California Carbon Label Bill Left Face Down in the Dark

For all intents and purposes, California Assembly Bill 19, the  Carbon Labeling Act of 2009, was quietly eliminated in the State Senate.  A fair number of corporations and business associations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the Consumer Electronics Association, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, publicly opposed the bill, and it would be surprising if that opposition didn’t play a substantial role in the bill’s demise.  

AB 19 called for a State-authorized vvoluntary carbon footprint label for products bought or sold in California.  Sponsored by Democrat Ira Ruskin, the bill was first approved by the full Assembly and then by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.  Since it carried a program cost, however nominal, it subsequently was sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is chaired by Democrat Christine Kehoe and co-chaired by Republican Dave Cox.  The bill was assigned to the “suspense file,” a normal legislative procedure.  But there it was left to languish as the State’s legislative session ended rather than being removed, effectively killing it.

The Carbon Labeling Act proposed much the same consumer-oriented, market-driven approach that has proven popular with hundreds of corporations in dozens of industries nationwide ranging from fruit, coffee and restaurants to appliances, wood products and building materials.  In California, a state which has firmly established itself as a high-profile leader on the climate change issue, a state-sponsored carbon label presumably could become a popular element in the marketplace – a viable new reason for possibly a great many customers to choose one product over another.  

This would present both risks and opportunities for corporations, even for those deciding not to participate.  And generally speaking, all corporations shudder at developments such as uncertainty, additional costs, and market confusion, all of which were possible side effects, at least initially, if AB 19 were to become law and shake things up.     

Moreover, in California, large corporations in particular, with valuable market shares and reputations to protect, would be anxious to avoid being seen or even being perceived as opposing action on climate change.  They would be anxious to avoid the following lose-lose scenario that they probably felt the Carbon Labeling Bill held in store for them:  

Either incur new costs to pursue the new carbon footprint certification from the State and to then display the label on their products, thus making their products’ greenhouse gas emissions transparent – and risking public criticism for those greenhouse gases and public pressure to spend gobs of money to clean up their manufacturing processes and/or their supply chain.  Or, avoid the aforementioned dilemma by taking a pass on the voluntary certification and label, thus risking a newfound competitive disadvantage from a direct competitor that would display the carbon label, as well as ever-mounting criticism for their lack of transparency. 

If a sufficient number of corporations and industries decide they're against a bill in the California State Legislature, all that's left is the epilogue.  So they avoided the dreaded lose-lose scenario by instead achieving their best-case scenario:  As dues-paying members of the three above-mentioned business associations that came out against AB 19, they had others do the grubby work of publicly lobbying against the bill, and they noted the silence that accompanied the bill's quiet demise.