AB 32 Law Survives Major Test
Supporters of California's hard-line approach to global warming breathed a sigh of relief in mid-January when the Legislature rejected an amendment to the landmark AB 32 law. Entitled AB 118, the suggested legislation would have overturned the initial Act, which dated back to 2006.
When the AB 32 law was first signed it had many opponents and was certainly a challenging proposition. Gov. Schwarzenegger recognized the issues, but was adamant that this was the only way forward for the state as it set a precedent nationwide for environmental leadership.
Since the global warming law was enacted in California, a lot of companies have invested in technology required to conform and have retooled their organizations as they prepare for gradual introduction of regulations. AB 32 is known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and its aim is to cut California's greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 25% through the year 2020.
Responsible for implementing AB 32, the California Air Resource Board is spearheading the state's answer to global warming. The reporting rules are paving the way for mandatory market mechanisms and so-called alternative compliance proposals, all aimed to ensure that reductions are maximized.
The opposition has been active in trying to defeat the AB 32 law, even before its most stringent requirements kick into action, involving mandatory caps in 2012. Environmentalists around the state are celebrating the defeat of the opposition, following the landmark vote in Sacramento.
Geographical issues come into play when contemplating the AB 32 law. After all, while California is of course the most populous state of the union and any successful initiatives could make a considerable difference to the carbon footprint of the overall country, legislature has to tread a fine line. If the AB 32 law pushes California-based companies either out of the state or forces them to outsource to other states, the underlying greenhouse gas problem would simply be transferred.
While the AB 32 law survived January's opposition within the California state legislature, it has a long road ahead of it before we can see whether its stipulations and theories result in any tangible gains. The original goals suggested a 25% reduction in carbon emissions as based on 1990 levels by the year 2020 and further, a reduction of as much as 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
Emissions from significant sources are intended to be curtailed according to a cap and trade program. In Washington, the Senate is considering a nationwide scheme of similar proportions, but this has concerted opposition and may not survive a rocky passage through the Senate in 2010.
When the AB 32 law was first signed it had many opponents and was certainly a challenging proposition. Gov. Schwarzenegger recognized the issues, but was adamant that this was the only way forward for the state as it set a precedent nationwide for environmental leadership.
Since the global warming law was enacted in California, a lot of companies have invested in technology required to conform and have retooled their organizations as they prepare for gradual introduction of regulations. AB 32 is known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and its aim is to cut California's greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 25% through the year 2020.
Responsible for implementing AB 32, the California Air Resource Board is spearheading the state's answer to global warming. The reporting rules are paving the way for mandatory market mechanisms and so-called alternative compliance proposals, all aimed to ensure that reductions are maximized.
The opposition has been active in trying to defeat the AB 32 law, even before its most stringent requirements kick into action, involving mandatory caps in 2012. Environmentalists around the state are celebrating the defeat of the opposition, following the landmark vote in Sacramento.
Geographical issues come into play when contemplating the AB 32 law. After all, while California is of course the most populous state of the union and any successful initiatives could make a considerable difference to the carbon footprint of the overall country, legislature has to tread a fine line. If the AB 32 law pushes California-based companies either out of the state or forces them to outsource to other states, the underlying greenhouse gas problem would simply be transferred.
While the AB 32 law survived January's opposition within the California state legislature, it has a long road ahead of it before we can see whether its stipulations and theories result in any tangible gains. The original goals suggested a 25% reduction in carbon emissions as based on 1990 levels by the year 2020 and further, a reduction of as much as 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
Emissions from significant sources are intended to be curtailed according to a cap and trade program. In Washington, the Senate is considering a nationwide scheme of similar proportions, but this has concerted opposition and may not survive a rocky passage through the Senate in 2010.
About the Author:
Daniel Stouffer has much more information about the AB 32 law and how a visit to www.verisae.com can be of use to you.
You like it? Share it!
posted by SolveItQuick at
6:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home