Plan for Carbon Neutrality in California Emissions Draws Criticism

An outcry is expected Thursday against a proposal to reduce fossil fuel consumption and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, a proposal that would necessitate a significant adjustment in how California’s enormous economy is powered in the face of climate change.

This year’s draught scoping plan, which is updated every five years and lays out a route for California to accomplish its climate objectives, will be discussed publicly for the first time by the California Air Resources Board. Critics beyond the oil sector have argued that there are too many restrictions and demands in the 2045 plan, which is one of America’s most ambitious goals. Many environmentalists believe the plan does not go far enough in reducing greenhouse gas emissions soon.

Democrat Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi wrote in a letter that “California can do better than this,” and he’s asking his colleagues to support his petition.

Carbon neutrality indicates that the state would remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as it produces. A combination of cutting back on fossil fuel consumption and deploying cutting-edge technology to remove any remaining pollutants from the atmosphere would accomplish this. If this plan is implemented as planned, it is expected to cut petroleum demand and fossil natural gas construction consumption by 91% by 2045, according to board staff projections.

Achieving this would require a 30x increase in EVs on the road, a six-fold increase in electric appliances in the home, a four-fold increase in wind and solar energy, and 60x more hydrogen.

By 2045, the plan predicts that even with such a radical shift, the state of California will continue to produce at the very least 94 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (approximately 22% of the state’s current emissions). Additionally, the air would have to be cleaned up.

Read More:

the proposal depends too largely upon unproven and energy-intensive carbon removal technologies, and it fails to consider whether the state is on track to meet its more urgent 2030 emission objectives, according to environmental groups.

Many members of the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) have complained that the air board’s strategy falls far short of their expectations.

Catherina Garoupa White, a panel member and exec VP of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, said air regulators are unable to answer critical issues regarding the safety and viability of carbon storage and removal schemes. The plan permits oil refinement to continue, but carbon capture technology must be installed.

As she put it, “We’re continuously put in the position of having to respond and respond to ideas that they’ve already backed up with the industry.”

Chair of the Air Resources Board Liane Randolph has rebuffed accusations that the plan depends too heavily on carbon removal. – A considerable reduction in gas-powered home appliances and a shift to electric-powered automobiles are among the requirements of this plan. Even still, she asserted, demand for fossil fuels will not go away.

In her opinion, “there appears to be a feeling that we somehow favor mechanical carbon removal and we’re leaving methods on the table to like, make space for that, and that’s simply not the case,” she stated.

It has been argued that there are too many restrictions and mandates in the proposal, which is impracticable and would boost prices. In a letter to Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon on Wednesday, Western States Petroleum Association President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said that the state’s energy policies in general, including those in the scoping plan, are causing higher fuel costs.

Not limiting affordable options for California residents with technology bans and restrictions “is not leadership,” she stated in a blog post.

It will take a lot more clean energy to remove as much carbon as the air board’s plan requires, according to Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Energy Initiative. Solar, wind, and battery storage will have to be significantly increased to reach the plan’s targets.

Finding enough carbon-free energy to scale up will be a major barrier, according to Herzog.

Even though the Biden administration is paying billions to speed up carbon capture, the technology isn’t widely used yet.

Others have argued that the plan focuses too much on the 2045 goals at the expense of more immediate 2030 objectives. As of now, the air board believes it is on track to reduce emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by the year 2020. The rate of cuts would have to be significantly increased to accomplish this goal. Several state climate policies, according to the chair of the air board Randolph, have been or will be tightened.

As part of the scoping plan, natural and working lands, such as forests and agricultural land, are examined for the first time. According to the plan’s calculations, it is predicted that such land would remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. However, the plan later found that it will contribute to emissions through 2045, mainly due to wildfires or forest management. To make up for the additional emissions, the air board may require even more carbon dioxide removal.

The governor appoints 14 members of the air board, most of whom are elected. In addition to air pollution control, these individuals represent the agricultural industry and public transit. By the end of the year, they’ll have approved the final design.

Read More:

About The Author

Scroll to Top