Search

Fully-automated driverless vehicles will likely drastically change the way people and goods are transported, implicating land use and transportation. They would not only provide a convenient means of transportation to many, but also become an effective tool to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which account for a large portion of the total emissions in many jurisdictions throughout the world. To encourage the use of fully-automated driverless vehicles as such a tool, this article proposes several legal mechanisms that should be adopted in California. Although these legal mechanisms have been developed based primarily on existing California laws, countries and jurisdictions throughout the globe that wish to efficiently minimise transportation-related emissions should consider adopting these legal mechanisms because they can readily be adopted in various jurisdictions including those currently lacking a legal framework similar to California's. This article proposes these legalmechanisms primarily by examining existing California laws intended to reduce the transportation-sector emissions, including the California GlobalWarming Solutions Act of 2006, or Assembly Bill 32, and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or Senate Bill 375, and the potential impacts that driverless vehicles would have on GHG emissions based on expert opinions and literature review. The legal mechanisms proposed in this article would serve as foundations on which a more comprehensive scheme of GHG emissions reduction measures related to fully-automated driverless vehicles can be developed as driverless vehicle technology further develops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article shares reflections about the climate change program of California. Topics discussed include the state's goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions under the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, the state's launch of a market-based cap-and-trade program, and the view that the federal government should follow California's model in terms of its climate change policy.

This article investigates the nature of policy path dependence through analysis of climate policy formation in the United States. In 2008 the US Congress attempted to pass the Lieberman-Warner bill, a comprehensive climate and energy package that would have capped greenhouse emissions and established a nationwide cap and trade program. In the same year, California successfully enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act. This article explores the circumstances of both cases and raises the question of why legislation at the state level was successful and took such a divergent form from legislation at the federal level. The divergence of these cases is used to highlight the nature of coalition formation and policy path dependence in the legislative process. Explanations of policy tend to gravitate toward either the generalizability of game theoretic approaches or the empirical depth of case studies. This article suggests a combined approach that uses case studies to analyze the positions and motivations of actors and to then model policy development over time. The approach examines policy through the formation and negotiation of policy coalitions. Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and omnibus analysis, the approach expands these coalition theories first by analysing legislative development at the interface of legislators and constituent interest groups, and second by adding temporal dimension to the analysis. The findings suggest that policy is path dependent in that it is negotiated between coalitions that in turn create stability in the policy process and insulate policy fields from external shocks. Policy path dependence suggests that theory alone is insufficient to predict policy outcomes; policy results depend strongly on prior policy efforts, historically and socially contingent coalitions, and the resulting framing of policy possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cap-and-trade schemes are of tremendous interest in the current trends of climate law and policy. Taking into account Phase I and Phase II, the EU ETS directive has been reformed in 2009 and will establish a totally new Phase III starting from 2013 until 2020. The new system will propose a broader material scope, new forms of allocation of allowances, due attention to benchmark free allowances and careful measures to address carbon leakage. Furthermore, the directive sets new forms of market oversight and opens up for stronger relations with other compatible systems. On the other side of the Atlantic, the lack of a US federal cap-and-trade system has not prevented the creation of sub-national or regional cap-and-trade schemes. The Californian cap-and-trade final regulation represents the most interesting and most advanced scheme in the US. It has been eventually adopted in fall 2011 and is designed to reduce GHG emissions by 2020 through a market-based compliance system. The two systems show improvements to earlier forms of emissions trading, but still raise questions on the actual compatibility between each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The State of California is developing and implementing a new generation of environmental policies to transition to a low-carbon economy and energy system in order to reduce the risks of future damages from global climate change. At the same time, it is increasingly clear that climate change impacts are already occurring and that further effects cannot be completely avoided. Thus, anticipating and planning for emerging and potential future climate change impacts in California must complement the state's greenhouse gas mitigation efforts. These impacts will depend substantially on the future evolution of the state's social structure and economy. To support impact studies, this report describes socioeconomic storylines and key scenario elements for California that are broadly consistent with the global 'A2' and 'B1' storylines in the 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including qualitative socioeconomic context as well as quantitative projections of key variables such as population, urbanization patterns, economic growth, and electricity prices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the measures imposed in California to address climate change. It explores different policies in California such as The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and cap-and-trade program and states that their measures will need for coordinated strategies for it has broad set of goals. It adds that with California's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission they shown that effective national program for climate change will require leadership and immediate response.

Abstract: In California, there have been numerous policy directives aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2005, Executive Order S-3-05 established three target reduction levels for GHG emissions for the state, most notably a return to 1990 levels by 2020 (codified into law by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and a reduction to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2006, Senate Bill 1368 mandated a GHG emission performance standard (set at an interim level of 1100 lb- CO2/MWh or 500 kg-CO2/MWh) for new or renewed long-term contracts to purchase electricity from baseload facilities, and Assembly Bill 1925 required a report to the California legislature containing recommendations for accelerating the adoption of cost-effective geologic sequestration strategies for the long-term management of industrial carbon dioxide. Assembly Bill 1925 provided a unique opportunity for technical experts and other stakeholders to inform future policy decisions and regulations for geologic carbon sequestration in California. The author of the bill, the state agencies, and other stakeholders involved in developing the report agreed that a two-stage process would best address the goals of the legislation. A first report was recently released that provides a thorough overview of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) fundamentals in a California context and recommends areas for additional data acquisition or analyses. A second report, to be issued in 2010, will contain a full set of recommendations based on further studies, stakeholder input, and data and lessons learned from ongoing geologic CCS projects worldwide and particularly from field tests in California conducted by the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (WESTCARB). This paper presents an overview of the approach and key findings of the first report, including technical readiness, infrastructure needs, regulatory and economic assessments, identification of potential early opportunities for application of CCS technology, and assessment of the greatest barriers to widespread CCS adoption in the state. Many of these findings are generally applicable beyond California or provide analogs useful to other states. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article examines the California Assembly Bill 1493. California is the first state in the U.S. to pass legislation directing its environmental protection agency to promulgate regulations establishing standards for greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The background of the 1493 bill regulations is presented including the beginnings of the many preemption challenges against which California must defend. The arguments for and against Clean Air Act, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and foreign policy preemption are discussed. How and why each of the preemption challenges fails are also summarized.

The article discusses the role of state enforcement in addressing the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change issues in California. It highlights the effort of California in reducing the greenhouse gas emission It explores the challenges and risks posed by the enforcement of the cap-and-trade program.

The article reports on the 10-year, $600 million climate initiative that would make the California Institute for Climate Solutions. This is in line with fostering research so that the state can meet strict greenhouse gas emission limits which was enacted over the past 2 years. Michael Peevey, president of the state's public utilities commission (PUC), said that the commission is weighing a plan to finance it through a $1-a-month hike in electricity rates. Daniel Kammen, an energy policy expert at the University of California (UC), Berkeley, is said to view the institute as a way to translate climate goals in action.