On
Monday, June 17 the Columbia City Council will take an historic vote, hopefully
adopting the Columbia Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). Peaceworks
encourages members and supporters to attend the Council meeting that evening
and to contact your councilperson and the mayor prior to the meeting to share
your thoughts on the CAAP.
So
far most reactions to the CAAP have been positive and we are hopeful that the
Plan will be passed unanimously. We have heard a very modest number of objections
or concerns. We’d like to respond to those concerns, but first a little on what
the CAAP is and what it is not.
Columbia’s
CAAP is a general roadmap to a carbon-neutral future. Drafted as the result of
a two-year process with ample opportunities for public input, the plan lays out
many steps and broader strategies to achieve net carbon neutrality for the
community at large by 2060 and net carbon neutrality for city operations by
2050. The CAAP includes interim targets for the community of reductions from a
2015 baseline of 35 percent by 2035 and 80 percent by 2050. It also calls for a
50 percent reduction in emissions from city operations by 2035.
The
CAAP includes sections dealing with energy, housing, transportation, waste,
health/safety and natural resources. It includes what are considered
Cross-Cutting Strategies and Actions, as well as Sector Specific Strategies and
Actions. We encourage everyone to access the CAAP draft on-line.
The
CAAP does not enact the needed changes, but rather lays out a general path to
get from here to there. Any changes that would be made in city operations or
requirements (e.g. changes in building codes, W&L operations, mass transit,
etc.) would be done at a later date with input from citizens and action by the
Council required.
Framers
of the CAAP have done extensive research as to our current situation here in
CoMo and also have looked closely to see what other cities have done. The
result is a very deliberate, flexible and incremental approach. Some may fault
the CAAP for not being ambitious enough, but, given the magnitude of the crisis
we face, few would think it too bold.
This
said, there are some critics, and some of the concerns they’re raising are due
to misinformation or misinterpretation of the facts. So, let us respond:
Climate Change
is Real and a Very Real Threat: There
is a broad, international scientific consensus based upon both an understanding
of physics and the analysis of data scientifically collected, that the planet
is warming and, with this warming is coming significant climatic changes
including more extreme weather events (super storms, floods, droughts, etc.)
that are causing serious dislocation, damages, crop failures, fires, loss of
human life and limb, loss of habitat, species extinction, climate refugees,
etc.
Those
who deny the reality of these readily observable phenomena are disputing the
conclusions reached by virtually every major scientific organization here in
the U.S. and around the world, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. They are also denying the conclusions of the National Climate
Assessment conducted under the Trump administration.
How Much
Warming:
Some critics have made claims that we don’t have to worry (or take action)
because the world is actually cooling. There is no basis for these claims. While the National Climate Assessment projects
the average increase in temperature by the year 2100 range from 1.5-4.5 degrees
Celsius (2.7-8.1 degrees Fahrenheit), the former assumes that immediate and
bold action is taken to limit and eliminate emissions, while the latter assumes
business as usual.
The
implications of the high-end scenarios are truly unthinkable, and it is
therefore incumbent upon us in Columbia to join people of conscience everywhere
who are taking action to effectively address the crisis.
The Cost of the
CAAP: A major objection raised by CAAP opponents is
that effective climate action will be costly. There are two major flaws in
these assertions. First of all, they fail to recognize that many of the actions
the CAAP calls for will have both costs and savings.
For
example, if a house, apartment or other structure has an energy efficiency
upgrade, there will be an initial cost and then there will be significant
savings in future utility costs, as it will take less energy to heat, cool and
otherwise operate the building. Most retrofits pay back the investment in six
years or less, which means a 16 percent or better annual return on the
investment. And these upgrades generally continue to return such savings for
decades to come, long after the initial investment is repaid.
The
other flaw is the failure to recognize the existence of very significant costs
attributable to our use of fossil fuels that are currently “externalized.” Cost
externalities are generally recognized by economists as a major source of
market failure. These are costs that are real, but are not included in the
prices we pay.
