Comment Log Display

I see a choice presented as between Cap and Trade OR a Carbon Tax. 
I have favored a carbon tax for some years, but a more direct
immediate answer to the problem of California's carbon emissions
(and other greenhouse gas emissions, is to directly reduce
emissions at the source of pollution.  I urge you to reject the
false climate solutions of cap and trade and a carbon tax in favor
of direct source reductions, i.e., emission reductions made
directly at the source of pollution. I agree with the idea that we
should forego market solutions for reducing our global warming
emissions.  It is my observation as a citizen watching the ARB try
to regulate our emissions that cap and trade has not worked. We
must give up this attempt.

The ARB has catalogued all the sources of emissions, now, though
there is some question still about how to get soil to absorb carbon
dioxide instead of giving it off.  I am very gratified to note the
thorough manner in which the cataloguing of carbon emissions
sources has been accomplished.  Good job!  Now set up regulations
for each of the types of point sources.  I understand from an
article on KQED that small diesel or gasoline engines (leaf
blowers, etc) will be the biggest source of global warming
emissions by 2020.  Regulating these point sources will mean giving
up these small engines, and switching to electricity driven
equipment.  This will hit a lot of hard-working people hard, but
they must switch to electric (corded or battery driven) equipment
for taking care of people's yards.  Other off-road point sources of
diesel pollution must all be curbed. 

A 2016 report found that industrial facilities are more often
located in low-income communities and communities of color, and
that many of these industrial polluters (which are covered by the
cap-and-trade market) have had increases, not decreases, in
localized greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, carbon cap and
trade has not been successful in achieving significant and rapid
emission reductions anywhere it has been implemented.

Similarly, a carbon tax has not been proven as an effective means
to reduce emissions. British Columbia's carbon tax actually saw an
increase in taxed emissions of 4.3 percent from 2009 to 2014. Given
the immediate threat we now face, we do not have time to "wait and
see" if a carbon tax will work a decade from now. Rapid,
significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are needed now.

Only by adhering to the legislature's mandate for "direct source"
reduction approaches and by forgoing market "solutions" will
California achieve the significant and swift emission reductions
our planet needs. This can be achieved if ARB adopts the
"Alternative 1: No Cap-and-trade" scenario of its scoping plan.

Please enact meaningful protections for our climate through direct
source reductions, rather than market schemes like cap and trade.

Sincerely,

Martha Booz
El Sobrante, CA 94803-3118
mlbooz@calnatives.com