







































Education, Society and Human Studies 
ISSN 2690-3679 (Print) ISSN 2690-3687 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs 

113 

Original Paper 

California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets (2030 

and 2050): Trends, Projections and Analysis 
Oscar Wambuguh, M.Sc., Ph.D.1* 

1 Department of Health Sciences, California State University, East Bay, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd., 

Hayward, CA 94542, USA 
* Oscar Wambuguh, Department of Health Sciences, California State University, East Bay, 25800 

Carlos Bee Blvd., Hayward, CA 94542, USA 

 
Received: September 3, 2020   Accepted: September 13, 2020   Online Published: September 18, 2020 

doi:10.22158/eshs.v1n2p113                     URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eshs.v1n2p113 

 
Abstract 

Fossil fuels are the primary sources of energy powering economic development globally. Increased 

fossil fuel consumption produces Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) which build in the atmosphere 

and trap heat irradiated from the Earth. The increased concentration of these gases causes global 

warming and extensive climate disruptions. This study examined GHG emissions data from 2000-2017 

to evaluate whether California will meet GHG emissions reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 

2030 as mandated by California’s Executive Order B-30-15. California’s ability to reduce GHG 

emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (Executive Order S-3-05) was also evaluated. Results 

indicate that transportation, electric power, industrial and commercial/residential) GHG emissions 

reductions declined by small magnitudes in the 18-year period (0.17% to 2.49%). In agriculture, 

refrigerant and recycling/waste agencies, emissions reductions increased in the 18-year period (0.08% 

to 0.8%). For 2030 and 2050 emissions reductions targets, no emissions category sector will achieve 

the targeted reduction. The highest emissions reduction amounts discrepancies between observed and 

expected were in transportation, industrial and commercial/residential sectors (2030); and in 

transportation, industrial and agricultural facilities (2050). An analysis of current trends and 

technological developments in each emissions sector is presented to guide and structure future 

emissions target reductions. 

Keywords 

GHG emissions, mmtCO2e, reduction targets, cap and trade, fossil fuels, decarbonization 

 
 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
114 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction 

Global economic growth is directly linked to increased energy consumption. International efforts to 

limit the increase in global mean temperature to well below 2°C and to “pursue efforts” to avoid a 

1.5°C temperature rise requires a transition to net-zero emissions energy systems by 2050 (Tong et al., 

2019). For the past five decades, the main sources of energy powering economic development in many 

countries have primarily been fossil fuels that include oil, coal and natural gas. Increased fossil fuel 

consumption produces gas emissions like CO2, methane (CH4), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and 

ozone (O3). These gases rise into the atmosphere and prevent (or trap) heat irradiated from the Earth 

from escaping into the outer reaches of the atmosphere. Increased concentration of these gases causes 

global warming which brings about extensive climate disruptions (climate change). Climate change is a 

change of climate attributable directly or indirectly to human activity, which in addition to existing 

natural climate variability, alters the composition of the global atmosphere for extended long periods of 

time typically decades (UNFCCC, 2020a).  

Climate changes affects the planet in a variety of ways including altering global wind circulation 

patterns and ocean current cycles. These changes cause extensive rainfall disruptions in many areas 

causing drought, severe heat waves, extended rainfall, severe hurricanes, and extensive fires in many 

parts of the globe. Due to the expected impacts of climate change, progress achieved in global 

population health in recent decades is at risk of reversal (Watts et al., 2018). Climate change is already 

contributing to higher air pollution levels, deforestation, ocean acidification, increased wildfires, 

expansive droughts, intense heat waves and sea-level rise, which threaten the health and livelihoods of 

citizens (EUC, 2020). Vulnerable populations like indigenous peoples and people whose mode of 

existence is primarily reliance on agriculture and other regions such as small island developing states 

and the Arctic, are more vulnerable to its impacts (Watts et al., 2018). Similarly, efforts by countries in 

achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) under the United Nations 2030 Agenda for 

Sustainable Development are seriously curtailed by climate change (UN, 2020). 

Climate change affects world food production, disease vectors that are agents of disease, biodiversity, 

and damage to marine and freshwater environments like coral reef bleaching. For example, the World 

Health Organization (WHO) estimates that without climate adaptation, nearly 7.5 million more cases of 

stunted children by 2030 and 10.1 million by 2050 due to undernutrition caused by decreased food 

supply (WHO, 2020). With a mission of reducing their reliance on non-renewable sources of energy 

like coal and oil, many countries have been seeking alternative sources of renewable energy like solar, 

nuclear, geothermal, wind and hydropower. In addition to developing renewable energy, under the 

United Nations Inter-Continental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), many countries have vowed to 

stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels and eventually carbon neutrality. 

As noted by Haszeldine et al., there are three options for humanity in how to deal with the impacts of 

climate change: 1) do nothing, and await practical consequences; 2) develop and deploy engineering 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
115 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

technologies to increase reflectance of solar radiation; and 3) reduce the rate of CO2 emission and 

recapture large quantities of CO2 already emitted (2018). To respond to the challenges posed by climate 

change, two main strategies have been adopted by many countries: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation 

refers to the reduction of magnitude of future climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions like 

developing renewable energy sources, reduction of energy consumption, and enhancing greenhouse gas 

sinks like afforestation (IPCC, 2014). Adaptation refers to preparation and dealing with the negative 

consequences of climate change (for example, protecting coastal zones from sea-level rise) as well as 

taking advantage of the positive consequences of climate change (increased food production in areas are 

too arid for agriculture) (Demski et al., 2017). 

Climate Neutral Now (CNN) is an “initiative launched by UN Climate Change in 2015 to encourage 

everyone in society to take action to help achieve a climate neutral world by mid-century, as enshrined 

in the Paris Agreement”. (UNFCCC, 2020b). According to UNFCCC, the Inter-Governmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC)—operating under the UNFCCC umbrella—works with governments, 

non-governmental organizations, and citizens towards global climate neutrality by addressing their own 

climate footprint in three main ways: 1) monitoring greenhouse gas emissions (carbon footprint); 2) 

deciding on actions that will reduce those emissions; and, 3) compensating for those emissions that 

cannot be avoided using UN certified emissions reductions (a form of carbon credit) (UNFCCC, 

2020b). 

As per the 2015 Paris Accord, the IPCC advocated emissions reduction targets of 80% below 1990 

emission levels to stabilize global greenhouse emissions to a sustainable level. The majority of 

countries in Europe are striving for between 60% to 80% reduction by 2050. More than 110 countries 

representing up to 75% of global emissions have ratified the Paris Accord agreeing to work together to 

collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to slow global warming. This sustained 

progress would ensure reduction of greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to a steady state where by 

2100 greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are approximately constant or decreasing (Erickson, 2017). 

In the United States, a number of states have adopted the same emission reduction measures tweaked to 

accommodate the needs of state governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and 

private citizens. As of 2020, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions notes that 23 states and the 

District of Columbia have implemented statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets (CCES, 2020). 

Despite the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Accord, these states have vowed to uphold the U.S. 

commitment of reducing emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 (CCES, 2020).  

In the state of California (CA), the former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order 

S-3-05 of 2005, to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In April 2015, 

Governor Edmund Gerald “Jerry” Brown signed Executive Order B-30-15 to reduce emissions to 40% 

below 1990 by year 2030. This legislation was enacted to ensure that California’s 2050 commitments 

(as per EO S-3-05) remain on target. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CA 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
116 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

has made tremendous strides in reducing harmful air pollutants and cutting down on greenhouse gas 

emissions from industry, energy production, transportation and other sources (CARB, 2020a). To 

ensure sustained progress in emissions reduction, the CARB has maintained annual greenhouse gas 

(GHC) inventories from the year 2000. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) 

requires reporting of GHG emissions by major sources. Excluding natural GHG sources, this inventory 

provides estimates of anthropogenic emissions within the state in addition to emissions associated with 

imported electricity. Maintaining and updating California's GHG inventory is a charge given by the 

state to CARB (ARB, 2020b). The inventory includes estimates for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases with long lifetimes and high global warming 

potentials (high-GWP) like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) (CARB, 2020a). Starting in 2009, emissions reporting in CA 

requires independent verification of GHG emissions data reports by CARB-accredited verification 

bodies. The CARB provides annual webinar training sessions regarding emissions requirements so that 

corporations and entities producing emissions can participate. 

In 2017, California’s most recent inventory data shows annual emissions measured at 424 mmtCO2e. 

The changing climate has particularly affected the state in many ways: 1) worsening wildfires which 

are destroying lives, property, and disrupting businesses; 2) prolonged dry spells and droughts 

especially between the years 2012-2016; 3) with more than 840 miles of coast line and at least 85% of 

Californians living/working in coastal counties, there is significant risk of sea level rise and flooding; 4) 

resulting health consequences of droughts, wildfires and flooding; 5) California accounts for over 13% 

of the nation's total agricultural value, thus disruption of the state’s food supply is a big concern; and, 6) 

there are significant effects on natural ecosystems primarily disruption of life-support systems and 

wildlife species.  

Reviewing the emissions data reduction rates from various sources between 2010-2017, this study 

hypothesized that the CARB’s 2030 emissions reduction targets (40% below 1990 levels; and 80% 

below 1990 levels by 2050) on state of emission reduction as required by the Executive Order B-30-15, 

would not be met if the current rates of reductions continue. Using the current rates of emissions 

reductions observed in the last 18 years as a baseline, the study made future projections about meeting 

the 2030 and 2050 targets. An analysis of current trends and technological developments in the 

transportation industry, power generation and use, general industry, commercial and residential sector, 

and the agricultural, refrigerant and waste/recycling sectors are presented. It is hoped that these 

suggestions will help the State authorities and agencies contributing to emissions develop strategies to 

boost the annual rates of emissions reductions in the years ahead. 

