Greenhouse Gasses and Climate Action Plans

By Peter St. Clair, Legislation Chair

If you have read Frank Landis’ articles on conservation and land use policy you have heard a lot about Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) and Climate Action Plans (CAP). Carbon dioxide is the most well-known GHG. Others which are less prevalent but which contribute far more to climate change are methane and nitrous oxide. They come from industrial production but also from grazing animals. The obvious dilemma in GHG management is the critical importance of carbon dioxide to plants. It was hoped that rising CO2 levels would spur greater growth of plants, thus soaking up more CO2 and ameliorating atmospheric warming and climate change. Scientists are no longer sure this will happen. Warming means less atmospheric water and more areas of the world drying up. Simultaneously, nations in the tropics are deforesting at higher rates than expected.

California has a strict law—AB 32 (2006) that by 2035 mandates a reduction in GHG emissions to levels that existed before 1990.

As a result, the state has asked local government (cities and counties) to create a step by step plan how they will achieve GHG reductions. Most governments responded by creating Climate Action Plans. The cities in San Diego have them. The County is trying to create one but has been unable to come up with a plan that the courts believe to be effective and enforceable.

CAPs cover land use as well as transportation, agriculture, water and waste management, industry, civil aviation and a host of other activities that produce GHG. While general plans and zoning of themselves do not create GHG, the underlying purposes—more residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural or institutional development—do. The State Supreme Court decided that new residential projects, at least, should reduce GHG emissions below “Business As Usual” (BAU) at the time the state and local laws wereenacted. This allows population and the economy to grow, but activities resulting from growth must demonstrate less carbon intensity—thus lower emission of CO2 and other GHGs. Cumulative impacts are measured, not just the impacts attributable to a single project.

California and San Diego have been very good at reducing GHG from industrial uses, electrical generation, water and waste management. This is largely due to federal and state mandates that utilities use less fossil fuel in creating energy.

We have been unable to reduce emissions from transportation, particularly from cars, SUVs and light trucks. In California and San Diego, more than 40% of all GHG emissions are from transportation. Thus, the inability to reduce emissions from drivers could thwart future attainment of goals and will certainly call into question how population growth and new housing will impact GHGs.

That is the big challenge and has led to a really big fight.

The State Supreme Court and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (that among other things oversees CEQA and planning) have made it absolutely clear that developers may mitigate GHG increases through local actions or by purchasing carbon credits which may reduce emissions or conserve (rain) forests elsewhere, including on other continents. GHG are gasses. They know no boundaries. They may originate in India and China (huge polluters) and waft here. So, our state and local efforts to control GHG are really dependent on the rest of the world doing the same. That has been a difficult task with India claiming no responsibility to reduce coal fired electrical generation and the U.S. pulling out of the Paris Accords.

Locally, City of San Diego developers have been able to demonstrate their projects reduce emissions below BAU on a cumulative basis. Urban redevelopment has many advantages, including more efficient energy systems and the promise that denser development near transit may reduce individual car use (Note: this is not yet happening). And, developers can contribute to local conservation efforts or improvements in air quality in nearby neighborhoods as mitigations for their new projects.

But in the County, where most very large residential planned developments occur, it is more difficult to show that an individual project will reduce GHG below BAU and that cumulative impacts will not overwhelm achievement of statewide goals. People drive more and farther. The baselines for BAU on undeveloped or ag land are lower than for infill projects in urban areas. Developers want to rely on the purchase of carbon credits. The County CAP has failed thus far to demonstrate how the effectiveness of such offsite credit purchases can be demonstrated and enforced over time. SinceotherplacesinCaliforniahaveadoptedCAPsthat allow carbon offset credits to be used, our County should be able to come up with a plan. In mid September the state adopted forest carbon offset standards for worldwide purchase of credits. Until the County can adopt a CAP, large scale projects in the County cannot show they will be able to mitigate their climate impacts. And as an aside, some of the large projects fail to protect rare and endangered California native plants. I will leave the issue of how new development can cope with wildfire—especially wind-driven wildfire – to another article.