Comment Log Display

June 22, 2012

The Honorable Mary D. Nichols, Chair
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
1001 I Street, P.O. Box 2815 
Sacramento, California 95812

Dear Ms. Mary D. Nichols,

Ensuring public health in the state of California through
cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a top
priority mandated by AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act.  In
addition to the importance of reducing consumption and emissions
through clean energy investments, we write to express our support
for directing a portion of cap-and-trade funds to women's
reproductive health services, one of the most cost-effective means
of meeting this mandate. 

We the cost per ton of carbon emissions reduction is between $2.11
and $7.00 by means of family planning.  We believe these numbers
are compelling.  

Just as California is leading the nation in the CARB initiative, so
too must we lead by directing a portion of these proceeds to
voluntary family planning programs and organizations that are
working to help women avoid pregnancies they do not want, and plan
pregnancies they do want.  We understand and appreciate this
initiative would be breaking new ground, and are pleased to meet
with you or your staff if you think that useful.  We are also
available to be represented at any public hearings, or otherwise
support your important agenda in any way possible.  


Sincerely,
Searle Whitney, President
Institute for Population Studies (IPS)


Enclosures (2)

cc:
Martha Campbell, President, Venture Strategies for Health and
Development
Malcolm Potts, Chair, Bixby Center for Population, Health and
Sustainability, UC Berkeley 


Footnotes:
1. Biggs M. Antonia; Foster, D.; Hulett, D. Cost-Benefit Analysis
of the California Family PACT Program for Calendar Year 2007, San
Francisco, CA.  Submitted to the California Department of Public
Health, Office of Family Planning Division.  Page 16, April 2010. 
http://bixbycenter.ucsf.edu/publications/files/FamilyPACTCost-BenefitAnalysis2007_2010Apr.pdf

2. Actual cost to CA per safe prevention may actually be
significantly lower because expenditures of $437.3 million include
all PACT services, not just family planning services.  Biggs M.
Antonia; Foster, D.; Hulett, D. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the
California Family PACT Program for Calendar Year 2007, San
Francisco, CA.  Submitted to the California Department of Public
Health, Office of Family Planning Division.  Page 15, April 2010. 
http://bixbycenter.ucsf.edu/publications/files/FamilyPACTCost-BenefitAnalysis2007_2010Apr.pdf


3. The World Bank: CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita).  June 2,
2012.   http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

4. Potts, Malcolm; Marsh, Leah.  The Population Factor: How does it
relate to climate change? Bixby Center for Population, Health and
Sustainability at University of California, Berkeley. February
2010.

5. Wire, Thomas. Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost. 
London School of Economics & Population Matters. August 2009.
http://populationmatters.org/documents/reducing_emissions.pdf?phpMyAdmin=e11b8b687c20198d9ad050fbb1aa7f2f

6. Murtaugh, Paul A.; Schlax, Michael G. Reproduction and the
carbon legacies of individuals, Department of Statistics, Oregon
State University, Corvallis; College of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 2009.

7. Facts on Unintended Pregnancy in the United States. The
Guttmacher Institute, January 2012. 
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html#6 

8. Frost, Jennifer J., DrPH; Finer, Lawrence B., PhD; Tapales,
Athena, PhD.  Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved,
The Impact of Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinic Services on
Unintended Pregnancies and Government Cost Savings. 2008.
http://www.guttmacher.info/pubs/09_HPU19.3Frost.pdf 

Original File Name: Cap-and-Trade Investment in Family Planning_Institute for Population Studies.pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2012-06-22 16:35:35