First Name | Michael |
---|---|
Last Name | Bullock |
Email Address | mike_bullock@earthlink.net |
Affiliation | Environmental |
Subject | Your2035TargetsDon'tSupportTheGovernor'sExecutiveOrder. |
Comment | Earl Withycombe, P.E. South Coast AQMD Planning Liaison Planning & Technical Support Division California Air Resources Board Earl, From your just-released staff report, http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/staffreport_sb375080910.pdf, on Page 22 ,comes the following very confusing 2-sentence paragraph: "Using the data provided by the MPOs over the past four months, the proposed targets would result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of over three million metric tons of CO2 per year (MMTCO2/year) in 2020, and 15 MMTCO2/year in 2035. When these reductions are applied to the most recent statewide 2020 emissions forecast, the emissions target for passenger vehicles in California’s 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan is met." I assume your first sentence is true. However, the second sentence is false, for the 2035 value. This paragraph mixes in the 2035 reductions of 15 MMTC02/year where it does not belong. The 2008 Scoping Plan is quantitatively ONLY about AB32. AB32 only goes out to 2020. The 2008 Scoping Plan does NOT support the 15 MMTC02 value for 2035. Nothing does. So I have these 4 questions. What about 2035? What about the Governor's Executive Order? What about climate stability? My calculations indicate that a much larger reduction is required by 2035, as follows. (Please tell me what is wrong with this calculation. For Pavely and the Governor's Executive Order trajectories, I use Figure 1 of http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/sb375/files/sb375.pdf.) 1.) Just to show how far off CARB targets are, for 2035, I will use a "huge" 20% reduction, to result in a 2005 to 2035 factor of .8. 2.) I will use the SANDAG populations figures, which is a growth of from 3034388 to 3984753, for a factor of (the larger over the smaller) 1.313. 3.) Using the values from the above-mentioned Figure 1, the Pavley reduction, extrapolated out to 2035, give a very nice reduction factor of .685. 4.) The LCFS factor is .9. 5.) Using the values from the above-mentioned Figure 1, the straight-line trajectory of the reduction needed to get and 80% reduction by 2050 is .525. The four factors are multiplied to give (.8)(1.313)(.685)(.90) = .648. This is not good enough. We need this to be at least as low as .525. A reduction of 35.1% will do the trick: (.649)(1.313)(.685)(.9) = .525 Please let me know what is wrong with these calculations. If they are correct, the ARB Directors must not approve your 2035 reductions. They are way too small. Regards, Mike Bullock 1800 Bayberry Drive Oceanside, Ca 92054 760-754-8025 Retired Satellite Systems Engineer, 36 years Co-author, "A Plan to Efficiently and Conveniently Unbundle Car Parking Cost" |
Attachment | www.arb.ca.gov/lists/2010sb375/544-bullocktocarb3.pdf |
Original File Name | BullockToCARB3.pdf |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2010-09-21 15:17:28 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.