By Bryce Golden-Chen

My first week on the job at Environmental Defense Fund was also the week the Trump administration released its full federal budget proposal. I joined the EDF+Business team after working at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), implementing technology-to-market innovation partnerships for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The budget slashes EERE and related offices and programs that have been at the forefront of successful public-private partnerships. At a time when the U.S. might be backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement and federal clean energy technology investments are critically and urgently needed, this budget threatens American innovation.

Funding that nurtures new businesses without requiring their owners to give up any stake in their companies can be make-or-break for the early-stage startups that drive innovation. When government, well-positioned to make this kind of unique investment, puts forth tax-payer dollars, it encourages the private sector to buy-in as well—oftentimes with a multiplying effect. DOE has created opportunities like these that reduce risks for both entrepreneurs and investors. It is through this public-private collaboration that meaningful partnerships and lasting progress are possible for clean energy and our nation’s economy.

Clean energy and innovation threatened

Titled “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” the president’s budget proposal jeopardizes nearly a decade of progress in building our clean energy economy.

Trump budget breakdown: Time to defend clean energy and American innovation
Click To Tweet

Dulling the cutting edge of our nation’s innovation enterprise curtails our ability to strategically lead in scientific and technological innovations more broadly, across sectors. Decelerating cleantech research, development, demonstration, and deployment would also inhibit our ability to deal responsibly with climate change and its consequences.

Specifically, the President’s plan cuts FY18 funding to EERE by over $1.4 billion, down nearly 70 percent from FY16 and FY17 levels, and it all but eliminates the $290 million Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), with a 93 percent reduction for FY18. It zeroes out EERE’s Strategic Programs Office that initiated, funds, and organizes tech-to-market efforts like the National Incubator Initiative for Clean Energy, Small Business Vouchers Pilot, and Energy I-Corps, which build innovative partnerships among startups, small businesses, incubators, and accelerators and give them unprecedented access to national lab scientists, engineers, and equipment.

The budget also includes 70 percent cuts to both EERE’s Solar and Vehicle Technologies Offices. These are home to successful public-private partnership programs like the SunShot Initiative, which helped the solar industry achieve DOE’s vision of $1-per-watt three years early, and SuperTruck II, which builds upon the success of the original SuperTruck program that showed 115 percent improvements to freight fuel efficiency are possible.

The reductions go as far as eliminating the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office, which has worked with state, local, and tribal governments for decades to assist more than 7 million low-income households find significant savings through energy efficiency. These upgrades have lowered these families’ utility bills an average of $283 per year and brought demonstrated improvements to health and safety. 

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose.

Even DOE “crown jewels” that Energy Secretary Rick Perry vowed to protect are not safe as the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) now faces a 20 percent cut. NREL celebrates its 40th anniversary this year with its 2,200 employees who hold over 300 patents and further support the growing clean energy economy through more than 500 technology partnership agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and academic institutions. Despite these and other successes, the proposed budget significantly defunds or eliminates clean energy activities across all 17 national labs.

The contradictions between the administration’s rhetoric and numeric reality are signs that our Energy Department may very well lose its unique and leading role at home and abroad in driving innovation.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose from cuts to ARPA-E and EERE, which also work on methane leak detection and advanced combustion engines. These offices, programs, and labs have proven results, and to end or scale them back would be a disservice to U.S. industrial competitiveness and the American people.

Common ground and hope for progress

The good news is that clean energy continues to receive bipartisan support, and the proposed DOE cuts are widely opposed, including by at least six Republican senators. There is also broad consumer backing even among Trump voters for Energy Star, a joint EPA-DOE program helping consumers identify and select energy-saving products. Yet it too has been targeted by the administration. Fortunately, the private sector continues to step up, with diverse businesses and investors making serious cleantech commitments around the globe.

As I begin my work at EDF during these challenging times, I find hope in the common goal of human prosperity shared by the public and private sectors, in the opportunities created by collaborative approaches, and in the vast infrastructure and resilient spirit that are the true foundations of American entrepreneurship and innovation. Our country has a history of unexpected, rapid, and game-changing breakthroughs in science, technology, health, and sustainability that have improved the lives of millions of people. These can continue and accelerate into the future if, and only if, we do not back down now.

