We must shoot for 80% emissions reduction by 2030. Prof. Daniel Kammen,
former coordinating author of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and Professor of Sustainability at UC Berkeley, set
out a scientifically backed and feasible program for California in
2021. (here https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.07801?context=eess.SY)
I remember seeing the US government put a man on the
moon. We can do this.
The current scoping plan is only going to make things worse. I
am sitting here in the midst of the third bout of 100-degree
weather of the year in a drought so extreme I can barely keep my
vegetable garden going. Who knows how much damage the season's
forest fires are doing.
Supposedly the plan is supposed to be easy on the economy, but
our economy depends on our environment: on sufficient water, on a
climate that doesn't desperately stress our crops, on forests that
don't spew deadly air pollution into the skies. Furthermore, it
props up an industry that is already dying.
Waiting does not make this easier. More greenhouse gas emissions
and a worsening environment means more stringent measures must be
taken while we have more catastrophes to react to.
The emphasis on CCS and DAC is troubling. DAC in particular is
unproven and has a number of deleterious effects. While we must
have CCS, we must also simply reduce emissions first and foremost
so we have less CCS to accomplish.
The fossil fuel industry is incredibly polluting. In 2021 The
Lancet estimated that we could save all of the costs of energy
transition simply by avoiding deaths from air pollution
(here: https://www.lancetcountdownus.org/2021-lancet-countdown-us-brief/). The
people who die are disproportionately Black and people of color. Do
we really want to keep the fossil fuel industry in a position to
profit from people's deaths?
I desperately want my grandchildren to be able to have decent
lives. In 2045 they will be 37 and 32. What kind of world will they
be raising their children in if we do not act now?