phytoplankton restoration projects to revive failing ocean life and produce millions of tons of tradable low cost GHG emission offset credits (aka "carbon credits") to finance the work. Restoring these tiny ocean plants, that the company calls the ocean forest, to 1980 levels of health and activity will generate billions of tons of CO2 sequestering biomass and feed the entire marine ecosystem from the bottom up. Our plummeting populations of fish, whales and sea birds might well rejoice that California's climate change solutions may now help rescue them, too.
The Case for Ecosystem Restoration
1) Troubled Waters: While the public and politicians have finally focused upon the approach of global warming, they continue to ignore our greatest CO2 threat, the here and now calamity of accelerating oceanic collapse. The CO2-driven acidification and iron starvation of the seas are decimating the phytoplankton on which all life depends. These tiny marine plants generate most of our oxygen, remove more than half our CO2, and are the foundation of the entire marine food pyramid. Plankton desperately need trace micronutrients, especially iron, to grow and photosynthesize, and have traditionally received it in wind-borne dust from arid regions of the world. Modern agriculture and high CO2 levels have increased drylands groundcover to such a degree that 35% less iron rich dust is reaching the sea than two decades ago. This has already caused a 25% drop in plankton life in the hardest hit regions of the North Pacific, and a 6-9% dieoff worldwide. The knock-on effects are immediate and lethal, starving fisheries, great whales, millions of sea birds, etc. The climatic effects are equally formidable. Compared to 1980 baselines, plankton photosynthesis is now pulling down 3 billion fewer tons of CO2 each year, an amount equivalent to about half of our annual manmade CO2 emissions worldwide. In other words, simply restoring plankton populations to the strength they enjoyed a few decades ago would remove four to five times more CO2 from the atmosphere than universal compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, and generate gigatons of fish and whale food in the bargain.
2) Disappearing Forests: According to UN studies, we have now lost nearly half of the Earth's natural forests, most of them within the last 30 years. Although a few are being replanted--often with "tree farms" or worse, the pace is entirely too slow and the overall impacts on biodiversity, wildlife habitat, water supplies and the global carbon cycle remain pernicious and immense. While large-scale mixed-growth forest restoration in protected reserves seems to offer so many ecological and climatic benefits, this approach has at times been disdained or opposed by both high tech geoengineering advocates and source reduction purists.
3) The Real Meaning of GHG Mitigation Plans like California's New Legislation and the Kyoto Protocol. Critics accurately observe that even universal compliance with California's law or the Kyoto Protocol would do little to solve the true enormity of CO2's global threats. Happily, the real value of such reforms lies not in their minimalist reduction targets, but in their creation of well funded markets for CO2 reductions that generously incentivize innovations for climate redress. Overseas robust Kyoto-spawned markets are already stimulating immense creativity, and even promise major funding to address the sea and forest crises, which would likely remain unheeded if not for their new found "carbon credit" value.
According to Russ George, founder and CEO of Planktos, Inc, a pioneer in the eco-restoration field, "Whether source reduction and/or techno-wizardry can cool the atmosphere a little or a lot, neither hybrid cars nor underground CO2 injection, have any lasting environmental merit beyond the direct greenhouse gas reduction involved. Ecosystem restoration, in contrast, not only reduces atmospheric CO2; it simultaneously regenerates the most vital ecologies on Earth. Now thanks to California's leadership, it can also soon perform this healing in a profitably self-funding way."
"Our wounded planet desperately needs ecosystem restoration first and foremost," says Mr. George. "It is the most important triage decision of our day. Its large effect and low cost also deliver us from the Scylla and Charybdis dilemma of choosing between environmental or economic apocalypse, and we can begin making a big difference right away. Of course, eco-restoration cannot solve the whole climate problem, and conservation and source reductions also have key roles to play. Indeed all approaches are urgently welcomed now because we clearly need the large CO2 reductions California's legislation prescribes both to heal the climate and rescue the seas."
For more information on the science and economics of environmental restoration, please see the Planktos website at www.planktos.com. Planktos is dedicated to marine and terrestrial ecosystem renewal, and is a subsidiary of Solar Energy Limited which trades on the NASDAQ as SLRE.ob. (OTCBB:SLRE).
CONTACT: Planktos, Inc. Russ George, 650-638-1975 russ@planktos.com
URL: http://www.businesswire.com
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2006
Help spread the word.
This article deals with spreading the word and dealing with the issues at hand. It talks about New York enacting green house gas initiatives to cut back on the total emission.
Scroll down to read dates for a national conference.
SOURCE
December 8, 2006
Stoel Rives Hosts December 13 Teleconference on State and Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Current Outlook, Status, and Implications for Renewable Energy
Press Release from Stoel Rives
On December 13, Stoel Rives is pleased to host December's ABA nationally teleconferenced seminar, "State and Federal Green House Gas Regulation: Current Status, Outlook, and Implications for Renewable Energy," in our Portland, Boise and Sacramento offices.
Stoel Rives is pleased to host December's ABA nationally teleconferenced seminar, "State and Federal Green House Gas Regulation: Current Status, Outlook, and Implications for Renewable Energy," in our Portland, Boise and Sacramento offices on December 13.
The growing recognition of climate change as a subject of the gravest concern is leading to action across the country. New York State recently issued its rule for implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Northeastern states' mandatory green house gas cap regime. California recently enacted A.B. 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Dozens of climate change related bills have been introduced in Congress and the Senate has gathered hundreds of comments and held extensive hearings on the subject. The design of any carbon cap program can have a profound impact on the growth of renewables. This expert panel will review the current status of green house gas regulation in New York State, California and at the federal level and discuss how such regulation can serve to foster or discourage the development of renewable energy.
Expert national panel:
Moderators:
Edna Sussman, Hoguet Newman & Regal LLP (live in New York)
Richard Saines, Baker & McKenzie LLP (live in New York)
Our expert panel includes:
Assemblymember Fran Pavley, California 41st Assembly District (live in Los Angeles)
Franz Litz, Climate Change Policy Coordinator, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (live in New York)
Michael Goo, Democratic Counsel, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (live in Washington, DC)
Key topics to be discussed:
NYS: New rule implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
California: New Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
Congress: Green House Gas legislation status on the hill
Analysis: Potential impact of green house gas regime design on growth of renewables
This event will be held on Wednesday, December 13. Schedules and RSVP information for the Stoel Rives locations are as follows:
Portland
8:45 - 10:30 a.m. PT
Teleconference: 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. PT
RSVP by Monday, December 11: Helen Suekuni, 503.294.9365 or hhsuekuni@stoel.com
Boise
9:45 - 11:30 a.m. MT
Teleconference: 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. MT
RSVP by Monday, December 11: Tammie Brennan, 208.387.4244 or tlbrennan@stoel.com
Sacramento
8:45 - 10:30 a.m. PT
Teleconference: 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. PT
RSVP by Monday, December 11: Elizabeth Hecox, 916.319.4662 or eyhecox@stoel.com
Space is limited, so please respond early to reserve your place. We look forward to seeing you there.
The information on this page was created and posted by the company identified above. RenewableEnergyAccess.com does not endorse, edit, or substantiate this information and assumes no obligation for this content's accuracy.
Scroll down to read dates for a national conference.
SOURCE
December 8, 2006
Stoel Rives Hosts December 13 Teleconference on State and Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Current Outlook, Status, and Implications for Renewable Energy
Press Release from Stoel Rives
On December 13, Stoel Rives is pleased to host December's ABA nationally teleconferenced seminar, "State and Federal Green House Gas Regulation: Current Status, Outlook, and Implications for Renewable Energy," in our Portland, Boise and Sacramento offices.
