San Mateo’s Climate Action Plan progress report shows the city steadily reduced greenhouse gas emissions in numerous areas over the past 15 years, with the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission calling for further reductions to meet city targets.
The commission reviewed the city’s work to reduce emissions through policies around building electrification, renewable energy, sustainable transit and wastewater since 2005 as part of a review of its 2020 Climate Action Plan.
The city’s 2019 emissions of 519,240 metric tons were about 22% below the 2005 baseline number of 667,460 metric tons, exceeding its 2020 goal, according to a city staff report. However, its 2030 goal calls for being 40% below its 2005 numbers, an ambitious amount. A greenhouse gas emissions study from 2019 found that on-road transportation accounts for about 53% of emissions in the city, which the city staff acknowledged remains a large issue without an easy solution. On-road transportation only saw a 3% decrease in metric ton emissions from 2005 to 2019, going from about 282,000 to 274,000, while other areas, like residential emissions, saw a 30% decrease at the same time. Vehicle miles traveled have increased over the years.
Commissioner Kimiko Narita said while reducing some transit emissions would occur through incentives and current change, the city needed to do more and look to other cities for ideas.
“We are going to need some pretty drastic and pretty innovative and scaled solutions really fast if we are going to have a shot at collectively reaching these targets,” Narita said of the city’s emission goals.
Commissioner Pamela Rittelmeyer called for more education and outreach to the community to reduce emissions overall, asking the city to work with residents to understand what’s working and what needs to be done to help make sustainable changes.
“We really need to reduce our emissions. Electrification is only going to take us so far,” Rittelmeyer said. “We need behavioral change.”
Some on the commission also called on the council to continue to set ambitious goals to meet the coming challenges.
Emissions have mostly decreased because a higher proportion of energy is coming from renewable sources, with a staff report saying the introduction of Peninsula Clean Energy as an energy provider in the county in 2017 played a role in having more clean energy options to reduce emissions. However, Commissioner Susan Rowinski noted electric energy demand and increased pricing with electric options remains an issue.
“It’s the 1,000-pound elephant in the room and no one wants to answer that,” Rowinski said.
A city staff report said that in 2022, four single-family homes, one duplex and 25 accessory dwelling units received all-electric building permits. Around 136 electric vehicle charging ports are now publicly available in the city, with 31 city-owned public electric vehicle chargers now set up. Bike and pedestrian infrastructure also remains a priority, with 2.79 miles of bike lanes installed this year. Wastewater emission went down 34% from 2005 to 2019.
(5) comments
I’d be interested in knowing whether this Climate Action Plan addresses whether these emission reductions are actually making a difference in our overall air quality. If not, then does this push for electrification really accomplish anything, other than saying we’re reducing GHG? Although in reality, we can’t say we’re making a real difference in saving the planet?
Terence - these numbers are all estimates and extrapolations. But, they make one feel good and it keeps others busy and smiling. There is no realistic way to measure the effects of climate action activities.
Terence, these "reductions" in GHG emissions are of course doing little for overall air quality, because these "reductions" aren't real. At the center of this is Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) - basically an organizations whose only job is to greenwash San Mateo County's carbon emissions. Basically PCE is moving into Shasta or Kern County buying the bragging of old hydropower plants and old solar and wind farms. Now they can claim or brag, San Mateo County power is "green" and put that into Climate Action Plans. And the more energy is pushed towards "electrification" the faster the County looks green. Currently none of PCE's power sources has "Additionality" - which is the main feature to decide between "being green" and "looking green".
"Looking green" doesn't help with Transportation ... unless you push relentlessly for EVs and hybrids. But then they turn around and ban ebikes in Half Moon Bay and Palo Alto - so how serious are they really?
The real sustainable and green way to fix transportation would be to get a few of these bus and bike lanes going to make public and active transportation more convenient and safer. Usually 10-20% of people would switch within 5-10 years. Unless you start seeing some of those in San Mateo County, you know all the "Electrification" push wasn't really for "sustainability" - it's only for show and tell.
Another indication the CAP is fake is they included restricting leaf blowers in the plan which has nothing to do with combating climate change, except maybe in the minds of a few hysterical anti-leaf blower fanatics. It is purely political and makes the whole enterprise look foolish. In their numbers they don t show the amount of ghg from leaf blowers but use the total figure for all off road equipment which includes sources they never talk about such as construction equipment, outboard motors, lawn mowers, chain saws and others.
Many thanks, fellow Daily Journal subscribers, for your contributions. For those interested, this link highlights CAP Progress Updates through the years (https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3962/CAP-Progress-Updates). After reviewing the 2022 update and attachments, the plan does not address whether there is a difference in our overall air quality and lends credence to assertions by other contributors criticizing the Plan. Notably there are summaries of bicycle transportation projects but no metrics on usage or effectiveness. However it appears many projects were financed by grants. More strings attached “use it or lose it money”? We know how well that worked out for North Central…
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.