 
 
 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
117 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. Method 

Using the emissions data from 2000-2017, the study’s first null hypothesis was that the total yearly 

greenhouse gas emissions observed in each emissions category from 2018 to 2030, were no different 

from those expected if California met the Executive Order B-30-15 (EO) interim greenhouse gas 

reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Reaching this interim 2030 target would ensure 

California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 

(Executive Order S-3-05). The chi-square goodness of fit test (Zar, 2009) was used to test whether 

there were differences between the observed and expected emissions reduction rates between 

2018-2030.  

The study’s second null hypothesis was that the total yearly greenhouse gas emissions observed in each 

emissions category from 2018 to 2050, were no different from those expected if California met the 

Executive Order S-3-05 of 2005 with a greenhouse gas reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 

2050. The chi-square goodness of fit test (Zar, 2009) was used to test whether there were differences 

between the observed and expected emissions reduction rates between 2018-2050. Existing CARB data 

from 2000-2017 was reviewed from each emission category (agencies in transportation, electric power, 

industrial, commercial and residential, agriculture, agencies producing gases with high warming 

potentials, and recycling/waste agencies).  

The following parameters were noted and used in the statistics calculated: 

i.    The 1990 total emissions given by CARB for California was 427 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent (mmtCO2e).  

ii. Total emissions for 2017 amounted to 424 mmtCO2e, which is not significantly different from 

the total emissions amount in 1990 of 427 mmtCO2e. Thus, the 1990 amounts were used to 

project annual percentage emissions for each category (transportation, electric power, 

industrial, etc.). 

iii. The annual mean percentages for each category were then calculated and used to project 

reduction rates for the years 2018-2030 assuming they would remain the same (observed 

reductions). 

Assuming the CARB projected 40% reduction by 2030, emissions reductions for the period 2018-2030 

were calculated using the mean percentages for each category (expected reductions). Assuming the 

CARB projected 80% reduction by 2050, the mean percentages for each category were used to 

calculate the observed and expected reductions for the period 2018-2050.  

With these calculations, the questions guiding this study were:  

1) Were the observed 2030 emissions reductions in each category different from those expected 

with the projected 40% below 1990 levels?  

2) If the differences were significant, CA would not meet the targeted emissions reductions 

proposed by the ARB by 2030. How short were the emission amounts relative to the 2030 target? 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
118 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

How long would it take CA to reach the 2030 targets assuming the same rates of reduction as 

observed?  

3) Likewise, were the observed 2050 emissions reductions in each category different from those 

expected with the projected 80% below 1990 levels?  

4) If the differences were significant, CA would not meet the targeted emissions reductions 

proposed by the ARB by 2050. How short were the emission amounts relative to the 2050 target? 

How long would it take CA to reach the 2050 targets assuming the same rates of reduction as 

observed? 

5) What annual reductions amounts would be required if CA were to meet the 2050 reduction 

targets (80% below 1990 levels)? 

6) What mitigation actions would be needed for CA to stay on the 2050 target (cap/trade, carbon 

tax, education, monitoring, incentives, funding [loans, grants], policy changes, and others)? 

 
3. Result 

Using the available CARB data for the years 2000-2017 annual mean percentage reductions for each 

category were calculated as shown (Table 1). In four of the categories (transportation, electric power, 

industrial and commercial/residential) emissions reductions declined in the 18-year period, although only 

by small magnitudes (0.17% to 2.49%). In the other three categories (agriculture, refrigerant and 

recycling/waste agencies) emissions reductions had increased in the 18-year period (0.08% to 0.8%). 

 

Table 1. Annual Mean Percentage Reductions for Various GHG Emissions Categories 

Category Mean % emissions reduction 

Transportation -0.32 

Electric Power -2.49 

Industrial -0.47 

Commercial and Residential -0.17 

Agriculture 0.08 

High Global Warming Potential 0.8 

Recycling and Waste 0.09 

 

The mean percentage emissions reduction rates calculated in the various emissions categories (Table 2) 

indicate that by the year 2030, no emissions category will have achieved the targeted reduction. The 

three highest emissions reduction amounts discrepancies between observed and expected were found in 

transportation, industrial and commercial/residential facilities. The three highest percentage differences 

between the observed and expected reductions were found in HGW potential emissions industries 

which emit gases like R-22—the most common refrigerant today; recycling/waste generation agencies; 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
119 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

and agriculture (Table 2). Overall, there was a significant difference between the observed and expected 

emissions reduction amounts for 2030 (Chi-square=86.44, dg=6, p<<0.05). This significance disproves 

the first hypothesis of this study of no difference between total observed and expected mean emissions 

reductions by year 2030. 

 

Table 2. Observed and Expected Emissions Reductions in Various Categories (Assuming 40% 

Emissions Reduction below 1990 Levels by 2030; Units in mmtCO2e) 

 2030 40% below 1990   

Emissions Category Observed Expected Difference % Short 

Transportation 162.95 101.61 61.34 37.6 

Electric Power 44.94 36.51 8.43 18.8 

Industrial 84.08 53.39 30.7 36.5 

Commercial and Residential 40.2 24.62 15.58 38.8 

Agriculture 32.75 19.46 13.29 40.6 

High Global Warming 

Potential 
22.07 12.04 10.04 45.5 

Recycling and Waste 9.01 5.35 3.66 40.7 

Total 396 252.96   

 

Assuming the mean emissions reduction rates observed between 2000-2017 persist, 

commercial/residential agencies, transportation agencies, and industry would take the longest time to 

achieve the 2030 emissions reduction targets (286, 147 and 96 years respectively, Table 3). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
120 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 3. Projected Emissions Reductions Durations in Various Categories (Estimated Using the 

Mean Percentage Emissions Reduction Rates Observed between 2000-2017 [to Reach 40% of 1990 

Emissions Levels by 2030]; Units in mmtCO2e) 

Emissions Category 2030 Duration (years) Year Achieved 

 (emission rates) (following current reduction 

rates) 

(40% emission levels reached) 

Transportation 162.95 147 2177 

Electric Power 44.94 83 2113 

Industrial 84.08 96 2126 

Commercial and Residential 40.2 286 2316 

Agriculture 32.75  **  ** 

High Global Warming Potential 22.07  **  ** 

Recycling and Waste 9.01  **  ** 

** Mean percentage reduction rates increased between 2000-2017 (thus ignored in these projections) 

 
If current emissions reduction trends continue as observed in the period 2000-2017, the mean 

percentage emissions reduction rates in the various emissions categories indicate that by the year 2050, 

no emissions category will have achieved the targeted reduction (Table 4). The three highest emissions 

reduction amounts discrepancies between observed and expected were found in transportation, 

industrial and agricultural facilities. Commercial/residential facilities emissions reductions were a 

distant fourth. The three highest percentage differences between the observed and expected reductions 

were found in industrial, transportation and electric power generation facilities (Table 4). Overall, there 

was a significant difference between the observed and expected emissions reduction amounts for 2050 

(Chi-square=2345, dg=6, p<<0.05). This highly significant result disproves the first hypothesis of this 

study of no difference between total observed and expected mean emissions reductions by year 2050. 

 

Table 4. Observed and Expected Emissions Reductions in Various Categories (Assuming 80% 

Emissions Reduction below 1990 Levels by 2050; Units in mmtCO2e) 

 2050 80% below 1990   

Emissions Category Observed Expected Difference % Short 

Transportation 152.81 15.5 137.31 89.9 

Electric Power 27.11 5.56 21.55 79.5 

Industrial 76.51 5.69 70.82 92.6 

Commercial and Residential 38.85 15.37 23.47 60.4 

Agriculture 33.29 8.15 25.14 75.5 

High Global Warming Potential 25.89 7.78 18.1 69.6 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
121 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Recycling and Waste 9.18 3.75 5.43 59.2 

Total 363.64 61.81 137.31 89.9 

 

Assuming the mean emissions reduction rates observed between 2000-2017 persist, transportation 

agencies, industrial and commercial/residential facilities would take the longest time to achieve the 

2050 emissions reduction targets (713, 556 and 542 years respectively, Table 5). 

