California Carbon Credit Market Just Part Of Sweeping Plan

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California on Thursday adopted the nation's most sweeping plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, issuing rules that could transform everything from the way factories operate to the appliances people buy and the fuel they put in their cars.

The Air Resources Board unanimously approved the plan despite warnings it will put costly new burdens on businesses at a time when the economy is in extreme crisis, with California forecasting a staggering budget gap of $41.8 billion through mid-2010.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he believes the regulations will spur the state's economy and serve as a model for the rest of the country.

"When you look at today's depressed economy, green tech is one of the few bright spots out there, which is yet another reason we should move forward on our environmental goals," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

The strategy relies on 31 new rules affecting all facets of life, including where people may build their homes and what materials they use to do it.

One central piece is a cap-and-trade program, set to begin in 2012, under which power plants, refineries and big factories will be able to buy and sell the right to emit heat-trapping gases. The program could give plant operators a financial incentive to reduce their carbon emissions.

Air regulators said the average Californian could see more fuel-efficient cars and plug-in hybrids on showroom floors; better public transportation; housing nearer to schools and businesses; and utility rebates to make their homes more energy-efficient.

But there will also be costs: Cars could become more expensive, and Californians can expect higher electric rates as utilities increase their use of renewable energy. Homes built with energy-efficient materials could also prove more costly, as could gasoline reformulated to release less carbon dioxide.

Story continues below

The rules spell out in broad terms how the state intends to carry out a landmark 2006 California law that made the state a leader in confronting climate change. The law _ conceived when the economy was in better shape _ requires the state to cut greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. More detailed rules will be issued over the next few years.

California, the nation's most populous state, has long been in the vanguard of the environmental movement, adopting the nation's toughest restrictions on auto pollution decades ago.

Because of its size and market clout, its decisions can have effects far beyond the state, with manufacturers around the country often adapting their products to meet California's stricter standards.

John Kabateck, executive director of the California branch of the National Federation of Independent Business, argued against the new rules, warning: "Now is not the time to make it even harder to do business in California."

But Air Resource Board chairwoman Mary Nichols said California's plan would save its residents and businesses money in the long run.

"We believe that California, again and again, has pushed for higher levels of efficiency in our electric sector, our buildings and appliances, and time after time it turns out efficiency measures have not only saved us money but leaped our economy ahead," Nichols said after the vote.

A board report found that the average household would save $400 a year by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and living in more energy-efficient homes. And already, private investors have given more than $2.5 billion this year to new companies that have sprung up in California, in part to respond to the state's environmental goals, said Bob Epstein, co-founder of Environmental Entrepreneurs.

"Our president-elect has called for stimulating our economy," said Bill Mcgavern, director of California's Sierra Club. "I think he and the Congress will be looking to the state of California, and these measures can serve as a model for the rest of the country."

One major piece of the plan is contingent on the federal government giving California the go-ahead to force automakers to build cleaner cars and trucks. The Bush administration has blocked that law from taking effect, but California officials hope the Obama administration will reverse course.

The plan will also require utilities to generate one-third of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal by 2020. And energy-efficiency standards for buildings and for air conditioners and other appliances will be strengthened.

Also, fuel providers will have to reformulate transportation fuels so they are a combined 10 percent less carbon-intensive by 2020. And local governments will get incentives to curb urban sprawl and reduce how far people drive to work or school.

The cap-and-trade plan that will allow businesses to buy their way out of the problem is a particularly contentious part of the plan. California's poor communities say polluters in their neighborhoods may just write a check rather than clean up their act.

___

On the Net:

California Air Resources Board: http://www.arb.ca.gov

Comments

[blimie]

Mr. Arnold, voice of gas and electric, we can go green without carbon taxes. There is technology that should have been implemented gradually over the last 30 years that would eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and power plant electricity. But no, these big companies like snorting up billions of dollars from regular folks.

Why didn't Al Gore push these things forward when he was Vice President? Why are we are using such outdated polluting technology when there are alternatives available? Carbon taxes still promote using the same old fuels. Disgusting.

[RTIII]

Ms. Young is using the rhetoric of the right; everything's a cost, even when it's an investment.

Most of the things that are being put in place actually save money in the long run, while at the same time helping our environment _and_ build a new economy.

Such expenditures now are called "enlightened self-interest" - as opposed to dogmatic inability to see investments as anything but costs.
.