Stoel Rives is pleased to host December's ABA nationally teleconferenced seminar, "State and Federal Green House Gas Regulation: Current Status, Outlook, and Implications for Renewable Energy," in our Portland, Boise and Sacramento offices on December 13.
The growing recognition of climate change as a subject of the gravest concern is leading to action across the country. New York State recently issued its rule for implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Northeastern states' mandatory green house gas cap regime. California recently enacted A.B. 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Dozens of climate change related bills have been introduced in Congress and the Senate has gathered hundreds of comments and held extensive hearings on the subject. The design of any carbon cap program can have a profound impact on the growth of renewables. This expert panel will review the current status of green house gas regulation in New York State, California and at the federal level and discuss how such regulation can serve to foster or discourage the development of renewable energy.
Expert national panel:
Moderators:
Edna Sussman, Hoguet Newman & Regal LLP (live in New York)
Richard Saines, Baker & McKenzie LLP (live in New York)
Our expert panel includes:
Assemblymember Fran Pavley, California 41st Assembly District (live in Los Angeles)
Franz Litz, Climate Change Policy Coordinator, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (live in New York)
Michael Goo, Democratic Counsel, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (live in Washington, DC)
Key topics to be discussed:
NYS: New rule implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
California: New Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
Congress: Green House Gas legislation status on the hill
Analysis: Potential impact of green house gas regime design on growth of renewables
This event will be held on Wednesday, December 13. Schedules and RSVP information for the Stoel Rives locations are as follows:
Portland
8:45 - 10:30 a.m. PT
Teleconference: 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. PT
RSVP by Monday, December 11: Helen Suekuni, 503.294.9365 or hhsuekuni@stoel.com
Boise
9:45 - 11:30 a.m. MT
Teleconference: 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. MT
RSVP by Monday, December 11: Tammie Brennan, 208.387.4244 or tlbrennan@stoel.com
Sacramento
8:45 - 10:30 a.m. PT
Teleconference: 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. PT
RSVP by Monday, December 11: Elizabeth Hecox, 916.319.4662 or eyhecox@stoel.com
Space is limited, so please respond early to reserve your place. We look forward to seeing you there.
The information on this page was created and posted by the company identified above. RenewableEnergyAccess.com does not endorse, edit, or substantiate this information and assumes no obligation for this content's accuracy.
High Rollers
Here's another one of the key players that has a lot to gain in the passage of this law. This organization provides prizes for green technology, in other words, technology that cuts down on pollution in the environment to help clean it up. This organization could be a possible future partner in creating legislation in allignment with the frame work of the California Global Warming Solutions Act 2006.
Scroll down to read more about innovative technologies.
SOURCE
Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers Awards First ''KPCB Prize for Greentech Innovation''
Breakthrough in Reducing Coal Emissions is Inaugural Winner
Greentech Innovation Network (GIN) Conference
BERKELEY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers (KPCB) today announced the inaugural winner of its “KPCB Prize for Greentech Innovation,” Dr. Eli Gal for his breakthrough process for capturing CO2. The $100,000 KPCB Greentech prize was established to encourage innovation by recognizing entrepreneurs like Dr. Gal for substantial advancements in Greentech -- technologies for clean water, clean power or clean transportation.
Dr. Gal’s son David submitted the winning entry for his father’s innovative technology for capturing CO2 emissions from coal-burning power plants, a significant contributor to global warming. Dr. Gal’s unique, chilled ammonia-based process is dramatically cheaper and more efficient than alternative and conventional CO2 capture technologies. The new process delivers CO2 capture rates in excess of 90%, lowers the cost of scrubbing emissions from $40 per ton of CO2 to $20 per ton, and requires as little as half the power needs that other scrubbing technologies require.
On behalf of KPCB, partner John Doerr said, “This technology has tremendous potential for one of our gnarliest problems — CO2 from coal. Through this innovation, Dr. Gal has made the remaining coal on this planet greener for our next 150 years.”
A team of four independent judges and Greentech Innovation Network members selected Dr. Gal. The judges were Dr. Steve Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics; Bob Epstein, co-founder of Environmental Entrepreneurs and Sybase; Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund and Amory Lovins, Founder and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute. They looked for a winning technology based on its ability to inspire innovators, likelihood to work and ability to benefit from the prize money.
Epstein lauded Dr. Gal’s entry for both the scope of the problem addressed and the potential impact of the solution. He voted for Gal’s innovation because it “challenges conventional wisdom. If this could be made to work, it is a huge step forward as it could apply to existing power generation worldwide.”
Dr. Gal’s technology for the CO2 capture process further demonstrates high probability for successful commercialization with radical cost and efficiency advantages over other technologies. His entry was selected from 100 submissions from around the world that addressed topics in clean power, transportation and water.
The “KPCB Prize for Greentech Innovation” is one of several efforts undertaken by the firm to foster Greentech innovation. KPCB has also established the “KPCB Prize for Greentech Policy Innovators” to recognize and award $50,000 to outstanding policy entrepreneurs, which was announced at the Clinton Global Initiative in September 2006. The winner of the policy award will be announced in Spring 2007.
KPCB also recently formed the Greentech Innovation Network with 50 of the world’s leading entrepreneurs, scientists, policymakers and green-minded F100 business leaders. The goal of the network is to forge new partnerships and to build a strategic map for evaluating needs and encouraging innovation. The network played a key role in supporting the passage of AB32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act.
About Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Since its founding in 1972, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has backed entrepreneurs in 475 ventures, including AOL, Align, Amazon.com, Citrix, Compaq Computer, Electronic Arts, Genentech, Genomic Health, Google, Hybritech, IDEC Pharmaceuticals, Intuit, Juniper Networks, Netscape, Lotus, Nuvasive, Sun Microsystems, Symantec, Verisign and Xilinx. KPCB portfolio companies employ more than 250,000 people. More than 150 of the firm's portfolio companies have gone public. Many other ventures have achieved success through mergers and acquisitions. KPCB has broadly invested in both life sciences and information technology since inception in 1972. In the last six years, KPCB has expanded its focus to include Greentech and pandemic preparedness. www.kpcb.com/greentech
Scroll down to read more about innovative technologies.
SOURCE
Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers Awards First ''KPCB Prize for Greentech Innovation''
Breakthrough in Reducing Coal Emissions is Inaugural Winner
Greentech Innovation Network (GIN) Conference
BERKELEY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers (KPCB) today announced the inaugural winner of its “KPCB Prize for Greentech Innovation,” Dr. Eli Gal for his breakthrough process for capturing CO2. The $100,000 KPCB Greentech prize was established to encourage innovation by recognizing entrepreneurs like Dr. Gal for substantial advancements in Greentech -- technologies for clean water, clean power or clean transportation.
Dr. Gal’s son David submitted the winning entry for his father’s innovative technology for capturing CO2 emissions from coal-burning power plants, a significant contributor to global warming. Dr. Gal’s unique, chilled ammonia-based process is dramatically cheaper and more efficient than alternative and conventional CO2 capture technologies. The new process delivers CO2 capture rates in excess of 90%, lowers the cost of scrubbing emissions from $40 per ton of CO2 to $20 per ton, and requires as little as half the power needs that other scrubbing technologies require.
On behalf of KPCB, partner John Doerr said, “This technology has tremendous potential for one of our gnarliest problems — CO2 from coal. Through this innovation, Dr. Gal has made the remaining coal on this planet greener for our next 150 years.”
A team of four independent judges and Greentech Innovation Network members selected Dr. Gal. The judges were Dr. Steve Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics; Bob Epstein, co-founder of Environmental Entrepreneurs and Sybase; Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund and Amory Lovins, Founder and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute. They looked for a winning technology based on its ability to inspire innovators, likelihood to work and ability to benefit from the prize money.
