EDF’s Innovators Series profiles companies and people across California with bold solutions to reduce carbon pollution and help the state meet the goals of AB 32. Each addition to the series will profile a different solution, focused on the development of new technologies and ideas.
Although the Yurok Tribe is the largest Native American tribe by membership in California, it has struggled for centuries to keep hold of its ancestral land – an integral part of the Tribe’s livelihood. As European settlers moved in, the Yurok culture of living in unison with nature was rapidly and repeatedly challenged, as their land was taken and the natural ecosystems on which they depend were disrupted. In the New World economy that emerged, a person could make money from this acquired land in one of only three ways. The first was by cutting down the trees to harvest timber. The second was by cutting down the trees to create farmland. The third was by selling the land, most likely to someone who was hoping to cut down the trees for one of the first two purposes.
This story has played out countless times across the world, but California’s cap-and-trade program is changing the existing paradigm by creating a fourth way to derive revenue from forestland through the creation of an active carbon offsets market. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has approved five types of offset protocols for use in cap and trade, one of which is for U.S. forestry projects. This offset protocol gives forest landowners that meet stringent certification criteria a financial incentive to keep sustainable inventories of trees, and their carbon, on the land as opposed to cutting and hauling it all away. Companies regulated under the cap-and-trade program may purchase certified offset credits to account for a small percentage of the greenhouse gas pollution they produce. In this way, offsets can provide valuable opportunities to cut pollution while also creating valuable sources of revenue for landowners.
By: Sean Wright, Senior Analyst, Corporate Partnerships
Earlier this week the Center for American Progress held an event to raise awareness about the impacts of methane. “Opportunities for Curbing Methane Pollution” brought together representatives from a wide spectrum of backgrounds: state and federal policy experts, environmental advocates, and labor. While each had their own reasons, be them safety, jobs, health, climate, all agreed that reducing methane emissions from the US oil and gas sector was both critical and possible. That sentiment was captured nicely by Judi Greenwald from the Department of Energy:
“For most people it’s primarily about methane and… these greenhouse gas reductions, but I think there are a lot of other [policy] drivers. In some instances it’s really the safety benefit that’s most important…. [And] there are a lot of other reasons to do this. So you get agreement on actions, but you might actually not get agreement on each [policy] driver.”
Reducing methane emissions is good for the climate
Carol Browner, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, offered opening remarks during which she said methane is a “very serious climate problem” because of its potency as a greenhouse gas. Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20 year time frame and short-term climate forcers like methane will drive a significant portion of the climate change we experience in our lifetime. Read More
More Americans, these days, understand the threat climate change presents in the present and in the future, and support taking action. Over 64 percent of Americans and 67 percent of Californians support curbing carbon pollution from existing power plants which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to do through the Clean Power Plan. The EPA's proposal would set specific reduction targets for each state. In California and other states that are already acting to reduce climate pollution, the early assessments seem to be an upbeat "yes, we can meet those targets and probably exceed them." You wouldn't know that after reading a recent white paper released by Latham Watkins recently on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), though.
The white paper purports to identify "design flaws" in California's cap-and-trade program. Some of the technical adjustments to the cap-and-trade program suggested in this paper are worthy of careful consideration. In fact, some have been addressed in part or are being considered through the regulatory process at the Air Resources Board. So there doesn’t seem to be any real reason to sound the alarm bells on California’s program at this point in time. Read More
If you think the weather’s acting strange, you’re correct. Extreme weather in the United States is trending upward, and human-caused climate change has already been blamed for much of it – most recently in connection with the California drought.
But along with extreme weather we’re also getting extreme contrasts. What on Earth is going on when New York gets endless rain and San Francisco none, and when one part of the country is freezing while another suffers under record heat?
You guessed it, rising temperatures have something to do with it – and here’s how.
Rain patterns are changing
In the Northeast, the combination of more moisture in the atmosphere from a warmer world and changes in circulation patterns are bringing more rain. In the Southwest, meanwhile, rainfall is suppressed by a northward expansion of high pressure in the subtropics. Read More
California has officially entered its fourth consecutive year of drought, and is trapped in its worst water shortage situation ever.
Because we know that human-caused climate change can trigger and exacerbate drought conditions, media, public officials, California residents, and scientists have all been wondering for years if rising global temperatures likely caused or contributed to the current drought in California.
The short answer: Yes, they did.
Weather won’t cooperate
Scientists have suspected for some time now that a certain meteorological condition lies behind the long-lasting California drought. The persistence of a stubborn high-pressure system off the coast has been preventing storm systems from reaching California and instead deflecting them to Alaska and elsewhere. Read More
Just over two years ago, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) hired Andrew Chang and Company, LLC, a Sacramento-based economics consulting firm, to produce a report titled “The Fiscal and Economic Impact of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” Though one might hope a report of this nature would deliver honest analytics and academic rigor, EDF economists found it to be an all-out attack on California’s AB32 law, thinly disguised as a credible analysis, and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economic principles, misguided modeling assumptions, faulty calculations, and a willful disregard for the potential benefits of environmental regulation.
Fast forward to September 2014, and now the California Drivers Alliance, an organization organized and funded by a collection of oil producers known as the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), has taken a deceitful page out of CMTA’s playbook. This time though, the deceptive report comes from Andrew Chang’s former business partner, Justin L. Adams, now at Encina Advisors. The report – “Placing Fuels Under the Cap: The Economic Impact to California” – again concludes AB32 will be destructive to the economy, while ignoring the wage gains many Californians will receive from higher-paying jobs in California’s emerging clean energy economy.
While there are more holes in this latest report than in a block of Swiss cheese, here are three of the biggest ones: Read More