A 20-Year Reckoning: California's AB 32 and the Cost of Climate Action
Next month marks the 20th anniversary of California's Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. When the law was enacted, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed that Californians didn't need to choose between protecting the environment and the economy. The promise was a win-win-win-win: new business opportunities, economic growth, and consumer affordability.
Two decades later, that promise is being questioned. Both the Santa Ana Orange County Register and the San Diego Union-Tribune present a critical assessment, arguing that while the state has made progress on emissions, the economic burdens have been substantial—and the state has lost sight of its original goals.
The Emission Record: Gains and Shortfalls
The most tangible achievement of AB 32 is undeniable: California reached its 2020 emissions goal, and emissions have declined 22% from their 2007 peak. The state imposed a suite of policies—including a cap-and-trade program, low carbon fuel standard, renewable energy requirements, and clean car mandates—pushing toward increasingly restrictive targets, aiming for net zero by 2045.
But the picture is more complicated. According to reporting from both outlets, California's emissions have rebounded, and the state is no longer on track to reach its 2030 goal. National emissions also reached California's 2020 goal without a similar mandate, with a comparable 20% decline from the national peak. This suggests that market forces or other factors may have contributed to reductions.
Comparing states, New York, which follows the California approach, saw an 18% decline in emissions. Ohio, which has not implemented such policies but embraced fracking and natural gas, saw a 30% decline. The data indicate that California's unique policies sped up the decline in average emissions by just 2 percentage points over the national average—a modest gain relative to the cost.
Globally, emissions have been growing since 2007, underscoring the challenge of climate action on a planetary scale.
The Economic Price: Energy Costs and Business Exodus
The most contentious aspect of AB 32's legacy is its economic impact. California is now the least affordable state in the country, and both outlets argue that its unaffordable energy system is an important contributor. In 2006, Californians paid about 38% more than the national average for electricity; today they pay nearly double. Before AB 32, gasoline cost around 10% more in California than the national average; now it costs around 50% more.
These higher fuel and electricity prices are cited as drivers of an exodus of people and businesses from California. The state's share of the national economy has declined from its peak and is now back at 2017 levels. For many Californians, the experience of paying bills and filling up gas tanks has become a daily reminder of the trade-offs inherent in the state's climate agenda.
A Judgment on the Promises
The central question posed by this evaluation is whether AB 32 has delivered on its promise. Both the Santa Ana Orange County Register and the San Diego Union-Tribune conclude that it has not. The Register's headline asks bluntly: "After 20 years, can California admit AB 32 failed?" The Union-Tribune frames the original promises as "sweeping—and wrong."
While the policy has achieved its 2020 target, the 2030 goal is out of reach, and the economic costs have been significant relative to the modest acceleration in emission reductions. The win-win-win-win promise has not materialized as sold. Instead, the past two decades have revealed a tension between environmental ambition and economic reality that Californians continue to navigate.
As the state marks this anniversary, the debate over whether the sacrifices have been worth it—and whether adjustments are needed—will likely intensify. The evidence, as presented by these reports, offers a sobering counterpoint to the original optimism.