Epstein lauded Dr. Gal’s entry for both the scope of the problem addressed and the potential impact of the solution. He voted for Gal’s innovation because it “challenges conventional wisdom. If this could be made to work, it is a huge step forward as it could apply to existing power generation worldwide.”
Dr. Gal’s technology for the CO2 capture process further demonstrates high probability for successful commercialization with radical cost and efficiency advantages over other technologies. His entry was selected from 100 submissions from around the world that addressed topics in clean power, transportation and water.
The “KPCB Prize for Greentech Innovation” is one of several efforts undertaken by the firm to foster Greentech innovation. KPCB has also established the “KPCB Prize for Greentech Policy Innovators” to recognize and award $50,000 to outstanding policy entrepreneurs, which was announced at the Clinton Global Initiative in September 2006. The winner of the policy award will be announced in Spring 2007.
KPCB also recently formed the Greentech Innovation Network with 50 of the world’s leading entrepreneurs, scientists, policymakers and green-minded F100 business leaders. The goal of the network is to forge new partnerships and to build a strategic map for evaluating needs and encouraging innovation. The network played a key role in supporting the passage of AB32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act.
About Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Since its founding in 1972, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has backed entrepreneurs in 475 ventures, including AOL, Align, Amazon.com, Citrix, Compaq Computer, Electronic Arts, Genentech, Genomic Health, Google, Hybritech, IDEC Pharmaceuticals, Intuit, Juniper Networks, Netscape, Lotus, Nuvasive, Sun Microsystems, Symantec, Verisign and Xilinx. KPCB portfolio companies employ more than 250,000 people. More than 150 of the firm's portfolio companies have gone public. Many other ventures have achieved success through mergers and acquisitions. KPCB has broadly invested in both life sciences and information technology since inception in 1972. In the last six years, KPCB has expanded its focus to include Greentech and pandemic preparedness. www.kpcb.com/greentech
Extra! Extra! Read all about it!
Here's a quaint grassroots newsletter that has to do a lot with the environment, based in Chicago. This provides an outside perspective to the inner workings of the California Global Warming Solutions Act 2006.
Clink the SOURCE below to read articles that may tingle your funny bone with guilt.
SOURCE
Clink the SOURCE below to read articles that may tingle your funny bone with guilt.
SOURCE
Status Report
SOURCE
New Outlook for Climate Change on Capitol Hill
STATUS REPORT
Friday, December 8, 2006
American Institute of Physics
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 139: December 8, 2006
Room 406 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building will be the setting for one of the most dramatic changes that will occur on Capitol Hill when the new Congress convenes in January. This is the hearing room of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired for four years by James Inhofe (R-OK), who has characterized global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Taking Inhofe's place is Barbara Boxer (D-CA) whose position on global warming is exactly opposite that of the current chairman. In a recent statement, Boxer made clear her position and intentions: "Nowhere is there a greater threat to future generations than the disastrous effects of global warming. Scientists tell us we must act soon to cut production of greenhouse gases. One of my top priorities will be to spotlight this issue with the help of colleagues from both sides of the aisle with the goal of ultimately bringing legislation to the Senate floor."
Boxer's approach to what form this legislation might take is evident from her statement in August when California passed a bill addressing greenhouse gas emissions: "I am a lead cosponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006, legislation authored by Senator Jim Jeffords which sets a marker for a comprehensive approach to address global warming. This legislation has important similarities to California's new bill - they both provide a variety of flexible tools to address climate change. California's bill has a goal of a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. Senator Jeffords' bill shares this goal, and then continues with an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050."
The bill Boxer was referring to, S. 3698, was introduced by Jeffords (I-VT) on July 20. It was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which took no action on the bill which will die at the end of this session (effectively today.) S. 3698 has twelve cosponsors, all but one of which are Democrats. The 10,500 word bill has many provisions, prominent among them the authorization of a market-based emission control system administered by the EPA. Bill language describes the legislation's ten Purposes:
"(1) to achieve a reduction in global warming pollution emissions compatible with ensuring that - (A) the average global temperature does not increase by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the preindustrial average; and (B) total average global atmospheric concentrations of global warming pollutants do not exceed 450 parts per million in carbon dioxide equivalent;
(2) to reduce by calendar year 2050 the aggregate net level of global warming pollution emissions of the United States to a level that is 80 percent below the aggregate net level of global warming pollution emissions for calendar year 1990;
(3) to allow for an acceleration of reductions in global warming pollution emissions to prevent - (A) average global temperature from increasing by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the preindustrial average; or (B) global atmospheric concentrations of global warming pollutants from exceeding 450 parts per million;
(4) to establish a motor vehicle global warming pollution emission requirement;
(5) to require electric generation units to meet a global warming pollution emission standard;
(6) to establish rules for the safe geological sequestration of carbon dioxide;
(7) to encourage energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy by establishing a renewable portfolio standard and an energy efficiency portfolio standard;
(8) to provide for research relating to, and development of, the technologies to control global warming pollution emissions;
(9) to position the United States as the world leader in reducing the risk of the potentially devastating, wide-ranging impacts associated with global warming; and
(10) to promote, through leadership by the United States, accelerated reductions in global warming pollution from other countries with significant global warming pollution emissions."
Boxer is poised to move the committee in a new direction. She has established six subcommittees, one of which she will chair that will be called the Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, Children's Health Protection and Nuclear Safety. Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) will chair the Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection. Lieberman has authored a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill. Boxer intends to hold an "intensive" set of hearings on climate change beginning in mid-January, reviewing scientific evidence, and policy solutions, including those taken by state and local governments. She said that she wants to hear from "colleagues on both sides of the aisle . . . who have something to say about this subject, pro or con." Environmentalists, faith-based organizations, the business community, and the technology sector will be heard, she said. "So that's the plan for global warming: listen, listen, listen. Hear all the ideas. And then we'll put some legislation together.""There's going to be a sea change on the committee," Boxer said at a recent press conference.
Looking ahead, supporters of mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions will need 60 votes to block a filibuster in order to pass a bill on the Senate floor. Inhofe predicts that he will prevent that, saying "I can assure you that will not happen." The outlook in the House is uncertain, with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, saying that he was "pessimistic" about passing legislation. This committee will be chaired by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), a strong supporter of the automobile industry, who recently said that he would "support responsible [greenhouse gas] legislation."
Any bill must be signed by President George Bush, who opposes mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions. In mid-November, Boxer, Lieberman, and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) wrote to Bush saying, "as incoming Chairs of three important Senate Committees on global warming, we seek your commitment to work with the new Congress to pass meaningful climate change legislation in 2007" (see http://boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=265906&.) At a recent press conference, Boxer spoke of the Bush Administration as "reaching out to us, wanting to do something."
The outlook on mandatory controls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions seems, at best, problematic, with many saying that the next two years will set the stage for the following ten. Boxer addressed the prospects for what she has in mind, asking, "will I make it everything I want? No, I can tell you that right now." But then she added, "But I will know that at the end of the day, we have taken it as far as we could possibly take it with the make-up here in the Congress. And remember, everybody faces the voters. The whole House. The third of the Senate. And people are going to be mindful. Because I think people in the country are beginning to really wake up to this. They're concerned."
