9.6: Conclusions and Outlook

California is one of the country’s climate mitigation success stories. By many measures, it ranks among the least greenhouse-gas-intensive states in the US. On a per capita basis, only New York and Vermont rank lower, and the average Californian emits just 53% of the national average amount of greenhouse gases. California’s large metropolitan regions also score well compared with their counterparts elsewhere. In popular perception, Los Angeles might be the poster child for unsustainable excess. But when measured by household greenhouse gas emissions per capita, the region is one of the greenest in the nation. San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose claim the top three spots in one metropolitan-level ranking, while LA comes in at number five, after Providence, Rhode Island.

Figure 9.6.1 Greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth. Between 1990 and 2016, California’s economy grew while greenhouse gas emissions declined in per capita terms, indicating that climate mitigation does not have to be at the expense of economic growth. Reproduced with permission from Next 10.

Most impressively, California’s greenhouse gas reductions have not come at the expense of its economy. Figure 9.6.1 shows that the state’s per capita GDP (roughly equivalent to average income) has grown even while emissions per capita have fallen. Indeed, some of the strongest supporters of AB 32 and other climate legislation have been clean energy firms and other businesses that see environmental protection as beneficial for the economy rather than a drag on performance.

California’s success is partly an accident of geography. The largest cities lie near the coast where, for most of the year, homes achieve a pleasant temperature with neither air conditioning nor heating. About 40% of the state’s electricity comes from low-carbon sources such as renewables, hydro, and nuclear—that is in part the result of deliberate policy, but also the product of federal subsidies for dams and the lack of large coal deposits in the state. Most of the remainder of the electricity is generated from natural gas.

Low emissions are also a product of a service-based economy with little heavy industry. California ranks among the lowest five states in terms of the emissions intensiveness of the economy, although this is partially offset by “embedded” emissions in imported products, which, perhaps misleadingly, are not captured in the state’s emissions inventory.

The nature of California’s economy means that political support is easier to gather for wide-ranging climate change policy. In districts with low per capita emissions, politicians are more likely to support climate legislation. A reduction in power generation from coal, for example, will affect mining employment in neighboring states but cost few jobs in California. Fossil fuel extraction and automobile manufacturing are only minor players in California’s economy. In contrast, sectors that would be harmed by climate change, such as agriculture and tourism, or that would benefit from efforts to reduce emissions, such as renewable energy technology, have a much larger presence on the West Coast. One of the main economic powerhouses of the state, the technology industry and associated venture capitalists centered in Silicon Valley, also tends to be a strong supporter of GHG mitigation. Energy costs for their California operations are minimal (most server farms and data centers are located elsewhere), and many firms invest in innovations to improve energy efficiency or otherwise reduce emissions. Thus, California governors and legislators have shown a willingness to enact climate legislation far ahead of the federal government and most other states.

The political attitudes that favor climate change action in the state legislature and governor’s office also permeate through many of the state’s counties, cities, water and transit districts, and other local and regional agencies. Many officials, such as former San Francisco mayor and now California governor Gavin Newsom, have sought to portray themselves as leaders on climate policy—in part in an effort to pressure the federal government into action. San Francisco is rated the most progressive large city in the country, and Oakland the fourth.

The legacy of the air quality and energy efficiency programs from the 1970s and 1980s has also played a part. California regulators have been accustomed to taking action on air quality, renewable energy supply, and other environmental issues, which in other states might be left to the federal government. CARB, which has assumed the primary role in California’s climate efforts, already had a depth of technical, regulatory, and legal expertise that positioned it well to respond to climate change policy imperatives.

What lies next for California? While the state is likely to achieve its 2020 goals, the 2040 target (a 40% reduction below 1990 levels) is much more ambitious, and the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 even more so. Many of the low-hanging fruits (such as switching away from out-of-state coal generation) have already been picked. One key challenge is the number of “banked” allowances (Section 9.3) that may reduce the effectiveness of cap and trade in the future. Another is the stubborn resistance of the transportation sector, where vehicle travel has ticked up in recent years and local governments have been reluctant to implement the land use changes called for in regional plans. And a third is the federal government. While the Obama administration was largely supportive, the Trump administration has signaled that it will throw up roadblocks to the state’s policies—for example, by threatening to revoke the waiver that California needs to enforce its more stringent clean car standards.

If California were an independent country, it would rank as the world’s fifth-largest economy. This means that the action that California takes to reduce emissions is intrinsically important in terms of atmospheric carbon concentrations. Fundamentally, however, California’s success should be measured not just by its ability to reduce in-state greenhouse gases, but also by its influence on energy efficiency and climate policy beyond the state’s boundaries, in what is often called the “California effect.” The Pavley clean car standards were adopted by 14 other states, accounting for almost 40% of US new vehicle sales, and ultimately by the federal government. Its cap-and-trade system has been joined by the Canadian province of Quebec, with the two governments holding joint auctions (although earlier plans for Ontario and several US states to join never materialized). And California’s energy efficiency standards for everything from refrigerators to buildings have influenced policy elsewhere. Providing a laboratory to test and demonstrate the economic and technological feasibility of deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions may be the state’s most significant contribution to confronting global climate change.