Do you like the acronym? The northeastern states agreement, RGGI, is pronounced "reggie." I'm pronouncing GWSA "gow-say." Catchy, huh?
From the WSJ (CA pact ... $$$), information about the abatement target:
... California will mandate a reduction in the state's emissions of gases contributing to global warming to 1990 levels by 2020. The cut would target the state's biggest industrial emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power plants, oil refineries and cement factories. California already has passed a law requiring greenhouse-gas-emission cuts from cars and light trucks sold in the state.
/.../
California's goal is less ambitious than the cut envisioned in the Kyoto Protocol. Industrialized countries that ratified Kyoto have pledged to reduce their global-warming emissions a collective 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The U.S. has declined to ratify Kyoto, saying it would hobble the nation's economy. California's goal equates to cutting its emissions by 25% in 2020 below the level the state projects it would otherwise reach that year.
GWSA is less ambitious than Kyoto, sure, but not by much.
More info about the distribution of emissions cuts (the state will figure it out later):
California's effort would direct the California Air Resources Board, the state agency that enforces California's clean-air rules, to come up with the details. The broad requirements of agreement stipulate that, by January 2008, the air board start requiring the state's major greenhouse-gas producers to report their greenhouse-gas output. By January 2009, the air board is to develop a plan outlining how to achieve the emissions cuts. By January 2011, the air board is to adopt actual rules to take effect a year later.
And more info about the potential for a system of tradeable permits:
One major source of disagreement during negotiations involving lawmakers, business groups and others was the degree of flexibility California would offer businesses. Business representatives wanted a guarantee that the state would include a mechanism allowing companies to buy and sell carbon-dioxide-emission permits among each other as needed, to soften the potential financial blow. But some environmentalists argued that would make it too easy for California businesses to avoid cleaning up their own operations. The final legislation says the state "may" include such a trading mechanism in its final plan.
The Some environmentalists still don't get it. Arggggghhhhh!
If a firm wishes to avoid "cleaning up their own operations", for example, if it costs a lot of money, it can buy permits from another firm (that can do it on the cheap). Then, the other firm that just gave up its permits would clean up their own operations even more than otherwise since they don't have any more pollution permits. The amount of CO2 reduction stays constant. Who cares who does it (as long as there are no "hot spots" and there are no hot spots with global warming)? Unless you a a real meanie and want to stick it to individual firms.
My message to California Environmentalists:
Dudes (they're Californians, right?),
If you want a policy, sometimes it is a good idea to give your opposition something that they want (e.g., "soften the potential financial blow"). This is an especially good idea that (i.e., giving your opposition something they want) doesn't detract from you getting exactly what you want (e.g., firm overall caps on CO2 emissions). Totally (they're Californians, right?).
Sincerely,
John
Right now, today, I mandate that the final plan must include a trading mechanism!
