Follow this blog:
RSS

Will Austin reach its 100% carbon neutral goal?

By | September 17, 2012, 5:26 AM PDT

In 2007, the city of Austin, Texas chose to be a leader in municipal government sustainability. The city set a goal of becoming 100 percent carbon neutral by 2020.

Five years into the program, and the city is well on its way to reaching its goal, according to Government Technology. Through various initiatives the city government has decreased its emissions from 300,000 metric tons in 2007 to 183,000 metric tons in 2011.

So far, the major carbon-cutting programs have included powering all city buildings and facilities with 100 percent renewable energy and converting its fleet of vehicles to alternative fuels or hybrid vehicles (65 percent of already made the change). And if the city can’t meet its 100 percent goal through local changes, the city will purchase carbon credits.

While reaching the plan’s lofty goals can be challenging — the renewable energy program cost $8.5 million more than business as usual and sometimes politics can get in the way of conservation — the implementation of these policy goals has led to a major shift in how the city operates.

“Everything has evolved since we initiated the plan in 2007, which has been an interesting part of the whole process,” Zach Baumer, Austin’s climate protection program manager, told Government Technology. “The City Council and the mayor have changed, but the city remains committed, and has raised the importance level of the resolution. It is becoming ingrained in the culture of the city.”

That alone is a big win for the city.

Photo: Flickr/anneh632

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tyler Falk

About Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Contributing Editor

Tyler Falk freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C. Previously, he was with Smart Growth America and Grist. He holds a degree from Goshen College.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Tyler does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
6
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Offset the $8.5bn against saved fuel costs
You need to off-set the $8.5bn spent/costs against the huge reduction in fuel costs not having to buy oil based fuels of electricity from the main grid.

I almost want to laugh at people in near-by Houston complaining that in the height of summer their Air Conditioning is costing them $500 bucks a month or more to run, yet they have no interest in investing in harnessing the solar energy beating down on their roof for 12 hours or so a day.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
17th Sep
+2 Votes
+ -
Carbon neutral
So far I have rarely seen any group or organization that is truly carbon neutral. Buying carbon credits is an interesting corporate scam. Many countries in central America and equatorial regions of the planet are losing forest cover and turning to desert while corporations are supposedly buying up those areas and refurbishing them as green space. I would like to see those areas turning "green" before they are pillaged by foresters looking for hardwoods or making pasture for cattle to make Big Macs.
Posted by radiodog4@...
17th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
What will the final cost be?
the renewable energy program cost $8.5 million more than business as usual.--

Can taxpayers afford the transition and the increased ongoing cost of operations?

Proponets of clean energy do not want to hear this, but at a minimum clean energy must be break even on cost with conventional power sources to be viable.

You cannot do that with punitive taxes on fossil fuels that punish the average citizen who needs an affordable means of transportation, heat and lights.

Punitive taxes punish the harshest the very people who do not have the financial resources to pay the estimated $1,200 per person, per year cost of Obamas tax and trade scheme. Which is why a majority of democrats failed to support cap and trade.

You cannot balance the numbers with massive taxpayer funded subsidies either. Those are unsustainable on the scale being proposed by some. And before anyone complains about the big oil tax breaks I want to remind them that the tax breaks cannot be that big because never has a big oil company paid $0.00 income taxes like GE did with the help of its clean energy credits in 2011.

Clean energy must mature into being both clean and cheap. Anything else will harm the average citizen, which is unacceptable.
Posted by Hates Idiots
17th Sep
+1 Vote
+ -
If Austin buys carbon credits
will they tax the citizens to make up the balance? The local electric co. is a cooperative and has low rates to citizens, will that be affected?
Posted by opcom
17th Sep
+1 Vote
+ -
If they buy carbon credits costs will go up.
You can bet they will either raise rates, taxes or both to pay for the carbon credits.

They also do not care if clean energy sources cost more.

The whole goal is to punish the end user with a higher cost of living to get a cleaner planet. The theory is higher cost incentivizes people to reduce energy use.

The thought is to punish us with punitive taxes on fossil fuels, sell carbon credits to us through coercion or force us to buy carbon credits to offset our pollution or make us pay for overly expensive clean power like wind or solar.

Those of us who have been conserving energy for years to keep our bills low simply pay more for the same. Be it electricity for lights or oil/gas for heat or gas to get to work.

Obamas cap and trade proposal back in 2009/1010 would have added $1,200 per person per year to the cost of living with its mix of taxes designed to punish the average citizen.
Posted by Hates Idiots
17th Sep
+1 Vote
+ -
Austin
Sure, and Austin has spent millions of tax dollars building bicycle lanes on through streets. Driving on Braker Lane is now hazardous because the lanes are so narrow (to accomadate bike lanes) that you can't help but bump side-veiw mirrors with the guy in the next lane.

They took Kramer Lane from two lanes each direction down to one lane each way to create new bike lanes, effectively doubling traffic, and causing longer wait times for incoming traffic from side streets. This results in longer idling and faster acceleration, generating more automotve exhaust.

All this to accomadate 3 or 4 bicyclists who don't pay gasoline tax or road or license fees. Tax the masses to benefit the few; it's the Progressive way.
Posted by bb_apptix
18th Sep
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!