Dear CARB Board,
I am very concerned and frankly dismayed by many key points in
the draft CARB Climate Scoping Plan. For example, the GHG emission
reduction targets for various sectors appear to be arrived at in a
disingenuous manner. It is misleading - intentionally or not - and
dangerous to calculate estimates backwards starting from the 2045
targets and make the numbers work via tweaking the assumptions
without evidence of validity. For example, the VMT reduction
assumptions are arguably so aggressive as to be unachievable. The
correct approach, I believe, is to start from reasonable
assumptions re: VMT reductions, ZEV adoption trajectory, power grid
conversion to solar/wind etc. Next one logically makes incremental
estimates of GHG/carbon emission reductions achieved at milestone
years, then examining any gap that exists at the 2045 target.
I attended and offered public opinion at the CC II Hearing on
June 9, and had the sense that you, as CARB Board members, were
being conscientious in entertaining input from all stakeholders. It
seems you want to do the right thing, ethically and practically -
because this is as much an economic decision as an
ecological/biodiversity/livable climate decision. For instance, if
our Central Valley crops are decimated by drought, and our heat
waves are more and more frequent and of longer duration (placing
ever increasing demands on the legacy power grid), then the state
economy stands to suffer significant, preventable harm - along with
its residents.
In closing, I volunteer for 350 Bay Area - and am aware that
several of 350's leaders have prepared a CARB Scoping Plan
comment/analysis. I urge you to read it carefully and consider the
validity of the arguments posited.
Sincerely,
Nick Ratto, Pharm.D.
1108 Court St Alameda CA
|