News

The effects of climate change are being felt full force in our communities and around the world. Learn how we can all make a difference both individually and collectively by tackling this crisis. Bookmark this Climate Action Blog for information on local climate action efforts in Calaveras and Tuolumne county.

Email us @ tsclimateaction@gmail.com to add your voice.

For years, Tuolumne County has delayed creating a required “climate action plan” that is supposed to lay out steps the County will take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our region to help reduce climate change. The County has finally released the latest draft of its Climate Action Plan (CAP), but due to politics and pressure from climate change skeptics, the CAP turns out to be almost nothing but rhetoric, with no real requirements or mandates that will actually result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It is a “nothing actually required” non-action plan that should be an embarrassment to County residents.

Tuolumne County’s “Climate Action Plan” is now available for review and comments through June 15. www.tuolumnecounty.ca.gov/1332/Climate-Action-Plan. We are asking all Sierra Club members in Tuolumne County to take just a few minutes to submit comments in response to this plan.

The CAP is a smooth-talking document with nice graphics and important sounding words, but it mandates absolutely nothing to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to meet climate change reduction targets, or to do anything meaningful.

For example, one measure is: “Reduce vehicle idling.” Another measure is: “Encourage students to walk or ride a bike to school.” Another is: “Promote responsible consumption of products…”

Tuolumne County has no control over vehicles idling, and students already walk and bike to schools. The County has no way to control whether people consume products responsibly. All of these so-called “measures” are just empty phrases that can neither be enforced nor measured.

Chapter 4 is supposedly the core of the Climate Action Plan, and it is full of such aspirational measures – all without any solid requirements. Every single measure is followed by the wording, “Actions that could be taken under this measure include…” or similar weak language.

Chapter 5 identifies a subset of “actions” with a high priority. Here too, the so-called “Action” descriptions are brimming with squishy words like “promote” or “encourage” or “explore” or “support” or “where feasible.” The only requirement is Action 1.2.1: “Establish a policy to require new County buildings to be constructed to meet a high energy efficiency standard.”
Really? That’s the only mandate in the whole plan? And even for that, there is no definition of “high energy efficiency.”

As it is currently drafted, this climate action plan is purely cosmetic, written by slick consultants to promote the concept that ill-defined, voluntary measures will somehow result in a magical reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. What the county needs is a clear plan with meaningful, measurable required actions.

Background on why the plan was developed
The State of California has passed legislation that establishes emissions targets and a suite of measures to achieve these targets. State and federal actions, however, are not sufficient. Local communities must participate as well, so California SB 379 was adopted in 2015 to require cities and counties in California to define greenhouse reduction measures they will take locally.
Rather than adopting a weak and meaningless plan, Tuolumne County supervisors should adopt a strong, effective plan that requires (rather than “encourages”) actions that will lead to measurable changes. This plan does not suffice.

YOU can help make it better and more meaningful. Rather than Sierra Club members just submitting comments that complain about the totally inadequate draft Climate Action Plan, your comments can point out how the plan can be corrected and strengthened. This is a true opportunity for Club members to “act locally” to help deal with a global problem.

Here are ways you can help:

• Speak up now, calling out this document for the scam that it is.
• Contact your county supervisor.
• Contact Quincy Yaley (Community Development Director) with your comments at qyaley@co.tuolumne.ca.us, or mail your comment letters to the Community Development Department, 2 South Green St,
  Sonora, CA 95370.
• Send a letter to the editor of the Union Democrat.
• When you submit comments, consider recommending ways the CAP can be strengthened, improved, and made meaningful.

The CAP should have clear requirements that are measurable and quantifiable. Examples include:

• “Require all new development constructed in the County to be at least 10% more energy efficient than the current basic requirements.”
• “Utilize County funds or grants to ensure that there are electric vehicle charging units provided at every existing public school and county facility within the County within 10 years of CAP adoption.”
• “The County shall show leadership in the field or solar by installing solar systems on all feasible, cost-efficient sites on county buildings within 10 years of CAP adoption.”
• “The County will provide financial incentives for County businesses and residential parcels to install solar in order to reduce other energy consumption.”
• “The County will apply for grants and other sources of funding to assist county businesses to transition to the highest energy efficiency lighting.”
• “All existing County buildings will be retrofitted to boost energy efficiency by at least 25%. No less than 50% of County buildings will meet this goal within 10 years.”
• “All new County buildings will exceed minimum energy efficiency standards by at least 25%.”
• “The County will transition its vehicle fleet to entirely hybrid or electric vehicles as vehicles are replaced or added to the fleet.”

