By Vanguard Staff
SACRAMENTO – In a direct rebuke to the federal government’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the California State Senate passed Senate Resolution 36 (SR 36) on Tuesday, reaffirming the state’s commitment to international climate cooperation and environmental leadership.
Authored by Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose), SR 36 positions California as a steadfast climate leader, independent of federal directives. “California will not back down from climate leadership, even as the federal government retreats,” said Cortese. “Through SR 36, the state will continue to participate in our international climate responsibilities, regardless of what happens in Washington. Our ultimate goal is not just to slow climate change, but to reverse it.”
The resolution comes in response to a controversial executive order issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025, which directed the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The order cited economic concerns and sought to end all financial commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including immediate revocation of the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan.
Climate advocates applauded California’s move. Jonathan Cole of Climate Action California emphasized the scientific stakes: “Politics can’t change the physics of climate. As long as greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere continue to climb, the long-term average temperature of the Earth will continue to increase. SR 36 sends the U.S. and the world a clear message that California remains committed to the international climate effort and will continue to be a global climate leader.”
The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015 and signed by nearly every country in the world, aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to cap the rise at 1.5°C. It represents the first legally binding international treaty on climate change. While the Trump administration has framed its withdrawal as an economic necessity, critics argue the decision isolates the U.S. and undermines global climate cooperation.
SR 36 not only reaffirms California’s commitment to the Paris Agreement but also aligns the state’s policy with broader climate restoration goals. It supports efforts to return atmospheric carbon levels to pre-industrial concentrations and designates climate restoration, net-zero, and net-negative emissions as core priorities for California.
The resolution builds upon Cortese’s earlier work. In 2023, the State Senate passed SR 34, marking the first time California formally recognized climate restoration as a state priority. Cortese has long been a champion of bold climate action: in 2019, while serving on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, he introduced the nation’s first Climate Restoration Emergency Resolution, and later spoke at the United Nations Climate Restoration Forum.
Cortese also helped launch the County Climate Coalition in partnership with Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, and created the Silicon Valley Kids Climate Club, now housed at The Tech Interactive Museum in San Jose, to educate young people on climate solutions.
In addition to SR 36, Senator Cortese is advancing a suite of environmental legislation in 2025, all of which have passed their Senate policy committees:
- SB 429: Establishes the first publicly accessible wildfire risk model to help residents and local governments plan for and mitigate wildfire threats.
- SB 653: Encourages environmentally responsible vegetation management that supports both ecological health and public safety.
- SB 30: Prevents the redeployment of decommissioned diesel trains, reducing air pollution and accelerating clean transportation alternatives.
While the federal government’s recent actions mark a significant shift in U.S. climate policy, California’s legislative response underscores a continuing commitment to global climate goals, economic transformation through clean energy, and environmental justice for future generations.
As California’s energy prices keep soaring while at the same time attempting to strip solar benefits from homeowners. You know, the same homeowners who invested tens of thousands in solar panels at the behest of the state.
Meanwhile climate change continues, unabated, the real threat to the future as well as the present
And nothing Davis does will change that. What China, India, Congo, etc do could make a difference – and almost certainly they won’t change course any decade soon.
Not sure why you blew off KO’s poignant response about CA/PG&E taking away solar incentives. Money over the environment/air-quality, once again.
I continue to point out our only practical course is adaptation, not continuing to attempt to turn a container ship on a dime. This all started 200 years ago with the west’s industrial revolution, and the east is just catching up in helping to f*ck up the planet.
Alan, your comment reflects a kind of climate fatalism that’s increasingly common—but also increasingly dangerous. The idea that our “only practical course is adaptation” concedes too much to the forces driving planetary collapse. Yes, mitigation is slow and uneven. Yes, the historical burden lies heavily on the West, and the Global South is industrializing under a carbon-intensive model. But the science on adaptation alone is not encouraging.
We F’d the planet. No way we are going to fix it. It’s not fatalism – just reality. Stop spending money trying to fix 200 years of human industrialization that is only continuing — and start lifting up the levees and backing the population away from low-lying areas. And why do you acknowledge the harm the west has done, and ignore the harm the east is do-ing? India and China are not the “global south” ? I’m not saying any of this is encouraging, I’m just saying spending money to change the world climate on a local level, or even a national level, is like pissing in the Ocean for all the good it will do. Spending trillion$ on adaptation will at least do something with those trillion$.
Alan, you call it reality, but it’s indistinguishable from fatalism. Yes, the planet is in deep trouble, and yes, adaptation is essential—but declaring mitigation pointless is how we ensure the worst-case scenarios become our future. You keep raising the cost of mitigation as if money is the limiting factor—but what is money in the face of planetary collapse? We don’t hesitate to spend trillions on war, bailouts, or fossil fuel subsidies, but somehow it’s unrealistic to invest in keeping the planet livable?
As George Carlin said, the planet is just fine, and has been through a lot worse than “us”.
It’s the people who are screwed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmo8sh77G6Y
He also theorizes the earth allowed mankind to arise since “it didn’t know how to make plastic for itself”, as an “answer” to the age-old question regarding “why” we exist.
And that the earth views plastic as just another one of its “children”.
In any case, does anyone actually believe that Trump is a “climate change denier” when he’s looking northward for additional U.S. states?
“In any case, does anyone actually believe that Trump is a “climate change denier” when he’s looking northward for additional U.S. states?”
That’s an astute observation – credit where credit is due.
The earth must have an extremely large-amount of oil (and natural gas), if we’re worried about its continued use (before we run out of the remaining recoverable supply altogether).
I wonder what would happen if we burned all of it in a single year – just get it “over with”, so to speak. (Pretty sure I’ll be signing up for the “Tesla to Mars”, if we attempt that.) And for that matter, shouldn’t be we TRYING to create greenhouse gasses on Mars, to prepare it as our new home?