Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for Dec. 31, 2022 – Marin Independent … – Marin Independent Journal
Supervisors: Champions of the Marin economy
As the CEO of the Marin Economic Forum, a local nonprofit organization, I would like to acknowledge the significant contributions that Judy Arnold and Damon Connolly made to economic vitality in Marin during their tenures as Marin County supervisors.
Arnold was an early advocate that county offices should be supportive of Marin’s small, but innovative business community. As a founder of the county-led Marin Economic Commission following the Great Recession, Arnold ensured a strong public-private sector partnership was in place between some of Marin’s most prominent companies and county and local elected officials. Later that commission grew into what is now the Marin Economic Forum.
Connolly was also a big advocate of the important role local businesses played in the community and, together with Arnold, created and then co-chaired the “Marin Recovers” group that managed the early fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Without their leadership, local businesses would have struggled to interpret and respond to ever-changing regulations regarding business closures and accessing public funding to support economic recovery.
Marin County is one of only two counties in the entire Bay Area without a public economic development office or staff. Through their efforts, supervisors Arnold and Connolly enthusiastically kept the county engaged in economic matters and we residents are better off because of their commitment and effort. We owe them a heartfelt thank you for their work.
— Mike Blakeley, San Rafael
Carbon sequestration plans need scrutiny
According to a story written by the Associated Press and published in the Marin IJ, California air regulators recently agreed on an energy “roadmap” that will make the state carbon neutral by 2045 (“California approves ambitious roadmap for carbon neutrality,” Dec. 18).
At first look, California’s goal of 2045 appears consistent with the scientific warning that we should not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius warming by 2050, which is based on computer climate models.
But I worry that these models have flaws: Past models have underestimated Arctic melt and rainfall increase. This is because the climate involves multiple chain reactions, or feedback loops, which can precipitate irreversible tipping points, like the melting of the Greenland “ice sheet,” which would lead to a 23.6-foot sea level rise. Clearly, we have to get this right, and the roadmap goal based on current science may not go far enough, but it is a good start.
The article reported that the roadmap calls for 100 million metric tons equivalent carbon dioxide to be captured and stored underground. I am concerned about the environmental impact, how much energy is consumed in this massive undertaking and how much it would cost the state and energy ratepayers. As the article wisely points out, such a compensatory program is likely to encourage more emissions.
Our state’s ambitious goal is a good one, but carbon capture and sequestration need more scrutiny. Cleaner, simpler solutions are at hand. Move your money out of banks that fund fossil-fuel companies, and make your energy footprint smaller. Avoid unnecessary car trips, fly less, turn off the lights, eat more plants and grow your own salads. Each day, we should do whatever we can to make sure Earth is livable in the future.
— Mary Fitzpatrick, San Rafael
We should all budget for higher water rates
I laughed out loud when I read Elaine Johnson’s “enough is enough” letter to the editor about the prospect of an increase in water rates recently published in the Marin IJ. Unfortunately, the days of cheap water are over. Conservation as a viable solution has hit the wall.
We all need to steel ourselves to the reality that the cost of water will be rising substantially over the coming years. Unless we want to run the risk of completely running out of water, massive sums of money will need to be sunk into infrastructure projects addressing the supply side of the equation. Hopefully, a greater share of the necessary rate increases will be targeted at any remaining water wasters.
When it comes to my monthly expenses, increases in my Marin Municipal Water District bill will bother me the least. I’ve already included them in my budget.
— Michael Sillman, Larkspur
Tone of editorial lacked respect for star Griner
It hurt our hearts to read the editorial written by Bloomberg Opinion and published in the Marin IJ about the return home of imprisoned basketball star Brittney Griner (“Biden made a bad deal for Brittney Griner, Dec. 16)
The editorial minimized Griner’s importance by pointing out she had no “intelligence value” to the Russian government. It went on to imply that she is a pampered athlete whose “cause was treated with outsized urgency.” We are concerned that the truth of the matter is, if it had been a well-known male athlete, the U.S. government would never have been allowed to languish in a Russian prison camp for nine months.
We feel this editorial unfairly trivialized Griner, her character and the situation she was in. The commentary also did not make mention that Griner, like many other female athletes, was playing basketball in Russia to supplement the relatively small income professional women’s players make in the U.S. As a Black woman who is gay, she was in particular danger of being imprisoned for a minor offense in a country believed to have hostile views about LBGTQ people and people of color.
The tone of this editorial appeared to be subtly slanted to trivialize and demean a Black gay woman. We respect the discussion of high-stakes geopolitics and hostage swaps. However, we wish the IJ had opted to print a piece that explored those complexities, rather than weighing Griner’s value in terms of international politics — as if she didn’t matter as a person.
— Shirl Buss and Pamela Reaves, San Rafael
Adopting federal carbon tax tops ‘cap and trade’
In his recently published California Voice commentary, author Shane Coffield raises some very important questions (“Carbon-offset forests could be doing more to help curb climate change,” Dec. 22).
Forests could be doing more to increase carbon-offsets. The idea of “cap and trade,” which allows a group or company to create an offset, was first put forth in the 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments as a way to address acid rain. However, it required that every offset must be quantifiable, and therefore only applied to nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which are criteria pollutants covered under the Clean Air Act, and are easily quantifiable.
This is not necessarily the case for greenhouse-gas offsets, especially when dealing with offsets from things like forests. While the intent is two-fold, encouraging growth and replacement of forests, as well as reducing carbon dioxide, it is a system that potentially can be gamed, and is much harder to quantify. That should raise issues and questions about companies buying these offsets so that they can minimize reduction of their own emissions.
At the same time, it really begs the question of whether a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax is more efficient at effecting greenhouse gasses at the source, and forcing companies to become more energy efficient and less fossil fuel dependent. Based on this, and my own experience involved in assessing traditional offsets when I worked in industry, I would much rather see a carbon tax adopted at the federal level.
— Stephen Ziman, San Rafael