Photo source: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

By Bryce Golden-Chen

My first week on the job at Environmental Defense Fund was also the week the Trump administration released its full federal budget proposal. I joined the EDF+Business team after working at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), implementing technology-to-market innovation partnerships for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The budget slashes EERE and related offices and programs that have been at the forefront of successful public-private partnerships. At a time when the U.S. might be backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement and federal clean energy technology investments are critically and urgently needed, this budget threatens American innovation.

Funding that nurtures new businesses without requiring their owners to give up any stake in their companies can be make-or-break for the early-stage startups that drive innovation. When government, well-positioned to make this kind of unique investment, puts forth tax-payer dollars, it encourages the private sector to buy-in as well—oftentimes with a multiplying effect. DOE has created opportunities like these that reduce risks for both entrepreneurs and investors. It is through this public-private collaboration that meaningful partnerships and lasting progress are possible for clean energy and our nation’s economy.

Clean energy and innovation threatened

Titled “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” the president’s budget proposal jeopardizes nearly a decade of progress in building our clean energy economy.

Trump budget breakdown: Time to defend clean energy and American innovation
Click To Tweet

Dulling the cutting edge of our nation’s innovation enterprise curtails our ability to strategically lead in scientific and technological innovations more broadly, across sectors. Decelerating cleantech research, development, demonstration, and deployment would also inhibit our ability to deal responsibly with climate change and its consequences.

Specifically, the President’s plan cuts FY18 funding to EERE by over $1.4 billion, down nearly 70 percent from FY16 and FY17 levels, and it all but eliminates the $290 million Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), with a 93 percent reduction for FY18. It zeroes out EERE’s Strategic Programs Office that initiated, funds, and organizes tech-to-market efforts like the National Incubator Initiative for Clean Energy, Small Business Vouchers Pilot, and Energy I-Corps, which build innovative partnerships among startups, small businesses, incubators, and accelerators and give them unprecedented access to national lab scientists, engineers, and equipment.

The budget also includes 70 percent cuts to both EERE’s Solar and Vehicle Technologies Offices. These are home to successful public-private partnership programs like the SunShot Initiative, which helped the solar industry achieve DOE’s vision of $1-per-watt three years early, and SuperTruck II, which builds upon the success of the original SuperTruck program that showed 115 percent improvements to freight fuel efficiency are possible.

The reductions go as far as eliminating the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office, which has worked with state, local, and tribal governments for decades to assist more than 7 million low-income households find significant savings through energy efficiency. These upgrades have lowered these families’ utility bills an average of $283 per year and brought demonstrated improvements to health and safety. 

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose.

Even DOE “crown jewels” that Energy Secretary Rick Perry vowed to protect are not safe as the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) now faces a 20 percent cut. NREL celebrates its 40th anniversary this year with its 2,200 employees who hold over 300 patents and further support the growing clean energy economy through more than 500 technology partnership agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and academic institutions. Despite these and other successes, the proposed budget significantly defunds or eliminates clean energy activities across all 17 national labs.

The contradictions between the administration’s rhetoric and numeric reality are signs that our Energy Department may very well lose its unique and leading role at home and abroad in driving innovation.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose from cuts to ARPA-E and EERE, which also work on methane leak detection and advanced combustion engines. These offices, programs, and labs have proven results, and to end or scale them back would be a disservice to U.S. industrial competitiveness and the American people.

Common ground and hope for progress

The good news is that clean energy continues to receive bipartisan support, and the proposed DOE cuts are widely opposed, including by at least six Republican senators. There is also broad consumer backing even among Trump voters for Energy Star, a joint EPA-DOE program helping consumers identify and select energy-saving products. Yet it too has been targeted by the administration. Fortunately, the private sector continues to step up, with diverse businesses and investors making serious cleantech commitments around the globe.

