Growing Tensions with Air Regulator Lead Top California Environmental Justice Advisor to Resign – Inside Climate News

Report on Tensions Between California’s Air Regulator and Environmental Justice Committee

Executive Summary

A significant conflict has emerged between the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and its Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC), culminating in the resignation of EJAC co-chair Catherine Garoupa. The dispute highlights a fundamental disagreement over the state’s carbon market policies and their impact on achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The incident raises critical questions about the inclusivity and equity of California’s climate leadership and the integrity of its institutional processes.

Background: Carbon Markets and the Pursuit of Climate and Justice Goals

California’s Cap-and-Invest Program

California’s primary mechanism for addressing SDG 13 (Climate Action) is its cap-and-invest program. This market-based system is designed to reduce statewide carbon emissions by setting a declining limit and allowing companies to trade emission permits. However, its effectiveness and equity have been subjects of intense debate.

Environmental Justice Concerns and SDG 10

Environmental justice advocates, represented by the EJAC, argue that the cap-and-invest program fails to adequately advance SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). Their primary concerns include:

• Carbon trading allows companies to continue emitting localized pollutants in already overburdened low-income communities and communities of color, rather than reducing pollution at the source.
• The program’s reliance on market mechanisms prioritizes cost-effectiveness for industries over the health and well-being of vulnerable populations.
• Proposals from the EJAC to implement facility-level caps or limit the use of offsets have been largely dismissed by CARB.

The Resignation and a Breakdown in Institutional Trust (SDG 16)

Catalyst for Conflict: The October Meeting

The immediate cause for the resignation was a tense October meeting that signified a breakdown in achieving SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The sequence of events was as follows:

1. The EJAC invited University of California, Berkeley researcher Barbara Haya to present scientific findings critical of the state’s forest carbon offset program.
2. Haya’s research indicated that CARB is significantly over-crediting carbon reductions from forest projects, undermining the integrity of the state’s efforts under SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
3. CARB’s Deputy Executive Officer, Rajinder Sahota, characterized the peer-reviewed scientific critique as an “attack” on the agency’s climate programs, comparing it to federal political attacks on climate science.

Resignation and Official Response

In her resignation letter, Catherine Garoupa cited “growing hostility” from CARB and a bias toward regulated industries at the expense of marginalized communities. This action underscores a perceived failure of the institution to operate in an inclusive and accountable manner. CARB responded by stating that an independent review found no violation of conduct standards and reaffirmed its support for the EJAC’s work.

Implications for California’s Sustainable Development Agenda

Challenges to Integrated Goal Achievement

The conflict reveals significant challenges in integrating multiple SDGs into state policy. The focus on market-based climate solutions appears to be in direct conflict with goals for equity and institutional justice.

• SDG 13 (Climate Action) vs. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The debate over carbon offsets and trading questions whether the state’s climate actions are truly sustainable if they fail to protect, or potentially harm, its most vulnerable communities.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The dismissal of scientific input and advisory committee recommendations erodes trust and calls into question the accountability and transparency of CARB as a public institution.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The strained relationship between CARB and the EJAC represents a critical failure in the partnership between government and civil society, which is essential for effective and equitable policy implementation.

