Shock: Corporatist Tea Party supports Corporate global warming agenda

[bfdd]

California voters evenly divided on Prop 23:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre...sition-23-poll-global-warming-california.html

- wolf

Wait wait... If I vote in favor of prop 23, I'm agreeing to stop implementation of this stupid fucking green bill they passed until our unemployment is lower? I'm down for that. 5.5% seems ridiculous, change it to 7-8% and they got a vote in me.

 

[monovillage]

And that diesel law is not AB32, which this thread is about.

It's about the agency that's implementing AB32.

 

[Craig234]

It's about the agency that's implementing AB32.

Yes, but that one-off error does not say much about their implementing AB32 - there's no connection between the one error and AB32.

However, for other reasons, this board IS a pretty bad agency IMO.

But that doesn't make AB32 a bad bill.

 

[monovillage]

Yes, but that one-off error does not say much about their implementing AB32 - there's no connection between the one error and AB32.

However, for other reasons, this board IS a pretty bad agency IMO.

But that doesn't make AB32 a bad bill.

From the official summary of AB32 :
"SUMMARY

AB 32 requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020. (Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are widely believed to contribute to global warming and other forms of climate change. ) Mandatory caps on GHG emissions will begin in 2012 for significant GHG sources. The caps will be reduced over time to meet the 2020 goals. ....."

CARB is the agency that calls all the shots about AB32 and they've shown themselves to be incompetent to run anything, so I think it is a major factor in Prop. 23

"CALIFORNIA'S GLOBAL WARMING LEGISLATION

The act requires ARB, by January 1, 2008, to:

1. adopt regulations requiring major GHG sources to monitor and report their emissions to the ARB; and

2. to adopt a statewide emissions limit on these emissions based on 1990 emissions, which will go into effect in 2020 until otherwise amended or repealed.

The act specifies detailed criteria for the adoption and compliance with these regulations.

The act requires ARB to adopt, by regulation, the maximum feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions for the categories of sources the act covers, under the following schedule:

1. by July 1, 2007, ARB must adopt a list of emission reduction measures that can be achieved before the adoption of market-based compliance mechanisms and the act's other measures and limits;

2. by January 1, 2010, ARB must adopt and enforce these early action measures in order to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases;

3. by January 1, 2009, ARB must adopt a plan indicating how GHG emission reductions will be achieved from significant greenhouse gas sources via regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions; and

4. by January 1, 2011, ARB must adopt GHG emission limits and measures to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reductions in emissions to meet the statewide GHG emission limit, using market mechanisms and alternative compliance mechanisms.

In adopting the last set of limits and measures, ARB may adopt a cap and trade mechanism so long as it complies with specific conditions before doing so. (Under a cap and trade system, the aggregate amount of emissions that are allowed statewide is capped, with the cap decreasing over time. Businesses and other emissions sources are allocated a specific number of credits, which they can trade in a market-based

system in order to meet the cap. ) The act also allows ARB to adopt market-based compliance mechanisms and specifies conditions and criteria for the adoption and use of these mechanisms.

In adopting the regulations, ARB must consider environmental justice, equitable distribution of emission reductions, best available scientific and economic information, and other factors. ARB must consult with various other state agencies that have jurisdiction over utilities and other sources of GHG emissions in order to minimize any overlap among those agencies.

Before imposing any mandates or authorizing market mechanisms, ARB must evaluate several factors, including impacts on California's economy, the environment, and public health; electric reliability; and conformance with other environmental laws.

The act allows the governor to adjust, by up to one year, deadlines for individual regulations or the statewide emissions limit in the event of extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events, or significant economic harm.

California adopted legislation in 2002 to reduce GHG emissions from cars and other vehicles. (As described in OLR Report 2005-R-0898, Connecticut has adopted parallel legislation. ) The vehicle manufacturers have challenged this legislation as being preempted by federal law. AB 32 provides that if the regulations adopted under the 2002 legislation do not remain in effect, ARB must adopt alternative regulations that achieve equivalent or greater GHG reductions.

The act also authorizes ARB to:

1. impose administrative, civil, or criminal penalties consistent with its authority under air quality statutes for violations of any rule, regulation, order, or standard it adopts under the act; and

2. adopt a schedule of fees to pay for the costs of implementing the programs it establishes under the act. "