First Name | Christopher |
---|---|
Last Name | Lish |
Email Address | lishchris@yahoo.com |
Affiliation | |
Subject | strengthen the program, protect the public interest, and support a carbon tax |
Comment | Dear Chair Nichols and members of the California Air Resources Board: I wish to thank state officials for taking global warming seriously and developing a plan to reduce global warming pollution while at the same time attempting to create jobs and make California a healthier and more prosperous place to live. This program is one of many policies CARB is using to reach the state's goal of reducing global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, along with renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner transportation standards. Parts of the proposal are strong, such as setting a limit that declines each year, and setting a minimum price on carbon pollution. This steady price signal will help businesses make long-term investments in strategies to reduce global warming emissions. By forcing polluters to pay for the emissions they generate by purchasing permits in an auction, we can then As proposed, the AB 32 cap-and-trade regulation threatens California's forests and the wildlife that rely on them. As you consider the cap-and-trade regulation at your meeting on December 16, please amend the proposed cap-and-trade rule to strengthen the program and to protect the public interest by: 1. Making polluters pay for 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 from the auction funds re-invested in efforts that will help us transition to a cleaner economy and help lower energy costs for Californians—such as making homes and businesses more energy efficient, creating green jobs, increasing public transit options, and developing wind, solar, and other clean energy projects in California, and assisting low-income consumers. 2. Protecting the integrity of the climate program and resiliency of California's forests by: a) eliminating from the offset program forest management projects that allow forest clearcutting 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. Eliminating the exemption from compliance obligations for forest biomass emissions. 4. Reducing the percentage of emission reductions allowed to come from offsets. 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. I implore you not to make forest clearcuts and biomass plants the face of AB 32. We cannot and should not try to clearcut and burn our way out of climate change. I also wish to express my concern that cap-and-trade with offsets cannot deliver the needed emissions reductions necessary to avert catastrophic climate destabilization—it has not effectively reduced emissions in the EU, and has resulted in windfall profits for utilities. I strongly encourage you to support a carbon tax on fuels, with its revenue recycled to Californian households. The most effective, socially just, and transparent way to halt global warming is through a carbon tax, with its revenues returned to Californian households. Under a carbon tax, fuels would be taxed on their carbon content (i.e., their ability to contribute to global warming), and the revenue would be recycled to Californian households. With the revenue return to households, most middle-income and low-income households could actually come out ahead financially if they conserved energy. A carbon tax would also provide a built-in incentive for utilities and industry to transition to low-carbon fuels, while softening the impact of rising energy prices on consumers. A carbon tax would give industry and investors a clear price signal, spurring investments in clean energy and efficiency; this could create millions of jobs in a clean energy economy. California can demonstrate leadership with a carbon tax while protecting Californian industry with WTO-sanctioned border adjustments. Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and British Columbia have already implemented a carbon tax. Support for a carbon tax is also growing steadily among public officials, economists, policy experts, and community leaders. And voters prefer a carbon tax with revenue returned to households over cap-and-trade’s Wall Street carbon markets. Our species' existence, along with that of thousands of other species, depends upon our reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. A steadily-rising carbon tax with its revenues returned to Californian households is the most effective, socially-just, and transparent means to halt climate change and transition to a clean energy economy. Again, I strongly encourage you to support a carbon tax on fuels, with its revenue recycled to Californian households. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Please do NOT add my name to your mailing list. I will learn about future developments on this issue from other sources. Sincerely, Christopher Lish PO Box 113 Olema, CA 94950 lishchris@yahoo.com |
Attachment | |
Original File Name | |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2010-12-14 16:00:55 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.