Overall CAN comments on NCRRP draft 8 29 19August 30, 2019
Comments on Draft Northampton Climate Resilience and Regeneration Plan
These comments on the draft Northampton Climate Resilience and Regeneration Plan (NCRRP) are submitted on behalf of Climate Action Now, Western Massachusetts (CAN).*Specific comments
by section are inserted into a pdf copy of the NCRRP draft separately provided (see document named “CAN comments on NCRRP draft plan 8 20 19.pdf), with general comments and other suggestions
provided below in this document.
The NCRRP draft (hereafter referred to as the “Plan”) presents an admirable set of aspirational goals for Northampton and reflects a great deal of time and dedication on the part of
city staff. The Mayor’s proclamation that Northampton will become carbon neutral by 2050 is inspiring and consequential.
However, the Plan should acknowledge that we are in a state of climate emergency withthe IPPC having announced the next 11 years as the most critical in reducing carbon emissions to
avoid tipping points after which we face much more grave consequences.The Plan therefore needs to establish targets for achieving rapid progress, with scheduled assessments to assure
that we are achieving them. If the goal is carbon neutrality by 2050 (in 30 years) then we should be well over half way to our goal by 2035. The IPCC recommends overall emissions elimination
of 45% by 2030, which is acknowledged in the Plan on page 45. The Plan then presents “Low-Case, Mid-Case and High-Case” GHG emissions projections on pages 45-47 but disappointingly
does not commit to achieving the “High-Case” scenario, which is the only one that achieves the necessary 45% reduction by 2030. We recommend that a firm commitment be made to achieving
this goal.
The Plan needs to specify what metrics will be used for measurement of our progress in each sector. For each proposed measure, the timeframe for achievement should be given in years
(rather than the short, medium and long-term designations).The absence of clear metrics and timeframes gives the impression of weak commitment to the achievement of these goals.
In addition, the plan should give recognition to the factthat achieving our ambitious goals will take massive commitment and coordination at the municipal, state, regional & federal
levels, and that a municipal action plan is an incomplete but necessary piece of a larger campaign.
The current draft of the Plan does not distinguish between actions that a municipality can undertake under current laws and regulations, and those that require advocacy to change state
policy to achieve. The categories for action that require changes in state law or state building codes should clearly acknowledge that municipal strategiesneed to consist of persuasive
and determined advocacy. In those cases, the Plan should specify what mechanisms for advocacy will be explored (municipal resolutions, letters to state officials, communication with
legislators, endorsement of legislation, communication with the Governor, efforts within regional agencies, efforts within the Massachusetts Municipal Association etc.)
Those categories for action that are possible to achieve municipally (e.g. via zoning changes) should be clearly delineated.
In the Summary Table (pages 11-17) the column that includes categorization of ‘policy, program, capital improvement’ etc.should be replaced with one containing information about what
categories of actions are needed e.g. city council ordinance or order, zoning change, advocacy for change in state law or regulation etc.
Regarding the health of shade trees and forest, we wholeheartedly endorse the comments of the Shade Tree Commission and have refrained from making many other comments in these sections.
Other specific suggestions:
In the Energy section we suggest adding a strategy of outreach to community members and landscapers to eliminate the use of gas-powered leaf blowers and mowers.
In the Energy section we suggest adding a strategy of requiring energy audits as part of permit applications for any building renovations/additions.
In the Energy section we suggest adding a strategy of providing city incentives for farmers in the floodplain to plant perennial crops, minimize tilling, and use other methods to stabilize
soil and increase its ability to absorb flood waters. This would decrease flood danger and provide an example for other farmers.
In the Waste section, we suggest adding a strategy of reducing the source of waste by eliminating disposable plastic bottles, packaging and Styrofoam via ordinance. We suggest a 1-year
timeframe for eliminating Styrofoam and single use water bottles, and 2-3 years for packaging.
*The CAN Steering Committee members who are residents of Northampton include: Marty Nathan, Adele Franks, Susan Theberge, Sharon Moulton, and Tina Ingmann.