 |
2008 CLIMATE ACTION TEAM (CAT)
|
Climate CommentsSeptember 2008
2008 Climate comments:
Share your comments on Washington's efforts to address climate change.
Carbon EmissionsMy name is George H. Valdez; I live in Richland Washington, and I have been in contact with Senator Jerome Delvin concerning our climate future in regards to Washington State Climate Change. It is my understanding that some severe measures have been taken in the past, and other measures even more severe could likely come about in the future to try to encourage lower carbon emissions by individual users. Many of the Bills introduced to help alleviate the problem of carbon emissions, in my opinion, did not go far enough. For instance they were primarily designed for the individual automobile user and never took into account the many Diesel Trucks, Airplanes, Mass Transit vehicles that add a great burden on the carbon emission in our state. I believe that we as an individual, a city, a county and a state do need to do, and sacrifice to help with reducing greenhouse gas emissions thereby helping us to become less dependant on foreign oil and to help our growing climate problem, however I take offense that we as individuals will be the only ones required to make changes. The "Department of Ecology" website for "Climate Change" spells it out in the 4th bullet under "State Government"
While the article even mentions that 45% of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by transportation including automobiles, planes, trains and ships, it only "Requires" cars, light trucks, and medium -duty passenger vehicles (SUV's and passenger vans). Also, no where in this statement does it reference Diesel Truck shipping. You know, the big ones that carry our groceries, our auto parts, our everyday commodities from the warehouses to the shelves. The big rigs that burn diesel like nothing else on the roads. The big rigs that haul up to three trailers. My guess is if we knew how many of these trucks are on the road we could probably say they contribute at least half of the greenhouse gas emissions yet they will not be required to participate. Why is that? Why shouldn't they also be on the hook to help save our climate? Once again, it's the big political donors (shipping companies) who need to keep their profit down, so they can't be saddled with the rising cost of emission control on their vehicles, or to replace their fleet of trucks because that would dramatically cut into their profits. At who's expense? Once again, the taxpayers of Washington. The bulleted item does reference planes, trains, and ships, but it does not say that they too will be required to meet tougher emissions standards. Will these forms of transportation also be given a nod of approval from our State government to continue "Business as Usual" and not be required to help our State to become the Showcase that our Governor is so willing to shove down our throats? There are many other reasons why we should not be saddled with this ridiculous "Climate Change Legislation" but off hand I would say it's very unfair to most of us who just drive to and from work to make a living. If Governor Gregoire is steadfast and true to the idea of lowering carbon emissions in Washington state, then these areas of transportation must also be included in any across the board mandated legislation. One other thing that I would like to mention is the idea of a future proposal for a "Carbon Ration Card". The information below was received in an email from Senator Jerome Delvin. "There is a plan to require you to use a personal carbon ration card when you pay to fill up your tank, take a flight, heat your home or use some other carbon-based services or goods. Your “allowance” would be granted annually and its value would decline every year. Used up your carbon ration? Sorry…either you won’t be able to take your kids to their soccer game, or you’ll have to purchase more expensive credits – if they’re even available. This radical plan is being advocated by Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency Action, which was just published in July." If this "personal carbon rationing card" is passed into law, I believe there will be many unhappy voters in Washington State. Limiting the amount a person can travel, which is exactly what this proposal would do, is like telling someone how many hamburgers they should eat, and when you've eaten your fill, you are not allowed anymore until next year. Travel is a right allowed by our constitution. To remove that right by forcing a rationing card on individuals is not the American way. Please feel free to disseminate my thoughts and ideas about these discussions to everyone on the "Climate Action Team". I would like my voice to be heard loud and clear. Sincerely, Agricultural Sector Working GroupWe thank the Ag Sector working group for identifying anaerobic digester co-products such as compost and fiber as potential sources for carbon offsets. We also commend you for recommending that offsets be granted to agricultural producers who reduce their use of nitrogen-based fertilizers.We're hopeful that you can extend these concepts further through two primary refinements to your recommendations. First, by allowing agricultural producers to claim offsets not only by reducing nitrogen use but also by displacing synthetic fertilizers with organic soil amendments derived from biomass resources. Second, by allowing a range of soil amendments derived from biomass sources to count as offsets when used to replace synthetic fertilizers. These amendments would include oilseed meals and bio-char residues from wood-to-energy pyrolysis. We understand the group is reluctant to recommend organic fertilizers as a GHG emission reduction strategy because organic materials also produce an emissions profile that is not completely understood. But the option should not be removed from the table at this early stage. Displacement of synthetic fertilizers with organic nutrients re-claimed from agricultural and municipal solid waste may in fact be the most simple and direct way for agricultural producers to participate in carbon markets. An offset purchaser who buys a pound of reclaimed, organic fertilizer and verifies that it is applied to a field in place of a synthetic counterpart should be able to claim a reduction in fossil fuel normally extracted for fertilizer manufacture. We realize the matter is complicated because two discreet GHG's (carbon-dioxide and nitrous oxide) are involved. However, determining a formula to count the CO2 equivalents cannot be any more difficult than calculating emission reductions in many other sectors being examined by the CAT. The advantage of such a system is that the burden of verifying and aggregating credits would fall on the offset purchaser, not the agricultural producer. The agricultural producer need only agree to apply organic fertilizers provided by an offset purchaser for free or at a discounted rate. The purchaser is responsible for verifying that the product is a qualified offset and keeping track of the credits earned. The arrangement leaves the farmer free to farm, without long-term contracts that could compromise productivity. Allowing organic fertilizer displacement as a carbon credit would provide market incentives similar to what the state has enacted for renewable energy. It would create value for the byproducts of bio-energy projects that could potentially drive huge reductions in GHG emissions, as well as spur a more vigorous composting industry. Please do not abandon this potentially fruitful path at this point. The deliberations and confusion surrounding so many of the agricultural carbon credit markets will likely lead many smaller producers to avoid participating for many years. But the system we propose would spread benefits to all producers and could be easily understood by the public -- making this an attractive market for purchasers. We recommend that the working group add a provision in your draft recommendations allowing carbon offsets for "displacement of synthetic fertilizers with organic fertilizers derived from waste biomass materials."
Regards,
SEPA work and Climate change issuesSEPA implementation should be incorporate into climate change issues, Planning. (NEPA also). SEPA work is well intentioned, but will not work if SEPA implementation is not addressed first. At the present time, SEPA is pretty much a discretionary tool to be used when it is in the interest of the project proponent. The local Superior Court judges understand little of SEPA. They know little of SEPA. The development of SEPA action, tools, and education, is important, especially for climate change issues.
Thanks, Climate change SEPA issues
Hello All,
Thanks, |
Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html.
|
|
