Summarising,
A May climate change roadmap will soon be proposed. It aims at minimizing costs and achieving carbon neutrality in 2045. Environmentalists feel it is too slow, dependent on carbon markets, and does not capture technology.
California’s air quality officials have approved a revised blueprint to combat climate change. The plan aims to minimize job loss and costs, while reducing greenhouse gases and achieving carbon neutrality in 2045.
California has been a world leader in addressing climate crisis. It has enacted aggressive laws to reduce its carbon footprint and has been an advocate for this cause since long. However, activists and legislators have recently criticised the state for not taking action quickly enough and depending too heavily on carbon trading programs.
The state Air Resources Board staff plans to announce in May a strategy. This strategy requires California to shift from its dependence on fossil fuels and place more emphasis on renewable energy sources. The plan, which targets a 80% reduction in greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2030, would cost $18 billion and $27 trillion respectively in 2035-2045.
Californias climate change roadmap called a scoping plan was first adopted in 2008 and updated in 2013 and 2017. The first phases of the update are currently underway at the air board. A public hearing is planned for June. The board is expected to vote in the fall.
Last year, four options were presented by the board staff for discussion. Officials from the air board said that they will present the board with the option which has the least impact on the state economy, rather than speeding up the pace to achieve carbon neutrality.
Two of the scenarios rejected would achieve carbon neutrality ten year earlier, by 2035. However, it would cost six to sevenx more between $106 billion – $120 billion in 2035. (Carbon neutrality refers to the state removing as much of the planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it emits.
Staff at the airport said they were happy to help. Scenario 3, the preferred option, is also known as Scenario 3.The, focuses on preventing job losses in industries and encouraging job growth during the state’s transition to renewable energy. Scenarios 1 & 2 had the greatest impact on jobs and provided the most health benefits to people living in heavily polluted regions. Scenario 4 had the lowest health benefits for communities and the third-highest impact on job loss and cost.
Rajinder Sahota from the board’s deputy executive officer of climate research and climate change, stated during last weeks workshop that the quicker you get rid of combustion, the more health benefits you will enjoy and the climate benefits. However, the longer timeframe allows us to build that infrastructure and find those energy sources.
Officials from the Air Board stated that they will choose the option that has the lowest impact on the economy, rather than speeding up the pace towards carbon neutrality.
Both the oil-and-gas industry and environmental justice advocates have criticised the preferred option.
We’re gambling with the fate of humanity, said Kyle Heiskala, a policy advocate at the San Diego-based Environmental Health Coalition. There’s so much at stake here. We don’t have a lot of time to get this right. We must immediately reduce climate emissions.
The oil industry counters that the plan of the air boards is too dependent on state zero-emission vehicle mandates. They should instead focus on measures that trade carbon and remove it while still allowing fossil fuels to be used.
The state has been suffering from extreme heat, record-breaking wildfires, and worsening drought. This update to the scoping plan comes as the climate change effects continue to devastate it. Scientists believe that planet-warming emissions have irreversible consequences if the world, including California, fails to meet its ambitious carbon-reduction targets.
California is responsible for less that 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but it has the fifth-largest economy, so it can drive significant change.
Environmental activists and industry leaders are still at odds over how the California Air Resources Board should prioritize each strategy.
Staff preferred Scenario 3, which relies more heavily on carbon capture technologies, to a more costly option, estimated at $130 billion by 2035 and that instead includes a near complete phase out of gasoline-powered cars. Officials stated that their preferred scenario would rely on carbon capture, but not as heavily as two other scenarios that are more expensive.
Carbon capture refers to the practice of capturing carbon dioxide emitted from smokestacks, and injecting it into ground for long-term storage.
Carbon dioxide, methane, as well as other greenhouse gases, trap heat in the atmosphere. This causes changes in temperature, precipitation and other aspects. According to a study, low-income communities of color are most affected by changes in climate and other pollutants emitted from fossil fuels. Report from the University of Southern California. California is home to theTransportation sector accounts for approximately 40%of greenhouse gas emissions.
