Now Reading
Is California’s cap and trade program more harmful than beneficial for the environment?

Is California’s cap and trade program more harmful than beneficial for the environment?

pollution
pollution
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Ulises Flores was thirteen years old when the breathing problems started.


He experienced frequent headaches and difficulty breathing. His sinuses and nostrils were swollen according to a doctor. This was likely due to the high levels of pollution in his Wilmington home, which is near the Phillips 66 oil refinery.

Flores grew up realizing that he was not the only one suffering from asthma. Others in Flores’ 87% Latino neighborhood were also being diagnosed with cancer. Many children would experience nosebleeds and strange odors.

Flores, 23, said that clean air is the most fundamental thing in human life. He watched steam columns rise from the towers of the refinery.

California has relied upon a complex market system of pollution credits since Flores’s first symptoms of breathing difficulties. When it was launched in 2013, cap and trade was the first program of its kind in America. It had the ambitious goal of reducing turn-of the century emission levels by 40% by 2030.

However, despite the program’s goal to reduce gasses that contribute towards rising sea levels and extreme heat, environmental justice advocates quickly criticised it for failing to improve lives of low-income individuals of color living near major polluting plants.

After years of such criticisms, government officials are now reevaluating the program. Analysts warn that the cap on companies polluting “is likely to not have much, or any effect, on overall emissions in its first few years.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, along with state officials, say they are currently preparing an assessment of California’s climate change programs. The so-called scoping plans are expected to release the results by the end 2022. Officials indicated that there are plans to make changes to the cap and trade program and the state’s dependence on it.

“The scoping plan may indicate that as a percentage of total reductions the cap and trade doesn’t need to play so much in our toolbox going forward,” Jared Blumenthal (secretary of the state Environmental Protection Agency), said during a state Senate hearing last week.

It is currently in operation. The program limits the amount companies can pollute, and gives them the option of buying or trading credits. An auction is required for companies that want to emit more greenhouse gases than the allowance credits. These auctions generated more than $2Billion last year and are used to fund other climate projects.

The state has been reviewing cap and trade after critics said it includes a faulty offset program, excess allowances, and a cap and trade that is too expensive. According to them, this allows companies essentially to buy their way around lowering their carbon emissions.

Danny Cullenward (a lawyer and energy economist) said that the allowances they have saved are more than the cuts they are expected to make. He helped to draft a report for the committee. “So the worst case scenario is that they [polluting companies]They don’t need to change much. In fact, they may not even have to make any changes at all.

Allowance credits allow companies to emit 1 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is one of the major greenhouse gases. This is the equivalent of the pollution emitted by a single car traveling 2,500 miles, which is roughly the distance between Los Angeles and Orlando, Florida.

The report revealed that these companies bought and saved 321 millions of these emissions allowances. This could make it difficult for states to force these companies into reducing their emissions to meet their 2030 goals.

Cullenward called the number of allowances saved a “big warning signal”, but the California Air Resources Board and Newsom administration said they need to gather more data before deciding if the allowance issue is worth addressing. They claim that adjustments to the program may not be made until 2024.

Advocates for environmental justice say that those who live near major emitters are the ones who pay the greatest price for program failures.

A University of Southern California study has found that although greenhouse gas emissions have decreased in California since the cap and trade program was implemented, Black and Latino communities and other communities of colour are still more susceptible to pollution from facilities like oil refineries than white communities. Similar conclusions were reached by a separate study done by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

The USC study also showed that communities with a majority of residents of color, who are below the federal poverty level and less educated, are less likely to see improvement in the emission levels from facilities such as oil refineries. These facilities can release co-pollutants like nitrogen oxide, which can lead to asthma and respiratory infections.

Some of these communities saw their emissions rise since the introduction of the cap and trade program. On the other hand, refinery communities that were wealthier and whiter saw greater improvements.

Manuel Pastor, a sociology professor at USC who was the lead author of the study, said that although it doesn’t make much difference in reducing greenhouse gasses, they tend to have a global effect that improves the situation for many people. It makes a big difference with the copollutants it contains, the particulate matter. This is why it is important that both the OEHHA study and this study show that the distributions of these facilities are more closely linked to race.

Complex programs such as cap-and-trade, which are designed to improve the quality of lives for residents who live near refineries, can be simplified down to a single concern for residents: When and how will they be implemented?

Michelle Muoz (27), and Maria Muoz (41), stood on the front porch at Michelle Muoz’s Wilmington home. Michelle Muoz lives there with her siblings, parents, and children. They watched Michelle’s two young children run through their yard. Michelle was seen at one point hanging from the yard gate like a jungle gym.

The pair spotted the Phillips 66 refinery through the canopy of queen palms and fruit trees.

Michelle Muoz explained that her 7-year-old son, and her 3-year old daughter, were both diagnosed with asthma as babies. Her younger brother, who lives with her, has had frequent nosebleeds ever since they were children.

The state and the most ardent critics of cap-and-trade agree that more must be done to close the gap between communities such as Wilmington and those with cleaner air.

Rachel Morello-Frosch (a professor at the University of California Berkeley and the author of the USC study) said, “It’s an opportunity lost that the co-benefits of climate gas reductions don’t happen in communities that are hosting facilities controlled by cap and trade.”

Morello-Frosch, one of the many who support a more targeted approach that regulates facilities directly, is among them. This could be achieved by creating no-trade zones and price incentives for facilities that don’t reduce emissions quickly enough.

Flores residents and Muoz support the idea for greater regulation of emissions at the Phillips refinery. However, the best option for them would be to shut down the refinery completely. This is despite the fact that the refinery generates 139,000 gallons of crude oil per day.

Maria Muoz said, “That would have been a dream for them.


California’s cap and trade air quality benefits mostly go outside of the state


2022 Los Angeles Times.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Citation:
Is California’s cap & trade program doing more harm than good for the environment? (2022, March 23).
Retrieved 23 March 2022
from https://phys.org/news/2022-03-california-cap-and-trade-environment.html

This document is subject of copyright. Except for fair dealings for private study or research purposes, there is no
Without permission, part may be reproduced. This content is only for informational purposes.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.