As I begin my work at EDF during these challenging times, I find hope in the common goal of human prosperity shared by the public and private sectors, in the opportunities created by collaborative approaches, and in the vast infrastructure and resilient spirit that are the true foundations of American entrepreneurship and innovation. Our country has a history of unexpected, rapid, and game-changing breakthroughs in science, technology, health, and sustainability that have improved the lives of millions of people. These can continue and accelerate into the future if, and only if, we do not back down now.

Photo source: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

By Bryce Golden-Chen

My first week on the job at Environmental Defense Fund was also the week the Trump administration released its full federal budget proposal. I joined the EDF+Business team after working at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), implementing technology-to-market innovation partnerships for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The budget slashes EERE and related offices and programs that have been at the forefront of successful public-private partnerships. At a time when the U.S. might be backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement and federal clean energy technology investments are critically and urgently needed, this budget threatens American innovation.

Funding that nurtures new businesses without requiring their owners to give up any stake in their companies can be make-or-break for the early-stage startups that drive innovation. When government, well-positioned to make this kind of unique investment, puts forth tax-payer dollars, it encourages the private sector to buy-in as well—oftentimes with a multiplying effect. DOE has created opportunities like these that reduce risks for both entrepreneurs and investors. It is through this public-private collaboration that meaningful partnerships and lasting progress are possible for clean energy and our nation’s economy.

Clean energy and innovation threatened

Titled “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” the president’s budget proposal jeopardizes nearly a decade of progress in building our clean energy economy.

Trump budget breakdown: Time to defend clean energy and American innovation
Click To Tweet

Dulling the cutting edge of our nation’s innovation enterprise curtails our ability to strategically lead in scientific and technological innovations more broadly, across sectors. Decelerating cleantech research, development, demonstration, and deployment would also inhibit our ability to deal responsibly with climate change and its consequences.

Specifically, the President’s plan cuts FY18 funding to EERE by over $1.4 billion, down nearly 70 percent from FY16 and FY17 levels, and it all but eliminates the $290 million Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), with a 93 percent reduction for FY18. It zeroes out EERE’s Strategic Programs Office that initiated, funds, and organizes tech-to-market efforts like the National Incubator Initiative for Clean Energy, Small Business Vouchers Pilot, and Energy I-Corps, which build innovative partnerships among startups, small businesses, incubators, and accelerators and give them unprecedented access to national lab scientists, engineers, and equipment.

The budget also includes 70 percent cuts to both EERE’s Solar and Vehicle Technologies Offices. These are home to successful public-private partnership programs like the SunShot Initiative, which helped the solar industry achieve DOE’s vision of $1-per-watt three years early, and SuperTruck II, which builds upon the success of the original SuperTruck program that showed 115 percent improvements to freight fuel efficiency are possible.

The reductions go as far as eliminating the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office, which has worked with state, local, and tribal governments for decades to assist more than 7 million low-income households find significant savings through energy efficiency. These upgrades have lowered these families’ utility bills an average of $283 per year and brought demonstrated improvements to health and safety. 

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose.

Even DOE “crown jewels” that Energy Secretary Rick Perry vowed to protect are not safe as the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) now faces a 20 percent cut. NREL celebrates its 40th anniversary this year with its 2,200 employees who hold over 300 patents and further support the growing clean energy economy through more than 500 technology partnership agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and academic institutions. Despite these and other successes, the proposed budget significantly defunds or eliminates clean energy activities across all 17 national labs.

The contradictions between the administration’s rhetoric and numeric reality are signs that our Energy Department may very well lose its unique and leading role at home and abroad in driving innovation.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose from cuts to ARPA-E and EERE, which also work on methane leak detection and advanced combustion engines. These offices, programs, and labs have proven results, and to end or scale them back would be a disservice to U.S. industrial competitiveness and the American people.

Common ground and hope for progress

The good news is that clean energy continues to receive bipartisan support, and the proposed DOE cuts are widely opposed, including by at least six Republican senators. There is also broad consumer backing even among Trump voters for Energy Star, a joint EPA-DOE program helping consumers identify and select energy-saving products. Yet it too has been targeted by the administration. Fortunately, the private sector continues to step up, with diverse businesses and investors making serious cleantech commitments around the globe.

