California faces a firestorm, not just on fires, but also on energy. The state government continues to push households to electrify while, at the same time, electricity prices skyrocket. The dual impact of increasing dependence on electricity and a 35 to 45% boost in electric bills since 2020 is particularly hard on poor families. Already squeezed, Californians now pay the highest gasoline prices in the country, ranging from 30 to 50% above the national average. Inflicting more pain at the pump is California’s Air Resources Board (CARB). While they may be well-intentioned, the Board’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) disproportionately hurt poor households because these households spend over 11% of their income (not including some government benefits) on gasoline.
CARB’s stated mission is “to promote…public health…through [the] effective reduction of air pollutants…recognizing and considering effects on the economy.” (italics added) As “the lead agency for climate change programs” it’s also responsible for the State’s goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. To achieve these goals the Board wants to speed up the shift to electric vehicles.
CARB claims that its restrictive fuel standards will lead to a 90% reduction in carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2045. It expects these efforts to eliminate over 500 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. That sounds impressive—until you look at data from China. The projected cumulative California emission reductions over this 20-year period amount to only two weeks (less than 5%) of China’s annual emissions. Sadly, California fires in 2020 wiped out all progress on carbon dioxide reduction over the previous 17 years. The current fires will likely wipe out a substantial amount of progress since 2020.
This is from David R. Henderson and Francois Melese, “California’s New Fuel Standards Hurt the Poor, with Little Environment Benefit,” Independent Institute, February 12, 2025. (First published in California Globe, February 11, 2025.)
Read the whole thing, which is not long.
READER COMMENTS
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 12 2025 at 3:27pm
It’s strange how bad things seem to happen when we take decisions out of the hands of individuals who understand local conditions, who can quickly respond to feedback, and who will pay a price if they choose poorly and place them in the hands of central planners who have limited knowledge and imperfect feedback mechanisms, and who pay no price for being wrong.
Jose Pablo
Feb 13 2025 at 8:28am
The projected cumulative California emission reductions over this 20-year period amount to only two weeks (less than 5%) of China’s annual emissions
David, this argument is particularly disingenuous and certainly not up to your usual standards.
Even after a significant reduction of approximately 30% since 2001, Californians still emit 9.7 metric tons of CO₂ per capita annually—compared to 8 metric tons per capita in China. This means that, despite sustained efforts, each Californian is still contributing 25% more to global warming than the average Chinese citizen.
Even more critically, the real driver of global warming is historical emissions, not just current ones—and by that measure, California’s cumulative contribution far exceeds China’s.
While your statement is factually correct, it undeniably carries a misleading implication: that China’s contribution to global warming surpasses California’s. That conclusion is simply incorrect.
Jose Pablo
Feb 13 2025 at 8:37am
I would suggest using this wording instead:
The projected cumulative California emission reductions over this 20-year period amount to only five weeks (around 10%) of ex-California US annual emissions
which conveys the same sense of futility of the Californian effort without unnecessarily fueling anti-Chinese sentiment—which isn’t in short supply these days.
Comments are closed.