But now what?
Frankly, although I'm pleased at the ocmmitment, I'm highly skeptical that Arlington will be able to meet an 80% target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. That's a 2% reduction every year, and a 10% reduction every 5 years. How is Arlington going to achieve that exactly? Here's what I'd expect to see, and soon, if Arlington is truly serious about this:
1. Every new government-owned building (including schools, firehouses, police stations, you name it) in the county should be built at LEED Platinum levels of energy efficiency.
2. Every existing government-owned building should be retrofitted ASAP with energy-efficient boilers, light bulbs, applicances, roofing, etc.
3. The county should pledge to increase its purchases of carbon-free electricity sharply over the next few years, preferably so that Arlington buys almost all of its electricity from renewable sources within 10-15 years or so.
4. The county should put in place major incentives and disincentives to encourage the private sector to construct buildings to the highest energy efficiency standards possible. What I do NOT want to hear is any excuse about "Dillon's Rule" or "there isn't the political will." What I DO want to see is every Arlington politician and candidate pledging to make this happen. Period.
5. It's time to replace every streetlight in Arlington County with LEDs or other energy efficient lighting options. Traffic lights as well.
5. Aside from global warming, it's time for Arlington to move forward quickly on a whole host of other environmental areas, so that the county is a leader both statewide and nationally in this area. Permeable parking lots. Tree planting. Stream protection and restoration. Trolley lines down Glebe Road and Columbia Pike. Full commitment to making Metro - bus and rail - the best system in the world. Increase recycling through "single stream" methods. Start using recycled tire rubber for sidewalk material. And a lot more.
To end on a positive note, I commend Arlington County for joining with Fairfax County and others in the "cool cities" program. Now, it's time to haul ass.
So the 2% per year - do you know if that as firm a goal as the 80% over 43 years? And will that be measured year by year and drastic actions taken if the 2% is not met? To me this seems the only practical way to actually make a 43 year goal work - measure regular progress and meet or exceed the target every year.
Great point regarding metrics. It's important to note that "cool cities" and "Cool Counties" are different programs, albeit with the same end in mind: reducing carbon emissions.
When Chairman Connolly met with the Sierra Club earlier this year, he pointed out that the cool cities program was a wonderful thing, but wasn't guided by a concrete set of metrics and didn't set firm goals.
Cool Counties, he told them, should be different. That's why Fairfax County developed the actual "template" that's being used as part of the program. It lays out literally dozens of things that county governments should do to be considered an actual "Cool County."
There's more information here.
James Walkinshaw
Campaign Manager
Connolly for Chairman
The 43 year thing doesn't hold anyone accountable and therefore the tough decisions can be pushed off to the next guy. But if there really are year by year goals it'll force everyone to stay focused and on track. And, gut check time, it will force today's elected officials to make tough or perhaps not-so-popular decisions regarding business and the environment.
Gerry held his ground against the popular choice (at least popular on the blogs) regarding the Tysons Tunnel issue. Now, can he take the same sort of tough stance when business conflicts with environmental goals? I hope so.