Comment Log Display

We assist our member agency local governments in Alameda County
with GHG inventories and CAPs. We offer comments on the
"Recommended Local Plan Level Goals" on slide 11 of the first
presentation. We did not view the webinar, and some of these points
may have been addressed in the discussion. While we recognize the
rationale presented on the slide and the appeal of a simple and
clear target, we anticipate the following concerns from local
governments:


1) Some cities are already below the 2030 target of 6 MTCO2e per
capita. For these cities the 6 MTCO2e goal sends a
counterproductive message for climate action if they were already
aiming for more aggressive targets similar to 40% below baseline
for 2030.

2) We appreciate that a per person approach allows for population
growth in cities in which growth would reduce regional emissions.
However, it may also encourage growth in less sustainable
geographies. The latter type of development could feasibly align
with the 2030 goal, but would impede local and regional ability to
meet the 2050 goal.

3) If per capita is only residential population, while
community-wide emissions includes all sectors, per capita baselines
range widely between cities, depending primarily on location and
the mix of residential versus commercial. A uniform per capita goal
across jurisdictions doesn't address the diversity of community
types and their distinct roles in regional GHG reductions. It may
be more appropriate to apply this target at a regional level.
Alternatively, sector-specific normalized goals (e.g. MTCO2e per
employee) could be established, but this detracts from the
appealing simplicity of the recommended goals.


Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We welcome discussion.