Comment Log Display
Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 23 for 2022 Scoping Plan Update - Scenario Inputs Technical Workshop (sp22-inputs-ws) - 1st Workshop.
First Name: Martha
Last Name: Walden
Email Address: marthawalden@suddenlink.net
Affiliation:
Subject: 2022 scoping plan update
Comment:
Thank you for this opportunity. I want to limit my comments to those categories I feel most informed about. In general I would like to encourage the sooner the better for all categories. The urgency is unequivocal. I don't quite understand why Alternatives 3 and 4 are even on the table. Oil and gas extraction: Alternative 1. Target the dirtiest fuels for the most immediate and severest cuts. Phase out natural gas the most gradually under condition of extremely heightened vigilance towards orphan wells and fugitive methane emissions. Drillers and frackers have absolutely no excuse for methane pollution. Electricity generation: Alternative 1. As for Alternative 2, biomass should have no place on the RPS. Burning it emits as much carbon as coal, plus it's very bad for the air. "Low carbon" fuels: Alternative 1. Low carbon fuels are fuels of last resort and hopefully will not be needed after 2035. Biomass is not a low carbon fuel. In only very specific and small-scale applications is it appropriate and only in conjunction with pyrolosis and perhaps bio-energy carbon capture and sequestration. Hydrogen production seems to hold much promise but makes sense only when produced by solar or wind energy. Non-combustion methane production: Alternative 2 modified to include a large increase in funding for AMMP.. Ultimately the number of cattle in the world must be reduced drastically, especially CAFOs. But in the meantime there is no realistic alternative to digesters for all large farms and large landfills. Also, oil and gas fugitive emissions should be reduced at least 75% by 2030. They have the capacity to do that. Only the political will is missing. High GWP emissions: None of the alternatives reflect the urgency of the situation and the availability of low GWP refrigerants. The existing bank of HFCs in California equals 60% of its annual GHG emissions. Phasing them out will be a huge challenge that can't be handled by the private sector--especially supermarkets, which are the worse offenders when it comes to leakage. A big increase in incentives will be necessary. Drop-in HFOs could be a big help, but the natural refrigerants should be the goal. We also need more programs for rural areas assuring that appliances are treated correctly at end of life. Someone should also look into the way Underwriters' Laboratory is staffed almost entirely by chemical industry representatives. Their codes are unnecessarily hindering adoption of natural alternatives to HFCs. CARB should increase the reduction goal to 85% by 2030. I believe we must set 2035 as the goal for carbon neutrality. Everything points to a catastrophe already well on the way, but if we do everything in our power for the next fourteen years, we may yet have a chance. Thank you. Martha Walden Environmental Journalist
Attachment:
Original File Name:
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2021-10-20 20:05:44
If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.