Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Will California sell gas cars after 2035? Nobody knows for sure.

News Feed
Tuesday, December 31, 2024

While the Biden administration approved California’s effort to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the Golden State’s automotive future remains uncertain. The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to undo the December approval — and a wave of litigation will also probably challenge the Biden administration’s decision.  But President-elect Trump’s anticipated actions could also face court challenges. And California could have more tricks up its sleeve to push its market toward electric vehicles regardless of what Trump does.  “There's just an enormous amount of uncertainty about whether the rule goes into effect — lots of moving parts. It will take a while before we know the answer to that question,” said Ann Carlson, a former Biden administration official who is now an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets its own rules for the nation about how much emissions automakers’ fleets can emit. The rules put forward by the Biden administration are so stringent that they will require a significant share of the auto market to become electric — but they don’t ban gas cars entirely. The Clean Air Act prevents states from setting different rules from the federal government — though as California has historically dealt with unique smog problems, the law provides an exemption allowing it to seek a waiver to set its own rules that go further than the federal ones.  The Biden administration recently granted that waiver, allowing California’s new standards that ban the sales of gas cars by 2035 to take effect. Eleven other states and Washington, D.C. — which combined with California make up more than 30 percent of the nation’s car market — have adopted California’s rule, meaning they, too, are poised for a shift away from gas cars.  In theory, this makes California’s rule a major shift in the American auto market — and a giant step forward in the nation’s fight against the climate crisis.  But a tangled web of law, politics and market considerations make the rule’s actual expected outcome less clear. The EPA’s approval of California’s gas car ban is sure to come with lawsuits. Republican-led states, oil, gasoline and ethanol producers and the auto industry are among the parties that could sue to try to overturn the rules. At the same time, the Trump administration will also likely to revoke the waiver through the regulatory process — though this action could also spur lawsuits from supporters of the California rule.  The EPA’s own standards, which if unchanged could make just 29 percent of the cars sold nationwide in 2032 gas-powered, will face similar legal uncertainty. The national rule already faces a lawsuit and Trump’s threats to overturn it.  However, any future Trump rule could also face legal hurdles from green groups that would argue it’s not strict enough.  As the legal process plays out, it’s not clear for automakers what their national- or state-level electric vehicle sales requirements will be. “Navigating these challenges is especially acute for heavily regulated automakers and suppliers because of our multi-year design and manufacturing cycles and the significant capital expenditures necessary to bring any new vehicle to market,” John Bozzella, president of the lobbying group Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a recent memo to Trump. He also called the current California and federal rules “out-of-step” with market realities.  California could try to implement a side deal with carmakers amid the potential policy and legal battles. After the last Trump administration revoked an Obama-era EPA authorization for California to set car standards, the state and several automakers inked a deal to increase the fuel efficiency of their car fleets.  “If companies are looking for certainty, their best effort will be to have an agreement with California,” said Margo Oge, who directed the EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality office for nearly two decades.  Oge said that if she were an auto company she "would want to know, at least for the biggest market in the U.S., that I can provide cars.” A spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board did not directly answer The Hill’s question about whether the state would pursue a similar deal this time. Instead, the spokesperson directed The Hill to the agency’s press release on the EPA waiver in which California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said, “Clean cars are here to stay … California can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution.” If the carmakers do strike any such accord, it’s not clear what share of new cars sold would be electric — and on what timeline — under the agreement.   Another wildcard is that Republicans may try for a shortcut: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This law allows simple majorities of the House and Senate to overturn a recent regulatory rule with the president’s approval. The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, has said that the EPA waiver is not subject to be overturned under the CRA.  But Republicans could still try to use the tool anyway, said Carlson, who was the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden.  She added that this would almost certainly spur “a follow-up lawsuit, ... arguing that the Congressional Review Act does not, in fact, apply to waivers.” Asked whether the GOP would pursue a CRA, a spokesperson for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) did not directly answer, instead saying that the incoming chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee would look for any way possible to reverse the Biden administration’s action. 

