Emissions

Humanity Is on a Path Toward “Climate Chaos.” Scientists Warn: The Time to Act Is Now

Posted by CLR

The latest State of the Climate report, released October 29 by a team of leading scientists, delivers a clear message: humanity is racing toward climate chaos. In 2024, people and industries burned record amounts of oil, gas, and coal, pushing greenhouse-gas emissions to new highs. The result? The hottest year ever recorded, devastating wildfires and floods, and rising risks for communities everywhere.

“The planet’s vital signs are flashing red,” the authors warn. The data show the crisis is no longer a distant threat. It’s here.

A Planet on the Brink

Twenty-two of the planet’s thirty-four key “vital signs” are now at record levels: heat, ocean temperatures, ice loss, and extreme weather. Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than expected. The oceans are warmer and more acidic than ever, and forests are burning at historic rates.

The human footprint is at the heart of it. Global energy use from coal, oil, and gas keeps growing, while cleaner options still lag far behind. Every week, humanity adds more people, more livestock, and more consumption—stretching the planet’s limits and deepening inequality. The wealthiest 10 percent of the world’s population account for roughly two-thirds of the warming since 1990.

Disasters Are Getting Deadlier and Costlier

The past year has seen a surge in deadly disasters: floods in Texas, billion-dollar wildfires in California, lethal heat waves across India and Europe, and storms that wiped out homes and crops from Asia to the Americas. Since 2000, climate-linked damages have topped $18 trillion worldwide.

These aren’t isolated events. They’re symptoms of a destabilized climate. As the planet warms, we’re seeing more “weather whiplash”: swings between drought and deluge, and fires feeding on the heat they help create.

What We Can Still Do

The report makes clear that solutions already exist. What matters now is how quickly we act and whether policy matches the science. Three big levers stand out:

  1. End the fossil-fuel era. Set clear phase-out timelines, redirect subsidies toward renewables, and scale up storage, grid upgrades, and efficiency.
  2. Protect and restore nature. Forests, wetlands, and oceans absorb carbon and shield communities. Conserving and restoring them is one of the most powerful and affordable climate tools we have.
  3. Transform food and consumption. Cutting food waste, supporting plant-rich diets, and reducing overconsumption—especially among the affluent—can slash emissions while improving health and equity.

Unfortunately, the world is still moving in the opposite direction.

The Power of Social Tipping Points

Change often begins quietly—in living rooms, faith groups, and community halls—long before it shows up in policy. Social scientists call this a tipping point: when a small but steady wave of public resolve becomes impossible to ignore. Even a few percent of the population, acting with persistence and compassion, can shift national priorities.

Right now, many people feel not just discouraged but afraid. Afraid of what’s coming, of how divided we seem, and of whether anything they do can matter. That fear is understandable. It comes from love—love of family, home, and the places we cherish. Talking about that fear openly and without judgment is one of the most powerful things we can do.

Start where you are. Talk to your friends, your children, your congregation, your neighbors. Ask how they’re feeling about what’s happening to the world we share. Listen more than you speak. You don’t have to convince anyone. Just let them know they’re not alone. When fear is shared, it becomes connection, and connection can become courage.

That’s how social tipping points form: through empathy, shared purpose, and everyday acts of care that ripple outward until institutions have no choice but to follow.

A Call for Courage, Connection, and Care

The climate crisis is not only an environmental challenge; it’s a human one. It asks us to remember who we are to each other. Every person, community, and nation has a role to play. Governments can phase out fossil fuels and invest in clean energy. Businesses can innovate and repair what’s been damaged. Citizens can stay engaged, informed, and kind, even when the future feels heavy.

We can root our response in whatever gives our lives meaning—faith, family, duty, compassion. For some, it’s a spiritual call to care for creation. For others, it’s the simple desire to leave their children a world that works. All of those motivations belong.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:
• Talk with empathy. Calm, caring conversations about the climate build trust and dissolve isolation.
• Act locally. Join community efforts to plant trees, cut pollution, or help neighbors recover from floods or heat.
• Support fair policies. Encourage leaders to protect the most vulnerable and to base decisions on both science and compassion.
• Care for yourself and others. Hope is sustained through connection, rest, and community, not guilt.

Every conversation, every policy, every act of courage adds up. Fear may be what wakes us up, but love is what will move us forward.

The planet’s vital signs are indeed flashing red, but the human spirit still holds immense capacity for cooperation and care. If we meet this moment with empathy and humility, we can turn away from climate chaos and toward renewal—a future built not just on survival, but on shared purpose and grace.

