While California Governor Gavin Newsom spoke about the state’s climate leadership at a recent U.N. climate summit in Brazil, conflict was brewing at home. Environmental justice leaders clashed with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state’s air pollution regulator.
The issue came to a head this past Tuesday when Catherine Garoupa, a key advisor at CARB, resigned. She expressed frustration over what she called “growing hostility” toward the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC), which aims to ensure that marginalized communities have a voice in environmental policy.
Garoupa, who leads the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, made her concerns clear in her resignation letter. She argued that CARB has been ignoring scientific evidence and catering to industry interests, which harms low-income and minority communities.
Tensions escalated after a meeting where CARB’s Deputy Executive Officer, Rajinder Sahota, criticized a researcher from UC Berkeley. He compared her feedback on the state’s forest carbon offset program to former President Trump’s attacks on climate science, a comment that struck many as inappropriate.
“This tension has been building for a long time,” Garoupa noted. In her view, Sahota’s remarks were an attack on the credibility of scientific research, making it feel like the concerns of the committee were being dismissed.
In response to the backlash, CARB invited the Attorney General’s Office to review the situation. Their findings indicated that CARB did not breach any conduct standards. A CARB spokesperson acknowledged Garoupa’s contributions and reassured that they continue to support the EJAC’s efforts.
Martha Argüello, the other co-chair of EJAC, voiced her agreement with Garoupa’s analysis. She emphasized the need for California’s climate policy to actively include environmental justice communities. “We need a bold approach,” Argüello stated, voicing her concerns that this was lacking in the current dynamic.
The dispute highlights a long-standing tension between environmental regulators and justice organizations regarding cap-and-trade programs. These programs allow companies to buy the right to emit carbon but have come under scrutiny for potentially allowing businesses to “pay off” their carbon responsibilities rather than making real systemic changes.
Despite claims that cap-and-trade has improved air quality in California, researchers like Barbara Haya argue that its benefits haven’t reached all communities equally. Studies reveal that air quality improvements from these programs are often inconsistent, leaving some neighborhoods still facing pollution.
Garoupa pointed out that the EJAC has recommended stricter pollution control measures, especially in highly polluted areas. However, she feels their suggestions have been ignored repeatedly.
The carbon offset system, which allows companies to meet part of their emissions requirements through credits from projects that sequester carbon—often in forestry and agriculture—is also a point of contention. Critics argue that it can create loopholes that enable companies to avoid making necessary changes to their operations.
Haya explained that much of the carbon savings attributed to these offset projects might be exaggerated, raising concerns about the accuracy of carbon accounting.
This is not merely an isolated dispute; it reflects broader debates about environmental justice in California. Many state residents are still wary about how climate policies are crafted, especially when they seem to prioritize corporate interests over community health.
Both scholars and activists are calling for a reevaluation of these carbon offset protocols, particularly as California’s legislature urges CARB to develop updated standards by 2029 based on the best available science. The urgency to address these gaps in policy highlights the need for more inclusive decision-making processes that prioritize the voices of affected communities.
As this ongoing discussion unfolds, it becomes clear that the outlook for California’s environmental policies will depend not only on scientific evidence but also on the willingness of stakeholders to engage authentically with one another.
In this complex landscape, the voices of environmental justice advocates must be central in shaping the future of climate policy in California, ensuring that progress does not come at the cost of marginalized communities.
Source link
