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 realized that he wasn’t the only one growing up. Neighbors in Flores’ 87% Latino community were being diagnosed with asthma and other cancers. Many children would suffer from nosebleeds, and strange odors filled the air.
Flores, 23, stated that “the most basic thing in human existence is clean air.” He was watching columns of steam rise from the towers at 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.
Environmental justice advocates quickly criticized the program for failing to improve the lives and quality of life of low-income persons of color who live near major polluting facilities, despite its goal to reduce the emissions that contribute to rising sea levels, extreme heat, and record-breaking wildfires.
After years of criticism, officials from the government are now reviewing the program. Analysts have warned that the cap on the amount of pollution companies can cause “is unlikely to have much, if anything, effect on overall emissions within the first few years of the program.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom and state officials claim they are in the midst of preparing an assessment for California’s climate change programs. The so-called scoping plans are expected to release the results by the end 2022. Officials indicated that the state is open to changes to the cap-and trade program and its dependence.
“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.
The program, as it stands now, sets a limit on the amount of pollution companies can emit and allows them to trade or buy credits. An auction will allow companies to purchase allowance credits from the state if they want to emit more carbon dioxide than they have been allotted. These auctions generated last year approximately $1.2 billion in revenue. More than $2 billionMove towards other Climate projects.
The state’s review was prompted by criticisms of the cap-and-trade system. A flawed offset programCritics say that allowances are too expensive and that there is an oversupply of allowances. They claim that this allows companies to basically buy their way out from lowering their emissions.
Danny Cullenward, an energy economist and lawyer who helped draft the document, said that they have literally saved more allowances than they are expected to make. A report of a committeeon the program. “So, the worst case scenario is that they [polluting companies]They don’t necessarily have to change a lot; in fact, it might not be necessary to change anything at all.
Companies can emit 1 metric tons of carbon dioxide with each allowance credit. This is one of the major greenhouse gases. This is roughly the same amount of pollution as emitted from One car driving 2,500mIt is approximately the distance from Los Angeles to Orlando (Fla.).
However, the report revealed that these companies had bought and saved 321,000,000 of these allowances that allowed them to pollute. This could make a difficult situation for the state to force these businesses to reduce their emissions in order to meet its 2030 goals.
Cullenward described the number of saved allowances as a “big alert sign”, but California’s Air Resources Board (and the Newsom administration) say they need more data before they can decide if the allowance issue merits attention. They say adjustments to the program might not be made until 2024.
Environmental justice advocates claim that those living near major emitters pay the highest price for program flaws.
One recent studyUniversity of Southern California published data showing that while greenhouse gas emissions have declined in California since the cap-and trade program, black and Latino communities and other communities of colour are still more susceptible to pollution from facilities such oil refineries than white communities. A separate studySimilar conclusions were reached in the same way by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of the state.
The USC study also showed that communities with a majority of residents of color, who are below the federal poverty level and are less educated, are less likely to see an improvement in the emission levels from facilities like 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 emission levels rise since the program began. However, refinery communities that were more wealthy and whiter saw greater improvements.
Manuel Pastor, a sociology professor from USC and the lead author of this study, stated that while it doesn’t make a huge difference that greenhouse gasses are being reduced, it tends to have a global effect that improves the situation of many people. It does make a difference with the co-pollutants, such as particulate matter. It is important that this study and the OEHHA report show that the distribution of these facilities is more closely associated with race.
Complex programs like cap and trade, which are often run alongside refineries, boil down to one concern: How will our quality of life improve?
Michelle Muoz (27), and Maria Muoz, her mother, stood on the front porch at their 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 hanging from the yard’s gate like a jungle gym and letting out screams of laughter.
The couple was able to see the Phillips 66 refinery from the home’s canopy, which included queen palms and fruit trees.
Michelle Muoz stated that both her children, a 7-year old son and a 3-year-old girl, were diagnosed with asthma when they were babies. Her younger brother, who lives with them, has also suffered from nosebleeds since childhood.
The state and its most vocal critics agree that more must still be done to reduce the gap between communities like Wilmington, and those with cleaner and healthier air.
Rachel Morello-Frosch (UC Berkeley professor and author of the USC study) said, “It’s a lost chance that the co-benefits from greenhouse gas reductions don’t happen in communities that are hosting facilities regulated through cap and trade.”
Morello-Frosch is one of those who advocate a more targeted approach to regulation that targets facilities more directly. 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 it generates 139,000 gallons of crude oil per day.
Maria Muoz said, “That would have been a dream for them.
This story first appeared in Los Angeles Times.