Carbon traders or corporate raiders?

California’s environmentalists don’t always see eye to eye. That’s especially true when it comes to the best way to reduce the state’s carbon emissions, as required by the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, better known as Assembly Bill 32. Some environmentalists argue that carbon-trading programs offer the best compromise between free enterprise and government regulation. But environmentalists who oppose so-called “cap-and-trade” programs claim that compromise comes at the expense of the poor and minorities, whose communities are often the hardest hit by air pollution.

So when the California Air Resources Board released a proposed scoping plan for A.B. 32 featuring cap-and-trade as one of the program’s major components, environmentalists concerned with both reducing carbon emissions and improving conditions for lower-income communities were none too pleased.

“We know we’re buying a car as opposed to a camel or a horse, but the most important thing is that the car actually runs,” said Jane Williams, co-chair of the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee for A.B. 32 and executive director of California Communities Against Toxics. “We don’t even know if we’re going to be able to drive it off the lot.”

But proponents of carbon trading say the approach provides major polluters with financial incentives to reduce emissions and the flexibility to continue operating as the state makes the transition to cleaner energy sources.

“Global warming is a global problem, and removing a ton of carbon from the atmosphere should be encouraged whenever you can do it,” said Derek Walker, director of the California Climate Initiative for the Environmental Defense Fund. “You’ve got to throw every tool in the toolbox at this problem.”

Article Continues: http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=868436