Perspective: New California laws trade short-term climate benefits for long-term health and safety

As longtime members of the California Air Resources Board, we prioritize environmental justice and public health, championing efforts to combat climate change. However, we believe that government policies should address the consequences for communities that cannot bear the associated costs.

These concerns apply to CARB’s recently adopted amendments to expedite the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or LCFS, which we have opposed. The standard fuel system, established in 2011, aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by offsetting the carbon footprint of fuel. The current plan calls for a 20% reduction in fuel carbon emissions by 2030. The proposed amendments call for this reduction to 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045.

A quick implementation, however, risks fuel price increases – a huge burden on low-income communities already struggling with costs. This issue has attracted the attention of the media, legislators and the public. Financial concerns aside, the LCFS has had another, less-heralded effect: a dramatic transformation in California’s dairy industry.

Over the past decade, many dairy companies have changed their priorities driven by LCFS, with troubling public health consequences.

California’s dairy industry has historically focused on milk production, but today, many dairies produce renewable natural gas by capturing methane from manure. LCFS is furthering this trend through California’s carbon credit program, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the program, businesses earn and sell emissions reduction credits, and dairy companies make a profit by turning methane into renewable natural gas. However, the system rewards compost production on a large scale, as more methane generates more credits and profits. This creates a perverse incentive, prioritizing pollution-heavy practices over sustainable, low-impact solutions.

Capturing methane, a gas that traps 80 times more heat than carbon dioxide in the short term, is critical to combating climate change. However, the methods of achieving the reduction are important. The new amendments encourage the growth of mega-dairies that are now disproportionately concentrated in the Central Valley, where land is cheaper than in other parts of the country – a region that already faces environmental and health challenges.

As mega-dairies expand, their impact on local communities becomes dire. According to comments from the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, a climate, health and equity organization working in the Central Valley, these facilities exacerbate air pollution, groundwater depletion and nitrate pollution, which disproportionately affects low-income Latino communities.

The promise of renewable natural gas as a “bridge fuel” is flawed. Instead of transitioning to sustainable decarbonization, LCFS is now promoting the expansion of large dairies to increase methane production. Dairy companies are rewarded not for reducing methane emissions but for capturing what they produce, perpetuating dangerous pollution practices. Generating more waste means more profit.

While methane capture contributes to California’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, the collateral damage is undeniable. Mega-dairies are among the largest emitters of ammonia, which contributes to particulate pollution that causes respiratory disease and premature death. The Central Valley, already struggling with some of the worst air quality in the nation, can’t afford more damage. In addition, nitrate runoff from manure continues to contaminate drinking water, disproportionately harming poor communities that rely on domestic sources.

Accelerating LCFS mandates will only accelerate the expansion of mega-dairies.

CARB has already undermined efforts to control livestock methane emissions. Although we successfully forced the regulations to begin in 2028, a last-minute change allowed mega-dairies to continue to profit from “avoided methane” based on flawed assumptions, promoting herd consolidation and dirty liquid manure systems. Sustainable alternatives, such as dry capture or pasture-based systems, which produce much less pollution, remain unsupported. For these reasons, we were on the losing side of the board’s 12-2 vote on the LCFS amendment.

Methane is an immediate climate threat, and failure to address it could be catastrophic. However, ignoring the long-term environmental and social costs of factory-farm gas development prioritizes short-term climate benefits over public health and equity. Our climate solutions must not come at the expense of environmental justice.

The LCFS program can be improved by including the size and number of dairy operations eligible for methane incentives. Without such limits, we risk entrenching an industry whose environmental damage outweighs its climate benefits.

Additionally, CARB should prioritize sustainable methane reduction alternatives, including practices that reduce pollution at the source rather than perpetuate harmful programs. Setting these limits will create a smoother and more effective framework for dealing with emissions while protecting vulnerable communities.

The fight against climate change is not just about dairy products. It’s about choosing a path that doesn’t cause more harm to vulnerable communities. For the sake of our air, water, and public health, we must ensure that our solutions work for everyone, not just those who benefit from pollution.

Dean Florez, a member of the California Air Resources Board, is a former Californian Senate majority lan ancestor. Diane Takvorian, a member of the California Air Resources Board, is the founder and executive director of the Environmental Health Coalition. in San Diego/Tijuana.