Comment Log Display

Here is the comment you selected to display.

Comment 696 for California Cap-and-Trade Program (capandtrade10) - 45 Day.

First NameJim
Last NameStewart
Email AddressJim@earthdayla.org
Affiliation
SubjectSend cap-and-trade regulation back for revisions required by science
Comment
Dear California Air Resources Board, 

I am speaking as a PhD physicist who has been concerned about the
effects of global warming for decades.  

I was impressed by the courage and vision of the Legislature and
Governor to pass AB 32 and mandate the reduction of California’s
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

However, I am extremely disappointed with the proposed
cap-and-trade approach you are considering at your meeting on
December 16.  

Because the eyes of the world are on California, you must set an
example of how to reduce emissions in a way that guarantees
achievement of the AB 32 goals.  The science of global warming says
that the planet is nearing a number of tipping points that must be
avoided if we are to escape runaway temperature increase and an
uninhabitable planet.

Because proposed cap-and-trade approach has been tried in Europe
and completely failed, you should vote to delay this proposed
cap-and-trade approach and send it back to staff to develop a
regulation-based approach that can guarantees achievement of the AB
32 goals.

If you are unable to do that necessary step, you should send it
back to staff to make at least the following major improvements:

1.  Make all emitters pay for 100% of 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 used for clean energy, green jobs, public
transit, and low-income consumers.

2.  Protect the integrity of the climate program and resiliency of
California's forests by: a) eliminating from the offset program
clear-cutting of our forests 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.  Drastically reduce the percentage of emission reductions
allowed to come from offsets and require that 100% of offsets be
located in California (thus providing California jobs). 
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.

Thank you, 

Jim Stewart, PhD, 213-487-9340  Fax: 310-362-8400  Cell:
213-820-4345
1216 S. Westlake Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90006-4118

Attachment
Original File Name
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted 2010-12-15 09:57:20

If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.


Board Comments Home