Comment Log Display

• The Plan's Agriculture Section (p. 35) is disappointing.  Its
expectations for carbon reduction in agriculture are low.  The
Plan foresees, for example, only one potential ton of reduction
from methane captpure at large dairies.
• Many studies by California scientists and others throughout the
world have shown how organically grown crops have significantly
lowered GHG emissions, from non-use of nitrate fertilizers and
other means.  
• Studies have shown significant methane emissions from bovine
digestion, which raises the question of whether the Plan should
stipulate a carbon tax to be applied to cow products, such as beef
and milk.  CARB is urged to consider this option. 
•  The Plan should support for urban agriculture, especially
community gardens, as a means of carbon reduction through
localization of food production. 
•  In line with the Department of Conservation’s study of
greenhouse gas emissions associated with conversion of
agricultural land to urban uses, both direct and indirect
emissions should be considered.  
• Promoting more compact, efficient, transit-oriented urban
development will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
vehicle travel but also conserve agricultural land by minimizing
conversion to urban use.
• The Plan should reference and encourage CDFA’s development of a
strategic plan for agriculture.  Efforts to minimize conversion of
prime farmland will be helped if agricultural enterprises now on
the land maintain profitability and sustainability.
• The Plan should emphasize that linking good land use with local
food systems can reduce transportation-related emissions, provide
a premium for farmers selling locally, and even improve access to
healthier foods.
• State and local governments could increase access to local
foods, for example, by direct investments, incentives and
public-private partnerships to develop needed local foods system
infrastructure.
•  Locally produced food consumed in the state could be increased
by concerted action, thus reducing more emissions from
transportation.  Department of Food & Agriculture, with CARB,
could track and measure “food miles traveled” and seek ways to cut
distances from food to producer. Cutting down on transport of
agricultural products from agriculture areas to other parts of the
state would cut GHG, which means emphasis on urban agriculture.
• The Plan should address turban agricultural issues, such as a)
what funding can the state supply to assist municipalities in
supporting urban agriculture: b)  What focus can CARB bring on
removing barriers to urban agriculture, such as finding useable
land for community gardens, inventories of such land, testing for
toxicity, outreach to potential urban gardeners, recasting city
regulations in favor of urban orchards, edible landscaping, local
composting, rooftop gardens; more UC Master Gardener training and
technical assistance?  c)  Could CARB facilitate funding of local
offices in each municipality to inventory potentially available
state-owned lands and mobilize local community gardeners and
organizers?
•  The Plan needs to highlight the greenhouse bas reduction
benefits of organic agriculture. See The California Energy
Commission's Climate Change Research Conference Sacramento,
September 10-13, 2007 had five presentations:  
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/events/2007_conference/presentations/index.html
• Data from The Rodale Institute’s® long-running comparison of
organic and conventional cropping systems confirms that organic
methods are far more effective at removing the greenhouse gas,
carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere and fixing it as beneficial
organic matter in the soil.  See Laura Sayre, 2003 
http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml
-- Another study confirmed ecological virtues of organic farming
www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/12/4522.pdf
http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2006/pr-organics-030806.html