Each scenario includes measures that mandate zero emission vehicles, encourage renewable biofuels use and increase investments in technologies that capture carbon and remove it out of the atmosphere. Each scenario considers how the removal of fossil fuels might impact the lives of residents living near major polluters and how it could impact their health.
Environmental justice advocates asked the boards staff for a scenario which included a complete elimination of fossil fuels by 2045 and no reliance on carbon storage and capture. The scenario should have included measures for ending oil and gas production by 2035 and phasing out oil refining before 2045. They claim that the agency’s strategy does not prioritize direct emission reductions.
The state is currently preparing its scoping plan and continues to debate California’s landmark carbon trading system, cap-and-trade. The cap-and-trade system was adopted in 2013. It places a price for pollution. Markets allow companies to buy credits, called allowances, instead of meeting its limits by emitting fewer pollutants from facilities like oil refineries.
Environmental advocates have argued for years that carbon markets and engineered solutions to remove carbon pollution allow the fossil fuel industry buy their way out of releasing more pollution.
Heiskala stated that allowing emissions to continue from oil refineries and other sources polluting the environment, the state’s plan for air boards sets back its goals and hurts residents who live in heavily polluted regions.
It’s backwards, he said. California is California’s choice. If this plan is approved, and it relies on carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture, the world will see that it is a viable strategy. It effectively delays action on climate change by decades. We just don’t have that kind of time.
The 2017 scoping planThe state’s emission reductions would be 38% if cap and trade were included in the projections. Officials at the Air Board repeatedly claimed that the updated plan for this year will lessen cap and trade. However, it is not clear what weight cap-and-trade will have under the new plan.
We don’t think the scenarios right now are wide enough. They’re not looking at enough possible ways to reach our goals.
Kevin Slagle, Western States Petroleum Association
Kevin Slagle, a spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Association (an industry lobbying group), said that oil and gas companies support states’ transition to renewable energy sources. He said that a hasty transition could put at risk the economy and the livelihoods of those who depend on the fossil fuel industries.
Instead, he suggested that the air board abandon all four options and instead develop a new one that is more dependent on the carbon market, including trade and cap and trade, in order to achieve carbon neutrality at the lowest cost.
We don’t think the scenarios right now are wide enough. They’re not looking at enough possible ways to reach our goals, he said. There’s a lot of significant issues that have to be studied and understood before you can really just bet on an all-electric future.
Around 152,000 Californians work within the oil and natural gas industry, while another 366,000 have careers that depend on this industry., According to a 2019 report From the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. The report shows that California’s industry contributes $152 Billion annually to the state’s economy.
According to officials from the Air Board, the job losses will have minimal impact on the state economy. There will be 80,000 fewer jobs in fossil fuel industries in 2035 and 120,000 fewer 2045. The state’s employment sector will still grow from 23.5million jobs in 2021 and 27.7 million jobs by 2045.
The Air Resources Board “is so focused on economics that they’re just basically willing to continue to sacrifice environmental justice communities.
Catherine Garoupa White from the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee
Daniel SperlingUC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies’ founding director, Jeremy Grainger, is a member of Air Resources Board. He stated that the oil sector can avoid economic losses by switching to cleaner technologies such as hydrogen, fuels, and carbon cap.
They are a powerful economic power. They are a major employer of many people. They play a big role in California’s economy. That’s our challenge to guide the industry in the least disruptive way to a low carbon future, he said.
Catherine Garoupa White, a member of the states Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, which advises the board on the scoping plan, said the Air Resources Board is so focused on economics that they’re just basically willing to continue to sacrifice environmental justice communities.
Sperling stated that the scenario proposed is still a very aggressive strategy for reducing emissions, despite the opposition from environmentalists.
There’s never going to be a scenario that makes everyone happy, he said. At the end of the day, the scoping plan is just a plan it’s not codifying any rules or any new laws. We need to think about the actions we will take in terms regulations and incentives.