As I begin my work at EDF during these challenging times, I find hope in the common goal of human prosperity shared by the public and private sectors, in the opportunities created by collaborative approaches, and in the vast infrastructure and resilient spirit that are the true foundations of American entrepreneurship and innovation. Our country has a history of unexpected, rapid, and game-changing breakthroughs in science, technology, health, and sustainability that have improved the lives of millions of people. These can continue and accelerate into the future if, and only if, we do not back down now.

Photo source: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

By Theresa Eberhardt

What comes to mind when you think of Tyson Foods? Maybe it’s their eponymous brand’s wide array of chicken prepped in every shape and size. Or your morning ritual breakfast sandwiches by Jimmy Dean. Or even Hillshire Farm’s folded lunchmeats beneath the classic red container lids.

Most likely, the word “sustainability” doesn’t pop into your head—but that’s about to change.

Last week, Tyson Foods, one of the world’s largest meat producers, announced the beginning of a collaboration with the World Resources Institute (WRI) to develop science-based greenhouse gas (GHG) and outcome-based water conservation targets for their entire supply chain.

Project Coordinator, Supply Chain

This announcement comes at a time when U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement is unlikely. President Trump’s stance on climate change is disconcerting to say the least, but the ambitious goals made by corporate leaders (like Tyson) give Americans something to be proud of. The future is in sustainability, and business is on its way there.

Tyson aims to work with WRI in order to ensure that every step of their supply chain–from the suppliers for the materials and ingredients to the farmers who provide the chicken, turkey, cattle and pigs–meets their environmental targets. More and more companies are setting supply chain goals that address the sourcing of raw materials, which can be the hardest to influence, but the greatest source of impact.

This announcement follows several recent actions made by the company showing their commitment to improve the sustainability of its supply chain, including the recent hire of their first Chief Sustainability Officer, Justin Whitmore, and the elimination of antibiotics in their own brand of chicken. These initiatives are not only a significant step for Tyson Foods, but also the animal agriculture industry in general.

Industry leaders set supply chain sustainability goals, setting the bar for the agriculture sector.
Click To Tweet

As one of the largest animal agriculture companies in the world, Tyson has the opportunity to act as a role model for other companies, large and small, within the animal agriculture sector to begin adopting similar sustainable initiatives.

Major companies like Walmart, PepsiCo, Nestle, have all set targets to reduce emissions from their full supply chains. EDF has worked with a number of other food and beverage companies and retailers to set supply chain sustainability goals, including Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork producer.

Tyson’s commitment reaffirms the notion that addressing the entire supply chain has officially become mainstream. We hope to see other major meat producers, such as Hormel, Perdue and JBS, follow in their footsteps.

Follow Theresa on Twitter, @te_eberhardt

 Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

Insert Twitter/Facebook sharecard image. (ideal size 1200x630px)

By Theresa Eberhardt

What comes to mind when you think of Tyson Foods? Maybe it’s their eponymous brand’s wide array of chicken prepped in every shape and size. Or your morning ritual breakfast sandwiches by Jimmy Dean. Or even Hillshire Farm’s folded lunchmeats beneath the classic red container lids.

Most likely, the word “sustainability” doesn’t pop into your head—but that’s about to change.

Last week, Tyson Foods, one of the world’s largest meat producers, announced the beginning of a collaboration with the World Resources Institute (WRI) to develop science-based greenhouse gas (GHG) and outcome-based water conservation targets for their entire supply chain.

Project Coordinator, Supply Chain

This announcement comes at a time when U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement is unlikely. President Trump’s stance on climate change is disconcerting to say the least, but the ambitious goals made by corporate leaders (like Tyson) give Americans something to be proud of. The future is in sustainability, and business is on its way there.

Tyson aims to work with WRI in order to ensure that every step of their supply chain–from the suppliers for the materials and ingredients to the farmers who provide the chicken, turkey, cattle and pigs–meets their environmental targets. More and more companies are setting supply chain goals that address the sourcing of raw materials, which can be the hardest to influence, but the greatest source of impact.

