The AB2404: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 - Assignment Example

? Final Paper: AB2404 Final Paper: AB2404 Overview of the health problem The AB2404: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 seeks to put in place statewide emission cutback plan, in an attempt to deal with public health, safety, and environmental concerns arising from global warming (California State Legislature, 2012). The bill transforms the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals into directives, by directing the state Air Resources Board to come up with discrete initial actions, so as to decrease greenhouse emissions. The concern is that uncontrolled surface emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, some volatile organic compounds and dangerous air pollutants, adversely impact public health. Human susceptibility to climate change in most studies is determined by contact to climate alterations, sensitivity to the changes, and capability to acclimatize to the changes. Currently, there is no major consensus by scientists and climate change stakeholders on the causes of climate change, however, there is consensus on the dangers of rising temperature, and sea level rises due to nature of climate change perils (California Department of Public Health, 2008). The Department Of Public Health projects that over 30 million people in California alone will face adverse health risks attributed to social, demographic, trade and industry disruptions of climate change (2008). Moreover, air monitoring reveals that currently, over 90 percent of the state citizens breathe unhealthful levels of one or more identified air pollutants (California Air Resources Board , 2009). Composition of California greenhouse emissions Source :(California Air Resources Board , 2009) Climate change resulting from unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases endanger public health, due to the considerable increase in typical temperatures coupled with changes in overall climate. A study done by Cayan & et al, (2008) reveals that Climate change will increase Californian average annual temperature by about 2 to 4°F. Thus, the lower emissions rate as proposed by the bill will keep the state projected warming to around 3 to 6°F (Cayan & et al, 2008). Also, methane and CO2 are effective in trapping heat within the atmosphere while volatile organic compounds results in ground-level ozone creation and this reduces and destroy vegetation growth leading to respiratory troubles in humans (McMichae & Kovats, 2000). Exposure to hazardous air pollutants can result in a number of health concerns, like cancerous ailments, respiratory irritation, as well as central nervous system damage. Furthermore, uncontrolled emissions of greenhouse gases results in unpleasant odors, which are transmitted to nearby homes or business resulting in reducing the quality of life for citizens living near landfills (Bedsworth, 2009). Severity of the Health Problems Global warming increases the intensity of climate change, which then impacts on the social plus environmental determinants of health, such as clean air, harmless drinking water, and adequate food (Balbus & etal, 2008). Even though most populations will be affected by climate change, people in coastal areas, megacities, mountainous and freezing regions are particularly susceptible. Thus, researchers and public health officials warn that if no intervention is implemented, there will be an increased risk of occupational health dangers, risk of food and waterborne ailments, as well as considerable increase in vector and rodent borne illnesses. This may greatly change patterns of diseases resulting from bacteria, viruses along with other pathogens (Rose, 2001). Thus, many of the major ailments like diarrhoeal, malnutrition, malaria or dengue are extremely climate-sensitive, and they are expected to increase considerably due to rising temperatures, especially in regions having delicate health infrastructure. Global warming is also attributed to result in dangerous levels of heat waves. This can cause thousands of heat-connected ailments and deaths, since severely elevated air temperatures contribute directly to complications arising from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, especially among the elderly people. A good example is the 2003 heat wave across Europe which killed over 70 000 mostly elderly people and in 2006, California experienced an extensive and unprecedented heat wave which killed over 140 (Ostro & Basu, 2008). Furthermore, the high temperature raises aeroallergen levels and pollen in the air and this easily trigger asthma. The extremely elevated temperatures will increase ozone levels together with other pollutants within the air, and this exacerbates cardiovascular as well as respiratory illness. For instance, one study showed that California will experience a momentous increase in temperature during winter, with summertime temperature adding to as much as 18° F (Balbus & et al, 2008). This will then have serious repercussions in terms of heat waves, wildfires, and California water supply. Furthermore, the state will lose nearly 89% of its snowpack found in Sierras, which as a key natural source of its water supply (California Air Resources Board , 2009). Extreme exposure to ultraviolet light will lead to more cases of Skin damage, skin cancer, troubled immune functions and cataracts. People living in northern communities, along with vulnerable populations like children and the