Comment Log Display

Comment Log Display

Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 38 for Provides the public and stakeholders opportunities to provide "informal" public comments as part of ARB's 2013 Scoping Plan Update Workshop Series (2013-sp-update-ws) - 1st Workshop.


First Name: Tito
Last Name: Sasaki
Email Address: tito@att.net
Affiliation: Sonoma County Farm Bureau

Subject: Agriculture: Net GHG Emissions and Incentives for Negative Emissions
Comment:
For the 2013 Update, ARB has chosen six focused sectors: Energy,
Transportation, Agriculture, Water, Waste, and Natural Lands. 
Attention is focused on reducing the source emissions in each
sector. It acknowledges, though, the carbon sequestration functions
of Natural Lands and grazing lands as the sequestrations on these
lands occur as natural phenomena.

The marginal cost of reducing the source emissions will escalate as
we come closer to achieving the AB32 goal. Instead of throwing
money to the diminishing returns, we should redirect some of our
resources to increasing "negative emissions" (i.e., sequestration
or conversion of GHG) so that the NET emission may be reduced to
the goal values without weakening the economy. The current Offsets
system is not aggressive enough for this purpose. 

The Agriculture sector is uniquely fit for innovative "negative
emissions" particularly on croplands. Known examples are biochar
and cover crops. Even just growing plants, as farmers have always
been doing, is already providing a substantial amount of negative
emissions. In order for Agriculture to play a pivotal role in AB32,
farmers need proper incentives.

The first step would be that the ARB refines the techniques of
measuring or estimating the source emissions and negative emissions
in Agriculture. ARB could also develop, in collaboration with the
Farm Bureau and UC, new methods of GHG capturing or conversion, and
help farmers to adopt them.

If a farmer knows how he is faring on his emissions, and also if he
knows all available options for source emission reduction and
negative emission enhancement, he can then make his own best
investment decisions to further reduce his net emission. This is a
much preferred approach than the ARB coming with heavy-handed
mandates on source emissions as if there were no offsetting
negative emissions.

We farmers will continue improving the efficiency of producing food
and fiber and contributing to a healthier environment. Our
contribution to the net reduction of GHG will depend on ARB's
providing us with more comprehensive and accurate scientific data,
and giving us incentives to mobilize our resources for further
reducing the net emissions.

Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2013-08-05 11:12:07



If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.


Board Comments Home

preload