Comment Log Display
Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 5 for Agriculture Comments for the GHG Scoping Plan (sp-agriculture-ws) - 1st Workshop.
First Name: Danila
Last Name: Oder
Email Address: doder@usc.edu
Affiliation:
Subject: General comments and Agriculture
Comment:
General: 1. To get the public on board with both the increase in government bureaucracy and the additional fees and taxes necessitated by the multifaceted task of reducing GHG, the public has to know through transparency of allocation that all funds collected will be applied to these programs. If there was ever a case for a lock box, this is it. 2. I entirely oppose cap and trade program. Direct taxation is much easier to implement, gives returns in the short-term, is transparent, understandable to the public, not susceptible to market manipulation or phony offsets, and returns the funds directly for GHG reduction programs. Cap and trade is complicated, long-term and siphons off funds to market manipulators. It has already been proven to fail at reducing GHG. We cannot afford to trust this historic opportunity to reconfigure our economy to this failed strategy. 3. As a general principle, the Draft Scoping Plan should include suggestions on steps that should be taken now in order to facilitate GHG reductions that will be quantified in future editions. Funding is necessary in anticipation of results that will only appear later. Agriculture: 1. Organically grown crops have significantly lower GHG emissions than conventionally grown crops, from non-use of nitrate fertilizers, the sequestration of carbon in the soil and other means. But converting a significant percentage of California farms to organic production takes time, as farmers experiment with new methods and possibly new crops, and in my opinion is a medium-term goal. Conversion requires technical assistance to farmers, additional inspection, and most importantly, marketing assistance. Will the new (organic) production will be marketed as organic, or not? If it is, Public Outreach should design a marketing campaign “Buy California organic: it’s the new standard.” Even direct payments to farmers during the transition period may not be enough to keep them organic if customers are confused by finding more organic (and more expensive) and fewer conventional crops in their stores. Customers in that case may choose cheaper imported conventional crops. The trend elsewhere to relocalizing produce production in urban areas (to save transportation-related GHG) will decrease the market for long-distance shipment of conventionally grown California produce, and give California farmers an additional incentive to try organic farming if the products can be sold at a higher price in California. Funding should be mentioned in the Draft Scoping Plan now to assist farmers in converting to organic, to increase organic agriculture training at state universities, to offer agricultural training as vocational education at all California high schools, and to encourage new farmers to start organic farms in urban and suburban areas. 2. Locally produced flowers. Cut flowers are mostly imported into the US by airplane, and in-state production may represent a small GHG reduction opportunity. 3. Hemp. Hemp or kenaf grown in California for paper can replace timber cut for paper in Washington and Oregon. Can this kind of regional shifting be included? 4. Regarding the Sierra Club’s suggestion of a carbon tax on bovine food products because of significant methane emissions from bovine digestion, I’d like to support it but I think people will resent it. Subsidized food, especially animal products, is one of Americans’ most cherished privileges, available to poor and rich alike. This tax has to be applied on the federal level for broad acceptance.
Attachment:
Original File Name:
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-07-17 13:39:46
If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.