CCTA Opposes AB 398 Extension of Cap and Trade
AB398 Extension of Cap and Trade is a very complicated bill that was recently passed by the state Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. CCTA opposed the passing of the new legislation for multiple reasons; however, below are three specific concerns:
CCTA believes the motivations behind the cap and trade program have less to do with protecting California’s environment, and more to do with the revenue streams the program brings with it. CCTA is greatly disappointed Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham voted to support AB 398. While there were concessions for a few industries, this was a very bad deal for California’s forgotten taxpayer who will, as usual, pay the bill!
CONTROVERSIAL • Editorials/Opinions/Facts Discussing the Passing of SB 398
BACKGROUND • History of Cap and Trade
In 2009 Cap and Trade was being voted on in Washington DC to be nationwide. This effort failed. Then California implemented this statewide to the detriment of its taxpayers. The plan was and is for California to pave the way of spreading it nationwide. SB32 started all this in 2006.
SB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit. Click here to read the entire bill. (provided here are just two critical paragraphs)
(a) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code) authorizes the State Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
(b) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code) requires the State Air Resources Board to reduce statewide emissions of greenhouse gases to at least the 1990 emissions level by 2020 and to maintain and continue reductions thereafter.