Global Warming and CO2 Emissions Blog

Alternative fuels get a boost as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger introduces world’s first standard reducing carbon content in fuels.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday called for the world's first low-carbon fuel standard, a rule that would reduce carbon emissions from transportation fuels in the state by 10 percent by 2020.

Once it's put in place by the state's Energy Commission and Air Resources Board, the standard will require fuel refiners and sellers to replace 20 percent of passenger-vehicle fuels with lower-carbon fuels. The standard is part of the move to reduce greenhouse gases in California under the Global Warming Solutions Act signed into law in September, which mandates that 2020 emissions match those of 1990.

The move is expected to more than triple the size of California's renewable fuels market and add more than 7 million alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles, 20 times current numbers. It could be a harbinger of policy change in the rest of the country and the world, as the European Union is also considering a similar measure. It's also likely to spark another round of investment and innovation in fuels, companies said.

"Today's announcement is very important news for California entrepreneurs and investors," said Bob Epstein, head of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), who added that more than $500 million was invested in alternative fuels last year. "If you know how to make fuels that don't use oil and reduce carbon, California is the place to be."

Environmentalists say the standard could make a big difference because transportation fuels in California contribute a significant portion of greenhouse gases. California relies on petroleum alone for 96 percent of its transportation needs.

And transportation fuels make up 40 percent of the greenhouse gases in the state, said Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. This standard alone could go 10 percent of the way toward fulfilling the goal set by the global warming law, removing 13 million tons of carbon dioxide, she said.

In a statement, Chevron said it "shares the concerns of government and public alike on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions," but did not indicate that it endorsed or opposed Gov. Schwarzenegger's move. Other oil companies could not be reached for comment, and did not speak at the press conference in San Francisco.

David Crane, a senior advisor to the governor, said oil companies are aware of the standard. "We believe we have their support," he said. "We weren't able to arrange for anyone [from the oil companies] to be here, but you will soon hear from them."

Robert Sawyer, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said the agency plans to make decisions about how to put the standard in place over the next few months, with those decisions taking effect over the next year and a half.

Dan Skopec, undersecretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, said the Environmental Protection Agency will look to fuel companies to provide information about the carbon content of their fuels. The agency will audit that information and make sure it's correct, he said.

The intention is to leave the decisions up to refiners and sellers as to exactly how to meet the standard.

That leaves the door open for new fuels still being developed or invented, Mr. Skopec said, who also mentioned cellulosic ethanol—ethanol from materials like wood chips, corn stalks, and switchgrass, which has less carbon than carbon from starches like corn, wheat, and sugarcane—as a goal.

"The government is not predicting winners and losers; the market will decide what the best fuel is based on economics, needs for consumers, and carbon content," Mr. Skopec said.

The standard is an important signal to the investors, some of which have been burned by short-term, wavering government policies in the past, that demand for these fuels will be secure for at least 13 years, he said.

It could also spark an early version of carbon trading in the state, another opportunity for new business models. Fuel providers able to produce more low-carbon fuel than required will get credits they can bank or sell, Mr. Skopec said.

Bill Jones, former secretary of state and the chair of Pacific Ethanol, said the standard deals with the problems of greenhouse gases and energy independence without leaving out economics. He bragged that the company's ethanol plant in Madera, California, generated jobs and brings $1 million in taxes to the city's coffers.

The standard "allows everyone to go out and work hard and maybe come up with some new solutions that might surpass what we have now," he said.

Gov. Schwarzenegger plans to introduce the standard during his state of the state speech Tuesday evening, asking California to "blaze the way" for the U.S., China, and the rest of the world.

"Our cars have been running on dirty fuel for too long," according to an excerpt from his prepared statements. "Our country has been dependent on foreign oil for too long. I ask you to set in motion the means to free ourselves from oil and from OPEC. I ask you to encourage the free market to overthrow the old order. California has the muscle to bring about such change. I say use it."

Written By Jennifer Kho
Reprinted from Red Herring

Labels: arnold schwarzenegger, California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

SACRAMENTO, CA (09/25/06) -- Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit against leading U.S. and Japanese auto manufacturers, alleging their vehicles' emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of California, and cost the state millions of dollars to address current and future effects.

"Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing," said Lockyer. "Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis."

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint names as defendants: Chrysler Motors Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Honda North America, and Nissan North America. The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by greenhouse gases that their products emit.

The complaint alleges that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing "millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide," a greenhouse gas that traps atmospheric heat and causes global warming. Under the law, a "public nuisance" is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property. The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants liable for damages, including future harm, caused by their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.

