A San Francisco judge ruled in March that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) must stop implementations of regulations under the state’s 2006 climate change legislation (AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) because the state didn’t adequately consider alternatives to a cap-and-trade plan for carbon emissions. In
Amid the flurry of local and state ballot initiatives Californians will be voting on next month, we’re here to highlight two that have tremendous implications for our clean energy future:
How significant would it be if America’s 29 million small businesses increased their energy efficiency and reduced their emissions? Judging from the example of one California entrepreneur, the impact could be far greater than you might expect.
Would enlisting millions of small companies in a national response to climate change be
On Friday, Sept. 23, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) – in the absence of a California Legislature vote on the issue – approved a greenhouse gas reduction target of 33 percent for 2020 for the Los Angeles and greater San Francisco Bay areas – a target originally set by AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006.
This just in: Polluting Texas oil men don’t like California’s greenhouse gas law.
You heard it here first folks. Ok, maybe you’ve already heard it in the pre-election hubbub. And either way, it’s certainly no surprise. But here’s the skinny, just in case: The out-of-state oil biggies Valero and Tesoro have poured $4.5 million into