Climate Change & Health Equity

Background & Policy Context

The State of California has a wide range of climate-related policies and programs designed to meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045.

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH)'s Climate Change and Health Equity Section (CCHES) works to increase integration between climate and health policies through a range of programs and tools (3,4,5,6) designed to ensure that climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies benefit public health overall and do not increase health disparities.

Climate change and health inequities share similar root causes: the inequitable distribution of social, political, and economic power. These power imbalances result in systems (economic, transportation, land use, etc.) and conditions that drive both health inequities and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions….The good news is that addressing climate change represents a significant opportunity to improve public health and advance health equity. Many actions that limit climate change also improve the health of families and communities and reduce health inequities. - CCHES Section Overview

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) also leverages health protective policy mechanisms in the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which it develops every five years. The Scoping Plan lays out policy options for achieving the state's climate goals, largely by utilizing existing air pollution programs. The 2022 Final Draft Scoping Plan was released in December 2022. The Public Health Appendix (Appendix G) explicitly addresses both the health threats associated with climate change and the opportunities for improving public health and health equity through climate policy.

Environmental justice groups, environmentalists, academics and climate policy experts have raised concerns about the 2022 draft. These concerns include the adequacy of interim targets as well as some of the mechanisms proposed for meeting those targets, particularly reliance on cap and trade and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which advocates say could negatively impact the health of already heavily burdened California communities. These concerns were documented in a letter sent to Governor Newsom and the CARB Board Chair on June 22, 2022 and a November 16, 2022 press release entitled “Environmental Justice Groups Say California Climate Plan Shows Progress, but Carbon Capture Schemes Derail Meaningful Climate Action.”

RESEARCH PRIORITIES OVERVIEW

Our community stakeholders have requested research that assesses the health impacts of various climate actions/policies, including both benefits and unintended disproportionate harms. There is particular interest in research that assesses the impact of various greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction strategies on adaptation capacity/resilience, equity, and public health.

The following sections describe a few specific issues of concern to the community groups we work with.

CAC members working on this issue

California Department of Public Health: Climate Change and Health Equity Homepage
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability: List of climate change advocacy priorities
California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment: List of publications on human health impacts of climate change

References and Additional Reading

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is a relatively new technology that involves capturing carbon either from the air or directly from an emissions source (like an oil refinery, power plant, or biomass conversion facility), liquifying it, and storing it deep underground.

The geology of California's Central Valley makes it uniquely capable of carbon storage, though carbon could also be captured in other parts of the state and transported to the Valley by truck, rail, barge, or pipeline (2).

CCS can also play a role in enhanced oil recovery, a process in which CO₂ injections are used to facilitate extraction in oil wells near the end of their life (3, 4).

CCS Expansion

CCS is not currently used in California, though there are 12 projects under review and 57 applications for Class IV wells currently pending with the EPA (including sites in Kern, San Joaquin, Fresno, and Sacramento counties) with more expected soon. The state’s largest oil producer, California Resources Corporation (CRC), received approval to build and operate the first of these facilities, Carbon TerraVault 1 in Kern County, on September 12, 2024 [8, 9]..

The current California Climate Change Scoping Plan includes investment in CCS projects. These projects are currently eligible to receive Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits, but are otherwise not yet able to participate in California's climate programs, including the cap-and-trade program. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working to change this in order to allow public incentives to support CCS infrastructure development [11].

Health and Equity Concerns

Both due to CCS's geologic requirements and its connection to oil production, CCS projects, in particular the carbon storage components, are likely to be overwhelmingly located in communities already overburdened with environmental hazards [7] and with limited access to mitigations and health care.

The primary public health risks associated with CCS projects are CO₂ leaks (14, 15), including from pipeline infrastructure, and induced seismicity. Though CO₂ typically disperses rapidly in air, it is dangerous at high concentrations. In addition, elevated CO₂ in soil and aquifers can harm plants and degrade water quality by increasing acidity and metal concentrations. Seismic activity can be triggered if sites do not manage pressure appropriately (17).

