A coalition of environmental groups has sued the state's air pollution control agency over its recent, controversial changes to a key climate program – the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard – that they are saying are exacerbating climate change. Just a month earlier, California Republicans attacked the identical policy, claiming it will result in higher gas prices.
The groups, which include San Joaquin Valley residents, filed two lawsuits Wednesday in Fresno County Superior Court. A lawsuit goals to force the California Air Resources Board to scale back pollution from large farms that produce biogas from manure, which is inspired through the fuel standards program. It is led by the environmental justice group Defensores del Valle Central para el Aire y Agua Limpio.
The other lawsuit, from national environmental law firm Earthjustice, seeks greater environmental scrutiny of biofuels constructed from soy and corn which were linked to deforestation in South America and Asia. Biofuel corporations also receive incentives through the fuel standard.
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is considered one of California's most vital environmental policies. It's a sophisticated cap-and-trade program aimed toward making fuel for cars, trucks and planes less harmful to the climate. The program sets limits for the worldwide warming share of fuels, which increase over time. Meanwhile, fossil fuel refiners will probably be fined and corporations that comply, comparable to large dairy farms, biofuel producers and clean energy developers, will probably be incentivized. Its impact is difficult to measure, but experts say it likely helped replace much of the diesel fuel sold in California.
Tyler Lobdell, an attorney with Washington, D.C.-based Food and Water Watch, which focuses on government accountability on climate issues, said the air resources panel ignored the concerns of environmentalists — whilst the panel passed controversial changes last month.
These changes led to a tightening of fuel standards and sparked concerns about rising gas prices. But Lobdell said they’d also “dramatically” boost the production of biogas, which scientists and economists have raised concerns about.
The state board “left us no choice but to take this to court,” Lobdell said.
Dave Clegern, a spokesman for the Air Resources Board, declined to comment on the pending litigation but said in an email that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard “reduces the carbon emissions of fuels used in California.” It is a successful policy tool in California’s portfolio of progressive actions to combat climate pollution and improve air quality.”
In November, the board approved a plan to tighten limits on greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline and diesel fuels. This is anticipated to extend gas prices, sparking outrage amongst California Republicans. But it is going to also bring public health advantages and drive $100 billion in private investment in clean energy infrastructure over the following twenty years, the board said.
The 16-member board is dominated by appointees of Gov. Gavin Newsom. It oversees state climate and air policy, including fuel standards. The program sets increasingly strict limits for the worldwide warming share of transport fuels. At the identical time, it penalizes fossil fuel refiners and redirects funds to corporations that comply with the incentives, comparable to large dairy farms and biofuel producers and clean energy developers.
Although the board tightened those limits last month, the lawsuits say this system promotes pollution by funding biogas and biofuel projects.
Farms produce biogas, also called renewable natural gas, from animal waste through an industrial process called anaerobic digestion. This traps methane, a strong greenhouse gas, that will otherwise have been released into the atmosphere. The fuel standard provides incentives for farms that do that. According to Food and Water Watch, the usual has been the foremost driver of biogas development in California and other states.
However, Lobdell said the Air Resources Administration has not seriously studied whether this process actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions. He said the policy rewards “factory farms” for his or her pollution.
“Grow up, pollute as much as you can, because we will reward you richly,” he said. “This is backwards politics.”
Danny Cullenward, climate economist on the University of Pennsylvania, This was concluded in an October report. He said biogas produced through this system accounted for just 1% of California's transportation fuels for many of 2023. At the identical time, the usual potentially encouraged “larger herd sizes” on farms, “particularly to produce additional methane emissions and capture them profitably.”
Dylan Chase, a spokesman for the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, an industry group, declined to comment on the lawsuit but praised recent fuel standard changes.
“California’s recent update to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard underscores the state’s decades-long leadership in clean energy innovation and stewardship,” he said.
The other lawsuit targets biofuels, comparable to renewable diesel constructed from soy and vegetable oils. The Fuel Standard has largely funded renewable diesel projects and helped replace diesel fuel for trucks and heavy vehicles.
However, Earthjustice says biofuels “can be just as harmful to the environment as fossil fuels, and in some cases even worse.” Scientists have raised concerns that renewable diesel is commonly constructed from palm oil and soybean oil produced abroad in deforested areas, and that refineries are polluting the neighborhood.
The lawsuit alleges that the board violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to “meaningly incorporate scientific evidence of environmental and human health harms into its changes to the program,” the legal organization said in a news release.
Lobdell said Air Resources Board attorneys will reply to the petitions and initiate litigation proceedings.
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com