This announcement follows several recent actions made by the company showing their commitment to improve the sustainability of its supply chain, including the recent hire of their first Chief Sustainability Officer, Justin Whitmore, and the elimination of antibiotics in their own brand of chicken. These initiatives are not only a significant step for Tyson Foods, but also the animal agriculture industry in general.

Industry leaders set supply chain sustainability goals, setting the bar for the agriculture sector.
Click To Tweet

As one of the largest animal agriculture companies in the world, Tyson has the opportunity to act as a role model for other companies, large and small, within the animal agriculture sector to begin adopting similar sustainable initiatives.

Major companies like Walmart, PepsiCo, Nestle, have all set targets to reduce emissions from their full supply chains. EDF has worked with a number of other food and beverage companies and retailers to set supply chain sustainability goals, including Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork producer.

Tyson’s commitment reaffirms the notion that addressing the entire supply chain has officially become mainstream. We hope to see other major meat producers, such as Hormel, Perdue and JBS, follow in their footsteps.

Follow Theresa on Twitter, @te_eberhardt

 Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

Insert Twitter/Facebook sharecard image. (ideal size 1200x630px)

Written by Ronnie Citron-Fink

Ultrasound scan of a twelve week old fetus.

It was the title of Dr. Frederica Perera’s New York Times op-ed, “The Womb Is No Protection From Toxic Chemicals” that initially caught my attention. Then the illustration of a “little adult” encircled by dangerous looking strikes squarely aimed to penetrate a sketchy line protecting him from the outside world, broke my heart.

This is a must read for all of us who care deeply about children’s health, not just because it outlines just how tenuous little life is by connecting the dots between pregnancy and toxic chemicals, but also because it secures a scientific link between toxic chemicals, climate change and the utmost importance of supporting the strongest federal policies that restrict poisonous power plant emissions.

Here are a few excerpts from Dr. Perera’s excellent, and timely op-ed:

Chemicals affect babies before birth.

“We now know that a host of chemicals, pollutants and viruses readily travel across the placenta from mother to fetus, pre-polluting or pre-infecting a baby even before birth. Toxic chemicals like lead, certain in air pollutants, pesticides, synthetic chemicals and infectious agents like Zika can derail the intricate molecular processes involved in a fetus’s healthy brain development. So can physical and social stress experienced by the mother.”

President Trump’s proposed budget hurts our children.

“At a time when we should be spending more on research and prevention of those threats, President Trump would do the opposite. He would cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent, including cuts to scientific work on chemical safety. He would slash money for biomedical research and programs to fight outbreaks of infectious disease. We need more spending in those areas, not less. We need more testing of chemicals before they are marketed, not less.”

We need help now.

“Toxic exposures are shockingly prevalent. Analysis of biomonitoring data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds dozens of toxic chemicals, pollutants and metals in pregnant women, many of which are also found in cord blood of newborns. These include pesticides sprayed in inner-city buildings and on crops, flame retardants used in furniture, combustion-related air pollutants from fossil-fuel-burning power plants and vehicles, lead, mercury and plasticizers. All have been shown in epidemiologic studies in the United States and elsewhere to be capable of damaging developing brains, especially while babies are exposed in utero or in their early life.”

To protect our children, E.P.A. must be able to do its job.

“This is why it was particularly distressing that the new head of the E.P.A., Scott Pruitt, recently rejected the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own experts, who had recommended banning one of the nation’s most widely used insecticides, chlorpyrifos. The experts made their judgment on the basis of many years of research indicating that chlorpyrifos was linked to significant harm to children, including diminished cognitive ability.”

Curbing fossil fuels is key.

“Research has also conclusively shown that climate change, caused in large part by carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal and other fossil fuels, is linked to more heat-related disease, malnutrition, infectious disease, trauma and mental health problems from extreme natural disasters like flooding. Those consequences can directly or indirectly affect early brain development, the cognitive and behavioral functioning of children and their ability to learn.”

Pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord is wrong.

“…Mr. Trump, as of Wednesday, was considering pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord and also wants to abandon his predecessor’s Clean Power Plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants.”

