![]() ![]() In theory, biofuels can be a “carbon neutral” or even “carbon negative” way to power cars, trucks and planes, meaning they take at least as much CO 2 out of the atmosphere as they put back in.Ī major promise of biofuels is that they can lower overall CO 2 emissions without changing a lot of our infrastructure. When the plants used to make biofuels grow, they absorb CO 2 from the air, and it’s that same CO 2 that goes back into the atmosphere when the fuels are burned. As we search for fuels that won’t contribute to the greenhouse effect and climate change, biofuels are a promising option because the carbon dioxide (CO 2) they emit is recycled through the atmosphere. Biofuels can be used as replacements for petroleum-based fuels like gasoline and diesel. Opposition came from the California Chamber of Commerce and consortiums of large and powerful industry groups: the Western States Petroleum Association, which represents oil companies, the Western Growers Association and and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, which represents stockbrokers and investment bankers.ĬalChamber lobbyist Brady Van Engelen declined to comment on the lawmakers’ vote today.Biofuel is any liquid fuel made from “biomass”-that is, plants and other biological matter like animal waste and leftover cooking fat. right now,” said Catherine Atkin, a climate attorney who formed the group Carbon Accountable to advocate for the bill. “In California, we would be leading the way with a gold standard that in a lot of ways would do the work that can’t happen for all kinds of reasons in D.C. corporations that would have to report their emissions under California’s bill, about 73% are privately held companies, according to sustainability group Ceres. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed a rule that would require publicly traded companies to report verified greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks.īut the federal efforts - which do not include private companies - have met fierce opposition from business groups. Meanwhile the Biden administration’s U.S. The United Kingdom already requires companies to report emissions, and the European Union will begin requiring the reports in 2025. Once again, California is leading the nation on essential climate action.”Įconomic activity has long been the principal driver of the world’s changing climate, and for the last two decades, organizations have sought uniform standards for reporting corporations’ greenhouse gas emissions. “We need strong transparency to create a level playing field among private and public companies. “These disclosures are simple but transformational, which is why companies like Apple are already reporting their emissions and calling them essential to their corporate climate goals,” state Wiener. Last year, a similar bill failed in the state Assembly on the last night of the legislative session. The bill passed off the Assembly floor on Monday with an initial vote of 41-20, then cleared the Senate in a final, 27-8 vote Tuesday. Increased corporate transparency on emissions could lead to highly publicized “top polluters” lists that make major corporations more accountable - and uncomfortable - since their full role in causing climate change would be exposed. Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. For years, many businesses have marketed themselves as environmental stewards while failing to fully disclose their emissions. The aim of the legislation is to hold large companies accountable for the role they play in climate change. Under the bill, the emissions disclosures would have to be independently verified by an outside consultant, “an independent third-party assurance provider.” But the reports of emissions from suppliers and consumers wouldn’t begin until 2027 - and the companies won’t be penalized for inaccurate reports for the first few years. The companies will still have to report emissions from their operations and their energy use beginning in 2026. ![]() Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, amended his bill to give the companies until 2030 before fines for inaccurately reporting emissions from those less-direct sources would kick in. Business groups said the estimates could be inaccurate, resulting in misguided public policy, while putting an onerous burden on companies. These indirect sources, called “Scope 3” emissions, have raised the concerns of business groups. Businesses would have to report not only the tons of gases they emit globally from all of their own global operations and energy use, but also from less-direct sources, such as their supply chains, contractors and even consumers’ use of their products.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |