Comment Log Display

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed guidelines
for investment of Cap-and-Trade auction revenue as it relates to
the determination of disadvantaged communities and urban forestry
funding. In its present iteration, the guidelines for determination
are significantly limited, as they seem to address economic status
without equally relevant consideration for levels of GHG emissions
and environmental hazard criteria; especially when considering
California’s children. 

Our children have no say in the socio-economic status or
‘community’ that they are born into – yet they will be the ones
most greatly impacted if we do not take measures now to ensure a
sustainable future. The economic status of a child’s parent should
not determine what efforts the State makes to mitigate
environmental hazards to our children; rather we feel that the
focus should be placed on communities with high levels of these
hazards, projects which will have the greatest overall impact in
reducing GHGs, and projects with the greatest likelihood for
long-term success.

While the present guidelines attempt to identify “disadvantaged
communities” by a few relevant but limited factors, I propose that
all of California’s youth are collectively a “disadvantaged
community” by virtue of the environment that they are born into –
which is becoming increasingly hazardous. It is therefore
imperative that focus be placed on areas which have high levels of
vehicular traffic within close proximity to schools; areas which
have high levels of airborn and other environmental hazards, and
areas where schools are in close proximity to oil refineries;
regardless of a community's residents' economic status.

In addition to the consideration of our children’s future and the
health risks that they face, the presently proposed determination
method for DACs also fails to address communities where commuting
is prevalent. In California, in this day and age, few citizens are
fortunate enough to live and work in the same community. Therefore,
areas with high levels of pollution expose its workforce to these
environmental toxins, yet may not be regarded as ‘disadvantaged’
due to the fact that most working adults travel more than ˝ mile to
and from work.

It is for these reasons that I urge you to reconsider the
methodology of determining a DAC and how the grant funds for urban
forestry will be allocated.


As AB 32 and SB 535 seek to reduce GHGs, address climate change and
provide for a sustainable future; it is critical that the above
mentioned factors be considered when reviewing the criteria for how
grants will be awarded. We must act now to protect our children
from an increasingly dangerous environment. Urban forestry
development gives us an unparalleled opportunity to mitigate
today’s ever-present health hazards while also building community,
fostering environmental stewardship, and creating an overall safer
environment for all of California’s children. By placing a heavy
emphasis on projects that will have the greatest impact on GHG
reductions, the funding will surely benefit all communities
regardless of socio-economic status and most successfully fulfill
the goals of AB32 and SB535.

Sincerely,

Tina Marchetti
Executive Director
Benicia Tree Foundation