California is missing the boat on climate change
California’s climate, energy and political leaders have all reached the same conclusion — California is losing its leadership on climate change. As Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon put it, “I don’t feel at all that we are leading the world anymore.”
For years, California led the country on policies to advance clean energy and cut climate pollution. But we’ve stopped following the science, and now too many policies focus on long-term goals at the expense of urgent, near-term priorities.
The climate conference in Glasgow made it clear that the No. 1 priority — the only measure that can prevent cataclysmic climate change — is to cut the climate super pollutants known as short-lived climate pollutants, or SLCPs, primarily methane and black carbon. As the head of the United Nations Environment Program said, “Cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years” and we need to “urgently reduce methane emissions as much as possible this decade.” President Joe Biden also stated that reducing methane is the single most effective strategy to reverse global warming in the near term.
Reducing SLCPs is the only measure that benefits the climate right away. In contrast, fossil fuel reductions — which cut carbon dioxide emissions — won’t benefit the climate until 2050 or later.
In California, organic waste, wildfires and diesel are the largest sources of SLCP emissions. We can reduce all three sources by converting organic waste to power, low carbon fuels and other products. This is especially important with forest waste removed to reduce wildfire hazards. That material can be converted to carbon-negative fuels that replace diesel in heavy duty trucks, eliminating two major sources of black carbon at the same time. Former Gov. Jerry Brown, long a climate leader, has called for increased forest biomass to energy as a way to reduce SLCP emissions from wildfires and controlled burns.
Unfortunately, key state agencies including the California Energy Commission and the California Air Resources Board have lost focus on SLCP reductions. The air board’s draft investment plan for billions of dollars of cap and trade revenues doesn’t even list SLCP reductions as one of its six over-arching spending priorities. This is particularly surprising when the air board’s own analysis shows that investments in SLCP reductions are the most beneficial and cost-effective of all the state’s climate investments.
The Energy Commission is even more off-track. Once the leader in promoting organic waste to energy projects — one of the most effective ways to cut SLCP emissions — the commission has largely stopped supporting projects that cut SLCP emissions. In fact, the commission’s plans for renewable power assume zero growth in bioenergy or hydrogen from organic waste. The commission has also stopped supporting the production of vehicle fuels from organic waste that can be used to replace diesel. These are the most important measures to cut SLCP emissions. The California Environmental Protection Agency and Natural Resources Agency both recommend increasing bioenergy to reduce SLCP emissions, but the Energy Commission is ignoring those calls and the calls of the global scientific community.
California policymakers need to refocus on SLCP reductions as the most urgent climate solution. They should focus on SLCP reductions in the state budget, require state agencies to prioritize SLCP reductions in all climate and energy programs, fast-track permitting and interconnection for projects that cut SLCP emissions, and continue research into the life cycle emissions of all energy and climate projects. We cannot lead on climate change solutions unless we follow the science, and the science is very clear that SLCP reductions must be our highest priority.