RSS
Home
Meeting AB 32’s goals by 2020: Will it happen?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
California is the "twelfth largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world," according to Frank D. Russo at the California Progress Report.
A considerable amount of this pollution in California comes from motor vehicles - approximately 41 percent, this according to 2006 state gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides as revealed in a speech he delivered in a park on the grounds of the state capital on Aug. 9, ’06 and as evidenced in the California Progress Report article: “Angelides’ Emerging Unified Theory of the Campaign and Global Warming,” also authored by Russo. The remainder of global greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial sources (28%), with energy consumption accounting for 21%, Angelides said. Rounding out the picture (the remaining 10%) would presumably be the emissions produced from various other sources including transportation but excluding that which is produced by motor vehicles.
To try to get a better handle on the greenhouse gas emissions problem, legislation in the form of Assembly Bill 32 - co-authored by then California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and then Assemblywoman Fran Pavley was passed in Nov. ’06 and took effect on Jan. 1, ‘07.
AB 32: A quick review
“…Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, establishes a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor greenhouse gas emission levels and institutes a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. It limits emissions in California to 1990 levels by the year 2020, an almost 25 percent decrease,” Nunez told listeners in a weekly radio address delivered on August 12, ‘06, several months before the bill‘s passage.
“The bill also directs the state to develop a regulatory framework of emission reduction strategies and requires an annual report to the Governor and Legislature on the state’s emission reduction efforts,” Nunez said.
The former Speaker emphasized AB 32 would create tens of thousands of new jobs by 2020 while saving California businesses and families billions of dollars.
That was then.
Understanding that an overwhelming amount of GHG emissions come from the transportation sector (in Sonoma and Marin Counties, more than 60% of GHG emissions comes from motor vehicles according to information in “Making AB 32 Matter”), employing solutions which will bring emissions from such sources in California to 1990 levels by 2020 is definitely going to take some doing. But, I believe, the way the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit group or SMART is going about it, is correct.
“Fuel-efficient train services like Marin and Sonoma Counties’ SMART will be an important part of the implementation of AB 32, but the law won’t have any positive effect if public agencies are permitted to pretend it does not exist,” according to information in the “Making AB 32 Matter” editorial.
Exactly where was the editorial’s author(s) going with this? Below is text that immediately followed.
“As it did in Sacramento County’s Folsom Corridor, Caltrans wants to build new carpool lanes on Highway 101 just prior to construction of competing rail services. Caltrans wants to spend $745 million on its 16-mile Marin-Sonoma Narrows carpool lane project, more than the capital cost of 70 miles of SMART.
“In its environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, Caltrans admitted that new carpool lanes in the 101 corridor will increase the highway’s greenhouse gas emissions by 27 percent.
“However, the EIR failed to analyze this effect on the project in the context of climate change, as is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. This is why the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, TRANSDEF, headed by David Schonbrunn of Sausalito, filed suit against Caltrans.” (“Making AB 32 Matter,” California Rail News, Oct. ’09, p. 3).
Even total dependence on electric and hybrid vehicle technology “will not reduce our fossil fuel consumption to meet the state’s emissions goals,” according to information in the editorial. The answer obviously is less driving. That means more telecommuting opportunities and alternatives like SMART, which are essential if AB 32’s goals are to have half a chance of being met. I say “half a chance” because approximately 50% of greenhouse gas emissions comes from transportation.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
.jpg)
