The city of Wichita removed a community-wide greenhouse gas emissions reductions goal from a draft of its Climate Action Plan, while simultaneously renaming it the Community Resilience Plan.
The plan’s first draft, published last October, said Wichita aimed to cut community-wide greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2035. Scientists widely agree greenhouse gases, which are emitted by burning fossil fuels like gas or coal, contribute to climate change.
But the plan – which has yet to be voted on by Wichita’s City Council – garnered opposition. That included the leader of the Sedgwick County Republican Party, who came out against it and encouraged Republicans concerned with the climate plan to attend city meetings and make their voices heard. Many did, sharing concerns that ranged from the plan’s cost to the potential for vast government overreach in areas like transportation.
Throughout these conversations, city staff members insisted the plan would be paid for with grants and would not restrict individual freedoms. The plan is not considered a set of regulations or laws but rather a guiding policy document.
The updated draft of the plan said the removal of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions target was in response to "community concerns relating to how this goal would be achieved and what costs would be incurred."
In a city-issued survey about the plan, respondents prioritized climate change as the second-most important environmental issue behind drought. The survey garnered about 330 respondents.
Gary Janzen, Wichita’s director of public works and utilities, said the city government itself would still work toward reducing its own emissions and that other pieces of the plan – such as potentially adding energy efficiency aspects into the building code – would ultimately draw down emissions. But Wichita wouldn’t have to hold itself to the goal that may prove difficult to enforce.
“I'm not really sure how we would go about determining success – and what if we don't meet those goals?” Janzen told the city’s Sustainability Integration Board last week. “… We're not going to tell people to stop driving less. We're not going to mandate anything.”
The new plan instead elevates the issue of drought, which Wichita is currently facing, as well as air quality. Air pollutants are generated in Wichita “due to our industry and way of life,” according to the city’s website.
The decision to remove the community-wide emissions reduction goal was met with mixed reactions by the city's sustainability board. Ben Blankley, a board member, said he agreed with it.
“The plan needs to reflect Wichitans and, for Wichitans, I don't believe greenhouse gases are an emergency right now,” Blankley said. “But they can see the drought. And so people across the political spectrum can look at drought and go, ‘This is a big deal.’”
Others, like Lori Lawrence, disagreed.
“This is a bad idea,” Lawrence said. “We need to talk about greenhouse gas emissions. That's what's causing climate change. If you don't talk about that, how are you going to mitigate climate change at all?”
The latest draft maintains the original five areas on which to focus the city’s sustainability work: buildings and homes; energy supply and distribution; transportation and land use; natural resources (green spaces and water) as well as waste management and reduction.
And much of the information and plans laid out remain the same as the first draft, such as goals to grow the city’s tree canopy and increase the number of protected bicycle lanes. But the new draft almost entirely removes certain phrases, such as “greenhouse gases,” “environmental justice” or “climate change.”
For example, when discussing drought, the first draft notes that “experts agree that the effects of climate change could further reduce the availability of water in Kansas.” The latest draft instead notes that “experts agree that the effects of temperature and precipitation changes could further reduce the availability of water in Kansas.”
Brett Anderson is a community member who spoke out against the proposed climate plan. He estimates he’s attended six to seven community meetings since learning about it, in order to stay informed.
He was most concerned that the climate plan was “a start to a control system,” particularly around residents’ freedom of movement – a charge city staff and a council member vehemently denied and that’s been labeled a conspiracy theory by sources like the Associated Press.
Anderson said he’ll have to read the new plan closely before deciding whether his concerns have been allayed, even with the news that the greenhouse gas reduction goal has been omitted.
“I've learned to not take anybody's word for anything,” Anderson said.