While the Biden administration approved California’s effort to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the Golden State’s automotive future remains uncertain. The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to undo the December approval — and a wave of litigation will also probably challenge the Biden administration’s decision.  But President-elect Trump’s anticipated actions could also...

While the Biden administration approved California’s effort to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the Golden State’s automotive future remains uncertain.

The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to undo the December approval — and a wave of litigation will also probably challenge the Biden administration’s decision. 

But President-elect Trump’s anticipated actions could also face court challenges. And California could have more tricks up its sleeve to push its market toward electric vehicles regardless of what Trump does. 

“There's just an enormous amount of uncertainty about whether the rule goes into effect — lots of moving parts. It will take a while before we know the answer to that question,” said Ann Carlson, a former Biden administration official who is now an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets its own rules for the nation about how much emissions automakers’ fleets can emit. The rules put forward by the Biden administration are so stringent that they will require a significant share of the auto market to become electric — but they don’t ban gas cars entirely.

The Clean Air Act prevents states from setting different rules from the federal government — though as California has historically dealt with unique smog problems, the law provides an exemption allowing it to seek a waiver to set its own rules that go further than the federal ones. 

The Biden administration recently granted that waiver, allowing California’s new standards that ban the sales of gas cars by 2035 to take effect.

Eleven other states and Washington, D.C. — which combined with California make up more than 30 percent of the nation’s car market — have adopted California’s rule, meaning they, too, are poised for a shift away from gas cars. 

In theory, this makes California’s rule a major shift in the American auto market — and a giant step forward in the nation’s fight against the climate crisis. 

But a tangled web of law, politics and market considerations make the rule’s actual expected outcome less clear.

The EPA’s approval of California’s gas car ban is sure to come with lawsuits. Republican-led states, oil, gasoline and ethanol producers and the auto industry are among the parties that could sue to try to overturn the rules.

At the same time, the Trump administration will also likely to revoke the waiver through the regulatory process — though this action could also spur lawsuits from supporters of the California rule. 

The EPA’s own standards, which if unchanged could make just 29 percent of the cars sold nationwide in 2032 gas-powered, will face similar legal uncertainty. The national rule already faces a lawsuit and Trump’s threats to overturn it. 

However, any future Trump rule could also face legal hurdles from green groups that would argue it’s not strict enough. 

As the legal process plays out, it’s not clear for automakers what their national- or state-level electric vehicle sales requirements will be.

“Navigating these challenges is especially acute for heavily regulated automakers and suppliers because of our multi-year design and manufacturing cycles and the significant capital expenditures necessary to bring any new vehicle to market,” John Bozzella, president of the lobbying group Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a recent memo to Trump. He also called the current California and federal rules “out-of-step” with market realities. 

California could try to implement a side deal with carmakers amid the potential policy and legal battles.

After the last Trump administration revoked an Obama-era EPA authorization for California to set car standards, the state and several automakers inked a deal to increase the fuel efficiency of their car fleets. 

“If companies are looking for certainty, their best effort will be to have an agreement with California,” said Margo Oge, who directed the EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality office for nearly two decades. 

Oge said that if she were an auto company she "would want to know, at least for the biggest market in the U.S., that I can provide cars.”

A spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board did not directly answer The Hill’s question about whether the state would pursue a similar deal this time. Instead, the spokesperson directed The Hill to the agency’s press release on the EPA waiver in which California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said, “Clean cars are here to stay … California can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution.”

If the carmakers do strike any such accord, it’s not clear what share of new cars sold would be electric — and on what timeline — under the agreement.  

Another wildcard is that Republicans may try for a shortcut: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This law allows simple majorities of the House and Senate to overturn a recent regulatory rule with the president’s approval.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, has said that the EPA waiver is not subject to be overturned under the CRA. 

But Republicans could still try to use the tool anyway, said Carlson, who was the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden. 

She added that this would almost certainly spur “a follow-up lawsuit, ... arguing that the Congressional Review Act does not, in fact, apply to waivers.”

