Thank you for recognizing the dire state of our climate crisis
and including apparent urgency with your sections in your report
boldly entitled Imperative to Act and
Consequences to Further Warming.
Unfortunately, your choice of Alt 3 as the Proposed Scenario is
disappointing at best. Even your report ranks Alt 3 as
"mid low" in its climate mitigation (Table 2-1). We have delayed
and procrastinated on climate action for so long that a "mid low"
proposition is NOT adequate.
Alt 3 does next to nothing about reducing fossil fuel
consumption until 2035, and then it expects a rapid "catchup" to
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 of
time, even Alt 1 is barely adequate. But you rejected Alt 1 because
of its "high cost". What's the cost of delaying action? We've
already delayed action so long that we have not just a climate
problem, but a climate crisis.
Furthermore, most of the high cost of Alt 1 is increasing the
urban forest. The urban forest has many co-benefits which were not
deducted from Alt 1's "high cost". Similarly, Alt 1's rapid rollout
of building electrification also brings many co-benefits (health,
safety, cost) which are not taken into account.
By using Alt 3 to further delay meaningful action, we will be
accentuating our climate costs.
Please reject Alt 3 in favor of Alt