Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the non-binding "Washington Declaration" on February 16, 2007, the G8+5 group of leaders agreed in principle to a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, which they hoped would be in place by 2009. [1] [3] Official G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue Web site
Gov. Gavin Newsom says $11 billion spent through California's cap-and-trade program over 10 years represents the 'backbone' of state efforts on climate change.
In 2018, California spent $1.4 billion raised from its cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, out of $3.4 billion spent cumulatively since 2012; notable projects include California High-Speed Rail and the Clean Vehicle Rebate for low-emission vehicles. [65]
SB 535 uses profits from the cap-and-trade policy, which went into effect in California in 2013, to fund projects that are beneficial for disadvantaged communities. The cap-and-trade came about as a way to lessen the environmental impact of companies on the community. The system is relatively simple and easy to put into action.
The program, called cap and trade, was the first of its kind in the U.S. when launched in 2013 and set the ambitious goal of slashing turn-of-the-century emission levels by 40% by the year 2030.
The California Cap-and-Trade program was created by CARB as a market mechanism to reach GHG emission reduction targets established in AB-32. There currently is a Cap-and-Trade program in California, though it is not directly required under SB-32, which simply establishes a clear emissions reduction goal.
The first and second goals were enshrined into law by the legislation known as AB 32, or the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, [18] which gave the California Air Resources Board broad authority to implement a market-based system (also known as cap-and-trade) to achieve these goals.
The system was designed to reduce emissions of NOx by 70% from 1994 to 2003, and it was hoped to achieve this more cheaply than the traditional 'command and control' regulations it replaced. However, due to the setting of too generous caps, emissions were reduced at only a fraction of the rate expected at the time of the program's adoption.