New Outlook for Climate Change on Capitol Hill
STATUS REPORT
Friday, December 8, 2006
American Institute of Physics
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 139: December 8, 2006
Room 406 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building will be the setting for one of the most dramatic changes that will occur on Capitol Hill when the new Congress convenes in January. This is the hearing room of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired for four years by James Inhofe (R-OK), who has characterized global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Taking Inhofe's place is Barbara Boxer (D-CA) whose position on global warming is exactly opposite that of the current chairman. In a recent statement, Boxer made clear her position and intentions: "Nowhere is there a greater threat to future generations than the disastrous effects of global warming. Scientists tell us we must act soon to cut production of greenhouse gases. One of my top priorities will be to spotlight this issue with the help of colleagues from both sides of the aisle with the goal of ultimately bringing legislation to the Senate floor."
Boxer's approach to what form this legislation might take is evident from her statement in August when California passed a bill addressing greenhouse gas emissions: "I am a lead cosponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006, legislation authored by Senator Jim Jeffords which sets a marker for a comprehensive approach to address global warming. This legislation has important similarities to California's new bill - they both provide a variety of flexible tools to address climate change. California's bill has a goal of a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. Senator Jeffords' bill shares this goal, and then continues with an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050."
The bill Boxer was referring to, S. 3698, was introduced by Jeffords (I-VT) on July 20. It was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which took no action on the bill which will die at the end of this session (effectively today.) S. 3698 has twelve cosponsors, all but one of which are Democrats. The 10,500 word bill has many provisions, prominent among them the authorization of a market-based emission control system administered by the EPA. Bill language describes the legislation's ten Purposes:
"(1) to achieve a reduction in global warming pollution emissions compatible with ensuring that - (A) the average global temperature does not increase by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the preindustrial average; and (B) total average global atmospheric concentrations of global warming pollutants do not exceed 450 parts per million in carbon dioxide equivalent;
(2) to reduce by calendar year 2050 the aggregate net level of global warming pollution emissions of the United States to a level that is 80 percent below the aggregate net level of global warming pollution emissions for calendar year 1990;
(3) to allow for an acceleration of reductions in global warming pollution emissions to prevent - (A) average global temperature from increasing by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the preindustrial average; or (B) global atmospheric concentrations of global warming pollutants from exceeding 450 parts per million;
(4) to establish a motor vehicle global warming pollution emission requirement;
(5) to require electric generation units to meet a global warming pollution emission standard;
(6) to establish rules for the safe geological sequestration of carbon dioxide;
(7) to encourage energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy by establishing a renewable portfolio standard and an energy efficiency portfolio standard;
(8) to provide for research relating to, and development of, the technologies to control global warming pollution emissions;
(9) to position the United States as the world leader in reducing the risk of the potentially devastating, wide-ranging impacts associated with global warming; and
(10) to promote, through leadership by the United States, accelerated reductions in global warming pollution from other countries with significant global warming pollution emissions."
Boxer is poised to move the committee in a new direction. She has established six subcommittees, one of which she will chair that will be called the Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, Children's Health Protection and Nuclear Safety. Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) will chair the Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection. Lieberman has authored a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill. Boxer intends to hold an "intensive" set of hearings on climate change beginning in mid-January, reviewing scientific evidence, and policy solutions, including those taken by state and local governments. She said that she wants to hear from "colleagues on both sides of the aisle . . . who have something to say about this subject, pro or con." Environmentalists, faith-based organizations, the business community, and the technology sector will be heard, she said. "So that's the plan for global warming: listen, listen, listen. Hear all the ideas. And then we'll put some legislation together.""There's going to be a sea change on the committee," Boxer said at a recent press conference.
Looking ahead, supporters of mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions will need 60 votes to block a filibuster in order to pass a bill on the Senate floor. Inhofe predicts that he will prevent that, saying "I can assure you that will not happen." The outlook in the House is uncertain, with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, saying that he was "pessimistic" about passing legislation. This committee will be chaired by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), a strong supporter of the automobile industry, who recently said that he would "support responsible [greenhouse gas] legislation."
Any bill must be signed by President George Bush, who opposes mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions. In mid-November, Boxer, Lieberman, and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) wrote to Bush saying, "as incoming Chairs of three important Senate Committees on global warming, we seek your commitment to work with the new Congress to pass meaningful climate change legislation in 2007" (see http://boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=265906&.) At a recent press conference, Boxer spoke of the Bush Administration as "reaching out to us, wanting to do something."
The outlook on mandatory controls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions seems, at best, problematic, with many saying that the next two years will set the stage for the following ten. Boxer addressed the prospects for what she has in mind, asking, "will I make it everything I want? No, I can tell you that right now." But then she added, "But I will know that at the end of the day, we have taken it as far as we could possibly take it with the make-up here in the Congress. And remember, everybody faces the voters. The whole House. The third of the Senate. And people are going to be mindful. Because I think people in the country are beginning to really wake up to this. They're concerned."
O.K., work with me here.
With a statistic showing that 90% of california comapanies want to work with a cap and trade system, this prosperity policy, for either economic or environmental good, will take on a market based approach. This type of approach is truly the most beneficial for large companies as they can make up for the money that they are spending on cutting back on emissions through selling their pollution permits to other companies that have fallen behind.
Scroll down to read how California companies can benefit.
SOURCE
Survey: Cali companies want cap and trade for emissions reduction
New York, NY, Dec. 8, 2006 -- An overwhelming majority of respondents to a Cantor Fitzgerald Brokerage L.P. survey of California businesses said the best way to meet California's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal is through a cap and trade program. Ninety one percent of businesses that were surveyed said that California should develop a cap and trade program in order to meet the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in September. The act requires Californians to reduce GHG emissions up to 25% by 2020.
Cap and trade is a market based policy tool that has been used to try and make environmental gains in the U.S. and Europe. A cap and trade program sets a limit on emissions, allows businesses the freedom to choose exactly how they will comply, and requires regulators to ensure that the reductions are made. This approach is different than the traditional method, which requires the government to understand and describe in detail exactly how each and every business should reduce emissions.
Click here for Itron
Over half the survey participants who are likely to be affected by the new law said the management of GHG emissions is highly important to their company, and two-thirds indicated that the law will affect their California operations.
If a market-based approach to reducing emissions is implemented, 80% of companies surveyed by Cantor believe they will reduce emissions onsite and/or buy reductions.
Respondents also estimated the value of GHG emission credits will increase significantly by 2020. On average, they thought that GHG allowances that are useable to satisfy California's prospective requirements may cost $27 dollars/ton in 2012 and may increase to more than $39 dollars/ton in 2020.
The survey also underscored that a significant amount of uncertainty currently exists among California businesses about how the GHG law will be executed. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is responsible for implementing the new law, is holding a series of public hearings.
Scroll down to read how California companies can benefit.
SOURCE
Survey: Cali companies want cap and trade for emissions reduction
New York, NY, Dec. 8, 2006 -- An overwhelming majority of respondents to a Cantor Fitzgerald Brokerage L.P. survey of California businesses said the best way to meet California's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal is through a cap and trade program. Ninety one percent of businesses that were surveyed said that California should develop a cap and trade program in order to meet the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in September. The act requires Californians to reduce GHG emissions up to 25% by 2020.
Cap and trade is a market based policy tool that has been used to try and make environmental gains in the U.S. and Europe. A cap and trade program sets a limit on emissions, allows businesses the freedom to choose exactly how they will comply, and requires regulators to ensure that the reductions are made. This approach is different than the traditional method, which requires the government to understand and describe in detail exactly how each and every business should reduce emissions.
Click here for Itron
Over half the survey participants who are likely to be affected by the new law said the management of GHG emissions is highly important to their company, and two-thirds indicated that the law will affect their California operations.
If a market-based approach to reducing emissions is implemented, 80% of companies surveyed by Cantor believe they will reduce emissions onsite and/or buy reductions.
