Foi o tipo de iniciativa ousada e focada no clima pela qual a Califórnia desenvolveu uma reputação – uma proibição efetiva da venda de novos carros movidos a gasolina até 2035.
Mas a votação histórica da semana passada pelo Conselho de Recursos Aéreos da Califórnia segue uma série de ações ambientais estaduais abrangentes que tiveram vários graus de sucesso.

Agora, enquanto as autoridades buscam mudar fundamentalmente a cultura automotiva da Califórnia – reduzindo assim sua maior fonte de emissões de carbono e poluição do ar – especialistas dizem que essas iniciativas anteriores podem esclarecer se o plano automotivo líder da Califórnia pode funcionar.

Qualidade do ar e poluição atmosférica

Em Los Angeles, o denso smog que outrora cobriu a cidade é considerado hoje como folclore. Na pior das hipóteses, entre as décadas de 1950 e 1980, a neblina cáustica era tão espessa que as pessoas podiam ver apenas um quarteirão da cidade. Irritou a garganta e os pulmões das pessoas, e deu-lhes os olhos injetados de sangue. Naquela época, havia mais de 200 dias com ar insalubre anualmente, de acordo com o Air Resources Board.

Desde então, houve um tremendo progresso na redução do smog e da poluição do ar, em grande parte devido a carros mais limpos. A quantidade de óxidos de nitrogênio formadores de smog foi reduzida em mais de 50% nas últimas duas décadas, melhorando substancialmente a saúde pública.

Mas o progresso da Califórnia no combate à poluição do ar estagnou nas últimas décadas, e o estado ainda abriga a pior poluição do ar do país. A bacia aérea da Costa Sul – Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside e parte dos condados de San Bernardino – ainda não atendeu a nenhum padrão federal de saúde para os níveis de ozônio, incluindo a medida mais antiga promulgada em 1979.

"Se você está olhando para trás 70 anos, fizemos um trabalho maravilhoso", disse Joe Lyou, presidente da Coalition for Clean Air. "Se você está olhando para trás na última década ou duas, não é tão bom. E se você está olhando para os padrões legais que exigem que forneçamos ar saudável para as pessoas respirarem, não estamos indo bem."

O aquecimento global exacerbou ainda mais o problema, alimentando incêndios florestais e condições que são mais propícias à formação de smog.

"Os dias perigosos de poluição do ar estão fora de questão por causa do crescimento dos incêndios florestais causados ​​pelo clima", disse Will Barrett, diretor nacional sênior de defesa do ar limpo da American Lung Association. "Também sabemos que o ozônio é formado quando as emissões do escapamento e outras emissões se misturam na atmosfera em dias quentes e ensolarados. Estamos vendo mais calor, mais eventos climáticos extremos, criando melhores condições para a formação de ozônio e ameaçando a saúde no solo. são crises duplas. Elas se originam das mesmas fontes - fontes de transporte."

Mas foi a capacidade do estado de enfrentar e resolver uma grande crise de poluição atmosférica que deu a alguns especialistas a esperança de que também pode transformar o transporte.

"A maior reivindicação de fama do Air Resources Board antes da era climática foi seu papel na criação e aplicação de conversores catalíticos e outras tecnologias para reduzir as emissões de poluição formadora de smog, que estava sufocando os principais centros metropolitanos na área da baía e na Costa Sul", disse Danny Cullenward, diretor de políticas da organização de pesquisa climática sem fins lucrativos CarbonPlan. “Assim, o Air Resources Board, como instituição, realmente deu os primeiros passos e foi extraordinariamente bem-sucedido nas décadas anteriores, abordando apenas um problema enorme que envolvia tecnologias complicadas, indústrias poderosas … e questões que afetavam a vida cotidiana das pessoas”.

Cap-and-trade

Um dos programas climáticos de referência da Califórnia, o cap-and-trade, foi lançado inicialmente em 2006 com o objetivo de reduzir as emissões de gases de efeito estufa do estado para os níveis de 1990 até 2020. Superou as expectativas e, de fato, atingiu a meta quatro anos antes.

Em 2017, o programa foi reautorizado com uma meta muito mais ambiciosa:reduzir as emissões de gases de efeito estufa para 40% dos níveis de 1990 até 2030. Para chegar lá, o programa usa um sistema de créditos de poluição que basicamente permite que grandes emissores de carbono comprem e vendam créditos não utilizados com o objetivo de manter todos em ou abaixo de um determinado total.

Especialistas dizem que apenas meio que funcionou. Embora o programa tenha permanecido um elemento-chave da estratégia climática da Califórnia, as emissões caíram cerca de 11% em 2020 – longe da meta de 40%. Além disso, esse número provavelmente representa as reduções de emissões vinculadas ao início da pandemia do COVID-19.

"A evidência é bastante clara de que não estamos no caminho certo para esse alvo, e a confiança neste programa é uma grande parte da razão pela qual não estamos no caminho certo", disse Cullenward.

O porta-voz do Air Resources Board, David Clegern, disse por e-mail que o estado tem as políticas em vigor para atingir sua meta, "mas chegar lá significa que uma ação concertada precisa acontecer na implementação de políticas para reduzir o transporte, poluentes climáticos de curta duração, eletricidade e outras emissões para alcançar 2030."

“O fato de o estado ter alcançado sua meta de 2020 quatro anos antes e o sucesso de programas como o Low Carbon Fuel Standard e a adição de novos programas significa que o papel do cap-and-trade pode ser menor no futuro, mas isso ser avaliado após o lançamento do Plano de Escopo de 2020 ainda este ano", disse ele. O plano de escopo é um roteiro para alcançar a neutralidade de carbono no estado e é atualizado a cada cinco anos.

Cullenward observou que o programa cap-and-trade tem alguns paralelos claros com a regra avançada de carros limpos, incluindo seu plano de fornecer créditos a fabricantes de automóveis que vendem mais veículos elétricos do que o necessário. No entanto, existem também algumas diferenças importantes que o tornaram mais otimista sobre as perspectivas de sucesso da proibição de carros a gasolina.

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." + Explorar mais

California phasing out gas vehicles in climate change fight

2022 Los Angeles Times.
Distribuído pela Tribune Content Agency, LLC.