CARB Threatens Greenhouse Gas Law Extention

carbon-tax-1The California Air Resources Board set a match to controversy this week suggesting that the board could push the cap-and-trade deadline for funding greenhouse gas reduction programs past its 2020 end date by executive fiat.

That’s not the way the law works, many Republicans cried, and they are backed up by an opinion from the Legislative Counsel’s Office.

According to the opinion, “The act does not authorize the governor or the ARB to establish a greenhouse gas emissions that is below 1990 level and that would be applicable after 2020.”

Republican Senate Minority Leader Jean Fuller called the ARB proposal “illegal” and admonished the executive branch, “Californians deserve better than a government that acts as if they are above the law.”

Many in the business community feel fixes are needed to the current program before any extension is contemplated. Dorothy Rothrock, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association said in a release following the ARB announcement, “Manufacturing investments and jobs have lagged other states in the US over the past six years by a large margin. Future climate policies must recognize this reality and be designed to protect California’s manufacturing jobs and economy.”

The cap-and-trade policy ARB wants to extend is subject to court action already, as business interests, including the California Chamber of Commerce, brought suit claiming the cap-and-trade formula is actually a tax requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature. The law establishing cap-and-trade, AB 32 of 2006, was established by majority vote. While a lower court brushed aside the business complaint an appellate court is now considering the matter. Observers watching court action say there is a chance the lower court decision could be reversed.

There is another way for the legislature and the governor to extend the cap-and-trade end date and lower the greenhouse gases goal below 1990 levels. Pass legislation.

That is exactly what some in the legislature are trying to do with SB 32, that would extend the law lowering the acceptable greenhouse gas level 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

The court case, however, raises doubt about whether the SB 32 needs a simple majority vote or a two-thirds vote.

In a Flash Report column yesterday, state Senator Andy Vidak said attempts are being made by Democratic leaders in the legislature to secure enough Republican votes to allow SB 32 to pass by two-thirds. If true, that is a strong indication that the Democrats are concerned the court will side with the CalChamber over the tax issue and brand cap-and-trade an illegal tax.

Yet, the politics over changing the greenhouse gases law do not stop there. Another consideration is one posed by L.A. Times columnist George Skelton who suggested California voters in November, reacting negatively to a Trump candidacy, might defeat Republican officeholders thus securing a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature for the Democrats.

In that case, the strategy for the Democrats just might be to bide their time. Then again, you might conclude that the politics don’t stop at that point, even with a two-thirds Democratic majority, because the politics of energy and its cost have split the Democratic caucus in the past and could do so again.

ditor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Fossil Fuels Witchhunt is a Quest for Cash

natural gas1The oil and gas industry was born in Pennsylvania on Aug. 27, 1859, when Edwin L. Drake drilled the world’s first commercial oil well. A critic said Drake should leave the oil underground because it was needed to fuel the fires of hell, and to pump it out would protect the wicked from their eternal punishment.

That’s how long some people have believed oil companies are in league with the devil.

Today’s anti-petroleum alarmists warn of the hellish climate that someday will result from civilization’s reliance on fossil fuels. Fortunately they’ve hit on a solution: cash payments. 

The strategy was hatched in 2012 at a two-day meeting in La Jolla organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Climate Accountability Institute. It brought together 23 experts on law, science and public opinion for a workshop titled, “Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages.”

The idea was to compare “public attitudes and legal strategies related to tobacco control” to those related to climate change, according to a report of the meeting.

The group found a few problems with the comparison to tobacco. For one thing, they couldn’t identify a specific harm from climate change that had damaged anybody.

“What is the ‘cancer’ of climate change that we need to focus on?” asked one attendee.

And there was a bigger problem. “The fact is, we do need some form of energy,” one participant said. Another lamented, “The activities that contribute to climate change are highly beneficial to us.”

Oh, that.

Originally published in the Los Angeles Daily News. For the remainder of the column please go here.

CA Cap-and-Trade Credits Extend to Brazil

carbon-tax-1In late 2012, as officials with the California Air Resources Board were refining rules for the state’s nascent cap-and-trade pollution rights program, a huge scandal was unfolding in the European Union. Five Deutsche Bank AG officials were arrested for their role in a complex scam involving using the sale of carbon-emission certificates to avoid paying taxes. Earlier that year, six cap-and-traders involved with the bank had been arrested as well.

