{"id":4291,"date":"2016-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-20T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/weact.org\/updates\/a-climate-game-changer-for-environmental-justice\/"},"modified":"2026-02-16T19:31:44","modified_gmt":"2026-02-17T00:31:44","slug":"a-climate-game-changer-for-environmental-justice","status":"publish","type":"update","link":"http:\/\/weact.org\/es\/updates\/a-climate-game-changer-for-environmental-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"A Climate Game Changer for Environmental Justice?"},"template":"","class_list":["post-4291","update","type-update","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","update_type-blog"],"acf":{"details":{"":null,"featured_image":3260,"update_type":[364],"focus_area":false,"authors":false,"abstract":""},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","acfe_flexible_toggle":"","component_wysiwyg":{"content":"

Ten years ago, California passed The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, better known as AB32.<\/h2>\r\nThis bill launched a comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction plan into motion, one that required California to reduce its emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, a 15% reduction from a business-as-usual scenario. Many applauded the state for committing early on to climate change mitigation, but AB32 also had many vocal critics, particularly from environmental justice (EJ) advocates. EJ groups even brought a lawsuit against California\u2019s Air Resource Board (CARB), delaying implementation of part of its program until 2012. Of concern was one of its main mechanisms for reduction\u200a\u2014\u200athe creation of a carbon market known as \u201ccap and trade.\u201d A cap and trade system places a ceiling or a cap on how much a pollutant can be emitted for a geographic area, either a region or a state, depending on the scope of the program. Allowances are either freely distributed or auctioned to companies and can be traded among different firms. These allowances are permits that allow facilities to emit a certain amount of pollutant, usually one ton of pollutant per allowance. Facilities are compliant when they surrender enough allowances to meet their emissions at the end of the reporting period.\r\n\r\nIt is known that market-based mechanisms for carbon reduction like cap and trade do not guarantee emissions reductions, leaving it up to the market to determine who sees reductions and where those reductions happen. This mechanism, in its simplest form, favors economic efficiency over distributional equity. Put another way, it provides a compliance path of least economic cost to polluters, leaving open the possibility for EJ communities to experience an increase in carbon pollution and dangerous co-pollutants<\/a> emitted alongside carbon, or just as importantly, for levels to stay the same. The latter is seen largely among EJ advocates as a lost opportunity to reduce pollution in EJ communities. It would mean, once again, that people who have historically been overburdened by pollution will lose out on an opportunity to join the climate revolution and enjoy its benefits.\r\n
\r\n

Recently, these concerns were acknowledged in two pieces of legislation in California, SB32<\/a> and AB197<\/a>. SB32 calls for a more stringent reduction in GHG emissions\u200a\u2014\u200a40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. More important for EJ implications is AB197, which is joined to SB32, meaning that without its passage, SB32 cannot be implemented. Besides strengthening oversight of CARB and making emissions data more easily available to the public, AB197 also has language that may sound familiar to EJ advocates:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

This bill would require the state board, when adopting rules and regulations to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions beyond the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit and to protect the state\u2019s most impacted and disadvantaged communities, to follow specified requirements, consider the social costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases, and prioritize specified emission reduction rules and regulations.<\/blockquote>\r\nThe bill was introduced by Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia, who states that,\r\n
\u201c[i]n order for California to remain an economic and environmental leader the state will need to also be a leader on issues related to equity. Placing the health and economic impacts of climate policy on vulnerable populations second will stunt the state\u2019s prosperity\u2026.AB 197, with SB 32, represents recognition that GHG reduction has local impacts and that we also must have revenue for critical investments in our state\u2019s most disadvantaged communities.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\nBoth SB32 and AB197 were signed into law <\/a>by the Governor Jerry Brown on September 8th, 2016.\r\n\r\nAssemblymember Garcia\u2019s recognition of localized impacts and the need for specific reductions in EJ communities is exactly what EJ advocates have argued is necessary. But the concern for \u201chot spots,\u201d or localized, elevated levels of pollution in some areas, has been dismissed<\/a> by some who say that existing air quality regulations are already protective. Others have disagreed<\/a>. Few empirical studies have examined this question, but at the heels of the recent legislation is an environmental equity assessment<\/a> of California\u2019s cap and trade program, authored by some notable EJ scholars. It found that, on average, communities with a GHG-emitting facility within 2.5 miles have:\r\n