California gets even tougher on greenhouse-gas emissions
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has stepped up its fight against global warming with the recent approval of the scoping plan for Assembly Bill 32. The state agency wants to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of about 30 percent; by 2050, the goal is to drop emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
A key element of AB 32, known as the Global Warming Solutions Act and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, is a cap-and-trade program covering 85 percent of the state’s emissions. CARB estimates these measures could save each household $400 to $500 annually by 2020. Several measures could affect consumers directly:
• New codes and standards call for tougher building codes and appliance-efficiency standards.
• A solar-roofs program requires publicly owned utilities to drop the costs of these systems by implementing incentives for solar power. (Learn more about incentives for alternative-energy systems, including solar.)
• Smart-meter technology will provide real-time energy-use information to consumers to help them use less electricity. (Read more about demand-response pricing.)
• Water-use measures will boost efficiency and conservation efforts.
• Weatherization incentives will encourage consumers to insulate their homes, upgrade heating and cooling systems, install high-efficiency windows, and more.
State officials hope the plan will be a stimulus for California’s economy (and perhaps decrease smog in Los Angeles, shown above). "By moving first in the nation, California maintains its position at the front of the line in attracting venture capital, and positions us as a leader in the race to develop the clean technology products, patents, and projects the global market demands and needs," said Mary Nichols, CARB chairwoman.
Opponents aren’t so sure about the economic impact. As part of a peer review of CARB’s plan, Robert Stavins, Ph.D., a professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, wrote: "I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the economic analysis is terribly deficient in critical ways and should not be used by the state government or the public for the purpose of assessing the likely costs of CARB’s plans."
"We stand by our macroeconomic analyses," says CARB spokesman Stanley Young, who suggests that AB 32 is as much about safeguarding public and environmental safety as it is about dollars and cents.—Daniel DiClerico
Essential information: Read about CARB’s and the EPA’s efforts to lower emissions from lawn mowers and tractors.
Written by larrylarr on January 4th, 2009 with no comments.
Read more articles on news.