 

Table 5. Projected Emissions Reductions Durations of Four Categories** with Decreasing Emission 

Reductions (Estimated Using the Mean Percentage Emissions Reduction Rates Observed between 

2000-2017 [to Reach 80% of 1990 Emissions Levels by 2050]; Units in mmtCO2e) 

Emissions Category 2050 Duration (years) Year Achieved 

 (emission 

rates) 

(following current reduction 

rates) 

(80% emission levels 

reached) 

Transportation 152.81 713 2763 

Electric Power 27.11 63 2113 

Industrial 76.51 556 2606 

Commercial and 

Residential 38.85 542 2592 

** Four categories highlighted because of their steady emissions reduction progress between 

2000-2017 

 

To reach the targeted 2050 emissions reduction levels of 80% below the 1990 levels, the seven GHG 

emission categories must have annual emissions reductions of at least the amounts shown in the 

column labelled “expected reductions/year” for the years 2018-2050 (Table 6). To reduce overall 

emissions reductions to the targeted 2050 levels, the greatest emissions reductions achievements must 

be realized in three main categories: transportation, industrial and electric power. The mean emissions 

reduction amounts per category based on the 2000-2017 levels are shown in the last column. While 

mean emissions reductions were decreasing annually by the amounts shown in the last column for the 

first four categories (negative), the mean amounts were increasing in the last three categories 

(agriculture, HGW potential, and recycling/waste). 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
122 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 6. Expected Annual Emissions Reductions by Category between 2018-2050 Based on the 

2017 Emissions Reduction Amounts (Units in mmtCO2e) 

 2050 (80% 

below 1990 

levels) 

2017 

(emission 

levels) 

Expected 

emissions 

reduction amounts 

to reach 2050 

target (totals) 

Expected 

reductions (per 

year) 

Observed 

mean 

reduction rates 

(per year) 

Transportation 15.49 169.91 154.4 4.67 -0.58 

Electric Power 5.56 62.43 56.84 1.72 -2.36 

Industrial 5.69 89.44 83.71 2.53 -0.44 

Commercial 

and Residential 

15.37 41.12 25.73 0.78 -0.16 

Agriculture 8.15 32.45 24.25 0.73 0.08 

High Global 

Warming 

Potential 

7.78 19.96 12.12 0.37 0.76 

Recycling and 

Waste 

3.75 8.97 5.15 0.16 0.09 

 
Projections indicate that for CA to reach its 2050 emissions targets of 80% below 1990 levels by the year 

2050, total annual emissions must be reduced by the percentages shown for the next 33 years (Table 

7/Figure 1). For comparison, the actual total percentage emissions reductions per year are shown 

(assuming emissions reduction rates remain the same as in the period 2000-2017). 

 

Table 7. Actual and Required Total Annual Percentage Emissions Reduction in Each Emissions 

Category between 2018-2050 (to Achieve 80% Total Emissions Reduction below 1990 Levels by 

2050) 

Year Total% 

Required 

emissions 

reductions 

Total% 

Projected 

emissions 

reductions 

Year Total% 

Required 

emissions 

reductions 

Total% 

Projected 

emissions 

reductions 

2018 2.59 0.57 2036 4.85 0.45 

2019 2.66 0.56 2037 5.09 0.44 

2020 2.73 0.55 2038 5.37 0.44 

2021 2.81 0.54 2039 5.67 0.43 

2022 2.89 0.54 2040 6.01 0.43 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
123 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2023 2.97 0.53 2041 6.4 0.42 

2024 3.06 0.52 2042 6.83 0.42 

2025 3.16 0.52 2043 7.34 0.41 

2026 3.26 0.51 2044 7.92 0.41 

2027 3.37 0.5 2045 8.6 0.4 

2028 3.49 0.5 2046 9.41 0.4 

2029 3.62 0.49 2047 10.38 0.39 

2030 3.75 0.48 2048 11.59 0.39 

2031 3.9 0.48 2049 13.1 0.38 

2032 4.06 0.47 2050 15.08 0.38 

2033 4.23 0.47    

2034 4.42 0.46    

2035 4.62 0.45    

 

 

 
 

 
 

        
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
           

 
 
                   Year 
Figure 1. Actual and Required Total Annual Percentage Emissions Reductions in Each Emissions 

Category between 2018-2050 (so as to Achieve 80% Total Emissions Reductions below 1990 Levels 

by 2050) 

 

4. Discussion 

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions greatly improves ambient air quality. Policies to mitigate 

climate change by reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions can yield public health benefits by also 

reducing emissions of hazardous co-pollutants, such as air toxics and particulate matter. Although 

Projected 

Required 
Total % Emissions 
Reductions 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
124 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

GHGs like carbon dioxide impacts health indirectly through alterations of climate, they are not directly 

harmful due to the typically low outdoor concentrations they are commonly found (Cushing et al., 

2018). However, GHG emissions from fossil fuels combustion are accompanied by other hazardous 

co-pollutants such as Particulate Matter (PM), ozone-forming Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), and Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOCs) that cause increases in mortality due to respiratory and cardiovascular 

diseases (Cushing et al., 2018). The short- and long-term health benefits accruing from decreases in 

GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion greatly improve local air quality; and evidence that the 

economic cost savings of reduced air-pollution-related illnesses and death outweighs the costs of GHG 

mitigation abounds (Smith & Haigler, 2008; Nemet et al., 2010).  

Air pollutants have been implicated in cancer etiology, premature mortality, asthma, chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease; aggravate existing chronic conditions like 

type-2 diabetes; and raise risks of Alzheimer's disease and dementia (Apte et al., 2015; Erickson & 

Jennings, 2017; Erickson, 2017). Air quality regulations in the US in the past two decades have greatly 

reduced emissions from traditional polluting sources, such as Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen 

Oxides (NOx) from coal-fired power plants and on-road transportation. Resulting from these emission 

reductions, the national average annual particulate matter concentration has declined by 42% from 

2000 to 2015 (EPA, 2019). 

The results of this study clearly indicate that unless the State of California changes course in emissions 

reductions in the years ahead with more focused strategies (discussed below); it will not meet the targeted 

(and IPCC-agreed) emissions reductions by 2030, 2050 and beyond as anticipated. While emissions 

reductions in all categories were challenging during the 18-year period, there was some progress in 

transportation, electric power, industrial and commercial/residential categories. However, as shown in 

Tables 1 and 2, the actual reductions are not enough to meet targets. According to CARB, the overall 

trends demonstrate that the carbon intensity of California’s economy (the amount of carbon pollution per 

million dollars of Gross Domestic Product [GDP]) is declining. CARB asserts that from 2000 to 2017, 

the carbon intensity of California’s economy has decreased by 41 percent from 2001 peak emissions 

while simultaneously increasing GDP by 52 percent (2020a). However, this is just a positive way of 

looking at emissions trends—since a decline in economic output hurts jobs and people’s livelihoods. It is 

difficult to anticipate a situation where jobs will be preserved as the economy grows while at the same 

time emissions reductions are significantly declining.  

This study found that if current mean emissions trends in each sector persist in the decades ahead, 

California total GHG emissions will be short of targets by 143 mmtCO2e (in 2030, Table 2) and 302 

mmtCO2e (in 2050, Table 4). This is consistent with what other studies have reported. For example, the 

11th annual California Green Innovation Index that California will meet its 2030 climate targets more 

than three decades late (in 2061) and could be more than 100 years late in meeting its 2050 target if the 

average rate of emissions reductions from the past year persists (Next 10, 2020). The discussion below 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
125 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

will focus on current trends and developments in each of the sectors contributing most to US and 

California’s total CO2 emissions. In the light of this study, an analysis of the current US and global 

technological trends and developments is presented to help inform conversations regarding boosting 

emissions reductions in the future.  

Transportation Sector 

Transportation activities accounted for 28.8 % of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2017. The largest 

sources of transportation greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 were passenger cars (41.3%); freight trucks 

(22.7%); light-duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans (17.8%); 

commercial aircraft (6.5%); other aircraft (3.1%); ships and boats (2.4%); rail (2.2%); and pipelines 

(2.2%) (EPA, 2020). The sector remains the largest source of GHG emissions in California and for the 

18-year period mean emissions reductions were only 0.32 mmtCO2e per year (Table 1). It remains 

about 38% short of meeting the emissions reduction target for 2030 (Table 2); and 90% short of 

meeting the 2050 target (of emissions 80% below 1990 levels, Table 4). With the business-as-usual 

model (mean emissions reductions tagged at 0.32 mmtCO2e), it will take 147 years to reach the 2030 

targets (year 2177); and 713 years to reach the 2050 target (year 2763). 

As noted by CARB, direct emissions from vehicle tailpipe, off-road transportation mobile sources, 

intrastate aviation, rail, and watercraft account for 40 % of statewide emissions in 2017. About 90 % of 

emissions in the transportation sector come from passenger vehicles (69%) and heavy-duty vehicles 

(22%). The remaining emissions have come from a variety of other sources, including ships, airplanes, 

and rail (Taylor, 2018; CARB, 2020b). Since vehicle transportation is responsible for most of the 

emissions (smog and particulates in the air) in urban areas, the quality of air can substantially be 

improved by electric and (to a lesser extent) hybrid vehicle technology. California can remain hopeful 

since electric vehicle technology has dramatically increased in many countries in the last decade. To its 

advantage, one major electric car company (Tesla) is based in California. According to industry sources, 

Tesla sold 245,240 vehicles in 2018; and about 145,846 of this total were “Model 3s”, the company's 

midsize, four-door sedan that started production in 2017 (CarSalesBase, 2020). 

The International Energy Association (IEA) estimates that in 2018, the global electric car fleet 

exceeded 5.1 million, up 2 million from the previous year and almost doubling the number of new 

electric car sales (2020). The world’s largest electric car market is the People’s Republic of China, 

followed by Europe (e.g., in Norway more than 25% of new car sales are electric vehicles) and the US 

(IEA, 2020). In the US, combined local and global sales have increased by 518% between 2012-2016 

(Erickson, 2017). At least 40% of those sales are reported to be in the state of California where air 

quality control is more stringent than the rest of the US. For example, by 2045 California expects all 

commercial trucks to be electric as they account for 70% of pollution and 80% of diesel soot, despite 

numbering only 2 million of the roughly 30 million vehicles registered in California (GCR, 2020). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
126 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

A number of policies (including in California), have been enacted nationwide to help with GHG 

emissions reductions within the transportation network. These have focused on use of lower carbon 

fuels (including biofuels, advanced diesel, natural gas, hydrogen [for fuel cells], and electricity), 

targeted programs for light- and heavy-duty vehicles, and overall reduction of miles travelled per 

vehicle. The State has provide financial assistance to fuel consumers, vehicle manufacturers and fuel 

producers within the transportation industry willing to adopt lower emissions technologies, while 

others have focused on raising costs for using higher emissions technologies. However, despite these 

policies, emissions reductions are still lower than need to be to meet published 2030, 2045 and 2050 

emissions targets. 

