My name is Greg Spooner, and
I’m an organizer with Extinction Rebellion and Scientist
All 4 scenarios of the scoping
plan rely on CO2 removal (or “CDR”). CARB’s
emphasis on CDR is worrisome. Alternative 3 relies on a CDR
of ~80 MtCo2e/year in 2045, and only reduces emissions by 80%
(while Alternative #1 reduces emissions by more than 90%).
The technologies to achieve this
much CDR include: BECCS, DAC and CCS. Let’s consider
The best DAC “success
story” is the Orca facility in Iceland. It managed to
capture 4000 tons per year in a demonstration. Alternative 3
would require us to achieve 20,000 times as much.
The largest BECCS “success
story” is an ADM plant in Illinois that captured ~0.5 million
tons/year. We would need 160 times this to reach Alternative
3 CDR requirements. As environmental researchers at Lancaster
University have written, BECCS is “a largely imaginary
technology with poorly understood impacts and resource
CCS, on the other hand, HAS been
successfully demonstrated. But even the best examples achieve
only 1 MtCo2e/year. CCS also uses tremendous amounts of
water, with the best water use being a few hundred gallons per
ton. I estimate we would need the equivalent of 20% of a Lake
Hetch Hetchy every year, and likely a lot more.
Is it wise for our plan to rely
on energy, water, and land resource intensive technologies still in
their infancy? Please consider scenarios like
Alternative #1 that more aggressively reduce GHGs.
Finally, the Supreme Court
stands ready to gut EPA’s ability to regulate GHS.
California MUST lead on climate. Reducing emissions rather
than relying on risky CDR technologies is our chance to do so.