FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Interesting... seeing they could cut their CO2 by 50% if their politicians would just stop breathing....
Posted on 03/26/2007 6:31:47 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
California lawmakers expressed skepticism Monday about how the Schwarzenegger administration plans to reduce greenhouse gases, illustrating the difficulty in implementing the state's much publicized global warming law.
Democrats questioned why the state planned to spend millions of dollars on mechanisms that have yet be evaluated or clearly defined.
"A lot of the language we're using here is very fuzzy," said Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. "I think we really need to develop something that all of the public understands."
The committee held the Legislature's first public hearing on how to implement the greenhouse gas reductions called for in the law, which was signed with great fanfare last year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It imposes the country's first statewide cap on emissions of the heat-trapping gases that are blamed for global warming. The law requires California to reduce emissions by an estimated 25 percent by 2020 - an estimated 174 million metric tons.
The California Air Resources Board, which was charged with implementing the law, has begun hearings and workshops to sort out how much the state must reduce its emissions and what industries will be asked to do.
The board is considering a variety of strategies, including creating new regulations for fuels and creating a market that would allow companies to buy and sell credits to meet their obligations under the law, commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 32.
"This is a critical moment," said Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City. "Implementing AB32 is probably a task equally important as passing AB32. We have to set the right tone for the coming years."
The law is one of the key ways California lawmakers are seeking to limit global climate change. Scientists and experts in various state agencies predict climate change could diminish California's water supply, stress farm land and forests, and alter the coast line as sea levels rise.
Debating how to implement the law is expected to be technically complex and at times political. While the air board is preparing its regulations, lawmakers from both parties have introduced dozens of bills aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.
Republicans said California companies would need the flexibility of a cap-and-trade market to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas in a cost-effective way. A strictly regulatory approach could impose burdensome regulations that would force industries to leave California, said Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo.
Schwarzenegger has issued several executive orders that seek to dictate the board's actions and involve his administration to a greater degree in the process.
On Monday, however, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office issued concerns about the administration's involvement. Policy analyst Jay Dickenson recommended the Legislature deny funding to the state Environmental Protection Agency for some of its climate work and limit funding to the air board involving any market programs.
"It seems premature to us for the Air Resources Board to seek funding for market mechanisms," Dickenson said.
Hancock said the air board should focus on implementing regulations that reduce greenhouse gases before pursuing a system allowing companies to buy and sell carbon emissions credits. In such a program, companies that can't meet their reduction targets could buy credits from companies that exceed their goals.
The bill allows, but does not mandate, the board to analyze a market program. It was part of a compromise struck last year between Schwarzenegger, who favors the idea, and Democrats weary of attempts in Europe to control the cost to industries.
"This is a very complex area and a cautionary tale that we have to be very serious," Hancock said.
Chuck Shulock, manager of the state Air Resources Board's greenhouse gas reduction program, defended the board's early focus on cap-and-trade markets. He said it was following time lines established in the bill.
Shulock also urged lawmakers to approve the administration's budget requests, which would give the Environmental Protection Agency the money to help the board meet the law.
"There are a number of agencies involved here," he said. "We at the air board are not at the best position to coordinate and make things happen."
Coming to California $5 a gallon gas and a booming indulgences industry.
Huh? Bipartisan questioning of the Carbon Market Scam?
Good news!
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
"The bill allows, but does not mandate, the board to analyze a market program. It was part of a compromise struck last year between Schwarzenegger, who favors the idea, and Democrats weary of attempts in Europe to control the cost to industries"
Democrats saw through this? I'm impressed.
The dems don't care about the cap and trade part.
Arnie wants that at all costs.
$1 Billion of the Prop 1B Transportation Bond is going to developing a trading system.
Even if this scam gets stopped, $megabucks$ will have been thrown down the drain.
My company stock will soar, my retirement fund will grow exponentially. All funded by the idiots in California, and I live in Wisconsin.
Thank you suckers!.
"The dems don't care about the cap and trade part."
In Congress the Democrats do. Their bills (+ McCain's) are the ones pushing cap and trade.
Maybe in California they did first, but are wising up now. Don't know.
These "global warming" bills are always sold by distractions of solar panels and similar. The real forces behind them are not examined.
BTW, in Europe, as they run around trying to salvage their trading systems...how much investment is being put into direct investment of cleaner/no oil devices? Zero.
creating a market that would allow companies to buy and sell credits to meet their obligations under the law
LOL! and this cuts emissions how? My tagline applies.
"$1 Billion of the Prop 1B Transportation Bond is going to developing a trading system."
A transportation bond for that? Hmm...
How much of that moola is "outsourced" to advisors and consultants?
(2) One billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) shall be made available, upon appropriation by the Legislature and subject to such conditions and criteria contained in a statute enacted by the Legislature, to the State Air Resources Board for emission reductions, not otherwise required by law or regulation, from activities related to the movement of freight along California's trade corridors. Funds made available by this paragraph are intended to supplement existing funds used to finance strategies and public benefit projects that reduce emissions and improve air quality in trade corridors commencing at the state's airports, seaports, and land ports of entry.
174 million tons of CO2 is nothing compared to natural CO2 emissions. In Yellowstone National Park alone, the Mud Volcano releases 44 million tons of CO2 per year, and in Italy, Mt. Etna releases 13 million tons of CO2 per year.
These are but two of thousands of examples of the natural release of CO2 into the atmosphere that dwarfs anything humans could possibly contribute.
"A lot of the language we're using here is very fuzzy," said Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. "I think we really need to develop something that all of the public understands."
---<>---<>---<>---<>---<>---<>---
LOL...
Actually, all the public really needs to understand is the actual annual, continuing COST... and the temperature change that cost would bring.
That will put an end to any need to develop anything else the public will need to understand.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.