Curbing Greenhouse Emissions Good for the Planet, Good for People, Enviros Say
.jpg)
As California officials get ready to formally unveil a host of measures to curb greenhouse emissions, environmentalists are working to support the effort, promoting reports showing all the good the effort would do, and demonstrating public support.
The Natural Resources Defense Council on Tuesday weighed in with a study the group said showed that many of the strategies for reducing global warming would also combat other forms of air pollution, saving lives and reducing illnesses. That document followed by just a day the release of a new poll suggesting that people support energy policies to reduce the threat of climate change, even if prices go up.
All of this comes just before the California Air Resources Board is scheduled to hear recommendations from government officials on what the state should do to comply with the state's Global Warming Solutions Act, better known as AB 32. The 2006 law requires the state to reduce its emissions of heat-trapping gases to 1990 levels by 2020, about a 30 percent cut compared to what would otherwise happen. The state has also taken other steps, such as a governor's executive order that requires emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and legislation and rules to reduce emissions from cars and trucks.
The board on Thursday is to get its first overall look at the proposed blueprint or "scoping plan" for implementing the law. Everything from the types of light bulbs people use to the cost of electricity could be affected.
The NRDC report, which was co-produced by Redefining Progress, said the measures being considered could prevent as many as 700 premature deaths and 18,000 cases of asthma and respiratory illnesses. It calculated a savings of up to $5 billion in health costs for year 2020 alone.
According to the group's analysis, the measures producing the biggest impact on global warming, including cleaner cars and trucks, energy efficiency, renewable energy and so-called smart growth policies, also help generate big cuts in pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog, and fine particles that cause a variety of health problems. Preventing global warming could also produce its own health-related benefits, such as reducing mosquito and other insect-borne illnesses, deaths from extreme heat and allergies.
The authors of the report recommended that the health benefits and cost savings should be incorporated into the calculations of what it will cost to implement the emissions-cutting plans.
Those costs didn't appear to daunt respondents to the poll, which was commissioned by Next 10, a nonprofit research organization and conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin & Associates, a California polling firm. According to information released by Next 10, including a memo from the polling company and a slide presentation, 58 percent of all voters said they supported implementing the law even after they were warned it could lead to “increased costs for gas, electricity and some consumer goods.” Support was strongest among Democrats and independents, the poll found, but dropped to 37 percent for Republicans.
The results, which also indicated a large majority believes that global warming is a serious threat to the economy and quality of life, were seized upon by the Environmental Defense Fund, which issued a statement warning that politicians who support delaying the law risks voter wrath. Some Republicans in Sacramento, according to a recent report in the San Francisco Chronicle, have been warning about the economic and budget consequences of strict regulations.
And there's some support for the notion that high energy prices could in fact weaken support for environmental goals. Take, for instance, the recent Rasmussen poll showing that a big majority favors new drilling off the nation's shorelines, a cause recently taken up by presumptive Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain. Many of the respondents to the poll said they believed the offshore oil would reduce gasoline prices. Such drilling, of course, has been anathema to green groups for a long time.
Meanwhile, there's also the matter of just what lifestyle and other changes, as well as pocketbook impacts, could be in the offing for a California where carbon and other greenhouse emissions are constrained. As Climate Law Update has reported, some of the options being considered by regulators could reach far into the state's stereotypical lifestyle.
Just the other day, one of the key officials involved in the AB 32 planning effort reiterated those proposals (plus supplied summaries of comments already received) in a letter to Mary Nichols, the air board's chairwoman. Public comments on the plan, which is due to become final later this year, will be accepted until August 1.
(Photo: Smoggy Los Angeles from the Griffith Observatory, Wikipedia)