Environmental and climate justice advocates also question the viability and effectiveness of CCS [12] based on its track record in other locations and its potential to extend fossil fuels use and divert investments from cleaner energy solutions. In response to some of these concerns, California passed SB 1314, which helps ensure that CCS doesn’t promote continued reliance on fossil fuels by prohibiting the use of extracted carbon for enhanced oil recovery.

RESEARCH NEEDS

Community advocates and public agencies would like to see research that supports evidence-based safety regulation and monitoring of CCA facilities and transport systems, including:

(1) Effective monitoring strategies and technologies for real-time detection of CO₂ leaks from sequestration facilities, pipelines, and underground storage locations.

(2) CO₂ air-dispersion modeling to support monitoring, health risk assessment, and effective public health response in the event of a CO₂ leak.

References and Additional Reading

Cap and Trade & REDD+

The Kyoto Protocol, which was initiated in 1997 and went into effect in 2005, establishes global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets and market-based mechanisms for meeting them. One of these mechanisms is emissions trading, often called "cap-and-trade," in which a government sets a limit ("cap") on GHG emissions and then allows the largest emitters to trade allocations within that limit among themselves in the form of credits. Emissions markets can also include offsets, or verified emission reductions, which companies can purchase in addition to unused credits to increase their allowed emissions.

California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) established GHG emissions targets for the state and includes its own cap-and-trade program as part of its Climate Change Scoping Plan.

CARB has considered expanding California’s Offset Program to include international sector-based offsets, including those within the UN's Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) framework (8,9,10).

REDD+ was designed to incentivize the reduction of carbon emissions in developing countries from deforestation and forest degradation, which accounts for 11% of overall GHG emissions, by allowing them to sell emissions offsets for forest conservation and restoration.

Critiques

One critique of cap-and-trade is the potential for increasing local environmental health risks when a company buys credits or offsets that allow it to increase emissions. Emission sources are often located in or near communities that already experience disproportionate pollution and health burdens, and cap-and-trade can exacerbate these disparities.

With REDD+ there are additional concerns raised about the political, social, economic, and health impacts on communities where offsets are being sold, as well as technical concerns about the equivalence of trades in the forest sector (i.e. carbon emissions are permanent, but living trees are not) and difficulties in calculating and verifying offsets.

In addition, bringing forests into carbon markets increases their value to those who own/control them. This dynamic can lead to land grabs and displacement of forest-dependent and indigenous peoples, particularly in countries with already weak political and social infrastructure. In some cases REDD+ may even incentivize deforestation in advance of project development (so that it can be replanted for credit), and/or the replacement of old growth forests with monoculture plantations (13,14,15).

RESEARCH NEEDS

Research on the environmental health impacts to California communities of GHG emission markets, such as:

Analysis of changes to GHG and co-pollutant emissions in proximity to frontline communities as a result of the purchase of credits or offsets; measures of associated health impacts.
Assessment of the utilization of international and sector-based offset programs like REDD+ and their potential to impact health outcomes in California communities in proximity to emissions sources utilizing these offsets.
Analysis on impact of inclusion of REDD+ in California’s Cap and Trade program on environmental contamination and human health in participating low income countries and particularly among indigenous groups.

References and Additional Reading

SB 375: The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 addresses the need to integrate transportation, land use, and housing development strategies to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with car travel. This includes making sure affordable housing is available closer to where people need to go (work, school, parks, etc.) and providing feasible alternatives that enable people to drive less, like improved or expanded public transit, biking, and walking infrastructure.

Under SB 150, which was passed in 2017, California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to prepare a progress report to the Legislature every four years on the implementation of SB 35. The first report was published in 2018 and the 2022 report, along with a data dashboard site, is currently available on the CARB website.

RESEARCH NEEDS

Research on changes to environmental exposures and health outcomes associated with the implementation of SB 375.

SB 150 established a set of metrics for use in tracking the implementation of SB 375, but these do not currently include any measures related to environmental exposures or health outcomes.
Research is needed to establish the health impacts, positive or negative, of the various strategies being implemented to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions in California. There is a particular interest in assessing any impact on exposure or health outcome disparities.

