First Name | Amy D. |
---|---|
Last Name | Kyle |
Email Address | adkyle@berkeley.edu |
Affiliation | University of California Berkeley, SPH |
Subject | Public Health Implications of AB 32 Alternative Mitigation Policy Proposals |
Comment | Public Health Implications of AB 32 Alternative Mitigation Policy Proposals Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the October draft of the Scoping Plan for the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. It is critically important to reduce greenhouse emissions and build a clean and sustainable energy system that can support the economy without destroying the global environment. I deeply appreciate the diligent efforts of the staff to address these complex issues. The plan represents a portfolio of policy proposals. My focus is on assessment of their public health implications. The October revision reflects greater recognition of the importance of engaging the public and coordinating efforts with local governments, especially on issues related to the built environment, land use, and transportation and their implications. These are important improvements. What the Air Resources Board still needs to do is to discuss the relative merits of the available policy alternatives. Alternatives under consideration would be expected to vary with regard to their public health impacts. Consideration of the differences in public health impacts would inform the Board’s deliberations. Moreover, public health benefits also have economic benefits that would be relevant to selection of cost effective measures. Some reasons that alternatives might differ in their public health impacts are: • Actions that reduce CO2 emissions but retain combustion technologies will generally have fewer public health benefits than those that eliminate combustion and resulting co-pollutants. • Actions that reduce combustion or invest in clean and sustainable technologies or create other environmental benefits in proximity to populations, particularly vulnerable populations and communities, will have greater public health benefits than those that do not. • Actions that build clean and sustainable energy infrastructure and energy security for communities will have greater public health benefits than those that merely reduce emissions. • Actions that reduce greenhouse emissions by improvements to the built environment can also address important environmentally mediated conditions such as diabetes and obesity so would have public health benefits beyond reductions in air pollution. • Actions that enhance the ability of the public to participate and contribute to solutions are more likely to reflect the public interest and so promote public health than those that do not. If the Board is going to adopt the policy strategies as presented, it might consider commissioning a comparative review of the public health and overall public benefits of policy alternatives to be completed before regulations are adopted. In addition, the Board may wish to consider directing the staff to set up means to track the implementation of policy measures to allow on-going, objective determination of whether the strategies are achieving the policy aims of the statute. The State of California is critical to the development of a just and sustainable model for how to address climate change and lead a conversion to a new energy system. As Governor Schwarzenegger points out, California leads the world. The best model California could present would reduce emissions while promoting public health, democracy, and civic engagement; protect and enhance vulnerable communities; and build the clean and sustainable energy system that we need for the future. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Details are in the attachment. |
Attachment | www.arb.ca.gov/lists/scopingpln08/1337-adk_ab32scoping_12.08.08.pdf |
Original File Name | adk_AB32Scoping_12.08.08.pdf |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2008-12-08 09:23:14 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.