Despite the slow progress in emissions reductions observed in California particularly in the 

transportation sector, there are several reasons to remain optimistic. Battery technology has greatly 

improved as seen in the development of solid state batteries that do not have liquid electrolytes raising the 

potential to increase energy density and reduce cost (Motavalli, 2015). These batteries have increased the 

range of new cars compared to earlier models and prices of new electric vehicles have declined. The 

development of EV charging infrastructure for electric vehicles is fast changing making travel distances 

of more than 200 miles possible with electric vehicles. The installation of electric vehicle supply 

equipment (EVSE) to allow fast charging along major highways, workplace and at home are the three 

most important infrastructure needs (Erickson et al., 2017). Newer developments like solar technology 

and wireless charging (where the electric vehicle is parked over a pad) added to this growing EVSE 

infrastructure, are added incentives to attract consumers to EVs and increase sales. Other incentives that 

will improve EV adoptions are solar energy storage in parking facilities in offices, schools, sports and 

entertainment events that attract many people. As is already happening—albeit at a slower 

pace—California must remain at the forefront of all these developments by incentivizing, financing, 

adopting, mandating, and monitoring incorporation of these new technologies within the transportation 

network.  

Electric Power Sector 

According to CARB, emissions from the electric power sector comprise 15 % of 2017 statewide GHG 

emissions divided into two broad categories: emissions from in-state power generation (including 

cogeneration emissions) and emissions from imported electricity (2020a). For the 18-year period 

(2000-2017) mean emissions reductions in the electric sector were the highest in all sectors at about 

2.49 million metric tons of CO2e per year (Table 1). Despite this, electric power utilities remain about 

19% short of meeting the emissions reductions target for 2030 (Table 2); and 80% short of meeting the 

2050 target (of emissions 80% below 1990 levels, Table 4). With the business-as-usual model (mean 

emissions reductions tagged at 2.49 mmtCO2e), it will take 83 years to reach the 2030 targets (year 

2113); and 63 years to reach the 2050 target (year 2113). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
127 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

One critical front helping California with emissions reductions is the increased adoption of renewable 

energy sources. California leads the nation in electricity production from renewable energy sources 

primarily solar, geothermal and biomass (USEIA, 2020a). In the decades ahead, the continued 

development of renewable energy alternatives (especially wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower) 

will remain a major force in greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The retirements of older, 

less-efficient fossil fuel units, availability of renewable energy tax credits, and the continued decline in 

the capital cost of renewables will fuel increased adoption of clean energy in the years ahead. 

Projections show that by 2050, renewable energy will contribute about 38% of total electricity 

generation in the US comprised of solar (46%), wind (33%), hydropower (14%) and geothermal (3%) 

sources (USEIA, 2020b). 

California state legislature already passed Senate Bill 350 (2015), which requires all utilities in the state 

to source half of their electricity sales from clean, renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, 

and bio-power by 2030. Referred to as the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, the bill 

requires that 60% of retail sales of electricity in California come from eligible renewable resources by 

2030, and 100% by 2045. The RPS stimulates clean technology investment and innovation, and by 

ensuring the market for renewable energy in California will continue to grow, it creates a favorable 

climate for developers, investors, and planners of renewables projects (USEIA, 2020a). As of 2017, 

just over half of total generated electricity (in-state and imported) came from zero-GHG sources (solar, 

wind, hydropower, and nuclear) (CARB, 2020a). If this trend is sustained, the state may reach the 2045 

target of zero emissions in electricity generation.  

Industrial Sector 

The main industries with the bulk of emissions in California are oil refineries, oil and gas corporations, 

combined heat and power cogenerating industries, mixed industries utilizing petroleum products, 

cement, and pipeline. For the year 2017, emissions from the industrial sector contributed 21% of state’s 

total GHG emissions, with refineries and hydrogen production representing the largest individual 

source contributing 33% of the sector’s total emissions (CARB 2020a). For the 18-year period 

(2000-2017) mean emissions reductions in the industrial sector were about 0.47 million metric tons of 

CO2e per year (Table 1); making this sector about 37% short of meeting the emissions reductions target 

for 2030 (Table 2), and 93% short of meeting the 2050 target (of emissions 80% below 1990 levels, 

Table 4). With the business-as-usual model (mean emissions reductions tagged at 0.47 mmtCO2e), it 

will take 96 years to reach the 2030 targets (year 2126); and 556 years to reach the 2050 target (year 

2606). 

Projections up to 2050 indicate that the industrial sector’s energy consumption will grow by about 

1.0% per year on average with coal consumption declining, while natural gas and hydrocarbon gas 

liquids consumption will grow fastest (reflecting strong supply growth and relatively low prices). The 

bulk chemicals industry (like heat, power and feedstocks) energy use will grow by about 1.6% 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
128 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

accounting for about 35% of total U.S. industrial energy consumption by 2050. The iron and steel 

industry energy use is projected to decline by 19% while the paper industry will increase energy 

consumption by 11%. Other industries like lime and cement, refining, glass and aluminum smelting are 

projected to remain stable in energy use over the same period (USEIA, 2020c). 

California’s Cap-and-Trade Program 

Globally, cap-and-trade has emerged as the favorable and main regulatory mechanism for pricing 

carbon and reducing GHG emissions from large stationary sources that emit more than 25,000 metric 

tons of CO2e per year (for example, refineries, cement production facilities, oil and gas production 

facilities, glass manufacturing facilities, and food processing plants) (CARB, 2020c). The program 

achieves the goals of economic development and carbon emissions reduction through both government 

and market regulation (Jiang et al., 2019). The California cap-and-trade system allows CARB to set an 

allowable total amount of emissions over a certain period and issue tradable emission permits. The 

program is estimated to account for less than 20% of all emission reductions under AB 32 (CARB, 

2020c). California’s program is very similar to other cap-and-trade programs, although at the practical 

level several detailed differences reflect active efforts by California policy-makers to avoid flaws 

perceived in other similar systems such as the world’s largest carbon pricing regime (European Union 

Emissions Trading System), and the US East Coast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (Bang et al., 

2017). The program regulates carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated GHGs from 

power plants, refineries, industrial facilities, fuel suppliers, and other entities that emit over 25,000 

metric tons of CO2e of GHGs per year, not including biogenic CO2 (Cushing et al., 2018; CARB, 

2020c). Under a cap-and-trade system, regulated companies must surrender tradable emission permits 

(called “allowances”) equal to the amount of GHGs they emit. Typically, one allowance equals one 

metric ton of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). To ensure accumulated gains over time, the cap on emissions is 

set by the total allowances issued designed to decrease over time. The program creates a powerful 

economic incentive for significant investment in cleaner, more efficient technologies and applies to 

emissions that cover approximately 80 % of the State’s GHG emissions (CARB, 2020c). It reduces 

GHG emissions from major sources by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions while 

employing market mechanisms to cost-effectively achieve the emission-reduction goals. The total 

number of allowances provided by CARB each year is equivalent to the annual allowance budget 

specified by AB32. 

As described by CARB (2020c), three types of GHG emissions are covered by the cap-and-trade 

program: local direct emissions within the state, indirect emissions from electricity imported from 

outside state, and geographically distributed emissions from fuels such as gasoline and natural gas 

which started in 2015. Beginning in 2013, industries were required to hold allowances equal to their 

GHG emissions (1 allowance=1 metric ton of CO2e). During the first compliance period of 2013-2014, 

more than 90% of allowances were freely allocated, with the balance auctioned or reserved for price 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
129 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

containment. To meet a cumulative GHG reduction target of 15% from 2015 to 2020, the total number 

of allowances in circulation (“cap”) was planned to decrease by 3%-3.5% annually. Companies could 

also meet 8% of their compliance obligation by purchasing GHG emission reduction credits generated 

by offset projects located in the US (1 offset=1 metric ton of CO2e). Regulated firms could be required 

or incentivized to purchase offsets that are linked to local projects that reduce GHG emissions, while 

also improving air quality in the regions where their facilities are located. Such local offset projects 

could include electrification of railyards and ports, cleaning up truck fleets, development of solar cell 

parking roof arrays, or financing retrofits to reduce GHGs and co-pollutant emissions from other local 

emission sources. Such local offset projects could enhance government oversight and promote 

community partnerships in project monitoring and emission verification. Nevertheless, offsets have 

been cited as capable of undermining improvements to local air pollution by undercutting financial 

incentives for industries to reduce emissions on site (Cushing et al., 2018). Cutbacks in the use of more 

carbon intensive energy sources imported from outside the state (such as electricity generated from 

coal-fired rather than natural gas power plants) could also be used by regulated entities to meet 

emission reduction goals in lieu of in-state reductions (CARB, 2020c). 

