But outnumbered bill opponents, who in the House had tried to throw up every possible procedural roadblock to forestall a vote, resorted in the Senate to a highly unusual tactic – they didn’t come to work. That’s right: Oregon’s elected Senate representatives who oppose climate action didn’t show up on the Senate Floor this morning, thus depriving the body of a quorum and making a vote procedurally impossible. There are press reports that several  have scurried out of state to make it harder to compel them to return to do their jobs.

What on Earth are these Senators thinking?

The opponents of HB 2020 believe the bill will result in economic hardship for their constituents, but the performance of existing carbon pricing programs just doesn’t support that conclusion. The bill’s opponents know that neighboring California, with a much larger and more complex economy, enacted a similar program over a decade ago and the state’s still-booming economy has grown from the 8^th to the 5^th largest on the planet. Canadian provinces that have put a price on carbon are also thriving.

Climate change is already costing Oregon plenty

The great irony is that while HB 2020 won’t cause economic hardship, climate change already is. Oregon is already experiencing costly impacts that are only getting worse the longer governments shirk their responsibility and don’t take action. Scientists in support of this legislation warn that Oregon oyster nurseries and fisheries are facing serious risks from ocean acidification while rural and urban communities are already portending with increasing heat, droughts, floods, and wildfires. These impacts will continue to put economies and lives at risk.

Much of the debate in the Oregon House centered on the problems of rural Oregon. But climate change is impartial and nonpartisan: every corner of the state will be impacted. In particular, rural areas will be hard hit by the vulnerability of natural systems like forests and waterways to climate impacts.

Rather than watching their representatives duck out of their responsibilities in a move of calculated political theater, rural Oregonians need actual help for farms and forests to prepare for and manage climate change. If enacted, Oregon’s climate bill would create funds to directly help these communities adapt.

Don’t run away, do what is right

Climate change is impervious to partisan politics, belief systems, rhetoric, and spin. No one can or will escape climate impacts. Foes say that Oregon’s emissions reductions will not make a difference because the state is too small, but size hasn’t prevented over a hundred countries with economies smaller than Oregon’s, including Portugal, Greece, and New Zealand, from pledging to reduce their emissions under the Paris Accord. Why did they do this? Because it’s the right thing to do for a globally shared problem.

Yet these state Senators—at best misguided, at worst abetting a fossil fuel industry hanging on to every misdirection it can muster—are fleeing their constitutionally-mandated work. They need to stop running and start looking at the facts.

Oregon has an awful lot at stake. The entire nation—and the world—is watching. This small group of state Senators who choose not to do the jobs they were elected to do are betraying Oregon’s workers, families, and children.

For example, few issues have generated as much excitement for climate action as the Washington State carbon pricing initiative, I-1631.   This initiative, developed after a painstaking and highly inclusive planning process that has  garnered enthusiastic support from a large, diverse coalition of constituencies, would create a groundbreaking carbon fee on polluters that would be reinvested in Washington’s communities, businesses, and clean energy industries.  (UCS describes the initiative and how it would work in detail here.)  At a time when Washington DC is in retrograde motion on climate change, even after a summer when extreme heat, storms, and wildfires made more devastating by climate change have pummeled the nation and the world, the chance for state and regional progress on climate change in this election is not only a reason for hope but a possible harbinger of greater state and regional action to come.

And Washington carbon reductions matter.  Washington is already warming up, and is experiencing impacts associated with climate change including increasingly destructive wildfires, decreased water runoff from snowpack, and rising sea levels, all resulting in devastating impacts to people and property.   While opponents to I-1631, mostly out-of-state oil companies, claim that Washington can’t afford to price and reduce carbon emissions, the fact is that individuals, businesses, and taxpayers are already footing a very large bill for the damage done by global warming pollution and the price tag will continue to grow unless emissions can be dramatically reduced.

Big oil’s campaign of disinformation

The opposition has made I-1631 the most expensive initiative campaign in Washington history.  The six out-of-state oil companies that are financing 99% of the more than $30 million pouring into the state to defeat the measure have also mounted one of the most cynical disinformation campaigns I’ve ever seen, saying the measure unfairly “exempts” polluters!

The oil industry’s desperate tactic of campaigning against “polluters” is absurd on its face and gives an indication–along with their eye-popping electoral investment–of how desperate the industry is to not let this initiative happen.  The No campaign has been characterized by exaggerations and disinformation, including listing Latino business owners as opponents to the measure who actually support it. We’ve seen lies and disinformation from the western states oil industry many times before, as UCS has documented.

One issue that Big Oil is hammering on is the idea that the I-1631 polluter fee will cause gas prices to go way up.  The initiative will definitely cost the oil industry money, but whether drivers feels those increases at the pump is another matter, as California learned in 2015 when it put a carbon price on oil.  Big Oil promised in a huge PR campaign that the carbon price would cause California gasoline prices to spike, but instead prices actually decreased.  This was an important lesson–that because oil is a global commodity, local fees and taxes are limited in terms of influencing what you pay at the pump.  Far more important is what is happening to global supply and demand for oil (and by the way we can’t pump our way out of that situation domestically because the price of oil is set as a global commodity.)  Significant oil price spikes are often the result of events we can’t control, like global conflicts in oil producing regions, supply chain disruptions- sometimes caused by climate change-influenced extreme weather- and refinery shutdowns or accidents.

One way to protect ourselves from oil price increases that we can have some control over is reducing our demand for gasoline, using low-carbon and carbon-free transportation fuels and alternatives that reduce our need for petroleum-derived and other carbon-intensive fuel sources.  The kinds of measures that will help reduce carbon fuel demand are exactly the types of investments that can be funded by the polluter fees under I-1631–yet another reason that oil money is flowing to stop this measure.

Believe scientists, not oil companies

If it passes, Washington will be the second west coast state after California to put a price on carbon. In 2019 Oregon could become the third.  The combined carbon reduction influence of these three economic powerhouse states is enormous.  The three states combined are in the top five largest economies globally, so to claim, as opponents of I-1631 have, that Washington’s contribution to carbon emissions reductions under the initiative wouldn’t make a difference are not looking at the bigger picture.

Scientists have led the way on climate action for decades while the oil industry has stood in their way and drowned out their warnings. More than 200 of Washington’s scientists are asking us to vote yes on 1631. We must accept the facts about climate change and listen to their warnings, not the lies of the fossil fuel companies, or the myths they are promulgating about I-1631.

Scientists understand that Washington’s actions alone won’t prevent global warming but will contribute to both desperately needed emissions reductions in the United States and to momentum to the global movement to dramatically reduce emissions if we are to have a positive future. UCS urges Washington voters not to succumb to the negative and misleading propaganda of the oil industry, but to believe the science, choose hope over fear, and support I-1631.

Brown began the week by demonstrating that California is not resting on its impressive climate action laurels but significantly increasing its commitment to reducing emissions. I was lucky enough to attend the ceremony where Governor Brown signed SB 100, a bill that had taken its legislative author, State Senator Kevin de León (whose legislative tenure has been distinguished by successfully championing historic clean energy and climate action), a grueling two years to pass the state legislature.  SB 100 commits California to 60% renewable energy by 2030 (up from the current 50% requirement) and a goal of fully 100% clean electricity by 2045.  While we have much work to do to achieve this goal, we are now committed to a path toward a fully decarbonized electricity system.  I was proud to represent UCS’s incredible staff who made uniquely valuable contributions to this coalition effort to get the bill passed.

In a remarkable piece by NPR, UCS’s  energy analyst Laura Wisland talked about the many challenges that remain for California to achieve this goal, but it is clearly something we can do.  Thanks to over 15 years of previous renewable electricity and energy efficiency policies, electricity emissions now account for a relatively low 16% of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory. But the last emissions reductions will be the hardest to achieve. We will need to grapple with how to lower the vast amount of natural gas used to generate electricity and make room for cleaner, carbon-free sources of energy.  We also have a big challenge ahead to grapple with transportation and industrial emissions to meet ambitious state 2030  GHG reduction limits.  But in the last twelve years California has shown that it can succeed- ahead of schedule- in meeting carbon reduction goals while growing the state economy from the eighth to the fifth largest in the world, a feat that belies alarmists who say that reducing emissions will damage the  economy.

A surprise announcement of huge ambition

Coming at the end of Governor Brown’s remarkable 8-year tenure, the bill signing ceremony this week contained a surprise. With no fanfare or previous signaling of his intentions, Governor Brown included an additional action in the bill signing–a new executive order, B-55-18, that creates an economy-wide carbon neutrality goal for California by 2045.  He is directing the state to strive for net zero carbon emissions in less than 30 years. This must be done using a combination of zero-emission technologies to power the electric grid, transportation, homes, buildings and industries,  with other practices and technologies that sequester carbon, or take it out of the atmosphere.

This will require an extraordinary effort that will affect every Californian. The state will not only have to meet its ambitious new 100% clean electricity goal on top of its very ambitious 2030 statewide GHG reduction limit, but also virtually halt nearly all emissions in a mere 15 years after that, by 2045. Let’s take a moment to appreciate that goal.

For California to achieve net zero carbon emissions, it will require a staggering change to some of the basic elements driving our economy. California will need to eliminate the single biggest tranche of carbon emissions: those from the vehicles that transport people and goods across throughout the state.  This means electric vehicles powered by our clean electric grid for nearly everyone. It will require carbon-free fuels for industrial processes, hugely advanced efficiency in buildings and appliances, and likely the development of truly reliable forms of storing carbon in plants, soils, and geographic formations. As yet, no one has developed a real plan for how we could get to net zero emissions, and to do this successfully is a very tall order. David Roberts at Vox wrote this early analysis of the ins and outs of what could happen, including a warning that implementing net zero could include measures and policies that could be more symbolic than substantive.

But here’s the thing. Once the Governor of the nation’s most populous state, a serious and credible leader with a remarkably successful tenure over eight years, has made carbon neutrality the goal, then a lot of people may start take it seriously enough to figure out how to meet it. What Brown has done is to challenge us to think about what it would really take to get carbon emissions down fast enough and thoroughly enough to reduce the risks we are seeing multiply so rapidly, and help ensure a viable future, within three decades.  It is a huge undertaking.

A vision for the future, both audacious and necessary

A few cynics may argue that this is a non-binding announcement to help the Governor’s visibility for his San Francisco Global Climate Action Summit that is happening this week, but I believe that this order could have tremendous value. Executive Orders in California are part of state policy, even if they do not have the force of law. And whatever mix of reasons Brown had for doing this, he is sending a strong science-based message to the world –namely, that we need to reduce global warming pollution much further and faster than we previously thought to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It will be up to the next governor and the legislature to carry out Brown’s order. Luckily, California has good examples of turning Executive Orders into law.

So here is my unsolicited advice to California’s next Governor and the Legislature starting in 2019: 1) do the hard work of ensuring we get  to 100% clean energy by 2045 ; 2) start now on fully implementing  new regulations and laws that will rapidly take the carbon out of our transportation and industrial sectors to ensure we meet our 2030 goals to reduce ghgs to 40% below 1990 levels; 3) get our best minds in science and technology to work together to produce an economically sound blueprint that would get us to net zero by 2045; and 4) start to implement the next generation of policies that would get us to net zero.

California has shown that a world-class economy can reduce its carbon emissions rapidly while growing its economy. While we can’t guarantee that further decarbonization will go as smoothly, the on-going, accelerating, costly, and deadly destabilization of our climate is much too urgent a matter to approach timidly because of our fears. We owe a great deal to the leadership of people like State Senator Kevin De León and Governor Jerry Brown who have shown what is possible.  Neither will be serving as leaders in Sacramento after this year. It is now up to us to take their bold leadership and ensure that we succeed in making their visions real, and help provide examples and lessons to the nation and the world on how it can be done.

Washington has a lot at stake.  Climate change impacts including increased wildfires, drought, flooding, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and changes to agriculture threaten the state today, and will get much worse unless we take action.  

To prevent the worst impacts of climate change, Washington voters and legislators in recent years have considered – but not approved — binding carbon pollution limits and a price on carbon pollution. This year, a proposed ballot initiative measure, Initiative 1631 would create a fee for carbon polluters. It is sure to add to a robust and healthy nationwide discussion about what are the best policies to reduce carbon and prevent the worst impacts from climate change.   

Carbon pricing is a way to help incentivize reducing climate pollution while providing revenue to invest in clean energy and fuels and provide transition assistance to workers and communities. The initiative could show how state-level action can be a potent antidote to retrograde motion in DC.  

Past progress and approaches to pricing 

Washington state, like the entire West Coast, is a leader on forward-thinking climate policy with legislative targets for emission reductions, a greenhouse gas inventory of major emitters, and a Clean Air Rule adopted by the Inslee Administration. The state has not yet instituted an economy-wide carbon price but has considered two approaches previously. 

In 2016, Washington debated ballot initiative I732, a carbon tax measure that would have instituted a  carbon tax offset by a 1 percent cut in sales tax, a cut to manufacturing taxes, and a low-income tax credit.  I732 was intended to be revenue-neutral and to provide a progressive tax rebate. However, the initiative failed decisively at the polls after drafting errors came to light, and other controversies divided climate action supporters .  (UCS was neutral on the measure, for reasons we described here.) 

In 2017, the legislature considered a measure backed by Governor Jay Inslee, SB 6203 (Carlyle et al) that would have instituted price on fossil fuels that would rise gradually until 2035. The funds were to be used for carbon reduction measures, forestry, water improvements, low-income assistance, community investment, rural economic development, and utility rebates. The bill also exempted so-called “energy intensive, trade exposed” (EITE) industries that could be economic disadvantaged by competition from out-of-state entities not subject to a carbon fee. Despite diverse support from Washington business, labor, environmental, and social justice groups (and thanks to opposition from some industrial, business, and agricultural entities) the bill didn’t advance to a floor vote, in part because 2017 was a short, two-month session that didn’t allow sufficient time to consider the complexity of the measure.   

And now a unified proposal from a broad coalition 

While the other measures were being debated, a coalition of environmental, environmental justice, business, labor, tribal, public health, faith and other groups under the banner of the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, has been hard at work finding common ground on climate policy. Now, the group has introduced initiative 1631 that incorporates both a polluter-pays carbon fee starting at $15 per ton of CO2 in 2020 and an investment plan for clean energy, forests, water, and healthy communities.  

The initiative provides exemptions for certain EITEs and provides rebates to utilities while investing heavily in job assistance for displaced fossil fuel workers and also in tribal and low-income areas. The fee is increased at a rate of $2 per year plus inflation to an estimated level of about $55 and stays at that level if the state is on track to meet its 2035 emissions reduction target of 25 percent below 1990 levels.   

The unique design of this carbon fee was arrived at after intensive consultation among many Washington communities, businesses, and groups.  It differs from California’s cap and trade program, British Columbia’s carbon tax, and Oregon’s proposed carbon cap and invest policy (similar to California’s, to be taken up in the 2019 legislative session.)  

The fact that different jurisdictions are looking at different approaches towards carbon pricing shows that there is latitude among pricing design to meet local needs and conditions. Some programs, like California’s that is linked to Ontario and Quebec, are designed to encourage participation from other jurisdictions, in part to lower costs. Washington’s program would not link out of state, but would provide a level of price certainty in the fee structure that other programs do not have.   

For our future, the most expensive thing we can do is nothing 

Despite the hard work of a large group of interests who have found a common vision for carbon pricing in Washington, I 1631 is certain to generate intense opposition from the fossil fuel industry and their allies.  They will invoke the usual pieties about how yes, climate change is real, but this approach is all wrong.  They will say that it’s bad for the economy. Of course oil producers and other fossil fuel interests do not want to help the state transition away from their products and the harm they cause.  The fact is that carbon prices are features of several state and national economies, including British Columbia and California, that are thriving. 

While carbon pricing is not the only approach to reducing emissions, it does start to internalize the costs of climate pollution and make the needed investments for a safer, healthier future.  UCS has long supported carbon pricing and we recognize that there are different advantages to different approaches, along with numerous economic benefits.  The greater threats to our economy, not to mention our well-being, are climate change-related impacts that are already costing billions of dollars, devastation of property and the environment, and loss of life.  In fact, the most expensive thing we can do is nothing.    

***

The hills on the east side of the San Francisco Bay are a lush, perfect green at this time of year. I drink them in greedily during my daily commute to and from work. Especially because, like any Californian, I know that this greenness will leave with the wet season.

As climate change transforms the water landscape for our state, the greenery feels particularly precious. A new paper out of UCLA’s Institute for Environment and Sustainability today suggests that volatility in California’s water resources is only going to get worse. Its findings drove home for me how much smarter we need to get about managing climate change impacts on water in California.

Water whiplash

Climate change is not just a slow and steady trend affecting water conditions in our state. One of the key findings of the paper led by Dr. Daniel Swain, is that “precipitation whiplash” – a rapid transition from very dry conditions to very wet conditions – is likely to increase with climate change.

Why does this matter? This kind of whiplash is exactly what we’ve experienced over the last few years. We’ve transitioned from the worst drought in California’s recorded history to two wet seasons that produced around $1 billion in flood-related damage and repairs. These projections could mean an increase in extreme wildfire risk and weakened, dried-out soil followed by extreme rainfall and runoff events—the perfect storm of ingredients to produce mudslides like the ones that devastated Montecito earlier this year.

Simulations in this new paper also indicate that, between now and 2060, almost the entire state has at least a 66.6% chance of experience a precipitation event like the one that created the 1862 California flood, which transformed the Central Valley into an inland lake. This means that in the next 40 years, our largest urban centers are more likely than not to experience unprecedented flood events that our modern water management systems and infrastructure have never before had to deal with.

Climate change means more than a change in averages

This paper is especially important because it quantifies climate change impacts on California precipitation—like precipitation whiplash and extremes—that really matter for water management. As long as we keep only planning for averages, we won’t be managing many of the catastrophic risks that climate change creates for water management in California.

In Swain and his coauthors’ simulations, the tripling of extreme precipitation risk, sharp increases in precipitation whiplash, and uptick in extreme dry seasons happen even while average precipitation barely changes. Plus, their projections show a strong shortening of the wet winter season and expansion of the dry summer season statewide. That could create a need for more water storage to bridge between the wet and dry seasons, even without a change in the total amount of water we get each year.

We have a very long way to go to adequately plan and build a safe and reliable water system for the reality of how climate change will impact our water resources and infrastructure.  Studies like this one and others that have come out over the past several years highlight that we have to fundamentally transform how we think about the role of climate in water management in California. Climate change’s influence on the character of California’s water is complicated, but the more of that complexity we integrate into our decision-making, the more likely we are to develop management strategies that avoid the worst outcomes. Luckily, papers like this one show that we have the science to do so.

***

Geeta’s reflections highlight the need to accelerate and intensify work that has recently begun in California. We are just at the beginning of figuring out how to manage water for changing climatic conditions.  Since 2015, UCS has been highlighting the problems of how our current infrastructure is not built for increased drought and flooding in conjunction with more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. We also have shown that climate change is highlighting the critical importance of increased groundwater management to meet our needs. The UCLA report’s findings on the increase in extreme events further underscores the urgent need for change.

Our highly-engineered water systems in the western states is built for a seasonal regime that is fast disappearing. It is designed to store melting snowpack in the spring for farms and cities to use in the summer and fall. As in the drought of 2012-2016, we can no longer count on sufficient precipitation and snowpack to store sufficient water in dry years. Furthermore, during the last two wet years we found that our systems were in some cases inadequate to deal with some extreme events, most dramatically demonstrated by the near-failure of Oroville Dam in February 2017.

Rethinking how we build for a new normal of extremes

The need to change how we build and manage water infrastructure is only one example of how we need to think differently about the built environment now that dramatic changes from a warming world are taking hold. Yet few of the people who are responsible for how we build roads, dams, canals, bridges, and buildings know what to do with the science that is emerging. That is why UCS sponsored legislation in 2016, AB 2800 (Quirk) to bring scientists and engineers together  to come up with recommendations (due to be released late this summer) on how science can better inform our building decisions.

Global warming is going to necessitate a wholesale re-thinking of how we approach building and maintaining our communities far into the future. Translating science to a form that can be used by engineers and architects is only one facet of the problem, however. It will require we rethink about everything from updating building codes and standards, to improving coordination between local, state, and federal levels of government, to approaching cost/benefit calculations of projects with climate change factors included, to fixing chronic underinvestment in disadvantaged communities so that they can better deal with future challenges.

A future of “whiplash” weather in California is but a microcosm, and a warning for much more uncertain and hazardous conditions as the world gets warmer. We are fortunate that science is improving our ability to forecast these changes, but we need policies and programs to make changes based on what we are learning. Time is very short: this is now a problem of our present, not our future.

After a four-year drought from 2013 to 2016 and an unprecedented rainy winter in 2017, I’m hoping for a normal winter and not another year of water rationing, land subsidence, dead or dying forests, flooding, infrastructure failures, or transportation disruptions.

The Great Water Supply Shift

But with climate change upon us, nothing is normal anymore. (UCS has discussed the issue of the changing paradigm for water management with climate change here, here, and here.) One thing we have learned in the last few years of “new normal” conditions is that we can no longer rely on past precipitation patterns to predict reliable water supplies for our future.

One way in which California’s water management is changing is our increased reliance on groundwater, in part because groundwater has traditionally been the state’s fallback when surface water has been in short supply. But during the drought, decreased precipitation and temperatures were so extreme that several groundwater basins wells were pumped literally dry, and in some areas pumped so much water out of the ground that the land above the basins subsided (or sank) several feet, causing damage to roads, bridges, and canals on the surface.

In 2014 during the height of the drought, California lawmakers were forced to grapple with the fact that extreme drought was putting unsustainable pressures on state groundwater basins, and passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

SGMA requires active governance of groundwater basins in the state and says water managers must set “measurable objectives” in their plans to achieve “the sustainability goal for the basin.” One of the great challenges now is that water managers must create new groundwater basin plans at a time when they can no longer rely on yesterday’s climate to manage future water conditions. Instead, they must rely much more on scientific and quantitative tools, like climate models, to understand the kinds of conditions we could be facing over the next decades.

Report Shines a Light on Much-Needed Changes

Researchers and scientists at UCS and the Stanford Law and Policy Lab released a report today that says much more needs to be done to ensure adequate groundwater management, and, by extension, overall water management in an era of rapid climate change.

The report found nearly half of the 24 groundwater plans analyzed did not include the kind of quantitative analysis of climate change required by the state.

The researchers also found that state and federal water delivery projections that local agencies rely upon to make water management decisions are inconsistent and therefore confusing to use. They found that too often models were used inappropriately or with unreliable assumptions. For example, many agencies were not using a range of climate data but relying on “moderate” scenarios to plan—a bit like planning for a “moderate” earthquake rather than the maximum force that can result in damage to life and property.

The problem unstated in water circles is that many water managers are well into their careers and are unlikely to have had formal training in climate science or how climate is affecting precipitation and water supplies. Consultants who they rely on may not have training or incentives to do climate science well.

Many water managers are doing their best to cope with often imprecise state guidelines and conflicting information on climate science, especially when they may not have enough information to even know what kinds of questions they should be asking. Right now local water managers have no requirements or real regulatory guidance to understand or engage with climate science.

But that should not be an excuse to do nothing. A hallmark of our era is change that requires people to master new skills and information- for example, a car mechanic today needs to understand how to deal with complex electronics which wasn’t true in the past. Learning new information and skills should not be the barrier to good management.   The report also provides guidance for how and under what circumstances water managers should use particular climate models—a necessary and important start, but the challenge we face requires much more effort and resources to be met effectively.

Wanted: Support For Science

To ensure we have planned for the uncertainties of a changing climate, state water managers should be provided with, trained in, and encouraged to use the kinds of science and tools that will ensure a state with a world-class economy can cope with adequate water supplies under changing climate conditions. Anyone who lived through the last five years in California, when ultra-dry and ultra-wet conditions had widespread impacts on our lives, understands that living with extremes is not easy. But we have no choice. We must learn to cope more effectively with much more difficult conditions if we are to adapt successfully.

Of course, UCS will fight hard any actions to reverse progress on climate change and we will also continue to work for further progress. But unfortunately, it looks like we’re heading into an era when climate action at the federal level will be on the defensive. Does this mean the end of U.S. climate action for the foreseeable future?

No way, would be my answer.  There’s a great deal that can be and is being done by states, regions, and cities to aggressively decarbonize our economy, notably our energy and transportation systems that are the source of the majority of emissions, and these actions can be very far-reaching indeed.

As has been true for well over the last decade, some of the most comprehensive and aggressive climate action is being taken by California, currently the world’s sixth largest economy.  California is not alone, as Oregon and Washington made impressive progress to address climate change last year and are poised to do more, and the three west coast states together could well be on the verge of creating a strong, prosperous regional bulwark in the national struggle to address climate change. I will address the actions and opportunities in the Pacific Northwest in future blogs.

A New Roadmap for Deep Decarbonization

Governor Jerry Brown signs SB 32 and AB 197 into law, adopting the nation’s strongest carbon emissions reductions in the country, surrounded by SB 32 bill author state Senator Fran Pavley and AB 197 author Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia and other legislators.

In 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown created an executive order  to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and last year the State Legislature passed a pair of bills, SB 32 (Pavley) and AB 197 (E. Garcia) that Governor Brown signed in September 2016, giving those targets the force of law.  And now, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is about to publish the roadmap to guide California on how it will achieve and enforce those reductions.

This roadmap, called the 2030 Target Scoping Plan, covers the entire economy and includes specific sectors like energy, transportation, water, agriculture, and manufacturing.  The 2030 Target Scoping Plan is enormous in its range and ambition, building on the success of California’s previous law to reduce global warming pollution emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal that the state is currently on track to achieve.

The 2030 Scoping Plan lays out a future where the state is powered largely by clean renewable energy, transported by electric vehicles and fueled by low-carbon and non-fossil alternatives to oil-based fuels, and where energy efficiency and sustainable water management reduce greenhouse gas emissions while saving consumers money.  It ramps up requirements for the dirtiest emitters, and recommends a price on carbon (a continuation of the state’s cap-and-trade program) to help achieve some of the most difficult and expensive reductions at lower cost.  And it seeks to ensure that frontline communities that have already suffered a disproportionate burden from pollution get cleaner air and tools they need to meet the threats posed by climate change.

Reducing Emissions and Growing the Economy

These are the kinds of big-picture approaches the entire country and the world will need in order to tackle climate change. Having California – with a very large and complex economy and diverse population – demonstrate successful climate action is both timely and sorely needed.  Since passing its first economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction law in 2006, the state has already proven climate naysayers, who frequently oppose climate action with dire predictions of economic catastrophe, completely wrong by demonstrating that emissions can be reduced while growing the economy.

The last few years have seen disturbing signs of a dangerously changing climate, including record-breaking annual temperatures, wildfires destroying millions of acres of forests, extreme drought like the one in California, and increasingly rapid melting Arctic and Antarctic ice, which could trigger dangerous rates of sea level rise and other dire consequences for the planet.  Climate change is occurring faster than some had predicted, and it is already destroying lives and property, fueling wars and civil discord, and putting severe stress on local and national economies.  So the actions that California takes– bold, ambitious, and transformative– are necessary. The lessons we learn from paving the road to a cleaner, healthier, more sustainable, economy that lowers risk from climate change will have benefits far beyond the state’s borders.

Stay Tuned for Progress and Pushback

Of course, in such a large plan the devil is in the details, and with such a vast undertaking there are always improvements that can be made.  UCS has sent our comments on the 2030 Scoping Plan draft to the Air Resources Board in December describing ways the draft version of the plan could be strengthened to ensure California reduces emissions and builds resilience. My UCS colleagues Laura Wisland and Don Anair with expertise in specific sectors are also writing blogs describing our vision for achieving California’s climate goals by 2030 through a clean electricity grid and better transportation.

And, as usual, we will also need to work hard to thwart the inevitable pushback from opponents of climate action, especially those in the fossil fuel industry who are profiting from the status quo.  UCS will keep you apprised of when and where we need to stand up to those efforts.

We Must Seize the Moment to Achieve a Better Future

California’s climate goals present an opportunity to build a low-carbon economy that supports growth and innovation, enhances our health and quality of life, and lifts up disadvantaged communities that have suffered the most from the legacy of pollution. We now have a roadmap — it’s time to get moving. And we hope this roadmap can help inspire new journeys in other states, regions, and cities all over the nation for how we can make real and significant progress, regardless of what happens in Washington, DC.

In the last weeks of August, in a come-from-behind win, California passed SB 32 (Pavley) and a companion bill, AB 197 (Garcia). SB 32 extends AB 32—the highly successful state climate law passed ten years ago (details here)—and sets an aggressive new standard of lowering emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. It also places an emphasis on communities most affected by climate impacts and on putting new conditions on regulators.

As Governor Brown signed into law these and other bills related to climate into law, a diverse group of climate action advocates celebrated, while a sense of shock rippled through the oil industry. (Learn more about both reactions.)

While the headlines have focused on the state’s ambitious new goals to lower our global warming pollution—and with good reason—Governor Brown  signed into law other bills that will create tangible steps needed to achieve the state’s targets and address the risks of climate change.

Shortly after SB 32 passed, the Legislature also passed two Union of Concerned Scientists-led bills that the governor also signed. One law (AB 2800-Quirk) will help make California safer by engineering our key infrastructure—roads, bridges, buildings, water systems—to better withstand climate change impacts. The second law establishes the first-ever registry for tracking the global warming emissions from water agencies and large water users (SB 1425 – Pavley).

California seems to pass climate action laws on a regular basis, but the scale and ambition of the laws passed set this year far apart, particularly because it wasn’t supposed to happen.

Press reports as late as August cast doubt on the ability of the Legislature to pass aggressive new climate laws thanks to big money from oil and other interests in this year’s election. Not only did these bills pass, but they all received at least one Republican vote, and AB 2800 got 13 Republican votes—just shy of one third of all Republicans in the legislature.

So what happened here?  Are there lessons that others can learn from California’s victories this year?

New climate targets won with teamwork, transparency, and leadership

In terms of setting aggressive new climate targets with SB 32 and AB 197, there were three elements that I think made the difference:

1. Diverse groups all put aside differences and worked hard together.

The groups who banded together in the last weeks of session included low-carbon fuel and energy businesses, environmental justice and social justice groups, faith communities, and climate activist NGOs including science, public health, and environmental groups, who put aside petty differences and focusing on a win for all.

In particular, joining the EJ-backed AB 197 with the climate-focused SB 32 created an alliance of all the groups working together for the same package. Combining grassroots support from so many sectors made it hard for legislators to ignore.

We coordinated daily in the last week of session to count votes and target members, shared information with each other and with legislators about how much individual districts and the state as a whole have benefited from current climate laws, and highlighted the urgent need for more action.

Public support—which polls showed strongly supported climate action this year—was crucial, and tens of thousands of emails, phone calls, posts, tweets, and constituent visits were made by people from all across California.

Everyone showed up and lobbied hard, and in the end we had the facts, the passion, and the support base among Californians that competed successfully with the big money.

None of us could have done it alone, but together we won.

2. The media and the public were watching.

One of the most important things our coalition did (and I’m proud that UCS played a big part in this) was to help interest major news outlets in writing editorials in support of these bills.

We did this by sending them information on the success of our ten-year-old law, AB 32, in reducing emissions while growing the economy; and by highlighting the urgent need to go much further and the danger to current and future low-carbon investments if we hesitated.

Five of the major dailies in California, including the LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and San Jose Mercury News, published editorials in favor of passage, and among other things they emphasized both the economic advantages of going further and the fact that the public supported these policies. And the press kept the pressure up, turning these bills into front page news, letting elected members know that their votes would be watched.

It turns out that in an election year, many members would rather be seen as champions for clean energy, public health, and our children’s future than as champions for Big Oil. Knowing that the public and press were watching made a difference.

3. Leadership united in support.

It took a bit of a nudge, but in the end Governor Jerry Brown and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon went all-in on getting these bills passed, joining Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León who had never faltered in championing these bills throughout the session.

United leadership had a strong influence and created momentum that in the end helped bring the bills over the top despite initial strong resistance from some oil-friendly legislators among the Democrats.

So in the end old-fashioned coalition teamwork, shining a bright light on elected members, and courageous leadership were able to defeat big money in politics. This doesn’t happen every day, but our efforts this year showed that sometimes it can work.

Building broad support to prepare for climate impacts

Other lessons were learned in passing UCS-led bills AB 2800 and SB 1425, both of which address the urgent need to better prepare for climate change and its impacts.

Both of these bills, especially AB 2800, received bipartisan support. We helped create a big tent of support by being willing to work incrementally, by appealing to values like saving public money, and by focusing on issues like public safety.

All smiles in the state capitol as climate legislation passes. Photo: Adrienne Alvord

Rather than focusing on issues that divide, these bills provide examples of ways to talk about and work on climate action that can unite diverse interests—from engineers and architects to organized labor and water users—in an understanding of actions we need to take to ensure a resilient future.

We still have plenty of divisions and work to do, but as we learn more about what resonates we have a better chance of crafting solutions that generate support across the board.

In a year when sensationalism and divisiveness seemed to rule our political lives, the success of new and ambitious climate policies in California should be a beacon of hope.

The standards we set will be difficult to reach, and of course we can expect a concerted campaign next year to push back on these wins, as is always the case. But in 2016 we prevailed against the odds in California, and perhaps some of the ways in which we were able to move forward can be replicated in other states and beyond. Isn’t it worth a try?

This pioneering target was considered especially daunting for the nation’s most populous state with its very large, complex, car-dependent economy, a state that was already considered a leader in clean, efficient energy use. How could such a big state that was already “cleaner” than most of the rest of the country achieve such ambitious targets without starving its economy? That was the fundamental question back in 2006.

The numbers then and now

A decade later seems like a good time to look back at where we were then and where we are now, and to provide some insight into how a state with a nation-sized economy—recently ranked the 6^th largest in the world—is managing at the same time it is supposed to be reducing climate pollution.

Fundamentally, California’s experience is a robust test case on whether it is possible to have a healthy economy while systematically and significantly lowering emissions from dirty fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal).

Here are some California statistics for comparison between 2006, when AB 32 passed, and today:

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

Then: $2.19 trillion (2006)

Now: $2.46 trillion (2015)

Change: + 12.4%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) By State. (Note: 2015 GDP is in 2015 dollars. 2006 GDP was derived by converting real GDP in chained 2009 dollars to 2015 dollars based on the ratio of 2015 current-dollar GDP to 2009 chained-dollar GDP.)

POPULATION

Then: 36.46 million (2006)

Now: 39.14 million (2015)

Change: + 7.4%

Source: United States Census Bureau. State Characteristics: Vintage 2015; United States Census Bureau. Vintage 2006: National Tables.

PETROLEUM CONSUMPTION

Then: 330 million barrels crude oil (2006)

Now: 282 million barrels crude oil (2014)

Change: – 14.3%

Energy Information Administration. 2015. State energy data systems (SEDS): 1960-2014. Table CT2: Primary energy consumption estimates, 1960-2014, California.

GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS

Then: 476.5 million tons CO₂e* (2006)

Now: 441.5 million tons CO₂e (2014)

(Target: 431 million tons CO₂e by 2020)

Change: – 7.3%

* CO₂e = carbon dioxide equivalent

Source: California Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory.

EMPLOYMENT

Then: 16,744,724 (May 2006)

Now: 18,081,724 (May 2016)

Change: + 7.8%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION

Then: 263,000 GWh** (2006)

Now: 259,000 GWh (2015)

Change: – 1.5%

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Utility Sales and Revenue–EIA-826 detailed data file.

** GWh = gigawatt hours

What these numbers show

These numbers show that not only is California on track to meet its emissions reduction goals, but that it is doing so when its overall economy is growing at a healthy pace—especially since the figures include the period of 2008-2011 when California, like the US and much of the world, experienced a severe economic contraction due to the mortgage debt crisis.

More recently, California has been growing faster than the rest of the country, and tied Oregon for the state with #1 growth rate in 2015. The numbers show that job growth is keeping pace with population growth at the same time that California is reducing electricity consumption while dramatically lowering oil consumption.

I can’t claim to be an objective bystander to all of this, as I staffed AB 32 for author Fran Pavley (then Assembly Member, now State Senator), and it took our office along with Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez and many supporters two years of hard work and plenty of knocks to get it passed. For those of us who were in the trenches back in 2006, the results are gratifying and speak for themselves—we have achieved a significant milestone. But this is not how some folks predicted it would work out.

Doom predicted, boom resulted

In 2006 a group of fossil fuel and big business interests formed a group they called Sustainable Economy and Environment California (SEECalifornia) that launched an aggressive lobbying and PR campaign to oppose AB 32. Citing an economic study they paid for to predict economic catastrophe for California if AB 32 were enacted, SEECalifornia published an advertisement in the Sacramento Bee in June 2006 entitled “Truth and Consequences of Assembly Bill 32,” in which they predicted “painful consequences” including job losses, reduced investment, and energy rationing among other things.

“There’s no way to get to the targets except by stopping the use of energy,” said a manufacturer’s association representative in a Los Angeles Times report from June 2006. The same article quoted economist Margo Thorning who wrote SEECalifornia’s report: “It (AB 32) really would practically shut the state down.”

Of course, that’s not at all what happened. But the truth has never stopped the oil industry and its allies from trying to deceive the public about climate change. So it’s no surprise that 10 years later a similar group of special interests is opposing a new bill, SB 32 (Pavley), which would extend and strengthen AB 32’s low-carbon targets, using similar arguments threatening economic doom. If anything, their rhetoric has become even more over-heated and dishonest, particularly on the part of the oil industry, as I wrote about last year when California was debating another landmark bill to dramatically increase clean energy and efficiency and reduce oil consumption by half.

This year we have already seen a torrent of lobbying and enormous campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests to elected legislators and candidates intended to have a chilling effect on efforts to go further with SB 32 this year. But experience is on our side, if people are willing to look at the facts. I will be writing in coming weeks on how and why we got to where we are over the last 10 years and the compelling need to go much further.

For now, the bottom line is that an aggressive economy-wide reduction in global warming pollution is taking place at the same time that California is showing impressive—some say “booming”—economic growth. In a season of seemingly relentless bad news—civil violence, fires and floods, political craziness, zika virus—this is especially good news. But this information is rarely discussed in the media, since it’s been a slow-moving evolution rather than a singular, dramatic event.

AB32’s success is a story encompassing many developments working together over time, and it is hard to describe as a single solution. But it is important that people know about California’s effective climate policies because they set a vital example for the rest of the country and much of the world. AB 32, 10 years later, also demonstrates to Californians that we can prosper and grow while we go further to accomplish real—and urgently needed—reductions in the pollution causing global warming.

Even better news is that the report, Half the Oil: Pathways to Reduce Petroleum Use on the West Coast, shows the main measures to reduce petroleum use are the same ones we have now, but accelerated and intensified. These include better vehicle efficiency, more use of alternative fuels- especially electric vehicles- and better local transportation planning and transit options.

We don’t need a lot of fancy new technologies or breakthrough inventions to dramatically reduce our need for oil, not to mention help decarbonize our transportation sector. California has a head-start on this progress, with policies today that when fully implemented will reduce petroleum use 24%. Existing measures in Washington and Oregon already reduce petroleum use by 8% by 2030, so all three states have a strong start.

Data, not deception

The analysis showing that we can cut petroleum reduction in half in a region of almost 50 million people puts the lie to oil industry claims that it can’t be done.

Last year when California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin De León introduced legislation (attempting to codify an administrative goal set by Governor Jerry Brown) that would reduce in-state petroleum consumption by half by 2030, the oil industry responded by saying, “A mandate to reduce petroleum consumption by 50 percent is an impossibly unrealistic goal.” (Western States Petroleum Association press release, February 10, 2015)

The oil industry then launched a huge campaign of misdirection, claiming that reducing oil use 50% would have to be accomplished by restricting driving, rationing gasoline, imposing penalties on vans and SUVs—anything they could think of. Given the decades of deception that UCS and others have uncovered on the part of oil companies such as ExxonMobil, it probably shouldn’t be surprising that scare tactics were used to score a win rather than facts and data.

But the data bears us out—half the oil is within our grasp. What we need now is continued strong leadership from the governors in all three states and beyond, who can seize opportunities this year and in coming years to promote, defend, and strengthen policies that help us reduce oil use. We also need not just strong and vocal public support for strong state and federal policies, but demand for very low-carbon transportation products and services- electric vehicles, very low-carbon liquid fuels, improved public transportation, and increased fuel efficiency among other things.

One catastrophe away

At a time when oil prices have collapsed worldwide, some may think it harder than ever to generate support for low-carbon transportation. But if recent history is any guide, the economic circumstances that are driving prices down will be temporary.

And it’s not just the economy that may change things—recent history also shows that we are only a single extreme weather event, geopolitical conflict, refinery explosion, or other catastrophe away from yet another spike in oil prices. And then of course there are the costs of dirty air, polluted waterways, respiratory disease and cancer, and increasingly disruptive extreme weather events spurred by global warming. The oil industry succeeded temporarily last year in pushing back California’s first attempt to codify a goal to halve our oil use. But the case for not only why we should, but how we could, achieve half the oil is getting ever stronger and more self-evident.

We have a roadmap to a better way—we should follow it.

Fracking in California’s Inglewood Oil Field. Photo: LA County

SB 350, signed into law by Governor Brown last month, increases California’s renewable energy requirements to 50% and doubles the state’s energy efficiency. The bill passed handily, with over 60% of the vote in both houses, so it counts as a landmark win for clean energy. Unfortunately, a section that would have directed state regulators to cut petroleum use 50% by 2030 had to be stripped out to pass the bill. It was widely reported that business friendly Democrats, many of whom were beneficiaries of oil company largesse, joined with Republican members to force the oil provisions out. So it’s not surprising to see record-breaking lobbying expenditures during the last stretch of the legislative session by the Western States Petroleum Association and companies including Chevron, Valero and Exxon Mobil.

Unfortunately, money talks, and in this case it spoke very loudly.

A Good Year for Lobbyists, But Not for Big Oil

Unless you are an oil company lobbyist, it has not been the best year to be in the oil business. Third-quarter profit statements last week showed a significant revenue drop for many oil companies due to lower oil prices. The New York Times reported that the oil sector has laid off 200,000 people, and California- based Chevron said it will lay off up to 7,000 workers, or 11% of its workforce, after announcing a 64% drop in profits for the third quarter.

Demand for oil has dropped worldwide, challenging the profitability of the boom in so-called “tight oil” from tar sands to fracking, which tends to be more energy-intensive and expensive to produce. But it’s not just slowing economies in China and the European Union that are causing the oil glut. Demand has leveled off and is declining in the U.S. even as the economy has been growing. In California we are set to reduce our petroleum use by almost 25% even without the oil-reduction target in SB 350. The combination of more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels like electricity and biofuels, and better transportation planning and transit options are having a significant impact on our oil use, and our need for petroleum fuel is decreasing even as our economy is growing. Many analysts see this as a long-term trend, though lower gas prices may increase demand over time.

Time To Rethink?

It’s interesting that just as oil company profits are taking a nosedive, West Coast oil interests are seriously increasing their investment in influencing legislative votes as well as trying to sway public opinion, doubling down on the idea that people should have more and more oil, when we actually are needing it less and less. (For example, oil money is behind the establishment of a website called Powering California, which invites us to view their unintentionally hilarious notion of what “A Day Without Oil” would look like — a sort of “better living through petroleum” idea.)

Imagine if oil companies had used the combined $130 million dollars they’ve spent to influence legislators in the past 10 years on something positive? For example, instead of selling off their clean energy businesses a few years ago, what if they’d chosen to invest more in renewable energy? They might be hiring workers instead of letting them go. Or how about investing in refinery safety, using the money that investigations say was sorely needed to upgrade systems? Perhaps that would have avoided serious accidents at the Chevron plant in Richmond in 2012 and at Exxon’s Torrance refinery this year that caused injuries, pollution, and a spike in gasoline prices.

But for now, it seems that oil companies want to spend their money on politics rather than progress. And all indications are that we can look forward to more of the same on the West Coast in the coming year. The oil industry up to now has not shown that it is serious about addressing climate change, and continues to resist the policies that we need to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. It’s time for Big Oil to pay attention to scientific evidence, consumer trends and other industry leaders who say now is the time to create business models that move us beyond our damaging reliance on fossil fuels to a future of clean energy.

Featured photo by Richard Masoner.

All over California, people are receiving very expensive-looking full-color, multi-page mailers and being subjected to radio spots announcing something called the California Gas Restriction Act of 2015. These turn out to be part of a massive and highly dishonest oil company campaign denouncing one of the best and most exciting bills that has been considered by the California legislature in a decade. The bill, SB 350 (De León-Leno), is actually titled the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 and what it actually does is increase California’s share of electricity from renewable sources to 50%, increase building energy efficiency 50%, and cut California’s use of oil in half through programs that enable a combination of new technologies, vehicle efficiency, and better planning.

But you wouldn’t have any idea of this from the oil company ad campaign—one of the most extreme examples of fossil fuel-interest misinformation I’ve ever seen. State voters are being bombarded with this deceptive information through a huge, multi-million dollar PR campaign that has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with protecting oil company revenue, as the campaign is focused entirely on the petroleum use reduction provisions of the legislation.

Photo: Pete Markham

An oil company front group

The ostensible source of this barrage is the “California Drivers Alliance” but the fine print reveals that the source is actually something called WSPA. For those of you who may not have heard, WSPA (pronounced “wiss-puh”) is the Western States Petroleum Association, the main oil industry lobbying arm in the western United States. The “California Driver’s Alliance” is one of their many well-documented astroturf groups that have been littering mailboxes and air waves in the western states for several years now with scare-tactics on how climate policies like cleaner fuels and vehicles are going to be the ruin of the economy.

Last year, for example, “California Drivers Alliance” had another campaign they called “Stop the Hidden Gas Tax”. Their 2014 pitch to state motorists was that on January 1^st, 2015, when transportation fuels began to be subject to cap provisions of California’s climate law, gas prices would go up as much as 76 cents per gallon. They used this claim to try, unsuccessfully in the end, to persuade the Legislature to roll back implementation of the fuel carbon cap. In fact, January 1^st came and went, fuels went under the cap, and gas prices actually went down, due to both too much supply and too little demand on a global level.

Well, now the oil industry’s “California Drivers Alliance” is back and on the warpath against SB 350. They have developed a new, and even more dishonest, set of claims and scare tactics to fight this legislation, claiming that the bill will give a state agency the authority to ration gas, restrict driving, impose fines on minivans, monitor driving habits, and other claims that have no basis in fact but are intended to stir up fear and paranoia. Clearly the goal is to make voters sufficiently alarmed by this hail of misleading and just plain false information to pressure lawmakers to reject SB 350’s much-needed policies to reduce carbon pollution along with our use of price-volatile oil.

To be absolutely clear, the state does not have the authority to implement any of these “big brother” policies that WSPA is claiming, and SB 350 doesn’t give the state this authority—but that hasn’t stopped WSPA from making up their own “facts”, including a new title for the bill.

Reducing oil demand, lowering prices

The real impact of the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 will be to strengthen and accelerate clean transportation technologies and policies we already have: electric vehicles, low-carbon fuels, vehicle efficiency, and better transportation planning. These strategies have proven very successful in reducing our demand for oil and creating a suite of cleaner, money-saving vehicle and transportation options that reduce pollution, vehicle operating costs, and consumption of fossil fuels.

This is good for both public health and people’s pocketbooks—UCS research has already shown how these policies are saving consumers money now and will save more in the future. At the same time, gasoline demand has been fairly flat over the past decade and is projected to go down over the next decade, in large part thanks to the combination of clean transportation measures we have in place that would be increased and accelerated under SB 350. Lowering demand will create more downward pressure on gasoline prices. No wonder the oil industry is resorting to a no-holds-barred strategy—these policies are costing them real money!

So, in the end, the simple truth that explains all of WSPA’s lies about SB 350 is that the legislation, while good for people, is bad for oil companies.

The WSPA campaign is very aggressive, and some lawmakers are getting nervous. We need to fight back, and hard. We need to let our lawmakers know that we are not fooled by WSPA’s lies, and that we want them to support the public’s interest, not oil company interests. Make your voice heard. If you are a California voter, please look up your state Assembly member’s phone number at this website, and then call their offices to say that you support SB 350 and SB 32 because it will be a critical law to reduce carbon pollution dramatically over the next decades. Let them know that you want them to support what’s good for the people of California, and reject WSPA lies.

ALEC might promote limited government, but it is certainly not a proponent of open government. The group has a long history of blocking press access to its functions. In a widely shared video, an Atlanta television reporter was denied access in May to an ALEC conference between state legislators and corporate lobbyists. The reporter, however, learned from two legislators that ALEC gives state lawmakers free resort stays paid for by lobbyists while providing them with industry-friendly “model” legislation written by lobbyists. One state senator interviewed called ALEC “a corporate bill mill.”

Despite its tax status as a non-profit charitable organization prevented from spending any substantial time wielding influence over legislation, ALEC provides corporate lobbyists venues to influence policymakers behind closed doors.

A new report, “The Climate Deception Dossiers” by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), details how ALEC and some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies it counts among its members have actively misled the public and policymakers about the climate risks of fuel extraction despite repeated scientific warnings. UCS researchers chronicled the decades of deceit by reviewing internal documents related to ALEC and companies including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Shell that came to light through leaks, lawsuits, and Freedom of Information Act requests. The documents show that the corporate leaders long knew the realities of climate science—that their fossil fuel products were harmful to people and the planet—but still supported disinformation campaigns that actively denied or obfuscated the facts.

One of ALEC’s major priorities has been to attack climate science and dismantle state policies to reduce carbon pollution and accelerate the transition to clean energy, including the very policies that make California a climate leader. ALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force convenes frequent backroom meetings in which state legislators are briefed with climate disinformation and lobbied by utility and fossil fuel interests, according to the UCS report.

These sort of deceptive tactics have led to public pressure on some major California tech companies to leave ALEC, which Google, Facebook, and Yahoo have done over the past year. As Google Chairman Eric Schmidt told NPR last September, “Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people…they’re just literally lying.”

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the top lobbyist for the oil industry in the western United States, follows a similar playbook as ALEC and shares some of the same members. In an attempt to weaken, delay, and defeat climate-related policies on the West Coast, WSPA funds so-called “astroturf” organizations that purport to advocate on behalf of drivers and taxpayers rather than oil companies. These front groups, with grassroots-sounding names such as the California Drivers Alliance, create an illusion of consumer backlash to the state’s climate and energy policies, but undermine true public discourse.

Recently, WSPA came out swinging against proposed legislation in California to reduce petroleum use. Under the guise of one if its front groups, it issued false threats on social media claiming that consumers would be faced with gas rationing and government limits on the miles they can drive if the legislation passes. Surely WSPA knows that the California Air Resources Board has no such authority and no proposed bills would give it to them.

Between January 2009 and September 2014, oil companies spent more than $26.9 million through WSPA directly lobbying in Sacramento to defeat the state’s groundbreaking climate policies aimed at achieving a sharp reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Chevron alone reported spending nearly $14 million.

None of this bodes well for democracy. ALEC calls itself “America’s largest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state lawmakers,” yet the top three speakers at this year’s meeting in San Diego are Republican presidential candidates with no Democrat in sight.

ALEC claims to stand for free-market principles, but nothing about it is free or principled when it enables corporations to dictate public policy.

First, Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order that requires the state to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a move that fulfills a request made in a UCS-coordinated letter signed by 164 state scientists last year. Second, the State Senate moved two landmark bills forward that together would dramatically decarbonize the economy over the next 15-30 years. And the California grid operator tweeted that at 1:30 PM the state hit a new solar peak – 6,038 MW. As our colleague Adam Browning of Vote Solar remarked, “That’s the world’s 7^th largest economy running along just fine on what used to be considered a hippie pipe dream.”

Nothing succeeds like success

Many have asked me why California keeps driving forward on climate action at a time when any comprehensive movement at the federal level seems stalled (notwithstanding EPA’s Clean Power Plan and some great work on transportation emissions.) There are a lot of very un-scientific ideas out there about why California is “so different”, but the truth is pretty prosaic- it’s because of experience. California went down the low-carbon road in the first place in large part because folks like the policies that also happen to lower greenhouse gas emissions: reducing pollutants from vehicle tailpipes and smokestacks, energy efficiency measures that save people money, and increased energy independence from clean, renewable electricity sources. So starting with a pioneering measure to reduce car tailpipe ghgs in 2002 and hitting stride with an economy wide cap to lower emissions in 2006 (known as AB 32) California has steadily accelerated investment in these and other technologies, practices, and policies that reduce emissions, and instituted a carbon pricing mechanism to further incentivize innovation and investment. Along the way we’ve found that this all not only helps with public health and the environment, it’s also a job-creator and investment magnet.

In short, the reason California keeps cruising along to a low-carbon future is simple- this stuff works great!

First mover benefits

UC Berkeley energy professor Dan Kammen and others have argued persuasively that California has profited by being a climate leader, attracting 40 percent of clean tech private investment. An estimated $27 billion of venture capital and other financing has flowed into California clean technology companies since 2006 – in part because policies like AB 32 are driving demand for renewable energy and energy efficiency- and California now has the largest advanced energy industry in the United States, with 500,000 workers across 40,000 companies in 2015. And the state is working on new ways to expand the benefits of these actions. One of the key state laws that was developed in the wake of AB 32 requires that at least a quarter of the money raised through the law’s carbon pricing system be invested in low-income communities that suffer heavy pollution burdens, thus providing crucial health and community investment co-benefits.

In addition to the Governor’s target announced today (which becomes state policy but does not have the force of law) two bills were voted out of a key policy committee in the State Senate that would do even more. SB 32 (Pavley) would create a comprehensive statutory target of 80 percent reductions by 2050, and SB 350 (De León/Leno) would increase renewable energy use to 50 percent, reduce oil consumption by half – virtually the state-level codification of UCS’s Half the Oil plan- and increase energy efficiency by 50 percent by 2030. These are all very ambitious- some might say aggressive- targets and not all questions have been answered about how we can get there and at what cost. However, several studies have investigated possible pathways to get to these targets, and most have concluded we can succeed wholly or substantially with technologies and policies we are already deploying. In fact, Kammen noted in written testimony on SB 32 that “a number of the low-carbon 2050 pathways are less costly than what electricity is forecast to cost without a climate target.”

Of course, there are reasons we should proceed with caution- no worthwhile journey is without a few bumps and maybe a detour or two. But any setbacks the state may have are lessons that need to be learned and can benefit the nation and the world as the journey to a low-carbon future picks up momentum. The compelling science that put us on this road is clearer than ever. California is picking up speed, and so far we are having a great ride. As science is showing more conclusively all the time, the alternative road is pretty frightening. With California showing how good the journey can be, it seems foolish not to follow.

But as UCS President Ken Kimmell has pointed out in a post-election blog post, the results do not mean we should be discouraged or stop trying to make progress—we just need to focus our efforts where they are most likely to make progress.

Sunnier outlook on West Coast for climate action

Despite the likelihood of continued, chronic Beltway dysfunction, election news from the West Coast states of California and Oregon is very encouraging. Governors Brown and Kitzhaber, both of whom have made climate action cornerstones of their administrations, coasted to easy re-election. California’s climate–friendly legislature appears to be holding on, and Oregon elected some pro-conservation legislators who may help make climate and clean energy gains in that state a real possibility.

In Washington, a couple of state Senate candidates favored by conservationists lost their races to incumbents more resistant to advancing climate policies. That means Governor Inslee may face some challenges in getting his ambitious climate program approved. On the positive side, activists, businesses, and community groups are gearing up and ready to work on lowering emissions from vehicles as well as more comprehensive carbon policies.

All three of these states, which have a combined population of 53 million people and collectively represent the world’s fifth largest economy, are already collaborating on a climate action plan signed by all three governors and the premier of British Columbia. They pledged to work together on aggressive climate action regionally — by harmonizing greenhouse gas reduction policies and investing in low-carbon fuels, energy, and infrastructure — and globally.

All three Western governors have said they will champion new laws and regulations over the next two years to lower carbon emissions. If successful, these efforts will make the West Coast a worldwide leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ramping up the use of clean energy and fuels, while also building their economies.

UCS supporting regional climate efforts

UCS is working closely with scientists and NGOs in all three states to help with the following initiatives:

• In Washington, Gov. Inslee’s executive order to reduce carbon pollution and promote clean energy is being implemented and the governor is considering using his executive authority to implement a low-carbon fuel standard. There is also a campaign forming to enact an economy-wide carbon cap that was recommended by a government task force earlier in the year.
• In Oregon, on the heels of Gov. Kitzhaber’s re-election and the election of an environmental majority in the state legislature, the prospects for re-enacting the state’s Clean Fuel Program have improved, as have the chances for an economy-wide climate policy in the next couple of years.
• Finally, California Gov. Brown is talking about taking the state’s climate leadership to the next level. After eight years of implementing the first economy-wide climate cap in the U.S., the California economy has come back strongly from the recession with one of the most robust economic growth rates in the nation. The state is on track to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, despite population and economic growth. This success has made it possible to begin exploring the next generation of deeper carbon reductions from energy and transportation so California can continue on the road to a prosperous low-carbon economy.

Success is only possible with your help

Progress is not a foregone conclusion, however, and advances in all three states are under attack by a very expensive oil company campaign designed to keep us tied to the fossil fuel monopoly. UCS and our allies will be working very hard to achieve clean energy and climate progress over the next two years, and we will need your help, your support, your letters, your voices, and your votes.

We stand a good chance of winning in all three states, creating a huge block of economic and people power that can help demonstrate how climate action is not only feasible, but can help build new industries and a stronger and more resilient economy while also cleaning the environment, making people’s communities healthier, and reducing our reliance on imported energy.

The most successful low-carbon policy we’ve had in this country, our fuel efficiency standards, started as a California policy that expanded to 16 states before being adopted by the federal government. States are frequently the proving ground for federal policies. The West Coast is poised to do it again, but we will need your help.

Stay tuned! And don’t despair—join the fight.

UCS climate scientist Juliet Christian-Smith is the lead author of a new article in Sustainability Science (subscription only) describing how the actions that have made California relatively resilient to short-term drought are setting us up for trouble in the long run and can be considered “maladaptation.” The article finds that California’s current strategies for dealing with drought are less successful than previously thought when short- and long-term impacts are evaluated together. This finding is particularly relevant given projections of more frequent and severe water shortages in the future due to climate change.

The analysis reveals that while California’s agricultural and energy sectors displayed remarkable resiliency to the 2007-2009 drought, sustaining high production levels, they did so by relying on a series of coping strategies that increased vulnerability to longer or more severe droughts.

For example, California is currently living off credit by overpumping groundwater from its aquifers. Groundwater is one of the primary ways that the agricultural sector insulates itself from drought impacts, yet as groundwater levels continue to drop, groundwater pumping is becoming less economical (more expensive to pump water up from deeper depths or to drill deeper wells) and ultimately unsustainable as we are pumping out more water than is available to refill those aquifers in many locations.

In addition, California’s hydropower was roughly halved during the 2007-2009 drought. This lost hydropower was largely replaced with the purchase and combustion of additional natural gas. Ratepayers spent $1.7 billion extra to purchase natural gas over the three-year drought period; the combustion of this extra natural gas led to emissions of an additional 13 million tons of carbon dioxide (about a 10 percent increase in emissions from California power plants).

Overall, California continues to respond to drought through a series of shortsighted, crisis-driven responses, rather than pursuing more robust mitigation measures (see the following Table, reprinted from the article). The article provides a series of recommendations for the development and enactment of long-term mitigation measures that are anticipatory and focus on comprehensive risk reduction. It is past time to learn how to live with the inevitable: death, taxes and, for Californians, drought.

Crisis-driven responses and mitigation measures for drought-affected sectors.

You may already know that AB32 is the historic state climate law passed in 2006 that is reducing pollution, saving Californians money, and improving public health—especially in communities that are most affected by air pollution. AB32 currently works to reduce emissions from a variety of sectors, including electricity generation.

Starting on January 1^st 2015, the AB32 cap on emissions is scheduled to cover transportation fuels—the largest single source of emissions in California, accounting for nearly 40 percent of California’s total global warming emissions.

Oil companies are standing in the way

Reducing emissions from transportation is a critical step for California to meet its climate goals and help mitigate the costly impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, the oil industry is orchestrating a campaign to convince the public and California’s elected leaders to exempt transportation fuels from the AB32 program.

Hiding behind “Astroturf” front groups with names like “Fed Up at the Pump”, arranging a barrage of paid advertisements and op-eds in local papers by their allies, and increasing campaign contributions to state legislators, oil interests hope to turn back the clock and get transportation fuels out from under requirements to reduce their emissions as now required by law. They are using scare tactics of skyrocketing gas prices to avoid accountability for their carbon emissions and delay the transition to cleaner fuels. They are also using similar tactics in Oregon and Washington to try to prevent the establishment and/or extension of clean fuels policies in those states.

We shouldn’t be fooled by the oil industry’s misleading rhetoric: California’s climate policies are working. That’s why the Union of Concerned Scientists just released new analysis on AB32 that examines how California’s suite of climate and transportation policies are not just investing in communities and reducing the costly impacts of climate change, but are also saving drivers money.

AB32 is saving consumers money

UCS’s transportation experts crunched the numbers and found that the suite of clean transportation policies under AB32 are actually saving consumers money. A California driver who purchases an average new model year 2015 car can expect to save $3.90 each week over the life of the vehicle compared with a driver who purchased a new vehicle in 2008. The comparative savings grow to $5.20 per week for the owner of a new vehicle in 2020 and $9.00 per week for someone buying a new vehicle in 2025.

California’s low-carbon transportation policies will also help those looking to purchase a used vehicle; a 10-year-old used car in 2025, for example, will save its driver $7.50 a week, or nearly $400 a year, over the remaining lifetime of the vehicle compared with a 10-year-old used car purchased in 2015.

AB32 benefits communities

These important policies are also reducing harmful pollution and helping improve public health in disadvantaged communities across the state.

A recent study found that California’s low carbon fuel standard and cap-and-trade programs will save $8.3 billion in health costs between now and 2025 by reducing asthma attacks, hospitalizations, and other health impacts associated with poor air quality.

And, in California’s 2014–2015 fiscal year, more than $200 million in revenues from the state’s cap-and-trade auction will be spent to benefit disadvantaged communities, including investments in public transit and advanced freight technologies such as electric trucks and buses.

What’s next? A call to action

California’s climate policies are reducing carbon emissions, saving consumers at the pump, cutting oil use, and cleaning our air. It’s a clean transportation future that works for all Californians, and sets a leading example for other states—and our federal government—to follow.

It’s critical that the state keep moving forward toward this goal. Let’s not allow the oil industry to stall California’s plan to reduce emissions from transportation fuels.

Contact your state representatives today and let them know that you support California’s climate policies.

Although California is known as a leader when it comes to climate change, its approach to groundwater has been more reminiscent of the Wild West. Groundwater provides around 60 percent of the state’s water supply in dry years, but it has remained largely unregulated since the Gold Rush era. Today, California took a major leap forward into the 21^st century as Governor Jerry Brown signed two bills into law aimed at protecting groundwater for current and future generations.

This year’s record-breaking dry conditions shined a spotlight on the state’s out-dated approach to groundwater. Numerous articles documented a well-drilling spree, as rivers and canals dried up and as declining groundwater tables led many to sink ever-deeper wells. In parts of the Central Valley, the loss of groundwater is so great that it has altered the gravitational pull of the earth, as measured by satellites circling the globe. And as droughts are expected to become more frequent in a warming world, sustainable groundwater management is increasingly important.

Until now, California was the only state in the Western U.S. that did not comprehensively monitor or regulate groundwater. Today, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1168 (Pavley) and Assembly Bill 1739 (Dickinson), which start the process of creating a statewide system to manage groundwater. These policies require local groundwater management entities to be formed by 2017 and to adopt groundwater sustainability plans by 2020. Importantly, groundwater management entities must also measure groundwater use and report groundwater levels to the state. If a groundwater sustainability plan is not adequate or does not address long-term groundwater declines, the State Water Board can step in to ensure sustainable groundwater management.

While many will see these as common-sense measures, the opposition against these bills was fierce. Simply put, sustainable groundwater management threatens those who are benefiting from the current free-for-all. Until very recently, any mention of comprehensive groundwater monitoring or measurement in California was met with cynical sneers. Indeed, there have been numerous attempts to modernize California’s approach to groundwater over the decades, starting with the Governor’s Commission to Review Water Rights Law in 1978, which recommended a more comprehensive approach to groundwater management.

A generation later, the groundwater crisis has reached epic proportions and the state is finally stepping up to the plate, thanks in no small part to Senator Pavley, Assemblymember Dickinson, and the valiant efforts of many farmers, water agencies, academics and experts, foundations, community-based organizations, and environmental organizations who worked together to turn the tides.

While there is much to celebrate, there is also much more work to be done. In the coming years, local groundwater management entities will need to determine how to reach a sustainable water yield by 2040. Scientists, community members, and other stakeholders will need to work together to make sure that local groundwater sustainability plans are science-based, address climate change, and protect our water resources for the future. Let’s get to work!

A Long Time Ago In Sacramento

To a small child growing up in the excitement of California in the late 1960s, Sacramento was a boring, embarrassing place to be from; a hot, flat hick town (“Sackatomato” thanks to the signature crop). Even being a state capital didn’t help, as stodgy politicians did not compare to the new, cool, hip California of the Sunset Strip, Haight-Ashbury, Malibu surfers, Monterey Pop, and scary but intriguing Berkeley radicals. Even our first movie star Governor didn’t help as he clearly belonged to a different world than ours (and to a kid he was really just another stodgy old guy.)

One morning as my dad drove us into the downtown area from our home in the suburbs I saw a large group out the car window, more than I could count, spread out for blocks and blocks. Many were holding signs with words and symbols in red and black and some sort of big bird. Some were walking quietly together with their placards, but many were lining the streets holding up their signs and happily pumping them at passing cars like ours — and they had such smiles. Decades later I have a strong imprint of those big, joyful smiles, shouting slogans I couldn’t understand.

As a current-events geek even then I knew this must be some kind of demonstration or peace march like on the news, which was quite exciting, as news happened other places, never in my town. TV demonstrators usually looked terribly serious and sometimes they looked angry. But the people I saw on the street in Sacramento on that day didn’t look angry- far from it. Some were jubilant. I asked my father who they were and he told me they were the workers who picked the crops in the fields that became the food on our table. He said they were on a strike —refusing to work — because of someone called Cesar Chavez.

Chavez Day

We honor Cesar Chavez as a civil rights and labor leader because he led a movement that organized some of the poorest, most powerless workers in America, mostly Mexican and Filipino migrant workers. The strikes he led and the marches and fasts he undertook (along with savvy political maneuvering) eventually brought collective bargaining power, though fitfully and incompletely, to agricultural laborers. The long walk, or “perigrinación” (pilgrimage) he led in 1966 in support of striking grape workers over a 300-mile stretch of Highway 99 from Delano to Sacramento, with a banner of the Virgin of Guadalupe leading the marchers, was brilliant political theater, but it also had real power. Even a child could feel it.

It’s fascinating history but, alas, complicated. Chavez’s life and the history of the UFW is not a fairy tale. Inter-union conflicts and industry resistance took a big toll on early union gains. Some farmers felt they were unfairly treated and portrayed by the union. Chavez died too young, worn down by the struggle. Still today farmworkers along with many others suffer a big deficit in the odds when it comes to winning better wages and better working conditions.

But whatever Chavez’ ultimate political legacy, what I think we remember is that there was a long moment when some of the poorest and most powerless people in America succeeded in taking some control over the quality of their jobs, their fair compensation, and their lives, because the moral weight of their cause and their steadfastness together outweighed the wealth and influence of one of the most powerful industries in the nation. I wonder if we can learn something from that.

Can We Do Better?

Increasingly polls confirm that people are really concerned about climate change, but confused or apathetic about what can be done about it in the face of fossil-fuel industry money and influence in government and their own perceived dependence on fossil energy. People feel powerless.

This is sad, because there are real solutions — now, today. Some are technological — cleaner energy and vehicles, mostly — that have a promising though still fragile foothold in our energy portfolio. State policies, notably California’s AB 32 are making a difference, and President Obama’s EPA utility performance rule is a great start on reducing power sector emissions, while his proposed Climate Resilience Fund in the federal budget can help protect us from impacts. Personal behavior can also help lower our emissions. UCS has recommended ways that Americans can cut their household emissions by at least 20% if they make adjustments to their behavior and consumption. And if we create the right conditions and are lucky we may find a great new energy technology or some geo-engineering miracle.

But is this enough? We need to move very quickly and make very big changes very soon if we are to avert some of the worst consequences of climate change. The task is enormous.

For those of us who share the conviction that decisive near-term action is necessary to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, have we done enough to demonstrate the steadfast courage it takes uphold our conviction? Outside of a relatively small number of activists, are we too comfortable to do what it really takes to demand a different way that is better for ourselves and our children? And if we don’t want to be “activists” in the traditional sense, do we really lack the creativity to figure out other, powerful ways to bring about change? If some of the most disenfranchised people in America could do it, why can’t we? (And you know, they walked.)

So I want to step away for a moment from our usual preoccupations to contemplate the example set by this man and his movement. And I want to remember what caught my childhood imagination in Sacramento all those years ago. It was not labor policy, or social justice, or the price of tomatoes. It was the sheer joy and dignity that comes from standing up, standing firm, and standing together for what you know is right.

Happy Birthday, Cesar Chavez.

The California Air Resources Board released a wonky-sounding document on February 10 called the AB 32 Scoping Plan Proposed First Update that documents and affirms the success of the state’s seven-year-old climate law, thus far, as well as detailing the need and feasibility of going much further by “establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.”  The Scoping Plan Update will be considered tomorrow by the Board, and the final version will be put before the Board later this spring.

This comes just three months after the governors of Washington, Oregon, and California and the premier of British Columbia signed on to a Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy that included a platform to “harmonize 2050 targets for greenhouse gas reductions and develop mid-term reductions targets needed to support long-term reduction goals.”

The best news you haven’t read in the paper

This progress demonstrates that it is possible to move forward on climate policy without waiting for federal action, and increasingly we are seeing the most exciting policy innovations on climate and energy coming from cities, states, and regions.

But the best news is something that hasn’t been covered in the media. After a decade of aggressive climate and energy laws in California that are now being fully implemented, including but not limited to the state’s tailpipe emissions reduction law, a strong and enforceable 33 percent renewable energy standard by 2020, and our landmark climate law, California’s economy is growing, with the fifth strongest GDP growth rate in the U.S. last year — well above the national average.

According to opponents of climate change policy, this is not supposed to happen. Low-carbon policies, they have claimed, were supposed to result in economic ruin, with thousands of jobs fleeing the state. But somehow, data from 2012 and 2013 show that California:

• Leads the U.S. in job creation numbers;
• Has the longest streak of private sector job growth since the recession;
• Is the number one state for direct foreign investment; and
• Had record exports in 2012.

And after years of budget deficits the state has finally achieved a balanced budget, a surplus “rainy day fund” and improved credit rating. As the Scoping Plan Update says, the ability to grow the economy while reducing emissions is “evidence of California’s ability to show that it is possible to break the historical connection between economic growth and associated increases in energy demand, combustion of carbon-intensive resources, and pollution.”

The science case for more aggressive action: A 2030 target

As state and regional action makes clear, it is possible to take aggressive and effective action without sacrificing the economy, or waiting for a federal law or international treaty to solve our problems. In fact, the states are becoming laboratories for good climate policy. And the urgency of this action has never been clearer.

In UCS’s comments to CARB on how they might strengthen the draft Scoping Plan Update, we recommended that the climate science portion be updated and made more robust. CARB responded in the revised version of the Update with a detailed section on the latest climate science that clearly demonstrates the need for more concerted action to reduce emissions, citing evidence that “some climate change impacts are occurring faster and with more severity than previously predicted.”

UCS is helping to amplify the science-based case for deeper emissions reductions by organizing a letter from over 100 state scientists, researchers, and economists, including some of our most distinguished climate science and energy policy experts. The letter is addressed to the governor and state legislators, praises the state’s leadership on climate change policy, and also urges policy makers to continue to make the deeper reductions we will need to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The letter ends with a plea for stronger action:

“To achieve the steep reductions necessary to limit the worst impacts of climate change, lawmakers and regulators should adopt and implement enforceable emissions caps for 2030 and beyond. Every sector involved in addressing climate change, from energy to transportation, will need sufficient time to prepare to meet new targets. The longer we wait the harder and more costly it will be. Please begin now to set a science-based, heat-trapping emissions target for 2030.”

At a time when climate action seems dormant in much of the world, this call to action should be a source of hope and renewed commitment. It is also sure to provoke a harsh response from some fossil fuel interests, who will no doubt increase their intense lobbying to slow, stop, and reverse progress.

But as Governor Brown said, meeting this challenge will require “courage, creativity, and boldness.” Brown also noted, “Our collective challenge is to build the future, not steal from it.” Following through on creating a lower emissions target for 2030 will help ensure that we can attain a better future, and we should not and cannot wait.

Looking at the historic record of dry and critically dry conditions since 1906, it is clear that the risk of drought has markedly increased in California in the 21st century (see infographic below). In fact, California has seen about a 30 percent increase in the frequency of droughts since 2000 as compared to a 1906-1999 baseline. Put another way, Californians have spent almost half of the 21st century in drought.

As the governor himself stated, drought declarations will not make it rain. Drought declarations and other crisis-driven responses often do little to provide real solutions. In fact, many of the short-term actions taken by the state during drought years, such as groundwater mining, actually leave us more vulnerable to more frequent or severe droughts in the future.

Now is the time for California to more effectively manage its water supplies, designing approaches that work under a wider range of climate conditions than in the past. Instead, excessively dry conditions often lead to renewed calls for infrastructure projects, like the twin tunnels (formerly known as the “peripheral canal”) that have been proposed for decades, rebranded as responses to climate change.

While there is certainly a need for improved water infrastructure in some areas of the state, the governor’s drought declaration suspends California Environmental Quality Act review “on the basis that strict compliance [with CEQA review] will prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.” This is seen by many as an attempt to get large, water infrastructure projects approved without having to ask important questions about California’s new climate reality. Questions like: even if we build new reservoirs or tunnels, will there be enough water to operate them efficiently? And who will pay for projects that are not able to deliver water in dry years, when we are the most vulnerable? A 2011 World Bank report recognized that “long-lifespan infrastructure…is generally less adaptable to changes whereas short-lifespan infrastructure can be replaced in the long term as the climate changes.” Indeed, there are a variety of smaller scale solutions that are generally much less expensive, energy-intensive, and environmentally damaging than large-scale water infrastructure projects that are not easily adapted to changing climate conditions, including water use reduction, reuse, recycling, and restoration.

