California's cap and trade gets a new name [Cap & Invest] and a new mission beyond cutting carbon pollution

calmatters.org

Opinion | Cap and trade gets a new name and a new mission beyond cutting carbon pollution

4 comments

First: fuck this bullshit. This is such a common problem with market-based solutions. I'm a big proponent of them, but you really need to keep politicians from doing this. The goal is phasing out fossil fuels. The money absolutely should be going to projects that fulfill that goal. This is not a piggy bank.
Second:
"While supporters ballyhoo the bullet train as something that would have a major impact on emissions by reducing auto traffic, the High Speed Rail Authority’s own projections indicate that, were it to be fully completed, it would reduce automobile emissions by scarcely 1%. Meanwhile construction actually increases emissions."
This doesn't quite pass the sniff test. You're telling me that if you built a zero-emissions mode of high speed transit along one of the most trafficked routes in the state that there would be no change in emissions? Are the ridership projections zero? Did the model say that for every driver who choses to take the train instead of driving, a new driver will take their place? Is this factoring in the effect on airline emissions from people who train instead of fly? This just sounds like that monologue from Landman where Billy Bob Thorton's character confidently declares a bunch of facts about climate reduction that the writer thought sounded good.
- we should just charge a carbon tax and directly invest it in green infrastructure, like subway lines, high speed rail, and transmission infrastrcture as well as loan programs for small scale things like apartment EVSEs and microgrids
- Alright, I just wasted a bunch of time I should've been working looking into this, and here is the HSRA's most recent report on the subject: https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Sustainability-Report-2024-FINAL-A11Y-20240916.pdf
  From the relevant section, pg 58:
  With high-speed rail, the annual GHG emissions reductions are projected to be 0.6 to 3 million MTCO2e. based on 2024 Business Plan ridership models. This reduction is equivalent to the annual carbon emissions associated with the energy use of between 77,000 and 372,000 homes – more than the housing stock of San Jose. The cumulative reductions in well-to-wheels emissions over the first 50 years of operations are projected to be between 29 million and 142 million MTCO2e.
  I wish they'd provided a percent reduction in vehicle emissions, but according to another source (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data), in 2023, transportation emissions in California were 137 million metric tons of CO2. The average of the range comes out to around 1.3% of that range.
  That's interesting. I wonder what fraction of transit emissions are from passenger travel across the state, vs commercial hauling and inner city traffic. I still think this is an obviously necessary step, but I'm curious what other actions are needed to take care of the other 99% of transit emissions. Perhaps urban public transit and bike infrastructure.
This author: "Won't someone please think of the poor, oppressed motorists?"