Deep sigh of relief!
Below are some other good news stories about election results affecting the climate crisis that you may not have seen. In general a great place to keep track of them is the Twitter account of Leah Stokes, a UCSB professor:
https://twitter.com/leahstokes/status/1324035988709122049
Nevada voters approved a constitutional amendment that requires the state to get at least 50 percent of its electricity from clean sources by 2030. Columbus actually voted for 100 percent renewable energy by 2023!
In Louisiana, voters turned down Amendment 5: it would have extended huge tax breaks for the oil and petrochemical industries. Grassroots organizing led to the defeat.
Bill McKibben notes: “Um, Fox News says 70% of voters want the government spending more on green energy. I think we might be winning the messaging battle on this one.” https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1323756567108472833
350 Santa Barbara exulted yesterday when Terracore announced that it no longer is pursuing an application to drill new oil wells in Cat Canyon in the northern part of Santa Barbara County! https://twitter.com/350SantaBarbara/status/1323727050826342401
[Thanks to [email protected] for some of these references.]
Dan Chandler
ZOOM LINK FOR LETTER WRITING (DETAILS BELOW):
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85643874306?pwd=Tm1yeXJBVVhWMGt5ZjZXVTVYbGFoZz09
Some letter writing possibilities for this week
A.) If you want to put a check in with your letter, then a couple of would-be Georgia Senators could use it:
https://warnockforgeorgia.com/
B.) Jared Blumenfeld: Secretary for Environmental Protection 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812-2815 [Oversees CA Air Resources Board, CalRecycle, and water quality. Cap and trade is under CARB.]
Write to urge Blumenfeld to undertake a full-scale and radical revision of California’s Cap and Trade program. His letter indicating some level of investigation is attached.
Here are two things you could ask for (provided by the 350 Humboldt Legislative Committee):
- Further climate justice by eliminating cap and trade barriers to local and industry-specific regulation. Environmental justice groups label cap and trade “pay to pollute,” with good reason. We must regulate pollution separately from emission of global warming gases. Regulatory agencies at every level must be free to reduce pollution.
- Increase the cost of an “allowance” for one tonne of CO2 equivalent emissions. It stands at $17 now. Current scientific calculations say it should be at $100 and increase annually. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/trump-epa-vastly-underestimating-the-cost-of-carbon-dioxide-pollution-to-society-new-research-finds/#:~:text=The%20latest%20research%20by%20an,to%20nearly%20%24600%20by%202100
C.) Protest the new rules on refrigerants. Please see the CARB announcement of a hearing on the Global Warming Potential of refrigerants (mostly supermarkets) at: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CARB/bulletins/2a69ab5
What to ask for:
- Earlier company-wide implementation of low GWP refrigerants (earlier than 2030)
- Changing the 150 GWP standard to 1, by using “natural” refrigerants like carbon dioxide
- Heavy fines for leaked refrigerants (according to the EPA supermarkets leak 25% each year; CARB data for Humboldt show about 14%, but that comes out to about 8% of all Humboldt greenhouse gas emissions); combined with more incentive money (there is $1 million now) for installing natural refrigerants. [Natural refrigerants are used to a much greater extent in Europe and Japan than here.]
*********BLUMENTHAL LETTER**********
June 18, 2020
Senator Bob Wieckowski Senate District 10
Dear Chair Wieckowski and Members:
Capitol Office State Capitol, Room 4085
Sacramento, CA 95814
I am writing in reference to the Legislature’s cap-and-trade budget item. The Item consists both of a budget bill appropriation and trailer bill language to direct the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to initiate a new, expedited rulemaking to address perceived concerns with the performance of the cap and trade program.
It is clear that the economic and environmental circumstances that existed in 2017 when CARB last examined the cap and trade programmatic underpinnings have changed dramatically. The advent of the COVID 19 Crisis, the collapse of the world oil market, and the results of CARB’s May 2020 Auction are all factors that deserve careful consideration. However, now is not the time to rush into a comprehensive and complicated set of technical program reforms.
At this time, California is navigating a set of critical economic and social challenges as a result of the global pandemic. We do not know what the long-term impact will be on the state’s economy nor on its greenhouse gas emissions trajectory, and within the next year we are unlikely to have resolution on those questions in time to inform a comprehensive program review.
Furthermore, the opportunity to revisit program design questions is already available through the regular update of CARB’s Scoping Plan process and associated rule-makings. That process is about to commence and by state law must be completed by the end of 2022.
To be clear, achieving clarity around the operating assumptions and the relative weight given to our cap-and- trade program is essential. The Board’s 2017 Scoping Plan designates cap-and-trade as responsible for almost half of the reductions required to achieve California’s 2030 climate target, making it the single largest driver of planned climate policy outcomes. In previous scoping plans, the program played a much smaller role as a complement to a set of other measures that address electricity and transportation sector emissions. Those regulations, in turn, have delivered significant reductions in climate and local air pollution that form the backbone of state climate policy today.
While it would be unwise to initiate a comprehensive cap-and-trade program rulemaking in the immediate future, I believe it prudent for CalEPA to work collaboratively with CARB to examine the program’s role in California’s 2030 climate strategy as part of its broader 2022 Scoping Plan process.
In the context of this regulatory process, I will work with CARB’s leadership to ensure a comprehensive review and consideration of the following:
- The extent to which the state’s climate strategy should rely on the cap-and-trade program reductions relative to other approaches.
- An evaluation of potential changes to the cap-and-trade program that may be necessary to address the long-term economic and emissions projections. As part of this process, the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office should be consulted to provide a mutually agreeable set of technical metrics, while drawing upon the experiences of other cap-and-trade programs around the world.
- An identification of areas where new legislation could further the successful implementation of California’s climate strategy.
I look forward to working together with you and the Legislative Branch to ensure that California’s climate leadership thrives during challenging times—and beyond.
Sincerely,
Jared Blumenfeld
Secretary
California Environmental Protection
Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide Regulation • Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery • Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment • State Water Resources Control Board • Regional Water Quality Control Boards
1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 • P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812 • (916) 323-2514 • www.calepa.ca.gov
ZOOM DETAIL