Breaking News: AB 32 Cap and Trade Program Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal

The 1st Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal has temporarily stayed (in other words lifted) the trial court’s injunction preventing the California Air Resources Board from implementing its cap and trade program for greenhouse gas emitters.  As Cara blogged previously, the trial court in Association of Irritated Residents v. ARB issued a writ of mandate in late May preventing the Air Board from moving forward on cap and trade.  The Air Board is appealing the underlying ruling — which held that the Board failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act — in the case brought by environmental justice advocates.  The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the underlying case but in the meantime attorneys for CARB asked the appeals court  — by filing what is called a writ of supersedeas – to allow the state to continue to work to implement the cap and trade program pending the outcome of the case.   The Court of Appeals granted the state’s writ.   EJ advocates will have a chance to challenge the court’s granting of the writ and must file briefs setting forth their opposition by June 20, 2011.

The cap and trade program is supposed to take effect on January 1, 2012.  The court of appeals’ ruling, if it stands, makes the 2012 start date much more likely.

, , , ,

Reader Comments

4 Replies to “Breaking News: AB 32 Cap and Trade Program Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal”

  1. Dear Ms. Carlson,
    Like most advocates, you cannot provide any proof to support the discredited claim that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce global warming. This is the glaring logistical deficiency that wrecked cap & trade in Europe, undermined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in New England, and will ultimately defeat AB32. Cap & trade is an intrinsically fraudulent scam that preys on fools and suckers. Blind advocacy for cap & trade is a public display of intellectual immaturity.

  2. Dear bqrq,
    Like most deniers, you cannot provide any proof to support your misguided belief that operating hundreds of millions of pollution machines all over the world couldn’t possibly affect the global environment. Other than, of course, the discredited scientists that are on the payrolls of the oil oligopolists. This idea that you can pick and choose your facts to support your preconceived beliefs is the glaring logical fallacy that your Limbaugh listening, Fox news watching brethren always fall back on. But what do you expect from trumped up opinion pieces and talking heads that are presented as ‘news’. Talk about an intrinsically fraudulent scam that preys on fools and suckers. Blind advocacy for right wing, environmentally destructive, corporatocracy is a public display of intellectual immaturity.

  3. Dear Charles,
    I am an old Engineer who respectfully disagrees with you.
    The burden of proof is on those who claim that global warming can be reduced by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Most citizens do not support wasteful government spending and burdensome regulations that purport to reduce warming without hard proof that this approach is technically feasible and would achieve the intended purpose. The EPA does not have such proof and it recently admitted that there is no clear evidence that reducing carbon dioxide emissions reduces warming. This control strategy is all speculation and no proof. This is why AB32 will fail and be forgotten by this time next year.

Comments are closed.

About Ann

Ann Carlson

Ann Carlson is the Shirley Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law and the co-Faculty Director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School…

READ more

POSTS BY Ann