Fue el tipo de iniciativa audaz y centrada en el clima por la que California ha desarrollado una reputación:una prohibición efectiva de la venta de autos nuevos a gasolina para 2035.

Pero la histórica votación de la semana pasada por parte de la Junta de Recursos del Aire de California sigue a una serie de amplias acciones ambientales estatales que han tenido diversos grados de éxito.

Ahora, mientras los funcionarios buscan cambiar fundamentalmente la cultura automotriz de California, reduciendo así su mayor fuente de emisiones de carbono y contaminación del aire que calientan el planeta, los expertos dicen que esas iniciativas pasadas pueden arrojar luz sobre si el plan automotriz líder en la nación de California puede funcionar.

Calidad del aire y smog

En Los Ángeles, el denso smog que una vez sofocó la ciudad se considera hoy como folclore. En su peor momento, entre las décadas de 1950 y 1980, la neblina cáustica era tan espesa que la gente solo podía ver hasta una manzana de la ciudad. Irritaba la garganta y los pulmones de las personas y les provocaba ojos inyectados en sangre. En ese entonces, había más de 200 días con aire insalubre al año, según la Junta de Recursos del Aire.

Desde entonces, ha habido un gran progreso hacia la reducción del smog y la contaminación del aire, en gran parte debido a automóviles más limpios. La cantidad de óxidos de nitrógeno que forman smog se ha reducido en más de un 50 % en las últimas dos décadas, lo que ha mejorado sustancialmente la salud pública.

Pero el progreso de California en la lucha contra la contaminación del aire se ha estancado en las últimas décadas, y el estado todavía alberga la peor contaminación del aire de la nación. La cuenca de aire de la costa sur (Los Ángeles, Orange, Riverside y parte de los condados de San Bernardino) todavía tiene que cumplir con los estándares de salud federales para los niveles de ozono, incluida la medida más antigua promulgada en 1979.

"Si mira hacia atrás 70 años, hemos hecho un trabajo maravilloso", dijo Joe Lyou, presidente de la Coalición por el Aire Limpio. "Si mira hacia atrás en la última década o dos, no es tan bueno. Y si mira los estándares legales que exigen que proporcionemos aire saludable para que la gente respire, no lo estamos haciendo nada bien".

El calentamiento global ha exacerbado aún más el problema al alimentar incendios forestales y condiciones más propicias para la formación de smog.

"Los días peligrosos de contaminación del aire están fuera de las listas debido al aumento de los incendios forestales provocados por el clima", dijo Will Barrett, director nacional sénior de defensa del aire limpio de la Asociación Estadounidense del Pulmón. "También sabemos que el ozono se forma cuando las emisiones del tubo de escape y otras emisiones se mezclan en la atmósfera en los días calurosos y soleados. Estamos viendo más calor, más eventos climáticos extremos, creando mejores condiciones para la formación de ozono y amenazando la salud en el suelo. Estos son crisis duales. Provienen de las mismas fuentes:fuentes de transporte".

Pero fue la capacidad del estado para abordar y resolver una gran crisis de smog lo que les da a algunos expertos la esperanza de que también puede transformar el transporte.

"El mayor reclamo a la fama de la Junta de Recursos del Aire antes de la era climática fue su papel en la creación y aplicación de la adopción de convertidores catalíticos y otras tecnologías para reducir las emisiones de contaminación que formaba smog, que asfixiaba a los principales centros metropolitanos tanto en el Área de la Bahía y en la costa sur", dijo Danny Cullenward, director de políticas de la organización de investigación climática sin fines de lucro CarbonPlan. "Entonces, la Junta de Recursos del Aire, como institución, realmente se preparó y tuvo un éxito extraordinario en décadas anteriores, al abordar un problema masivo que involucraba tecnologías complicadas, industrias poderosas... y problemas que afectaban la vida cotidiana de las personas".

Limitación y comercio

Uno de los programas climáticos emblemáticos de California, cap-and-trade, se lanzó inicialmente en 2006 con el objetivo de reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero del estado a los niveles de 1990 para 2020. Superó las expectativas y, de hecho, alcanzó el objetivo con cuatro años de anticipación.

