Air pollution is one of the main contributors to climate change which is now becoming a nuisance to the world. It occurs when toxic or excessive quantities of materials including biological molecules, particulates, and gases are released into the Earth’s atmosphere. This kind of pollution may be a causal agent for diseases, allergies, and even the death of humans. It may also lead to harm to other living organisms like animals and crops used as food, as well as destroying natural and built environments (Samet, 2015). Air pollution can be a result of both human activity and natural resources, with the former being the greatest contributor. Poor air quality in urban areas and the indoor contamination of air are listed as two of the world’s worst problems of toxicity. The World Health Organization estimates that in 2012, air pollution caused the deaths of about 7 million people worldwide. This number is so high given that most of the pollution is anthropogenic. The main pollutants that cause the poisoning of air include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), sulfur oxides (SO x ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH 3 ), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), radioactive pollutants, and particulates (Lelieveld, 2015). There are other secondary pollutants including ground-level ozone formed from the NO x and VOCs. Most of these chemical substances are released into the atmosphere through a myriad of ways but the greatest culprit is petroleum products. These take the form of combustion emissions from industries and automobiles. The cities with a large number of vehicles and industries have the problem of pollution of air. One of the most polluted places in the United States is the state of California. This is considered the unhealthiest state as it contains the most polluted atmosphere. Inasmuch as pollution in this state is anthropogenic, its features in terms of geography also contribute to the high levels of particle matter in the atmosphere. It has a mountainous terrain that assists in the trapping of pollutants and also a warm climate that is conducive to forming ozone (Lelieveld, 2015). In the whole of the United States, the number of deaths that are linked to air pollution amounts to 200,000, and the deaths are linked to combustion emissions alone. The highest number in this statistic is from Southern California where the deaths are amounting to more than 2,000. The numbers are so high and this is majorly attributed to the high levels of activities that raise the extent of pollution. Factories, especially in the petroleum and agriculture industries are the major contributors to the horrors of California (Lelieveld, 2015). The human activities of more than 39 million people also act as a major factor. A proposed bill would be beneficial to the number of people whose lives are in danger of being affected by pollution. A bill would do good as well as bad according to how steadfast it is to put the interest of the general public in front. California is among the many cities in the world with ambient air quality being poor than what is expected. In other words, the levels of pollution are higher than the levels considered safe for human dwelling. Inasmuch as it is common to say that levels of pollution have gone high, it is also imperative to determine the extent to which it affects the lives of humans and other living organisms. The health dangers that are attributed to air pollution are well documented in extensive studies all over the world. However, the range and extent to which exposure to air pollutants cause problems to health are wider than what was previously thought. In a report compiled by a group of researchers led by Stephen Holgate (2016), it was found that regardless of the quantity, air pollutants have impacts on the health of humans. While governments and the World Health Organization have classified some levels of pollution as “acceptable” it is imperative to note that even at these levels, the impact is great. This comes when there are cases of indoor pollution from cleaning agents and paints. Even in places where air quality is considered good, there are still cases of pulmonary infections. When diesel or petrol are released into the air, they form nanoparticles which when inhaled, can cause the heart and lungs to malfunction. Consequently, there is an increased risk of clots and heart attacks. Many cases of heart failure in California can be traced to air pollution. There are both short-term and long-term consequences of air pollution (Holgate, 2016). One of the major concerns is that it causes non-communicable diseases such as stroke, chronic heart diseases, asthma in children, and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. There are three points of vulnerability to this impact; when a mother is pregnant, during the development of the fetus, and during early childhood. Therefore, with this in mind, there need to be stringent legislative policies to end the massive release of gases from human activities. This is because of the complacency that has risen of late when terming certain levels of pollution to be safe (Holgate, 2016). Researchers agree that it is the duty of every citizen to act and pressure the government to provide a more workable clean air act that also includes tackling issues from vehicle pollutants. If there are no interventions, pollution will increase our watch and raise the rate at which noncommunicable diseases attack people thus leading to more deaths. Democrat assembly members in California including Christina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, and Holden proposed a bill AB-378 in the assembly to extend the cap-and-trade mandate of the State Air Resources Board to 2030. As of present, the California Global warming Act of 2006 authorizes this agency to enforce cap-and-trade until 2020 in order to meet the levels of air pollution that are recommended nationwide. The proposed bill ensures that the provisions of this 2006 act are met at the same levels at which the quality of air was in 1990. In other words, the state agency would be required to provide the mandate from 2021 until 2030 ( Holgate, 2016) . The sole reason behind this act is that it should meet the governor’s 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Hence, when the current act comes to a close in 2020, there will still be a shortage of objectives not being met. Governor Brown’s bill was codified in Senate Bill 32. As this is one of the reasons, it seems the biggest need for this bill is to extend the cap-and-trade program till 2030. However, the program would be changed slightly. For instance, there would be an introduction of “no-trade zones” as there would be a creation of individual facility greenhouse gas emission caps ( Holgate, 2016) . The bill would also require the state agency to formulate new standards that target criteria pollutants and air toxic emissions in a bid to respond to the ongoing concern that is expressed by the Environmental Justice Community. The stakeholders of this bill are the fossil fuel industry players who would need to pay more as they emit the gases into the air. They would also be prohibited to trade in some areas that are considered crucial for the pollution standards. Also, the government, especially California Air Resources Board, is a substantial beneficiary as it will be the one benefiting