Kane County Board Passes Controversial Climate Action Plan Amidst Heated Debate and Opposition
On June 11, 2024, the Kane County Board voted to adopt the county’s version of the “Green New Deal.” During the meeting, Bill Roth (R) recommended moving the discussion back to the Energy and Environment Committee, stating that the committee had spent less than 20 minutes on the initial review. Roth believed the committee needed more time to delve into the specifics for a comprehensive understanding and informed decision-making. Despite his reasoning, the proposal to move the discussion back to the prior committee was voted down.
As the meeting progressed, another board member, David Young (R), detailed his opposition to the Climate Action Plan. He raised concerns about the plan, describing it as unnecessary, costly, and a threat to personal freedoms and local businesses. The point was made that Kane County is already reducing greenhouse gas emissions and maintaining high standards for clean air, water, and soil. “We’re already going in the right direction,” the argument went. “We don’t need this additional plan that imposes new regulations and costs taxpayers money.” The county’s air quality was highlighted, contrasting it with heavily polluted areas like New Delhi. On a recent Sunday, Kane County’s air quality index was 15, compared to New Delhi’s 888. “Why fix what isn’t broken?” was the question posed.
Criticism extended to the plan’s reliance on questionable data and short-term trends, noting that the temperature data predicting a rise from 60°F to 70°F lacks sufficient backing. “This is what North Carolina experiences now, with no data to support such a claim for us,” it was argued. Additionally, the use of 30-year data samples was challenged, suggesting a longer timeline, such as 100 or 300 years, for a more accurate picture. The methods for measuring carbon dioxide levels were also questioned, asserting that current estimates are based on indirect measures like vehicle miles rather than direct data collection.
Potential economic repercussions were highlighted, warning that the plan could drive businesses out of the county due to increased costs and stringent regulations. The transportation strategy promoting walking, biking, mass transit, and electric vehicles was criticized as impractical, given the current infrastructure and the high cost of electric vehicles. The plan’s goal of converting all government vehicles, including snowplows and dump trucks, to electric by 2040 and 2050 seems highly unlikely.
Several specific policies within the plan drew criticism, including the proposed net-zero construction ordinance, solar-ready requirements, and waste management penalties. It was argued that these would drive up costs for businesses and residents alike. The suggestion to phase out single-use products was also criticized for its practical difficulties and potential fines for non-compliance.
Further criticism targeted measures related to stormwater management, private land regulations, and health and safety provisions like providing air conditioning units for low-income housing. Questions were raised about who would fund these initiatives and their overall effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Towards the end of Mr Young’s speech, the qualifications of Ted Redmond, the plan’s author, were questioned. “Look him up on LinkedIn,” it was urged. “He’s an architect with a degree in interior design, not an environmental scientist. Do we really want our $92 million budget in the hands of someone with such credentials?”
Despite the detailed critique and intense opposition, the Climate Action Plan was passed in a 9-13 vote.
The Kane County meeting can be viewed on YouTube. Public Comments are at the beginning of the meeting, 00:19:00, and the Climate Plan discussion/vote starts at 1:47:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uCbdqfuvKA
The Climate Action Plan can be found in the Agenda, pages 1856 to 331.
https://www.kanecountyil.gov/Lists/Events/Attachments/7082/AG%20PKT%2024-06%20COB.pdf