City’s climate proposal has few specifics

To accept the science of climate change is to accept that we are facing a global environmental and humanitarian crisis. One that endangers plants and wildlife, undercuts the global food supply, threatens coastal communities and could redefine human migration.

It’s a global issue, but change starts locally. San Antonio is right to join other cities in taking responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To that end, the second draft of the city’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan lays out ambitious ideas for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 in fulfillment with the Paris climate agreement. Unfortunately, the plan is still woefully short on specifics.

The suggestions with the biggest impact include working with CPS Energy to transition from fossil fuel energy sources to less carbon-intensive alternatives, and implementing a Zero Net Energy code requiring new buildings not to consume more energy than they produce. But the document now asks CPS Energy “to drive towards carbon neutrality by 2050,” whereas the first draft stated the utility would use all renewable energy by then. And it makes no mention of the coal-fired J.K. Spruce 2 plant, which opened in 2010 and is on track to remain operational until 2042. In our view, the question of what to do with Spruce 2 is the elephant in the room when it comes to our local discussion about climate change, emissions and electricity rates.

Coal-fired plants emit large quantities of carbon, but Spruce 2 is also relatively new. Shuttering it early could hurt ratepayers, especially those with lower incomes, undercutting the city’s focus on climate equity. But again, coal-fired plants also pump out a lot of carbon emissions. It’s a conundrum, but not one to be danced around by either the city or CPS Energy.

And to the Zero Net Energy goal, the latest draft adds, “taking into consideration technical and economic feasibility.” What does that mean? By giving the city and its partners escape hatches from some of the most important goals, the plan undercuts its own sense of urgency.

The plan also calls for cleaner fuel in vehicles, including public transit, and reducing the miles that individuals drive alone by diversifying transportation choices. Those components would have high impacts on emissions, the plan says — yet there are few specifics about improving and expanding public transportation. Mayor Ron Nirenberg says those are coming, with cost estimates, in the ConnectSA initiative that will be on next year’s ballot. In an interview, Nirenberg called ConnectSA one of the first elements of the climate plan’s implementation.

Since the jury’s out on costs, the feasibility of the climate plan is also uncertain. Nirenberg says the plan is a framework that sets an unchanging goal — carbon neutrality by 2050 — and the City Council and community will have to work together on implementation. We understand some of the costs can’t be predicted because technology is rapidly evolving, and we also know pegging costs to these changes is politically challenging. But let’s all remember, even if the cost estimates seem high now, they’ll compare favorably to the cost of doing nothing.

To the city’s credit, this is laid out in the draft plan, which warns of premature deaths from heat exposure and air quality issues, but also the toll of lost wages and productivity and other downward economic pressures.

San Antonio alone would spend billions more on relocating companies, inspections and repairs if ozone levels don’t improve. Wildfire risk could increase, compromising safety and heightening property damages, and electricity costs would also spike.

A new United Nations report warns climate change and exploitation of resources are already straining the global food supply.

If global temperatures rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the resulting weather patterns — heat waves, wildfires, droughts and flooding — will speed up soil loss and land degradation, according to the report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those things have already started to occur, cutting crop yields and harming livestock. Land is already being lost to erosion, desertification and rising sea levels. And more carbon dioxide wafting into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels will lessen the nutritional quality of the food that remains.

San Antonio’s climate plan recognizes the stakes and is a starting point for local action. But it also lacks critical detail. This is too important for ambiguity.