The cap-and-trade program also covers fuel distributors (natural gas/propane fuel providers and 

transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from transportation fuels and from combustion of 

other fossil fuels. Facilities that do not adhere to program requirements are subject to stringent penalties 

(CARB, 2020c). As has been observed in the European Union, emissions permits are readily affordable 

for most sectors thus failing to incentivize polluters to reduce carbon emissions, and invest in 

abatement technology. Monitoring compliances and enforcement by CARB has not been consistent, 

plus the complex and unnecessarily costly red tape industry has to go through in their emissions 

reporting. CARB must ensure that industrial operators use the most cost-effective emissions-reducing 

technologies to curb emissions to air, water and soil. As seen in the European Union, carbon prices are 

not market competitive perhaps due to oversupply of permits and/or decreased demand due to 

decarbonization among regulated polluters. As long as carbon markets are not viewed by industry as 

effective and credible regulatory policy for the future, it will not be enough to industrial-distance from 

carbon-intensive production (Cushing et al., 2018; Bayer & Aklin, 2020). 

The overall number of emissions allowances in the California’s cap-and-trade program need to be 

lowered to increase the pace for emissions cuts. For example, the European Union’s Emissions Trading 

System plans to lower allowances by 26% starting 2021 (EU, 2020). Funding must be made available 

to accelerate the development of promising innovative technologies and breakthrough creativity in the 

industrial sector. The current achievements of the cap-and-trade program (among other measures) can 

hardly be viewed as successful in cutting emissions judging from the mean percentage emissions 

reductions from various sectors as reported in this study (Table 1). Research suggests raising the 

minimum price for permits that industries must purchase under the state’s cap-and-trade law to emit 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
130 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

greenhouse gases. Analysts note that carbon price generates favorable economic and social impacts, but 

policymakers express concerns over a political backlash if prices rise too much or too fast (Busch & 

Orvis, 2020). Economic benefits due to carbon pricing are caused by the incentive to avoid low-value 

energy use, which translates to reduced energy consumption. Currently, cap-and-trade carbon trading in 

auctions stand at $19 (2020), projected to be $29 (2030) if current trends continue. The lowest 

projected carbon price level for 2030 is $26; mid-level $63; and highest level $101 (Busch & Orvis, 

2020).  

The cap-and-trade market system is far from a perfect mechanism for GHG emissions reductions. 

Efficient climate regulation as has been argued by some economists and environmental justice 

advocates requires deeper GHG reductions in areas where the health benefits of co-pollutant reductions 

are maximized. However, as reported by Cushing et al. (2018), this cannot be accomplished with the 

geographically unrestricted trading characteristic of cap-and-trade in which all GHG reductions are 

treated equally regardless of where they occur. Unless the location and co-pollutant intensity of GHG 

emissions are incorporated into the design of a cap-and-trade system, carbon trading could also 

potentially widen social inequities in exposure to localized hazardous co-pollutants because 

GHG-emitting facilities, which are disproportionately located in disadvantaged communities, are able 

to purchase allowances or offsets rather than reduce their emissions. California’s climate policy could 

better harmonize efforts to reduce GHGs with improvements to local air quality, and that market-based 

strategies in general could provide greater overall benefits by incentivizing localized GHG reductions 

especially in disadvantaged and highly polluted neighborhoods (Farber, 2012; Boyce & Pastor 2013; 

EPA, 2017; Cushing et al., 2018; Pan et al., 2020). 

Jiang’s et al.’s study (2019) highlighted several other limitations of the California’s cap-and-trade 

program. First, the potential positive health effects (co-benefits) accruing from the regulation are small, 

but can be improved by limiting the use of offsets to no more than 49% of total emission reductions 

(Jiang et al., 2019). This according to the study would encourage on-site greenhouse gas reductions, 

targeting offsets with positive health co-benefits to California’s vulnerable communities, and 

maximizing the auction of emission allowances. Enhanced environmental health surveillance systems 

to monitor future impacts and to ensure that no population bears a disproportionate health burden from 

the cap-and-trade program are recommended (Jiang et al., 2019). Third, cap-and-trade is not designed 

to lower criteria pollutants but to lower GHG emissions, as observed when entities use offsets to meet 

their emissions cuts. Modifications to the regulation will ensure locational equitability in health 

benefits. Fourth, cap-and-trade offers individual entities a high degree of freedom in attaining emission 

reduction targets offering flexibility but no health equitability. Fifth, the program mitigates climate 

change but such policies cannot be used to justify exacerbation of existing health disparities in 

communities which are already challenged by the need for adaptation to climate change (Jiang et al., 

2019).  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
131 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Commercial/Residential Sector (CR)  

Greenhouse gas emissions from the commercial and residential sectors are dominated by the 

combustion of fossil fuels in households and commercial businesses such as space heating, cooking, 

and hot water or steam generation (EPA, 2020). Residential buildings use energy for cooling, heating, 

lighting, refrigeration, clothes and dishwashing, cooking, water heating, and appliances. For the 

18-year period (2000-2017) mean emissions reductions in this sector were the lowest in all sectors at 

about 0.17 million metric tons of CO2e per year (Table 1). As a result, this sector fell 38% short of 

meeting the emissions reductions target for 2030 (Table 2); and 60% short of meeting the 2050 target 

(of emissions 80% below 1990 levels, Table 4). With the business-as-usual model (mean emissions 

reductions tagged at 0.17 mmtCO2e), it will take 286 years to reach the 2030 targets (year 2316); and 

542 years to reach the 2050 target (year 2592). 

The Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions (CCES) notes that in the last 49 years nationwide, rising 

population has led to the addition of a net average of 1.4 million completed homes a year, with total 

stock at 70.3 million as of 2017 (CCES, 2020). Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion 

by the residential sector increased 7.8% from 1990 to 2015 (reflecting a 5.5% decrease in direct, and a 

15.4% increase in indirect, emissions). In 2015, more than 85% of the sector’s direct emissions were 

from on-site fossil-fuel combustion, with most of the remainder resulting from leaks of 

hydrofluorocarbons commonly used as refrigerants. Rising indirect emissions result from increased 

population, housing stock, and communications technologies in homes. Largely due to energy 

efficiency and improved building codes, residential energy consumption is expected to remain largely 

unchanged despite population growth projections of 22.8% by 2050 (CCES, 2020). 

Commercial buildings use energy for ventilation, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, cooling, water 

heating, computer and office equipment, and heating. CCES estimates that between 1979 to 2012, the 

number of commercial buildings rose by 40%, and the amount of floor space increased by 70%. Further, 

from 1990 to 2015, total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion from the commercial sector 

increased 20.4%, as direct emissions rose 13.2% and indirect emissions increased 23.3%. In 2015, a 

little more than half of the direct emissions came from on-site fossil-fuel combustion (CCES, 2020). 

Commercial floor space is projected to grow by 40.5% from 2016 to 2050 and commercial energy 

consumption by 19.7%. Direct emissions are projected to rise by 20.4% driven by the increased use of 

natural gas, while indirect emissions are projected to decrease by 5.9%. While more electricity will be 

used for information technology and telecommunications, HVAC-related electricity use is expected to 

drop by 33% due to energy efficiency and population migration to the southern and western parts of the 

US. In addition, lighting intensity is expected to drop 56% due to increased efficiency from LED bulbs. 

On-site electricity generation from solar photovoltaic panels and combined heat and power will also 

reduce the commercial sector’s demand for grid electricity (CCES, 2020). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
132 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The substitution of electricity for direct fossil-fuel combustion and improved energy efficiency, 

including through wider deployment of “intelligent efficiency” technologies provides major 

opportunities to decarbonize the buildings sector. However, some fundamental challenges remain 

including upfront costs, long payback periods, and “split incentives” among builders, owners, and 

occupants. Electrification of end uses will be a key pathway to reducing emissions and using electricity 

for heating, cooling, and hot water needs, instead of burning natural gas or fuel oil, can greatly reduce a 

building’s emissions. Since buildings undergo several phases over their lifetime, including design, 

construction, operation, and retrofits, opportunities abound to improve energy efficiency and reduce 

emissions by: 1) adopting more natural lighting, 2) sourcing construction materials with less embodied 

carbon, 3) changing consumer behavior and electricity usage patterns to reduce energy demand, and, 4) 

planning major retrofits over the life of the building including improving building envelopes and 

window insulation to control for air and moisture and optimizing the cost and performance of LED 

lighting (CCES, 2020). 

Residential and commercial buildings represent one of the highest energy consumption fields in the 

world and in developed countries, between 20% and 40% of the total energy consumed relates to 

buildings (Moreno et al., 2014). The benefits of energy-efficient buildings to limit the global 

temperature rise to “well below 2°C” is imperative—if no action is taken to improve efficiency, global 

energy demand is projected to rise by 50% by 2050 (Foggia, 2018; Gan Vincent, 2018). Energy 

consumption in buildings emit close to 30% of the CO2 emissions, while about 6% of the total emitted 

pollutants occur as a result of fuel consumption in households. Thus, a reduction in a building’s 

environmental impact can lead to significant environmental benefits (Delavar & Sahebi, 2020). Over 

time buildings undergo several phases in design, construction, operation, and retrofits, thus, 

opportunities abound to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions. For example, designing a 

building to use more natural lighting, using construction materials with less embodied carbon, 

influencing consumer behavior and electricity usage patterns to reduce energy demand, or planning 

major retrofits over the life of the building. 

Technological advances can increase energy efficiency by improving building envelopes and window 

insulation which help control air and moisture flow, and optimizing the cost and performance of LED 

lighting. include Many buildings occupants’ lack of awareness and information about energy use will 

continue to be major challenges in energy efficiency. In addition, many commercial and residential 

properties monitor energy costs or embed them in rental charges which reduces transparency in energy 

use frustrating efficiency amongst occupants. Most properties have electricity smart meters in the U.S. 

but there is some resistance experienced in smart metering due to cost, privacy and accuracy concerns. 

