A Legal Battle Against California’s Climate Law

It is only until this century that we started thinking about the possibility of doomsday or the destruction of our planet. For thousands of years, Humans have inhabited and lived in this planet without acknowledging the consequences that are actions make which could harm the environment in the long run. We all know how important our environment is for our survival. The threat of Global Warming or Climate Change is not just an environmental concern but also involves the very survival of humans.

In this decade, we have already experienced some of nature’s destructive fury. The recent flashfloods in Pakistan that displaced over 7 million people and cut vital supply lines are a clear indication that climate change is already happening. Abnormal weather patterns, increasing temperatures and the rise of water levels have given us an idea of what to expect in the coming years. Scientists and researchers are worried on the frequent occurrences of natural calamities that endanger thousands or even millions of lives worldwide.

Global warming is caused by severe amounts of toxic Gas pollutants that are emitted to the Earth’s atmosphere. These toxic gases trap heat within the planet thus increasing the global average temperature. In turn, polar icecaps melt faster increasing water levels to record highs. It then creates a domino effect such as abnormal occurrences of natural calamities and abnormal weather. It is good to note that gas emissions coming from industrialized countries are now the ones being blamed for this environmental concern.

Today, several U.S. states such as California are strongly considering the implementation of certain regulations which will limit the carbon emissions of various companies. California's Global Warming Solutions Act, widely known as AB 32, imposes 80 percent carbon emission reductions by 2050 across all sectors of the economy. And because of its significant impact to businesses, various States have also strongly opposed such act stating that at a time of a recession, cutting carbon emissions would mean also cutting jobs.

The attorneys general of Alabama, Nebraska, Texas and North Dakota are now suing California and are submitting “Proposition 23” which is an initiative on the November ballot that would delay implementing the AB 32 act until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or below. The state’s current unemployment rate now stands at 12%. The opposing states argue that the act is ruining interstate commerce which is proven to be vital especially at a time where jobs are scarce.

David Farnsworth, a senior associate with the Regulatory Assistance Project, stated that California has a stronger case to pursue especially at this time where the world has recognized the health risks that Climate change may impose to humans. On the other hand, North Dakota's Stenehjem argue that by imposing such regulations, there is a huge possibility that the United States will be experiencing power shortages in the future.