A nice thought, though others see this bill as windmill tilting (pardon the pun) at its worst (or best).
If we had been able to deal intelligently with our flood situation, currently the worst in the country, this effort might have a little more resonance.
Instead it looks like we can do a lot about what isn’t important (on a global scale), but little about what is (on a local scale).
An excerpt.
Greenhouse gas plan may waft across U.S.
Backers hope other states follow California lead.
By Chris Bowman -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 12:01 am PDT Monday, September 4, 2006
If history is any guide, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's pioneering plan to cap industrial greenhouse gases promises to enlist other states and, perhaps, the entire country in the fight to slow global warming.
California repeatedly has pushed the frontiers of emission controls -- first to strap catalytic converters on tailpipes, first to mandate zero-polluting cars -- only to find itself a trendsetter, bucking predictions of economic doom.
This time, however, the Golden State is making a quantum leap. The mission statement in the Global Warming Solutions Act that sits on Schwarzenegger's desk is nothing short of revolutionary:
"Placing California at the forefront of national and international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."
Other states, even nations, would have to follow California's lead to make any measurable difference.
"The stakes are very high," said Linda Adams, secretary of the state Environmental Protection Agency. "If we do this right, we will be a model for other states, the nation and other countries. So our vocabulary does not include failure."
The legislation, which Schwarzenegger said he would sign, calls for a reduction in the state's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a cut of about 25 percent from today's levels.
The California Air Resources Board, which sets and enforces the state's air pollution controls, would assign emission quotas to the largest industrial sectors, including utilities, oil refineries and cement plants.
Companies that more than meet the ceilings could sell emission credits to those that underperform. The bill gives industries until 2012 to start their cutbacks.
Though the restrictions would target big business, the effects would touch everyone's lives -- through utility bills, through the cost and design of new houses and appliances, right down to the type of refrigerants used in air conditioners and refrigerators.
The state already has placed greenhouse gas limits on automobile exhausts, beginning with 2009 models, although that law is being challenged by automobile manufacturers in federal court.
Greenhouses gases, as with the traditionally regulated air pollutants, come from combustion of oil, coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels. But the only way known to lower them is to cut fuel consumption.
And, unlike smog-forming exhausts and cancer-causing soot, greenhouse gases are not a direct threat to human health. But they trap the Earth's reflected radiation from the sun, retaining heat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.
The vast majority of scientists believe the buildup of human-caused carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is accelerating this "greenhouse effect." As a result, temperatures of the atmosphere and oceans are getting warmer, leading to changes in sea levels, water supplies and crop production.
While California is the world's 10th largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it's responsible for barely 2 percent of the carbon dioxide produced worldwide, according to the state Energy Commission.
California's contribution to global warming simply is too small for the proposed emissions cap -- or any amount of state regulation -- to make a difference, scientists say.
That point has not been lost on the bill's opponents.
"California is an ever smaller drop of water in the huge ocean of carbon emissions," said Margo Thorning, chief economist with the American Council for Capital Formation, an industry-funded think tank in Washington, D.C.
"It's really meaningless for California to ratchet down. It will be a lot of economic pain with virtually no environmental gain," Thorning said.
Rather than "capping" emissions, Thorning and other opponents say the legislation, Assembly Bill 32, will increase costs to California business and cause a "leakage" of industry and jobs to states with no greenhouse gas limits.
