Comment Log Display

Dear Chair Nichols and members of the California Air Resources
Board:

I wish to thank state officials for taking global warming seriously
and developing a plan to reduce global warming pollution while at
the same time attempting to create jobs and make California a
healthier and more prosperous place to live. This program is one of
many policies CARB is using to reach the state's goal of reducing
global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, along with
renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner transportation
standards.

Parts of the proposal are strong, such as setting a limit that
declines each year, and setting a minimum price on carbon
pollution. This steady price signal will help businesses make
long-term investments in strategies to reduce global warming
emissions.

By forcing polluters to pay for the emissions they generate by
purchasing permits in an auction, we can then 

As proposed, the AB 32 cap-and-trade regulation threatens
California's forests and the wildlife that rely on them. As you
consider the cap-and-trade regulation at your meeting on December
16, please amend the proposed cap-and-trade rule to strengthen the
program and to protect the public interest by:

1. Making polluters pay for their greenhouse gas emissions.
Pollution allowances should not be given away to oil companies and
other large emitters. Allowances should be auctioned off, with the
money from the auction funds re-invested in efforts that will help
us transition to a cleaner economy and help lower energy costs for
Californians—such as making homes and businesses more energy
efficient, creating green jobs, increasing public transit options,
and developing wind, solar, and other clean energy projects in
California, and assisting low-income consumers.

2. Protecting the integrity of the climate program and resiliency
of California's forests by: a) eliminating from the offset program
forest management projects that allow forest clearcutting as a way
of sequestering carbon; b) adding provisions to assure that forest
projects DO NOT result in the conversion of naturally managed
(uneven aged forests) into clear-cut plantations (even aged
forests).

3. Eliminating the exemption from compliance obligations for forest
biomass emissions.

4. Reducing the percentage of emission reductions allowed to come
from offsets. Californians support our global warming law because
we want to green our state's economy, not outsource the job of
reducing emissions to other states and countries.

I implore you not to make forest clearcuts and biomass plants the
face of AB 32. We cannot and should not try to clearcut and burn
our way out of climate change.

I also wish to express my concern that cap-and-trade with offsets
cannot deliver the needed emissions reductions necessary to avert
catastrophic climate destabilization—it has not effectively reduced
emissions in the EU, and has resulted in windfall profits for
utilities. I strongly encourage you to support a carbon tax on
fuels, with its revenue recycled to Californian households.

The most effective, socially just, and transparent way to halt
global warming is through a carbon tax, with its revenues returned
to Californian households. Under a carbon tax, fuels would be taxed
on their carbon content (i.e., their ability to contribute to
global warming), and the revenue would be recycled to Californian
households. With the revenue return to households, most
middle-income and low-income households could actually come out
ahead financially if they conserved energy.

A carbon tax would also provide a built-in incentive for utilities
and industry to transition to low-carbon fuels, while softening the
impact of rising energy prices on consumers. A carbon tax would
give industry and investors a clear price signal, spurring
investments in clean energy and efficiency; this could create
millions of jobs in a clean energy economy.

California can demonstrate leadership with a carbon tax while
protecting Californian industry with WTO-sanctioned border
adjustments. Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and British
Columbia have already implemented a carbon tax.

Support for a carbon tax is also growing steadily among public
officials, economists, policy experts, and community leaders. And
voters prefer a carbon tax with revenue returned to households over
cap-and-trade’s Wall Street carbon markets.

Our species' existence, along with that of thousands of other
species, depends upon our reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. A
steadily-rising carbon tax with its revenues returned to
Californian households is the most effective, socially-just, and
transparent means to halt climate change and transition to a clean
energy economy.

Again, I strongly encourage you to support a carbon tax on fuels,
with its revenue recycled to Californian households.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Please do NOT add
my name to your mailing list. I will learn about future
developments on this issue from other sources.

Sincerely,
Christopher Lish
PO Box 113
Olema, CA 94950
lishchris@yahoo.com