Future of Environmental Justice in Climate Policy

The timing of the conflict is critical, as CARB is preparing to update its cap-and-invest program. The resignation and the planned replacement of the entire EJAC membership create uncertainty about whether environmental justice perspectives will be meaningfully incorporated into the upcoming rulemaking process. The remaining EJAC co-chair, Martha Argüello, expressed hope that new leadership at CARB will recommit to a genuine partnership that advances both climate and justice goals, thereby fulfilling the comprehensive vision of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article centrally focuses on the conflict between environmental justice leaders and state regulators. It repeatedly highlights the disproportionate impact of environmental policies on “low income communities and communities of color,” which is a core concern of SDG 10. The resignation of Catherine Garoupa was in protest of policies that she believes harm these specific communities.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The entire context of the article is California’s climate policy. It discusses the state’s cap-and-trade (cap-and-invest) program, forest carbon offsets, and the regulation of greenhouse gases. These are direct measures to combat climate change and its impacts, aligning with the primary goal of SDG 13.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article details a breakdown in governance and institutional process. The Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) feels its scientific input is dismissed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The resignation letter and the conflict over the meeting with a UC Berkeley researcher point to a lack of transparent, accountable, and inclusive decision-making within a key state institution, which is the focus of SDG 16.
4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The debate over the cap-and-trade program’s effectiveness touches on urban environmental quality. The article notes that while the program has improved air quality, “the benefits are inconsistent across neighborhoods.” Environmental justice groups advocate for focusing “more on reducing air pollution” at the source, particularly in the “state’s most polluted neighborhoods,” which relates to making communities safer and more sustainable.
5. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • A significant portion of the article is dedicated to the controversy surrounding forest carbon offsets. It discusses how these projects “aim to store more carbon by changing how forests are managed.” The debate over whether CARB is “significantly over-crediting carbon reductions from forest projects” directly involves the sustainable management of forests, a key component of SDG 15.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The article highlights the struggle of the EJAC to be included in the policy-making process and ensure their concerns, representing communities of color and low-income groups, are authentically addressed by CARB.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.” The core argument from environmental justice groups is that the cap-and-trade program, as currently structured, creates unequal outcomes, where pollution is not reduced in their neighborhoods despite overall statewide gains.
2. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.2: “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The article is entirely about California’s climate policies, such as the cap-and-trade program and the low-carbon fuel standard, which are examples of integrating climate measures into state-level strategy and planning.
3. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The criticism leveled against CARB, including dismissing science and showing bias, directly questions the institution’s effectiveness and accountability. The call to update offset protocols “to align them with the best available science” is a demand for a more accountable process.
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The resignation of the EJAC co-chair due to the committee’s proposals falling on “deaf ears” and the feeling of not being engaged in an “authentic way” is a clear example of a breakdown in inclusive and participatory decision-making.
4. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.6: “By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.” The article’s discussion of inconsistent air quality improvements across neighborhoods and the push by environmental justice groups for “more direct pollution reduction” in the “most polluted neighborhoods” directly relates to this target.
5. Under SDG 15 (Life on Land):
   • Target 15.2: “By 2030, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.” The debate over forest carbon offsets is fundamentally about whether the current protocols lead to the sustainable management of forests and accurately account for stored carbon.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Air Quality Inequality (Targets 10.3, 11.6):
   • The article mentions that studies show the benefits of cap-and-trade “are inconsistent across neighborhoods.” This implies that progress could be measured by an indicator tracking the distribution of air quality improvements and pollution reduction across different socioeconomic and racial communities. A successful policy would show equitable improvements, not just a statewide average.
2. Indicator for Climate Policy Effectiveness (Targets 13.2, 15.2):
   • The article discusses the scientific debate over whether CARB is “significantly over-crediting carbon reductions from forest projects.” This points to an indicator: the verified amount of carbon sequestered by offset projects versus the credited amount. The discrepancy between these two figures, as highlighted by researchers like Barbara Haya, measures the integrity and effectiveness of this climate policy tool.
3. Indicator for Institutional Inclusivity (Target 16.7):
   • The article details how the EJAC’s proposals “have fallen on deaf ears.” An implied indicator is the number and substance of recommendations from advisory bodies like the EJAC that are formally considered and integrated into final regulations. The resignation of a co-chair serves as a powerful negative qualitative indicator of the current state of inclusivity.
4. Indicator for Climate Finance (Target 13.2):
   • The article states that proceeds from the cap-and-trade permit auctions “have raised about $4 billion annually in recent years.” This figure serves as a direct quantitative indicator of the financial resources generated and mobilized for climate programs through the state’s primary climate policy.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: insideclimatenews.org