Asked whether the GOP would pursue a CRA, a spokesperson for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) did not directly answer, instead saying that the incoming chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee would look for any way possible to reverse the Biden administration’s action. 

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Australia finally acknowledges environment underpins all else. That’s no small thing | Ken Henry

In what are dangerous times for democracies around the world, parliament’s overhaul of nature laws in the EPBC Act shows ambitious reform remains possibleSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe passage of long overdue reforms to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act demonstrates powerfully that democratic governance is alive and well in Australia.The Australian parliament has done its job and passed 21st-century reforms that support a modern economy, enable the creation of new and sustainable jobs while promising not to destroy, but in fact improve, the health of the natural world. Continue reading...

The passage of long overdue reforms to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act demonstrates powerfully that democratic governance is alive and well in Australia.The Australian parliament has done its job and passed 21st-century reforms that support a modern economy, enable the creation of new and sustainable jobs while promising not to destroy, but in fact improve, the health of the natural world. This is no small thing. In what are clearly dangerous times for democracies around the world, the Australian parliament has demonstrated emphatically that ambitious economic reform remains possible. And yes, I do mean “economic” reform.As in the past, courageous leadership has been rewarded with agreement. As in the past, the parliament has engaged constructively, in the national interest, rising above the debilitating personality politics and culture wars of recent years.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailThe winners stand to be future generations of Australians. In this instance, our elected representatives have demonstrated they understand that this is where their most weighty obligation is owed. But meeting that obligation is hard. Democracies often appear carefully designed to reward short-termism. Yet the success of a parliament can only be assessed according to what it does for the future. In the final sitting week of 2025, the Australian parliament appears to have delivered.The package of reforms to the EPBC Act fixes an ugly policy mess. The mess had been called out in several reviews, including Graeme Samuel’s review delivered more than five years ago.As I observed in an address to the National Press Club mid-year, report after report tells the same story of failure. The environment is simply not being protected. Biodiversity is not being conserved. Nature is in systemic decline. The environmental impact assessment systems embedded in the laws are simply not fit for purpose. Of particular concern, they are incapable of supporting an economy in transition to net zero.The mess of poorly constructed environmental laws has been undermining productivity. I noted that we simply cannot afford slow, opaque, duplicative and contested environmental planning decisions based on poor information, mired in administrative complexity.This week’s reforms promise to fix the mess.The reformed act will deliver a set of standards that aim to protect matters of national environmental significance. It will provide certainty for all stakeholders about impacts that must be regarded as “unacceptable” and therefore avoided.It builds integrity into the administration of the laws through the establishment of an independent, national EPA. It promises to end the absurd carveout for native forests, the landscapes that remain most richly endowed with biodiversity and healthy ecosystem functioning. And it lays the foundations for the development of regional plans that provide an opportunity for the three levels of government to work with local communities, including First Nations custodians, to design sustainable futures.Significantly, long-overdue protection will be provided for our forests. The lungs of the Earth, a lifeboat against climate change, a filter against sentiment destroying the Great Barrier Reef and a haven for wildlife will be provided real protection, while incentives will be provided to support a modern forestry industry based on plantations.And there is another thing that should be called out at this time. This may be the most important thing.For centuries, humans have believed that economic and social progress necessarily comes at the expense of the environment. We have believed that the destruction of the natural world is a price that must be paid for everything else that matters to us; as we accumulate physical and financial capital, we must run down the stock of natural capital.We have acted as if we can choose, indefinitely, to trade-off environmental integrity for material gains. Our choices have created deserts, waterways incapable of supporting life, soils leached of fertility, climate change driving weather events of such severity and frequency that whole towns, suburbs and agricultural landscapes are fast becoming uninsurable.This week’s amendments acknowledge that the state of the natural world is foundational. That without its rebuilding, future economic and social progress cannot be secured.We should think of economic and social progress as exercises in constrained optimisation. This framing is familiar to those immersed in economic policy. And yet, as I noted in the National Press Club address, economics has for the most part ignored the most important constraints on human choices. These are embedded in the immutable laws of nature. Our failure to recognise that is now undermining productivity growth and having a discernible impact on economic performance. It threatens livelihoods, even lives.Writing into law an acknowledgment that environmental protection and biodiversity conservation necessarily underpin everything else, and that they must therefore have primacy, is a profound achievement. An unprecedented bequest to future generations.

