Sacramento’s top polluter is traffic. So why does the county’s climate plan create more?

While it remains to be seen what promises will be made — and likely broken — at the 26th annual UN Climate Change Conference in Scotland next month, you need not travel to Glasgow to see climate denialism in action. Sacramento County has that well in hand.

The latest version of the county’s Climate Action Plan, set to go before the Planning Commission and then the Board of Supervisors after public comment ends Friday, simply doesn’t live up to its name. Representatives of local environmental groups such as 350 Sacramento, the Environmental Council of Sacramento and the Citizens Climate Lobby of Sacramento say the long-awaited document falls far short of promises made more than 10 years ago.

The county’s planning staff started developing the document to meet state-mandated greenhouse gas reductions in 2009. The plan, however, has faced justified criticism for its lack of action and encountered repeated and extensive delays. County officials further undermined its credibility last year when they urged developers to help fund the climate plan, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.

The worst aspect of the county’s climate record is its continued reliance on sprawl to provide housing. Vehicles are the single largest source of the county’s greenhouse gas emissions, but the supervisors are contemplating 55,000 units of new sprawl and the “climate-busting tailpipe emissions” that would result, 350 Sacramento wrote after the plan was released. The expected construction is all outside the county’s regular growth boundary and could be facilitated by a climate plan that fails to take on the problem.

The county and its climate plan should emphasize infill development, adding housing to existing urban and suburban areas to avoid encouraging more commuting to the far reaches of the region. Higher-density, transit-friendly development deserves support from the county as well as its environmentalist critics, who often make the mistake of opposing even climate-friendly growth.

The county’s climate plan also depends on the Sacramento Municipal Utility District reaching its lofty goal of carbon-free electricity by 2030. While it’s commendable that the utility has set that goal, the supervisors shouldn’t rely on SMUD to make meaningful climate progress. As the largest government agency in the region, the county has a responsibility to set a high standard.

In a bureaucratic sleight of hand, the county also claims that a full environmental impact report was done for its general plan in 2010 and therefore isn’t needed now. In fact, that report didn’t include enough greenhouse gas mitigation or analysis to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act, which is why the county agreed to develop the Climate Action Plan.

The plan refers to research done for the old environmental impact report instead of providing more adequate and current information. Even if sufficient work had been done in 2010, how could a decade-old environmental review possibly suffice today? The climate is changing at a far greater rate than was predicted, and the county needs current analysis to reflect that.

Local environmentalists have rightly called for a full environmental analysis for the Climate Action Plan and for “the supervisors to take Sacramento County’s 2020 Climate Emergency Declaration seriously.” The groups expect to draw more attention to the plan’s shortcomings later this week.

Supervisor Phil Serna told The Bee in a statement that he believes “climate change is the single greatest existential threat facing mankind, and as such, every level of government has the responsibility to shape and implement meaningful policies.” When the Climate Action Plan goes before him and his fellow supervisors, he added, it should meet that standard, “or I’ll be the first to suggest it be further revised until it does.”

That’s heartening, because decisive action is needed here and now in Sacramento County. We have a right to expect local as well as global leaders to treat climate change as the serious and urgent threat it is.