Respondents also estimated the value of GHG emission credits will increase significantly by 2020. On average, they thought that GHG allowances that are useable to satisfy California's prospective requirements may cost $27 dollars/ton in 2012 and may increase to more than $39 dollars/ton in 2020.
The survey also underscored that a significant amount of uncertainty currently exists among California businesses about how the GHG law will be executed. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is responsible for implementing the new law, is holding a series of public hearings.
Reading between the lines.
Analysis online does a great job doing the one and only thing it does and does it best: analysis of policy. They do a great job of weighing in a lot of the factors in its best attempt to remain unbiased. After all, they job is on the line to provide a great resource. The website gives the legislation a fair reading, and also refers to a similar legislation that California passed in 2003 AB 1493 to cut down on vehicel emissions. With AB 32, it is less specified at targetin polluters at the moment, but rather is a framework and guideline to work within in order to pass future legislation which will deal with the specifics of cutting down on CO2 emmissions.
Scroll down to read the scintillating analysis.
SOURCE
Global cooling in the sunshine stateeclipse
Experts debate the new California state law aimed at combating global warming
By Bruce Murray
Analysisonline Editor
California’s Kyoto?
The nation’s leading state in traffic congestion, population growth and sunbathing is now poised to become a world leader in the fight against global warming.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) mandates that the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This, despite the fact that California will be well on its way toward re-doubling its population by then.
The pros and cons, realities and unrealities of AB 32 were top of the discussion at the Oct. 12 National Energy Symposium in Sacramento.
AB 32 is a landmark for California and marks a dramatic departure from national policy, especially in light of the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Some believe AB 32 is a fool’s errand; others believe it is an essential beginning of a national policy shift to address the problem of global warming. sweeney
“California is in an unusual and interesting situation in that it is pushing the envelope in a way that is not being pushed at the federal level,” said Stanford Professor James L. Sweeney, the keynote speaker at the Symposium.
Much of the regulatory detail is left out of the legislation and instead is placed in the hands of state agencies and future legislation. Just how the legislation works itself out in the real world is unknown, and will likely happen over the next three to five years.
“AB 32 is only a framework, but a framework with teeth,” Sweeney said. “The legislative mechanisms are designed to protect the environment while at the same time not harming the economy. But implementing AB 32 will be a tremendously difficult challenge over which people will have vastly different views.”
It takes a village to combat global warmingcanciamilla
California State Assemblyman Joseph Canciamilla (D-Contra Costa County) said an underlying motivation in AB 32 is to set an example for the rest of the nation and the rest of the world. If California can do it, so can other states and other countries – so goes the logic.
“The intent of this legislation, as with earlier legislation dealing with auto emissions, is to drive the national agenda,” Canciamilla said.
Although California is the largest economy among the 50 states, California alone cannot stop global climate change and should not be under any illusion that it can do so, experts at the symposium stressed.
“What we do in California is not gong to make much difference if we don’t get involvement from other states and around the world,” said Robert Sawyer, chairman of the California Air Resources Board.
Canciamilla, although he voted for AB 32, has many reservations about it. “The key problem, in our quest to set the national example, is that we do not sacrifice the California economy and turn over control of the state’s economy to administrative agencies that are oftentimes staff-driven,” he said. “There are a lot of hooks in this bill that give me concern regarding the long-term health of California.”
The teeth
Much of the regulatory authority of the legislation is put in the hands of the California Air Resources Board, which heretofore has not been responsible for the kind of regulation AB 32 mandates. sawyer
“Our traditional responsibility is air quality and public health, and this will remain our number one responsibility,” Sawyer said. “Reducing green house gases fits in with our mission because we regard greenhouse gasses as air pollutants.”
Sawyer said his agency will work closely with the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission over next several years to implement the legislation. In addition, Sawyer said he will need to expand his staff by 100-150 people to handle the task.
“We will go to experts in developing a market-based plan. These things should always be based on good science and good technology,” he said.
Sweeney said a major debate in the coming months in years is the type of regulations the agencies set up – whether they are “command and control” requirements such as emissions caps; or market-based economic incentives such as emission vouchers that can be bought and sold.
“Where can we apply market-based solutions? Or where do you need micro-incentives, or where do you need command and control? These will be the fundamental difficult challenges that we’re all going to have to face,” Sweeney said.
Sawyer said he will favor market incentives rather than command. “We will set up regulatory market based mechanisms that will make sense and be efficient,” Sawyer said.
World energy demand
Nationwide, oil and natural gas consumption has a nearly unbroken record of growth for the past 100 years – with the exception of two years when the supply was disrupted by war. (See Professor Nathan Lewis’s Power Point presentation, slide 54.)
Although energy consumption is becoming more efficient – people use less energy on a per capita basis – demographic trends are counteracting gains made in efficiency: The world population is expected to reach 10-11 billion people by 2050; so despite increases in efficiency, world energy demand is projected to at least double by the year 2050. (See Nathan Lewis’s Power Point presentation, slides 9-10.)
These trends hold true in California, where rapid population growth and the corresponding demand for energy could very well exceed any gains made in pursuit of AB 32.
“The number of people in California is growing so rapidly; unless we do something about the next doubling of the population in about 40 years, it is not good enough to have the per capita reductions in energy consumption,” Sawyer said.
Nonetheless, energy efficiency is a critical element in – if not reducing energy demand – reducing the growth in energy demand
“Any time you save energy, you save CO2,” Sawyer said. “First step [in fulfilling AB 32] will happen through improved efficiency. Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.”
Electricity
Electricity demand in California reached record levels during the summer heat wave of 2006. The California electricity system hit a record peak demand of 50,000 megawatts, and the Western states combined hit a peak of 150,000 megawatts, according to Jim Detmers, vice president of operations at the California Independent System Operator. By comparison, total electricity demand in China was 400,000 megawatts.
“Last summer, California accomplished an astounding feat: We met a tremendous growth in demand, and we were able to serve all of it; and we met all of the environmental requirements,” Detmers said.
AB 32 requires that the state Air Resources Board and the Public Utilities Commission develop greenhouse gas emission reduction standards for electricity generators and natural gas providers. Exact amounts are not stated in the legislation.
John Geesman of the California Energy Commission said meeting the goals of AB 32 are feasible the electricity-generating sector, but other energy sectors will have more difficulty.
“The reduction goals are achievable, but the means of getting there are likely to prove quite controversial and will go through a trial and error process before arriving at a successful mix of policies,” Geesman said. “We’ve already made substantial reductions over the last 30 years in electricity per capita consumption. We’ve accomplished that through a variety of incentive programs and regulations.”zenker
Michael Zenker, managing director of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said natural gas will be an important component of AB 32. Compared to coal, natural gas emits half of the carbon dioxide per unit of electricity generation. Natural gas is therefore attractive from a local environmental standpoint and from a greenhouse gas standpoint.
“We have heard about a lot of promising technologies that might be significant in 20 years. But gas-fired generation is the fuel of choice today,” Zenker said. “That being said, looking at the [growth] trends in California, you cannot meet AB 32 by relying on natural gas alone.”
Not in my backyard
A drawback to natural gas is that it still has to be imported from other states and from abroad. And California has been reluctant to site liquefied natural gas facilities at its ports. Canciamilla said the NIMBY (not in my back yard) mentality is strong in California.
“We’re not going to allow LNG here, but it’s OK if you put it in Oregon or Baja, and we pipe it in. So we drive markets out of California. And we become more dependent on neighboring states and neighboring countries to provide a resource for us. But then we can have the comfort of not having it in our back yard,” Canciamilla said.
If California pushes power production and natural gas ports to neighboring states or Mexico, it will be doing nothing to combat global warming.
“California is not an island in the energy world,” Zenker said.
