Learn more about 2A, 2B (unopinionated news article)
Get a second opinion: Governments (and Boulder) should take the lead on climate change
By Patrick Murphy
2A or not 2A, 2B or not 2B — those are the questions. A pair of “No” is a good answer.
Unless you are dead, you have noticed that the climate has changed, rapidly. I am a botanist/plant ecologist and have lived in Boulder for 53 years. Why the hell would I object to spending millions on climate change? I would be happier if it was smart billions spent. I oppose it because it’s not being spent wisely right now, and there’s no reason to believe that’s going to change.
Remember the $30 million muni that didn’t work out? The new leader of Climate In-Action is a remnant of Plan A, the equippedA utility that would belong to the city of Boulder. Shortcut for municipalization, which is the…. What the Plan B climate action plan lacks is cost-benefit analysis, honest external auditing and good logic.
For me, 2A triggers a response of “Oh no, not yet”. Fire mitigation, while important, requires a separate budget. 2B triggers the thought: “Are you crazy? Over eighteen years and over $80 million of enslavement to bad leadership, bad logic and a payroll full of employees.
Climate In-Action’s current annual budget is approximately $6 million. More than 40% of that will go to employee salaries in 2023 – and that’s without this tax increase being shown in and with the remaining municipal money, which would bring personnel costs to 50%. They’re hiring more people, and that really bothers me. How much carbon is reduced by hiring more people?
A simple cost-benefit analysis will answer this in a way that all the mumbles in the world won’t change. I need a real cost-benefit analysis, not a long list of all the good things they plan to do, or the paper plates they have recycled. We know the path of good intentions.
The city should audit the actual cost per ton of carbon reduction. Whether you represent a Boulder business (who can’t vote) or you’re a resident (who can), don’t pretend the money is well spent.
Boulder Climate in-Action also has bad logic. Boulder electrified its own buildings and helped the wealthy electrify their homes. Boulder has electric vehicles (EVs) and plenty of chargers for them. This is not fairness: it is acting rich.
Electricity is today’s equivalent of burning 44% coal. Unless you’re tied to renewables, you’re burning the equivalent of 44% coal with heat pumps, electric vehicles, and e-bikes. We need to use more renewable energy and less electricity. Later, but not now – unless it’s directly related to solar or wind.
Boulder in Action has a long list of 2A good intentions, hot collaboration, and millions of trivial goals that fail cost-benefit analysis. (If we ever had to make one.) To repair what is broken, you must first see how to replace its broken parts. We need to spend very little on employee paychecks and a lot on real, quantifiable carbon reduction.
For years I have been saying that what we need are solar incentives, wind incentives, RECs (Renewable Energy Certificate = legal credit for 1 megawatt of renewable electricity) and reduced energy consumption. We must first reduce electricity consumption. Stage 2 comes after the grid is updated and renewables reach over 90% in every home and business.
Boulder has a long history of rejecting CERs and providing a disparaging, obfuscating story to make CERs taste like poison. They’re not: they drive the renewables industry, and we should buy all the RECs we can afford, because that’s a quantifiable carbon reduction.
The Boulder Climate in-Action story will try to convince you otherwise. Why? Because this simple solution would end some of their jobs. While it is true that this is a complex problem, complex paralysis this is what we are suffering, at the cost of tens of millions of dollars.
By voting no, the message of discontent is clear. Fix it first, then show us the carbon reduction and the actual cost.
“So what?” you ask. Without the taxes – one of which expires next year and the other in 2025 – it will be time to reevaluate. Don’t feel intimidated to vote yes. Think critically.
I want carbon reduction, fast and honestly documented. Nothing like this exists in 2A or 2B. We need money and effort to reduce carbon, but our bureaucracy is just road mud that keeps our wheels turning. Fewer paychecks for employees: More solar incentives, wind incentives, RECs and reduced energy consumption are what we really need.
Patrick Murphy is a botanist/plant ecologist who has lived in Boulder for 53 years.
This opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Boulder Beat or its owner, writers or publishers.
Climate Elections Opinion Rock CAP boulder town Climate action plan climate tax elections taxes UOTUtility occupancy tax. The first part was originally adopted in 2010 by voters, to replace the Xcel f… Tax on the occupation of public services
Related Content
