![]() In their draft plan, they say carbon removal technologies will help capture millions of tons of carbon dioxide at oil refineries and other industries that are difficult to decarbonize, such as cement. The board plans to hold a public hearing on the plan on June 23 and vote in August.Ĭritics say staff haven’t provided much evidence of how some key components could work, including the state’s reliance on carbon removal and the role of its cap and trade program, which is a greenhouse gas market for industries that allows them to buy and sell credits.Īir board staff used modeling to predict how each sector of the economy will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. “Nothing less than the future of California’s climate policy is at stake.” “In place of tangible strategies to reduce emissions, the draft plan aims to achieve far fewer emission reductions than other leading climate jurisdictions in the U.S. And across the political spectrum, many say the state’s approaches are too flawed to produce the results that the Air Resources Board says they will. But others side with the oil industry, saying the state won’t be able to reduce carbon emissions fast enough without them. The plan focuses on increasing dependence on renewable energy, such as wind, solar and electric cars, and capturing carbon dioxide emitted by oil refineries and other industries.Įnvironmentalists have long viewed the use of carbon removal technology and cap and trade as continued investments in the fossil fuel industry. The debate pits those who want to mandate an end to fossil fuels against those who want an approach that relies more on market incentives and technology. It is a guidance document and as such leaves room for new information that may become available later,” said air board spokesperson Dave Clegern. ![]() “It is not a final document, nor intended to be. The Air Resources Board did not send representatives to speak at either of the two meetings - a joint Senate and Assembly committee hearing and the emissions trading advisory committee.īut in a response to questions from CalMatters, air quality officials said the plan is a “guidance document” and that specific emissions reductions would be detailed when individual regulations are drafted. “We need a plan that transitions us away from the extractive, fossil-fueled energy system at the pace and scale demanded by climate science and environmental justice.” “It fails to accelerate our 20 climate targets, and it fails to increase the pace of California’s actions beyond existing commitments,” the letter says. Gavin Newsom, 73 environmental justice groups called the proposed scoping plan “a setback for the state and the world.” In addition, in a letter sent Thursday to the Air Resources Board and Gov. They called the plan incomplete, ambiguous and confusing. “It focuses on long-term goals at the expense of near-term action.”Īt two recent state committee meetings, environmentalists, academics and climate policy experts who serve on state advisory panels voiced concerns over California’s approach to tackling the climate crisis. “The draft scoping plan does California a disservice,” said Danny Cullenward, an economist and vice chair of the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee, a group of five experts appointed by the governor and top legislators to assess the effectiveness of the state’s landmark cap and trade program. The process has left legislators and others at the forefront of the climate discussion confused over the air board staff’s projections. ![]() In this year’s highly-anticipated climate policy blueprint, some critics say the state agency has not been transparent on how it plans to achieve its goals. ![]() The purpose of the plan is to fulfill state mandates to reduce planet-warming emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The California Air Resources Board’s proposal, called a scoping plan, outlines policies that would transition the economy away from fossil fuels. The plan “does California a disservice,” one state advisor said.Īs California races to prevent the irreversible effects of climate change, some experts are questioning key policies that the state is counting on to meet its ambitious goals and accusing state officials of failing to provide substantial details to back up its claims. California’s climate change plan fails to provide substantial evidence that capturing carbon will meet ambitious greenhouse gas goals, critics say. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |