California Maps a Plan to Slow Down Global Warming
The state's plan could be a model for other states, or even the federal government
SAN FRANCISCO—The presidential candidates certainly paid lip service to tackling the problem of climate change during their debate last night. But what would it actually take to slow down—or even reverse—global warming?
California lawmakers tried to answer that question two years ago when they passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a first-of-its-kind law that spelled out the state's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of any federal regulation, the law ordered the state to lower its carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, a 25 percent reduction. "We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it's too late," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said at the time, thumbing his nose, many thought, at a White House that was dragging its feet on climate change.
This week, the California Air Resources Board, the state agency tasked with implementing the law, released the first details of exactly what the state must do to achieve its global warming goals. In a 142-page report many experts believe could serve as a policy template for other states—and even the federal government—the board provides specific estimates of exactly how and where the state could have an impact on climate change. To return to 1990 carbon emissions levels, the plan says, the state will need to reduce its annual emissions by about 4 tons per person—from 14 tons currently to about 10 tons in 2020. The report calls this goal "ambitious but achievable." According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the United States as a country produces more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide per capita each year, while countries like Japan and the United Kingdom produce closer to 10 tons per person. The state of Idaho, which, like California, does not rely on coal-powered energy, produces about 11 tons of carbon emissions per capita—the least of any U.S. state.
Massive reductions in carbon emissions will require an expansive array of government programs, the plan says, ranging from raising clean car standards to investing in high-speed rail systems to offering tax incentives to users of solar panels. The plan, the first comprehensive effort by a state to tackle the threat of greenhouse gases, also imposes an emissions cap on the state's major polluters. These investments in clean energy will come with an additional bonus, the plan says: They will provide a $33 billion boost to the state's economy and create 100,000 new jobs. "We are putting together a road map for the rest of the nation to follow," Schwarzenegger said after the plan was released.
While the Air Resources Board prepares for a public review of its findings later this fall, there do seem to be more than a few states that are eager to follow California's lead. In the last month, eight states, including California, signed on to the Western Climate Initiative, a plan to create a regional cap-and-trade system in the western states. The Air Resources Board's new proposal says that as much as 85 percent of the state's emissions could be included in its climate change plan. Six states in the Northeast have also held their first auction to cut heat-trapping pollution from power plants.
Both of the major parties' candidates for president, meanwhile, reiterated their promises last night to support broad climate change policies similar to California's—and for the moment, at least, there is widespread optimism about the impact a federal clean energy effort could have on the economy and the environment. "The plan released today by the California Air Resources Board shows irreversible momentum in the fight against global warming," says Audrey Chang, a spokesperson for the National Resources Defense Council. "This growing wave of state and regional action shows there is no looking back.... The era of dirty fossil fuels is drawing to a close. The clean energy economy is right around the corner."
Reader Comments
Stop whining and do something yourselves
Firstly, most of what Al Gore claims seems to have been proven to be halfway fraudulent at best. He is a bad leader and a bad choice as poster child. I am sure he is making a huge amount from all the publicity leading to his lucrative lecture tours, and his lucrative carbon trading business. As his followers like to say "Follow the money" guys.
As for CO2, there is still no certainty that we are having any important impact on the climate through our CO2 production. There have been much higher amounts in the past with no serious consequences, geologists tell us. There has also not been the fantastic heat rise the famous 'Hockey Stick' graph predicted. Temperature is rising at about 0.1C per decade, just as it has since about 1850, so we are probably not to blame, sorry.
Above all, if anyone wants to do something, then DO IT. Stop whining about it, stop expecting your nanny governments to stop evil corporations from making a profit (for you, BTW). Here is a simple two step plan. If you do not already do it, YOU are the problem, not the SUV drivers.
2 Step plan:
1. BUY RENEWABLE ENERGY. That's right, vote with your feet. Buy it instead of that evil CO2 producing energy. It costs more, sure it will hurt, but that's the point, isn't it? Does Al buy RE? I'll bet he does not. These days anyone can, so just do it. Talk to your energy provider and go 100% renewable today.
2. BUY ETHICAL INVESTMENTS. Investing in high gain investments directly instructs corporations to MAKE MORE PROFIT FOR YOU. That's right, those billions are made for the shareholders, who in the main are pension holders like you and me. YOU CAN CHOOSE WHERE TO INVEST. Pick ethical investments. Again, it will hurt, but again, that is the point. YOU are fuelling Big Oil with your investments, not some shady group of conspirators.
If all Al Goreans just did these two simple things instead of whining about the issue, the issue will no longer be an issue.
Until you do, stop whining in public, because YOU are causing the problem.
Empowered consumers
I am writing to propose a way in which we can help effect a change in global warming. It may not seem like that big a deal, but maybe some people will take notice if the idea spreads, and the company's bottom line is affected.
Basically, I was doing a web search to see how much money the big oil companies are spending on green technology. It seems that Shell is investing significantly more money than Exxon/Mobil in "green" energy projects, and what particularly impressed me about Shell is their investment in wind and solar energy projects. Look for yourself, but I couldn't find any information about Exxon supporting a wind energy project. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's beside the point. I really don't think any of the major oil companies are spending enough on "green" projects, but we have to start somewhere, and I think Exxon is lagging so we'll use them as a starting point.
What I propose is this.
1. Do not buy anything from Exxon/Mobil as long as their investment in renewable energy projects remains below that of Shell. Shell has a head start, but they better pay attention, and use the increased profits to boost their commitment to renewable energy, otherwise we can take our business elsewhere.
2. Check the Shell and Exxon sites frequently, to see if they have posted how much they have invested in renewable energy, and buy your gas according to your conscience.
3. Pass this message to all the people in your e-mail downline to help spread the word. (Very Important, make it VIRAL)
We can not rely on politicians in Washington to take action, although I think they will under the new administration. We can solve it, but only if we work together. We all know that Exxon had record profits last year. Isn't it about time that they take responsibility for their part in the global warming crisis? Or if you don't believe in global warming, maybe they should do their part to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
global warming
amanda moreno thinks that this global worming thing is fake
advertisement
