It was standing-room only at the Santa Clara County auditorium on August 8, 2008, when representatives from the California Air Resources Board opened the public hearing on the state’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The parking lot outside the auditorium was also full, since the board chose a locale for the hearing that was a good five miles from downtown San Jose, and away from the city’s street car lines.

Kevin Kennedy from the Air Resources Board spent the first hour describing the state’s plan to reduce GHG emissions by:

• Improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy production;
• Changing land use policy to encourage smart growth and mixed-use development, thus reducing sprawl and vehicle miles traveled;
• Enhancing public transportation and developing high-speed rail;
• Improving vehicle fuel efficiency and developing alternative, low-carbon fuels;
• Adopting green building standards; and
• Developing a carbon “Cap-and-Trade” program.

Then it was the public’s turn to address the critical issue of climate change.

West Valley Citizens Air Watch

Several members of the Citizens Air Watch urged the board to address the cement industry, which is a major source of greenhouse gases. The group also opposed a proposal to allow Hanson Permanente Cement, which operates a large plant in Cupertino, to burn used tires to generate power. The group warned the board not to trade “marginally lower greenhouse gas emissions for higher toxic pollution levels.”

According to the draft scoping plan, the Air Resources Board has made no recommendations re the cement industry. Instead the board is evaluating measures to reduce emissions during the production process, and reduce the amount of concrete waste during construction.

Environment California

Over three dozen representatives from Environment California presented the board thousands of postcards, signed by California residents, with two messages–make the polluters pay, and sell GHG emission allowances through an auction. The money raised by auctioning off the allowances could be used to invest in green energy and clean technology, and offset the higher energy costs to small businesses and state residents.

Under the draft plan, the board recommends a system of partial auction and partial free distribution of allowances to companies emitting greenhouse gases.

Land Use Planning

Several speakers urged the board to focus more on regional land use planning that encouraged smart growth, mixed-use and transit-oriented development. A representative from the City of San Jose applauded the board for its support of a high-speed rail system and other rail expansion because development can be concentrated around rail stations.

Public Transit and the Public’s Health

The representative of the American Lung Association emphasized the public health benefits of the state’s plan to address climate change by shifting to a green economy. The speaker urged the board to focus more on smart growth and public transportation to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

The board estimates the scoping plan will provide public health and environmental benefits on the order of $2 billion by 2020; as greenhouse gas and toxic pollution levels fall, California residents should be healthier, experiencing fewer premature deaths, fewer asthma and respiratory illnesses, and fewer sick days.

The Union of Concerned Scientists asked the board to recommend, rather than study, such measures as “feebates” that would help get dirty vehicles off the road, congestion pricing to cut traffic during the rush hours, and pay-as-you-drive programs to encourage motorists to drive less. Other speakers chastised the board for not including bike lanes and “greenways” in its plan.

Labor Pains

Representatives from a number of labor unions urged the board to provide retraining for employees in the industrial, transportation and energy sectors who might lose their jobs during the shift to a clean, green economy. A new study by UC Berkeley Labor Center recommends that carbon allowances be auctioned, and funds be invested in workforce training and good-paying green jobs, and in mass transit, energy efficient homes, and urban infill development.

A representative from Working Partnerships USA said that local land use planning is too often driven by the need to maximize tax revenue to fund local infrastructure and programs, rather than good public policy. The state needs to address the “fiscalization” of land use by providing financial assistance to local planning authorities or we will continue to see “big box” retail development, rather than mixed-used projects.

Agriculture

The Community Alliance with Family Farmers highlighted opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases by promoting local farm markets, thus reducing the miles food travels from farm to table; protecting farmland on the urban fringe through measures such as agricultural easements; and encouraging sustainable farming practices that reduce the reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

No Business as Usual

The AB 32 Implementation Group urged the board to study carbon capture and storage strategies, beyond the draft recommendation to use forest lands to sequester carbon. The business coalition also supports the development of a cap-and-trade market system, and the use of carbon “offsets” to meet emission targets. Like labor, the group is concerned about potential job losses, urging the board to reject policies that would “force companies to leave California or expand elsewhere.”

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce supports the board’s strong focus on energy efficiency–for buildings, appliances and vehicles, and the chamber suggested that board recommendations should drive investment in clean energy and a green economy.

For more information:

[1] Climate Plan Aims to Cut California’s Greenhouse Gases

[2] California Climate Change Resource Center

[3] California Air Resources Board

Read or post comments on the [4] Draft Scoping Plan

[5] UC Berkeley Labor Center, Background Paper on Global Warming Solutions Act