As Governor Gavin Newsom promoted California’s climate leadership in Brazil at the U.N.’s annual climate summit, tension grew between environmental justice advocates and the state’s primary air pollution control agency.
The conflict escalated on Tuesday when a senior advisor to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) resigned, citing “growing hostility” towards the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC), which advises the agency.
Catherine Garoupa, executive director of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition and EJAC co-chair, detailed in her resignation letter that CARB has increasingly ignored scientific input, favoring regulated industries “at the expense of low-income communities and communities of color.”
The tipping point was a heated meeting where CARB’s Deputy Executive Officer Rajinder Sahota compared critiques of the state’s forest carbon offset program to Donald Trump’s attacks on EPA regulations.
“That was the catalyst,” Garoupa said, describing Sahota’s comments as a personal attack on the scientist in a letter to CARB leadership.
CARB initiated an independent review by the Attorney General’s Office, concluding that the agency’s conduct standards were not violated. They pledged continued support for EJAC, whose members’ terms end in March.
“We respect Dr. Garoupa’s decision to resign early and commend her service,” spokesperson Lindsay Buckley stated. “CARB has advanced environmental justice in our policies and remains committed to the committee’s vital work.”
Martha Argüello, the other EJAC co-chair, plans to stay to assist with the transition to new members and work with CARB’s new board chair, echoing Garoupa’s concerns.
“California’s climate leadership should include partnerships with environmental justice communities and bold action,” Argüello said, who also leads Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles. “That’s not happening now.”
Garoupa’s resignation highlights ongoing disputes between environmental justice groups and regulators over carbon markets. This disagreement intensifies as the agency updates its cap-and-trade program, now called cap-and-invest.
The program caps statewide carbon emissions, allowing companies to buy and trade emission permits. Proceeds, approximately $4 billion annually, fund climate initiatives like high-speed rail and wildfire prevention.
The program’s popularity grows among politicians and beneficiaries, yet skepticism remains among those combating climate change and industry groups.
The oil industry opposes stricter measures but prefers it over direct regulation. Environmental justice groups view carbon trading as a way for companies to avoid reducing emissions directly.
Research indicates cap-and-trade improves statewide air quality, but benefits are uneven across neighborhoods.
“Market reliance for climate policy is dangerous,” Argüello stated, advocating for direct pollution reduction.
Recently, EJAC worked with CARB to promote direct pollution cuts in highly polluted areas. Yet, members feel their recommendations for stricter offset limits and other measures went unheeded.
Forest carbon offsets sparked the October dispute leading to Garoupa’s departure.
Cap-and-invest allows companies to buy offset credits from sectors like agriculture and forestry not under the emissions cap. Currently, 70% of offsets aim to store more carbon through improved forest management.
UC Berkeley researcher Barbara Haya presented findings that CARB over-credits carbon reductions from forest projects. Haya criticized project developers’ exaggerated baseline emissions assumptions.
“This program is crucial; hence, heavily studied,” Haya noted. “All studies indicate over-crediting issues.”
In response, Sahota claimed a “mischaracterization” of the offset program, emphasizing the need for evidence-based policy.
Sahota highlighted CARB’s defense of EPA’s findings against federal rollbacks, urging a stronger stance against non-federal critiques.
Haya’s allies, including carbon market researchers, supported her work and criticized Sahota’s dismissal of peer-reviewed findings.
CARB plans a researcher meeting before reviewing the offset program. The California legislature has tasked CARB with assessing offset project impacts and aligning protocols with the latest science by 2029.
“Offsets are debated academically, and we aim for a comprehensive review,” Buckley stated, emphasizing open discourse on policy translation.
Katelyn Roedner Sutter of the Environmental Defense Fund, a state advisor, said offsets play a limited but critical role in directing climate finance to sectors like forestry.
“The forestry protocol is outdated,” Roedner Sutter said. “SB 840 mandates updates, ensuring protocols use the best science.”
Haya expressed concerns over CARB’s handling of scientific findings in the upcoming reviews.
This debate follows updates to CARB’s low-carbon fuel standard, which faced opposition from environmental justice groups.
EJAC and CARB have collaborated on building decarbonization. The state has increased EJ representation on CARB’s board and made EJAC a standing committee.
Yet, carbon markets remain contentious.
“On cap-and-trade, it’s been difficult to be heard,” Argüello noted. “Our stance has met resistance from CARB.”
CARB informed EJAC that its final public meeting occurs before transitioning to new members next year. New appointments are expected by fall 2026, per Garoupa’s resignation letter.
The timeline leaves CARB without an advisory panel during pivotal rulemaking.
Argüello hopes for a smoother transition and continued commitment to environmental justice under the new leadership.
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org