DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – Dozens of people attended a meeting yesterday in San Diego to express support for California's climate change plan and to share concerns about specific parts of the blueprint.
|
STATE GLOBAL WARMING PLAN
California's proposed framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which can be accessed at arb.ca.gov, would:
 Combine regulations, fees, voluntary measures and free-market programs.
Set emissions caps for the transportation, electricity, natural gas and industrial sectors.
Consider using some state money to retrain certain workers, give consumer rebates, conduct research and launch other projects.
|
|
The plan, an outgrowth of the landmark Assembly Bill 32 legislation in 2006, will guide the state's efforts to combat global warming. The overall goal is to reduce levels of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020.
Yesterday's session in the County Administration Building was one of several meetings being held statewide by the Air Resources Board, which is seeking public feedback on the draft proposal it released in late June.
The board voted to adopt a final version of the report before January and roll it out over the next three years.
“It's a gargantuan task, and the work to date . . . is a terrific first step,” said Lisa Bicker, president of CleanTech San Diego, which promotes sustainable technology.
Tim O'Connor, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund in Sacramento, said policies related to the plan would stimulate “California's already booming green economy” by generating 100,000 “green” jobs in the next decade.
Others were less enthusiastic – particularly because of the project's potential economic downside. Rules, fees and incentives stemming from the plan would change virtually every aspect of business, including transportation, energy and manufacturing.
“You can't turn this into a giant tax scheme. . . . Industry will either pass the taxes on or move away,” said Robert Hassebrock, whose company supports energy-development firms in California.
Joseph Kinard, executive director of a business improvement district in southeastern San Diego, voiced concerns about the financial impact on small businesses and families. He expects the climate change proposal to compound food and fuel prices that have been rising rapidly.
“This is no time to be moving ahead with a plan that will drive energy costs even higher,” Kinard said. “Our businesses and families are already conserving as much as they possibly can. They have no place else to cut.”
Edie Chang, the air board's planning chief, said the agency will release a detailed fiscal analysis for its blueprint in coming weeks.
So far, the savings outweigh the costs, Chang said. But she acknowledged that increasing energy prices will hit lower-income residents disproportionately hard, and that California would have to find ways to address the challenge.
Speakers at the meeting raised other sticky issues. Some pressed the state to make companies pay for pollution permits and use that revenue to support clean-energy development.
Others feared the plan doesn't give enough control and funds to city governments and mass-transit agencies, both of which are expected to play important roles in lowering levels of greenhouse gases.
Mike Lee: (619) 542-4570; mike.lee@uniontrib.com
