California’s reputation as a global climate leader is being jeopardized by powerful polluters
Ambitious goals aren't enough. We need ambitious action too.
California is justifiably proud of its status as a longstanding global leader on climate. Its auto emissions standards are far stricter than those set by the feds—and have been adopted by dozens of states. State law has mandated there be greenhouse emissions reductions of 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2030, no new gas-powered cars sold after 2035, and carbon neutrality by 2045.
In 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) went even further with a new climate scoping plan that aims to slash greenhouse gases by 48% below 1990 levels by 2030—a target described at the time by Governor Gavin Newsom as the “most ambitious set of climate goals of any jurisdiction in the world.”
But genuine global climate leadership needs to amount to much more than lofty, distant goals or rousing speeches in illustrious international fora.
An analysis released in March concluded that unless California nearly triples the rate of greenhouse gas reductions through 2030, it will fall far short of achieving its targets.
In other words, we’re not doing nearly enough, and what we are doing, we’re doing too slowly.
Alarm bells ringing
To make meaningful progress on climate, ambitious targets and impressive sounding rhetoric is no match for ambitious action and meaningful accountability. This is where California is in grave danger of becoming a climate laggard.
Not content with kneecapping household rooftop solar, the state seems hellbent on stymieing community solar before it ever gets the chance to scale, too.
To the undoubted delight of Big Ag, CARB has announced that it is refusing to regulate agricultural methane1, despite this being, by far, the greatest source of methane emissions in the state2 (and being clearly within CARB’s regulatory remit to do so). CARB also presides over a “broken” Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that Jim Duffy3, the former branch chief of the LCFS program, says “has become a ‘swag bag’ for venture capitalists, big oil, big agriculture, and big gas, increasingly coming at the expense of low- and moderate-income Californians.”
Green amendment dream deferred
If our regulators are dropping the ball, then what about the legislature? 2024 started with high hopes that at least our elected representatives might help to ensure the state remains a climate and environmental leader.
Assembly Member Isaac Bryan’s proposed constitutional amendment (ACA 16) would’ve enshrined the right for all Californians to have clean air, clean water and a healthy environment. A right like this is hardly a radical proposition: It’s a pretty low bar to insist that Californians have the right to not be harmed by the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the environment we live, work and learn in.
Far from making us a radical outlier, the constitutional amendment would’ve put us in line with a number of other states which have adopted “green amendments” (including New York, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island).
In order for the constitution to be amended, the people of California needed to approve it. Bryan hoped that the amendment would be put on the November 2024 election ballot. But for that to happen, the amendment needed to get a two-thirds vote in both the assembly and the senate first.
Even after getting watered down (with almost impenetrable legalese), the amendment failed to garner support among enough assembly members to meet that two-thirds threshold. And so, ACA-16 was pulled from the Assembly before it even came to a vote.
The California Chamber of Commerce4 (CalChamber) campaigned vigorously against the amendment even getting onto the ballot. This vigorous pushback is symptomatic of a mindset that deems it acceptable for excessive profits to be generated at the harmful, damaging expense of Californians and the environments in which they live. Rejecting the notion of a healthy environment as a right that should be enjoyed by all Californians reinforces a pernicious legacy of longstanding environmental racism and injustice in this state—because, as we know, it is poor people of color who have long been (and continue to be) disproportionately impacted by environmental harms.
The Assembly’s members had the opportunity to put human and environmental health, justice and equality before the short-term greed of powerful polluters. And they blew it.
Will polluters keep profiting from climate chaos?
Vermont recently became the first state in the union to get a climate superfund law enacted — a law that mandates that the biggest carbon polluters pay towards the costs caused by climate change fuelled disasters. A similar law has been passed by the New York legislature, and awaits signing on Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk5.
For a time, it didn’t seem as if California was too far behind. Senator Caroline Menjivar introduced the Golden State’s own “climate superfund” bill, SB 1497, in March. Having survived three senate committee votes, its fate is now uncertain, however. SB 1497 has not yet had a senate floor vote yet because of concerns about getting the required two-thirds of senators to support it (there has been fierce opposition by the usual suspects, CalChambers among them).
SB 1497 is not a radical bill. It is rooted in basic fairness and accountability for harms caused. Like the superfund legislation that precedes it, the bill would hold highly profitable companies responsible for the damages they have caused.
As the LA Times has pointed out, enacting this legislation
would show that California is serious about responding to the climate crisis in a fiscally responsible way, without saddling all of the costs on regular people. It’s also a chance for state lawmakers, including so-called moderate Democrats who have a history of bending to the oil industry (which is one of the top spenders on lobbyists in Sacramento), to demonstrate that they will put the health and well-being of California residents before the short-term profit interests of polluters.
We couldn’t have put it better ourselves!
If SB 1497 goes the same way of ACA-16, however, this will create the impression that avaricious corporate actors holds undue sway over a sizeable number of our legislators.
There is still to turn things around — SB 1497 isn’t dead yet. The fact that the climate disclosure bills (SB 253 and SB 261) passed last year6 shows that the legislature is capable of meeting the moment. But, at a time of worsening crisis, we don’t have the luxury of principled leadership being an occasional indulgence—we need leadership that puts the people ahead of polluter profits to become the norm, the new “business as usual.”
Frankly, we all need to do better.
Wildfires. Sweltering summers. Deluges and floods; rising seas and crumbling coasts. The writing’s on the wall; we know that urgent action needs to happen if we are to preserve a liveable future for current and future generations of Californians.
It’s not just our legislators who must do better.
Newsrooms need to recognise the climate crisis for the existential threat that it is, and pay closer attention to what is happening in the legislature. Despite their obvious and important benefits to Californians, media coverage of ACA 16 and SB 1497 (as well as proposed legislation related to oil drilling) has been abysmally scant. The LA Times Editorial Board had cogently argued editorials in support of ACA 16 and SB 1497, but most other publications7 have been shamefully missing in action.
There is strong support among voters for holding polluters accountable—polling shows that—but the electorate can only be in favor of something if they actually know about it8. Media is just one part of the puzzle. I suspect there are plenty of activists who could do with stepping up, too. What about donning an orca costume or disrupting a baseball game? Such strategies might achieve more impact than endless chats on Zoom.
Climate Action California petitioned CARB about this earlier this year.
Far more than methane from the state’s oil and gas operations or its landfills. See the CAC petition for more.
The Chamber has an extensive track record of campaigning against climate and environmental action. As far as ACA 16 is concerned, it was quoted by Politico as saying, “While we are pleased the measure will not move forward this year, the proponents can be sure the proposal will be met with powerful opposition should it be brought back in the future.”
Though given her lily-livered U-turn on congestion pricing, it’s far from certain as to whether she will sign it.
And funding for their implementation has been secured. A big deal!
This includes CalMatters which does a better than most at covering the goings on in the State Capitol. Instead of coverage SB 1497 and ACA 16 (and the other polluter accountability bills that have been proposed this session), there was a feature on the proposed “state seashell”. Riveting stuff!
And here’s the thing: the more constituents who demonstrate enthusiasm for climate/environmental legislation, the more likely it is that legislators will vote in favor of such bills.
This summary if where we are is ambitious itself and does a great job. Thanks, Alex.