California is working aggressively to reduce the causes of climate change. But we have to make sure we do it without harming people in other ways.

First, the good news. California's historic commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent within the next 12 years moved closer to reality when the state Air Resources Board recently unveiled its plan to cut emissions.

The board deserves kudos for calling on all private and industrial utilities to get at least a third of their energy from clean, renewable sources, like wind and solar. Green energy is the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century, and California's natural assets position us well to take advantage.

Now, the bad news. The current plan to permit companies to buy and sell carbon emissions credits from the state would allow air pollution to become more concentrated around poor, urban communities, even while statewide emissions are reduced.

For example, those living near a factory or refinery that buys credits to offset its pollution (but does not reduce its pollution at all) would get the short end of the stick. Without safety guarantees in place, a facility that is going to emit more carbon is also likely to produce other harmful air pollutants. And the people most likely to be harmed are those living in low-income communities of color, where rates of asthma and other health problems are already endemic.

We don't have to look far for a real example of how this system might put disadvantaged communities at a higher risk. In southwestern Chula Vista in San Diego County, a low-income, predominantly Latino community, local residents and the Environmental Health Coalition are working to block the expansion of a power plant near an elementary school and residential neighborhoods.

This proposed expansion by MMC Energy illustrates how environmental injustices from the past continue to be exacerbated. There is a very real concern that the proposed cap-and-trade system will allow many of these poorly sited plants to get bigger and pollute longer.

Under the current plan, the owners of that plant could buy carbon credits to continue polluting the nearby community and add large amounts of carbon emissions into the air. Even if the plant used cleaner, more efficient technology, a bigger facility means that area kids would be exposed to more dirty air overall.

Whatever climate change strategy we use must factor in where pollution occurs – and who it affects – so that low-income communities don't bear an unhealthy burden.

One alternative that is earning support from policymakers, community and environmental groups and even energy companies is the creation of a cap and carbon fee system. Charge companies for carbon content and emissions from burning fossil fuels, and redirect that revenue toward incentives for cleaner technology.

This would go much further to stimulate efficient and renewable energy use, and it's relatively easy and quick to administer. And it wouldn't pass the buck to poor communities to absorb the bulk of the pollution – because the buck would stop with polluters themselves.

Another approach would be to expand the required percentage of renewable power that utilities must purchase, also known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard. An expanded RPS would ensure that the majority of new energy projects would come from renewable sources rather than the polluting old power plants of the past.

As we look for solutions to the complex challenge of climate change, we must ensure that these approaches serve to preserve the health and well-being of all Californians.

While the Air Resources Board's plan is headed in the right direction, it must go further to protect disadvantaged communities from unintended harm. Doing so will ensure that California's clean energy future belongs to all of us.

Diane Takvorian is the executive director of the Environmental Health Coalition in San Diego and a 2008 recipient of the James Irvine Foundation Leadership Awards.