Article Directory :: Business - General Articles

AB 32 Law Survives Major Test

By Daniel Stouffer

Republish: EasyPublish™ Published: 27Mar2010 Word count: 469 Viewed: 263 time(s) Get Free Content For Your Site

Supporters of California's hard-line approach to global warming breathed a sigh of relief in mid-January when the Legislature rejected an amendment to the landmark AB 32 law. Entitled AB 118, the suggested legislation would have overturned the initial Act, which dated back to 2006.

When the AB 32 law was first signed it had many opponents and was certainly a challenging proposition. Gov. Schwarzenegger recognized the issues, but was adamant that this was the only way forward for the state as it set a precedent nationwide for environmental leadership.

Supporters of California's hard-line approach to global warming breathed a sigh of relief in mid-January when the Legislature rejected an amendment to the landmark AB 32 law. Entitled AB 118, the suggested legislation would have overturned the initial Act, which dated back to 2006.

Since the bill became law, significant investments have being undertaken by businesses across the state, investing in clean technology, retooling the very way they do business with the aim of preparing for more stringent regulations ahead of them. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, as the AB 32 law is formally known, aims to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions by 25%, by the year 2020.

The California Air Resource Board is charged with the responsibility of implementing AB 32, California's answer to the problem of global warming. Mandatory reporting rules will usher in tough market mechanisms and so-called "alternative compliance" mechanisms to help achieve maximum reductions.

Critics of Gov. Schwarzenegger's stance initiated opposition to AB 32 and planned to stop any further progress, even before mandatory caps on the amount of carbon permissible within the atmosphere were designed to kick in by 2012. While opposition was certainly concerted, environmentalists maintain that commonsense prevailed in Sacramento.

One of the main problems associated with AB 32 is of course, geographical. As the nation's most populous state, any initiative is likely to make a difference with regard to the country's overall carbon footprint, but legislators must be very careful to ensure that the policies associated with AB 32 law do not force companies to outsource, or to transfer locations out of state. By doing this, greenhouse gas emissions would not be reduced, but would rather be transferred elsewhere.

While the AB 32 law survived January's opposition within the California state legislature, it has a long road ahead of it before we can see whether its stipulations and theories result in any tangible gains. The original goals suggested a 25% reduction in carbon emissions as based on 1990 levels by the year 2020 and further, a reduction of as much as 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

California seeks to restrict emissions from "significant sources" according to a cap and trade program. The United States Senate is also considering a nationwide scheme of this kind, but it appears that this will have considerable opposition and may not survive passage through the Senate in its current form, at least during 2010.

EasyPublish™ this article - publishers click here

More articles by Daniel Stouffer

Free Report!
Ten Essential Secrets Of Article Marketing ... Grab Your Free
Copy Now:

Need Content?
Regular Top Quality Content for your Blog, Ezine or Website ...
Delivered Direct,
For Free!
Click For Details