En 2017, el programa fue reautorizado con un objetivo mucho más ambicioso:reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero al 40 % de los niveles de 1990 para 2030. Para llegar allí, el programa utiliza un sistema de créditos de contaminación que esencialmente permite a los grandes emisores de carbono comprar y vender créditos no utilizados. con el objetivo de mantener a todos en o por debajo de un cierto total.

Los expertos dicen que solo funcionó. Si bien el programa se ha mantenido como un elemento clave de la estrategia climática de California, las emisiones se redujeron aproximadamente un 11 % en 2020, lejos de la meta del 40 %. Además, es probable que ese número represente las reducciones de emisiones vinculadas al comienzo de la pandemia de COVID-19.

"La evidencia es bastante clara de que no estamos encaminados hacia ese objetivo, y la dependencia de este programa es una gran parte de la razón por la que no estamos encaminados", dijo Cullenward.

El vocero de la Junta de Recursos del Aire, David Clegern, dijo por correo electrónico que el estado tiene las políticas implementadas para cumplir con su objetivo, "pero lograrlo significa que se necesita una acción concertada para implementar políticas para reducir el transporte, los contaminantes climáticos de vida corta, la electricidad y otras emisiones para alcanzar el 2030".

"El hecho de que el estado haya logrado su objetivo para 2020 cuatro años antes y el éxito de programas como el Estándar de combustible bajo en carbono y la adición de nuevos programas significa que el papel de los límites máximos y el comercio puede ser menor en el futuro, pero eso será evaluarse después de la publicación del Plan de Alcance 2020 a finales de este año", dijo. The scoping plan is a roadmap for achieving carbon neutrality in the state, and is updated every five years.

Cullenward noted that the cap-and-trade program has some clear parallels to the advanced clean cars rule, including its plan to provide credits to auto manufacturers who sell more electric vehicles than they're required to. However, there are also some key differences that made him more optimistic about the gas car ban's prospects of success.

For one, he said, the Air Resources Board has historically had more strength as a regulator of mobile emission sources (such as cars) than of stationary ones such as factories and power plants, as evidenced by its earlier success with catalytic converters and smog reduction. What's more, while the industries regulated by cap-and-trade are "local, powerful and politically organized," the state has little in the way of combustion engine production.

Fossil fuels

Despite California's green reputation, it remains the seventh-highest oil producing state in the nation, extracting about 358,000 barrels per day, according to state data.

However, oil production has been declining for decades, and the California Geologic Energy Management Division, or CalGEM, reported that "more permits have been issued to plug and permanently seal existing wells than to drill new ones since 2019." The agency issued 564 new well permits in 2021, down from 1,917 in 2020 and 2,665 in 2019.

Some experts said that's not aggressive enough.

"This transition can't happen too slowly, because there is a climate crisis, and there are significant public health impacts on frontline communities," said Bahram Fazeli, director of research and policy at Communities for a Better Environment.

Although there are ambitions to phase out California's oil and gas production completely—most recently, Gov. Gavin Newsom set his sights on 2045—there has yet to be an official deadline such as the one for the gas car ban.

But the state has made some efforts to control or reduce oil production, including a proposed ban on new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools and healthcare facilities. Newsom last summer also ordered a ban on new permits for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, beginning in 2024.

"As we move to swiftly decarbonize our transportation sector and create a healthier future for our children, I've made it clear I don't see a role for fracking in that future and, similarly, believe that California needs to move beyond oil," the governor said at the time.

Fazeli noted that a recent study out of the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that achieving that transition by 2045 is feasible in California, though it would require a significant investment:About $138 billion per year, according to the study. But the fossil fuel industry is, by nature, opposed to such an existential threat, Fazeli said, and even passing "common sense" legislation such as the 3,200-foot buffer zone has proven challenging.

"California's economy is not different from other economies—the economy is a fossil fuel economy," he said. "So California is going through this growing pain of, how do we become a clean energy economy? How do we transition from a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy economy, and also provide good paying jobs? That's a key part of the puzzle."

Another part of the puzzle is balance, according to Kyle Meng, an associate professor of environmental economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

"When it comes to gasoline, you really need policies to deal with both the demand side—like the new car ban and subsidies for EVs—as well as the supply side, which is the production of oil," he said. "One without the other would lead to unexpected, adverse consequences."

