Posted on 08/19/2006 11:58:30 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
California Portland Cement Co. had planned to build more plants this year but put its expansion on hold as it awaits a decision by state lawmakers that the company says could force it to cut production.
Cement manufacturers represent just one of several industries that would be required to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit under a bill that would make California the first state in the nation to impose such regulations on businesses.
The bill has set off a sharp debate in California over the need to balance environmental goals with the concerns of businesses that say such rules are too costly and technologically difficult.
Unlike other industries, which might be able to comply by implementing energy-efficient practices or using alternative fuels, much of the carbon dioxide emitted by cement plants is a byproduct of the chemical process.
"That's just the way cement is made," said Rick Patton, a vice president of the Glendora-based company. "If you limit the amount of carbon dioxide that can be produced, what you're doing is limiting the amount of cement that can be produced."
The dilemma for the cement industry is among the unknowns of how, and even if, California can realistically scale back heat-trapping gases above reductions it already has achieved through previous regulations.
Business leaders and researchers are divided over whether aggressive caps on industrial emissions are attainable and, if so, at what cost.
California already has been lowering its output of the greenhouse gases through a combination of energy efficient programs, alternative fuels and renewable power initiatives.
But the state also is the 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has championed climate-change legislation, but has asked for business-friendly amendments on the current bill, which could be put to a vote in the Senate this week.
If the governor eventually signs a compromise bill, the regulations would surpass efforts in the Northeast, where seven states have announced regulations to cap and trade emissions from power plants.
The bill also would put California in step with countries that pledged to reduce their greenhouse emissions under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, to which the U.S. is not a party. California's emission target for 2020, for example, would bring the state in line with today's per capital carbon dioxide emissions in Germany, the world's third largest economy.
"We're halfway there. We can easily do this," said the bill's joint author, Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills. "California can become the leader in new technologies and alternative fuels."
---
For the nation's most populous state, the stakes are high. Scientists warn that warmer weather could bring more flooding, lead to water shortages because of a smaller and faster-melting snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, promote coastal erosion from rising sea levels, and cause extreme heat waves, more intense wildfires and worse air quality.
"I don't see this as much as a responsibility as an obligation to do something and take leadership in making sure that we protect our planet," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, who is negotiating with Schwarzenegger over the governor's proposed amendments. "We know this is a real problem, and yet we have not done what we need to do."
But some business leaders say states should be careful not to rush into piecemeal regulations that could hamstring the economy.
California should wait for the international community to come up with proven, low-cost strategies for reducing greenhouse gases, said Kevin Fay, executive director of the pro-business International Climate Change Partnership in Virginia. Remedies, he said, are still in their infancy.
"In a global environment, the atmosphere doesn't care where the reductions come from," said Fay. "This is best advised at the global level."
Many experts agree that combating global warming should be a national priority - if not an international effort - but emission caps imposed on industries in California ultimately could become the foundation for regulations in other states, said Judi Greenwald, director of innovative solutions at The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group based in Arlington, Va.
"A lot of people are watching what California is doing," said Greenwald, who noted that California's 2004 law to reduce tailpipe emissions from cars and light trucks has been adopted by 10 other states.
---
California businesses are divided over whether they can realistically meet the bill's mandatory reductions, both financially and technologically.
The measure would require utilities, oil and gas refineries, and manufacturers such as cement plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 14 years so the state can return to 1990 levels.
Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, describes the task as an aggressive target. The goal would be to reduce greenhouse gases by 174 million tons per year, or the equivalent of the annual emissions from 43 coal-fire plants.
What it might cost the state to reach those targets is a matter of dispute.
A study by a team of economists at the University of California, Berkley has projected that an emission cap - coupled with market-based programs designed to give industries other ways to meet their emission goals - would add $59 billion to the state economy and 17,000 jobs.
That would be gained through fuel efficiency savings, use of clean energy and a boom in new technology that advocates compare to the Silicon Valley's tech boom in the late 1990s, the study said.
The California Chamber of Commerce, however, has labeled the measure a job-killer bill, saying the mandates will drive businesses out of state and increase energy costs for Californians.
Companies that already made significant greenhouse gas reductions - but whose industry as a whole would face the new regulations - are negotiating for exemptions in the bill.
Officials at Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility, say it has implemented energy-efficient practices and technologies that have lowered emissions from its plants around the nation to 1 percent over the last 30 years.
"We do not want our customers to carry an undue burden because of reductions required of other utilities," PG&E spokeswoman Darlene Chiu said.
In an effort to make state emission targets more palatable for California businesses, Schwarzenegger is insisting that the bill include market-based mechanisms. That approach would be similar to one used in Europe, which allows businesses to trade, bank, offset or auction emission credits in order to meet the mandates. As written, the bill authorizes the state to consider such a program.
Schwarzenegger also is pushing for a "safety valve" that would allow the state to delay the enforcement of the caps if there was a natural disaster or unforeseen emergency.
"We can't have a California-only approach for a global problem," Adams said.
But Nunez and Pavley have been skeptical. They question how the state might verify that a California company was making adequate emission reductions at a plant in, say, India to meet its California goals.
It is most needed in the attitudes and tendencies of state leaders across the board to seek to be at the vanguard of who can outGReen who.. and either unwittingly or knowingly denying the long-term ramifications to the state as a whole, both economically and politically.
What does it mean? It means that we'll have a bustling economy to rival Mauritania's.
This is what is known in the Schwarzenegger administration as being "pro-business."
Yep.
Push companies too hard, and they will move out faster than they are now.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
"Greenhouse gasses"come from greenhouse as*es!
Where's the reporter's balance and skepticism? A warmer climate could also result in more fresh water, a cleaner atmosphere from more rain, less deaths from cold weather which are more common than from hot weather, a longer growing season, faster growing plants, more recreational opportunities, on and on. You know you are reading propaganda when it's written as all bad, bad, bad.
Does anyone know of publically traded companies that make scrubbers?
Why can't they just pump the carbon dioxide into Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy? The two of them have unlimited capacity to absorb the CO2 into their fat cells for the next 100 years.
Emissions caps? I don't usually wear a cap. (But can I buy a t-shirt?)
Don't these flippin' idiots know ANYTHING about economics and a supply chain?
One of Mexico's largest exports is cement. So... don't produce it in CA. just buy it from Mexico. Let their production process create CO2.
Politicians are dumber than dirt.
That Boxer, Pelosi, and DiFi have to STFU from now on?
Naaww. No such luck.
L
Balance and skepticism? From a reporter?
What does it mean? China will be pleased with the growth in their economy.
The only "pro-business" advocates for this bill are those situated to gain from the carbon trading scheme, those that produce no tangible product in California, and those who have invested in green technology that will be forced on businesses through regulatory mandates. More business wil move to Mexico, China, etc. Why make anything in California? It's pure idiocy!
resulting in a net increase in CO2 emissions as the products are shipped back in, the total opposite of intentions.
And what will we do to accommodate all those new imports? Borrow, of course! Buried in Proposition 1B, the Transportation Bond, are megabucks to upgrade all the ports. In addition to the $15 billion below, they will borrow even more to modify highways for "goods movement."
Because shipping by truck contributes greatly to traffic, the state plans to spend $15 billion on improving access to California's ports, including the Port of Hueneme. (source)
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.