Cap-and-trade critics had always warned that as soon as programs were introduced, there would be aggressive efforts to game and/or cheat the rules to make money. With these warnings reinforced by the EU scandal, California officials in early 2013 said they’d learned their lesson. Greenbiz.com reported that …

California, with the advantage of advanced warning, has taken the EU market’s lessons to heart. It has recognized the crucial need to tightly control — and extensively oversee — who can participate in the carbon market and how. With the help of the state Attorney General’s office, California has adopted more stringent rules than the EU ETS [Emissions Trading Scheme].

State tax credits for payments to indigenous communities?

Now, however, the Brown administration is pondering relaxing these rules by allowing companies to get pollution credits by paying for preservation of forest lands in Brazil.

The idea has been discussed for years but has picked up momentum of late. According to recent reports, state regulators are closer than ever to formally expanding the cap-and-trade program by allowing polluting industries to offset their carbon emissions by paying indigenous communities in the Amazon to preserve the rain forests in their region.

This idea has won praise from environmental groups, who have long depicted preservation of the rain forests in the Amazon delta as a global priority. They call it a great way for Brown to burnish his environmental legacy.

The Western States Petroleum Association has also been supportive, saying industries need options to meet their commitments under AB32 and related laws.

Brazil’s huge corruption scandal bodes poorly for CA program

But the initial coverage of Brown’s trial balloon omitted mention of two key issues: Gaming and cheating of cap-and-trade programs remains a huge problem around the world, and Brazil has both a long history of corruption and a lack of transparency.

In early 2015, Foreign Policy magazine reported how the European Union’s program had become a “playground for gangsters, international crime syndicates, and even two-bit crooks — who stole hundreds of millions of dollars in pollution credits.”

In October, Forbes magazine reported on a slew of new scandals, starting with schemers in Russia and Ukraine being accused of using the EU cap-and-trade market to sells counterfeit credits for 600 million tons worth of carbon dioxide emissions. The account noted that the less sophisticated a nation’s law-enforcement system, the more likely cap-and-trade scams were to be — and that some of the world’s richest people and companies were taking advantage.

“The cap-and-trade system of emissions trading is very difficult to control and its effects are diluted. … It is precisely because I am a market practitioner that I know the flaws in the system,” Forbes quoted financier-investor George Soros as saying.

Meanwhile, in January, Transparency International reported that over the previous year, Brazil’s corruption problems were growing worse at a faster rate than in any nation on the planet. Agence France Presse reported last week that a scandal involving billions of dollars of missing revenue from state oil giant Petrobras continued to grow, with dozens of government and business leaders implicated.

Efforts to remove President Dilma Rousseff from office have been complicated by the fact it is hard to find many credible critics of Rousseff within the Brazilian government, given how many prominent Brazilian politicians are either directly tied to the scandal or indirectly tied through close political alliances.

According to CalMatters, state air board officials said they would look to avoid problems caused by Western nations’ cap-and-trade programs in another tropical nation: Nigeria. But the issues there involved indigenous communities being denied use of forest lands they relied on because of restrictions under new conservation agreements — not necessarily the problems that California could risk if it counts on Brazil as a partner in a cap-and-trade pact.

This piece was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Gov. Brown’s Greenhouse-Gas Cuts Scrutinized

As reported by the Associated Press:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The top lawyer for the California Legislature says Gov. Jerry Brown exceeded his authority when he issued an executive order imposing what he called the most aggressive carbon-emission reductions in North America, aligning California with the European Union’s aggressive climate change standards.

The opinion by Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine does not curtail Brown’s authority to continue implementing the greenhouse gas reduction plan, but it suggests a lawsuit challenging them could be successful.

The Democratic governor issued the executive order last year setting a new target for cutting carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. …

Click here to read the full story

Cap and Trade Costing CA Drivers $2 Billion Per Year

carpool-laneAs fast as California drivers will spend an extra $2 billion at the pump this year to fund the controversial cap-and-trade program, state lawmakers are finding ways to use it, according to two reports released Thursday.

Cap and trade was implemented by a state regulatory board to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as required by law.

One of several additional costs tacked on an estimated 11 cents to each gallon of gas and 13 cents per gallon of diesel, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, driving average prices to some of the highest in the nation.

