If you know me you know then you know that I am not very politically inclined. But sometimes we just have to step outside our comfort zone and support things that matter to us. One of those times is NOW!
Please join me in supporting the upcoming legislative action that both California Releaf and California Urban Forests Council have been working hard on for greater greening of our golden state!
SB 1572 (Pavley), the Senate’s proposal for an overall framework for cap and trade revenue expenditures, is likely to be taken up on the Senate Floor today.
If you have time today, make calls to your local senators to signal your support for this bill and ask for their ‘aye’ vote.
It’s simple and easy thing to do that can make a big difference! Please call your local senator and tell them your name, what organization you represent, that you are in their district, you support SB 1572 (Pavley), and ask for their aye vote.
According to Conni Galippi of CSG, The basic concept is that part of AB 32 implementation is the cap and trade market mechanism where they will have auctions for 10% of the permits to pollute under AB 32. This will generate some revenue for the state, estimated to be up to $1 billion this year and eventually in the multiple billions annually within the next 4-5 years. These bills are the Legislature’s attempt to stipulate how those funds should be spent.
Urban forestry has an opportunity to receive some of these funds, through participating in the policy that is in these bills. Currently, the bills as written provide broad categories for funding eligibility under which urban forestry would fit. This funding would be required to be used for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This would certainly cover tree planting, but planning, care and maintenance is a little more challenging given two things – 1) it is not as straight forward for reducing GHG emissions, although it could be argued the science is not as tight, and 2) AB 32 and legal precedence require the funds to be spent to reduce GHG emissions; we do not want to do anything that could jeopardize the entire program by presenting projects for funding that may attract challenges. This is a very sensitive political issue right now.
So…who’s with me here? If you act, please share your results!