Gov. Brown signed a sweeping law this week requiring California by 2030 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels - it sets a precedent in the country, but business isn't happy - we hear from both sides; then Matt Lauer's widely criticized performance at NBC's "Commander-in-Chief Forum" inspires a discussion over the role of debate moderators; Plus, Larry & KPCC film critics unpack ‘Sully,’ ‘The Wild Life,’ ‘Other People,’ and more.
5 things you need to know about California's new climate change legislation
California will now be the nation’s example for reducing climate change after Governor Jerry Brown signed sweeping legislation yesterday that will require the Golden State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2030. The law replaces a previous bill signed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger which required the state to be at 1990 emissions levels by the year 2020.
The law, SB 32, also gives more authority to California’s Air Resources Board to regulate emissions. A separate law the governor also signed yesterday gives lawmakers more power over that board.
AirTalk spoke with Sacramento Bee reporter David Siders, environmental policy analyst Chris Busch, and local business advocate Louis Baglietto about what the new law means and what you need to know about it.
1. What's the push behind the law? It replaces AB 32 signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, which set out what was then considered an ambitious goal of hitting 1990 emission levels by 2020.
David Siders: The Air Resources Board and independent analysts expect state will reach that goal. 2020 is only 4 years away, so this is an effort to extend that to 2030. By passing the legislation, it extends in law the authorization for the Governor’s Administration to implement rules to reach those reductions.
Chris Busch: It’s one of the most ambitious programs in the world. The Germans have a tougher target of 55 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. It’s the same level of ambition as the EU as a whole, so it’s strong but it’s essentially equal to the task at hand given the stakes of climate change.
2. Who's enforcing this?
DS: Primarily the California Air Resources Board. This was a big controversy last year…surrounding how powerful the Air Resources Board is, and it is quite powerful. They will be tasked with implementing it. Because of some companion legislation that the governor also signed yesterday, the legislature gained some more oversight over that board, which was important to mollify some of the skeptics in the legislature.
3. What does this bill say on cap-and-trade?
DS: This bill is deliberately silent on cap-and-trade. The governor had tried to slip into this bill a late amendment authorizing the extension of cap-and-trade but that was rejected by lawmakers and instead the bill is silent. However, the bill could be an important cudgel for Brown in trying to negotiate an extension of cap-and-trade. With the bill, his administration has the authority to implement regulations to reduce emissions. So he can go to industry and say, “We’re going to reduce emissions one way or another. Would you like it this way or that?” Industry might find cap-and-trade or some version of it more appealing than a regulation-only approach.
CB: There’s two ways people can comply with cap-and-trade: Either through the permits that the states has been auctioning, mainly, or from offsets that are from projects such as a forestry project in Alabama or whatever. I have a different take from David. I think that there’s a strong likelihood that this recent package of legislation does enable cap-and-trade to continue. I think cap-and-trade can continue with a few modifications, specifically around how permits are put out into the system and around these offsets which are coming from outside of the state. Cap-and-trade is still in the mix, given this current authority.
4. What are the implications of the law on employment in Southern California?
Louis Baglietto: In the end, what we’ll see is a continuation of reduction in jobs, reduction in new projects across California, specifically in Southern California. One of our main objections to SB 32 is moving the goal post before the game was done. Quite literally, instead of getting to 1990 levels by 2020, we’re now having to go to significantly underneath by 2030. I don’t think the industry has figured out the game plan to get to the 1990 levels. Now we’re facing a much more stringent mandate in a very short amount of time. It would have been a lot better for the state to hold off, analyze how we’ll get to the previous goal before we make a new one. One of the things we’re finding across California is industry jobs under attack under a whole variety of different areas, whether it be $15 an hour, whether it be CEQA lawsuits...and now we have one more regulatory hurdle to jump.
CB: The state, since the end of the recession, has been growing jobs at a 50 percent faster rate than the nation as a whole. There are studies showing that the renewable standards have created 30,000 jobs in some of the hardest hit rural areas of the state. We’re growing the advanced energy giants of the future, multi-billion dollar companies. A majority of global investment in the last two years has been in renewable energy, so I think clearly this is the direction the economy needs to go for sustainable growth.
5. How is the business community responding?
LB: We’re going to come to the table and work with the Air Resources Board to find cost-effective solutions. We have no choice. If you want to do business in California, you have to come to the table and you have to work with the people responsible for creating the future regulations. We’ll be there. We’ve got a great track record of trying to go to Sacramento and inject reality into the discussions. We’re going to try and find a way that we can meet the goals while at the same time try to keep jobs and businesses going in California. The legislature has just made it a lot harder.
This interview has been edited for clarity. You can listen to the full interview by clicking on the audio player at the start of the article.
