I’m on the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission. It’s been an interesting assignment, occasionally even rewarding, though mostly mundane stuff. At our last meeting, the agenda included an update of the County Resource Management Plan including the county’s official climate change plan. The Legislature this year mandated that we update the plan to address pipelines. I’m assuming that a member of the Legislature got a campaign donation from somebody in the oil pipeline business, and suddenly it became urgent that every county’s plans consider pipelines. We already had considered pipelines, but tweaked it to make them happy.
That revision led me down a rabbit hole into the climate change plan. It is officially the policy of Summit County that we will reduce the total carbon output from all sources in Summit County to 80% of the 2014 level, by 2050. I don’t know why they chose that formula — it seems easier to say “reduce to the 1995 level” or whatever year corresponds with 80% of 2014. But that’s what it says. 2050 is far enough out that I probably won’t be around to see if we hit the goal or not.
There is actually a lot happening now. The County has been pretty active in carbon reductions on its own operations. County buildings are taking that into account when they are built and remodeled. There is a serious effort being made. Park City, for its part, has also done a lot. The city, county, and ski resorts are partners in a big solar-energy project discretely located where people of our delicate gentility don’t have to look at it. There’s a big wind farm project approved near the Wyoming line. So without question, stuff is happening. The high-impact changes will have to happen at the level of the big utilities. Some 61% of our electricity is generated with coal, and 24% by natural gas, so there is a long way to go.
Looking at it personally, I’ve made some changes. Since 2014, I’ve replaced a very old furnace in my house with something that is supposed to be 96% efficient. All my lights are LEDs. I have no idea what my house’s carbon footprint was in 2014, so measuring where I am relative to that is impossible. But between the lights and the furnace, and buying a block of wind power equal to what the hot tub uses, I’m surely below whatever it was in 2014. My transportation footprint is huge, though I make fewer trips into Park City these days. So overall, I am going to give myself a gold star and call it good.
The next item on our agenda at the Planning Commission was an update on a proposed rezoning of 1,200 acres in Hoytsville that would create a brand new town of 15,000 people, with build-out happening around 2050. And they said irony was dead. Applying the “80% of 2014” standard there becomes problematic. There is certainly a measurable carbon output from that 1,200 acres of farmland. There are dairy cows burping, and a lot of manure being composted, and big tractors burning diesel fuel to harvest crops. There is also a lot of green plant matter that is absorbing a lot of carbon. Even if all of these new homes are fueled by renewable electricity, and if all the owners drive electric cars charged by the breath of angels, I’m willing to bet that the carbon footprint of 15,000 new neighbors — renewable as they may be — is substantially greater than the existing herd of burping dairy cows. So we make some progress, and then completely reverse it with new growth.
The lot next door to mine was vacant in 2014. It was an aspen forest with underbrush so dense you couldn’t drive a deer through it. There is now a 4,500-square-foot house on the lot with three propane furnaces. The only way to reduce their carbon output to the “80% of 2014” level is tearing the house down. They are lovely people and great neighbors. But the forest they cleared absorbed carbon, and their house, even if entirely powered by renewables (which it is not), will always be a net producer of greenhouse gases. It’s impossible to make that balance. My neighbors are nice, but I’m not taking cold showers to balance the ledger on their behalf.
The amended Resource Management Plan, having been approved by both planning commissions, advanced to the County Council for adoption this week. And when the time comes to act on the rezone of 1,200 acres, or the Dakota-Pacific project, or lord knows what else will come along, we will nibble around the edges of the climate-changing impact of that new growth, and pretend that any of this is sustainable because there is an electric bus charging station included, then approve it because we need affordable housing today more than we need carbon reduction in 30 years.
The concept of carbon reduction is pretty straightforward. Actually getting there is enormously difficult. It will require changes in the way we live. It’s probably impossible if we are going to double the state’s population in the next 50 years. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try — but switching to LED lights won’t get us there.