How do you return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 while promoting jobs, competitiveness, and public health? Conservatives in the U.S. Senate think it can’t be done. California knows it can.
The Air Resources Board has just published their Scoping Plan here. How do they cut 169 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2020? Efficiency, efficiency, renewables, renewables, and even some conservation:
Given that the single biggest source of California’s GHG emissions is transportation, surging oil prices will make it that much easier for them to achieve this target and increase the savings for California consumers and businesses.
Unlike U.S. Senate conservatives, Californians understand that the multiple benefits of action — and the cost of inaction — greatly exceed the costs of action:
California has a long and successful track record of implementing environmental policies that also deliver economic benefits… the overall savings from improved efficiency and developing alternatives to petroleum will, on the whole, outweigh the costs. This balance is largely driven by current high energy costs and the degree to which measures increase energy efficiency throughout the economy and move California toward ultimately cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels….
The potential costs of implementing the Plan pale beside the cost of doing nothing. Looking globally, the Stern Review issued by the Treasury of the United Kingdom estimated that “…if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five percent of global [gross domestic product (GDP)] each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20 percent of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action — reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change — can be limited to around one percent of global GDP each year.”
And again, this “cost” is not a net loss of 1% of GDP, but a shift in spending, which has multiple benefits:
The Plan will also provide a wide range of public health and environmental benefits anticipated from reducing greenhouse gases. Preliminary analysis indicates that the total economic value associated with public health benefits is likely to be on the order of $2 billion in 2020. The estimated reduction of combustion-generated soot (PM 2.5) associated with the recommended regulatory measures is 10 tons per day, and the estimated reduction of oxides of nitrogen (a precursor to smog) total 50 tons per day. These reductions in harmful air pollution lead to the following estimated health benefits in 2020:
· 340 fewer premature deaths
· 9,400 fewer cases of asthma-related and other lower respiratory symptoms
· 780 fewer cases of acute bronchitis
· 57,000 fewer work days lost
· 330,000 fewer restricted activity days
Kudos to the state of California.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Indeed, kudos to California. My only concern with their plan is in the details of the light-duty transportation GHG reductions. In the 2007 IEPR, they focus too much on a top-down approach that tries to dictate which technologies will be used (and their preference is for hydrogen.) Honestly, I don’t know the specifics of the value of GHG reductions granted to light-duty vehicles in this chart, but if that number is based primarily on their planning outlined in the IEPR, then the number is way off for the reasons: 1)Hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels and cannot be assumed to be GHG reducing fuel at this time. 2)Ethanol is listed as an alternative fuel with lower GHG emissions, but the numbers (from 2007) have not stood the test of time and are outdated now. and 3) Most of the reductions in GHG emissions in the planning document are tied to 1 and 2.
That said, the long-term planning aspects are incredibly good. In particular, I am impressed that they understand the importance of urban planning in reducing GHG emissions. However, I am not a fan of gov’t dictating technologies. We have the ability to measure tailpipe emissions and read odometers. There’s no reason we can’t make license fees variable based on the miles driven the prior year and the GHG emissions of the vehicle. Sure, there’s been some issues with hybrids and testing, but we can overcome that.
One reason that California had more success than the Federal government (besides the obvious lower percentage of deniers) is that the legislature passed the buck and let state agencies design most of the program. This is the modern trend in the U.S. One wonders why B-L-W tried to specify so much; that was probably part of its downfall.
Steve is correct that the state has an foolish love of hydrogen. Someone has been distributing the hydrogen cool-aid in Sacramento. On the other hand, Steve ignores SB 1505 which requires that one third of hydrogen be from renewable sources once hydrogen achieves certain volumes. Since it is unlikely to achieve those volumes, this is all irrelevant. The primary effect of the hydrogen kool-aid in Sacramento is to postpone clean air from other ZEV technologies.
30% by 2030? how very last year.