from the breakers of the policy ( Holgate, 2016) . The bill seeks to enable the dignity of citizens to come to a reality as they should be exposed to less carbon in the air. Thus, the general public becomes another stakeholder in the program. The promoters of this bill are the government politicians and the state agency which is mandated to carry out the cap-and-trade program. Just like any other bill, the promoters have a promise that the amendment will have an effect on the lives of the people of California in several ways. Through the bill, the legislators have made it clear that low-income communities are the worst affected by the poor air quality in the state. Thus their protection is paramount to the bill and that is why it is proposed as so. The neighborhoods these people dwell in are the worst in terms of air pollution (Samet, 2015). So are the communities of people of color. The state makes a promise through the bill to crack the emission of greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants into the atmosphere (Samet, 2015). The bill promises to hold the emitters accountable for their mishaps and make them pay for the social costs their emissions cause to the lives of the people of California. The health benefits of the bill are that it will reduce the stationary sources of greenhouse gases as well as the direct emissions from mobile sources, thus reducing the exposure to carbon. ARB will also introduce no-trade zones and facility-specific limits that decline the emission of GHG in places where the emissions from such facilities create significant impacts on the health of citizens (Samet, 2015). The role of the bill is to ensure that the board examines the actual emission levels and compares them to the permitted ones for criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. In short, the amendment bill seeks to check complaints and enforce actions, and penalties on companies that emit excessive gases into the atmosphere. The bill has some effective framework as far as adopting the rules and regulations that are aimed at achieving reductions beyond the limits that are set in the state and protecting the most vulnerable community that are impacted by the emissions. With such promises in mind, the ARB would prioritize the crackdown on greenhouse gases emission from individual facilities that are currently in the cap-and-trade program and not permit them to increase the emission. However, this individual entity cap that should average the previous emissions raises more problems for the provision. First, it has the potential of turning the program into a command-and-control mechanism. This is because the provisions are erratic with the fundamental operations and structure of cap-and-trade programs. Such initiatives are known to be working on the basis of experience in California and around the world ( Samet, 2015) . The programs are aimed at allowing entities to lower or increase their emissions over time with respect to abatement costs. The amendment would therefore diminish the ability of the program to allocate the burden of meeting emission targets set by the state at the lowest cost possible. Secondly, the bill is amended to ensure that the facilities that operated in the 2014-2016 period are the ones that are covered. This means that those companies willing to start operations after 2017 would not be allowed to begin as they would not be having any historical baseline. Also, the bill would prevent the expansion or increase of output of a firm if such moves would increase carbon emissions. This brings problems to the economy of the state ( Samet, 2015) . Finally, those covered entities that went offline in 2015 to upgrade their technology that was not doing well would be penalized still by the agency. This is because their emissions cap is lower than what it requires to operate going forward. One of the consequences that passing the bill would have is that it would not be reducing the pollution levels to safer. When trading emissions for air quality, it is imperative to say that no amount of money can ever reduce the emissions to what is considered beneficial to the health of humans. In fact, the richest companies will have their way of giving money to the government as a means of trading in the emission of greenhouse gases. While there would be stringent measures in the no-trade zones and individual entity caps, the emissions would still go on to the accumulated levels that the bill seeks to solve ( Holgate, 2016 ). This would have health impacts on the lives of people who are exposed to such. There is a possibility of the accumulation of greenhouse gases happening while the program seeks to reduce it. This is because there are no clear definitions of how the accumulations occur. Another implication of the bill is the ambiguity of the “no-trade zone.” There is no definition of such a term to the knowledge of a common observer or stakeholder. Likewise, there is no similar model in the global regulation of greenhouse emissions (Holgate, 2016). It is assumed that this provision would make a covered entity in a certain geographical area to be stopped from engaging in the sale and purchase of allowances due to its blacklisting. What is also not clear is the possibility of such entities purchasing allowances. If the entity is not allowed, the bill would prevent companies from operating at all and hence close down and thus causing many people their jobs and livelihood. Another unintended consequence is the administrative challenge to the determination of the criteria to use to check for compliance with the standards for each facility. With the bill seeking to adopt new criteria that are facility-specific, it is unclear how ARB would choose from the hundreds of standards that determine whether a facility is legible for the allowances or not. This will also have an implication on the mode of interaction with the regional air districts which are the sole parties responsible for the regulation of most air criteria pollutants. Thus, there is room for inconsistency in the application of standard criteria to every industrial facility thus there would be cost implications in the enactment of this law. With the explanation of the implications of the enactment of the amendment explained above, I do not support the bill. First, it will have implications for the citizens as it will not reduce the significant levels of pollution experienced in California. Second, the cap-and-trade program has been in operation for years, and there has not been a significant improvement in the way ARB has carried out the initiatives. As a matter of fact, pollution levels have increased over time due to the fact that the agency prevents the enactment of bills targeting oil and gas companies directly. These firms are known to be massive emitters.
References
Samet, J. M., & Gruskin, S. (2015). Air pollution, health, and human rights: The Lancet. Respiratory medicine , 3 (2), 98.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Holgate, S., Grigg, J., Agius, R., Ashton, J. R., Cullinan, P., Exley, K., & Harrison, P. (2016). Every breath we take The lifelong impact of air pollution, Report of a working party Royal College of Physicians.
Lelieveld, J., Evans, J. S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., & Pozzer, A. (2015). The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale: Nature , 525 (7569), 367.
