PrintPrintFollowing two and a half hours of public comments and discussion, Charleston City Council members on Tuesday voted to delay action for 60 days on a plan to reduce carbon emissions over the next few decades.
By Ashley Fletcher Frampton
aframpton@scbiznews.com
Published Dec. 16, 2009
Following two and a half hours of public comments and discussion, Charleston City Council members on Tuesday voted to delay for 60 days action on a plan to reduce carbon emissions over the next few decades.
Several council members said they had been focused on details of the city budget in recent weeks and had not had enough time for in-depth study of the 181-page Charleston Green Plan.
Crowds of supporters and opponents packed City Hall to speak about the plan, which a committee of citizens spent the past two years drafting.
Even before they lined up at microphones to speak, the two sides were easily distinguishable. Supporters came wearing shades of green clothing, and opponents wore stickers that said, “Stop Green Tyranny.”
The plan recommends policies and practices the city could adopt to reduce carbon emissions divided into six sections: better buildings, cleaner energy, sustainable communities, improved transportation, zero waste, green education.
Supporters spoke about the need to protect natural resources and open space for future generations. Some said policies in the plan, such as those that would lead to more bike paths along city roadways, allow people to make choices that protect the environment.
“Take the 100-year view on this, not the more convenient short-term view,” said Robert Miller, a Clemson University professor who lives in Charleston, during the public hearing.
He was one of 23 speakers in favor of the plan. Nineteen people spoke in opposition, many of them questioning the science of climate change and the impact that humans can have on the environment. Opponents also said the plan infringes on individuals rights.
Reed Maddray, who owns a flooring business that offers green products, criticized a provision in the plan recommending that property taxes on vehicles be calculated based on fuel efficiency instead of value.
“That means it’s going to tax (at higher rates) the older people who probably can’t afford a new car,” Maddray said.
Such a policy would require a change to state law, the proposed Green Plan notes.
Another opponent, Craig McLaughlin, said the plan gives too much power to government. If going green is good for business, as supporters say, McLaughlin said the free market should take care of needed changes.
Mayor Joe Riley put together the 22-member Green Committee in 2007 to bring recommendations to the city for reducing carbon emissions.
The move followed Riley’s 2005 signing of the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, which calls for cities to reduce global warming pollution levels to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012, or to go beyond that goal.
The Charleston Green Committee has recommended reducing emissions in the city to 83% of 2002 levels by 2050. As an interim goal to measure progress, the plan calls for a 30% reduction by 2030. Recommendations in the plan would move the city toward those targets.
Those involved say more than 800 people participated in drafting the plan.
James Meadors, chairman of the Green Committee, said the principle of “efficiency first” underlies most recommendations in the plan. If Charleston adopts the plan, it would be the first city in South Carolina and among the first in the Southeast to have a climate protection plan, Meadors said.
“If we don’t accept the accumulated overwhelming scientific data that greenhouse gases have affected global warming, and some don’t, we need this Green Plan anyway,” Riley said.
Global warming aside, Riley said, the plan would help reduce dependence on oil, which drives geopolitics.
Riley emphasized that nothing in the plan would become law with its adoption. Policy recommendations would have to come individually to City Council for review, and council members could wordsmith proposals at that time.
Even so, some council members said they wanted to agree with a plan before endorsing it. Otherwise, what would be the point of voting in favor of it, asked Councilman Gary White.
“It is for real, and it is accepted that we are going to move forward on whatever we say we are going to do,” White said.
White said he supports some parts of the plan, but provisions that appear to dictate how people must live make him nervous.
Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson said she felt rushed to make a decision and that two years’ worth of work deserved more than two weeks of consideration by council members.
Wilson said she had questions about some specifics, including the recommendation for vehicle property taxes based on fuel efficiency instead of value.
“I drive old cars because I’m cheap,” she said.
Wilson, who is a professional harpist, said she also drives large, older cars to transport her instruments safely.
Councilman Aubry Alexander said some elements of the plan might be too punitive. He said council members should have the same chance to suggest wording changes as the local Realtor and home builder groups had recently.
“Let’s slow this thing down and make sure we are making good decisions,” Alexander said.
By a voice vote, council members agreed to wait 60 days before voting on the plan.
Also on Tuesday, City Council members gave final approval to a 2010 budget that includes an increase in the electric and gas franchise fee. That fee increase, discussed at length at last week’s council meeting, is likely to be passed on to utility customers.
However, council members on Tuesday amended the fee increase to end after two years.
Previous coverage
‘Green Plan’ heads to Charleston City Council after controversy
City votes to raise electric and gas franchise fee to plug budget hole
Reach Ashley Fletcher Frampton at 843-849-3129.
Print