Climate debate rages as Brown raises profile

ed areas.

Cap and trade puts a limit on the state’s total annual emissions from certain sources. Businesses that pollute can buy permits allowing them to release greenhouse gases. By putting a price on carbon, the program is designed to create incentives for firms to reduce their emissions while raising money for green technology research and mitigation of global warming effects.

Brown has called for lawmakers to extend it with a two-thirds vote, which would insulate it from legal challenges. Democrats have enough votes to do that on their own, but disagreement among them makes it unlikely.

“It’s going to take some Republicans here. Democrats can’t do this alone,” Brown said Thursday, asking the Chamber of Commerce for help in rounding up Republicans.

In a sign of how significantly California’s climate debate differs from the one in Washington, business groups and oil companies have supported a cap and trade extension, at least with restrictions. They contend it’s the most cost-effective way to meet California’s ambitious climate goal – a mandate in state law to reduce emissions 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030.

Without cap and trade, they worry, the state would resort to strict and expensive mandates to, for example, replace less efficient vehicles and equipment ahead of schedule.

While many environmentalists celebrate cap and trade for reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions, others contend the program does nothing to address localized air pollution in the generally low-income areas around refineries, power plants and ports. Businesses that pollute in those areas can continue doing so as long as they obtain permits, known as allowances.

Advocates for these heavily polluted areas, known as environmental justice advocates, are pushing to make air quality improvements part of any extension of the program.