Comment Log Display

Dear ARB,

I strongly object to the proposal to adopt market-based compliance
mechanisms to meet a cap on GHG emissions. And I vehemently oppose
the use of offsets to comply.

Living in a region with high levels of air pollution due to the
same stacks that are emitting GHGs, I want all of that pollution
cut. It does not make sense to keep polluting or spewing out GHG
emissions anywhere and especially in communities that have felt the
impact of pollution for decades if not generations. Cut GHG
emissions at the source for the full benefit of all Californians!

Secondly, I object to the forest offset concept as they are
generally not based in the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
of the communities who live in the affected forests. In many
countries, benefits from offsets projects will flow to the
government, or to the private project developer, instead of to the
communities who have managed the land for generations. This leads
to inherent violations of FPIC and other human rights safeguards
guaranteed through the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. It is a sham to say that forest offset programs will
protect forest communities and because of that, the Indigenous
Environmental Network stands in opposition to these programs.

At a minimum, the board should not vote on this proposal tomorrow
as communities have not had sufficient notification. As a member of
one of the coalitions that helped to stop Proposition 23 from
killing AB32, I call on the board to hold off and give more time
for California's communities to weigh in on the issue of market
mechanisms and offsets.

Thank you,
Michelle