California

In addition to contributing to major health problems, failing to meet federal clean air standards is expensive, a new study shows.

From 2005 to 2007, California hospitals were paid $193 million for nearly 30,000 admissions and emergency room visits due to illnesses caused by exposure to excessive levels of ozone and particulate pollution in areas for the state that were out of compliance with federal clean air standards, according to a new RAND Research study, paid for by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Kresge Foundation. And those numbers don't include other medical costs, such as doctors’ visits for chronic problems such as asthma and lung disease caused by dirty air.

Perceptions of whether California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, is going to save or destroy the California economy depends on who’s doing the talking.

Opponents, like Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, say the measure is too expensive and will destroy jobs in California. In fact, she has made suspending the greenhouse gas reduction law a cornerstone of her campaign. She also suggests that California’s Environmental Quality Act, a model for environmental protection laws in other states, needs drastic reform.

Whitman and other opponents of AB 32, including those trying to get an initiative on the November ballot to suspend the law, argue that if the regulations are implemented, more than a million jobs in California may be lost.

Supporters of AB 32 say Whitman has it backwards: Implementing AB 32 will create jobs and without it, the California economy cannot recover from its current 12.4% unemployment level.

In 2006, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 32, the first state global warming legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy. The law calls for capping greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 and reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Supporters say AB 32 will help slow climate change while creating jobs, improving the health of California residents and creating local energy sources that keep energy money from leaving the state. A recent Union of Concerned Scientists study showed that the cost for small businesses of AB 32, which has not yet been implemented, would be negligible.

Tom Bowman, president of Bowman design group, also wanted to find out about the costs of AB 32, so he set out for his company to meet or exceed the law’s emissions reductions goals. As a result, the group cut its emissions by 65% and saved close to $9,000 a year in costs, with all capital investments in efficiency and technology being re-paid within 15 months.

“We proved the business case for a small business,” says Bowman. “It’s easy to beat those standards and save money at the same time, which is not the message you’re hearing in the political rhetoric.”

In fact, that rhetoric is making quite contrary claims.

California is launching a first-of-its-kind statewide network of monitors to track greenhouse gas emissions closer to their sources.

Knowing those levels will be a crucial step toward implementing a state law, known as AB 32, that requires California to cut its emissions 25% by 2020.

California last week became the first state to integrate green building practices, largely based on the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Efficiency and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, into its statewide building codes.

It was a big, Governator-style move, but while the USGBC officially supports CalGreen, and most in the green building world see it as a net-positive step, not everyone is thrilled about it. In fact many architects, engineers and city planners that fully support the integration of green building practices in the building code are concerned about the challenges involved in implementing and enforcing that code — and those are the building professionals who are advocates of green building in the first place.

As California writes the details of a statewide cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gas emissions, it is considering a different approach for divvying up the proceeds, one that would put state residents — rather than polluters — first in line for payouts.

Billions of dollars will be at stake once the state's carbon trading system gets going in 2012.

In Malmo, Sweden, just over the water from the Copenhagen climate talks, international transportation experts were discussing another aspect of climate change — sustainable transportation. More specifically, the third annual Transport and Climate Change conference focused on personal rapid transit (PRT).

Sometimes called “pod cars,” PRT refers to a transportation network of small shuttles that carry five to six people and run on either an elevated electrical track or are suspended from a wire like a gondola.

The first PRT system in the world is set to be unveiled to the public at London’s Heathrow airport this spring after years of testing. Shortly thereafter, Masdar City in Abu Dhabi will unveil phase one of its PRT system, which will be a primary mode of transportation in the city.

As federal cap-and-trade legislation stalls in the U.S. Senate and comes under international scrutiny in Copenhagen, California policymakers are moving forward with their own design for a carbon-capping strategy.

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) mandated that the state cut its emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, and then decrease emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

To reach those targets, policymakers plan to launch California's own state-based carbon-trading scheme in 2012, but some important details are still being worked out.

The first question is one that has also tied up policymakers in Washington: What is the most effective way to distribute the emission allowances that will eventually make up the state carbon trading market?

The answer recommended by a committee studying the allocations issue is very different than Washington’s. Rather than give away the majority of permits to polluters for free — the path Congress is using to win over votes from fossil fuel-heavy states — the committee recommends the permits be auctioned.

A new report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that fears about a negative impact on small businesses from a carbon cap have been largely overblown.

The report focuses on the likely impacts of California’s Global Warming Solution Act (AB 32), but it holds lessons for federal climate legislation as well.

By Janet Wilson, DC Bureau

Part IV in the four-part series No Safe Harbor about the shipping industry's emissions problems

LONG BEACH, Calif. — Massive cargo ships have long motored into the nation’s busiest ports here and next door in Los Angeles, trailing plumes of sulfurous soot. They disgorge containers of toys, VCR’s and sneakers, then chug out again loaded with scrap tin and waste paper. They are literally the slow boats to and from China, Singapore, and Japan, mighty container ships that have managed to elude air pollution regulation for half a century.

After decades of belching bilious emissions skyward from aging engines and highly polluting fuel, these and other trans-oceanic ships may be forced to clean up their act a bit.