EPA cements delay of Biden-era methane rule for oil and gas

The Trump administration on Wednesday cemented its delay of Biden-era regulations on planet-warming methane coming from the oil and gas industry. Earlier this year, the administration issued an “interim final rule” that pushed back compliance deadlines for the Biden-era climate rule by 18 months. On Wednesday, it announced a final rule that locks in the delay. The delays apply...

The Trump administration on Wednesday cemented its delay of Biden-era regulations on planet-warming methane coming from the oil and gas industry. Earlier this year, the administration issued an “interim final rule” that pushed back compliance deadlines for the Biden-era climate rule by 18 months. On Wednesday, it announced a final rule that locks in the delay. The delays apply to requirements to install certain technologies meant to reduce emissions. It also applies to timelines for states to create plans for cutting methane emissions from existing oil and gas.  Methane is a gas that is about 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at heating the planet over a 100-year period. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said that the administration was acting in order to protect U.S. energy production.  “The previous administration used oil and gas standards as a weapon to shut down development and manufacturing in the United States,” Zeldin said in a written statement.  “By finalizing compliance extensions, EPA is ensuring unrealistic regulations do not prevent America from unleashing energy dominance,” he added. However, environmental advocates say that the delay will result in more pollution. “The methane standards are already working to reduce pollution, protect people’s health, and prevent the needless waste of American energy. The rule released today means millions of Americans will be exposed to dangerous pollution for another year and a half, for no good reason,” Grace Smith, senior attorney at Environmental Defense Fund, said in a written statement.  Meanwhile, the delay comes as the Trump administration reconsiders the rule altogether, having put it on a hit list of regulations earlier this year. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Analysis-Brazil Environment Minister, Climate Summit Star, Faces Political Struggle at Home

By Manuela AndreoniBELEM, Brazil (Reuters) -Brazilian Environment Minister Marina Silva fought back tears as global diplomats applauded her for...

