Shock-Factor Reporting Endangers Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan

The City of Berkeley made headlines last fall for its innovative municipal solar financing program, and it quickly became a model for dozens of other progressive cities across the nation.

Mayor Tom Bates now has his sights set on another groundbreaking policy ripe for replication: municipal climate action plans.

But unlike the smooth-sailing solar deal, Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) has run into some major snags – most notably an incendiary article from the San Francisco Chronicle that put Berkeley citizens into an uproar.

Published a few days before the plan came up for review before the City Council, the article raised such a wave of concern that the council pushed back its scheduled vote to this coming Tuesday, in order to hear more public comments.

I spent some time getting to the bottom of Berkeley’s publicity woes to find out what caused this bastion of progress to stall on such a landmark policy.

Berkeley residents gave the green light for the CAP when they overwhelmingly passed Measure G in 2006, committing the city to 80% greenhouse gas reductions by 2050.

A climate action coordinator, Timothy Burroughs, was hired to figure out not just what it would take to get Berkeley down to scientifically recommended carbon levels, but also how the city could become zero-waste, get 100% of its food grown within a 250 mile radius, de-carbonize its entire vehicle population, and aggressively promote high-density housing, all within the next 40 years. It may sound like an excerpt from Berkeley author Ernest Callenbach’s Ecotopia, but for Burroughs, it’s his job.

After almost three years of research, public input and planning, Burroughs unveiled the newest version of the 145-page plan at the City Council meeting on April 21. It was expected that in its mature form, the CAP would pass easily and move on to the environmental review phase. Instead, it met an unexpected backlash.

What was the source? All signs point to San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carolyn Jones, who claimed that the Climate Action Plan will mandate retrofits costing Berkeley households upwards of $33,800 each.

News of that figure spread like wildfire, with her article receiving 100 online comments in the first 24 hours and rapidly rising.

The city was quick to release a memo “correcting” Jones’ claim. City Manager Phil Kamlarz responded to the $33,800 figure by saying:

“This is false. Moreover, this assertion contradicts one of the fundamental goals of the CAP – to lower the costs of energy upgrades in homes and businesses.”

"The article implies that the city will force residents to comply with energy standards 'in the next few years.' This is not accurate. Rather, the CAP states that energy standards need to be developed through a collaborative process with the community and subject ultimately, to the City Council's review and consideration.”

However, much of the damage had already been done. Despite the fact that the CAP is in its third draft, having had two lengthy public comment periods, fierce arguments regarding cost and economic impact were back on the table.

Economic impact is arguably one of the CAP’s weakest points – the Berkeley community has been calling for greater detail and concrete cost estimates, and CAP staff have basically refused to provide them. But to be fair, this is not because city officials don't want to divulge costs. It's because a complex set of interacting policies will be developed in the future via the collaborative community process, making current cost estimates or averages impossible (and politically dangerous) to ascertain.

At this point, CAP planners are just trying to gain consensus around overall goals and strategies to meet Measure G, and they intend to let the community decide which carrots and sticks are placed when and where to make it happen.