Editor’s Note: This report is the second in a three-part series. Part one ran in Tuesday’s edition of the Record-Bee and the final installment will see print in tomorrow’s edition of the newspaper. The series can also be read online at Record-Bee.com
With Democrats holding all the political power in California for nearly the last decade, the Golden State has evolved into a laboratory for big blue ideas. Put a price on carbon? We’ve done it. Provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants? We do some of that too. Gun control, minimum wage hikes and heavy taxes on the rich are also realities here.
Democratic candidates for president — with rare exceptions — don’t typically point to California as a model, at least not explicitly. But many of the major policies they’re proposing are already happening here to some degree. Below are some key ways Democratic presidential candidates want to make the United States more like California, along with analysis of what the state’s policy experiments reveal so far.
The Californians originally in the race, including U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and billionaire activist Tom Steyer, have all pulled out. Candidates still in the race the day before Tuesday’s election and taking a page from California’s policies include Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, and Tulsi Gabbard.
Put a price on carbon
What they’re proposing:
Most Democratic candidates want to curb global warming in part by putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system. (Notable exceptions: Gabbard and Sanders told the Washington Post they oppose putting a price on carbon.) Biden’s proposal is less specific, calling on Congress to pass a law by 2025 putting a price or tax on carbon. Warren has said she’s open to a carbon tax, though her climate plan doesn’t spell out details for one.
What California is doing:
California’s carbon-pricing program launched in 2013. The state’s cap-and-trade system forces industry here to either reduce emissions or pay for permits to spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Auctions where companies buy and sell those permits yield billions of dollars, which the state government plows into programs designed to slow climate change, such as incentives for solar panels and discounts on clean cars. The cap-and-trade program covers businesses responsible for about 85 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions — including oil refineries, food processors, paper mills, cement manufacturers and electricity providers. That makes it the most wide-reaching carbon-pricing system in the United States.
How’s it going here?
California’s greenhouse gas emissions have been dropping since its cap-and-trade experiment began, though it’s hard to pinpoint how much to credit the complex system. It’s become a centrist environmental policy, attracting support from moderate Republicans as well as Democrats. But it’s also criticized by the right and left. Conservatives complain it adds costs for businesses and consumers, while liberals say the system doesn’t go far enough to stop pollution in California. Companies have been allowed to offset some of their obligation by paying for environmental projects in far-flung locations, such as an incinerator in Arkansas. Cap and trade is one reason gas costs more in California than other states — adding about a dime per gallon. Nonetheless polls show a majority of Californians want to fight climate change and don’t mind paying more to do it. And businesses prefer cap and trade’s market-based approach over stricter government mandates.
A just-released report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst concluded the state had scrubbed enough carbon from its economy over the past decade to exceed its climate goals thus far — largely due to electricity being increasingly generated by renewables instead of coal. The report credited the state’s renewable energy mandate as a “substantial driver” of the shift. Cap and trade’s effects, it said, are “thought to have been relatively modest compared to other policies.”
California’s cap-and-trade system also has fallen short of becoming the national trendsetter originally envisioned by the lawmakers who created it. No other states have linked up with California — even fellow “left coast” states Oregon and Washington have rejected proposals to join. Two Canadian provinces joined California’s system, but Ontario has since backed out, and the Trump administration is suing California to try to sever its link with Quebec, contending it amounts to a state illegally engaging in foreign policy. California’s loner status raises questions about whether one state can remedy a global problem, absent a federal approach.
Temporarily take guns from threatening people
What they’re proposing:
All of the Democratic candidates say they support allowing people to petition a court to have firearms temporarily taken away from people who pose a threat to themselves or others. These laws — in place in at least 17 states — are known by a few names: “red-flag,” “extreme risk protection” and “gun violence restraining orders.” Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar have co-sponsored federal legislation that would give states grants to develop a process for relatives to seek a court order to temporarily block people deemed dangerous from buying a gun, and allow law enforcement to temporarily seize their weapons. Biden supports a similar approach — his website says he’ll incentivize states to pass red-flag laws by giving grants to implement them. Before it reported he was dropping out, Pete Buttigieg told The New York Times that red-flag laws have “proven successful in states across the country, and it’s time we made it the national standard.” Bloomberg founded a gun-control group that lobbied for red-flag legislation in California; he’s now calling for such a law nationwide.
What California is doing:
California passed a law permitting gun restraining orders after the 2014 Isla Vista massacre, in which a 22 year old gunman killed six people and wounded 14 near UC Santa Barbara. It allows immediate family members and police officers to petition the courts to have a dangerous person’s guns removed. An Isla Vista victim’s parents advocated for the law after the investigation showed the killer’s parents were concerned about his mental state before he went on the rampage — and had even asked police to check on him — but were powerless to take his weapons. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill expanding the law so that, beginning in September 2020, coworkers, teachers and employers also can ask courts to take away someone’s guns.
How’s it going here?
Academic research suggests that allowing parents and police to seek gun restraining orders is helping prevent some instances of gun violence. A UC Davis study reviewed 159 cases and found 21 instances in which court orders were used to prevent mass shootings. But journalistic investigations have found that parents and police rarely use the law, largely because so few people know about it — including those in law enforcement. San Diego law enforcement agencies use gun violence restraining orders more than many other cities and have been awarded state funds to train other agencies to use them. A bill that would have developed more training for law enforcement stalled in the Legislature in 2019.
CalMatters reporters Felicia Mello and Judy Lin contributed to this report.