Why California Needs Emission Budgets to Close Its Climate Blind Spot

Posted by CLR

California has built a global reputation for climate leadership, with some of the most ambitious policies in the world. But even a leader can’t steer effectively without a clear dashboard. Right now, California’s climate policy suffers from a major transparency gap — a lack of clear, public accounting that connects its reduction targets to the total carbon budget consistent with the Paris Agreement.

The Missing Link: From Targets to Trajectory

California tracks annual emissions and sets percentage reduction goals for 2030 and 2045, but those figures tell us little about whether the state’s pathway actually aligns its targets and with limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. Without a defined emission budget, there’s no way to see whether California’s planned reductions add up to its fair share of the global carbon limit and are aligned with its targets — or whether it’s quietly overspending its climate allowance.

Why Transparency Matters More Than Ever

Other jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom and Germany, use national CO₂ budgets to quantify the relationship between near-term policies and long-term temperature goals. That allows scientists, policymakers, and the public to detect both implementation gaps (whether policies are on track) and ambition gaps (whether those policies are strong enough).

In California, we can’t even begin that assessment. The data exist, but they aren’t organized or communicated in a way that links the state’s emissions to a finite carbon limit. As a result, we have a sophisticated set of tools — cap-and-trade, renewable mandates, vehicle standards — without a clear sense of whether they collectively keep us within climate safety bounds.

What a Carbon Budget Would Add

A CO₂ budget translates the abstract Paris temperature targets into a concrete number: the total amount of emissions California can produce while still contributing fairly to global goals. This benchmark doesn’t replace existing policies — it grounds them.
By defining that total, the state could:

  • Evaluate whether its targets are ambitious enough and whether implementation is aligned with the target.
  • Track whether real-world emissions are staying within the budget.
  • Communicate transparently how each sector contributes to overall progress.

Why California Needs Emission Budgets to Close Its Climate Blind Spot

California has built a global reputation for climate leadership, with some of the most ambitious policies in the world. But even a leader can’t steer effectively without a clear dashboard. Right now, California’s climate policy suffers from a major transparency gap — a lack of clear, public accounting that connects its reduction targets to the total carbon budget consistent with the Paris Agreement.

From Leadership to Clarity

California doesn’t need to assume it’s falling short — but it does need to know. Adopting a system of periodic emission budgets would transform guesswork into accountability, allowing the public and decision-makers to see, year by year, whether the state’s climate spending stays within planetary means.

If California wants to remain a climate leader, it should lead not just in ambition, but in clarity. Emission budgets — regularly updated and publicly tracked — are how we make that leadership measurable.

The Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act (SB 684/AB 1243)

Posted by CLR

In response to devastating wildfires in California in recent years, Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D–San Fernando Valley) and Asm. Dawn Addis (D–San Luis Obispo) have introduced a new bill that would create a program under California’s Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to assess fees on the largest historical producers of climate-heating pollution. It would force these fossil fuel polluters to pay for their increasingly devastating and costly damage to the state—rather than leaving Californians to bear the financial burden.

This bill, known as the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025, SB 684 and AB 1243, establishes the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Program, to be administered by CalEPA. The program requires fossil fuel companies to pay their fair share of the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions released between 1990 and 2024, resulting from the extraction, production, refining, sale, or combustion of fossil fuels or petroleum products. The goal is to shift part of the financial burden of climate change response and adaptation away from taxpayers and onto the corporations most responsible.

Within 90 days of the law’s adoption, CalEPA must publish a list of responsible parties—defined as entities with a majority ownership interest in businesses that extracted or refined fossil fuels, conducted business in California, and are responsible for over 1 billion metric tons of global fossil fuel emissions during the covered period.

Using a climate cost study, CalEPA will calculate the total damages from climate impacts in California through 2045 and determine each responsible party’s proportionate share of the costs. These funds will be deposited into a newly created Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Fund, which will finance climate resilience, clean energy projects, disaster preparedness, green jobs, and infrastructure improvements—particularly benefiting disadvantaged communities.

Companies may pay in full or opt for a 20-year installment plan, with penalties for nonpayment. The law also allows for continued legal action against polluters and does not preempt existing environmental laws or regulations.

In short, this act is a bold step to make fossil fuel giants financially accountable for the climate crisis they helped create—and to fund California’s response and recovery in the decades to come.

Note: Climate California is urging ordinary citizens to advocate for this bill. Click here for details.

IEMAC Opines that California is NOT on Target to Hit Emissions Goals

Posted by CLR

The IEMAC makes a number of recommendations in its 2023 annual report, covering greenhouse gas accounting, affordability, market links with other jurisdictions, and subsurface carbon management.

