The future of gas prices in California appears headed for a significant rise following the recent vote by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The new regulations, which seek to tighten fuel standards to reduce carbon emissions, could directly impact the cost for drivers, reported KTLA.
Today, Californian citizens already buy fuel at high prices, making it one of the most expensive states in the United States. A possible increase in costs for next year alarms drivers.
According to the estimates of CARBthe cost per gallon could rise as much as 47 cents by 2025. However, independent studies, such as one of the University of Pennsylvaniawarn that the rise could be even greater: 65 cents in 2025, 85 cents in 2030 and up to USD 1.50 by 2035.
This disparity between projections reflects the complexity of predicting how these policies will affect the market. While the agency maintains that the relationship between carbon credit prices and the price at the pump is limited, critics and economists fear that companies will pass the additional costs directly to consumers.
Currently, drivers in California already face one of the most expensive gasoline in the country, with an average of USD 4.51 per gallon, the second highest after Alaska. With new carbon reduction targets of 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045, the costs associated with meeting these goals could exacerbate this situation, he noted. Los Angeles Times.
The implementation of these standards not only makes fuel production more expensive, but also affects the carbon credit market, the cost of which will increase as permitted emissions are reduced.
The expected impact of CARB and experts generate an intense debate. While supporters of the program see it as a necessary sacrifice to combat climate changecritics consider it an additional burden on low-income families and workers, especially in rural or car-dependent areas. According to some analysts, these communities could face greater economic challenges due to the rising cost of mobility.
The recent vote of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to tighten fuel standards has caused a deep division between the political, economic and social sectors of the state. On the one hand, defenders of new emissions reduction goals, such as 30% by 2030, argue that these policies are essential to combat climate change. On the other hand, critics point out that the costs derived from these measures will fall disproportionately on drivers, especially those with lower incomes.
KTLA He indicated that the most vocal opponents have been Republican legislators, who consider the regulations to be a direct attack on Californians. The senator Brian Jonesthe Senate minority leader, called the decision “a deliberate price gouging” by the governor’s administration. Gavin Newsomensuring that working families will be the most affected.
For her part, the assemblywoman Esmeralda Soriamember of Democratic Partyexpressed similar concerns in a letter sent to CARBhighlighting that agricultural and rural communities, like the one she represents, will be especially affected by the increase in fuel prices.
During the public hearing of CARBwhich lasted more than 12 hours, speakers expressed fears about the financial burden this policy could place on vulnerable communities. Some, like Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackeypointed out that residents of rural districts often drive long distances daily, which increases their dependence on fuel and their exposure to price increases.
The implementation of these regulations seeks to promote the use of cleaner alternatives such as hydrogen, biodiesel and electricity, reducing dependence on oil. The tightening of the standard also aims to directly combat high levels of pollution in areas such as the Inland Empirewhere heavy truck traffic has affected air quality and the health of residents.
From a climate perspective, supporters stress that achieving a 90% reduction in carbon emissions by 2045 is essential to meeting global climate change mitigation commitments. According to Steven Cliffexecutive director of CARBthe measure has a positive impact “overwhelmingly greater” than its costs, by stimulating a change towards a more sustainable and less polluting energy model.
Despite the apparent benefits, the plan is not without controversy, he highlighted. Los Angeles Times. Some environmental groups criticize that the promotion of biofuels such as biodiesel and renewable diesel could have negative consequences. Sources like Biofuelwatch y Earthjustice warn that the use of food crops for fuel production increases the conversion of agricultural land, encouraging deforestation and displacing food production, which affects both the environment and global food security.
Additionally, critics have pointed out that the production of these fuels often requires energy-intensive processes, which could offset some of the anticipated climate benefits. According to some experts, the true path to meaningful decarbonization should prioritize the complete electrification of transportation and reducing vehicle use, rather than overreliance on alternative liquid fuels.
