Comment Log Display

December 10, 2008

Mary Nichols, Chair
California Air Resources Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

	RE: Comments on Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan

Dear Ms. Nichols and Members of the Board:

I am currently serving as the General Counsel of the Planning and
Conservation League (PCL), and in that capacity I participated in
the passage of AB 32 and have been closely following the
development and review of the proposed Climate Change Scoping Plan
mandated by that historic legislation. PCL has submitted official
comments to your Board on the Proposed Scoping Plan, with which I
agree. This comment, however, is submitted personally, and not on
behalf of PCL. Its purpose is to highlight my concern that the ARB
(on which I briefly served) infuse an increased sense of urgency
into the Scoping Plan. 

Global warming is more than just “inconvenient.” We face a
human-caused challenge to the continued existence of human life as
we know it. Global warming puts the natural environment in great
peril, but our human economic and political institutions are in
even greater danger. While we tend to think of global warming in
“linear” terms, in which we anticipate slowly escalating world
temperatures, the facts are most probably otherwise. Uncontrollable
positive feedback processes can quickly transform world climate in
incredibly adverse ways if we reach certain “tipping points.”
Significant releases of trapped methane, caused by the loss of
permafrost, and the loss of artic ice, opening up new areas of
ocean for heat absorption, can profoundly change global
temperatures, with horribly adverse results. And these changes can
come upon us rapidly, even within a single decade. Dr. James E.
Hansen, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have
been quoted as saying that we must significantly curtail greenhouse
gas emissions by no later than 2016 to avoid a climate
catastrophe.

In view of the enormity of the global warming challenge, we can be
justifiably proud that AB 32 has made a commitment, on behalf of
all Californians, that we will actually roll back the emission of
greenhouse gases in this state. We cannot afford, however, to be
self congratulatory. I am writing to urge the ARB to demonstrate an
increased sense of urgency about the global warming crisis that
confronts our state, nation, and world.

Business as usual is a prescription for disaster. I believe that
if we can do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then we
must do it, and we must act at the earliest possible time. In World
War II, facing a different type of challenge to the continued
existence of human civilization, the  United States made
fundamental changes in its economy in about two years time. We need
to do the same now. We need, in other words, to require ourselves
to take prompt action, not just say it would be a good idea – and
not just hope that “the market,” or “incentives,” will somehow make
it happen.

I have several specific comments on the October 2008 Draft Scoping
Plan:

1.	The Executive Summary in the October 2008 Draft Scoping Plan
ends with this quote from Governor Schwarzenegger: “We owe our
children and we owe our grandchildren. We simply must do everything
in our power to fight global warming before it is too late
(emphasis added).” I urge the ARB to insist that the policies and
programs set forth in the Final Scoping Plan in fact “do
everything” we have the power to do. 

2.	In the “Introduction” to the Draft Scoping Plan, on Page 3, the
ARB notes that it has increased the anticipated greenhouse gas
emission reductions for Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse
Gas Targets from 2 to 5 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent,
compared to the first iteration of the draft plan. This is the
right direction, but it’s not far enough. What we are talking about
here is a commitment to end the sprawling land use patterns which
not only cause global warming, but which also destroy farmlands,
natural resource lands, and undermine the social stability of our
communities. I urge a target of not less than 14 million metric
tons of CO2 equivalent, which studies submitted to the ARB indicate
is an attainable goal.

3.	On Page 18, the ARB identifies the development of a so-called
“cap and trade” program as a “central feature” of the overall
recommendation contained in the Draft Scoping Plan. I believe that
the “central feature” of the Scoping Plan should be achievable
“caps,” not “trading.” A focus on “trading” will likely divert
efforts from the primary goal, which is to require ourselves to
make every possible reduction we can, at the earliest possible
time. The basic problem with a “market” approach to meeting the
global warming challenge is that markets are designed to operate as
every individual attempts to maximize his or her individual best
interest. Global warming is a crisis that confronts us
collectively. We are all in this together. Therefore, if there are
things which can be done to reduce emissions, our AB 32 program
needs to require that they actually be done. A so¬ called “market”
approach suggests that what people ought to do is to search for
some way to get someone else to make reductions, so they don’t have
to. This is not the right message at a time of crisis.

4.	I agree with the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee that
the ARB should implement a three-pronged approach for addressing
greenhouse gases: “(1) adopting standards and regulations; (2)
providing incentives; and (3) putting a price on carbon via a
carbon fee. 

5.	Page 25 of the Draft Scoping Plan suggests that “new power
plants, both fossil fuel fired and renewable generation, will be a
critical part of the state’s electricity mix in coming decades.” To
meet the global warming challenge, we need to stop combusting
fossil fuels. A rule prohibiting “new” fossil fuel burning power
plants, so that new power plants will meet increased energy demand
through renewable generation and conservation, is the kind of
response our state should be making to the crisis that we are
confronting. A provision could be designed to allow the
reconstruction of existing fossil fuel power plants if the
reconstructed plant would result in a significant reduction in
emissions per unit of power produced.

In my experience, which does include a brief stint as a member of
the ARB, one of the great strengths of the Air Resources Board is
its deliberative and professional rulemaking process. That
professional and scientifically-based approach is clearly visible
as the ARB determines how its Climate Change Scoping Plan will be
framed.

I urge the Board, as it adopts the Scoping Plan – and even more
importantly, as it implements the Scoping Plan – not to let its
“deliberative” tradition blind it to the need for dramatic and
effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the earliest
possible time, and to the greatest degree possible. Please, in both
what you write, and what you do, highlight the sense of urgency
that must motivate our efforts. 

We shouldn’t let ourselves off the hook by passing by any feasible
way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We shouldn’t decide that
because we are leading the world in doing something that this is
enough. Again, the ARB should be devising and implementing a plan
that will actually do what Governor Schwarzenegger said:

“We owe our children and we owe our grandchildren. We simply must
do everything in our power to fight global warming before it is too
late.”

Thank you for taking my comments into account.


Yours truly,

 
Gary A. Patton 


cc: PCL