A decision by a California Superior Court may provide the state with a second chance to become a real leader in national and global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Last month, a Superior Court judge directed the California Air Resources Board to conduct an analysis of feasible alternatives to the cap-and-trade program the air board adopted last year.

The plan is the blueprint for achieving the ambitious goals of the Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32 – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Since California is the world's ninth-largest emitter of these emissions, AB 32 is rightly viewed as a pioneering effort to help the world address the problem of global climate change.

The air board appealed the court's decision, and the appeals court has allowed it to continue working on rules for cap-and-trade while the appeal is being heard.

Despite all the court maneuvering, the issues that inspired the lawsuit remain: Pollution trading schemes violate the civil rights of California's most vulnerable communities. By allowing industries to pay to pollute, cap and trade can increase pollution in these areas, where oil refineries and other large and highly profitable polluters are most densely congregated.

In line with the court decision, the air board has voluntarily begun an analysis of alternatives to cap-and-trade programs, although there are concerns that this analysis will be less than robust and transparent. The lower court decision also allows the ARB to go forward with the 68 other programs and actions detailed in its plan, from motor vehicle standards to renewable energy mandates. So there should be no concern that the plaintiffs want to "kill" AB 32.

While the decision does not require the air board to adopt an alternative to pollution trading even if the evidence reveals that better, safer and more effective methods exist for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it provides them a golden opportunity to strengthen AB 32.

Cap and trade is a system that establishes a cap, or limit, on industrial greenhouse gas emissions that decreases over time.

Everyone agrees that a firm cap is a good thing. It is the trading part that is problematic.

Trading gives polluters allowances or the "right" to pollute. Industries will be given free allowances for years, and will later have to purchase them at auction.

In addition, the plan allows polluters to achieve their reductions through "offsets" – to claim emission reductions, for example, by planting trees that will absorb CO2 in Mexico or some other country. They could also claim offsets by building a state-of-the art non-polluting facility in another country and have that count toward emission reductions in California.

There are many problems with cap-and-trade programs. They allow polluters to buy their way out of reducing at their own plant, by purchasing or being granted permits or credits. So a large greenhouse gas emitter, like the 3,000-acre Chevron oil refinery in Richmond, could buy credits and even increase emissions. Concern with the creation of such toxic "hot spots" motivates the opposition to cap-and-trade programs by the environmental justice community.

California now has a chance to get it right, to adopt measures that will achieve the goals of AB 32 without the risk and downsides of cap-and-trade programs. The best thing would be for the California Air Resources Board to acknowledge cap and trade's failure, abandon its pollution trading plan, and replace that plan with pollution controls that will ensure timely, direct and verifiable emission reductions. These measures will enable California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2020 levels, reduce harmful co-pollutants, improve air quality and generate thousands of green jobs.

The air board's appeal of the court ruling further delays a resolution to this dispute.

Gov. Jerry Brown is in a position to help California achieve a positive outcome. The governor can direct the air board to abandon cap and trade and adopt alternatives. At the very least, he could insist that the ARB conduct a substantive and transparent analysis to determine if there are, in fact, better options to pollution trading.

The environmental justice community wants AB 32 to succeed, and we are willing to work with the air board to ensure that outcome.

California is at a crossroads, with an opportunity to reassert its leadership in efforts to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, or to continue along the path of failed programs and toward inevitable disaster.

The choice seems clear.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Bill Gallegos is executive director of Communities for a Better Environment, an environmental justice group.

• Read more articles by Bill Gallegos