On the positive side, many companies now offer hardware, software, and services to help commercial 

and residential users benchmark their energy usage against peers to make better-informed decisions (Di 

Foggia, 2018; CCES, 2020). Other challenges encountered are that people who construct, own, and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
133 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

occupy buildings will vary over time and buildings undergo different phases over their lifetime. For 

example, the builder (or owner) of a newly constructed building may not install the most energy 

efficient appliances or equipment, whereas the buyer or renter will be responsible for energy costs in 

the facility. This split incentive tends to favor lower upfront costs despite the net lifetime savings that 

could be achieved through greater energy efficiency. Upfront costs may also be an obstacle to 

switching existing buildings to alternative fuels or technologies such as heat pumps. In both the 

commercial and residential sectors, potential financial incentives for such investments include: 

streamlined loan processes, rebates, favorable loan terms, weatherization assistance for low-income 

households, property assessed clean energy (PACE) funds, and tax credits for both installing on-site 

renewable energy and pursuing specific green building certifications (Gan Vincent, 2018; CCES, 2020; 

Delavar & Sahebi, 2020). 

Agriculture, Refrigerant and Recycling/Waste Sectors 

Agriculture 

The three major areas where emissions reductions have slightly increased in the 18-year period from 

2000-2017 are agriculture, refrigerant and recycling/waste agencies, Table 1. The three sectors were 

found to be 41%, 46% and 41% respectively short of the 2030-targeted emissions reductions; and 76%, 

70% and 59% respectively short of the 2050-targeted emissions reductions (Tables 2 & 4). The 

substantial contribution of food consumption to climate change necessitates urban action to reduce the 

carbon intensity of the food system, which contributes about 20-30% of global GHG emissions 

necessitating action to reduce the carbon intensity of food production and consumption (Mohareb et al., 

2018). 

Greenhouse gas emissions related to agriculture totaled 582 million metric tons in 2017, up slightly 

from prior-year levels, but down 2% from a decade ago (EPA, 2019). Productivity in agriculture was 

270% greater in 2017 than in 1948, and 136% greater than 1990, while total farm inputs were mostly 

unchanged from 1948, and only marginally higher than in 1990 (EPA, 2019). Innovations in animal 

and crop genetics, chemicals, equipment, and farm organization have enabled continuing output growth 

without adding much to inputs (USDA, 2020). The agriculture end-use sector includes a variety of 

processes including methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) emissions from enteric fermentation in 

domestic livestock, livestock manure management, rice cultivation, agricultural soil management, and 

field burning of agricultural residues; as well as Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions from liming and urea 

fertilization. In 2017, agricultural soil management was the largest source of N2O emissions, and 

enteric fermentation was the largest source of CH4 emissions in the United States. This sector also 

includes small amounts of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion by motorized farm equipment 

such as tractors (EPA, 2019). 

California’s agricultural sector contributed approximately 8% of statewide GHG emissions in 2017, 

mainly from methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) sources. Sources include enteric fermentation and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
134 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

manure management from livestock, crop production (fertilizer use, soil preparation and disturbance, 

and crop residue burning), and fuel combustion associated with stationary agricultural activities (water 

pumping, cooling or heating buildings, and processing commodities). Livestock accounted for 

approximately 60% of agricultural emissions, which were generated primarily in the form of CH4 from 

enteric fermentation and manure management. Dairy facilities are a major source of GHG emissions in 

California, accounting for roughly 60% of agricultural emissions. About 40% of CH4 emissions come 

from natural sources including wetlands, mostly in tropical regions and cold parts of the planet such as 

Siberia and Canada, lakes and rivers; natural geological sources on land and oceans such as gas-oil seeps 

and mud volcanoes; and smaller sources such as termite mounds in the savannas of Africa and Australia. 

Luckily, about 90% of CH4 is destroyed through oxidation in the lower atmosphere by reacting with 

hydroxyl radicals. 

CARB reports that agricultural emissions in 2017 were 16% higher than 2000 levels with crop 

production accounting for 20% of all agriculture emissions in 2017 (2020a). A more climate-friendly 

land use strategy for California will encourage the agriculture sector develop climate-smart 

agriculture practices. It will also support forest management practices that promote reforestation efforts 

(especially expanding urban tree-planting) which can store vast quantities of carbon sequestered from 

the atmosphere. Research in carbon sequestration indicates that U.S. forests will continue sinking 

carbon for many years, although recent research indicate that due to increased forest disturbances (like 

drought, wildfires and the spread of diseases), slower forest growth, and other factors the CO2 

absorption rate may begin to decline (Belenky, 2016). California aims to expand carbon sequestration 

in natural and working lands, defined as including forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, and soils 

(CARB, 2020b). 

These efforts can be supported with financial incentives, by regulation and monitoring, 

education/training/demonstration centers, and provision of agricultural inputs with lower emissions 

(like fertilizers). While the manufacture of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers produces a significant source of 

greenhouse gas emissions, its application is also an important factor contributing to direct N2O 

emissions from agricultural soils (Chai et al., 2019). Increased N2O stimulates microbes in the soil to 

convert nitrogen to nitrous oxide at a faster rate than normal. Encouraging farmers to embrace changes 

in fertilizer use and agricultural practices will help to mitigate the release of nitrous oxide into the 

atmosphere. On a positive note, U.S. farmers and ranchers are today producing more crops, livestock, 

fruits and vegetables, fuel and fiber than ever before while using less water, protecting against erosion 

and conserving more soil, avoiding nutrient loss, increasing wildlife habitat and improving biodiversity 

while using less cropland. Farmers also contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 

sequestering carbon in that soil. In addition to sequestration, livestock producers have greatly enhanced 

their sustainability efforts by investing in methane digester technology—reducing methane emissions 

into the atmosphere and producing renewable energy (AFBF, 2020).  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
135 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Refrigerants 

In 2017, California’s refrigeration and air conditioning equipment contributed 90% of ozone depleting 

substance substitutes emissions. These are primarily hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) used in refrigeration 

and air conditioning equipment, solvent cleaning, foam production, fire retardants, and aerosols. Due to 

their high global warming potential and refrigerant charge leaks from the system, refrigeration and air 

conditioning systems have high, negative environmental impacts (Beshr et al., 2017). Refrigerants are 

fluids used in refrigeration cycles to cool a space like a room, office building, or warehouse. They work 

by capturing heat and releasing it to another space using thermodynamic phase changes where fluids 

change to a gas or vice versa in the refrigeration cycle. Refrigerants are used primarily in 

refrigerators/freezers, air conditioning, fire suppression/explosion systems, cleaning solvents, 

propellants, foam blowing, sterilants, adhesives, coats and inks. There are numerous industrial, 

commercial and residential uses of refrigerants including commercial ice machines, chillers, cold 

storage warehouses, household refrigerators/freezers, ice-skating rinks, motor vehicle air conditioning, 

retail food refrigeration, refrigerated transport, vending machines and water coolers among others 

(Kasera & Bhaduri, 2017; McLinden et al., 2017; EPA, 2020).  

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), currently used as refrigerants in air-conditioning systems, are potent 

greenhouse gases, with high values of global warming potential. Highly commercialized in the 1990s 

as replacements for the ozone-depleting CFCs and HCFCs, HFCs are now the dominant refrigerants in 

new refrigeration, AC and heat-pump equipment (McLinden et al., 2017). The Kigali Amendment to 

Montreal Protocol requires the participating parties to gradually reduce HFCs use by 80 % to 85 % by 

the late 2040s. The substances controlled by the Protocol are ozone-depleting substances with high 

global warming potentials including CFCs, halons, other fully halogenated CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, 

methyl chloroform, HCFCs, methyl bromide, and HFCs (UN, 2020). 

According to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

(ASHRAE), the most common refrigerant families include methane/ethane series, ethers, propane, 

cyclic organic compounds, nitrogen compounds, and inorganic compounds (2020). Refrigerant blends 

include zeotropes and azeotropes (mostly designated “R-” series like R-22, R-404A, R-407A, R-410A, 

etc.). Refrigerants like R-22 are often thousands of times more polluting than CO2, and in 2010, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented a ban on the production and import of R-22. It 

has a 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1,810, almost 2,000 times the potency of CO2. For 

comparison, a pound of R-22 is nearly as potent as a ton of CO2 (Taylor, 2018). Illegal for use in US 

starting from January 01, 2020, R-22 has several replacements approved by the EPA due to their 

zero-ozone depleting potential including tens of them as listed by the EPA like R-404A, R-407B, 

R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, etc. (2020).  

Ideal substitutes for refrigerants that are free of all environmental and safety concerns, are chemically 

and thermally stable, and perform efficiently, are extremely unlikely to be found. As a result, trade-offs 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
136 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

among desired outcomes, will be necessary to achieve balanced solutions (Calm & Didion, 1998; 

Mota-Babiloni et al., 2016). For California to make progress with refrigerant emissions, progress will 

come with the state’s EPA continued progress in regulation and monitoring, financial incentives to 

defray industry adoption costs of lower warming potential refrigerants, and education/training both for 

industry, and commercial/residential consumers. 

Recycling/Waste Sectors 

Reduction of emissions from energy consumption through recycling saves energy for less energy is 

needed to extract, transport, and process raw materials; and to manufacture products when people reuse 

things or when products are made with less material. The reduction of emissions from incinerators can 

be achieved by diverting certain materials from incinerators through waste prevention and recycling. 