“Most drivers have no idea that this is costing them $2 billion per year because it has been largely hidden from them,” said Asm. Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale. “It’s clear that we need to improve transparency for consumers about cap and trade’s costs.”

Where does the money go?

Cap-and-trade money is currently appropriated as follows: 40 percent is unallocated, 25 percent is for high-speed rail, 20 percent is for affordable housing and sustainable communities grants, 10 percent is for intercity rail capital projects and 5 percent is for low-carbon transit projects.

Waiting to spend the money are 36 pending proposals in the Legislature totaling $7.5 billion, which is more than double what was proposed in Gov. Jerry Brown’s draft budget, according to a study by the California Tax Foundation.

The most expensive proposal is SBX1 2, sponsored by Sen. Bob Huff, R-San Dimas. This bill would divert $1.9 billion annually to street and highway construction projects and block further cap-and-trade funds from going to high-speed rail.

In addition to barring further funds from going to high-speed rail (a recurring theme for Huff), the Huff bill is too vague to show whether it will reduce GHGs or not and may “leave itself open to litigation,” according to the legislative analysis.

Another bill, sponsored by Asm. Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, would fund nearly $1 billion worth of projects, including up to $100 million on new toilets. According to the report, many of the initiatives would likely reduce GHG emissions, while other parts of the bill might not.

Other bills include synchronizing traffic lights, implementing a car buyback program, promoting recycled glass and preventing forest fires. And while its unclear what effect most of the proposals would have on GHG emissions, the report was issued to help voters and legislators make that determination.

“This report identifies the auction revenue spending proposals that are active in the Legislature, so they can be given proper scrutiny,” California Tax Foundation Director Robert Gutierrez said in a statement.

Legality

Opponents of the program argue that by collecting revenue from drivers and businesses (those with large GHG emissions) it amounts to an illegal tax, which would have needed to be approved by a two-thirds legislative majority to be legal. A previous court ruling — which is now being challenged — found that the revenue is OK as a regulatory fee and thereby not subject to a two-third’s vote.

In 2006, the Legislature passed AB32, which tasked the state ARB to implement the GHG reduction. Proponents say this mandate gave the ARB the legal authority to auction off emission allowances (there’s a “cap” on emissions and business can “trade” them at auction).

In January, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended lawmakers either narrowly tailor their proposals to unquestionably reduce GHGs or approve the program with a two-thirds majority to avoid legal complications.

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Gov. Brown’s War on Climate Only Making Things Worse

Global WarmingIn his quest to improve air quality locally, Gov. Jerry Brown actually risks pushing more greenhouse gasses into skies globally.

Last July, Brown issued an executive order commanding state agencies to develop “an integrated action plan by July 2016 that establishes clear targets to improve freight efficiency, transition to zero-emission technologies, and increase competitiveness of California’s freight system.”

The executive order is widely seen by industry as a prelude to the announcement later this year of more stringent air quality mandates that will pose costly new burdens on the state’s goods movement sector. 

The movement of freight is integral to the state’s economy. As the executive order acknowledged: “California’s complex freight transportation system is responsible for one-third of the State’s economy and jobs, with freight-dependent industries accounting for over $700 billion in revenue and over 5 million jobs in 2013.”

The state’s freight transportation system is also exceedingly complex, as multilayered as it is multifaceted. It involves activities as diverse of home pizza deliveries to the hauling of freshly-harvested produce in the Central Valley to the air cargo operations at LAX and SFO.

Perhaps because of its complexity, state policymakers have tended to fixate on the freight traffic associated with the state’s seaports, especially the three huge container ports at Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland.  (The cover of the California Freight Mobility Plan is tellingly dominated by a full-color photo of a large container ship.)

Maritime officials expect to see the California Air Quality Board impose new regulations that can be met only by investing tens of billions of dollars (according to new study by Moffat & Nichol, a leading infrastructure advisory firm) on new equipment and infrastructure.

The rub is how to finance compliance with these stiffer environmental mandates without driving a substantial volume of business away from California ports.

Terminal operators at ports here and around the world are financially stressed, as a new report from London-based Drewry Shipping Consultants attests. Only weeks ago, one major terminal operator unilaterally cancelled its lease at the Port of Oakland in order to focus its limited financial resources elsewhere.

