In lieu of a comprehensive critique of the draft Scoping
Plan--I know you've read hundreds of them--I would like to advocate
for strategies to help the state achieve its 2030 emissions
reduction goal, which I believe is much more pressing than the goal
of carbon neutrality by 2045.
Considering that a significant overestimation of the
sequestration capacity of California's land use practices has
gravely compromised the targets of the Scoping Plan, it's essential
to reform those practices. Surely California can put its natural
resources to better use by enhancing sequestration. Though using
the offset market for incentives to preserve forest makes
theoretical sense, the actual practice hasn't been an efficient or
effective approach--partially because of fraud and partially
because of the prevalence of wildfire. How to achieve sequestration
despite wildfire is crucial. Many foresters now agree that
prescription burning and other fuels reduction measures are
misguided in many instances. Cal Fire could save a lot of money and
actually reduce emissions by managing wildfires to protect
communities instead of ineffectively burning the woods first or
logging them.
Much of the acreage consumed by fire still sequesters a lot
of carbon. Instead of acting as if all those trees are wasted wood
if someone doesn't cut them down, post-fire logging should be
limited and carefully focused. The disaster of wildfire heals
faster than that of opportunistic logging.
A
related issue is that of biomass electricity. Why burn wood
deliberately? Incinerating wood emits carbon much more efficiently
than a wildfire. It also emits SLCPs such as black carbon and
methane, not to mention other air pollutants, yet California
perversely subsidizes this practice by designating biomass
incineration as "carbon neutral". The justification for this
designation expired a few decades ago. Our local utility here in
Humboldt county receives valuable points from the state for
purchasing electricity from an antiquated biomass facility. Its
owner, a local sawmill, has zero incentive to do something less
carbon-intensive with its wood waste. Emerging technologies, such
as gasification or nano-cellulose, don't have a chance because it's
much easier to treat the atmosphere as a disposal ground.
Composting, a tried and true method, is also too much trouble,
according to the mentality of business as usual.
Thanks to the official designation of biomass as carbon
neutral, forests are clear-cut in many places, chipped, and shipped
to boilers all over the world to replace coal. California's
endorsement of this practice contributes to a major, tragic step in
the opposite direction of where we urgently need to go.
California has already recognized the crucial importance of
short lived climate pollutants with its passage of SB 1383, but
that law has weak points. Effectively reducing SLCPs seems
essential to fulfill SB 32 and to limit catastrophic climate
change. The SLCP in biggest need of more attention is
hydrofluorocarbon, a chemical company creation that traps an
astronomic amount of heat in the atmosphere--up to two thousand
times more than carbon. SB 1206, a bill currently under
consideration, has been watered down so much by the legislature
that it hardly surpasses the federal Aim Act, which is woefully
inadequate.
To drastically summarize what my colleagues at 350 Humboldt
have said in their comment on the Scoping Plan, the SB 1383 target
of reducing HFCs forty percent below 2014 levels will not make
nearly enough difference. A variety of vigorous, strategic measures
are necessary to get this situation under control in a world that
is warming and turning increasingly to coolants.
These are the three primary threats. End of life disposal
treatment for appliances that contain HFCs. Supermarket and grocery
store refrigeration that is legally permitted to leak up to 25% of
its refrigerant load every year. The proliferation of air
conditioning and heat pumps, which leak less than commercial
refrigeration but still pose a big problem just in terms of their
sheer growing numbers.
1) California should educate and license an army of
technicians to fan out around the world to recover HFCs from dead
appliances. The use of offset credits might aid in this effort. The
F-gas offsets comply more clearly to the necessary criteria to
count and document the prevented emissions.
2) Financial incentives are needed to help grocery stores
transition to low GWP refrigerants. The chemical companies'
anointed HFOs are probably useful--especially if they're drop-ins
or don't require extensive retrofitting of existing equipment--as a
bridge to the natural refrigerants, which are ultimately much
cheaper after the upfront cost of new equipment. The European Union
and Japan have been successfully marketing equipment that uses
natural refrigerants--propane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide--and can
serve as a useful model for US markets. Underwriters Laboratory
codes for regulatory compliance must be reformed and building codes
as well.
3) Air conditioners and heat pumps require concerted
attention--from the manner of their disposal to their replacement
by equipment that uses natural refrigerants. New air conditioners
that use propane are already widely in use in different parts of
the world. Heat pumps that use carbon dioxide have also been
invented but are very expensive right now. That situation will
change more quickly if the manufacturers get the proper nudge from
government.
Thank you for reading my thoughts about California's crucial
course for the next five years. I do take some hope from the
knowledge that I'm not alone in my opinions. Of course, I don't
have to read all of them like you do!
Martha Walden
Editor of 350 Humboldt LookOut