In 1990, Nelson Mandela was released after serving 27 years as a political prisoner, the San Francisco 49ers whacked the Denver Broncos 55-10 in the Super Bowl, the Hubble space telescope was launched, and Californians were creating 10 tons per person, per day, of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In the year 2020, if California State Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) is fully implemented, we will be back to those 1990 GHG emissions levels—a 15 percent reduction from today’s levels, but a 30 percent reduction from where we’ll be if we continue at our current rate of emissions increases.
AB32 has the potential to reach into homes and businesses throughout the state, possibly resulting in mandatory building retrofits, transportation pattern changes, increased regulatory burdens and—oh, yeah—cleaner air and a healthier planet. Dubbed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, AB32 is so complex and far-reaching that it will take until 2011 (or beyond) to fully implement its regulations.
The responsibility for making AB32 work has fallen on the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which will work with local governments and businesses to tackle GHG emission goals. Jerry Hart, air pollution specialist in the CARB Office of Climate Change, puts the effort in economic terms, saying that reducing fuel costs and energy use will help businesses offset increased costs. “If your systems aren’t operating efficiently, you’re flushing money down the toilet,” Hart said at a breakfast meeting sponsored by the North Bay Leadership Council in November 2008. “This is about conservation and efficiency.”
Under AB32, local governments are encouraged to develop climate action plans, establish GHG reduction targets, verify local reductions encourage citizens and businesses to reduce gas and greenhouse emissions. Scofflaws could face fines or other penalties for not complying with the new regulations. [Regulations pertaining to local governments aren’t anticipated at this time.]
Most government agencies are expected to stress the positive aspects of GHG reductions through energy efficiency, renewable energy, waste reduction, public transportation and community education programs. Private enterprise will be encouraged to take similar steps. It’s unlikely that businesses will see a CARB regulator at the door, but many could face new requirements from local governments when it’s time to pull a permit.
Evolution of local ideas
In the North Bay, AB32 isn’t so much a change as it is a next step. A few local community organizations here began working on climate change years ago, and formation of such groups increased following the 2006 release of “An Inconvenient Truth.” One of the first and most active of these groups is the Climate Protection Campaign (CPC), based in Sonoma County. CPC is credited with getting all nine Sonoma County cities and the county government to sign on to an aggressive GHG reduction plan, beginning in 2001. Executive Director Ann Hancock is proud of local governments’ vision, but says leadership and action from all levels of government is key to long-term climate change solutions.
“There’s a whole lot of things that local government cannot do; thank God the state is stepping up,” says Hancock, calling Governor Schwarzenegger “a climate action hero” for his stance on GHG reductions.
Solar Sonoma County (SSC) is also working to decrease GHG emissions. In addition to promoting solar power, the group has its own ambitious goal of 25 megawatts of new solar electric production in the county by 2011. “We wanted the goals to be audacious. We wanted to get people’s attention,” says SSC co-founder Lori Houston. “This is something we can do sooner rather than later.”
SSC has developed a consortium of government support in Sonoma County, as well as businesses and families who want to promote solar energy. SSC has a regulatory goal as well, to make it easier to install solar systems in the county by streamlining approvals.
In Napa County, one of the most visible efforts to green the county is being led by its biggest industry. The Napa Valley Vintners (NVV) has adopted Green Vineyard and Green Winery certification programs, which recognize vineyard managers and vintners committed to enhancing habitat and watershed, two key activities that fit in with GHG reduction programs.
Chris Howell, general manager and winemaker at Cain Vineyards in Napa County, says NVV members can set an example about sustainable business practices: “Napa Valley gets a lot of visitors, so influential people can see what we’re doing.”
Howell says visitors who see solar panels on wineries and hear about stream restoration projects might go home with a fresh perspective on GHG reductions and other environmental concerns. “I think it’s important to open up the dialogue,” he says, “but we’re not green-washing our wine. The message is really to ourselves.
“Everybody who’s growing fine wine has to be concerned about climate, but as farmers, we live day to day, week to week, season to season. What we really experience is weather, not climate.”
Howell believes farmers have to “do our part to mitigate climate change, but we also have to adapt. Were it to get warmer, we might shift from Cab to Zin, from Pinot to Syrah. We can all adapt within a certain bandwidth.” He points out that “wine growing exists within a long tradition. The best spots to grow haven’t changed. I find that a little comforting.”
In Marin County, one particular business has a firsthand view of the impacts of waste reduction, considered another crucial element in the success of AB32. Reducing business and consumer waste can significantly decrease the number of garbage trucks on the road—and the fuel costs to process waste—says Patty Garbarino, president of Marin Sanitary Service. According to Garbarino, the United States has 5 percent of the planet’s population yet consumes 25 percent of its energy and creates 30 percent of its waste.
Serving as a panelist at the North Bay Leadership Council breakfast on AB32, Garbarino referred to a 1989 law, AB939, that mandated recycling in California. “We were (each) making 6.2 pounds per day of waste when 939 passed,” she said. Garbarino says no real progress has been made since, with increased recycling only accounting for increased trash. “We were at 12.2 pounds per day in 2006. We’re not reducing waste. We’re just recycling our growth.” Garbarino and her firm have won numerous accolades for a commitment to recycling and waste reduction.
