Sierra Club asks Gov. Brown to re-examine AB 32 cap-and-trade
On May 9, Sierra Club requested that Governor Jerry Brown “re-evaluate” the cap-and-trade rule promulgated by the California Air Resources Board. The Sacramento Bee has some initial reactions and you can read the original letter here. As noted in our earlier posts, CARB’s cap-and-trade rule has come under judicial scrutiny and its status is somewhat unclear.
Sierra Club raises two main objections. First, it questions the role of offsets in the rule. According to Sierra Club,
Excessive reliance on offsets could open up loopholes that undermine the very purpose of California’s AB 32 cap on emissions.
Sierra Club is particularly concerned that the forestry offsets are, well, imaginary, environmentally destructive, and unenforceable. I previously blogged that, just looking at the numbers, the cap-and-trade program could rely completely on offsets until 2017. One answer to the concern with forestry offsets is more thorough verification.
Second, Sierra Club objects to giving away valuable emission allowance to the oil extraction and refining industries.
Reader Comments
2 Replies to “Sierra Club asks Gov. Brown to re-examine AB 32 cap-and-trade”
Comments are closed.
About M. Rhead
M. Rhead Enion was the UCLA Law Emmett/Frankel environmental law fellow for 2010–2013. His research interests include cap-and-trade, coastal science and policy, environ…
READ more
AB 32 continues to be on hold and will probably never be imlemented. In addition to the Sierra Club’s concerns about forestry offsets, there are no guarantees that lower cost carbon offsets from other states, Mexico and China will be allowed to trade in California, despite the fact that California could theoretically benefit from such offsets. These trade barriers would drive up costs and concentrate control of the carbon market in the hands of a select group of carbon moguls in California. AB 32 was never a good idea and it should quietly fade away.
The demise of AB 32 gives us hope that the so-called “experts” will eventually abandon their ill-conceived attempts to regulate climate and focus on reality. A more reasonable response to climate change is adaptation when and where this becomes necessary.
Is this an example of forestry offsets under AB 32? Chevron wants to expand its El Segundo factory. The under-funded Forest Service accepts a couple million dollars for a controversial replanting after the station fire:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/15/local/la-me-station-fire-20110415
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/04/15/forest-service/