Envtl. Assessments & Impact Statements
As noted in prior posts, California requires that projects subject to its environmental impact statement process (known as CEQA, the Calif. Environmental Quality Act) take into account climate change as part of the evaluative process. California's Attorney General, "Jerry" Brown (former Governor and mayor of Oakland) has released a FAQ's and the AG's answers related to CEQA & climate change in the context of General Plan Updates, a process by which local government undertakes zoning and land use planning activities. Though directed at General Plan related actions, the answers reflect on a wide variety of CEQA "projects". [CEQA applies to projects undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public agency, or requires an issuance of a permit by a public agency. A "project" means the whole of an action that has a potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, and is an activity that may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. A "project" may include construction activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and activities or equipment involving the issuance of a permit.]
Question: If the climate change impacts are too speculative, can the lead agency avoid the climate-change analysis? Answer: No.
Question: Must the lead agency estimate GHG emissions. Answer: Yes.
Question: What are the relevant "existing environmental conditions"? Answer: Current atmospheric concentrations of GHG's, and the existing climate that reflects the presence of those substances. The science of GHG's says that GHG's must be reduced.
Question: If the lead agency agrees to abide by AB 32 regulations [see numerous prior posts on AB 32] when they become operative [2012], can the lead agency determine that the GHG-related impacts will be less than significant? Answer: No. The purpose of CEQA is not to ensure compliance with other laws, and it does not allow agencies to defer mitigation date.
Question: Since climate change is global, how can a lead agency ascertain if its GHG emissions are "significant"? Answer: A single local agency cannot solve problem, but it can do its "fair share". This means that if the local agency's actions were adopted on a larger scale they would be consistent with avoiding dangerous climate change. One method is to align goals with AB 32's nearterm (2020) and longterm (2050) GHG emission goals.
Given the ever-evolving science of GHG emissions and impacts, as noted in prior posts, this last answer seems sophistic and meaningless. Local government can do nothing about air emission regulations, fuel specifications, auto standards etc., and as such the response assumes much too much.