Comment Log Display
Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 78 for Design Comments for the GHG Scoping Plan (sp-design-ws) - 1st Workshop.
First Name: Stephen
Last Name: Asztalos
Email Address: SJAsztalos@lbl.gov
Affiliation:
Subject: Offsets
Comment:
Dear Board members, As a physicist and concerned California resident I am writing to express my opposition the offset methodology proposed in the scoping plan. Offsets were a sensible notion prior to the era of formal regulation of greenhouse gases: regardless of their motivation, individuals or coorporations could choose to compensate for their C02 generation. Scaled up to the level of a populous state, offsets would likely be a nightmare. Near-term history has taught us that efficacy of offsets are difficult to quantify. By virtue of such an indirect mechanism, it is unclear whether the beneficiary of the C02 offset would have proceeded with the project in absence of remuneration or not. There is plenty of indirect evidence that such projects would have proceeded in any event - in such cases the remuneration would have had no effect. It is widely recognized by economists of all ilk that carbon taxes are the most direct way to influence market behavior. In lieu of carbon taxes, a cap and trade mechanism is thought to be a reasonable, though less efficient, alternative. Offsets are a distant third choice as they have the potential for misinterpreation, political corruption. Indeed, the whole notion of offsets is inherently ambiguous. For these reasons, I would advocate that offsets play a minor role in an implementation of AB 32. The quickest and most cost effective way to reduce C02 levels is to send the strongest signal possible to the polluters - offsets do not meet that test. Dr. Stephen Asztalos Oakland, CA
Attachment:
Original File Name:
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-08-01 17:06:23
If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.