Sacramento County declared a climate emergency. Its action plan should take that seriously

The city of Folsom is moving forward with a plan to build a staggering 11,000 new homes, whether it has the water to service those homes or not. Is the way we make land-use decisions in the region — with an eye on market and housing demands and no regard for environmental and climate consequences — still feasible?

Folsom’s housing boondoggle isn’t the only example of regional leaders being too slow to reckon with what climate change and Mother Nature are telling us right now.

Sacramento County is still drafting its long-overdue climate action plan, which could have decades-long impacts on how we care for our environment. A favorable outcome will depend on the seriousness of county officials to act in its best interests.

California is in the midst of a rough summer. Sacramento saw surprisingly early 100-degree days in May, and climate experts say the brutal heat waves across the West Coast that have killed hundreds of people and devastated shellfish will become a recurring summer norm. We’re also facing a severe drought of historic proportions. Oh, and did we mention the wildfires that are outpacing last year’s record season?

Depending on the willingness of Sacramento County officials to commit to significant mitigation strategies, it’s no hyperbole to say the county’s climate plan will determine how long Sacramento will remain habitable in the face of impending climate catastrophe.

The climate plan is not required by state law, but local governments consider it to be a time-saving measure to help streamline environmental reviews required by the California Environmental Quality Act.

Sacramento County started working on its climate action plan in 2009 to help meet state-mandated greenhouse gas reduction. The county has already completed two phases of the planning process, but the third phase — the most extensive and important — is being revised after the initial draft was widely criticized in March.

Environmental advocates said the plan was imprecise, watered down, and lacked meaningful commitments for reducing greenhouse gases. Ralph Propper, president of the Environmental Council of Sacramento, said the plan includes aspirational language that doesn’t set many specific requirements. That’s a problem. Aspiring to commit to solutions isn’t good enough when climate change is already here. These commitments were needed years ago.

Sacramento County officials have deferred and delayed meaningful action on climate change mitigation, and taken over a decade to complete a climate action plan. Last year, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors approved a declaration of climate emergency, requiring urgent action to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. Yet the most recent draft of the county’s climate plan — the very document intended to guide its actions — makes the emergency declaration seem more like a public gesture.

“What’s missing is the urgency — it’s missing from the climate plan, it’s missing from the city council, it’s missing at all levels,” said Laurie Litman, a member of the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change and co-founder of the grassroots climate organization 350 Sacramento. “The county is doing the same old, same old without a commitment to really stop climate change.”

Urban sprawl — the expansion of cities and towns via outward development — accounts for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions, and the county has the power to reduce it. Any climate plan made in 2021 must make curbing sprawl and encouraging infill development on unused or underused spaces the top priority.

That means county officials need to put the health of the community and the planet first, not the wealth of developers. Propper said Sacramento County officials have allowed developers to expand urban boundaries. To make matters worse, the county has leaned on developers to help fund the final phase of the climate plan, raising legitimate conflict-of-interest concerns.

“Each of the five firms wants the Board of Supervisors to expand the boundaries of where new development is allowed to include their projects. And that decision is in conflict with the aims of the climate plan,” wrote Bee reporter Mike Finch.

County officials told The Bee that the donations will not influence the plan. We hope that’s true.

The next iteration of the county’s climate plan is critical, and needs to be adaptable. Sacramento must plan for not just all of the climate issues coming to a head in 2021, but for all of the climate issues that will arise over the next five or ten years. That’s why the climate plan must be a living document, able to course correct when — not if — extreme weather, drought, and wildfires worsen.

The county’s climate emergency declaration and climate plan cannot be purely symbolic actions. County officials must commit to specific plans that lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduce sprawl, enhance carbon sequestration, and invest in renewable energy and electrification.

The county cannot approve an insufficient climate plan just to check a box and be done with it. Failing here has grave consequences for future generations in Sacramento, and county officials must take that burden seriously. It’s now or never.

This story was originally published July 18, 2021 at 5:00 AM.