The building lobby was successful in convincing the southern California metropolitan planning organization board members to lower these targets, in effect reducing the incentive to encourage denser, less auto-dependent development.
"Instead of setting the goal of reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 8% in 2020 and 13% in 2035 as recommended by the state's Air Resource Board after a lengthy public process, SCAG chose to set goals of 6% reduction in 2020 and 8% in 2035. The 8/13 targets were rejected by a 21 to 29 vote. Unfortunately, this means that design standards and community plans throughout the region will have less density, encourage fewer transportation options, and create less vibrant communities with less open space over the next twenty five years than they would have if SCAG would have followed the state board's recommendations."
Meanwhile, environmentalists scorned the decision. (An) Associated Press article quotes a frustrated representative of the American Lung Association, while other articles quote (Natural Resource Defense Council's) Amanda Eaken, who has emerged as something of an expert on this issue. Locally, ClimatePlan staffer and Streetsblog contributor Gloria Ohland commented simply that "we have more work to do."
Thanks to The Transit Coalition
Comments
They're not reducing emissions targets!
They're lowering emissions reduction targets. Big difference.
SCallAwaGs
It is fascinating to me how many subsets of our society refuse to act responsibly.
I have serious doubts that we can change our ways and stop behaving in ways that foul our nests. We are firmly a part of nature and she will act like she does toward all other species and entropy will win.
Let us hope, morally, that it is a soft landing and not a hard landing, even though nature does the hard landing thing and cares not for our morals.
Best,
D