First Name | Edward |
---|---|
Last Name | Mainland |
Email Address | emainland@comcast.net |
Affiliation | Sierra Club California |
Subject | Sierra Club Comment on Agriculture |
Comment | COMMENTS ON AB 32 PROPOSED SCOPING PLAN, SUBMITTED BY SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA, November 19, 2008 17. Agriculture (p. 66) • Sierra Club remains extremely disappointed with the Plan’s low expectations for agriculture. The initial Plan only mentioned 1 potential MMT equivalent of GHG reduction from methane capture at large dairies while the state’s GHG inventory shows 13 MMT equivalent of methane emissions from manure management and enteric fermentation. Agriculture contributes about half of California’s methane emissions, but is far from contributing its share of reductions under the current Plan. This is especially serious considering that conventional models of methane underestimate its effect. The CEC’s inventory used a GWP of 21, revised upward from the early figure of only 11. The figure used by CEC lags behind current science, as the newest figures show a 100-year GWP of 25. However, there are major questions around using a 100-year GWP when CH4 is only resident in the atmosphere for about 8 years. The 20-year GWP, which has currently been upgraded to over 70, would be more appropriate,. If a 20-year GWP is applied, methane would be seen to contribute 17% of the state’s greenhouse gas impact rather than the “official” 2004 figure of 5.7%. If shorter term timeframes are examined, which match the 8 year residency of methane, then the role of methane would be much greater. In addition, one NASA scientist has evidence that methane may be twice as powerful as IPCC assumes. Thus, methane may represent even more of a threat in human induced global warming. The flip side is that its short residence in the atmosphere may also represent a great opportunity to lower GHGs rapidly. This could be amplified by the fact that, unlike carbon emissions, the vast majority of anthropogenic methane emissions can apparently be rapidly absorbed by sinks. Tackling the global methane problem—compared to CO2— is thus a relatively rapidly achievable goal, and a state like California could contribute disproportionate benefits that might have truly global significance. • Studies have shown significant methane emissions from bovine digestion, which raises the question of whether a carbon tax should be applied to dairy products, such as beef and milk. • In Department of Conservation’s study of greenhouse gas emissions associated with conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, both direct and indirect emissions should be considered. Promoting more compact, efficient, transit-oriented urban development will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle travel but also conserve agricultural land by minimizing conversion to urban use. • The Plan should reference and encourage CDFA’s development of a strategic plan for agriculture. Efforts to minimize conversion of prime farmland will be helped if agricultural enterprises now on the land maintain profitability and sustainability. • The Plan should emphasize that linking good land use with local food systems can reduce transportation-related emissions, provide a premium for farmers selling locally, and even improve access to healthier foods. • State and local governments could increase access to local foods, for example, by direct investments, incentives and public-private partnerships to develop needed local foods system infrastructure. • Joint action by the Department of Food & Agriculture and CARB could significantly increase the amount of locally produced food consumed in the state – thus reducing more emissions from transportation. CDFA and CARB could work together to track and measure “food miles traveled” and seek ways to cut distances from food to producer. Cutting down on transport of agricultural products from agriculture areas to other parts of the state would lessen GHG. • The Plan should address urban agricultural issues, such as: a) What funding can the state supply to assist municipalities in supporting urban agriculture? b) What focus can CARB bring on removing barriers to urban agriculture? CARB and CDFA could work together to: find useable land for community gardens, inventories of such land; test for toxicity; reach out to potential urban gardeners; recast city regulations in favor of urban orchards, edible landscaping, local composting, and rooftop gardens; and provide more UC Master Gardener training and technical assistance? c) Could CARB facilitate funding of local offices in each municipality to inventory potentially available state-owned lands and mobilize local community gardeners and organizers? • Many studies by California scientists and others throughout the world have shown how organically grown crops have significantly lowered GHG emissions, from non-use of nitrate fertilizers, retention of carbon in soils, and other means. • The Plan needs to highlight the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of organic agriculture. The California Energy Commission Climate Change Research Conference Sacramento, September 10-13, 2007 has five presentations: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/events/2007_conference/presentations/index.html • Data from The Rodale Institute’s long-running comparison of organic and conventional cropping systems confirm that organic methods are far more effective at removing the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere and fixing it as beneficial organic matter in the soil. See Laura Sayre, 2003 http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml -- Another study shows confirmed ecological virtues of organic farming www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/12/4522.pdf http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2006/pr-organics-030806.html |
Attachment | |
Original File Name | |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2008-11-19 19:15:41 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.