There are 53 posts tagged AB 32 (this is page 1 of 4).
Indigenous Environmental Network has put out a press release celebrating California’s postponement of a decision on its Tropical Forest Standard until April 2019. It’s “a significant win” Indigenous Environmental Network says in the press release.
At the end of last week, California’s Air Resources Board held a public meeting to consider the endorsement of the California Tropical Forest Standard. After several hours and dozens of testimonies for and against the Tropical Forest Standard, the Board decided to postpone making a decision until April 2019.
On 16 November 2018, a public meeting will take place to discuss the California Tropical Forest Standard. The debate so far about the proposal to include REDD offsets in California’s cap and trade scheme reveals that the California Air Resources Board is heavily biased in favour of carbon trading and is not interested in addressing climate change.
On 5 September 2018, the California Air Resources Board released a draft California Tropical Forest Standard. A 191-page Draft Environmental Analysis was released on 14 September 2018. A public meeting will take place on 15 November 2018, and the California Air Resources Board is inviting comments on the Environmental Analysis before 5 pm on 29 October 2018.
In the last few weeks, California’s governor Jerry Brown has received two letters about climate change. One recommends that he should take meaningful action on climate change. The other recommends that he should provide a loophole to allow the oil industry to continue polluting.
On 17 July 2017, California’s Assembly and Senate voted to extend the state’s cap-and-trade legislation until 2030. AB 398, written with the help of the oil industry, passed with two-thirds majorities in both chambers. Environmental justice groups opposed the bill, because it gives away far to much to the big oil and gas companies, and does too little to address the pollution that affects vulnerable communities in California.
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) expires in 2020. California’s governor, Jerry Brown, is holding a series of closed-door negotiations with the fossil fuel industry to re-write California’s climate change policy for the period 2021 to 2030.
From 26 to 28 May 2017, a meeting took place in Xapuri, in the state of Acre, Brazil. The meeting brought together Apurinã, Huni Kui, Jaminawa, Manchineri and Shawadawa indigenous peoples, representatives of traditional communities, rubber tappers, academics and supporting organisations. The meeting’s theme was, “The effects of environmental / climatic policies on traditional populations”.
Last week, Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The Governor of California, Jerry Brown reacted swiftly on a press call organised by the World Resources Institute. Brown called Trump’s decision “tragic”, “wrong”, “misguided”, “insane”, and “deviant behaviour”.
Last week, Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) and Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) gave a press conference about a new bill, SB 775, aimed at changing California’s cap-and-trade scheme. The proposed bill would start a new cap-and-trade scheme in 2021 that would include no offsets, no free pollution allowances, and a per-capita dividend.
In August 2016, California passed a new Senate Bill: SB 32. It’s named after California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (or AB 32). AB 32 required California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Dave Clegern is a Public Information Officer at the California Air Resources Board, a position he’s held since November 2011. In April this year, he appeared on Capital Public Radio promoting REDD. It was only a short news clip, but it’s revealing none the less.
Yesterday, California’s Air Resources Board released a preliminary draft of proposed amendments to its Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) aimed at extending the cap and trade scheme beyond 2020.
The California Air Resources Board is considering adding REDD credits to its cap and trade scheme, part of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). It’s an interesting time to make the decision, since California is currently struggling to sell pollution allowances.
At a recent workshop in Sacramento, Environmental Defense Fund’s Steve Schwartzman was waving around copies of a letter in favour of California using REDD offsets in its cap and trade scheme. Following the letter was a list of NGO logos, including that of Greenpeace Brazil. But Greenpeace has consistently opposed REDD offsets in California. How did Greenpeace’s logo appear on a letter supporting REDD?