BELEM, Brazil (Reuters) -Brazilian Environment Minister Marina Silva fought back tears as global diplomats applauded her for several minutes on Saturday in the closing plenary of the COP30 global climate summit."We've made progress, albeit modestly," she told delegates gathered in the Amazon rainforest city of Belem, before raising a fist over her head defiantly. "The courage to confront the climate crisis comes from persistence and collective effort."It was a moment of catharsis for the Brazilian hosts in a tense hall where several nations vented frustration with a deal that failed to mention fossil fuels - even as they cheered more funds for developing nations adapting to climate change.Despite the bittersweet outcome, COP30 capped years of work by the environment minister and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to restore Brazil's leadership on global climate policy, dented by a far-right predecessor who denied climate science.Back in Brasilia, a harsher political reality looms. Congress has been pushing to dismantle much of the country's environmental permitting system. Organized crime in the Amazon is also a problem, and people seeking to clear forest acres have found new ways to infiltrate and thwart groups touting sustainable development.All this poses new threats to Brazil's vast ecosystems, forcing Lula and his minister to wage a rearguard battle to defend the world's largest rainforest. Scientists and policy experts warn that action is needed to discourage deforestation before a changing climate turns the Amazon into a tinderbox. Tensions have been mounting between a conservative Congress and the leftist Lula ahead of next year's general election. Forest land is often at heightened risk during election years.Still, Silva insists Brazil can deliver on its promise to reduce deforestation to zero by 2030.  "If I'm in the eye of the storm," she told Reuters, "I have to survive."Silva, born in 1958 in the Amazonian state of Acre to an impoverished family of rubber tappers, was more rock star than policymaker for many at COP30. Like Lula, she overcame hunger and scant early schooling to achieve global recognition. As his environment minister from 2003 to 2008, she sharply slowed the destruction of her native rainforest.After more than a decade of estrangement from Lula's Workers Party, Silva reunited with him in 2022. Many environmentalists consider her return the most important move on climate policy in Lula's current mandate, which he has cast his agenda as an "ecological transformation" of Brazil's economy.It is a stark contrast from surging deforestation under Lula's right-wing predecessor Jair Bolsonaro, who cheered on mining and ranching in the rainforest.Still, Lula's actual environmental record has been ambiguous, said Juliano Assuncao, executive director of the Climate Policy Institute think tank in Brazil. "What we have at times is an Environment Ministry deeply committed to these issues, but at critical moments it hasn't been able to count on the support of the federal government in the way it should," he said.Lula's government has halved deforestation in the Amazon, making it easier to fine deforesters and choke their access to public credit. New policies have encouraged reforestation and sustainable farming practices, such as cattle tracing.Still, critics say Lula's government has not done enough to stop Congress as it undercut environmental protections and blocked recognition of Indigenous lands. Lawmakers have also attacked a private-sector agreement protecting the Amazon from the advance of soy farming.Lula's environmental critics concede he has limited leverage.When a government agency was slow to license oil exploration off the Amazon coast, the Senate pushed legislation to overhaul environmental permitting. Lula vetoed much of the bill, but lawmakers vowed to restore at least part of it this week. Similar tensions in Lula's last mandate prompted Silva to quit over differences with other cabinet ministers. This time around, Lula has been quick to defend her and vice-versa. During a recent interview in her Brasilia office, Silva suggested that Lula had not changed, but rather that a warming planet has ratcheted up the urgency of climate policy."Reality has changed," she said. "People who are guided by scientific criteria, by common sense, by ethics, have followed that gradual change." HIGHER TEMPERATURES, MORE GUNSEarth's hottest year on record was 2024, fueling massive fires in the Amazon rainforest that for the first time erased more tree cover than chainsaws and bulldozers.Brazilians hoping to preserve the Amazon must struggle against more than just a warmer climate and a skeptical Congress. Organized crime has grown in the region after years of tight funding left fewer federal personnel to fight back, said Jair Schmitt, who oversees enforcement at Brazil's environmental protection agency Ibama. Ibama agents have been caught more often in shootouts with gangs, he added, suggesting more guns than ever in the region. "Rifles weren't this easy to find before," he said.Another challenge: Illegal deforesters have also infiltrated Amazon supply chains touting their sustainability, from biofuels to carbon credits, Reuters has reported. To overcome them, Brazil will need to steel its political will, said Marcio Astrini, the head of Climate Observatory, an advocacy group. Other than that, he added, "we have everything it takes to succeed."(Reporting by Manuela AndreoniEditing by Brad Haynes and David Gregorio)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Drought killer: California storms fill reservoirs, build up Sierra snowpack

It's been the wettest November on record for several Southern California cities. But experts say that despite the auspicious start, it's still too soon to say how the rest of California's traditional rainy season will shape up.