Inevitably, new business costs get passed on. Saddled with huge new expenses, terminal operators at California ports will be obliged to charge higher fees. But the shipping lines and cargo owners they serve have choices, especially when the great majority of the cargoes passing through the Ports fof Los Angeles and Long Beach ports originate in or are destined for other regions of the U.S.

Even in the absence of costly new California-only air quality mandates, the state’s ports are already at risk of seeing an important share of the transpacific trade diverted to East or Gulf Coast ports through the expanded set of locks at the Panama Canal.

That’s good, you say. Fewer ships calling at California ports should mean cleaner air for California residents.

Perhaps, but there is a perversely ironic trade-off in diverting shipments away from some of the nation’s greenest ports and sending them off to ports on the East and Gulf coasts.

The fact is that diverting containers from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would add immeasurably to the CO2emissions from steamships carrying imported goods for American consumers and industry.

Consider that the sailing distance from Shanghai, Asia’s largest container port, to the Port of Los Angeles is about 5,810 nautical miles. A ship sailing from Shanghai to the Port of New York-New Jersey via the Panama Canal would cover approximately 10,600 nautical miles, a journey some 85% longer.

While in U.S. territorial waters, ships are obligated to burn low-sulfur fuels. On the high seas, however, they typically switch to a cheaper but infinitely more noxious bunker fuel, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

To compound the irony, cargoes diverted through the Panama Canal cargo often wind up at ports in states where the responsible parties are decidedly more cavalier about climate change.

In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott has reportedly banned state officials from referring to global warming or climate change or rising sea levels. The head of the South Carolina Port Authority recently disputed the need for ships to turn off their massive diesel engines while in port. The Port of New York/New Jersey lately rescinded a regulation calling for cleaner trucks to move containers.

So there you have it: The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Sacramento-based international trade economist who specializes in the logistics of foreign trade.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

CA fracking frozen by feds

Offshore frackingTwin legal settlements with environmentalist plaintiffs put a freeze on fracking in California waters. “The agreements in Los Angeles federal court apply to operations off Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, where companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. operate platforms,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

“Federal agencies will have to complete the review by the end of May and determine if a more in-depth analysis is necessary,” the paper added. “They will also have to make future permit applications publicly accessible.” If the practice clears federal scrutiny and is deemed adequately safe to the environment, fracking operations could continue. If not, they could be postponed or forestalled indefinitely.

Notching a victory

The result marked a significant win for the Center for Biological Diversity and the Environmental Defense Center, two organizations that alleged frackers had imperiled aquatic life with “over 9 billion gallons of wastewater” each year, according to Grist. Accusing the U.S. Department of the Interior of “rubber-stamping fracking off California’s coast without engaging the public or analyzing fracking’s threats to ocean ecosystems, coastal communities and marine life,” as the Christian Science Monitor observed, the groups filed suit against the federal government.

In a report on the deal, the left-leaning think tank Think Progress noted that fracking had quietly been conducted off the California coast for years. “The initial revelation of ongoing offshore fracking came as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests filed with the Department of the Interior by the Associated Press and Santa Barbara-based community organization the Environmental Defense Center, which just released a new report on the issue,” the organization recalled. “The investigations have found over 200 instances of fracking operations in state and federal waters off California, all unbeknownst to a state agency with jurisdiction over the offshore oil and gas industry.”

Industry pushback

For their part, defendants insisted the case was without merit. “Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said that the petroleum industry has operated safely in California for decades, working closely with regulators and other officials,” Natural Gas Intelligence reported. Industry defenders have argued that offshore fracking levels in the Pacific haven’t been that high. While the moratorium “will not likely affect production at large because California has not been producing much offshore oil lately,” Reuters noted, “companies have fracked at least 200 wells in Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach and in the wildlife-rich Santa Barbara Channel,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity.

The American Petroleum Institute, which joined the suit as a defendant, has refused to agree to the settlement package. Other hurdles to its implementation have arisen. The two separate settlements must still be approved by a federal judge, according to NGI.

Porter Ranch debate

Although the EPA largely exonerated fracking of the dire accusations leveled against it by some environmental activists, the practice has re-entered the public debate in California due to the massive gas leak in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of greater Los Angeles. Maya Golden-Krasner, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, recently linked the disaster to fracking in an editorial at the Sacramento Bee; “newly uncovered documents show that hydraulic fracturing was commonly used in the Aliso Canyon gas storage wells,” she wrote, “including a well less than a half-mile from the leak.” Perhaps predictably, Golden-Krasner called for Gov. Jerry Brown to ban the practice of fracking across the state of California.

