Your current location is:{Current column} >>Text
California's stricter low
{Current column}46456People have watched
IntroductionIn a crucial vote in November, the California Air Resources Board approved the new Low Carbon Fuel S ...
In a crucial vote in November,ghc foreign exchange platform the California Air Resources Board approved the new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) amendments with 12 votes in favor and 2 against, aiming to accelerate greenhouse gas reductions in the state's transportation sector. These new standards will require fuel producers to achieve a 30% reduction by 2030 and set a new target of a 90% reduction by 2045. This decision is seen as a key move for California to maintain its leadership in climate change amidst national policy shifts.
The session featured intense debates between supporters and critics, lasting nearly eight hours. State Senator Henry Stern, a non-voting member, emphasized California's leadership role in climate action, stating that the state's steadfastness will set an example for the nation despite changes in federal policies. Since its implementation in 2011, the LCFS policy has supported the production of renewable diesel and biogas by encouraging low-carbon fuel production and trading credits. Although credit prices peaked at over $200 in 2020, they have now fallen to around $70, and the latest amendments aim to bolster this market, promoting even lower carbon fuel options.
Biofuel producers supporting these changes and some climate advocacy organizations within the state claim that the LCFS updates will boost low-carbon fuel production. However, oil companies, consumer advocacy groups, and some environmental organizations object, arguing that these adjustments could raise gasoline prices and extend dependence on fossil fuels. Critics also point out that the new regulations might favor fuels derived from food crops and dairy farms, limiting the scope for clean energy developments like electric vehicles.
The Environmental Justice Advisory Committee within the California Air Resources Board further opposed these revisions, particularly the exemptions for jet fuel producers and subsidies for dairy methane projects. The advisory committee is concerned that these provisions could economically favor certain industries, hindering the achievement of environmental equity. Nonetheless, the board ultimately decided to advance the amendments, which are expected to have profound impacts on the future composition of California's transportation fuels.
Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market carries risks, and investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and has not taken into account individual users' specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investing based on this is at one's own responsibility.
Tags:
Related articles
Gulf nations urge U.S. to stop Israel’s attack on Iranian oil facilities to prevent escalation.
{Current column}According to multiple sources, Gulf countries are jointly pressuring the United States to prevent Is ...
Read moreBanksratesignals says I need to pay a ‘final processing fee’ before they can release my funds.
{Current column}They claim I need to pay a $1,000 “final processing fee” before I can withdraw my funds. This was ne ...
Read moreTrustVest Capital required me a $2,000 “risk management surcharge”
{Current column}There was no prior mention of this fee in any documentation or during registration. I had completed ...
Read more
Popular Articles
- Trump's victory raises recession concerns, with U.S. recession probability now at 75%.
- AllianceCryptoFXTrade told me today that I need to pay a $2,400 “liquidity adjustment fee.”
- KODDPA claims I need to pay a $2,100 "release authorization fee" to withdraw my funds.
- tokenxpresstrade is telling me I need to pay a “reinstatement fee” to unlock my funds.
- Trump’s election may worsen Europe’s crisis; Deutsche Bank cuts euro forecast.
- Avafundify says I need to pay a “compliance clearance fee” before I can withdraw my money.
Latest articles
-
SQLQD has demanded me a $950 “security verification charge”
-
Metatradecore claims I need to pay a ‘financial stability fee’ before I can withdraw.
-
Best24option surprised me with a $1,560 “exit security fee” right after I requested a withdrawal.
-
Goldencoinassets said I need to pay a “user verification fee” to unlock my withdrawal.
-
BittrexMarkets told me I must pay $1,850 “security clearance surcharge”
-
TM9 said I need to make a 'final payment' of $3,000 before withdrawing.