Landfills emit CH4 and waste prevention and recycling (including composting) divert organic wastes 

from landfills, reducing the amount of methane released. 

As trees store carbon in wood (carbon sequestration), waste prevention and recycling of paper 

translates to leaving more trees standing in the forest. As noted by the EPA (2020), waste prevention 

and recycling in the US can make a significant contribution to reducing GHG gas emissions. The waste 

reduction and recycling initiative initiated and coordinated by the US EPA is expected to contribute at 

least 5% of the total greenhouse gas emission reductions. These can be enhanced by specific programs 

as follows: 1) WasteWi$e, a voluntary partnership between EPA and US businesses, state and local 

governments, and institutions to prevent waste, recycle, and buy and manufacture products made with 

recycled materials. 2) Pay-As-You-Throw Program where the EPA provides technical and outreach 

assistance to encourage communities to implement pay-as-you-throw systems for solid waste. 

Residents are charged based on the amount of trash they discard creating an incentive for them to 

generate less trash and recycle more. Waste reductions of 15-28% have been reported in some 

communities with this program. 3) Developed with EPA support, the EPA/Chicago Board of Trade 

Recyclables Exchange is an online exchange that helps develop markets for recyclable commodities, 

thereby diverting more materials from the waste stream. 4) The EPA has also funded over 20 projects 

that demonstrate innovative waste reduction approaches with potential to achieve significant carbon 

emissions reductions (EPA, 2020).  

Programs such as these launched by EPA and others have accrued climate benefits of waste 

management options in waste prevention, recycling, composting, incineration, and landfilling. The 

GHG emissions associated with managing ten types of waste materials (office paper, newspaper, 

corrugated cardboard, aluminum, steel, plastics, food scraps, and yard trimmings were estimated. The 

study concluded that waste prevention is the best management option, with recycling the next best 

approach to reducing emissions. For example, the EPA estimates that increasing the country’s national 

recycling rate from its current level (27%) to 35% reduces GHG emissions by 11.4 mmtCO2e over 

landfilling the same material (EPA, 2020). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
137 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Practical Implications 

California’s policy-makers call for tightening California’s low-carbon fuel standard, expanding 

programs to reduce methane emissions from dairy farms, increasing reforestation efforts, and lowering 

the amount of carbon that industry can release under the cap-and-trade program. The state needs to 

chaperone investments in modernizing the energy sector, boosting energy efficiency, and facilitating 

transitioning into a zero-carbon economy for older industrial systems. Some of the innovative strategies 

that can be implemented in California and have been proposed elsewhere particularly in European 

Union (EU, 2019) are: 

a) Promotion of a circular economy in California where material use is reduced, reused and 

recycled especially in resource intense sectors like electronics, textiles, construction and 

plastics.  

b) Decarbonization and modernization of California’s energy-intensive industries especially in 

steel and cement production. 

c) Stimulation and development of new market avenues for the consumption of climate neutral 

and circular products, and green financing options.  

d) Promoting energy use efficiency, climate-proofing buildings, strict regulation of building 

energy use, and increased digitalization of provided services. 

e) Preservation of biodiversity in ecosystems, reduced or zero-pollution targets for industry, 

creation of toxic-free environments for citizens, and substantial reduction or total elimination 

of urban pollution by industry. 

f) Elimination of fossil fuel state and federal subsidies especially in the utilization of high 

emissions fuels by industry, and stricter pollution enforcement in the transportation sector. For 

example, zero tolerance of truck idling on truck stops, highways and in urban centers.  

g) Funding for research and development of innovative sustainable solutions, education and 

training in schools, mid-level educational, and higher educational institutions. 

For California to meet its GHG emissions targets in 2030 and 2050, the current policy framework must 

be reviewed, adjusted, mandated and monitored. As shown in Tables 1 and 7, California must raise its 

current rate of emissions reductions (currently totaling 0.57 mmtCO2e/year) six-and-half times (to 3.75 

mmtCO2e/year) by 2030; and by twenty-six-and-half times (to 15.08 mmtCO2e/year) to meet the 2050 

target. With the climate change effects already being experienced in the state projected to get worse in 

the decades ahead, many of the current and future innovative technologies and trends discussed above 

in the seven emissions sectors will be crucial in meeting these emissions cuts obligations. Busch and 

Orvis (2020) highlight a package of six policies that in addition to reducing GHG emissions, they will 

generate significant economic and health benefits. The first three policy recommendations strengthen 

existing policies (cap-and-trade, clean energy use, zero emissions vehicles); the next three are 

suggested (accelerating building electrification, zero emission performance standard for industrial 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
138 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

sector heating, and new emissions standards for cement and concrete production—since cement is the 

largest source of coal combustion in California).  

Although California’s ambitions must remain strong and optimistic to serve as a model for other states, 

and a testing ground for new policies and innovations, a number of emissions reductions challenges are 

projected in California in the years ahead. The 2018 wildfires are reported to have produced more than 

nine times greater emissions than were reduced across the entire state’s economy between 2016 and 

2017—with wildfires contributing more than the commercial, residential or agriculture sectors did in 

2017. Recycling rates were also reported down in the state, and landfill emissions have been increasing 

since 2004 as commercial, and residential waste generation rises (Next 10, 2020). There are also 

uncertainties in the coming years especially at the national level. The Trump administration is currently 

preparing to take the final steps to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement. A legal battle by the 

administration is also currently waiting to roll back California’s emissions standards for new 

vehicles—despite the fact that cars and trucks make up about one-third of the GHG emissions in 

California. 

California is the most populous state in the nation, has the largest economy in the nation (fifth largest 

economy in the world), and is second only to Texas in total energy consumption (USBEA, 2018). 

Despite not wanting to hurt the economy, California must continue with its commitment to make 

significant, steady and impactful progress in GHG emissions reductions in the years ahead in all the 

seven emissions sectors. 

 

Acknowledgements 

The data used in this study is available at the California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) website. I 

would like to thank the agency for allowing public access of the data for research and analysis. The 

data is available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. 

 

References 

American Farm Bureau Federation [AFBF]. (2020). Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 

Retrieved from https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions 

Apte, J. S., Marshall, J. D., Cohen, A. J., & Brauer, M. (2015). Addressing global mortality from 

ambient PM2.5. Environmental Science and Technology, 49, 8057-8066. 

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01236 

ASHRAE. (2020). Refrigerant Designations. Retrieved from 

https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/standards-and-guidelines/ashrae-refrigerant-designatio

ns 

Bang, G., Victor, D. G., & Andresen, S. (2017). California’s Cap-and-Trade System: Diffusion and 

Lessons. Global Environmental Politics, 17(3), 12-30. https://doi.org/ 10.1162/GLEP_ a_00413 

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/author/Bang%2C+Guri
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/author/Victor%2C+David+G
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/author/Andresen%2C+Steinar


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
139 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Bayer, P., & Aklin, M. (2020). The European Union Emissions Trading System reduced CO2 emissions 

despite low prices. PNAS, 117(16), 8804-8812. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1918128117 

Belenky, M. (2016). Achieving the US 2025 emissions mitigation target. January 2016 Update. Climate 

Advisers. Retrieved from 

https://www.climateadvisers.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/US-Achieving-2025-Target_Jan-2

015-final.pdf 

Beshr, M., Aute, V., Abdelaziz, O., Fricke, B., & Radermacher, R. (2017). Potential emission savings 

from refrigeration and air conditioning systems by using low GWP refrigerants. Int. J. Life Cycle 

Assess., 22, 675-682. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11367-016-1186-6 

Boyce, J. K., & Pastor, M. (2013). Clearing the air: Incorporating air quality and environmental justice 

into climate policy. Clim. Change, 120, 801-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0832-2 

Busch, C., & Orvis, R. (2020). Insights from the California energy policy simulator. Energy 

Innovations Policy and Technology LLC. Retrieved from 

https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Insights-from-the-California-Energy-Po

licy-Simulator.pdf 

California Air Resources Board [CARB]. (2020). California Cap-and-Trade Program. Retrieved from 

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-program/about 

California Air Resources Board [CARB]. (2020c). California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 

2000-2017. Retrieved from https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ 

ghg_inventory_trends_00-16.pdf 

California Air Resources Board [CARB]. (2020d). Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands 

Climate Change Implementation Plan. Retrieved from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ 

documents/draft-california-2030-natural-and-working-lands-climate-change-implementation 

Calm, J. M., & Didion, D. A. (1998). Trade-offs in refrigerant selections: Past, present, and future. 

International Journal of Refrigeration, 21(4), 308-321. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-7007(97)00089-3 

CarSalesBase. (2020). Tesla U.S. Sales and Figures. Retrieved from https://carsalesbase.com/us-tesla/ 

Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions [CCES]. (2020). Climate Innovation 2050. Decarbonizing US 

Buildings. Retrieved from https://www.c2es.org/document/decarbonizing-u-s-buildings/ 

Chai, R., Ye, X., Ma, C., Wang, Q., Tu, R., Zhang, L., & Gao, H. (2019). Greenhouse gas emissions 

from synthetic nitrogen manufacture and fertilization for main upland crops in China. Carbon 

Balance Management, 14, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-019-0133-9 

Cushing, L., Blaustein-Rejto, D., Wander, M., Pastor, M., Sadd, J., Zhu, A., & Morello-Frosch, R. 

