Home
News
ASPEN — Aggressive goals to cut Aspen's greenhouse gas emissions won favor with the City Council Monday, but members balked at some of the recommendations to achieve the target reductions.
The council unanimously backed a plan to cut the community's emissions of gases associated with global warming to 30 percent below its 2004 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 2004 levels by 2050.
The 30 percent reduction, particularly, is doable on the local level, said Dan Richardson, the city's global warming project manager.
"This is an aggressive plan, it's very ambitious, but it is based on science. ... It's not something we just pulled out of a hat," he said.
The goals reflect what scientists believe is necessary to stabilize the climate, according to Richardson, who will step down from the city post to take a job in the private sector later this month.
"We believe this goal is how not to look like Amarillo, Texas, by the end of the century," added Calla Ostrander, facilitator for the city's global warming project, the Canary Initiative. Projections indicate Aspen's climate could resemble Amarillo's by 2099 with no action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While council members had no qualms with the goals, some had significant reservations with key recommendations - notably Richardson's call to construct the "preferred alternative" at the Entrance to Aspen by 2007. That alternative calls for two general-vehicle lanes plus two dedicated mass-transit lanes from Buttermilk into town, furthering efficient mass transit and reducing the gridlock that creates long lines of idling, single-occupant vehicles virtually every weekday.
The city, however, is in the midst of a new public process to reach consensus on what to do with the entrance, and council members weren't keen on undermining that effort by making the preferred alternative seem a fait accompli. Some citizens already fear the latest round of talks are a "shell game" and that the council has made up its mind on how to fix the entrance, Mayor Helen Klanderud said.
"I personally feel there are alternatives to the preferred alternative," Councilman Torre said. "I think it's a little untimely, considering the process we're trying to go through."
Councilman Jack Johnson said he's willing to commit only to the outcome of the public process.
"Even though they may prefer a high-emission alternative?" Richardson asked.
The council could support another alternative that has the equivalent effect of the preferred alternative, but it has to commit to doing something substantial with the entrance, if it wants to meet the reduction goals, advised City Manager Steve Barwick.
"We need to say that what we have presently is a problem," said Councilman J.E. DeVilbiss.
Council members also questioned the feasibility of requiring an energy rating for residential properties each time they change hands. There are no proposed ramifications of the audit, other than disclosure.
"It seems to me you're on pretty shaky legal ground to require something that the state doesn't," Councilwoman Jasmine Tygre said.
The proposed climate plan makes recommendations for both city government and community action in areas such as air and ground transportation, energy efficiency in buildings, electricity generation, and waste reduction and recycling, but Johnson took issue with the report's lack of concrete recommendations on reducing emissions associated with air travel.
Commercial and private jet traffic at the local airport has been identified as a big contributor to the community's overall gas emissions.
Johnson noted the irony in a recommendation to shut off the city's downtown fire hearth while glossing over the airport issue.
Richardson said he shared Johnson's frustration with the lack of tangible steps to reduce jet emissions, but said city staffers were unable to identify significant steps that could be taken.
"There are some limitations as to what not only the city of Aspen but Pitkin County can do," he said.
Finally, council members expressed concerns about the cost of implementing some of the proposals. The action plan defines no costs; they will have to be determined as the city moves forward.
"To commit to something, we do need to live with the price tag on it," Klanderud said. "We need to know what we're committing to."
The council did not set a date for further discussion of the action plan's recommendations.
Janet Urquhart's e-mail address is janet@aspentimes.com
The council unanimously backed a plan to cut the community's emissions of gases associated with global warming to 30 percent below its 2004 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 2004 levels by 2050.
The 30 percent reduction, particularly, is doable on the local level, said Dan Richardson, the city's global warming project manager.
"This is an aggressive plan, it's very ambitious, but it is based on science. ... It's not something we just pulled out of a hat," he said.
The goals reflect what scientists believe is necessary to stabilize the climate, according to Richardson, who will step down from the city post to take a job in the private sector later this month.
"We believe this goal is how not to look like Amarillo, Texas, by the end of the century," added Calla Ostrander, facilitator for the city's global warming project, the Canary Initiative. Projections indicate Aspen's climate could resemble Amarillo's by 2099 with no action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While council members had no qualms with the goals, some had significant reservations with key recommendations - notably Richardson's call to construct the "preferred alternative" at the Entrance to Aspen by 2007. That alternative calls for two general-vehicle lanes plus two dedicated mass-transit lanes from Buttermilk into town, furthering efficient mass transit and reducing the gridlock that creates long lines of idling, single-occupant vehicles virtually every weekday.
The city, however, is in the midst of a new public process to reach consensus on what to do with the entrance, and council members weren't keen on undermining that effort by making the preferred alternative seem a fait accompli. Some citizens already fear the latest round of talks are a "shell game" and that the council has made up its mind on how to fix the entrance, Mayor Helen Klanderud said.
"I personally feel there are alternatives to the preferred alternative," Councilman Torre said. "I think it's a little untimely, considering the process we're trying to go through."
Councilman Jack Johnson said he's willing to commit only to the outcome of the public process.
"Even though they may prefer a high-emission alternative?" Richardson asked.
The council could support another alternative that has the equivalent effect of the preferred alternative, but it has to commit to doing something substantial with the entrance, if it wants to meet the reduction goals, advised City Manager Steve Barwick.
"We need to say that what we have presently is a problem," said Councilman J.E. DeVilbiss.
Council members also questioned the feasibility of requiring an energy rating for residential properties each time they change hands. There are no proposed ramifications of the audit, other than disclosure.
"It seems to me you're on pretty shaky legal ground to require something that the state doesn't," Councilwoman Jasmine Tygre said.
The proposed climate plan makes recommendations for both city government and community action in areas such as air and ground transportation, energy efficiency in buildings, electricity generation, and waste reduction and recycling, but Johnson took issue with the report's lack of concrete recommendations on reducing emissions associated with air travel.
Commercial and private jet traffic at the local airport has been identified as a big contributor to the community's overall gas emissions.
Johnson noted the irony in a recommendation to shut off the city's downtown fire hearth while glossing over the airport issue.
Richardson said he shared Johnson's frustration with the lack of tangible steps to reduce jet emissions, but said city staffers were unable to identify significant steps that could be taken.
"There are some limitations as to what not only the city of Aspen but Pitkin County can do," he said.
Finally, council members expressed concerns about the cost of implementing some of the proposals. The action plan defines no costs; they will have to be determined as the city moves forward.
"To commit to something, we do need to live with the price tag on it," Klanderud said. "We need to know what we're committing to."
The council did not set a date for further discussion of the action plan's recommendations.
Janet Urquhart's e-mail address is janet@aspentimes.com