As stated in the complaint, the automakers produce vehicles that emit a combined 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year. Those emissions, the complaint alleges, currently account for nearly 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent in California. The defendants rank "among the world's largest contributors to global warming and the adverse impacts on California," according to the complaint.

"Global warming has already injured California, it environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens," the complaint alleges. "California is responding to the ongoing impacts and the inevitable additional future impacts of global warming. The State is spending millions of dollars on planning, monitoring, and infrastructure changes to address a large spectrum of current and anticipated impacts, including reduced snow pack, coastal and beach erosion, increased ozone pollution, sea water intrusion into Delta drinking supplies, response to impacts on wildlife, including endangered species and fish, wildfire risks, and the long-term need to monitor on-going and inevitable impacts. California has already begun to address the decline in the snow pack and earlier melting of the snow pack in order to avert water shortages and flooding in the future." Dealing with global warming's harmful effects, the complaint adds, "will almost certainly cost millions more."

The filing comes as Lockyer fights the auto industry's attempt to invalidate California's landmark global warming regulations curbing tailpipe emissions. In their federal-court lawsuit, the automakers claim the regulations, adopted in 2005 through legislation sponsored by Assembly Member Fran Pavley, are pre-empted by federal law. Lockyer is defending the rules against the industry's legal challenge.

Lockyer noted the Bush Administration's inaction on global warming has forced California and other states to take action on their own. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a lawsuit filed by Lockyer, 11 other Attorneys General, two cities and major environmental groups challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Numerous parties have submitted amicus briefs supporting the states, including climate scientists, three former EPA Administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and environmental and religious groups.

In addition, Lockyer, along with nine other state Attorneys General, the District of Columbia and the City of New York, filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging the Bush Administration's new fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks. That complaint alleges the rules fail to address the effects on the environment and global warming.

California is particularly vulnerable to global warming impacts. According to a report recently submitted by the Climate Action Team to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, the consequences of climate change in California will be "severe."

"We are seeing the harmful impacts of global warming today, and if we continue with 'business as usual,' we can expect to see more and larger impacts in the future," said Lockyer. "As a coastal state, an agricultural state, and a state that relies on its Sierra snow pack, California has an enormous stake in acting now to combat global warming."

The complaint is available for download here.

Reprinted from http://www.caprep.com/0906026.htm.

Labels: California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Monday that he will "do everything I can to protect our coast" and will fight against the offshore oil bill the Senate is poised to vote on this week, as well as any weakening of the 25-year moratorium on coastal drilling. In a teleconference hosted by Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, the governor echoed the Club's concern that if the Senate bill passes, it would be merged with a House bill sponsored by Representative Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) that could "lead to the weakening of the moratorium that has protected our California coasts for 25 years."

The governor touted alternative fuels, new technologies, hydrogen fueling stations, hybrid and electric cars as better solutions. "For anyone to think that this will bring gas prices down is making a big mistake."

AUDIO: Hear an excerpt from Schwarzenegger's remarks. (MP3)

Republican Schwarzenegger and the Sierra Club have not always seen eye to eye - but they are joining forces to protect our nation's coasts from becoming oil fields.

The Senate bill would open up a huge chunk of Florida's Gulf Coast to oil and drilling, and give away more than a third of the billions of dollars in oil leasing revenues over the next 50 years to four coastal states - Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana - even though the drilling would take place in federal waters.

Pope said he was delighted Governor Schwarzenegger was joining the Sierra Club and others to oppose this bill and expose it as ruse to open up every inch of the nation's coastline to potential drilling.

The governor had to return to a health summit he was chairing in Los Angeles, but Pope and others fielded reporters' questions. One reporter said that the secretary of the Interior and oil industry executives told him the Senate bill is not a precursor to drill off the coast of California - "You're basically saying they're lying?"

Pope hesitated, then said, "Yes, I am. If they want to write a bill that protects California, they know how."

While states would still have the power to block drilling, Pope said the Pombo bill would give the oil industry an advantage in every state - each state legislature would have to pass two bill every five years, one to stop oil drilling, another to stop gas drilling.

Other speakers in the teleconference included Dan Jacobson, from Environment California, who emphasized that energy efficiency and renewable energy are the cheapest and cleanest ways to generate energy, Mark Ferrulo of Florida PIRG, who expressed concerns about how the bill would be dangerous for Florida, and the Sierra Club's Melinda Pierce, who talked about how Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) are leading the opposition.

The first vote on the bill is scheduled for Wednesday.