[TomBrentwood]

where's that spell check button?

[TomBrentwood]

I find it interesting that nobody seems to mention that reducing polution might have a positive influence on public health. I remember one such report a few years back mentioning that reduced
air pollution could saved billions in public health costs. I think the report was from the Lung Association. I never hear it mentioned when they discuss Cost Benefit analysis...

[MyTake]

This is a very good point.

We cannot get the Hydrogen Economy launched because of aggressive suppression to its release by the oil and energy cartels. Just think if every vehicle and building in a city was using hydrogen fuel cell electrical power for transportation and buildings that yields zero environmental pollution, health care costs would not be an issue.

We cannot get reduced health care costs because Big Pharma suppresses oxygen therapies (H2O2, Ozone) in favor a vast array of chemical and drug applications on those populations. And it is they who train the Doctors in administering drugs. As Deepak Chopra wrote in a book once when asked why he gave up being a practising Doctor - his answer was "I got tired of being a licensed drug pusher!

Big Pharma drugs are the biggest cost to public health care followed by city air pollution and having that density of people in such close proximity which rapidly spreads virus and bacteria caused illness.

If we could tear down Big Oil and Big Pharma, the World would be a better place.

[MyTake]

Way to go Arnold.

Cap and Trade now, I wonder if this scam will be using the Rothschild controlled international banks to profit from these transactions. But if Obama comes in with Cap and Trade in the next few months, then we will know that you guys have been talking.

But I do find it curious that you did not promote hydrogen fuel cells more aggressively. Poor Jamie Lee Curtis has her Honda FCX hydrogen fuel cell car but can't go anywhere all because you could not order the oil cartel into install hydrogen gas stations on their service station lots.

As you announce this, there is a UN Climate Change conference taking place in Poznan, Poland where 21 hydrogen powered BMW 7's are transporting delegates to and from the conference. Why don't you just offer BMW or HONDA free taxation to manufacture and sell these cars in your State.

And then Verizon in NJ is operating that communications center with 6 hydrogen fuel cell electrical power plants. Couldn't you mandate these in your State, Arnold!

[frogluv73]

I know much of this is needed, however, as a renter whose landlord is too cheap to repaint the building, how or why would he put money into revamping our 1930s complex? He'll just pass the cost onto the renters by raising the rent. And higher utility bills? I pay more for my gas and electric in the summer when nothing is on than my mother does in the winter when she's heating her entire house. I think the experts really need to rethink this approach escpecially when the entire country is going thru this recession and the state of California is broke.

[it is me]

It amazes me how spoiled and entitled we have become. Everything costs money. It is time that we realize that we cannot live in a country of never raising taxes and never having to pay more for things, but yet expect everything to be taken care of. It is time for people to pay for what they use and, for those who feel they should use more than others, they should pay for it. We have taken for so so long that it is time we give back. We should be paying additional taxes on gasoline that are used to subsidize clean energy and to get rid of our reliance on foreign oil. How else do we plan on making any progress in terms of quality of life for future generations. I do not understand why every new home built in the US is not required to use solar panels? People are so worried about short term problems as opposed to long term solutions. Sure, that solar panel will add to the price of a home, but have extremely low energy bills for the many years that you live in a house is certainly a payoff.....never mind the good that you do by reducing the energy pollution.
It is time we all take a responsibility for the place that we live and for the fact that other people will hav to live with the consequences of our actions. We have grown just way too selfish to describe.

[RTIII]

Tonto to Lone Ranger: "Whaddya mean WE, whiteman?"
.

[JuniorNorman]

LEGALIZE HEMP!
Arnhole vetoed the hemp bill.
Cut NOX emisions by 70% in existing cars $300-600
Halo spark plugs or Pulstar spark plugs
Fitch Fuel Catalyzer
Turbinator
Unburned hydrocarbons cut by 80%
Catalytic converters last longer.

[Semaj51]

Lets see....
- California is broke.
- The state will make lots of money regulating the carbon credit program.
- The goal of the carbon credit program is to reduce pollution.
- The realization is that the state has another method to raise money.
- The fact of life is when a business is required to spend more, they pass
the costs on to the customers.

In the end, its the citizens of the state of California who will be paying more and more. And if the carbon credit program proves to be just a sham, then they will also not be rewarded by better environment.