We can prevent this.

“With respect to climate change, federal policies and rules that promote clean energy, restrict climate-altering emissions from power plants, vehicles, industrial processes, and natural gas production and support the Paris Climate Accord are essential. They must not be weakened.”

Frederica Perera is a professor at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health and director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health.

READ THE FULL NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE  and READ DR. PERERA’S EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH MOMS CLEAN AIR FORCE. 

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

It will hurt the U.S. far more than it hurts the rest of the world. And that's saying a lot, because the global damage will indeed be considerable.

Although the President has moved swiftly and aggressively to assault the environment and public health in a short amount of time, public opposition to his dangerous agenda has been equally

By Quentin Foster

The California Legislature is in the midst of a critically important discussion right now: how can the state do more to clean the air for all residents and address climate change?

As a native of South Los Angeles with deep roots in the environmental justice community, I’ve seen first-hand that there’s still more that needs to be done to improve our air quality. At the same time, California is a longtime leader on climate issues, in large part due to its cap-and-trade program that’s successfully limited climate pollution.

Assemblymember Cristina Garcia’s bill, AB 378, though still a work in progress, would provide incentives for major greenhouse gas emitters to reduce localized air pollution, on top of extending a key tool to keep their carbon emissions below a certain limit.

Right now, AB 378 is the only bill in the California Legislature that is seeking to both improve air quality in the most impacted local communities and fight climate change globally. Here’s why we think the Legislature must pass it as soon as possible.

 How we should extend cap and trade

The question we must ask ourselves is not whether we should extend cap and trade – we should, as I explain next – but rather how we can extend it. Three things need to happen for California’s cap-and-trade program to be successfully extended beyond 2020:

1. The cap-and-trade program itself, which is succeeding in its goal of reducing carbon emissions, should be strengthened. This includes ensuring jobs are created across California neighborhoods – an issue the Legislature is working to address in other proposals – as well as better meeting the needs of rural communities.
2. Air quality concerns in California’s environmental justice communities must be addressed. There are many suggestions of how this can be done, but this public health issue cannot be ignored.
3. Cap-and-trade should be passed with a supermajority of votes (2/3 of both the state Assembly and the Senate) this session. That will provide it the greatest legal certainty in a post-2020 program, and inoculate cap and trade from further “illegal tax”-type challenges.

Why we should extend cap and trade now

The best way to continue California’s climate leadership and successful climate policies, is for the Legislature to extend cap and trade beyond 2020 this year with a 2/3 vote.

EDF is advocating for this extension because California’s cap-and-trade program:

• Provides the certainty needed for a strong and stable climate program. Eliminating post-2020 uncertainty by voting on a cap-and-trade extension this year limits market volatility and creates greater price and revenue predictability. This in turn helps local businesses plan investments, hire new employees, and adopt the next groundbreaking technology.
• Demonstrates that protecting the environment need not come at the expense of economic growth. California has added over a million jobs since cap and trade launched in 2013, far surpassing the national average. This includes blue-collar jobs in parts of the state plagued by high unemployment. California has also grown to be the sixth largest economy in the world.
• Reduces greenhouse gas emissions. California is on track to meet its 2020 target of reducing these emissions to 1990 levels. Our 2030 goal is even more ambitious – 40% below 1990 levels – and to be successful we need to start aiming for that target now.

Remember why clean air and a healthy climate matter

There will be important policy to discuss in the coming weeks, but for now let us remember why we are pressing forward on climate and clean air legislation in the first place.

California has many communities that suffer disproportionately from poor air quality caused by major emitters. As someone who grew up in South Los Angeles, I understand the impact dangerous air pollution has on daily life. Like much of San Joaquin Valley, many of California’s most vulnerable communities struggle with some of the worst air quality in the country. More must urgently be done to deal with this public health crisis.

At the same time, all of California, and indeed the world, are facing the unprecedented threat of global climate change. This demands immediate and prolonged action, especially now.

That’s why we must continue California’s renowned climate leadership and pass – as soon as possible – legislation like AB 378 that can provide solutions for both local air pollution and global climate change.