(2018). Carbon trading, co-pollutants, and environmental equity: Evidence from California’s 

cap-and-trade program (2011-2015). PLoS Med., 15(7), e1002604. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002604 

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918128117
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01407007
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6038989/


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
140 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Delavar, H., & Sahebi, H. (2020). A sustainable mathematical model for design of net zero energy 

buildings. Heliyon, 6(1), e03190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03190 

Demski, C., Capstick, C., Pidgeon, N., Sposato, R. G., & Spence, A. (2017). Experience of extreme 

weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Climatic Change, 140, 

149-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1837-4 

Di Foggia, G. (2018). Energy efficiency measures in buildings for achieving sustainable development 

goals. Heliyon, 4(11), e00953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00953 

Energy Upgrade CA [EUC]. (2020). What is climate change? Retrieved from 

https://www.energyupgradeca.org/ climate-change/ 

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (2017). California climate investments to benefit 

disadvantaged communities. Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 

from http://calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/ 

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (2019). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks. EPA 430-P-19-001. Retrieved from 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-02/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2019-main-text.

pdf 

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (2020). Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from 

https://www.epa. gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions 

Erickson, L. E. (2017). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality: Two global 

challenges. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy, 36(4), 982-988. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12665 

Erickson, L. E., Robinson, J., Brase, G., & Cutsor, J., (Eds.). (2017). Solar Powered Charging 

Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles: A Sustainable Development. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315370002 

Erickson, L. E., & Jennings, M. (2017). Energy, transportation, air quality, climate change, health 

nexus: Sustainable energy is good for our health. AIMS Public Health, 4, 47-62. 

https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2017.1.47 

European Union. (2019). The European Green Deal. Retrieved from 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid= 

1588580774040&uri=CELEX:52019DC0640 

European Union. (2020). Strengthening the EU ETS for the next decade - Revision for phase 4 

(2021-2030). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/revision_en 

Farber, D. (n.d.). Pollution markets and social equity: Analyzing the fairness of cap and trade. Ecol 

Law Q., 1, 48-53. 

Gan Vincent, J. L. (2018). Holistic BIM framework for sustainable low carbon design of high-rise 

buildings. J. Clean. Prod., 195, 1091-1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.272 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Delavar%20H%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31956715
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Sahebi%20H%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31956715
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6962707/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6251012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Erickson%20LE%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29238442


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
141 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Green Car Reports [GCR]. (2020). California Mandate: Commercial trucks go electric starting in 2024; 

all-EV by 2045. Retrieved from 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1128652_california-mandate-electric-trucks-all-ev-by-204

5 

Haszeldine, R. S., Flude, S., Johnson, G., & Scott, V. (2018). Negative emissions technologies and 

carbon capture and storage to achieve the Paris Agreement commitments. Philos Trans A Math 

Phys Eng Sci, 376(2119), 20160447. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0447 

International Energy Association [IEA]. (2020). Electric Vehicles. Retrieved from 

https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/electric-vehicles 

Kasera, S., & Bhaduri, S. C. (2017). Performance of R407C as an Alternate to R22. A Review, Energy 

Procedia, 109, 4-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.032 

McLinden, M. O., Brown, J. S., Brignoli, R., Kazakov, A. F., & Domanski, P. A. (2017). Limited 

options for low-global-warming-potential refrigerants. Nat. Commun., 8, 14476. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14476 

Mohareb, E. A., Heller, M. C., & Guthrie, P. M. (2018). Cities’ Role in Mitigating United States Food 

System Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol., 52(10), 5545-5554. 

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02600 

Moreno, M. V., Úbeda, B., Skarmeta, A. F., & Zamora, M. A. (2014). How can We Tackle Energy 

Efficiency in IoT Based Smart Buildings? Sensors (Basel), 14(6), 9582-9614. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/s140609582 

Mota-Babiloni, A., Navarro-Esbrí, J., Molés, F., Cervera, A. B., Peris, B., & Verdú, G. (2016). A 

review of refrigerant R1234ze (E) recent investigations. Applied Thermal Engineering, 95, 

211-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.055 

Motavalli, J. (2015). A solid future. Nature, 526, S96-S97. https://doi.org/10.1038/526S96a 

Nemet, G. F., Holloway, T., & Meier, P. (2010). Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits 

into climate change policymaking. Environ. Res. Lett., 5, e014007. 

https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014007 

Next 10. (2019). Publications. California Green Innovation Index. Retrieved from 

https://www.next10.org/ publications/2019-gii 

Pan, H., Page, J., Zhang, L., Cong, C., Ferreira, C., Jonsson, E., Näsström, H., Destouni, G., Deal, B., 

& Kalantari, Z. (2020). Understanding interactions between urban development policies and GHG 

emissions: A case study in Stockholm Region. Ambio, 49(7), 1313-1327. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01290-y 

Smith, K. R., & Haigler, E. (2008). Co-benefits of climate mitigation and health protection in energy 

systems: Scoping methods. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 29, 11-25. 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090759 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Haszeldine%20RS%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29610379
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Flude%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29610379
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Johnson%20G%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29610379
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Scott%20V%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29610379
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5897820/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5897820/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217300541#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217300541#!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=McLinden%20MO%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=28211518
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Brown%20JS%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=28211518
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Domanski%20PA%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=28211518
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5321723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mohareb%20EA%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29717606
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Heller%20MC%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29717606
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Guthrie%20PM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29717606
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Moreno%20MV%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=24887040
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%26%23x000da%3Bbeda%20B%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=24887040
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Skarmeta%20AF%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=24887040
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Zamora%20MA%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=24887040
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4118407/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431115009758#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431115009758#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431115009758#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431115009758#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431115009758#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13594311
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Pan%20H%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Page%20J%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Zhang%20L%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cong%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Ferreira%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Jonsson%20E%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=N%26%23x000e4%3Bsstr%26%23x000f6%3Bm%20H%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Destouni%20G%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Deal%20B%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Kalantari%20Z%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31749102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190688/


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
142 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Taylor, M. (2018). Assessing California’s Climate Policies—Transportation. Legislative Analyst 

Office, State of California. Retrieved from https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3912 

Tong, D., Zhang, Q., Zheng, Y., Caldeira, K., Shearer, C., Hong, C., Qin, Y., & Davis, S. J. (2019). 

Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target. Nature, 

572(7769), 373-377. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1364-3 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis [USBEA]. (2018). Interactive Data, Regional Data, GDP and 

Personal Income, Annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State, GDP in current dollars, 

NAICS, All industry total, All Areas, 2018. Retrieved from https://apps.bea.gov/itable/ iTable.cfm? 

ReqID=70&step=1 

U.S. Energy Information Administration [USEIA]. (2020a). California Profile Analysis. Retrieved 

from 

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20state%20was

,%2C%20geothermal%2C%20and%20biomass%20energy. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration [USEIA]. (2020b). Electricity. Retrieved from 

https://www.eia.gov/ outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2020%20Electricity.pdf 

U.S. Energy Information Administration [USEIA]. (2020c). Retrieved from 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ pdf/AEO2020%20Industrial.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. Our nation’s air: 2019. Retrieved from 

https://gispub.epa.gov/  

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (2020). Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

Substitutes by Sector. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-aerosols 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (2020c). EPA’s Waste Reduction Programs Helping 

Reduce the Effects of Climate Change? Retrieved from 

https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/payt/web/html/factfin.html#:~:text=Top%20of%20P

age-,How%20Are%20EPA’s %20 Waste%20Reduction%20Programs%20Helping%20Reduce% 

20the%20Effects,to %20 

reducing%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions.&text=The%20waste%20 

reduction%20and%20recycling,called%20for%20in%20the%20CCAP 

UNFCCC. (2020b). Climate Neutral Now. Retrieved from 

https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now#:~:text=Climate%20Neutral%20Now%20is

%20an, enshrined%20in%20the% 20Paris%20Agreement. 

United Nations [UN], Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2020). Climate Change. Retrieved 

from https://sdgs.un.org/topics/climate-change 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]. (2020a). Introduction the 

Science. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/topics/science/the-big-picture/introduction-science 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Tong%20D%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31261374
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Zhang%20Q%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31261374
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Zheng%20Y%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31261374
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Caldeira%20K%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31261374
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Shearer%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31261374
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hong%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31261374
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Qin%20Y%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31261374
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Davis%20SJ%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31261374
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=31261374
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=31261374
https://apps.bea.gov/itable/%20iTable.cfm?%20ReqID=70&step=1
https://apps.bea.gov/itable/%20iTable.cfm?%20ReqID=70&step=1
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2020%20Electricity.pdf


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
143 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

United Nations. (2020). The Montreal Protocol. Retrieved from 

https://www.unenvironment.org/ozonaction/ who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol 

United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]. (2020). Productivity growth is still the major driver 

of U.S. agricultural growth. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=58284 

Watts, N., Amann, M., Arnell, N., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Belesova, K., Berry, H. et al. (2018). The 2018 

report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: shaping the health of nations for 

centuries to come. Lancet, 392(10163), 2479-2514. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32594-7 

Wen, J., Yuan, L., & Wu, L. (2019). Carbon emission reduction and profit distribution mechanism of 

construction supply chain with fairness concern and cap-and-trade. PLoS One, 14(10), e0224153. 

World Health Organization [WHO]. (2020). Climate change and human health. Retrieved from 

https://www. who.int/globalchange/climate/gefproject/en/ 

Zar, J. H. (2009). Biostatistical Analysis (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224153 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818783/