Geesman said California cannot pretend to wall itself off from other states. Power is traded across states, regions and the world.
“I am skeptical a single state market is going to prove practical. So tell that to the White House; tell it to Congress. If this takes a national solution, which most people think it does, let’s move quicker,” he said.
Transportation
Meeting the goals of AB 32 will be more difficult for the transportation sector – which next to with electricity generation is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions.
The transportation sector is fueled overwhelmingly by oil, and current alternative sources are problematic: Corn ethanol also produces greenhouse gasses; and the power necessary to charge electric or hybrid cars has to come from somewhere – usually coal or gas-fired plants.sperling
“Ethanol from corn provides essentially no air quality benefit, and little to no greenhouse gas benefit,” said Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis.
Sperling said the greatest opportunities for curtailing greenhouse gasses in the automotive sector are in improved efficiency. Over the past 20 years, vehicles have become about 1 percent more efficient each year. In another 20 years, cars could be another 20 percent more efficient.
But car-loving Americans tend to favor performance to efficiency. The spike in gas prices in early 2006 did not force all of the SUVs, trucks and other gas-guzzling vehicles off the road.
“If GM builds a 50 mpg car, that does not a guarantee people will buy it,” Zenker said. “Even with $3-per-gallon gasoline, people still bought relatively large, low mile-per-gallon vehicles. Fundamentally, policy-makers are reluctant to tell consumers they don’t have a choice; that they have to pay more.”
Canciamilla said it is highly unlikely legislators will risk their political future by imposing punitive incentives, like higher taxes on gasoline or SUVs.
“We are not prepared to tell the public they have to pay more. In fact, we’ll do just the opposite. We’ll say, ‘you can have all of these wonderful things; and like bonds, they are free. You don’t have to worry about it.’ But in reality what we do is construct a house of cards when it comes to paying the costs. We try to hide the real costs, so the consumer never really sees the bottom line. But when you keep putting layers upon layer of legislation and regulation, it all begins to cave in on itself.”
Trust us, we’re from the government
Canciamilla is troubled by the fact that AB 32 leaves out the regulatory details, while putting the crafting of regulation in the hands of state agencies or subsequent legislation.
“We have a myriad of agencies dealing with these issues, but without any clear direction coming from any of them. The more agencies that are involved, the more confusion there is, and the more you [lobbyists] can influence decisions one way or another,” he said.
Canciamilla said AB 32 was a convenient way for politicians to posture themselves as warriors against global warming, but without thinking the whole process through.
“We are driven by the politics of constituents, and that is driven by what is on the front page of the paper. So now we can say, ‘We’re doing these great things; and oh by the way, we’re going to decide on the rules and how the money is going to be spent later down the road. Trust us.’”
Canciamilla pointed out that the assembly members who were in office during the 2000-01 energy crisis – and crafted legislation to solve the crisis – are about to face term limits, leaving no one in the legislature with hard experience in energy matters.
“Energy issues have not been at the top of the radar screen in the current crop of legislators. The legislature tends to be driven by the crisis du jour, and the crisis right now is not energy. During the early 2000s, it was all energy all of the time. Members who came in subsequently assumed it was over,” Canciamilla said. “We have floundered dramatically since energy deregulation, and the California legislative process is more dysfunctional.”
The future
In 2002, the California State Assembly passed AB 1493, which sought to regulate greenhouse emissions from motor vehicles. But this law has ended up tied up in litigation.
“I hope this is not the fate of AB 32, but I would be naïve to think we could come up with something agreeable to everyone, and someone will not be unhappy,” Sawyer said.
As for the immediate future, “stay tuned,” Sawyer said. “AB 32 puts us into an entirely different arena. It is a major new direction.”
Scroll down to read the scintillating analysis.
SOURCE
Global cooling in the sunshine stateeclipse
Experts debate the new California state law aimed at combating global warming
By Bruce Murray
Analysisonline Editor
California’s Kyoto?
The nation’s leading state in traffic congestion, population growth and sunbathing is now poised to become a world leader in the fight against global warming.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) mandates that the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This, despite the fact that California will be well on its way toward re-doubling its population by then.
The pros and cons, realities and unrealities of AB 32 were top of the discussion at the Oct. 12 National Energy Symposium in Sacramento.
AB 32 is a landmark for California and marks a dramatic departure from national policy, especially in light of the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Some believe AB 32 is a fool’s errand; others believe it is an essential beginning of a national policy shift to address the problem of global warming. sweeney
“California is in an unusual and interesting situation in that it is pushing the envelope in a way that is not being pushed at the federal level,” said Stanford Professor James L. Sweeney, the keynote speaker at the Symposium.
Much of the regulatory detail is left out of the legislation and instead is placed in the hands of state agencies and future legislation. Just how the legislation works itself out in the real world is unknown, and will likely happen over the next three to five years.
“AB 32 is only a framework, but a framework with teeth,” Sweeney said. “The legislative mechanisms are designed to protect the environment while at the same time not harming the economy. But implementing AB 32 will be a tremendously difficult challenge over which people will have vastly different views.”
It takes a village to combat global warmingcanciamilla
California State Assemblyman Joseph Canciamilla (D-Contra Costa County) said an underlying motivation in AB 32 is to set an example for the rest of the nation and the rest of the world. If California can do it, so can other states and other countries – so goes the logic.
“The intent of this legislation, as with earlier legislation dealing with auto emissions, is to drive the national agenda,” Canciamilla said.
Although California is the largest economy among the 50 states, California alone cannot stop global climate change and should not be under any illusion that it can do so, experts at the symposium stressed.
“What we do in California is not gong to make much difference if we don’t get involvement from other states and around the world,” said Robert Sawyer, chairman of the California Air Resources Board.
Canciamilla, although he voted for AB 32, has many reservations about it. “The key problem, in our quest to set the national example, is that we do not sacrifice the California economy and turn over control of the state’s economy to administrative agencies that are oftentimes staff-driven,” he said. “There are a lot of hooks in this bill that give me concern regarding the long-term health of California.”
The teeth
Much of the regulatory authority of the legislation is put in the hands of the California Air Resources Board, which heretofore has not been responsible for the kind of regulation AB 32 mandates. sawyer
“Our traditional responsibility is air quality and public health, and this will remain our number one responsibility,” Sawyer said. “Reducing green house gases fits in with our mission because we regard greenhouse gasses as air pollutants.”
Sawyer said his agency will work closely with the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission over next several years to implement the legislation. In addition, Sawyer said he will need to expand his staff by 100-150 people to handle the task.
“We will go to experts in developing a market-based plan. These things should always be based on good science and good technology,” he said.
Sweeney said a major debate in the coming months in years is the type of regulations the agencies set up – whether they are “command and control” requirements such as emissions caps; or market-based economic incentives such as emission vouchers that can be bought and sold.
“Where can we apply market-based solutions? Or where do you need micro-incentives, or where do you need command and control? These will be the fundamental difficult challenges that we’re all going to have to face,” Sweeney said.
Sawyer said he will favor market incentives rather than command. “We will set up regulatory market based mechanisms that will make sense and be efficient,” Sawyer said.
World energy demand
Nationwide, oil and natural gas consumption has a nearly unbroken record of growth for the past 100 years – with the exception of two years when the supply was disrupted by war. (See Professor Nathan Lewis’s Power Point presentation, slide 54.)
Although energy consumption is becoming more efficient – people use less energy on a per capita basis – demographic trends are counteracting gains made in efficiency: The world population is expected to reach 10-11 billion people by 2050; so despite increases in efficiency, world energy demand is projected to at least double by the year 2050. (See Nathan Lewis’s Power Point presentation, slides 9-10.)
