subject: In Ca, Ab32 Legislation At A Crossroads [print this page] When the state of California opted to run with a far-reaching climate protection initiative, promising significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions within state borders, legislators were fairly confident that other jurisdictions would also act aggressively. In concert, such actions would indeed make a significant difference to carbon emissions going forward. However, as is often the problem when looking into a crystal ball, this ideal scenario has not materialized and this has presented a problem for CA, AB32 legislation likely to have to stand alone, with all its consequences.
For the state of CA, AB32 was a groundbreaking initiative when it was proposed in 2006 and indeed as part of the bill's declarations; California has perceived that AB32 could encourage "other states, the federal government and other countries to act." Many would argue that the effectiveness of AB32 is indeed dependent on the actions of other jurisdictions, most notably as it proposes a restriction of carbon emissions, but that its effectiveness will be measured according to emissions leakage, should other neighbouring locations be regulation free.
When California chose to run a climate protection initiative that promises significant GHG emissions reduction within the state's borders, legislators became confident that other jurisdictions would also decide to be aggressive with this war. In concert, such actions would indeed make a significant difference to carbon emissions going forward. However, as is often the problem when looking into a crystal ball, this ideal scenario has not materialized and this has presented a problem for CA, AB32 legislation likely to have to stand alone, with all its consequences.
The federal government has been painfully slow to push contentious climate bills through and whereas a nationwide carbon emissions trading scheme was engaged when the House of Representatives passed their own bill, it now looks as if it will be significantly watered down before the Senate will pass its own climate care bill.
As the nations who were party to the Kyoto Protocol noted, greenhouse gas emissions cannot be adequately managed unless and until all jurisdictions have some kind of regulatory policy in place. To date, the largest carbon emissions scheme in existence is the European Union's version. As greenhouse gas emissions are of course a global problem, regional initiatives are all well and good, but not the answer. A regulatory program that is unified would be needed prior to the curtailment of carbon emissions to up to 80% by 2050. If the U.S. Senate does not advocate a cap and trade trading scheme, California may be essentially "going it alone" in the United States and there are many risks for CA; AB32's policies may indeed end up being punitive to the state's economy.
The possibility of organizations to be compelled to seek business elsewhere would be very high as soon as CA AB32 would be implemented. With this respect, those sources of carbon emissions could actually negate the emissions reductions achieved in the state of California. Organizations which choose to stay within California would be at a disadvantage as far as competition is concerned, as the others would be able to operate without the restrictions.
Despite considerable opposition in CA, AB32 is likely to go ahead, but there is still room for a relaxation of some of the more onerous limitations to allow flexibility in the timing of emissions reductions through the year 2020, which is the target date set within the legislation.
Organizations should pay particular attention to CA AB32, regardless of their physical location in the country. This law is an indication of the growing call for legislation to curtail energy consumption and consequent carbon emissions and each organization is well advised to implement its own efficiency and monitoring system to put itself ahead of the game.
