There is a common misperception that environmental initiatives are at odds with economic responsibility. After many months of study and collaboration, the Climate Protection Task Force (CPTF) came to a different conclusion. The efficient use of conventional energy and wider application of renewable energy can reduce carbon emissions and pollution while cutting costs, increasing competitiveness, creating jobs and stimulating the local economy. This underlying premise of the city of Lawrence’s Climate Protection Plan (to be presented to the City Commission on Tuesday) is based on years of industry experience provided by members of CPTF and a broad understanding of the fiscal and environmental challenges we face.
In March 2006, then Mayor Dennis “Boog” Highberger took an important step toward managing our impact on the environment and acknowledging our role in reducing our carbon footprint by signing the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement on behalf of the city of Lawrence. Time and research have highlighted a significant connection to climate change and an impact on our community.
A recent report by the Climate and Energy Project (developed in conjunction with Kansas University climatologist Johannes Feddema) indicates global warming will impact Kansas agriculture, water resources and our local ecosystem. These climate fluctuations may stunt economic growth, jeopardize tourism and manufacturing, and have adverse consequences for human health.
Recognizing a need for action and in compliance with Highberger’s commitment, former Mayor Sue Hack coalesced CPTF in February 2008. The Task Force is chaired by the current mayor and comprised of diverse constituents from the Lawrence community, representing KU, Westar Energy, USD 497, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Haskell Indian Nations University and members of the real estate, building, engineering, environmental and corporate communities.
CPTF has developed the following climate mitigation goal for the city of Lawrence: An 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalence by 2050, using baseline data from 2005. The group has developed seven strategies to achieve this goal:
1. Provide dedicated staffing and adequate funding to support climate protection and sustainability initiatives.
2. Strengthen energy conservation policies and building standards.
3. Incorporate the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions into land use planning.
4. Develop transportation policies and programs to consume less energy and reduce emissions.
5. Establish outreach and education programs on emission reduction issues.
6. Expand source reduction and waste reduction programs and initiatives.
7. Exercise leadership by prioritizing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in municipal operations.
Considering the current local and national economic conditions, we understand why residents may be reluctant to support additional city staffing for these initiatives. There are many departments within the city and outside agencies that are looking for additional funding, staffing and equipment resources to help provide critical services. Over the next few years, our city will be challenged to meet these demands without finding additional sources of revenue. We believe that using energy more efficiently will not only reduce carbon emissions; it will save money.
Under the new 2009 stimulus infrastructure bill, Kansas could receive approximately $317 million for transportation and tens of millions for energy conservation and renewable energy. City staff is currently researching the program requirements for energy conservation block grants and identifying city projects that may be eligible for funding. Research, grant application and documentation take time, but the results of the research and the subsequent grant preparation may lead to critical funding that would help our city complete important energy-related projects and bring new dollars into our community.
The dedicated staff position may pay for itself in energy-saving practices implemented in city operations, and is an integral part of coordinating environmental and sustainability efforts for Lawrence. This dedicated staff member could also help Lawrence apply for and win the federal and state grants that are available for communities like Lawrence, interested in energy conservation and emission reduction dollars.
Lawrence can achieve successes too. Through the reduction of local GHG emissions, we can recognize local cost savings, attract environmentally friendly businesses to the area, and help Lawrence establish a leadership role in climate risk mitigation in Kansas.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
KU_cynic (anonymous) says…
An 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050? This has got to be about the goofiest pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo pipe dream I have ever seen. At 1% annual population growth Lawrence's population will increase by about 50% by 2050. How, pray tell, can we reduce GHG emissions by 80% from1.5x the current population?
With technological breakthroughs across fields as diverse as auto transportation, electricity generation, home heating and cooling, and home appliances -- perhaps with some spurring and mandating by the federal government -- we might get there. But having a city task force and proposed city staff cheerleading us on to such a goal will have little or no effect.
Instead of being a costly leader in climate risk mitigation, how about the city of Larence becomes a frugal follower. That is, when technology is proven and when other communities (especially those growing more rapidly and thus better able to implement new solutions in new housing and commercial development) demonstrate that something really works in a cost-effective way, Larence can adapt and follow.
KU_cynic (anonymous) says…
An 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050? This has got to be about the goofiest pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo pipe dream I have ever seen. At 1% annual population growth Lawrence's population will increase by about 50% by 2050. How, pray tell, can we reduce GHG emissions by 80% from1.5x the current population?
With technological breakthroughs across fields as diverse as auto transportation, electricity generation, home heating and cooling, and home appliances -- perhaps with some spurring and mandating by the federal government -- we might get there. But having a city task force and proposed city staff cheerleading us on to such a goal will have little or no effect.
Instead of being a costly leader in climate risk mitigation, how about the city of Larence becomes a frugal follower. That is, when technology is proven and when other communities (especially those growing more rapidly and thus better able to implement new solutions in new housing and commercial development) demonstrate that something really works in a cost-effective way, Lawrence can adapt and follow.
xbusguy (chris Ogle) says…
Some cities lead, while others follow...... Lawrence, well..... I guess you could say they do roundabouts........ on businesses, as well as streets.
Water (anonymous) says…
Every summer for 11 years now, I've noticed some shops on Mass street prop open their front door, allowing chilly air conditioned air to spill out across the sidewalk. Does this cold air really draw in enough potential customers to increase sales enough to offset the increase in their electric bill? Don't they realize it disgusts some potential customers who then decide not to shop there? It's economical, it's “Green”…..it's just sensible…..shut the door.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
I am pleased that the city has done a study to look at the opportunities that might be available and the actions required to accommodate climate change. That said, the article reflects elements of coercion. I am fearful of government coercion as it has for us historically resulted in significant impact to the middle class while the less affluent are protected and the really rich are held essentially harmless. Zealots, when they pursue their goals, apparently become very pragmatic in recognizing they would have to spend a great deal of effort to demand real sacrifice by the really rich so they choose the middle class because they are fragmented and as a result relatively powerless. Are we going to do that here? Please surprise me?
Before I am taken to task by all the environmentalist who hold my generation retrospectively accountable for past actions now deemed sins I should observe the above is from bitter experience. We have rationing of critical resources in California and Virginia under our belt. We note that as our utilities become ever more expensive a sliding scale has been established to make the use of the utility progressively more expensive by quantity even though the actual costs do not trend that way. The really rich can afford it; the poor are held harmless and the middle pays the freight. After a while there will be no middle as this approach is applied to ever greater segments of our lives.
quimby (anonymous) says…
I fully support this plan - Hopefully the CC will, as well.