Efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in China may be backfiring--at least in the short term.

Next month the country faces a self-imposed deadline to reduce its carbon intensity (a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of GDP) by 20 percent compared to 2005 levels. In a last minute dash to meet these targets, some local governments have started imposing planned blackouts.

While the blackouts are cutting emissions from power plants, they're having unintended consequences. Factories, which have to keep running to meet production requirements or face fines for missing deadlines, are getting their power instead from backup diesel generators. These emit carbon dioxide and running them has led to a diesel shortage. Thousands of fueling stations have reportedly shut down or refused to sell drivers more than half a tank of diesel fuel. To make up that gap, Chinese refineries are producing more diesel--a strain in a country that has to import most of its oil.

Of course, unintended consequences from efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions aren't limited to China. In the United States and Brazil, the use of food crops for biofuels can drive up food prices and lead to the destruction of forests as new land is cleared to make up for lost food production. Clearing that land also results in more carbon dioxide emissions, undoing much of the benefit of biofuels.

Ethanol made from sugar cane rather than corn (the main source of ethanol in the U.S.) results in far less carbon dioxide emissions. But Dan Sperling, director of the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis, estimates that when you figure in the impact of cleared rainforests, that benefit could disappear.

A ballot proposition in California that would have suspended that state's recent climate change legislation has failed, clearing the way for greenhouse gas emissions regulations there to take effect, including a cap and trade program.

The outcome of the election could have implications for greenhouse regulations, and renewable energy, around the country. In many cases, California's environmental regulations have served as models for other states, as well as the federal government--for example, current clean air and national fuel economy regulations can be traced back to environmental regulations in California. The vote is a victory for supporters of clean tech (including some major clean tech investors) who wanted to keep the greenhouse regulations, and a defeat for the oil producers and refiners who wanted to stop the greenhouse gas regulations.

Proposition 23 would have stopped the implementation of Assembly Bill 32, a climate bill passed in 2006 that required greenhouse gas emissions in the state to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The rules designed to achieve this goal are scheduled to take effect at the beginning of 2012. All told, there are 69 measures geared to meet the greenhouse gas goals, but the most important are a cap and trade program, fuel economy regulations, a renewable electricity standard, energy efficiency requirements and a low-carbon fuel standard (some of these measures are also supported by separate laws).

Earlier this year, Prop 23 seemed sure to pass. Its supporters billed it as a way to save jobs, an appealing message with California's unemployment well over 12 percent. At the same time, climate legislation was faltering in the U.S. Senate. The tide seemed to have turned against greenhouse gas regulations as Americans focused on unemployment. But clean tech investors and other opponents of Proposition 23 outspent its supporters by about 3 to 1, and the proposition failed.

Under the cap and trade program, major greenhouse gas emitters such as power plants are allowed to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas--the cap. To get under this cap, the power plant can either install new technology to reduce emissions, or in some other way reduce its emissions, or it can buy "allowances" from other greenhouse gas emitters that emit less than the cap. Cap and trade is one of the most flexible approaches to regulation, allowing power plants to choose whatever approach is cheapest. As a result, it's typically a cheaper way to reduce emissions than regulations that specify what technology must be used, which is the case with many other environmental regulations.

The low carbon fuel standard requires those who provide fuel to limit the amount of carbon dioxide the fuels emit when they're burned. The main way to do this is to blend petroleum-based fuels with low-carbon biofuels, such as ethanol made from cellulosic sources such as grass, as well as sugarcane, or in some cases corn. It's an alternative that could be more effective than the federal biofuels mandate, says Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis. The biofuels mandate requires fuel suppliers to use a certain amount of renewable fuels, but includes provisions that allow suppliers to avoid doing this if not enough biofuel is produced.

The renewable electricity standard requires utilities in California to get 33 percent of their electricity from certain renewable resources, such as wind, solar power, and geothermal. The impact of this measure will be limited, however, by how fast new renewable power sources can be introduced. Financing and power transmission issues have so far kept utilities from achieving a lower 20 percent target that existed apart from A.B. 32. "We can't catch 20 or 33 percent," says Tom Kelly, the chief deputy director of the California Energy Commission. "Demand is growing faster than renewables can be built."

When the Senate comes back from its summer recess on September 11th, the energy bill that was dropped before vacation will still be dead in the water.

In a conference call today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he and other senators will continue to modify the bill in an attempt to win votes. This may include adding a standard that would require States to use a minimum amount of renewable energy. Reid said he hopes such modifications will entice Republicans to vote for the bill after the elections this fall, when Congress is in its "lame duck" session.

"Now it's a time out period," Reid said. "We'll see if we can come up with something before the end of the year. I'm confident we can, and we should," he said.

The bill, which includes provisions to promote home energy retrofits, electric vehicles, and natural gas trucks, will not include a cap and trade system for decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. Cap and trade, he said, "doesn't have the traction that a lot of us wish it had."