In July 2006, Columbia adopted the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which called for a 7 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. Unfortunately, an Aug. 6 report by the city found emissions went the opposite direction, increasing by 4.6 percent from 2000 to 2010.
That 4.6 percent is the reason Monta Welch showed up at the City Council meeting Monday night. Welch, on behalf of the Columbia Climate Change Coalition, gave 10 suggestions for ways to reduce emissions, ranging from the simple, like raising emission goals, to the complex, like overhauling ordinances regarding trees and water.
One of the best things Welch said the city could do is to stop removing trees and start planting more.
“We’ve lost a lot of trees,” Welch said. “We have to plant more just not to replace but for neutralizing the carbon. We need a new comprehensive plan.”
Columbia is already doing many of Welch’s suggestions like reviewing the building designs, City of Columbia Sustainability Manager Barbara Buffaloe said. The city has put together a commission to change the building codes to be more efficient and save energy, Buffaloe said.
But the 4.6 percent increase isn’t as dark as it seems.
James Mitchell, the city’s sustainability intern who gave the report to the City Council, said the increase in overall emissions was due to the large population growth Columbia experienced. Despite the overall increase, per capita emissions have decreased.
The city was able to cut back on per capita emission of greenhouse gases because it started buying from more efficient, cleaner power plants. The city started to switch to companies that produced fewer greenhouse gases in making electricity, which brought the emissions per capita to 20.9 metric tons.
“The per capita in 2005 is about 25 to 26 metric tons per person,” Mitchell said. “We definitely have had a decrease in per capita emission mostly in the way that we buy our energy.”
Switching to cleaner companies is the only feasible way to reach a 7 percent decrease in emissions of greenhouse gasses in the short term, he also said.
“If Columbia were to go to 30 percent renewable energy, replacing its dirtiest sources, this is essentially the only way to do it by 2015,” Mitchell said. “I’ve given you this because this is the only practical approach.”
Mayor Bob McDavid was much more optimistic about the report because of the decrease in per capita emissions. The 7 percent total decrease was entirely unfeasible because it would take a 35 percent per capita decrease in emissions, he said.
“For me, given the explosive growth of Columbia, I’m very proud of what the city has done in the last 10 years,” McDavid said. “Between 2000 and 2010, I’m seeing a 16 percent decrease in per capita C02 emissions. That’s a trend that we should continue to accelerate.”
Welch wasn’t as optimistic, saying the report was very disappointing.
“I do see it as troubling,” Welch said. “I want to acknowledge there are population concerns to take into account — regardless, we could have stayed more neutral if we were doing a really good job.”
Despite Welch’s disappointment, Buffaloe said Columbia wasn’t the only city to not achieve its goals. Of the more than 1000 cities to adopt the Climate Protection Agreement, she said only a very small handful of the cities have met that goal.