IEMAC’s recommendations are based on the backdrop that, while emissions are on a downward trend, California is not on track to hit its emission reduction targets in 2030.

First, IEMAC recommends adjustments to the methodology employed by CARB in accounting for emissions. It noted several methodological concerns. 

  • Among other things, IEMAC notes that CARB should reevaluate the calculation of biogenic CO₂ emissions as this could encourage certain mitigation measures notwithstanding controversy over whether biogenic CO₂ ought to be treated differently from fossil CO₂.
  • IEMAC recommends changes in the treatment of land sector emissions and removals, which are presently excluded from California’s GHG inventory, but in light of recent wildfire seasons comprise a significant source of CO₂. 
  • IEMAC recommends the adjustment of the 1990 statutory emissions baseline, since CARB recently shifted to using MRR data as the primary source for the GHG Inventory; this change was viewed as improving data accuracy but also had the effect of retrospectively lowering historical emission estimates. The IEMAC recommended that this change underscores the need to review and possibly adjust the 1990 baseline to maintain policy stringency.

Second, IEMAC addresses concerns about policy equity in the climate transition. 

  • IEMAC emphasize that vulnerable Californians bear the brunt of these climate impacts, and that the transition to a zero-emission economy must be both affordable and equitable, particularly benefiting disadvantaged communities. It notes that current approaches, such as raising electricity prices to fund wildfire mitigation, disproportionately affect low-income households.
  • It argues for a shift towards more cost-effective strategies, advocating for the role of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions market. It stresses the market’s flexibility in promoting least-cost abatement strategies compared to rigid regulations, potentially lowering overall mitigation costs. IEMAC also recommends tighter regulations and adjustments to allowance supply as part updates to the market.

Third, IEMAC encourages California to share its policies.  It argues that while California emits a small fraction of global greenhouse gases, its policies and technologies have a disproportionate impact due to their potential for replication and adoption beyond state borders.

  • It cites examples like California’s cap-and-trade system, which was linked early with Quebec’s through the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), demonstrating the potential for collaborative emission reductions across regions.
  • It advocates for expanding these linkages, particularly with Washington State’s recently passed Climate Commitment Act, which mirrors California’s. 
  • They argue that expansion actually improves efficiency by reducing administrative costs and stabilizing business costs across a larger market.

CARB’s California State Budget Item 3900-001-3237 Reporting

Posted by CLR

California State Budget Item 3900-001-3237 required CARB to publish annually for three years beginning in 2022 a preliminary estimate of the prior-year’s GHG emissions. CARB’s reporting is very oddly worded, and cautions in multiple places that it is posting only as required by statutory budget item and is not intended for decision making or regulatory compliance.

You can find those reports here: 2021, 2022, and 2023. They are also summarized below.

California Senate Hearings on Cap and Trade

Posted by CLR

On February 13, 2024, the Senate Environmental Quality joined the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy, met to consider the new proposed “Cap and Trade Rulemaking” and to examine more closely why the state’s current cap-and-trade program is not on track to drive environmental justice and affordability outcomes by 2030. Staff produced a background paper to summarize the concerns. You can watch the hearing here.

May 16 EJAC Meeting to Consider CARB’s Regulatory Impact Assessment of New Regulations

Posted by CLR

AB 32 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee meet next on Thursday, May 16, 2024, at 1:00 PM – 5:00 pm. You can attend in person, on line, or by telephone. Details are here.

The meeting will focus on the economic impacts of the new cap and trade regulatory changes. The cost benefit analysis (Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment or SRIA) was prepared pursuant to regulations adopted by the Department of Finance.

Table 1 from page 5 the SRIA sets out the costs and benefits predicted from the action, although it lumps them all together.

In total, it appears that the $79.4 – $82.8 billion costs of the program will be overshadowed by the $125.70 – $561.10 billion in benefits. Read the full report to understand the ranges, which are largely due to the differences in the proposed scenarios and the discount rate applied.

Open for Public Comment: 2023 Annual Report of the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee Open for Public Comment: 2023

Posted by CLR

The Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee (IEMAC) is seeking public comment on its Sixth Annual Report to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies on the environmental and economic performance of California’s carbon market
and other relevant climate policies.

Public comments should be sent to iemac@calepa.ca.gov by February 26.

Climate Transparency in California Is at Risk

Posted by CLR

The Climate Accountability Package — comprised of Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 253 and Senator Henry Stern’s SB 261 — created the nation’s first requirements for large corporations to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, carbon embedded in supply chains, and climate risks. The New York Times called SB 253 in particular a “landmark climate disclosure bill” […] with national repercussions.”  

