Editorial: How California should budget for climate change

A new federal report on climate change released by the White House does not focus, as previous reports did, on predictions about the future but instead offers stark descriptions of the here and now: shorter winters, intensified storms, deepening drought, more frequent heat waves. Growing seasons are changing and Western pine forests are falling to beetle infestations.

None of this should come as a surprise; the most recent report by the United Nations’ climate change experts said pretty much the same thing on a global scale. But there has been a more discernible tone of alarm in such reports during the last several months. They press the point that the effects of climate change are evident and that more are coming — faster than previously thought and faster than even progressive countries and states are preparing for. California is well positioned to do its part, thanks to AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which became law in 2006. Not only has it put the state on the path to significantly reducing its greenhouse gases, but the law’s cap-and-trade provision will provide billions of dollars for at least a decade to be dedicated to further fighting climate change.

How to spend this windfall? You can be sure there’s no shortage of ideas in Sacramento. Gov. Jerry Brown wants to spend a third of it on the state’s controversial high-speed rail project, which he first proposed in the 1980s. A proposal by state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) would reduce that to one-fifth — but would spend an additional 40% of the money on affordable housing to be built near mass-transit lines, long a priority of his.

Both ideas have merit, though as this page has argued, the state should not commit significant sums of cap-and-trade money to high-speed rail until it is determined that the project is viable — legally, financially and otherwise. Both transit-oriented housing and the rail project, at least theoretically, should eventually reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by Californians, an important step in reducing tailpipe emissions, and Steinberg’s smart-planning emphasis has the added benefit of providing more housing as well as creating walking-friendly cities and less-crowded streets.

But it doesn’t make sense to tie up so much of the state’s cap-and-trade income in long-term projects when climate scientists insist that we need to move quickly and decisively. Already California is hard-pressed to meet its climate goals for the years beyond 2020. Not only would the benefits of high-speed rail not be felt for more than a decade, but there are legitimate questions about whether the project will ever get done and, if it does, how much it will contribute to reducing carbon emissions.

There are ways to reduce greenhouse gases more quickly and measurably. Replace more diesel trucks, which would also reduce deadly particulate pollution, especially in low-income areas girdled by freeways. Expand existing public transit systems, making them quicker and more convenient. Help more California motorists afford hybrid or electric vehicles. Increase the state’s commitment to solar energy and water conservation; the single biggest consumer of power in California is the State Water Project, which is responsible for the energy-intensive job of moving water around the state.

Carbon isn’t the only greenhouse gas. Methane is about 30 times more potent at trapping heat over 100 years. Methane-capture equipment at the state’s dairies and cattle operations, major producers of the gas, could significantly reduce this kind of pollution.

There are many ways of combating climate change with cap-and-trade money. Long-term strategies such as Steinberg’s smart-planning proposal have an important place in the state’s green portfolio, but they should not dominate it, earmarking the money for specific state projects for years into the future at a time when the state must redouble its efforts to meet short-term goals.