CARB Adopts Aggressive Targets to Meet State Greenhouse Gas Laws

    Photo: Mark Stozier via ##http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/09/24/in-historic-vote-carb-adopts-targets-under-landmark-anti-sprawl-bill/##SF Streetsblog##
Photo: Mark Stozier via ##http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/09/24/in-historic-vote-carb-adopts-targets-under-landmark-anti-sprawl-bill/##SF Streetsblog##

Last Thursday, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) voted unanimously to adopt ambitious targets for greenhouse gas reductions statewide by 2020 and 2035.  Thursday’s vote, hours after the Metro Board of Directors voted to endorse high standards for the Southland, will compel Municipal Planning Organizations (MPO’s) to create development and transportation plans that will encourage Smart Growth and discourage catering to long commutes in single occupancy automobiles.

Under California’s landmark anti-sprawl bill, SB375, the state’s 18 MPOs were required to set emissions reductions targets and Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) within regional transportation plans.  Los Angeles’ MPO is the Southern California Association of Governments, a body that voted endorsed weaker standards a few weeks ago.  That vote, while politically telling, can and was overturned by CARB.  To be clear, Southern California’s targets are an eight percent reduction by 2020 and a thirteen percent reduction at 2035 of yearly greenhouse gas emissions from the 2005 emission levels.

In a press release, ARB Board Mary Nichols explains how a state mandate to meet certain development goals can be both a carrot and a stick:

“These targets are ambitious, achievable and very good news for California communities.  Improved planning means cleaner air in our cities, less time stuck in your car, and healthier, more sustainable communities,” said ARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. “Cities that choose to develop Sustainable Communities Plans that meet these targets have an advantage when it comes to attracting the kinds of vibrant, healthy development that people want.”

Opponents of higher standards were energized early in the meeting when Ken Yeager, a Board Member from the Bay Area, took on the sprawl lobby and sharply criticized the Building Industry Association’s claims that setting these standards would cause gas prices to rise to $9 a gallon.  While this type of fear-mongering might work in the Inland Empire or Orange County, it fell flat in front of the CARB.

But now Southern California’s political leadership is faced with a challenge.  Remember, SCAG is the largest MPO in the country and represents Los Angeles County as well as Imperial, Orange, Riverside, Ventura and San Bernadino Counties.  There’s going to be a lot of negotiating to devise a plan that works for all of these areas and has a chance of meeting these goals.

That being said, a little personal responsibility could go a long way in reducing emissions.  A terrified op/ed in the San Diego Union Tribune does the math on what kind of changes people would have to make in their own transportation plans to reach San Diego’s emission reduction goals.  The Union-Tribune writer calls the measures to reach a 13% personal reduction, “harsh.”  Remember, achieving just one of them would allow a driver to meet their personal goal:

To achieve a 13 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, a motorist could do one of the following:

• Telecommute to work two days a month

• Carpool to work four days a month

• Bike or walk instead of driving 18 miles a week

• Take a bus instead of driving 21 miles a week.

As SCAG responds to last week’s CARB meeting, we’ll keep you posted.

6 thoughts on CARB Adopts Aggressive Targets to Meet State Greenhouse Gas Laws

  1. Emissions standards are so … meta. Wouldn’t it be more effective to use monitoring of emissions with a detailed analysis of a city’s traffic by counting the number of pedestrians, cyclists, and other modes of transit? With this data, you can set a benchmark for percentage of trips to be taken by a given mode, and direct roadway engineering and planning to design for those benchmarks. The emissions data should be secondary to mode split and other measurements to really be effective.

  2. Hey Damien–
    Minor point, but SCAG’s jurisdiction includes Ventura County, too. I know we can be easy to forget, but we are enthusiastic (well, most of us are) about reducing our county’s GHG emissions, and many of our jurisdictions are actively pursuing projects to help meet the new CARB goals (e.g. Ojai’s Complete Streets update, Ventura’s new parking standards). We’re not only strawberries and cows up here.

