California's landmark attempt to implement a 'cap-and-trade' system of reducing carbon emissions hit a roadblock last week when a judge ruled that the state had not looked hard enough at alternatives.
The ruling, which does not prohibit or explicitly delay the California Air Resources Board from adopting the measure, requires that board must first analyze other options and explain why it did not choose them. One such alternative being considered is a carbon tax.
A spokesman said the board will appeal the ruling, which puts California's first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks on hold. The spokesman also said the board has already conducted a "robust and comprehensive examination of the alternatives" and would submit its findings to the judge.
The cap and trade system is the centerpiece of the state's plan to implement AB32, the 2006 law requiring California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In real terms, this would mean a 15 percent reduction in 2010 GHG emissions.
Unlike the federal level defeat of cap and trade by conservatives, the challenge in California come from grass-roots environmentalists who fear the law is too weak. They argue that cap and trade will allow the worst offenders of pollution to pollute even more - and spill that pollution largely on the minority and low-income communities. Most mainstream environmental groups, however, supported cap and trade and stayed out of the suit.
Many truckers fear that a cap-and-trade program will increase fuel costs, shifting a large portion of the burden to the trucking industry. The American Trucking Associations is officially opposed to cap-and-trade in general and has given its own recommendations for reducing emissions. Mike Tunnell, director of Environmental Affairs, said the ATA petitioned CARB to exclude transportation fuels from the program, which they did not.
A spokesperson person for CARB declined to comment on when the issue may be resolved. However, the program is intended to be implemented in stages - heavy manufacturing and refining operations will be regulated first, with transportation fuels not phased in until 2015.
The ruling, which does not prohibit or explicitly delay the California Air Resources Board from adopting the measure, requires that board must first analyze other options and explain why it did not choose them. One such alternative being considered is a carbon tax.
A spokesman said the board will appeal the ruling, which puts California's first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks on hold. The spokesman also said the board has already conducted a "robust and comprehensive examination of the alternatives" and would submit its findings to the judge.
The cap and trade system is the centerpiece of the state's plan to implement AB32, the 2006 law requiring California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In real terms, this would mean a 15 percent reduction in 2010 GHG emissions.
Unlike the federal level defeat of cap and trade by conservatives, the challenge in California come from grass-roots environmentalists who fear the law is too weak. They argue that cap and trade will allow the worst offenders of pollution to pollute even more - and spill that pollution largely on the minority and low-income communities. Most mainstream environmental groups, however, supported cap and trade and stayed out of the suit.
Many truckers fear that a cap-and-trade program will increase fuel costs, shifting a large portion of the burden to the trucking industry. The American Trucking Associations is officially opposed to cap-and-trade in general and has given its own recommendations for reducing emissions. Mike Tunnell, director of Environmental Affairs, said the ATA petitioned CARB to exclude transportation fuels from the program, which they did not.
A spokesperson person for CARB declined to comment on when the issue may be resolved. However, the program is intended to be implemented in stages - heavy manufacturing and refining operations will be regulated first, with transportation fuels not phased in until 2015.
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments