The California Climate Crisis Act.
The implementation of AB 1395 will significantly alter California’s environmental legislation, reinforcing the state’s commitment to combatting climate change while ensuring public health standards are met. The bill mandates the establishment of interim greenhouse gas reduction goals every five years starting in 2025, which will allow for systematic progress tracking and make adjustments as necessary. The act seeks to enhance environmental protections, particularly focusing on the management of California's natural and working lands to support carbon sequestration efforts. Additionally, it places special emphasis on safeguarding low-income and disadvantaged communities from adverse impacts related to environmental policies.
Assembly Bill 1395, known as the California Climate Crisis Act, sets forth a comprehensive framework aimed at achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions in California by 2045, alongside plans for maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. The legislation builds upon the foundations established by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and emphasizes the necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to at least 90% below the levels recorded in 1990 by the same 2045 deadline. The bill tasks the State Air Resources Board (CARB) with updating the state's scoping plan to facilitate these ambitious targets and to explore a range of strategies, including carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal technologies, and various nature-based solutions to combat climate change.
The sentiment surrounding AB 1395 is largely positive among environmental advocates, who view it as a crucial step in the fight against climate change. The emphasis on achieving significant reductions in emissions is welcomed by many stakeholders committed to ecological balance and community health. However, the bill has also faced criticism from certain sectors concerned about the economic implications of its stringent regulations, particularly those from industries that may be directly affected by the carbon capture and removal requirements. The discussions around this bill reflect a broader struggle between economic interests and necessary environmental reforms.
While AB 1395 has garnered support for its environmental goals, there are notable points of contention regarding the definitions and applications of carbon capture and removal technologies. Critics have expressed concerns about the feasibility and efficacy of these technologies, specifically the potential for them to be used as an excuse to continue fossil fuel use rather than genuinely reduce emissions. Additionally, debates have emerged regarding how such policies may affect economic growth and job creation, particularly in traditional energy sectors. The law aims to avoid the counting of captured carbon for enhanced oil recovery, ensuring that actual emission reductions are achieved rather than merely accounted for.