For example, reducing demand without supply could mean California ends up exporting its excess oil, Meng said, while reducing supply too quickly could leave communities that rely on the industry in bad shape. In Kern County, one of the state's top producing regions, oil and gas extraction provide as much as 20% of the area's property tax revenue.

As in other sectors, equity remains a major concern, especially when it comes to the communities suffering the worst effects of oil and gas drilling, Meng said. But when considering the state's climate efforts thus far, he said there has been good progress.

"If you were to tell me that California would hit the state's 2020 greenhouse gas goals back in 2005, I wouldn't have believed it. But California did it," he said. "However, looking forward, the task for this decade is even more ambitious. The big open question is not just whether California can meet its 2030 greenhouse gas goals, but whether those goals are met in a way that doesn't exacerbate existing inequities across the state."

Vehicle miles traveled

Although phasing out gas-powered cars is one of the state's greatest priorities, that alone won't be enough. Driving habits must change, too, if the state expects to achieve carbon neutrality.

The state climate plan depends on motorists driving at least 12% fewer miles by 2030, and no fewer than 22% by 2045.

Since the advent of the automobile and the construction of the highway system, large cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco have become car-centric. Today, around 75% of daily commuting trips consist of one person driving with no passengers—a practice that remains the primary mode of transportation in California.

"Highway building and sprawl go hand in hand," said Susan Handy, a researcher at UC Davis who has studied strategies to reduce automobile dependence. "That's true in California, and it's also true everywhere else. When we built highways, it made it possible to develop farther from city centers than ever before. And now we're in a situation where we've got these sprawling development patterns and it makes it very hard to get around by means other than the car."

As the state's population has risen and more cars are on the road, state officials funded highway construction and expansion to ease congestion, which ironically fostered more driving.

The only major significant decreases in miles driven occur during economic downturns and, recently, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 as more people have worked remotely. However, driving has rebounded to pre-pandemic levels.

Public policy strategy to reduce driving has historically included gas tax hikes or tolls, which could serve as a deterrent. But the state could do better at investments and incentivizing other forms of transportation like biking and mass transit, Handy said.

Much of California's plans have depended on providing financial incentives to trade in gas-powered cars for zero-emission vehicles. But some state officials have requested the state look into how driving behaviors might change if the state invests more in mass transit.

"I think it's tough, because we're a car culture, right?" Air Resources Board chair Liane Randolph said at a meeting in June. "We know how to help people buy cars. What we don't know is how to help people change the culture so that they are able to ride public transit in a way that's economical and equitable and efficient for them to get to work and to school and wherever they need to go."

Infrastructure

Infrastructure will play a huge role in California's transition away from gas cars, multiple experts said. Charging stations will be needed to help power electric vehicles, and electricity will be needed to power those charging stations, among myriad considerations.

So far, the state has established many goals to help get there, including plans to construct at least 250,000 public vehicle charging stations by the middle of the decade; 10,000 of which should be fast chargers, according to the California Public Utilities Commission. The state also plans to require landlords of multifamily housing units to provide residents with a means to charge electric cars, though those details are still being worked out.

And it's not only personal vehicles that will need the stations, but also the heavy-duty trucks that transport goods throughout the state every day. The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have the goal of being serviced exclusively by zero-emission trucks by 2035, but they have a long way to go:Only 35 of the 22,000 trucks that serve the port complex are "electric," "battery electric" or "hydrogen fuel cell," according to data from their clean truck program.

Though the state has made efforts to streamline the permit process for charging stations, mapping tools show huge gaps in their locations, particularly in inland Central California and far Northern California.

"We're nowhere close to where we need to be on infrastructure, especially charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, electric trucks, electric buses, electric off-road equipment," said Lyou, of the Coalition for Clean Air. "And it's emerged as the most challenging thing we have to do."

Another part of the problem is that recharging the batteries of electric cars and trucks could also lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, depending on where that energy is coming from.

"If you're talking about California trying to move its emissions from gasoline cars into EVs, you're talking about probably doubling the amount of electricity demand on the grid," said Meng, of UC Santa Barbara. "Where's that going to come from? You could imagine large utility-scale solar in places like Kern County, but with the laws as they're written now, it's very hard for Kern County to get property tax benefits from a solar farm than it could from oil drilling." + Explora más

California phasing out gas vehicles in climate change fight

2022 Los Ángeles Times.
Distribuido por Tribune Content Agency, LLC.