The ink on these bills is barely dry and they are already under attack from multiple fronts.

Governor Newsom’s proposed budget included significant cuts to address a $37.9 billion budget shortfall, including all funding to new legislative programs.  Thus, the $9 million requested by the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) to implement the Climate Accountability Package was part of that proposed cut.  The Newsom Administration has emphasized that the proposed budget was just a starting point for negotiations.  Senator Wiener, author of SB 253, has issued the following statement:  “It’s critical that the May budget include funding to implement these laws so that businesses have the certainty they need to prepare to make these new disclosures.”  Thus, funding to implement these laws is far from certain.

Although having the laws have the support of many major corporations, including  Apple, Google, Salesforce, Levi’s, and Patagonia, the California Chamber of Commerce was stanchly opposed. In fact, it file suit in federal district court to challenge the laws on January 30, 2024.  The petition, drafted by the firm multinational law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, raises claims largely rooted in the US constitution. 

  • The petition argues that the laws impermissibly “compels speech” under the First Amendment by making the corporations report on their direct and indirect emissions, which they argue are primarily speculation, as well as requiring them to report on the future risks from climate change.  Further, they complain that some of this reporting is on the company’s website.  Many of the complaints are based on “vagueness” in the law; since both laws require CARB to adopt regulations to implement them, these charges seem premature. 
  • The petition argues that federal law in the United States Constitution and in the Clean Air Act preempts any efforts to require companies to report their emissions related to activities inside and outside of California.   Implicit in this argument is that “reporting” on emissions is “regulation” on emissions.
  • The petition argues that the laws somehow attempt to regulate commerce extraterritorially, both interstate and foreign, which is—according to the petition—an “offense” to the commerce clause. 

All of these arguments are clearly aimed at the activist, conservative United States Supreme Court.

So far, the litigation has not been successful in the courts, but it is early days. In November 2024, US District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement as premature, granting leave to refile after discovery.

Senator Wiener issued the following statement in response to the litigation:

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit against these groundbreaking climate laws is straight up climate denial,” said Senator Wiener. “Why is the Chamber of Commerce working so aggressively to block basic transparency for the public? We know the answer. It’s not because of the Chamber’s bogus arguments about cost and implementation, since it’s both inexpensive and easy for corporations to make these disclosures. It’s not because of the Chamber’s bizarre and frivolous First Amendment argument. Rather, the Chamber is taking this extremist legal action because many large corporations — particularly fossil fuel corporations and large banks — are absolutely terrified that if they have to tell the public how dramatically they’re fueling climate change, they’ll no longer be able to mislead the public and investors. The Chamber and large corporate polluters don’t want the public to know how much they’re strangling the planet with carbon emissions — that’s why they filed this baseless lawsuit.

“The climate crisis is a real and present threat to our planet and to businesses’ success. Investors and consumers have a right to know the details of how billion dollar companies are navigating the greatest challenge of our time, and many major corporations like Apple and Google are already making these disclosures and support these laws because they understand that need. While corporate lobby groups continue to wage an unhinged misinformation campaign against these laws, investors and consumers are being deprived of vital information to navigate our rapidly warming planet.”

See more from Senator Weiner on the need to fund these measures at Four questions for Scott Wiener.

CARB Reports Emissions Are Up

Posted by CLR

CARB recently released a preliminary greenhouse gas inventory reporting that the the state’s emissions increased  in 2021 and 2022 as compared with 2020.

Reporting by Scoping Plan sector in units of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e), CARB revealed that emissions are on an upward trend:

Sector2020 GHG Inventory (MMTCO2e)Ratio of MRR Emissions (2021/2020)Estimated 2021 Emissions (MMTCO2e)Estimated 2022 Emissions (MMTCO2e)
Transportation1361.0913148148.8 ±13.3
Electric Power601.03456260.4 ±1
Industrial731.01867576.1 ±3.8
Residential & Commercial390.99983939.3 ±1
Agriculture32N/A3231.6 ±0.2
High GWP21N/A2120.9 ±0.3
Recycling & Waste  9N/A98.8 ±0.1
Total369 384386 ±17.7

This is of course bad news, since addressing climate change requires deep and swift emissions reductions and the trend is clearly inconsistent with state law, which requires carbon neutrality by 2045. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 38562.2, subd. (c).)

CARB’s disclaimer for this analysis sounds defensive.  It reports that these estimates are provided only because they are required by law and “should not be used for any policy making decisions or regulatory compliance, nor cited for any purpose.”  (Emphasis added.)