The CAP measures should be monitored, and an initial report on progress should be mandated to be made public within 3 years of CAP approval, with a second required public report at 6 years after CAP approval.

Bottom line
If Sierra Club members don’t engage to provide strong criticism of this incredibly weak, meaningless draft Climate Action Plan, then county supervisors may adopt it, and no effective greenhouse gas emission actions for our region will be required. It is important for you to take 5 minutes to engage and help on this key issue.

At the very least, please submit a short comment letter criticizing the CAP plan for not having clear, measurable, and meaningful measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Do it for your children and grandchildren, and for the future of our region. Remember, deadline for comments is June 15, make your voice heard!

When we think of climate action, we usually focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency and the transition to low-carbon transportation. However, food production accounts for over a quarter (26%) of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. We can’t tackle climate change without considering what we choose to eat.

Climate-killing beef. The graph below, from OurWorldinData.org illustrates the environmental impact of various types of foods – and beef is a prodigious producer of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. By weight, beef uses 10 times more climate-warming emissions than poultry meat. When compared with staples like potatoes, wheat and rice, the impact of beef is even more extreme. Meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein worldwide, but beef and dairy cattle produce 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Rainforest beef. Beef farming is a top driver of deforestation worldwide, particularly in the Amazon. Cattle ranching in the Amazon is pushing the forest to the edge of what scientists warn could be a vast and irreversible dieback. As stated in the Washington Post (April 29, 2022), the US bought more than 320 million pounds of Brazilian beef in 2021 – and we’re on pace to purchase nearly twice as much this year. According to this article, “If the Amazon is to die, it will be beef that kills it. And America will be an accomplice.”

A modeling study published in Nature.com (May 4, 2022), states that “Replacing just 20% of global beef consumption with a meat substitute within the next 30 years could halve deforestation and the carbon emissions associated with it.”

Local beef isn’t much better. Buying from local farmers is always a good idea, but transport accounts for less than 1% of beef’s greenhouse gas emissions. For beef, it doesn’t much matter if you buy from the farmer next door or from far way. What you eat is more important than where it comes from. If you are eating a burger or steak for dinner, your meal’s carbon footprint will be large no matter where it was produced.

#EatLessBeef for a better world. One of the most powerful actions you can take to reduce your carbon footprint is to eat less red meat. You don’t need to become vegan overnight – or ever – but eating less beef will have a major impact on our world and the trajectory of climate change.

This document synthesizes and summarizes current trends and projected future trends related to climate change on the Stanislaus National Forest and surrounding areas. Click to download Stanislaus NF Climate Change Trend Summary.

We received an email from Jonathan Sprout with this music video that he co-created with Emmy winner Rodney Whittenberg titled Wilderness. They filmed it in the Yosemite and Sierra Nevada region. The award-winning film promotes the protection of the Wilderness.

Quietly and without fanfare, on September 9, Harvard University announced that it would divest its vast endowment from fossil fuels. For the world’s richest university to divest is a triumph for climate activists. But Harvard’s announcement is hardly unique. To date, more than 1240 institutions globally with assets over $14.5 trillion have committed to divest or have divested from fossil fuels, including the University of California system, New York state’s pension funds, the Maine Public Employee Retirement System, Norway’s Government Pension Fund, over 400 faith institutions, and many civic associations and nonprofits.

Divesting is Good Economics
The divestment movement aims to break the hold that the fossil fuel industry has on economies and governments. Increasingly though, divestment decisions are based largely, if not solely, on economic self-interest. In the early 1980’s, fossil fuel stocks comprised seven of the top ten companies in the S&P 500. Today, no fossil fuel company is in that class. For the past decade or so, the energy sector has lagged almost every other industry on the world market, causing investors to lose billions. In contrast, funds that have divested from fossil fuels have not experienced negative consequences–investment returns were either neutral or positive.