Organized opposition
Not all businesses are convinced. Scott Macdonald is the communications director for the AB32 Implementation Group, which lists numerous business organizations as members. While he says the coalition “supports the goals of AB32,” he admits he fears “a regulatory chaos that’s spreading, where businesses may have to meet conflicting standards” set by local, regional and state government agencies.
“The state is about to implement the most expensive and extensive regulatory program in its history,” claims Macdonald. (Reporter’s note: This is an oft-heard statement by those concerned about AB32. When asked to clarify the claim, Macdonald demurred, saying he had “heard it somewhere.”)
Macdonald joins a chorus of voices who want to be sure that California’s ambitious GHG reduction goals don’t create economic incentives to do business elsewhere. When Joe Nation was a state assemblyman, he was the principal co-author of AB32. He now teaches climate change policy, health care policy and politics courses at Stanford University. Nation says he hopes President Obama will follow through on a promise to lead the country toward the same GHG reduction goals as California. “More than half the states already have similar targets,” says Nation. “California can’t be out there by itself, we have to have a level playing field.”
Nation notes cement production in China causes approximately 45 percent more GHG emissions than the production methods used in California. “What if the jobs and orders here go away because Chinese cement is cheaper?” Nation asks. “Global GHG emissions will go up.”
Nation firmly believes, though, that any economic wobble will soon right itself, depending, of course, on overall economic conditions and how fast other states move toward GHG reductions. “If we’re more energy efficient than our competitors in India, China or even in Illinois, we’ll be more competitive—although there might be some short-term pain.”
Ann Hancock agrees: “In the short run, there will be winners and losers. But in the long run, we’ll all be winners in terms of health, security and the economy.”
Erik Kunz, manager of environmental health, safety and security at Medtronic in Santa Rosa, has studied AB32 and says seven of 13 new measures proposed by CARB will result in increased regulation of transportation or energy infrastructure. “Will you be regulated directly, or will you be indirectly impacted because you use infrastructure that’s being regulated? Either way, there will be an impact,” he promises.
On the other hand, Kunz acknowledges the direct economic benefits of energy efficiency. He says Medtronic is saving $1 million a year since 2004, when it began energy efficiency projects and programs. All of those programs have been voluntary…so far.
Ambitious goals
Are the goals of AB32 reachable? Cynthia Murray, president and CEO of the North Bay Leadership Council, says they are and believes the overall impact on business will be positive. “There are opportunities to go out and be early adopters of clean technology and green technology,” she says. “We can educate and be leaders.”
Murray says the first step—“the biggest issue”—will be alleviating traffic congestion and reducing the number of commuters, since one of the largest sources of GHG emissions is vehicles on the road. “We can promote public transit, carpooling and employee commute programs,” says Murray, whose organization played a key role in the passage of Measure Q in Marin and Sonoma counties, which will create a commuter rail system. “If we reduce traffic congestion, it makes our employees’ lives better by reducing GHG emissions.”
CARB is still working through the details of AB32 plans and regulations. A scoping plan was approved on December 10, which outlines broad goals, but the full complement of regulations won’t be ready for another two years. Meanwhile, businesses, community organizations and local governments can continue to make progress. The goals will be set based on estimated 1990 GHG emission levels, so there will be no penalty for a business or municipality to start now in reducing GHG emissions.
As an example, take the city of Healdsburg, which has a high percentage of “green” power by virtue of owning its own municipal electric utility and buying power from hydroelectric producers instead of coal-fired plants, Healdsburg leaders were worried that they would be held to a higher standard. “Getting that last 20 percent is difficult,” says Healdsburg City Councilmember Gary Plass. By using the 1990 emissions estimate as a baseline, though Healdsburg gets credit for its current green efforts. “Most municipal entities have worked hard to go green, and we should get credit for that. This is something we have to watch.”
According to Nation, it’s a good time for businesses to get into clean/green technology, and the economy will be better off if businesses see the benefits of reduced fuel use and other efficiencies. “The free market can reduce GHG emissions at half the cost of regulations,” Nation says. “There are lots of opportunities for public and private to [sectors] work together.”
Hancock says, “the goals of AB32 are ambitious and daunting, but what’s the alternative? As Sierra Club leader David Brower has said, ‘Business is bad on a dead planet.’”
AB32 isn’t the beginning or the end of a seismic shift in how we think about climate change. If we could look back on it from 20 years hence, it’s probably somewhere around the middle. There are more laws and regulations coming, and California voters have shown a strong interest in environmental stewardship, even if it increases the costs of living and doing business.
So how does this green juggernaut fit into California’s future—especially in a shaky economy? Joe Nation predicts economic benefits that match the environmental rewards. His research predicts job growth in technology, energy, agriculture and transportation, as these industries focus on opportunities to assist in the transition to a greener economy.
