2019-02-07 Citizens Climate Protectioin Committee MiCitizens Committee on U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
Mission:
1. Encourage citizens to be a part of the solution
2. Encourage City staff and citizens to conserve current resources
3. Work with the City Council to implement ideas
4. Effectively address the future impacts of climate change
Climate Protection Committee (CPC)
February 7, 2019 — Meeting Notes
In Attendance: Steve Fisher, Hank Landau, Nancy Fleck, Dave Schaeffer, Lisa Herb, Cynthia Pruitt, Larry
Pierce, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Shane Hope, Dianna Meeks, Kernen Lien, Mark Johnson (ESA),
Nives Dolsak, Stan Gent (Interfaith Climate Action)
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 8:45 am and the minutes of the January 3 meeting were
approved.
Nominations for 2019 Committee Chairpersons: A call for new committee chairs for 2019 was put forth.
Cynthia Pruitt and Steve Fisher are unanimously voted to continue as co-chairs.
Update on Climate Goals Project:
Shane brought the group up-to-date on the progress of the Climate Goals Project, including what targets to
decide and how to interact with the consultant. Mark Johnson presented possibilities for climate targets in
terms of possible increase in global climate temperature and its impacts: 1-, 1.5-, and 2-degree Celsius
increases. Mark explained that limiting the global temperature increase to 2-degrees Celsius is the goal of
the Paris Climate Accords. Mark stated that lower -degree targets will call for more aggressive actions.
Hank mentioned that the goals set for 1990 were not able to be monitored quantitatively, but still would not
have been enough for the z-degree target. He notes that Edmonds population for 2000, zoos are in the
report, but not 2017. However, the 2017 carbon computed per -capita and the population estimate
contradicts what the city population was in 2017. It would help to report emission both bulk and per -capita.
Hank noted that the z000-zoos numbers show a per -capita increase in emissions and that there are only 3
data points so we can't read too much into these numbers.
Hank stated that the original goals set by the state would not hit the 2-degree target and asked if the state
has adjusted its goals. Mark responded that the state has not made such an adjustment, but that there are
discussions within the state administration to adapt to the most recent science.
Hank mentioned that we are currently at a 1.2-degree increase and asked the question: If Edmonds were to
adopt a 1-degree target, would this require carbon sequestration in Edmonds? Mark responded that a
negative carbon footprint would be required until the planet cools (would require more sequestration than
output). Hank pointed out that the Edmonds Marsh is a point of sequestration in Edmonds.
Cynthia asked, what is the sense of the Edmonds community -at -large, specifically the non -technical aspects
of the goals? Specifically, how do people feel about the goals. Hank responded that the 1.5- and z-degree
goals are not acceptable (they would incur too much climate damage), and would like to advocate for a goal
of 1 degree increase. However, he is wary of setting a goal that is not achievable and would thus advocate
for the 1.5-degree target for Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis said that the daylighting of Willow Creek and the urban forest canopy work would
act as carbon sequestration for Edmonds and that these should be mentioned in the consultant's report for
public knowledge. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it is possible to estimate the quantitative impact of
these projects in regard to carbon sequestration.
Shane responded that the quantitative sequestration effects of daylighting Willow Creek are beyond the
scope of the consultant's study and asked if the impact would be significant. Mark said that they can add a
note in the report regarding these projects, but that they would likely not be a significant in impact.
Mark added that there could be a potential short-term methane release from the daylighting, which would
cause a temporary increase in greenhouse gas emissions. He also noted that the quantitation of greenhouse
gas emission from the marsh is complex and changes from marsh -to -marsh and community -to -community. It
would require measurements, data collections, and computation.
David asked if the board should state what is the best goal for Edmonds without considering the lifestyle
impacts of these goals on the community (are we discussing avocation of goals prematurely?). Mark said
that we can set a starting point goal and can revisit the goal later, with the real question being "how much
effort is the Edmonds community willing to put into embracing the goal?". The answer to this question can
guide the target to set Edmonds' goals. (e.g. "we're willing to drive less but not willing to change land
use.").
David asked the group what we are willing to do with land use, and cites the recent felling of old -growth
trees at the property at gt" and Pine. Cynthia said that we are looking into preliminary goals and would then
see how well Edmonds is able to meet those goals.
Mark mentioned that regulations may be needed to achieve goals and asks how the residents of Edmonds
would respond to regulation. For example, would they consider higher -density living? Residential energy
use and greenhouse gas emissions from commuting are the two biggest climate impact factors for
Edmonds, so is Edmonds willing to reduce these?
Cynthia said that the consequences of 1.5 or z-degree global temperature increase are unacceptable, and
that when viewing the "daily life in the year 205o" section of the report, she is not optimistic regarding the
acceptance of the Edmonds community follow the recommendations. Cynthia would advocate for a 1.5-
degree target goal for Edmonds. Nancy said that there are many in Edmonds that don't even recycle and
that we cannot rely on the populace to follow the recommendations for a 1.5-degree target lifestyle change.
Hank asked if it is the goal to show local climate impacts. Mark said that this is in the report to some extent,
but more can be added and that there are tools to estimate local impacts and that Edmonds would suffer
substantial climate impacts, particularly low-lying areas that are at risk to sea -level rise. Hank said that
people want to know the concrete impact of climate change. Nives asked how do we approach the question
of how we set the target: should it be economically, morally, religiously, there are many ways to view the
reasons and methodologies for choosing this goal. Cynthia added "what would your neighbors say?"
Lisa said that Edmonds could be a leader on this topic, pushing a bit further than other communities and
showing what could be done. She added that Eugene, Oregon has adopted a 1-degree global climate
temperature increase goal and that they have announced the reasons that they have chosen that goal
(disappearing bird species, seal level rise, tree loss, etc.).
Stan Gent said that the Interfaith Climate Group (ICG) represents Edmonds church communities, and had a
strong discussion regarding having a goal that can be successful and that as time passes that goal may need
to be changed. Stan asked how such a goal can be marketed to the community and how the community can
be brought along with the message of climate action. Stan said that being in alignment with the Paris
Accord can be a selling point to the community with regard to climate action goals. Hank added that this
group (ICG) was formed following the Pope's Encyclical on climate change.
Cynthia asked for thoughts from each member. Shane asked if the CPC can make a tentative
recommendation and that this can be revisited later. Cynthia took a straw poll and each member stated
their preference for climate goals and reasons for their choice.
Councilmember Buckshnis stated that Edmonds has always been a leader on climate issues, the plastic bag
ban being an example. Cynthia asked the group for consensus on a recommendation for Edmonds climate
action goals. Mark said that it sounded like the CPC is advocating for a 1-5-degree climate warming target
goal and said that this can be adjusted depending on the needs of the community and Edmonds community
commitment.
Nives asked for clarification of the economic impacts of the goals and costs of carbon offsets to be added to
the report. Mark responded that he will add some language to the report to clarify these. Councilmember
Buckshnis added that the Planning Committee (a Council -codified committee) had chosen to help vet these
complex issues.
Adjourn: The meeting is adjourned at lo:15 am.