elderly, are anticipated to be the most impacted by the changes. Additionally, the floods triggered by climate change will tremendously contaminate freshwater supplies, and this will intensify the danger of water-borne diseases, by creating more breeding areas for disease-carrying insects like mosquitoes, snails causing schistosomiasis, and other cold blooded animals. Water and food borne contaminations will elevate Intestinal disorders, as well as infections caused by chemical and biological contaminants (McMichae & Kovats, 2000). The rising floods will in turn cause drowning of many people and numerous physical injuries, coupled with an interruption in supply of medical plus health services. Moreover, climate change is likely to elongate diffusion seasons of key vector-borne ailment, since they are forced to adjust their geographic areas. The variable precipitations are expected to reduce staple food production, especially in poorest regions. This will add to the frequent occurrences of malnutrition and under-nutrition. Additionally, weather related natural patterns like drought, flooding, hurricanes, and wildfires will easily lead to social plus mental stress. Mental stress will particularly be immense, due to mounting destructions, poverty, deaths, population displacement, and broken public health infrastructure (McMichae & Kovats, 2000). Overview of Bill The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the monitoring, plus annual reporting of every major source of the state greenhouse gas emitters (California State Legislature, 2012). Secondly, there should be detailed accounting for all greenhouse gas emissions from generation of electricity, oil and gas, whether generated inside or outside California. Thirdly, the bill requires the establishment and referencing of the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions which occurred during the 1990s, so that the current emissions can be lowered to those levels by 2020 (California State Legislature, 2012). The bill also requires the formation of rules and policies through public hearings, when considering technological feasibility and environmentally effective ways for electricity creation, petroleum refining, as well as fuel supplies. Thus, the bill affords the alternative of adopting policies, which will establish market-based approaches having successively minimal annual limits, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Authors of the bill, assembly Members Nunez and Pavley, have pointed out that since global warming creates a serious danger to public health, state natural resources and environment, the bill would necessitate the establishment of emissions limits (California State Legislature, 2012). Therefore, any violation would be considered a crime. Their assertion is that the impact of climate change will be so grave, since any rise in sea level will lead to displacement of many coastal people, coupled with an increase in infectious diseases occurrence, and other human health-related deaths. Thus, AB2404 has considerably boosted the functions and mandate of the state Air Resources Board in ensuring public health is protected from climate change adverse effects. The bill provides CARB the mandate of monitoring, enforcing and ensuring compliance of emission sources. AB2404 then outlines exact reporting regulations which business entities need to observe. Thus, CARB has to form a trading system whereby corporations and other emitters will be able to swap their emissions credits with each other, and companies which exceed their own emissions limits, will have the chance of buying credits from other firms which emit less. Particularly, they will be required to monitor and report annually of their emission levels. In addition, the bill requires CARB to account for all emissions arising from electricity consumed in California. CARB is also required to come up with standards as well as protocols, which are in line with California Climate Action Registry, so as to have a maximum emission reduction, while maintaining broad records for every emission (California State Legislature, 2012). Promises/Expected Outcomes Supporters of the bill argue that it will facilitate a reduction of greenhouse gases of around 80 million metric tons, which is almost 16% compared to current reduction measures. The authors of the bill, legislators Fran Pavley and Fabian Nunez argued that the bill will help fight climate change via comprehensive programs aimed at reducing GHG emissions from nearly every statewide emitter of GHG (California State Legislature, 2012). This will help California to attain the 2020 limit of approximately 18 million metric tons. The main belief is that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are very crucial to public health, and natural environment, in which California residents count on. In support of the bill, California ReLeaf argue that through incentivizing local governments to set up and execute their individual greenhouse gas emission reduction programs, California will be able to attain its emission-reduction goals sooner and more resourcefully. The California Air Resources Board argues that free allocation of market-based incentives will help to deal with emissions leakages linked with energy-intensive industries. This will in turn help utility companies avoid financial undue problems arising from the measures aimed at cutting their emission. Furthermore, rather than imposing limits, the bill seeks to facilitate local and regional administrations to partner with not-for-profit organizations, as well as community groups in identifying, and implementing pioneering community-based emission-reduction programs and which normally utilities and other private entities may not spot or engage in. This will then increase adaptability and resiliency of California to extreme weather scenarios, along with other climate change outcomes, as noted by Sonoma County Water Agency, one of the bill sponsors (California State Legislature, 2012). LA Conservation Corps insists that the bill will safeguard natural resources through urban and community greening, agricultural preservation, and natural community conservation projects, especially open-space protection. