SOS
09-01-2006, 05:36 AM
MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14603926/)
I wonder how this will turn out. Will neighboring states benefit due to their lack of similar bill? I think so. And the Californinians will face higher prices because of it.
California agrees on global warming bill
By Fiona Harvey in London and Kevin Allison in San Francisco
Updated: 8:42 p.m. ET Aug 31, 2006
Businesses in California began to grapple with the need to reduce their greenhouse gases on Thursday following a deal on legislation that would mean mandatory caps on emissions for energy-intensive industries in the state.
The deal has revived hopes of creating a global system for reducing emissions carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, despite the opposition of the US federal government to such a scheme. Several other US states are pondering similar measures, which would mimic the workings of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which President George W. Bush has rejected.
Story continues below ? advertisement
The California Chamber of Commerce said businesses would suffer from the proposed laws. Allan Zaremberg, the chief executive of the California Chamber of Commerce, said: "[The proposal, known as] AB32 will have a severely negative effect on the affordability and reliability of California's energy supply, jeopardising California's economy and our global competitiveness."
He said the proposals would do little good for the environment: "Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution, not a punitive cap on energy supplies in California. Being the only state to have absolute caps on carbon emissions puts California at a competitive disadvantage."
But others were more sanguine. Dan Bakal, the director of electric power programmes at Ceres, a coalition of investors that numbers the pension fund Calpers among its members, said: "This will be good for [the state's] economy overall, because it will encourage efficiency and investment in new technologies and ways to solve environmental problems. California is becoming a major hub of economic activity in renewable energy."
California already scores highly in energy efficiency: the state is 44 per cent more efficient in its use of electricity per capita than the national average. It can also lay claim to be the only state in the US to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants between 1990 and 2004.
Mr Bakal said the state could go even further in energy savings: "There is a limit [to efficiency savings] eventually, but we are nowhere near it yet."
Under the terms of the proposed legislation, California would reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020, which would involve reducing emissions by about a quarter from current levels.
Energy-intensive industries, such as power plants, oil and gas refineries and cement kilns, would be forced to reduce their emissions through a "cap-and-trade" system modelled on a key provision of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. Companies would be issued with permits to produce a certain amount of carbon dioxide and, if they wanted to produce more, they would have to buy them from other, cleaner companies with spares. A similar system operates in the European Union.
The bill was passed by the state Senate by 23 votes, thanks to a deal between Governor Arnold Schwarze*negger and the Democrats in the legislature. Mr Schwarze*negger recently met Tony Blair, the British prime minister, and agreed to work towards trading greenhouse gas emissions between the EU and California.
Environmental groups said they hoped that California's decision would spur action from other states. Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont are already joined in a regional greenhouse gas initiative to cap emissions from power stations at their current levels in 2009 and reduce emissions by 10 per cent by 2019. Maryland is expected to join next year.
The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, the Eastern Canadian Provinces and New Brunswick are observers in the process.
I wonder how this will turn out. Will neighboring states benefit due to their lack of similar bill? I think so. And the Californinians will face higher prices because of it.
California agrees on global warming bill
By Fiona Harvey in London and Kevin Allison in San Francisco
Updated: 8:42 p.m. ET Aug 31, 2006
Businesses in California began to grapple with the need to reduce their greenhouse gases on Thursday following a deal on legislation that would mean mandatory caps on emissions for energy-intensive industries in the state.
The deal has revived hopes of creating a global system for reducing emissions carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, despite the opposition of the US federal government to such a scheme. Several other US states are pondering similar measures, which would mimic the workings of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which President George W. Bush has rejected.
Story continues below ? advertisement
The California Chamber of Commerce said businesses would suffer from the proposed laws. Allan Zaremberg, the chief executive of the California Chamber of Commerce, said: "[The proposal, known as] AB32 will have a severely negative effect on the affordability and reliability of California's energy supply, jeopardising California's economy and our global competitiveness."
He said the proposals would do little good for the environment: "Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution, not a punitive cap on energy supplies in California. Being the only state to have absolute caps on carbon emissions puts California at a competitive disadvantage."
But others were more sanguine. Dan Bakal, the director of electric power programmes at Ceres, a coalition of investors that numbers the pension fund Calpers among its members, said: "This will be good for [the state's] economy overall, because it will encourage efficiency and investment in new technologies and ways to solve environmental problems. California is becoming a major hub of economic activity in renewable energy."
California already scores highly in energy efficiency: the state is 44 per cent more efficient in its use of electricity per capita than the national average. It can also lay claim to be the only state in the US to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants between 1990 and 2004.
Mr Bakal said the state could go even further in energy savings: "There is a limit [to efficiency savings] eventually, but we are nowhere near it yet."
Under the terms of the proposed legislation, California would reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020, which would involve reducing emissions by about a quarter from current levels.
Energy-intensive industries, such as power plants, oil and gas refineries and cement kilns, would be forced to reduce their emissions through a "cap-and-trade" system modelled on a key provision of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. Companies would be issued with permits to produce a certain amount of carbon dioxide and, if they wanted to produce more, they would have to buy them from other, cleaner companies with spares. A similar system operates in the European Union.
The bill was passed by the state Senate by 23 votes, thanks to a deal between Governor Arnold Schwarze*negger and the Democrats in the legislature. Mr Schwarze*negger recently met Tony Blair, the British prime minister, and agreed to work towards trading greenhouse gas emissions between the EU and California.
Environmental groups said they hoped that California's decision would spur action from other states. Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont are already joined in a regional greenhouse gas initiative to cap emissions from power stations at their current levels in 2009 and reduce emissions by 10 per cent by 2019. Maryland is expected to join next year.
The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, the Eastern Canadian Provinces and New Brunswick are observers in the process.