To the fifty-three 350 Sacramento members and friends who used our comment tool to tell the County that its backward-looking draft CAP is not acceptable. The draft’s main (unsubstantiated) conclusion is that the County doesn’t have to do anything because other agency’s efforts will reduce emissions to below the legal requirement.
350 Sacramento and allies (ECOS, Sierra Club, Sac Climate Lobby, Citizen’s Climate Lobby) submitted detailed comments. 350 Sacramento’s letter is here. Our main themes are that the CAP:
- ignores (other than lip service) the County’s Climate Emergency Declaration;
- does not seriously address how planned sprawl will increase auto traffic, the County’s largest GHG source; and
- does not substantiate its conclusions or (with few exceptions) present measures that are specific and detailed enough to be enforceable.
A final draft CAP and CEQA document are due in May. Then it goes to the Planning Commission for a recommendation, and finally to the County Supervisors for adoption. Each of these junctures is an advocacy opportunity. We’re hoping the final draft will be much improved, but we can’t count on that. A bad CAP, such as that we’ve seen so far, is worse than none because future developers will only need to show they comply with the adopted CAP’s measures, however weak, to escape further GHG-reduction requirements. We will pursue technical, legal, and political advocacy to prevent that. As always, we’re only as strong as our members. Watch this space and the newsletter for how you can weigh in.
Got questions or comments? Send ’em to email@example.com.
Written by Oscar B.