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will help California to reduce air and water pollution, since the bill ensures that ARB enforces fair and justifiably distribution of Emission Reduction Program throughout the state (California State Legislature, 2012). The then California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger who signed the bill into law, argued that it would curb the negative outcomes of global warming by safeguarding the environment, while simultaneously sustaining California business economy (Franco & et al, 2008). For instance, order S-3-05 requires that developing technologies will boost the state economy, by creating additional jobs, which will then offer greater than before tax revenue, in addition to enabling reductions in operating cost which would otherwise be passed on to consumers. Another aspect is that, the bill allows businesses which exceed their own emissions targets, to buy credits from other businesses which emit less. Thus, according to Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, this market sharing system will further boost California economic activities, since emissions credits will be purchased and sold by specialized brokers inside California financial markets and not outside (California State Legislature, 2012). Problems The real problem with the law is how to put into practice, the environmental regulations, without hampering manufacturing and economic growth. Most critics argue that the measures proposed in the bill would have smaller effect on global warming even as the costs to affected industries would be higher (Franco & et al, 2008). Legislators opposed to the bill, argue that it will enable the state Local greenhouse gas emission reduction ventures, to be disregarded by statewide and regulated agencies, since it is only a small scale measure filled with administration complicatedness and lack of incentives. The California Manufacturers & Technology Association argument is that, even existing local greenhouse gas emission reduction measures are being ignored, since there are limited, and in some cases lack of funds from most local governments for participation in multi-gain greenhouse gas emission reduction schemes (Hanemann, 2007). The key point is that there are no incentives to participate in these forms of projects. California Taxpayers Association argues that the bill places the state economy at risk, since it prematurely predict and allocates auction revenues without sufficient data regarding potentially solemn economic, legal plus environmental impacts. They argue that is unclear on who would make decisions which will regulate industries regarding their future capital expenditures, product pricing and hiring decisions based on emissions reductions targets. There is so much uncertainty from the bill regarding how to tackle leakages, owing to competitive pressures from firms operating outside California. Thus, there is no clearly stipulated procedure for tracking, monitoring or even preventing any leakages. California Chamber of Commerce argues that the bill does not offer litigation which may arise when collection and utilization of auction revenues might disturb plans to expend the revenues as projected. This is despite the fact that a long trail of scientific assessments have not been established , especially ion mitigation effects of these measures on public health (California Climate Change Cente, 2006). Unintended Consequences Putting in place adaptation measures as required by the bill across public health area will face numerous barriers. Firstly, there can be a lack of sufficient resources considering the current budget deficits since the bill was passed during a time of surplus. Thus, it will be hard to adapt funding and other resources to best manage risks linked to climate change. A key unintended consequence for the bill is attaining an inconsequential climate outcome, especially on how emissions savings as pushed by the bill translates to reductions in global temperatures. Notably, the bill calls for an 80% reduction of emissions based on 1990 California greenhouse gas emissions data (Hanemann, 2007). Most analysts attribute this to nearly 15% of current statewide levels. Therefore, on a per-capita starting point, this implies reducing yearly emissions of around 14 tons for every person in California, to around 10 tons per person come 2020, and this is quite a minimal reduction compared to current global increase in emissions especially from China (California Air Resources Board , 2009). For that reason, such an initiative would not actually prevent global warming or climate change, since it is relatively minimal compared with existing global greenhouse gas emissions, especially from rising levels in developing nations, like China and India. The