Comment Log Display

Comment Log Display

Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 276 for General Comments for the GHG Scoping Plan (sp-general-ws) - 1st Workshop.


First Name: Sandra
Last Name: Skolnik
Email Address: skolniks@pacbell.net
Affiliation:

Subject: Not far enough
Comment:
When is enough enough?  Business comes first and the heck with
people?  While each sector of our society has its own best
interests in mind, the issue is the well being and health of all
of its citizens as well as the environment we live in.  

The climate issues and global repercussions are serious and have
been confirmed by experts in the fields, as well as manifested in
our environment - it is not up to business persons to claim
whether there is or is not global warming, and it is not up to the
state to constantly appease business.  It would seem that we need
to be more aggressive in the steps and timetable it will take to
reduce human affects on the environhment.  While we are projecting
out 12-42 years, the environment continues to deteriorate -
compounding the problem.  The environment waits for noone -
government, lawyers or business.


The plan needs to be strengthened and expanded.  Polluters should
pay - it is not a 'right' to do business in California - it should
be considered a privilege.  Businesses that practice good social
and environmental practices should be rewarded and those that
don't should be penalized.  I agree that California workers should
be trained in new technologies.  Polluting companies that use the
argument that they will create new jobs to justify continue
unneeded development and tax breaks is a manipulative trick - who
are new jobs being created for?  Californianans?  Or will it
create the need to import more workers, develop more precious land
and create continuing overpopulation which will compound the
problems we already have?

Maximum tax credits should be given to energy efficient research
and consumer purchases, including cars, appliances.  The oil
industry should not receive public welfare, while alternative
energy research goes begging for money.

Finally, I do not see provisions for preservation and protection
of natural resources and wildlife that depends on them.  How will
this plan address the need for financial support of our parks and
natural resources?

Thank you.  




Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-08-10 14:21:08



If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.


Board Comments Home

preload