Burden to hit 2030 target will fall especially hard on MPOs if cap-and-trade program goes away. >>read more

This morning, Hector Tobar, a respected Los Angeles-area commentator, personally heaped all the ecological sins of humankind on to the current residents of Los Angeles in an editorial in the New York Times, a publication that has gotten increasingly feisty about its hatred for California of late. Tobar writes:  

Gov. Jerry Brown issued an executive order to establish a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 - the most aggressive benchmark enacted by any government in North America to reduce dangerous carbon emissions over the next decade and a half. >>read more

This week, Gov. Jerry Brown announced an executive order to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030. It's being hailed as the most aggressive climate change policy pursued by any government in North America – but will it put the squeeze on California's metropolitan planning organizations and their sustainable communities strategies?

Brown's order has drawn attention for its combination of ambition and immediacy. But it does not come out of thin air. Brown's 2030 targets fit, substantively and chronologically, between those of Fran Pavley's 2006 law Assembly Bill 32, which mandates lowering GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's goals of 80 percent reduction by 2050, also established by executive order. Meeting them means that, in relatively short order, California will look, drive, and power itself far differently than it does today — especially as its population continues to rise. 

The order requires all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of greenhouse gas emissions to participate. Agencies must prepare implementation plans by September 2015, with guidance from a technical advisory group that will be set up by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 

The California Supreme Court has accepted Cleveland National Forest Association v. SANDAG, the controversial case that raises the question of whether a governor's executive order must be taken into consideration in CEQA analysis.

As the inane "debate" over climate change drags on in the more benighted corners of our republic (Washington, D.C., included), it's becoming abundantly clear that California is no longer the place where America's fruits, nuts, and loose ends come to rest. I've been on the periphery of the stateside discussion of SB 375 for the past two years, so I know that it's not news to say that there have been many earnest, productive discussions about it across the state.

As the inane "debate" over climate change drags on in the more ignorant corners of our republic (Washington, D.C., included), it's becoming abundantly clear that California is no longer the place where America's fruits, nuts, and loose ends come to rest. I've been on the periphery of the stateside discussion of SB 375 for the past two years, so I know that it's not news to say that there have been many earnest, productive discussions about it across the state.