Comment Log Display

Greeting Board,

I had been watching public comments for LCBA over two hours and I
noticed a few things.  First, I haven't seen a commenter that will
be concerned about life without dairy or the economic impact on the
California resident for these programs.  We know if passed it will
raise gas prices at least 0.47 / per gallon.  Not acceptable.  On
this day November 8, 2024, I did hear some inland commenters have a
concern with pollution.  Now, pollution is one that has minimal
debate from either side, we want less.  I happened to be on leave
from work today, but nobody seems to represent my concerns or my
community.  Really, wouldn't you wonder why so many working people
didn't get to go to public comments much or most of the commenters
are MAKING MONEY from LCFS.  Person after person is making money
from what was called an "important climate issue" today.  That
should concern you.  This state is not prepared for an all electric
cars.  But, could be worked on together with input from regular
people whether or not they believe in climate change or not and
want less pollution and clean air.  Companies like Ford scrapped
their percentage electric car production, they will make less. 
That should be a concern, but didn't hear that today.  We just had
a Presidential Election where inflation and cost of living was the
number one issue.  Was Climate Change number 2?  No, Immigration
was number 2.  The President Elect gained in almost EVERY county in
America, saying we need to make America more affordable.  

So I am hoping you figure out a way forward WITHOUT financially
burdening the California Resident with higher gas prices and
removing their/our freedoms.  It is not acceptable to raise the
costs of California refineries while we try to find ways to have an
agreement.  

Okay, lets take a look at this:  

Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting
Business, Including Ability to Compete (Gov. Code, §§ 11346.3,
subd. (a), 11346.5, subd. (a)(7), 11346.5, subd. (a)(8)):

"The Executive Officer has made an initial determination that the
proposed regulatory action would not have a significant statewide
adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses,
including the ability of California businesses to compete with
businesses in other states, or on representative private
persons..."

Well, this just isn't true, mathematics and economics would reveal
that if the price of gasoline goes up - everything goes up.  Right
off the bat if transportation costs rise there is an economic
impact.  

Let's move on to this: 

Your listed objectives and benefits.  

Your stated objective. 

· Increasing the stringency of the program to more aggressively
decarbonize fuels and thereby reduce our dependence on fossil
fuels;  

We don't need stringency to accomplish reducing dependence on
fossil fuels.  For example, I would be open to having an electric
car.  In fact, I sought out a hybrid truck.  The cost for those
cars is very expensive, there are not enough charging locations. 
Most importantly, the owner needs to plug that car in for a charge.
 What is the source of the electricity?  Mainly fossil fuels and it
will be for a long time.  

· Strengthening the program's equity provisions to promote
investment in disadvantaged, low-income and rural communities;

What is this equity crap?  I did hear inland folks with a pollution
concern, and I get that.  The other side of the LEGITIMATE coin is
making regular people that want to go to work, raise their kids,
maybe have some fun here and there not be able to do so.  Do you
want to turn more Californians into disadvantaged low-income people
that are just trying to get by?  Let's say I can financially handle
it.  Can the low-income people handle it?  


· Supporting electric and hydrogen truck refueling;

Sure, like I mentioned, multiple things can be done at once to
foster a working together atmosphere.  But, if you are burying
people because they have gas powered cars and do NOT have the money
to buy another more expensive car quicker than they can afford to
do, that will have adverse effects.  


· Incentivizing more production of clean fuels needed in the
future, such as low-carbon hydrogen;

I noticed you don't speak about nuclear power?  Why not, I live
near a recently shut down nuclear power plant.   What a mess up
that was shutting it down.  To do SOME of the things you want done
would require...that is right doing more than one thing at
once...explore nuclear power and the mini versions of it. 
Additionally, why do WE have to pay for this, if it is a great idea
all around, then the private sector would jump on it with less
bureaucracy, fraud, waste, abuse with "programs" or "contracts". 
But, certainly, explore low-carbon hydrogen.  


· Supporting methane emissions reductions and deploying biomethane
for best uses across transportation; and
· Strengthening guardrails on crop-based fuels to prevent
deforestation or other potential adverse impacts.

Board Members and folks, these two need to be explored much further
scientifically.   For example, if one was to even believe in
methane emissions then farmers would be exploring in different
types of feed and I could learn EVERYTHING about it.  Fact is I
can't, because it is a giant unknown.  One study stated that
methane is 80 times more more potent at warming than carbon
dioxide.  Well, then why worry about carbon dioxide then?  There is
no direct scientific link with methane, but are seeking people
change their diets to processed plant food?  Again taking away our
freedoms.   

How come wildfires are not included in the carbons studies?  

Sadly, the longer this comment section went on, the more I/we heard
this comments section the more I/we heard this large LCBA
Industrial Complex.  Look, I've said myself and many others want
good air.  But what really needs to be done is working together on
many of these matters without burdening the working Californian and
bringing in another wave of massive inflation.