Guests:
David Siders, reporter for the Sacramento Bee covering state politics; he tweets from
Chris Busch, research director at San Francisco-based think tank Energy Innovation
Lou Baglietto, Los Angeles County Business Federation Advocacy Committee Chair
What more 'serious consequences' could North Korea face after nuclear test?
President Obama warned that North Korea would face “serious consequences” after conducting a nuclear test early Friday – the latest in a series of provocative actions this year including a previous nuclear test eight months ago and multiple ballistic missile launches since.
But what more “serious consequences” can President Obama impose on the country? Larry Mantle speaks with Jim Walsh of MIT’s Security Studies Program about what that means.
Read Walsh's recent study on North Korea sanctions:
Guest:
Jim Walsh, Ph.D., International security expert and a Research Associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program
Debate moderators: timekeepers or fact checkers?
Disorganized, uninformed, pandering, #Laueringthebar?
Probably not the critiques - or hashtag - NBC’s Matt Lauer was expecting after moderating Wednesday night’s Commander-in-Chief forum with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The “Today Show” host’s performance with the presidential candidates wasn’t received particularly well - which is putting it mildly considering one NBC executive called it a “disaster.”
Critics say Lauer frequently interrupted Clinton, squandered too many minutes on the email scandal and didn’t give her enough time to discuss foreign policy or veterans issues. When it was Trump’s turn, Lauer has been raked over the coals for treating the New York billionaire with kid gloves and not challenging the Republican nominee when he lied about opposing the Iraq war in 2002.
Those who have come to Lauer’s defense argue the moderator would’ve come across as biased if he’d called out Trump’s inconsistencies in real time. Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace, moderator for the final upcoming presidential debate, says it should be up to the candidates to call out their opponent’s false claims. In an interview last week Wallace said, “I do not believe that it’s my job to be a truth squad.”
What do you expect from the event moderators during a presidential election? Are they supposed to play the conversational timekeeper, fact-checking journalist or something else entirely?
Guest:
Aaron Kall, Director of Debate at the University of Michigan and author of the new book “Debating the Donald”.
FilmWeek: ‘Sully,’ ‘The Wild Life,’ ‘Other People’ and more
Larry Mantle and KPCC film critics Christy Lemire, Tim Cogshell and Charles Solomon review this week’s new movie releases including “Sully,” the Clint Eastwood-directed wide release starring Tom Hanks about the “miracle on the Hudson;” plus an animated feature in wide release, “The Wild Life;” some promising indies including “Kicks” and “Other People;” and more.
TGI-FilmWeek!
Christy's Hits
- "Sully"
- "Demon"
- "Other People"
- "Kicks"
- "White Girl"
- "Dancer"
- "Transpecos"
Tim's Hits
- "Sully"
- "Demon"
- "Other People"
- "Kicks"
- "White Girl"
- "Author: The JT LeRoy Story"
- "Mad"
Mixed Reviews
- Tim: "Max Rose"
- Tim: "Ithaca"
- Charles: "Germans & Jews"
This Week's Misses
- Charles: "The Wild Life"
- Tim: "Brother Nature"
- Christy: "Max Rose"
- Christy: "Ithaca"
Correction: "White Girl" opens nationwide next week, it will not be in wide release.
Guests:
Christy Lemire, Film Critic for KPCC and Host of YouTube’s “What the Flick?;” she tweets from
Tim Cogshell, Film Critic for KPCC and Alt-Film Guide; Tim tweets from
Charles Solomon, Film Critic for KPCC and Animation Scoop and Animation Magazine
#FaveForeignFilms - Shining a spotlight on the best ever international cinema
When Hollywood celebrities chime in about their favorite films ever, often times their lists neglect to include any foreign fare.
The recently trending hashtag #Fav7Films elicited thousands of tweets mentioning everything from" Rocky" to "Blade Runner" to, the most popular, "The Dark Knight," but not a single foreign film made the top 15. Some actors had a token of subtitled cinema - Amy Schumer lists "City of God" in her top seven, Josh Radnor has "Yi Yi" in his.
Overall, it seems Americans - even those who make movies for a living - do not watch foreign-language movies with any regularity. On FilmWeek today, we want to give your favorite foreign films a chance to shine.
Oscar winners such as Russia's "Burnt by the Sun," or films that won big in their own country, such as "The Confessional" from Canada, would make strong contenders. Plus, it would be helpful to highlight movies that would be tough to remake in Hollywood fashion, as has been suggested about "Force Majeure" -- a 2014 Swedish movie with such subtlety and nuance that it's hard to imagine Fox Searchlight will pull off its American remake deftly.
What are some of your favorite foreign films and why? Could they be remade into American movies?
Guests:
Christy Lemire, Film Critic for KPCC and Host of YouTube’s “What the Flick?;” she tweets from
Tim Cogshell, Film Critic for KPCC and Alt-Film Guide; Tim tweets from
Charles Solomon, Film Critic for KPCC and Animation Scoop and Animation Magazine