Also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32 needs to operate carefully within its specific principles to maintain its effectiveness. As hard-line approach to the reduction of global warming can be admirable, it also places threats to companies who might resort to placing investments elsewhere.
There is a chance that unless California's administration and regulatory bodies assuage the worries of both existing, domesticated organizations and those seeking to do business in the state, new initiatives could stall or be reversed. As always, education is key and as the AB 32 legislation approaches some of its more important benchmark targets, this is more necessary than ever.
If the Global Warming Solutions Act, code-named AB 32, is to be truly effective, it must operate within a number of carefully defined objectives and principles. The AB 32 could bring stark challenges to the economic growth of California, being the most populous country in the United States.
It poses a big challenge to still maintain a neutral environment with the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act as companies which are based in California might be pressed hardly by this law? The very regulation requires that regulations introduced to reduce emissions be both "cost-effective and "technologically feasible." This is surely easier said than done. It's important to maintain this philosophy however if jobs are going to be safeguarded in the interest of consumers and business.
Many view changes as threats, but they must always be viewed as opportunities by the forward thinking business man. As the ultimate aim is to hasten energy efficiency, AB 32 legislation introduces several market-based caps and other incentives, including a number of restrictions. A company that goes further than the letter of the law and becomes even more energy-efficient will by definition reduce its carbon emissions and become more competitive in its marketplace anyway.
Should there be a nationwide cap and trade and market driven legislation that will be introduced, the California Global Warming Solutions Act definitely holds together. AB 32 in California was signed into law in 2006 and is thus quite far ahead of the game, while nationwide legislation is only now being considered in the US Senate and will likely take many years to "crank up".
In the United Kingdom, countrywide cap and trade programs are now being introduced. It is believed by many that any form of market manipulation like this can be the most equitable form of reducing energy use and its consequent carbon emissions and that a network that's linked worldwide which have the same schemes will be needed in order to attain the aims of the projects by environmentalist.
As written, AB 32 legislation seeks to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This represented a 25% reduction when the law was introduced in 2006. Looking further ahead, much more aggressive action is anticipated with a reduction of 80% deemed to be achievable by the year 2050.
Business leaders should ensure that they are as educated as possible in the intricacies of AB 32, most especially if they have operations in the state of California. Competitively minded leaders should pay attention to how innovative organizations are preparing for the impact of the legislation.