    Katie
    http://www.wherethesidewalkstarts.blogspot.com

  3. SCAG’s jurisdiction also includes Imperial County. This Fall SCAG will welcome its 190th member city. In case you are keeping score:

    United Nations: 192 Member States
    Southern California Association of Governments: 190 Member Cities

  4. I once heard that SCAG’s board has more voting members than the California assembly…that’s a pretty huge amount of perspectives to bring together.

    btw – it’s great to see LAC Metro support the higher targets last week – would be even better if they continued to demonstrate that leadership in person at SCAG meetings – most of them all are voting members of the SCAG board too – the urban cores of Southern CA will carry much of the GHG reductions – we need the urban leaders to be part of SCAG’s discussions – others on the SCAG board would likely benefit from hearing from them directly at the regional meetings.

  5. If we have anything more than a 17% increase of population during the time period we reduce emissions by 15% per capita.. we’ve gained nothing. Sadly, most of the efforts of “smart growth” seem to target increasing population density.. even above current zoning limits in the name of reducing emissions. Sounds like we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

    More things to consider:
    1) having people live close to work sounds great. In the real world, people change jobs every five years on average. Few move each time. At my job, everyone could afford to live closeby, but that would mean selling the house, uprooting kids, etc. We have folks commuting to Pasadena from Long Beach, Santa Monica, and as far away as Murrieta. Thankfully, I live 3 miles away and bike to work.

    2) pollution is harmful on a global scale, but more harmful on a local scale. We may be able to cut emissions in half by crunching people into one tenth the physical space. Global emissions down by 50%, local emissions up by 250%. Is that the right tradeoff?

    3) Density runs the risk of increasing congestion. Increasing congestion decreases efficiency, increases pollution, increases stress, decreases productivity, health, and quality of life. Traveling on a open road can take a fraction of the time and produce far fewer emissions that driving a much shorter distance in congestion. We need to be very careful how we implement all this…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Legislature Passes Groundbreaking Anti-Sprawl Measure

|
In addition to passing legislation authorizing Metro to begin a "Congestion Pricing" program and allowing Metro to place a half cent sales tax proposition on the fall ballot, the legislature also passed S. 375.  S. 375 is first of its kind legislation that ties land use patterns to emissions and penalizes cities and municipalities that […]

California Legislation Watch: Weekly Update

|
Here is Streetsblog’s weekly highlight of California legislation  related to sustainable transportation. Clean vehicles: S.B. 1204, Ricardo Lara (D-Huntington Park/Long Beach) and Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), which passed the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality on a 6-1 vote, was read for the first time in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill creates the California Clean […]
STREETSBLOG USA

California Debates Targets for Landmark Anti-Sprawl Bill

|
Photo: Mark Strozier As California’s big four metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) run models to determine how much they can influence California’s growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, significant questions remain. The state’s Senate Bill 375, typically referred to as the Anti-Sprawl Bill, requires that planners and policy makers develop meaningful solutions to reduce sprawl, reduce […]

What Happens to Transportation Reform if A.B. 32 Does Get Repealed?

|
What is California’s future? This? Or more cleaner air?. Photo: Kayveeinc/Flickr Last week, the New York Times broke the news that Texas based oil companies were funding the ballot initiative that would "temporarily" place the Greenhouse Gas reforms required by A.B. 32 on hold until California’s unemployment rate reached 5.5%.  When discussing the news with […]

Smart Growth Bill Needs Gov.’s Signature Today

|
Eastern Dublin, Where Growth Has Taken Place Rapidly Over Recent Years. The Sacramento Bee reports that Sacramento State Senator Darell Steinberg’s efforts to promote cleaner air through better planning are running out of time.  Steinberg’s ground breaking legislation, S.B. 375, directs the state Air Resources Board to set greenhouse gas reduction targets for each of […]