In
this case burning fossil fuels pollutes our air and water, significantly
impacts the health of our population, and alters our climate, all of which lead
to serious costs to society, both today and in the future. But these costs are
not currently incorporated into the price of the fuels we purchase. The costs
of actions called for in the CAAP will be, in general, more than offset by
savings to society at large.
The
bottom line on cost is yes, it will cost to mitigate and adapt to climate
change, but it will cost even more not to take effective action now.
Costs &
Benefits of Home Energy Upgrades: Some
have raised concerns about the cost impact of weatherization and other home
energy improvements. According to the
Missouri Division of Energy in the Department of Economic Development,
following weatherization improvements to a home, on average the occupant will
save $435 annually on their energy bills. Additionally, a study done by
the C40 association of cities found that even the lowest income quintile was
able to increase their disposable income (income after taxes) by 3.1 percent
after energy efficiency improvements to their residence.
Solar and Wind: Opponents question whether we can meet our
energy needs relying primarily on solar and wind power. There is a natural
variation in the availability and intensity of these sources, but these are
predictable, and, through a combination of wheeling power over the grid,
installing storage, and load shifting, we can have a 100 percent renewable
electric utility within the CAAP timeline.
Cost of
Renewables:
Some opponents have asserted that
renewable energy is too expensive. While we understand concerns about costs,
the trends are all pointing in favor of renewables. In an article published in Forbes on May 29, 2019, it was reported that “The cost of renewable energy has
tumbled even further over the past year, to the point where almost every source
of green energy can now compete on cost with oil, coal and gas-fired power
plants, according to new data released today.” The article references a study Renewable
Power Generation Costs, released by the International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA), an inter-governmental body with around 160 members.
Some
opponents have cited studies that looked at past costs, but these costs have
declined significantly. Columbia Water and Light is already paying
significantly less for renewables than it did previously. Purchased wind power
is costing our utility less than half the price of coal-generated purchased
power, while solar is marginally cheaper than coal, but has the price locked in
for 30 years, with no fuel costs.
Wind and Birds: Some opponents of wind power have raised
concerns regarding bird deaths from wind turbines. Of course, no one wants to
see birds killed. The number of birds killed by wind generators, however, isdwarfed by those killed by cats, by moving vehicles, by birds flying into
buildings and even by conventional power plants. If properly sited, wind
generation is not a serious threat to birds, while climate change most
definitely is. That’s why many conservation organizations, including most
prominently the Audubon Society, which are deeply concerned about birds, are
also strong supporters of wind-generated power.
Electric
Vehicles: Some opponents have pointed out that
switching to electric vehicles will increase demand for electricity making a
renewable energy future much more difficult to attain. What they fail to
recognize is that savings from efficiency improvements will offset much of the increased
transportation sector demand. Shifting from gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles
to EVs should not require any further reduction in demand for electricity from
existing uses. If more electricity is needed, we will simply have to be
purchasing more power from wind or solar generation to meet the vehicular
demand.
Two
pieces of good news: First, the cost of running an EV is a lot less than the
cost of using gasoline or diesel. Second, our cars will be able to charge their
batteries at times when power is readily available. This can be done overnight,
using abundant wind at a time when other uses are low. It also can be done
during the day while we’re at work, using solar power available to vehicles
charging up in parking lots at our workplaces.
Roll Carts: While some are
concerned about roll carts, which were mentioned as a possible option in the
original draft. The proposal to use roll carts has been removed from the CAAP.
In
closing we would like to thank our Mayor and City Council for having the vision
to recognize the urgency of addressing climate change, as well as thank all on
the city staff, the Mayor’s Task Force and all members of the public who
participated in the process of drafting the CoMo CAAP. We look forward to its
adoption and implementation.
 | |
| Mayor's Climate Action & Adaptation Task Force. We thank them for their hard work to make the CAAP a reality. |