CAC members working on this issue

Central California Environmental Justice Network: Comments to CARB regarding San Joaquin Valley SB 375 COG Review
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability: List of climate change advocacy priorities

References and Additional Reading

Lithium

Lithium use & current sourcing

Lithium-ion rechargeable batteries power electric vehicles and support the integration of renewable energy sources into the electric grid. However, the extraction and processing of lithium and other mineral resources critical to low carbon technologies can also be a source of environmental degradation and human rights abuses (1,2,3)

Lithium is currently mined primarily in Argentina, Chile, China, and Australia. Argentina and Chile using a lengthy and water intensive extraction method in which pools of brine evaporate in the sun, leaving minerals (including lithium) behind (4,5). In China and Australia lithium is extracted from open pit mines and acids, a highly energy-intensive process (5,6). Rising demand for lithium has led to dramatic price increases over the past year and raised concerns about the ability of supply chains to keep up (7).

Lithium in California

In 2020, the Lithium Valley Commission was appointed under AB 1657 to bring together government, industry, and community stakeholders to assess the feasibility, benefits, and impacts of extracting lithium from the geothermal brines in the Salton Sea region. The final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Lithium Extraction in California and related docketed documents are available on the California Energy Commission website.

The Salton Sea is California's largest lake, located in Imperial and Riverside Counties near the US-Mexico border. Though the region has experienced periodic flooding throughout its history, what we know today as the Salton Sea was formed in 1905 when a series of canals failed and diverted the entire flow of the Colorado River into the Salton Basin for almost two years. It is currently maintained primarily by agricultural runoff from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys and has become one of the most important wetlands resources for birds in North America, though rising salinity levels and toxic contamination threaten the wildlife that have come to depend on it.

The Salton Sea is more than twice as salty as the ocean and heavily polluted with pesticides and heavy metals. It has also been receding since the 1990s in the face of hotter, more arid conditions and reduced inflow due to agricultural water conservation practices. Decreasing water levels have exposed large areas of former lakebed, producing toxic dust and fumes that threaten the health of nearby communities, many of which are already burdened by some of the worst air quality in the state.

The Salton Sea also sits on top of substantial lithium reserves in the form of highly concentrated geothermal brine. A 2020 report by the California Energy Commission estimates that the Salton Sea could generate more than 600,000 tons of lithium annually, more than all other global sources combined. There are currently 11 geothermal energy plants in the Salton Sea region that already bring this underground brine to the surface to produce electricity. Normally the cooled brine would be re-injected into the ground, but new technologies are being developed to extract lithium first.

While this new type of lithium extraction is still an emerging technology, the combination of increasing global demand, large underground reserves, and the potential for new cost effective and environmentally friendly extraction technologies is positioning California to take a large and lucrative role in the future of lithium.

Environmental justice advocates in the Salton Sea are working to ensure that community stakeholders are involved in shaping that future, and that any resources that come with this new industry include investments in the work they have been doing for decades to clean up the Salton Sea and protect the health of local communities (20, 21, 22, 23, 24).

RESEARCH NEEDS

Research that supports health-protective policy and investments in the development of a California lithium industry, such as:

Research on environmental exposures and/or public health outcomes in the Salton Sea region.
Research on effective strategies for reducing exposures and improving health outcomes in the Salton Sea region.
Research on potential environmental health and equity concerns related to the emerging lithium extraction industry in the Salton Sea.

CAC members working on this issue

Comite Civico del Valle:
- Letter to the Lithium Valley Commission Concerning Issues of Lithium Extraction from Frontline Communities (August 2022)
- Letter to the Lithium Valley Commission Concerning Community Engagement in Fenceline Communities (December 2021)
- Let’s seize lithium opportunities and bring jobs and economic benefits to Imperial Valley (Luis Olmedo, Comite Civico del Valle)
- Lithium Valley Community Coalition. Includes Comite Civico del Valle.
- Lithium Valley Commission. Includes Luis Olmedo of Comite Civico del Valle.
Sign-on Letter in Support of Lithium Valley Development Budget Proposals (June 2022). Signed by Comite Civico del Valle, the Central California Asthma Collaborative, and the Central California Environmental Justice Network.