Our current water polices are not sustainable. California needs to adopt climate-resilient water management solutions that address a range of climate conditions and help assure more reliability, especially in dry years. The state should start with the following:

• Better groundwater management: Groundwater mining has left ample below-ground water storage capacity that can store water in a larger range of climate conditions.
• Urban water conservation: The average Californian uses almost double the amount of water used by the average South Australian per day, and much of this use is outdoors or “discretionary” (not necessary to human health and well-being).
• More efficient agricultural water uses: While urban water users are already required to use 20 percent less by 2020, there are no statewide targets for agricultural water users.
• Saving energy: Using water efficiently saves energy; the State Water Project is the single largest electricity consumer in the state. The California Energy Commission has concluded that water efficiency is, in many cases, the fastest and cheapest methods to conserve energy and reduce the climate change emissions associated with energy use.

In his State of the State address today, Governor Brown talked about the need not just to address the drought we are experiencing now, but to prepare for the future:

“We do not know how much our current problem derives from the build-up of heat-trapping gasses, but we can take this drought as a stark warning of things to come. The United Nations Panel on Climate Change says – with 95 percent confidence – that human beings are changing our climate. This means more droughts and more extreme weather events, and, in California, more forest fires and less snow pack.”

With increasing demand and drought straining our water resources, we need to adopt policies that address both the causes and impacts of climate change.

Correction: January 23, 2014

California has seen about a 30 percent increase in the frequency of droughts since 2000 as compared to a 1906-1999 baseline, not 39 percent as first published.

The real culprit, according to Borenstein, is all of us who buy these fuels, because they are cheap and available. He argues that holding producers accountable is a distraction from what we really need to do, which is to better account for the damage these fuels cause to the environment, preferably by enacting a carbon tax.

We don’t think it’s a distraction at all. Many of us, including UCS, agree that we need a price on carbon as a key policy to help reduce global warming emissions. We also support individuals who want to reduce their own carbon footprint, as well as policies that reduce emissions from the automobile and utility industries. All these actions, working in concert, can reduce the future risks of climate change. And our Half the Oil campaign, in particular, is focused on policies that could dramatically reduce oil use and help us invest in more productive areas of the economy.

But to a very significant extent, it is the fossil fuel producers themselves that are standing in the way of progress on both enacting comprehensive policies to address climate change and policies that would help consumers reduce fossil fuel consumption. Nevertheless, Borenstein argues, “Those fossil fuel companies aren’t responsible, they just sell the stuff.” Yet in Borenstein’s home state of California, these companies are actively standing in the way of state laws that would reduce carbon emissions and set a price on carbon.

This past year, Chevron, a company that the new research identified as the biggest single private-sector contributor to emissions, along with allies in the Western States Petroleum Association, spent significant time and resources trying to push back on California’s low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) and are continuing to resist efforts to include transportation fuels under the AB 32 cap on statewide heat-trapping emissions, as is now scheduled for 2015.

And what are fossil fuel companies doing to help consumers find solutions?  Not much, despite glossy advertising campaigns touting their “clean” energy solutions. Rolling Stone published an article this past summer detailing a trend toward dis-investment in clean alternatives among oil companies, and  Bloomberg News published a story in April that detailed how Chevron significantly scaled back its investments in low-carbon alternative fuels because, while they would be profitable, they would not be as profitable as oil production. Historically, we know that many of these companies also funded misinformation campaigns to deny the reality of human-induced climate change, even as scientists continued to publish authoritative reports outlining the realities of climate change.

Holding these companies accountable isn’t a “copout.” It’s a sensible, additional way, among many, to address climate change.

And what about the public? Statewide polls show support for policies that reduce emissions from transportation like the LCFS, including a poll released in August that found 81 percent (77 percent likely voters) support requiring oil companies to reduce transportation fuel emissions.

So if consumers want lower carbon products and producers are unwilling to provide them, who is at fault?

The bill for climate change is starting to come due, and it is enormous. We agree with Dr. Borenstein that internalizing some of those costs into the price of fossil fuels is a good idea, as are policies that encourage the adoption of low-carbon technologies. There is no silver bullet that will solve this problem.

UCS certainly understands that this effort has got to be more than assigning blame, and we support solutions that will not only help us reduce fossil fuel consumption and related emissions but also create jobs, protect health, and establish American technology leadership, as we have outlined with our Half the Oil proposal.

Over the last century, we’ve spent an enormous amount to subsidize the fossil fuel economy, and consumers’ options will continue to be limited as long as fossil fuel companies continue to invest in disinformation campaigns and fight policies that would make them accountable for the damage their products cause.

Everyone is responsible for climate change, it’s true. But some of us – and our institutions – are more responsible than others. It’s entirely reasonable to highlight the critical role fossil fuel producers play; they are the first point of contact for coal and oil extraction at the root of climate change. What this new research shows is just how few institutions are doing the major extraction. Holding them accountable is one step among many that could actually prevent the worst consequences of a changing climate.

The alarm is being sounded by Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in a report that compiled 36 indicators of climate change, drawing upon monitoring data from throughout the state and a wide variety of research studies carried out by 51 scientists from the University of California, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among other agencies and institution.

No area escapes impacts

The report says categorically that climate change is “an immediate and growing threat”. The indicators highlighted in the report included data for state greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures, and analyzed impacts on California’s physical environment, humans, vegetation, and animals, concluding that climate change is occurring throughout California, from the Pacific Coast to the Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

Among other findings, the report concluded that:

• Warming temperatures have accelerated since the 1970s, with nighttime temperatures increasing much faster than daytime;
• Changes in precipitation patterns have had the effect of decreasing water supplies even when overall rainfall remains the same;
• Carbon dioxide levels in coastal waters are harming species and having effects throughout the marine food chain;
• Over the past century sea levels have risen along the California coast by an average of 7 inches, and levels have risen by 8 inches at the Golden Gate; and
• Annual acreage burned since 2000 has doubled the rate of the previous 50 years, from less than 300,000 acres to almost 600,000;

As Cal Fire Chief Ken Pimlott pointed out at a UCS forum in Pasadena on June 28, “Twelve of the 20 most damaging wildfires in California occurred in the last 10 years.” Pimlott said there will never be enough engines and firefighters to put out all the wildfires in the state—not now and not in the next few decades when global warming is expected to get much worse. “We have to learn to be resilient and live with fire,” he said at the UCS forum.

People get it, polluters don’t

The report comes on the heels of a recent survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, which found that the public already gets it—63 percent of the state’s residents said the effects of global warming are already being felt.

One of the most hopeful findings of the report is that “since 2000, despite a 49 percent increase in economic output (as measured by the gross state product or GSP), and a 10 percent increase in population, GHG emissions per $1,000 GSP—also known as emissions intensity—have declined.” And our overall emissions have decreased by more than 7 percent since 2008, two years after California passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act.

This data demonstrates the false premise of fossil fuel lobbyists who claim we can’t cost-effectively reduce emissions and grow the state’s economy, or that we have to “go slow” so we don’t harm state growth. There is no evidence our low-carbon policies have caused harm to the economy—quite the contrary. If anything, the report shows the urgent need to do much more, and more quickly, to reduce the intensity of impacts in future. Clean energy policies haven’t hurt our economy, but widespread climate impacts certainly will.

The new findings represent a call to action to state leaders to better prepare our state for impacts we are now facing while aggressively staying the course charted by AB 32. They validate our UCS work in California in defending policies designed to reduce global warming emissions while also encouraging preparedness for climate change so our communities can become more resilient to increasingly severe wildfires, rising sea levels and longer summer heat waves.

The fossil fuel industry is on a media blitz to convince California consumers that the price they will have to pay to pioneer the nation’s first comprehensive effort to tackle climate change is too high. The Wall Street Journal joined the fray with a misleading editorial blaming California’s recent surge in gas prices on laws designed to reduce the negative effects of our oil consumption, ignoring the economic reality that only a handful of largely unregulated oil companies control the state’s gas market. With no major jump in demand and no significant reduction in gasoline supplies in California to explain the spike in gas prices, Sen. Dianne Feinstein called on antitrust regulators to investigate possible illegal manipulation of the market.

Paying for pollution is part of the solution

Meanwhile, large oil refiners and manufacturers launched a series of expensive ads and a petition to force the governor to stop next month’s inaugural cap-and-trade auction. The Nov. 14 auction, which will kick off the nation’s first economy-wide carbon market, is the result of years of careful study and deliberations. After failing to convince the California Air Resources Board last month to provide them with more free carbon credits, some of the state’s heaviest polluters are now trying to stop the auction. They claim that the auction is unnecessary to achieve the goals of AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

That is simply not true. By requiring polluters to pay for each ton of carbon they emit, the auction creates financial incentives for polluters to reduce their emissions through greater use of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and alternative technologies. The auction is a critical component of our climate legislation because it will generate revenues that will help us to transition to a clean energy economy.

As a prominent group of economists, including UCS’s Jasmin Ansar, wrote in a recent letter to the governor, cancelling or scaling back the auction would disrupt the current design of the cap-and-trade program.

The economists noted that distributing more free carbon credits poses the potential for windfall profits because carbon-intensive businesses can pass the market value of the allowances through to consumers even though they received them at no cost. Already, concerns that some businesses might move production outside of California to avoid paying for carbon emissions within the state were addressed when regulators decided to allocate 90 percent of the allowances for free to most industries for the first few years of the program.

Cap-and-trade opponents, and the oil industry in particular, have been aware for several years that they will be expected to pay for a portion of their carbon pollution by participating in the allowance auction. They should join the rest of California in being part of the solution by complying with policies that will encourage clean energy investments and create broad spillover benefits throughout our economy.

Another oily strategy: Litigate, don’t innovate

Another critical piece of the state’s efforts to reduce global warming emissions — the low-carbon fuel standard — is under fire in a federal appeals court, where air quality officials are defending the first-in-the-nation mandate requiring cleaner fuels for millions of cars and trucks in the California. Because the transportation sector is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in California, the law requires that all vehicle fuels be an average of 10 percent less carbon-intensive by 2020. The standard is designed to cut California’s dependence on petroleum by 20 percent.

One of California’s top lawyers rightfully argued in a hearing last week that petroleum refiners and out-of-state ethanol producers who are challenging the law’s constitutionality are trying to “prevent California from following sound science” and defended the state’s method of using a “life cycle analysis” that takes into account the pollution caused by manufacturing and the distance it has to travel when calculating the carbon intensity of fuel.

Let’s move forward!

All of these 11th-hour attempts to derail key components of California’s climate change legislation are part of a shortsighted strategy to cling to the businesses practices of the past, protecting corporate profits over California’s economic growth and public health.

Despite their claims of wanting to shield consumers from higher prices, large industrial polluters are using scare tactics to continue our reliance on dirty fuels and bolster their bottom lines. It’s time for the state’s heaviest polluters to join other businesses who recognize that clean energy investments also present economic opportunities.

We can all learn from California’s leadership on these issues that dramatically reducing our oil use is the only long-term and permanent solution to air pollution, climate change and, yes, lower gas prices.