As the world moves away from fossil fuels, that sector is becoming more volatile and riskier. The price of renewables continues to fall dramatically while that of fossil fuels has remained fairly constant, and may increase if more nations adopt carbon pricing and other regulations in response to the increasingly catastrophic impacts of climate change. According to researchers at Oxford, if solar, wind, batteries, and hydrogen follow their current exponentially increasing deployment trends for another decade, we will likely achieve a near-net-zero emissions energy system within 25 years. In the words of Mark Schlissel, the president of the University of Michigan, this means that “fossil fuel assets will diminish in value . . . perhaps more quickly than many realize,” and that there is a “growing appreciation of the long-term financial risks” of fossil fuels investments among investors.

Banks, insurance companies & institutional investors are taking notice
There have been important successes. According to recent commitments, no major U.S. bank will fund drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager,
announced a sweeping new set of policies which purportedly aim to put climate change and sustainability at the center of its business model, including divesting from companies that make more than 25% of profits from thermal coal. Vanguard, the mutual fund giant, has committed to the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, publicly pledging to slash its emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions across all of its investment products by 2050. Globally, 31 insurers have vowed to restrict underwriting for coal projects. Several insurers have also stopped underwriting projects producing or transporting oil sands.

But there is still a long way to go. For instance, BlackRock remains the largest investor in coal, oil and gas, and forest-destroying agribusiness. It is also the largest investor in the companies behind 12 contested coal, oil, and gas expansion projects that would blow through half of the remaining global carbon budget to keep us in line with Paris targets. Vanguard, despite its announcements, still has no formal coal exit policy and no proactive plans to address environmental issues, and the group appears to be significantly trailing its peers on the road to net zero. Insurance companies are still underwriting fossil fuel projects.

To divest or to influence companies from within?
Some especially large pension funds and institutional investors that want to keep pouring money into fossil fuels argue that divestment is not effective and that it is better to influence fossil companies through the leverage they can exert as shareholders, such as by supporting climate-friendly shareholder resolutions. Activist investors have had a few recent wins. Notably, activist investor Engine No. 1 spent roughly $12.5 million to win three board seats at Exxon Mobil Corp. However, the big institutions that have argued for using their leverage have often dragged their feet when it comes to supporting climate-friendly shareholder resolutions.

How is California doing in all of this?
Here in California, CalPERS and CalSTRS are the nation’s two largest pension funds. In 2015, SB 185 was enacted, requiring both funds to divest from companies that receive at least half their revenues from coal mining. A recent report has found that the pension funds have only divested a small portion of its coal-related holdings. Recognizing this, our Sierra Club Motherlode Conservation Committee in its last meeting in August voted in favor of a resolution that supports a Sierra Club California campaign for total CA divestment from all fossil fuels, including CALPERS, CALSTRS, and all other state, city and county funds.

What can you do?
So, if you are interested in joining the divestment movement, how do you do it? A few possibilities:

1. Join an organization, such as:
– Stop the Money Pipeline Coalition: https://stopthemoneypipeline.com/
– Fossil Free California: www.fossilfreeca.org
– Fossil Free Future: https://fossilfreefuture.earth/

2. Urge elected officials to support legislation or resolutions calling for divestment of public funds.

3. If you are part of a pension fund, you can urge your pension fund to divest.
– There are existing campaigns to get CalSTRS and CalPERS to divest: https://fossilfreeca.org/divestment-campaigns/.
– President Biden recently signed an executive order that calls for the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board to review whether to remove fossil fuel securities from the TSP (the federal employee pension fund). There have also been several bills introduced in Congress to allow TSP members to divest.

4. Divest yourself. Here are some resources to help you do it:
– https://fossilfreeca.org/move-your-money/
– https://stopthemoneypipeline.com/move-your-money/
– https://mazaskatalks.org/divestyourself