These trends hold true in California, where rapid population growth and the corresponding demand for energy could very well exceed any gains made in pursuit of AB 32.
“The number of people in California is growing so rapidly; unless we do something about the next doubling of the population in about 40 years, it is not good enough to have the per capita reductions in energy consumption,” Sawyer said.
Nonetheless, energy efficiency is a critical element in – if not reducing energy demand – reducing the growth in energy demand
“Any time you save energy, you save CO2,” Sawyer said. “First step [in fulfilling AB 32] will happen through improved efficiency. Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.”
Electricity
Electricity demand in California reached record levels during the summer heat wave of 2006. The California electricity system hit a record peak demand of 50,000 megawatts, and the Western states combined hit a peak of 150,000 megawatts, according to Jim Detmers, vice president of operations at the California Independent System Operator. By comparison, total electricity demand in China was 400,000 megawatts.
“Last summer, California accomplished an astounding feat: We met a tremendous growth in demand, and we were able to serve all of it; and we met all of the environmental requirements,” Detmers said.
AB 32 requires that the state Air Resources Board and the Public Utilities Commission develop greenhouse gas emission reduction standards for electricity generators and natural gas providers. Exact amounts are not stated in the legislation.
John Geesman of the California Energy Commission said meeting the goals of AB 32 are feasible the electricity-generating sector, but other energy sectors will have more difficulty.
“The reduction goals are achievable, but the means of getting there are likely to prove quite controversial and will go through a trial and error process before arriving at a successful mix of policies,” Geesman said. “We’ve already made substantial reductions over the last 30 years in electricity per capita consumption. We’ve accomplished that through a variety of incentive programs and regulations.”zenker
Michael Zenker, managing director of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said natural gas will be an important component of AB 32. Compared to coal, natural gas emits half of the carbon dioxide per unit of electricity generation. Natural gas is therefore attractive from a local environmental standpoint and from a greenhouse gas standpoint.
“We have heard about a lot of promising technologies that might be significant in 20 years. But gas-fired generation is the fuel of choice today,” Zenker said. “That being said, looking at the [growth] trends in California, you cannot meet AB 32 by relying on natural gas alone.”
Not in my backyard
A drawback to natural gas is that it still has to be imported from other states and from abroad. And California has been reluctant to site liquefied natural gas facilities at its ports. Canciamilla said the NIMBY (not in my back yard) mentality is strong in California.
“We’re not going to allow LNG here, but it’s OK if you put it in Oregon or Baja, and we pipe it in. So we drive markets out of California. And we become more dependent on neighboring states and neighboring countries to provide a resource for us. But then we can have the comfort of not having it in our back yard,” Canciamilla said.
If California pushes power production and natural gas ports to neighboring states or Mexico, it will be doing nothing to combat global warming.
“California is not an island in the energy world,” Zenker said.
Geesman said California cannot pretend to wall itself off from other states. Power is traded across states, regions and the world.
“I am skeptical a single state market is going to prove practical. So tell that to the White House; tell it to Congress. If this takes a national solution, which most people think it does, let’s move quicker,” he said.
Transportation
Meeting the goals of AB 32 will be more difficult for the transportation sector – which next to with electricity generation is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions.
The transportation sector is fueled overwhelmingly by oil, and current alternative sources are problematic: Corn ethanol also produces greenhouse gasses; and the power necessary to charge electric or hybrid cars has to come from somewhere – usually coal or gas-fired plants.sperling
“Ethanol from corn provides essentially no air quality benefit, and little to no greenhouse gas benefit,” said Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis.
Sperling said the greatest opportunities for curtailing greenhouse gasses in the automotive sector are in improved efficiency. Over the past 20 years, vehicles have become about 1 percent more efficient each year. In another 20 years, cars could be another 20 percent more efficient.
But car-loving Americans tend to favor performance to efficiency. The spike in gas prices in early 2006 did not force all of the SUVs, trucks and other gas-guzzling vehicles off the road.
“If GM builds a 50 mpg car, that does not a guarantee people will buy it,” Zenker said. “Even with $3-per-gallon gasoline, people still bought relatively large, low mile-per-gallon vehicles. Fundamentally, policy-makers are reluctant to tell consumers they don’t have a choice; that they have to pay more.”
Canciamilla said it is highly unlikely legislators will risk their political future by imposing punitive incentives, like higher taxes on gasoline or SUVs.
“We are not prepared to tell the public they have to pay more. In fact, we’ll do just the opposite. We’ll say, ‘you can have all of these wonderful things; and like bonds, they are free. You don’t have to worry about it.’ But in reality what we do is construct a house of cards when it comes to paying the costs. We try to hide the real costs, so the consumer never really sees the bottom line. But when you keep putting layers upon layer of legislation and regulation, it all begins to cave in on itself.”
Trust us, we’re from the government
Canciamilla is troubled by the fact that AB 32 leaves out the regulatory details, while putting the crafting of regulation in the hands of state agencies or subsequent legislation.
“We have a myriad of agencies dealing with these issues, but without any clear direction coming from any of them. The more agencies that are involved, the more confusion there is, and the more you [lobbyists] can influence decisions one way or another,” he said.
Canciamilla said AB 32 was a convenient way for politicians to posture themselves as warriors against global warming, but without thinking the whole process through.
“We are driven by the politics of constituents, and that is driven by what is on the front page of the paper. So now we can say, ‘We’re doing these great things; and oh by the way, we’re going to decide on the rules and how the money is going to be spent later down the road. Trust us.’”
Canciamilla pointed out that the assembly members who were in office during the 2000-01 energy crisis – and crafted legislation to solve the crisis – are about to face term limits, leaving no one in the legislature with hard experience in energy matters.
“Energy issues have not been at the top of the radar screen in the current crop of legislators. The legislature tends to be driven by the crisis du jour, and the crisis right now is not energy. During the early 2000s, it was all energy all of the time. Members who came in subsequently assumed it was over,” Canciamilla said. “We have floundered dramatically since energy deregulation, and the California legislative process is more dysfunctional.”
The future
In 2002, the California State Assembly passed AB 1493, which sought to regulate greenhouse emissions from motor vehicles. But this law has ended up tied up in litigation.
“I hope this is not the fate of AB 32, but I would be naïve to think we could come up with something agreeable to everyone, and someone will not be unhappy,” Sawyer said.
As for the immediate future, “stay tuned,” Sawyer said. “AB 32 puts us into an entirely different arena. It is a major new direction.”
What can this do for me?
This is just another way for Environment California to toot its own horn. Now with an extended timeline of projected estimates and timeframes!
Click the link to see the PDF:
AB 32 Analysis
Click the link to see the PDF:
AB 32 Analysis
Hands down, you win.
This website has produced very useful and very biased articles pertaining to the Global Warming Solutions Act 2006. They are one of the many key players in this struggle/argument and their victory prize would be a big wag of the finger and a nice fat in-your-face, "I told you so." That's not all organizations like this have to gain from the perfect end-result of this legislation. They also get the publicity that comes with it in supporting and setting up a good image in caring about California. I'm not saying they don't truly care about the environment regardless of the money, but they stand to win a lot because really, Americans want to support organizations that they believe are right.
Click the link below to see the website:
California Environment [dot] org
Click the link below to see the website:
California Environment [dot] org
Let's think about this.
So now that everything is passed and done, there are still people who are unhappy about this. Hurt California economically? Too insignificant to make change? You don't say? That's not the main purpose why this bill was drafted, we as Californians would like to set the perfect example as the public policy is now in the reviewing stages. Since this is a collective good, immediate results will not be seen. As your sitting by the pool, you won't suddenly realize, "Hrm, the trend in the past five years has been cooler and the skies have gotten bluer! Global Warming must be going away! :D" This guy seems to have a different idea about how we'll be sitting by our pools 50 years from now.
