But what I will not admit – and what none of us should ever admit – is defeat because we have not failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The truth is, until recently, we never really tried. As John Paul Jones is supposed to have said during the American Revolution, “I have not yet begun to fight!”
For this reason, despite the enormous challenge, we should be undaunted. We should be eager to throw ourselves to the task. There is another American revolution afoot: a low-carbon revolution.
n not only sharing a stage but advocating for the same thing: an all-of-the-above approach to reducing carbon emissions in transportation. It continues the trend we’ve seen in New Mexico and elsewhere. With an eye on the long game and global trends in a single direction, big oil companies seem to be warming to incentive-based policies that boost ROI on investments to decrease carbon emissions and diversify assets.
If the LCFS can avoid more carbon emissions for less money, why wouldn’t the agency choose that? If the LCFS can further reduce the dominance of conventional diesel, how can the agency justify simply ceding the field to petroleum? If CARB cares about ‘justice’ and impacts on low-income families, how could the agency choose increasing health costs (due to more polluting emissions that disproportionately affect communities of color) and higher cost overall?