Regulators have been investigating a possible connection. “More than two months after Southern California Gas Co. detected a leak at its Aliso Canyon field, observers are searching for reasons the well may have failed. Some environmentalists are drawing attention to fracking, while experts caution that such a rupture is unlikely,” the Los Angeles Daily News observed. “The leaking well’s maintenance records don’t indicate that it was fracked, according to a review of the file released by the state Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources.”

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Solar Energy Gives Investors a Shock

Ivanpah solar energySolar energy is full of surprises.

The operators of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System were recently surprised by state air quality regulators, who informed them that the $2.2 billion solar energy plant is a carbon polluter.

Solar energy doesn’t emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That’s the whole point of California’s increasingly mandatory and wildly expensive push to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind energy.

But as it turns out, the sun does not shine at night. This is what happens when governors don’t do any research before they sign legislation.

The Ivanpah plant is located on five square miles of the Mojave Desert near the Nevada border. You can see it from Interstate 15 — it’s that alien-looking landscape of shiny circles surrounding three skeletal towers topped with black-and-white capsules.

The shiny circles are hundreds of thousands of mirrors that aim sunlight at boilers mounted on the towers. The sun boils the water, and the steam rotates turbines, which generate electricity.

But only during the day.

At night, and on cloudy days, Ivanpah burns natural gas to keep the water hot.

And that attracted the attention of the California Air Resources Board, which gave Ivanpah’s operators until Nov. 4 to comply with the state’s cap-and-trade program by cutting the plant’s carbon emissions 10 percent or purchasing pollution credits from somebody who has cut carbon emissions someplace else.

Ivanpah, a “clean energy” plant built with $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees and $600 million in federal tax credits, now has to pay for being a “polluter” in California.

Solar panelsAnd that’s not the only surprise in the solar business. Some people who invested tens of thousands of dollars in rooftop solar panels have been disappointed by the revenue from net metering — the money they’re supposed to receive for selling surplus electricity back to the grid.

West Hills residents Barbara and Bob Schoenburg are beyond annoyed that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is holding more than $1,000 of their money. The Schoenburgs’ solar panel array, for which they paid about $20,000 after rebates and credits, consistently generates more electricity than they use. But LADWP will not write them a check. Instead, the credit on their bill just grows, year after year. It can’t even be used to pay the rest of the DWP bill for water, taxes or sewer and sanitation charges.

Here’s the surprise: California’s net-metering law, which requires utilities to pay their customers for surplus electricity generated by solar panels, applies to all utilities in the state with one exception — the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Yet some customers of Southern California Edison are equally aggravated. Hidden Hills resident Dr. Daniel Gross invested more than $20,000 in solar panels and was surprised when the installer told him the electricity generated by them could not be used to power his own home.

The electricity from the rooftop panels flows to the grid, and the home is powered with electricity drawn from the grid, as before. Once a year, the utility settles up. “The rate they pay you is markedly less than the rate you pay them,” Gross said, adding that he’d like to install batteries and be off the grid altogether.

“I thought I was doing something good for the country, for the community, for the economy,” he said, “and instead I’m a peripheral provider of electricity that Southern California Edison sells to make money.”

Southern California Edison is concerned about losing customers like Gross. In its most recent quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, SCE disclosed that future revenues could be negatively affected by “possible customer bypass or departure” if new technologies, government subsidies or higher rates made self-generation “economically viable.”

LADWP made a similar disclosure in a recent statement to bond buyers. Self-generation was listed as one of the factors that may “materially affect the operating and financial position of the department.”

SCE and other investor-owned utilities are now asking the California Public Utilities Commission to lower the rate they have to pay their power-generating customers for surplus electricity. And they say the CPUC must approve new fees on solar customers to prevent the existing system from collapsing due to declining revenue.

Gross has no patience for their argument. “That’s the same concern the wagon wheel makers had,” he said.

Maybe that will be the final surprise. If California lawmakers and regulators continue to pretend there’s no longer any need for fossil fuels, wagons could make a comeback.

