California runs a revolutionary cap-and-trade program in which a limit is set on total emissions for major sectors, permits to produce those emissions are auctioned off, and the auction revenues are invested in climate-related projects through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
As state lawmakers revisit the future of the program, they face a critical choice: continue investing in projects from the past or double down on proven, cost-effective strategies that deliver fast, measurable results. One such strategy is investing in the facilities, equipment and education needed to keep food and green waste out of landfills — a move that could yield outsized benefits for our climate, our economy and our communities.
California’s GGRF was created to prioritize projects that slash emissions while supporting environmental justice and affordability. As California debates reauthorization of cap-and-trade, now is the time to reinvest in a sector that checks all three boxes: organic waste recycling.
Organic waste — food scraps, yard trimmings and other compostable materials — makes up more than half of what Californians throw away. When that waste breaks down in landfills, it emits methane, a super-pollutant that is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Reducing methane emissions is one of the fastest, most effective ways to slow climate change in the near term.
That’s why California passed Senate Bill 1383, which mandates a 75% reduction in organic waste disposal by 2025, and sets a goal of recovering at least 20% of edible food currently being wasted to feed those in need. Achieving these ambitious goals requires building up to 100 new facilities to recycle, digest and recover organic materials. But here’s the catch: building this infrastructure will cost billions — and right now, funding has stalled.
State estimates estimate the cost of implementing SB 1383 at $3.8 billion between 2019 and 2030, or roughly $317 million annually. Despite this need, CalRecycle’s grant programs — the programs that help local governments and community organizations build and expand composting and food recovery operations — have seen funding dry up in recent years. The burden of compliance has fallen on local governments, including our own, who now face the difficult choice of raising waste collection rates for residents or delaying projects that help to achieve SB 1383 goals.
RethinkWaste is a regional public agency consisting of 11 jurisdictions in San Mateo County that has been helping our local agencies implement SB 1383. We also own and manage the 16-acre Shoreway Environmental Center facility in San Carlos, which processes all the collected trash, recyclable and compostable materials. The facility handles nearly 450,000 tons of materials annually, including 100,000 tons of compostable material, which we currently send to two processing facilities in Milpitas and Vernalis.
We cannot expect cities, counties, and nonprofits to shoulder these costs alone.
Every dollar spent on these programs results in a high return in methane reduction and climate resilience. Better yet, public investment in these programs unlocks private capital, meaning taxpayer dollars go even further.
In a time of climate-driven disasters, housing instability and economic pressure, California cannot afford to overlook smart, scalable solutions. Organic waste diversion may not dominate headlines, but it is a linchpin in our fight against climate change. Investing in this sector not only reduces emissions and improves air quality, it also keeps waste collection affordable for ratepayers and helps those facing food insecurity.
California’s climate leadership is at a crossroads. Let’s ensure the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund lives up to its name — by funding the very programs that reduce the most greenhouse gases.
Adam Rak is chair of the RethinkWaste Board of Directors and a member of the San Carlos City Council. Joe La Mariana is the executive director of RethinkWaste.
(5) comments
Smells like grift here.
Currently the only energy produced by San Mateo County is actually a landfill gas-to-energy plant out in HMB.
No hydropower, no wind turbines, no wave energy, nothing but the methane burning landfill plant.
When I read these "green" topic articles published by local Democrats I like to do my regular litmus test about the two biggest GHG emission pots in the county:
- Energy: the county has a horrible track record in that regard as it hasn't reduced it's own GHG emissions even one bit - instead they are now buying "wind power bragging rights" in New Mexico.
- Transportation: how is Adam Rak's record with San Carlos does NOT look that great either. Do they have a dedicated bike person on staff? Do they have a dedicated BPAC with no "astroturfers" and "blockers"? Do they have a real Safe-Routes-To-School program? and most importantly do they have a network of bike lanes?
I might be wrong, but Adam Rak might have been one of the council members opposing the closing off of downtown - despite this being a big "livable neighborhoods" topic in their city's plans.
So no, Adam Rak does not seem to have the necessary credibility in "green" topics - which would make this one look like grift and "virtue signaling" all the way.
I wonder if he is composting at home ...
eGerd – TBot here. I think you’re beginning to get the big picture. It is a grift. Folks almost exclusively on the left are content to talk the talk and virtue signal about “saving the world” but they won’t truly walk the walk. Sure, they’ll support the “green” company grift by handing them as much “free” government money as they can get their hands on. Ultimately, everyone knows so-called “green” energy projects won’t make a whit of difference in California or the world in carbon emissions. I wonder how many folks talking the talk and not walking the walk are composting at home or finding ways to get off the electricity grid. I’m betting none. Fossil fuels make the world go round. BTW, we should all thank President Trump for defunding the green new scam.
If the Democrats want to be the "Party of Green", I still haven't seen any proof of that in our County. Here they are definitely the "Party of Grift".
I keep telling people San Mateo County has hardly reduced their GHG emissions at all:
- Red states use renewable because it's the cheapest energy now, with PG&E wind and solar are still more expensive.
- One reason for that is "Peninsula Clean Energy". It's the expensive middleman aka "San Mateo's carbon-laundromat" (wind farms in New Mexico, really???).
- There are red states that talk "fossil fuels", but in reality Kansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas have added more wind farming than California.
- Utah is the only state that makes 'balcony solar' cheap and affordable, CA wants fees.
- Republican Governor Schwarzenegger is easily the "greenest" governor this state has ever had. No one comes even close - certainly not bicycle-hater Gavin Newsom.
- Arnold, pushed cycling, he pushed carbon reduction, he pushed the Million Solar Roofs project, he pushed the low carbon fuel standards (LCFS). He even pushed for better urban planning to reduce GHG (SB375). He came up with CALGREEN - the green building standards.
None of the Democrats in Sacramento comes even close to the green policies pushed forward by the big Austrian.
They all are riding his coat tails though.
The same happened in Portland. Republican senator Don Stathos forced Portland to install bike lanes. The public had to sue Democrat Mayor Vera Katz to follow the law. The public won, Portland become a vibrant internationally known bicycle city and Vera Katz took credit as "bicycle Mayor" long after the fact.
What these gentlemen are excluding from the conversation is the viable recapture of methane from land fills. This gas can be cleaned up, pressurized and injected in the natural gas pipeline infrastructure. Before I retired from the UC system, we were actively negotiating such a deal with landfill owners in the South East. That seems far more practical and realistic than Nannies telling folks that they need to finish their plates and not throw food away.
Well-stated, Mr. van Ulden. Methinks this Guest Perspective by the chair of the RethinkWaste Board of Directors, Mr. Rak, and the executive director of RethinkWaste, Mr. La Mariana, is more of an effort to feather the nest of RethinkWaste with their share of the $3.8 billion from the implementation of SB 1383. RethinkWaste has their own agenda and it may not necessarily be in the interests of anyone else. Note the conclusion, “Achieving these ambitious goals requires building up to 100 new facilities to recycle, digest and recover organic materials. But here’s the catch: building this infrastructure will cost billions — and right now, funding has stalled.” Let’s hope funding is not only stalled, but canceled.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.