SW-NCA-color-FINALweb

420 assessment of climate change in the southwest united statesCase Studies of Climate Choices for a Sustainable SouthwestCalifornia’s Climate Policy History and AB 32Box 18.4The history of climate-change policy makingin California is longer than in most other states(Franco et al. 2008). Beginning in 1988, AssemblyBill 4420 (AB 4420) called on the California EnergyCommission to lead the preparation of thefirst scientific assessment of the potential impactsof climate change and of policy options to reduceGHG emissions. It took until 2000 before the firststeps were taken to regulate GHG emissions,when Senate Bill 1771 created the non-profit CaliforniaClimate Action Registry (CA Registry), allowingstate organizations to register and tracktheir voluntary emission reductions. Shortlythereafter in 2002, the assembly passed the socalled“Pavley bill” (AB 1493), a ground-breakinglaw which led to the regulation of GHG emittedfrom automobiles. After an executive order wassigned by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger inJune 2005 (S-3-05), the California state assemblythen passed the California Global Warming SolutionsAct (AB 32) in 2006, committing the stateto reduce GHG emissions statewide by 80% below1990 levels by mid-century, with an interimgoal of capping emissions at 1990 levels by 2020.Several additional laws have been passed sincein support of these policy goals, including requirementsto generate a growing percentage ofelectricity from renewable energy and to developintegrated land use and transportation strategies(Franco et al. 2008; NRC 2010c, Box 2.1). Contraryto widespread concerns, the climate-policyinitiatives in California appear to have positiveeconomic impacts on the state economy in termsof jobs generated and technological innovationspurred (Roland-Holst 2008; Berck and Xie 2011).reductions); and (4) adaptation undermines the achievement of mitigation goals. Becausefunding is often limited and alternatives are not always feasible, in some instancesadaptation may have to be chosen even though it increases emissions, or one type ofeffort must be focused on one rather than the other because of mandates. For example,heat wave response may require extra air conditioning in public buildings or extragroundwater pumping, even when this increases emissions because other options suchas desalination are too expensive or simply not available in the near-term. Some renewableenergy options may require more water use, thus adding to adaptation challenges.It is important to examine the interaction of mitigation and adaptation in the Southwestbecause it can help maximize potential co-benefits and reduce potential trade-offs ifthey cannot entirely be avoided (Scott and Pasqualetti 2010). To the extent trade-offs areperceived by interested stakeholders, they can pose barriers to progress, and thus needcareful consideration (Moser 2012). Table 18.3 lists examples of activities particularlyrelevant in the Southwest region that illustrate these interactions.While trade-offs should be avoided, stand-alone climate policies that pursue onlymitigation or adaptation goals should not be disfavored if they are well indicated anddemonstrably useful even if they do not have explicit co-benefits for other policy goals.This may entail difficult political challenges, as it is reasonable to expect that there will