A string of early season storms that drenched Californians last week lifted much of the state out of drought and significantly reduced the risk of wildfires, experts say.It’s been the wettest November on record for Southland cities such as Van Nuys and San Luis Obispo. Santa Barbara has received an eye-popping 9.5 inches of rain since Oct. 1, marking the city’s wettest start to the water year on record. And overall the state is sitting at 186% of its average rain so far this water year, according to the Department of Water Resources.But experts say that despite the auspicious start, it’s still too soon to say how the rest of California’s traditional rainy season will shape up.“The overall impact on our water supply is TBD [to be determined] is the best way to put it,” said Jeff Mount, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California’s Water Policy Center. “We haven’t even really gotten into the wet season yet.”California receives the vast bulk of its rain and snow between December and March, trapping the runoff in its reservoirs to mete out during the hot, dry seasons that follow. Lights from bumper-to-bumper traffic along Aliso Street reflect off the federal courthouse in Los Angeles on a rainy night. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times) Those major reservoirs are now filled to 100% to 145% of average for this date. That’s not just from the recent storms — early season rains tend to soak mostly into the parched ground — but also because California is building on three prior wet winters, state climatologist Michael Anderson said.A record-breaking wet 2022-23 winter ended the state’s driest three-year period on record. That was followed by two years that were wetter than average for Northern California but drier than average for the southern half, amounting to roughly average precipitation statewide.According to the latest U.S. Drought Monitor report, issued last week before the last of the recent storms had fully soaked the state, more than 70% of California was drought-free, compared with 49% a week before. Nearly 47% of Los Angeles County emerged from moderate drought, with the other portions improving to abnormally dry, the map shows. Abnormally dry conditions also ended in Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and much of Kern counties, along with portions of Central California, according to the map. In the far southern and southeastern reaches of the state, conditions improved but still range from abnormally dry to moderate drought, the map shows.The early season storms will play an important role in priming watersheds for the rest of the winter, experts said. By soaking soils, they’ll enable future rainstorms to more easily run off into reservoirs and snow to accumulate in the Sierra Nevada.“Building the snowpack on hydrated watersheds will help us avoid losing potential spring runoff to dry soils later in the season,” Anderson wrote in an email.Snowpack is crucial to sustaining California through its hot, dry seasons because it runs down into waterways as it melts, topping off the reservoirs and providing at least 30% of the state’s water supply, said Andrew Schwartz, director of UC Berkeley’s Central Sierra Snow Lab.The research station at Donner Pass has recorded 22 inches of snow. Although that’s about 89% of normal for this date, warmer temperatures mean that much of it has already melted, Schwartz said. The snow water equivalent, which measures how much water the snow would produce if it were to melt, now stands at 50%, he said.“That’s really something that tells the tale, so far, of this season,” he said. “We’ve had plenty of rain across the Sierra, but not as much snowfall as we would ordinarily hope for up to this point.”This dynamic has become increasingly common with climate change, Schwartz said. Snow is often developing later in the season and melting earlier, and more precipitation is falling as rain, he said. Because reservoirs need to leave some room in the winter for flood mitigation, they aren’t always able to capture all this ill-timed runoff, he said.And the earlier the snow melts, the more time plants and soils have to dry out in the summer heat, priming the landscape for large wildfires, Schwartz said. Although Northern California has been spared massive fires for the last few seasons, Schwartz fears that luck could run out if the region doesn’t receive at least an average amount snow this year.For now, long-range forecasts are calling for equal chances of wet and dry conditions this winter, Mount said. What happens in the next few months will be key. California depends on just a few strong atmospheric river storms to provide moisture; as little as five to seven can end up being responsible for more than half of the year’s water supply, he said.“We’re living on the edge all the time,” he said. “A handful of storms make up the difference of whether we have a dry year or a wet year.”Although the state’s drought picture has improved for the moment, scientists caution that conditions across the West are trending hotter and drier because of the burning of fossil fuels and resultant climate change. In addition to importing water from Northern California via the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Southern California relies on water from the Colorado River. That waterway continues to be in shortage, with its largest reservoir only about one-third full.What’s more, research has shown that as the planet has warmed, the atmosphere has become thirstier, sucking more moisture from plants and soils and ensuring that dry years are drier. At the same time, there’s healthy debate over whether the same phenomenon is also making wet periods wetter, as warmer air can hold more moisture, potentially supercharging storms.As a result, swings between wet and dry on a year-to-year basis — and even within a year — seem to be getting bigger in California and elsewhere, Mount said. That increase in uncertainty has made managing water supplies more difficult overall, he said.Still, because of its climate, California has plenty of experience dealing with such extremes, said Jay Lund, professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis.“We always have to be preparing for floods and preparing for drought, no matter how wet or dry it is.”Staff writer Ian James contributed to this report.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.