Cut the crap out of the CAP

Not to be mean but the draft Crested Butte Climate Action Plan (CAP) isn’t very good, and despite town council calls over the last many months to make it better, it continues to languish in what I would call bureaucratic mediocrity. The council’s call on Monday for drastically improved clarity and ultimately postponing adoption of the proposed CAP (again) was a good move despite obvious frustration by the staff. 

As written, the plan is too long, too scattered, parts of it are not based in reality, and as voiced by some town councilmembers, it is too vague for the general public to understand. If the draft is meant for the citizen’s advisory committee crafting the document with the help of staff and consultants, it’s perfect I guess…but if the plan is meant for the citizens who live here, it needs a lot of work.

When the third paragraph of the executive summary starts off with, “At the time of this plan’s development in 2024, the United States government was committed to reducing overall U.S. GHG emissions by 61-66% from 2005 levels by 2025 and reaching net zero GHG emissions economy wide by 2050 and…” STOP! Just stop. At the time of my wedding, I was 20 pounds lighter, had a lot more hair and was faster—none of that is relevant! Neither is what John Kerry thought as Joe Biden’s climate czar. And it makes me want to stop reading right there given the unreality of the current national situation with Donald now in charge. Start by being real. Taking some of the goals that came out of a more climate-friendly administration makes sense, but tailor it to CB and lose the 2024 unicorn. This is touted as a five-year road map and Donald will be there for four of them.

At 126 pages, it is too long. It seems to have been written around charts and graphics, pictures, cartoon icons and color palettes most consultants love to put in final reports. Committees and consultants too often seem to believe they must justify their fee by making things longer. It’s like they think they get paid by the word, chart and graph. I know the 126 pages includes things like the town’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory…but don’t. Sure, reference your sources and have them available online but keep the plan clean so it doesn’t feel like a door stop when someone picks it up.

Here’s my suggestion — it probably won’t fly — but cut the crap out of the CAP. I read a lot of government and public documents, and I couldn’t read this one and understand it. Pity the average Joe or Jane who wants to do something productive to reduce their carbon footprint, picks up this document and finds him or herself down the rabbit hole of “improving waste management by reducing landfill waste…increasing composting and recycling and blah, blah, blah…” Huh? Stop!

Since town analysis shows that “Crested Butte’s 2022 GHG emissions inventory revealed that 90% of in-boundary community emissions are produced from building energy use” …cut the current document by 90%. Seriously. Give the public a clear 12-page plan focused on how best to deal with bringing down GHG emissions in existing buildings. Focus on what your report states is the most obvious issue that can be addressed effectively by focusing on a whopping 90% of the town’s GHG impact. And really be honest and transparent about what that would cost (overall and individually) and how the town might help subsidize such projects for those working people in town.

Sure, council wants to emphasize the strategies of decreasing energy use in general, moving toward electrification and decarbonizing the community. Most of that can be captured in retrofitting existing buildings, but go ahead and include some specifics of how the town is decarbonizing by moving toward more mass transit and trying to make land use decisions in the North Valley more climate friendly. 

Include another 12-page appendix (with graphs!) detailing grid decarbonization efforts with the GCEA, rules for electrification with future commercial and residential buildings and a cost benefit analysis for the plan. Explain when new regulations are likely to go into effect and who will be impacted. Given a seemingly successful direction to work with the GCEA and its supplier for more renewable electricity, does the town really need to evaluate renewable energy generation to meet town energy needs when renewables will already make up the bulk of its energy? While things like subsidizing planes filled with tourists and whether to use “snowmelt” to clear sidewalks are much bigger regional issues, those don’t belong in the CB CAP plan.

Sort of touched upon in the draft plan is that “diverse funding sources, including grants, utility programs and taxes” will be prioritized to fund climate action in Crested Butte. More taxes?! What does that mean? The plan mentions that the CAP measures will cost between $397,700 to $522,000 over the next five years. While cost impacts are probably dribbled over the 126 pages, it wasn’t easily clear on specifics that were easy to point to. 

Look, not to be mean, but if you really want most average people to read and buy into your plan, write it with them in mind and not the climate mitigation geeks (that’s a compliment!) on the citizen’s advisory committee or consultants who deal with this stuff every day. Make it shorter and simpler to read with easy to find answers. Focus on the elements that matter — in this case actions to retrofit existing buildings and make them more efficient. Why go into composting details when the real bang for the buck is obvious? And ditch the rainbow and unicorn idealism of what the country was doing in 2024…that already feels like eons ago and practically, it is, so citing Biden era goals taints the legitimacy of what you are trying to convey. 

Be real. 

Be clear. 

Be transparent. 

Be focused on actions that can work.

Good luck, and hopefully in the next go around, the plan is a clear 12 to 26 pages focused on an attainable and obvious priority with ways to get there, and not a convoluted 126 pages full of… 

—Mark Reaman