SEEKING JUSTICE FROM CALIF CAP & TRADE

Environmental justice groups sue for cap and trade alternatives
Ramsey Ugarte, February 16, 2011 (UCLA Daily Bruin)

"A final [legal] decision…will likely come in the next few weeks…[on the] Cailfornia Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32, [which] aims to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. To reach these goals, the California Air Resources Board adopted the Scoping Plan in 2008 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through various methods, including a cap and trade policy.

"Last month, a preliminary ruling by the San Francisco Superior Court found the Scoping Plan unlawful. If the decision is finalized, the Air Resources Board will have to reconsider the environmental impact of the Scoping Plan…[A] coalition of environmental justice groups [raised two objections to] the Scoping Plan."

click to enlarge

"The first problem was that the Scoping Plan did not seek ‘maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions,’ a requirement of the bill. The court dismissed this claim…The second problem was the Scoping Plan allegedly did not consider environmental impact and consequences of a cap and trade system…Judge Ernest Goldsmith agreed with the second claim in his preliminary ruling.

"The debate has now been narrowed to examining alternatives to the Scoping Plan’s cap and trade policy. This program puts a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted. The state government then sells the rights to emit carbon dioxide to companies, which can trade pollution credits with each other…But the environmental justice groups that brought the lawsuit against the Air Resources Board oppose the cap and trade program [because it will unduly harm low-income communities of color]. These groups include the Communities for a Better Environment and the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment…"

click to enlarge

"Those who support cap and trade say the revenue gained from the trading of emission rights will be used to forge programs for these poor populations…This argument does not satisfy the environmental justice community…The coalition seeks methods other than cap and trade to reduce carbon emissions…[such as] a direct tax to carbon emissions…[They say] a tax on carbon will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also encourage industries to move away from nonrenewable energy sources, possibly generating new jobs.

"If the ruling is finalized, it will likely be taken to an appeals court, which could overturn the previous ruling entirely or further stall AB 32…[But, because of legal limits to the case,] an alternative program is unlikely…[and] the state will likely move forward with cap and trade…"