Scroll down to read this article that has obviously done his research.
Kyoto Treaty Means a Loss of Liberty
Saturday, November 11, 2006
By Al Kelsch
So now California has its very own greenhouse gas emissions reduction bill. The ultimate objective of AB 32, signed by Governor Schwarzenneger, is to put California approximately in compliance with the 1992 Kyoto International Treaty. That would make California the third entity in the world in compliance, since 13 of the 15 signatories are not in compliance. The U.S. Senate voted 99-0 in 1999 not to be bound by the Kyoto Treaty and President Bush affirmed the intention of the United States not to sign the treaty.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 prescribes a sequence of events designed to record, regulate, and reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions under the executive power of the State Air Resources Board. First step is to adopt a plan by Jan. 1, 2008, requiring sources of greenhouse gas to monitor and report their emissions to the ARB. From this information, the ARB is to declare an emissions level for 1990, which is to be used as a baseline in setting and monitoring the reduction that is mandated by AB 32. "By January 1, 2008, the state board (ARB) shall ... determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990," is the language of the bill. AB 32 then prescribes that by 2020, the level of greenhouse emissions for California must be 20 percent below the emissions level in 1990. Here is the actual sequence. Adopt some early action measures starting July 2007; issue reporting rules and who must report by Jan. 2008, layout the overall plan by Jan. 2009, adopt the overall plan by Jan. 2011. That ARB will have total control over emissions in California including any and all emitters. Soviet Central Planning never had such a mandate.
What does this mean for the citizen? Since overall emissions as mandated by AB 32 must be reduced, and since one-third of all emissions come from motor vehicles, it follows that emission rules and their enforcement will involve every household. The plan is destined to affect individual households through the control of auto and other emissions such as those from barbecues and fireplaces. There already exists a law to reduce vehicle emissions in California (AB 1493, adopted in 2002), which will now fall under the overall coordinating enforcement power of the ARB. Actually, at least four bureaucracies in California will come under the umbrella authority of the ARB in the area of emissions.
Every voter's question should be, is this good public policy and will it work?
First of all, AB 32 is largely symbolic. This is as much as admitted in the language of the law. "National and international actions are necessary to fully address the issue of global warming," is the exact language found in the introduction to the bill. However, action taken by California to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will have far-reaching effects by encouraging other states, the federal government, and other countries to act.
Secondly, Kyoto itself, if fully implemented, will have only a miniscule effect on global temperatures; California's version even less so. Since the atmosphere is obviously a shared resource, an action by a single entity cannot definitively affect the overall atmosphere of the earth. The overall effect on temperature of the Kyoto treaty, assuming all of the industrialized and nearly-industrialized nations adhere to the treaty, would be to lower the earth's temperature in 2100 by just 0.11 to 0.21 degrees C. This is reported by Thomas Wigley in Geophysical Research Letters.
Now extrapolate that to the effect produced by California under the AB 32 scenario. The U.S. economy as estimated by the World Bank represents 28 percent of the total economic activity of the world. Since by population, California is 10 percent of the U.S. total, California would represent 2.8 percent of the world's economic activity. By extrapolation, based on economic activity, California's AB 32 would effect the rise in overall earth temperature by just .0031 to .006 degrees C by the year 2100! These are levels that can only be detected by state-of-the-art measuring equipment. So lets see, California residents get a new nanny-state bureaucracy with near-dictatorial powers to control our autos and our fireplaces, a permanent drain on the fiscally-challenged California state budget, a probable new tax on miles driven, and in return we get a decrease in the rise in the overall temperature of the earth by 0.0031 degrees in 2100! A steep price indeed for the obvious loss of liberty.
Al Kelsch is a Hollister resident who writes a weekly column for the Free Lance that appears on Saturdays. He can be reached at oibl@yahoo.com
SOURCE
Scroll down to read this article that has obviously done his research.
Kyoto Treaty Means a Loss of Liberty
Saturday, November 11, 2006
By Al Kelsch
So now California has its very own greenhouse gas emissions reduction bill. The ultimate objective of AB 32, signed by Governor Schwarzenneger, is to put California approximately in compliance with the 1992 Kyoto International Treaty. That would make California the third entity in the world in compliance, since 13 of the 15 signatories are not in compliance. The U.S. Senate voted 99-0 in 1999 not to be bound by the Kyoto Treaty and President Bush affirmed the intention of the United States not to sign the treaty.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 prescribes a sequence of events designed to record, regulate, and reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions under the executive power of the State Air Resources Board. First step is to adopt a plan by Jan. 1, 2008, requiring sources of greenhouse gas to monitor and report their emissions to the ARB. From this information, the ARB is to declare an emissions level for 1990, which is to be used as a baseline in setting and monitoring the reduction that is mandated by AB 32. "By January 1, 2008, the state board (ARB) shall ... determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990," is the language of the bill. AB 32 then prescribes that by 2020, the level of greenhouse emissions for California must be 20 percent below the emissions level in 1990. Here is the actual sequence. Adopt some early action measures starting July 2007; issue reporting rules and who must report by Jan. 2008, layout the overall plan by Jan. 2009, adopt the overall plan by Jan. 2011. That ARB will have total control over emissions in California including any and all emitters. Soviet Central Planning never had such a mandate.
What does this mean for the citizen? Since overall emissions as mandated by AB 32 must be reduced, and since one-third of all emissions come from motor vehicles, it follows that emission rules and their enforcement will involve every household. The plan is destined to affect individual households through the control of auto and other emissions such as those from barbecues and fireplaces. There already exists a law to reduce vehicle emissions in California (AB 1493, adopted in 2002), which will now fall under the overall coordinating enforcement power of the ARB. Actually, at least four bureaucracies in California will come under the umbrella authority of the ARB in the area of emissions.
Every voter's question should be, is this good public policy and will it work?
First of all, AB 32 is largely symbolic. This is as much as admitted in the language of the law. "National and international actions are necessary to fully address the issue of global warming," is the exact language found in the introduction to the bill. However, action taken by California to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will have far-reaching effects by encouraging other states, the federal government, and other countries to act.
Secondly, Kyoto itself, if fully implemented, will have only a miniscule effect on global temperatures; California's version even less so. Since the atmosphere is obviously a shared resource, an action by a single entity cannot definitively affect the overall atmosphere of the earth. The overall effect on temperature of the Kyoto treaty, assuming all of the industrialized and nearly-industrialized nations adhere to the treaty, would be to lower the earth's temperature in 2100 by just 0.11 to 0.21 degrees C. This is reported by Thomas Wigley in Geophysical Research Letters.
Now extrapolate that to the effect produced by California under the AB 32 scenario. The U.S. economy as estimated by the World Bank represents 28 percent of the total economic activity of the world. Since by population, California is 10 percent of the U.S. total, California would represent 2.8 percent of the world's economic activity. By extrapolation, based on economic activity, California's AB 32 would effect the rise in overall earth temperature by just .0031 to .006 degrees C by the year 2100! These are levels that can only be detected by state-of-the-art measuring equipment. So lets see, California residents get a new nanny-state bureaucracy with near-dictatorial powers to control our autos and our fireplaces, a permanent drain on the fiscally-challenged California state budget, a probable new tax on miles driven, and in return we get a decrease in the rise in the overall temperature of the earth by 0.0031 degrees in 2100! A steep price indeed for the obvious loss of liberty.
Al Kelsch is a Hollister resident who writes a weekly column for the Free Lance that appears on Saturdays. He can be reached at oibl@yahoo.com
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)