bill ignores the fact that climate change issues will be best tackled through a concerted global response. Secondly, several mitigation and adaptation approaches measures do possess the potential for unintentional health outcomes, especially the precautionary principles. For instance, the application of water storage tanks by water utility companies can increase the risk of dengue fever. Also, the bill calls for widespread use for clean energy sources like biofuels, while ignoring the fact that this will lead to elevated food prices due to competition between food and energy. Hence, this could increase hunger especially in developing nations. Another unintended consequence can be emissions prices plunging too low, and which will turn hamper advancement of clean technology. The fact that the most provisions of the bill are dealt with, in private by the state regulators, environmental entities, as well as industry lobbyists, runs the risk of not addressing the real issue of the bill, and that is public health. Thus, the concerned parties are more focused on price increases and reductions based on political support, and excessive volatility arising from emission allowance prices. Thus, the bill provides a breeding ground for special interest groups to push on their financial agenda. The bill can also create massive but hidden taxes on California families, which will then add new burdens to an already fragile economy (Franco & et al, 2008). California businesses, especially small business owners will have to operate under potential extra-costs arising from the bill regulatory scheme. Above all, those in energy-intensive fields such as manufacturing, transportation or petroleum refinement, will be forced to pass such costs to consumers (Hanemann, 2007). The bill also poses a challenge to fuel supplies, since it has the potential of disrupting the state fuel markets and supplies, by forcing closure of considerable number of petroleum refineries. Thus, such disruptions possess the danger of job loses, higher fuel costs, higher food costs and loss of tax revenues. Recommendations Given that the bill does not have adequate information in responding to climate-related public health matters. It is important for the bill to have practically based plus actionable climate change information first. Information concerning vulnerability to climate brunt will be required at community and private level, so as to have effective public health plans (Balbus & et al, 2008). This would call for updating and modification of the then drafted heat emergency schemes, including heat-related ailments and other climate change connected conditions in the entire tracking program. It is also important for California to provide bold results from this bill, so that the rest of US can pursue a similar comprehensive approach, in view of the fact that, California alone cannot be able to deal with climate change as it is a global phenomenon. Mitigating the health risks linked with climate change needs outreach together with education, hence state and federal legislatures and agencies should be responsible for reducing the countrywide emissions of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, in order to remove special interests groups from interfering, AB2404 regulations should align the incentives offered with national and statewide approaches for dealing with waste, such as recycling, remanufacturing, formation of more waste-to-energy facilities, and land filling (California Air Resources Board , 2009). References Balbus, J., & et al. (2008). Are We Ready? Preparing for the Public Health Challenges of Climate Change. New York: George Mason University. Bedsworth, L. (2009). Preparing for Climate Change: A Perspective from Local Public Health Officers in California. Environ Health Perspect , 117 (4), 617–623. California Air Resources Board . (2009). ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution and Health. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs1/fs1.htm California Climate Change Center. (2006). Our changing climate. Assessing the risks to California. California Climate Change Center. California Department of Public Health. (2008). Public Health Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for California. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CCDPHP/Documents/CA_Public_Health_Adaptation_Strategies_final.pdf California State Legislature. (2012). A.B. No. 2404. Retrieved 05 12, 2012, from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2404_bill_20120531_status.html Cayan, D., & et al. (2008). Overview of the California Climate Change Scenarios Project. Clim Change , 87 (1), S1–S6. Franco, G., & et al,. (2008). Linking climate change science with policy in California. Climatic Change , 87 (1), S7–S20. Hanemann, W. M. (2007). How California came to pass AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Berkeley: University of California . McMichae, A. J., & Kovats, R. S. (2000). Climate change and climate variability: Adaptations to reduce adverse health impacts. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 61, 49-64. Ostro, B., & Basu, R. (2008). A multicounty analysis identifying the populations vulnerable to mortality associated with high ambient temperature in California. Am J Epidemiol , 168 (6), 632–637. Rose, J. B. (2001). Climate variability and change in the United States: potential impacts on water- and foodborne diseases caused by microbiologic agents. Environ Health Perspec , 109, 211–221. Read More