In all honesty I didn't write any of this, I submitted my own
comment and then started to read through others. But I read through
this one that made me so irritated because I had thought that it
was a great climate plan until this enlightened me. So I agree with
everythint this comment from James Wang said:
Thank you for recognizing the dire state of our climate
and including apparent urgency with your sections in your
boldly entitled Imperative to Act and
Consequences to Further Warming.
Unfortunately, your choice of Alt 3 as the Proposed Scenario
disappointing at best. Even your report ranks Alt 3 as
"mid low" in its climate mitigation (Table 2-1). We have
and procrastinated on climate action for so long that a "mid
proposition is NOT adequate.
Alt 3 does next to nothing about reducing fossil fuel
consumption until 2035, and then it expects a rapid "catchup"
cut to zero consumption by 2045. This is a good example of
"kicking the can down the road" so it's someone else's
problem. We not only have to be more responsible,
we must be much, much, more
Alt 1 is your most ambitious proposal, but since we are out
time, even Alt 1 is barely adequate. But you rejected Alt 1
of its "high cost". What's the cost of delaying action?
already delayed action so long that we have not just a
problem, but a climate crisis.
Furthermore, most of the high cost of Alt 1 is increasing
urban forest. The urban forest has many co-benefits which were
deducted from Alt 1's "high cost". Similarly, Alt 1's rapid
of building electrification also brings many co-benefits
safety, cost) which are not taken into account.
By using Alt 3 to further delay meaningful action, we will
accentuating our climate costs.
Please reject Alt 3 in favor of Alt