Paris Climate Conference a Chance for Jerry and Arnold to Blow Hot Air

It is axiomatic that California’s liberal political leaders would gather in Paris at this sensitive time – to discuss climate change.   And their assertions in Paris about their actual achievements in climate change in California will surely border on bombast.

News reports being put out by the governor’s office tout that California’s “hot” emissions have dropped 7 percent in the last 11 years. But that has nothing to do with Jerry and Arnold’s costly pee-wee war on climate change. The improvement has much more to do with increases in numbers of vehicles on the road that are meeting ever higher federal auto clean air standards, coupled with California’s decades-long stringent requirements on vehicle and fuel emissions. The fact is the air in Los Angeles today is 99 percent cleaner than it was in 1990 and there hasn’t been a smog alert in over 20 years. (The cleaner air today logically even calls into question whether California should continue to regulate the smell of baking bread, for example, under its current and dated clean air regulations.)

Yet none of the accomplishment in the Los Angeles basin will be touted, or has much of anything to do with the additional costly regulations that Jerry Brown will be talking about in Paris on the climate change issue. Jerry and Arnold and the other liberal California politicians will push their climate change policies as “taking a firehose” to the problem. The truth is more like a phrase attributed to William F. Buckley – California’s efforts here are like an “ant farting into a windstorm.” If there is a windstorm.

th-3If there is global carbon to be reduced, it comes from China, not so much California, and the Paris conferees would do a lot better for themselves to browbeat the Chinese communist leaders during the entire event, to adopt significant industrial pollution standards, than listen to what Jerry and Arnold have to say about California’s tiny contribution to the world global carbon “footprint” in comparison to China. It is hard to get reliable statistics about Chinese pollution, however, in 2007, the New York Times wrote, “Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party.” The article asserted that according to the Chinese Ministry of Health, industrial pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, that 500 million people in China were without safe and clean drinking water, and that only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union, because all of its major cities are constantly covered in a “toxic gray shroud.”

The Chinese pollution, according to the article, has spread internationally: sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo; and according to the Journal of Geophysical Research, the pollution even reaches Los Angeles. But even with the Chinese pollution coming our way, California’s environment has greatly improved over the last decades and it has little to do with Jerry Brown’s new intentions to levy even more consumption taxes on working and poor families, raising their cost of living, their utility bills, and the cost of basic necessities, for some sketchy sort of de minimus attack on global carbon. In the meantime Chinese pollution has certainly gotten worse.

Finally, it is simply a lie for Jerry and Arnold to say in Paris, as they will, that the new California carbon regulations have been implemented without hurting the state’s economy. In the same period these new carbon taxes have come online, California has seen significant increases in the cost of living, reduction in disposable income for average families, and the highest poverty rate in the nation for what looks to be three years running. California’s carbon taxes are making our poor, poorer. And that deserves much more focus than falsely premised victory laps in Paris.

CARB’s Ironic Quest to Save the Rainforest

RainforestThe California Air Resources Board recently announced plans to dedicate a portion of its hidden gas tax to saving the tropical rainforest. This is ironic because CARB’s own policies actually contribute to rainforest deforestation.

The agency is a strong advocate of a “low carbon fuel standard,” or LCFS. The LCFS is a food-for-fuel program that, along with similar mandates in the European Union and the United Kingdom, is wreaking havoc in the rainforest.

Unlike the national ethanol mandate, which relies heavily on domestically-produced corn-based ethanol, CARB’s LCFS places a much greater emphasis on sugar and soybean-based fuels – crops often produced in tropical nations where rainforests are endangered.

When CARB initially considered adoption of the LCFS in 2008, 27 scientists and researchers submitted a letter indicating the policy could have serious unintended consequences on land use.

Holly Gibbs, a researcher at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environmentstated: “If we run our cars on biofuels produced in the tropics, chances will be good that we are effectively burning rainforests in our gas tanks.”

Noted primatologist Jane Goodall has also spoken out, stating: “We’re cutting down forests now to grow sugarcane and palm oil for biofuels and our forests are being hacked into by so many interests that it makes them more and more important to save now.”

Just a few days ago CARB collected hundreds of millions in hidden gas taxes in an opaque carbon credit auction. However, instead of raising gas prices to save the rainforest CARB could do much more by reevaluating its LCFS program instead.

Eric Eisenhammer is the founder of the Coalition of Energy Users, a nonprofit grassroots organization for access to affordable energy and quality jobs.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily