Comment Log Display

General:

1. To get the public on board with both the increase in government
bureaucracy and the additional fees and taxes necessitated by the
multifaceted task of reducing GHG, the public has to know through
transparency of allocation that all funds collected will be
applied to these programs. If there was ever a case for a lock
box, this is it. 

2. I entirely oppose cap and trade program. Direct taxation is
much easier to implement, gives returns in the short-term, is
transparent, understandable to the public, not susceptible to
market manipulation or phony offsets, and returns the funds
directly for GHG reduction programs. Cap and trade is complicated,
long-term and siphons off funds to market manipulators. It has
already been proven to fail at reducing GHG. We cannot afford to
trust this historic opportunity to reconfigure our economy to this
failed strategy.

3. As a general principle, the Draft Scoping Plan should include
suggestions on steps that should be taken now in order to
facilitate GHG reductions that will be quantified in future
editions. Funding is necessary in anticipation of results that
will only appear later.

Agriculture: 

1. Organically grown crops have significantly lower GHG emissions
than conventionally grown crops, from non-use of nitrate
fertilizers, the sequestration of carbon in the soil and other
means. But converting a significant percentage of California farms
to organic production takes time, as farmers experiment with new
methods and possibly new crops, and in my opinion is a medium-term
goal. Conversion requires technical assistance to farmers,
additional inspection, and most importantly, marketing
assistance.

Will the new (organic) production will be marketed as organic, or
not? If it is, Public Outreach should design a marketing campaign
“Buy California organic: it’s the new standard.” Even direct
payments to farmers during the transition period may not be enough
to keep them organic if customers are confused by finding more
organic (and more expensive) and fewer conventional crops in their
stores. Customers in that case may choose cheaper imported
conventional crops.

The trend elsewhere to relocalizing produce production in urban
areas (to save transportation-related GHG) will decrease the
market for long-distance shipment of conventionally grown
California produce, and give California farmers an additional
incentive to try organic farming if the products can be sold at a
higher price in California.

Funding should be mentioned in the Draft Scoping Plan now to
assist farmers in converting to organic, to increase organic
agriculture training at state universities, to offer agricultural
training as vocational education at all California high schools,
and to encourage new farmers to start organic farms in urban and
suburban areas. 

2.  Locally produced flowers. Cut flowers are mostly imported into
the US by airplane, and in-state production may represent a small
GHG reduction opportunity. 

3. Hemp. Hemp or kenaf grown in California for paper can replace
timber cut for paper in Washington and Oregon. Can this kind of
regional shifting be included?

4. Regarding the Sierra Club’s suggestion of a carbon tax on
bovine food products because of  significant methane emissions
from bovine digestion, I’d like to support it but  I think people
will resent it. Subsidized food, especially animal products, is
one of Americans’ most cherished privileges, available to poor and
rich alike. This tax has to be applied on the federal level for
broad acceptance.