Reprinted from the Sierra Club Website.

Labels: arnold schwarzenegger, California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Calilfornia's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a new, centralized authority under his direct control that would be responsible for implementing one of the nation's most far-reaching initiatives to curb global warming.

The Governator's plan to various interests negotiating legislation that would map California's route toward a gradual rollback of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020, a potential 25 percent reduction.

Schwarzenegger did send a strong signal to corporate industry by hand-picking his Climate Action Board and empowering that body with the authority to delay the proposed deadline for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions if state regulations prove too onerous for businesses.

"It's essential that an emission reduction system have an economic safety valve to ensure the plan protects public health and the environment, is technologically feasible and is not detrimental to the California economy," said Linda Adams, the governor's negotiator in environmental areas.

"The core elements of the bill - mandatory reporting of greenhouse-gas emissions and enforceable limits on greenhouse-gas pollution - have fairly strong support," said Karen Douglas, a negotiator for Environmental Defense, one of the nation's largest environmental advocacy groups.

Researchers say that current global warming trends could deplete water supplies and dry out forests, adding new problems to California's ecosystem and business community.

"California, without question, has a responsibility to address climate change," said Adams, secretary of the state Environmental Protection Agency. "We must do our share to protect our public health, our water supply, our coastline and industry."

California, a global economic power that ranks 12th in the world in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, must lead the way, the governor and legislative leaders agree.

Key elements of the governor's proposed amendments to Assembly Bill 32 include:

• The policy-setting Climate Action Board would be composed almost exclusively of the governor's top agency chiefs.
  
  
• Much of the oversight responsibility would be distributed throughout various departments that would be assigned to monitor specific industries.
  
  
• The new board would establish by June 1, 2008, a set of still-unspecified reduction goals for 2012 and 2016 to ensure progress toward the 2020 target.
  
  
• Industry could secure a reprieve if the 2020 reduction level proves to be harmful to the state's economy.
  
  
• Businesses would be given compliance options, including buying credit for reducing emissions elsewhere in the state, if on-site cuts are not feasible or if the administration's future studies find that the rules cost jobs.

Some industry officials have urged rejection of California-only regulations, insisting that the state's agenda is too aggressive. They say mandatory limits will burden the state's economy with higher costs and more regulation.

"This is a global issue, not a California issue," said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce. "What makes you think that if you drive up the price of energy and fuel you're going to create jobs in California?"

Oil companies claim that they would have to reduce production by 17 percent to meet the proposed standards - the equivalent of shutting down three plants at a time of tighter supplies and spiking prices at the pump.

But Stanford University economist James L. Sweeney maintains that the net effect of new regulation will be small, whether positive or negative. Caps with incentives could reduce emissions "without any significant damage to the economy if you design the rules of the game well," he said.

Labels: arnold schwarzenegger, California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Consumers in California will soon be given te option to pay a little bit more for their utilities to offset their carbon dioxide emissions.

The non-profit California Climate Action Registry was set up by the state six years ago to encourage corporations and government agencies to track and reduce their emissions. The Forest Protocols program will allow consumers to pay to preserve enough trees to offset their personal carbon emissions.

The registry has calculated how much the timber industry loses by allowing trees to grow longer and bigger - past the time they're normally harvested. The industry would then be compensated by other companies that buy carbon credits - or shares of the trees - to offset their carbon emissions.

The Pacific Forest Trust manages the five parcels of timberland owned by the Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation, and they jointly registered the 2,100-acre property with the state. Negotiations are underway to set the prices for its carbon credits.

For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in January asked the California Public Utilities Commission to let it start a program next year where customers could choose to pay about 3% more on each monthly bill, with the money earmarked to preserve trees in a registered forest.

The utility pumps about 5.3 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year to supply the electricity and natural gas used by a typical household. If the homeowner opted to pay about $4.31 each month to be invested in forests, the trees would store an equivalent amount of carbon.

"It would cost them about $4.31 a month to become climate neutral," said Wendy Pulling, PG&E's director of environmental policy.

PG&E is the first utility in the nation seeking such a program for its five million electric and 4.2 million natural gas customers, Pulling said. The company serves about 14 million people in northern and central California.

If the utilities commission approves the plan later this year, PG&E projects that about 5% of its customers would participate, generating about $20 million annually. That would support a number of trees equal to taking 350,000 cars off the road, Pulling said.

The money would be invested in forests like the van Eck property in Humboldt County, which is the first to start sending carbon storage information to the state registry.

Go, California! Where are the feds??

Labels: California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming