City Council postpones action on green proposal

In Charleston's own version of the climate talks going on this week in Copenhagen, City Council considered a sweeping but controversial plan to tackle the issues of sustainability and climate change, then decided to wait 60 days before voting on the plan.

The vote to defer action on the Charleston Green Plan came after an hour-long public hearing where those who said it would create jobs, reduce energy bills and help the planet squared off against climate change skeptics and those fearful of government regulation.

Among council members, several said they had not had enough time to review and consider the plan, while also struggling with the city's 2010 budget.

"If we don't accept the overwhelming, accumulated scientific data that greenhouse gases affect global warming, we need this Charleston Green Plan anyway," Mayor Joe Riley said before the issued was deferred. "If we don't develop sustainable practices, then our civilization -- whether you believe the climate change data or not -- is at stake."

At issue Tuesday was a resolution supporting the Green Plan. A resolution is a statement of intent, and not a detailed plan backed by the force of law, and therefore contains no new regulations or taxes.

Riley described the plan as "food for thought" and said some of the suggestions in the plan, such as taxing vehicles based upon their carbon emissions, are beyond the authority of city government.

Councilman Gary White said such suggestions shouldn't be in the plan to begin with.

As with the climate talks in Copenhagen, the hard part for the city would be moving from a statement of goals to specific policies, incentives and regulations.

"Not all of the items will be implemented, at the end of the day," said developer James Meadors, chairman of the Green Committee.

The goal staked out in the plan is to cut citywide carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2030, compared with emissions in 2002, and achieve an 83 percent reduction by 2050.

The plan assumes that renewable energy sources will be widely available in the near future, and sets a goal of getting 15 percent of all power used in the city from renewable sources by 2020.

Charleston's deferred resolution would have explicitly endorsed the view held by most scientists, that carbon emissions caused by burning fossil fuels are contributing to higher global temperatures, rising sea levels, and other undesirable if not disastrous effects.

Climate change skeptics and members of the Charleston Tea Party organization urged City Council to reject the Green Plan, portraying it as an open door to government mandates aimed at addressing a fictional problem.

"It's the camel's nose under the tent," said Pat McBride of Daniel Island. "Can any council member tell me what the financial impact will be on developers and homeowners?"

Other opponents called man-made climate change a hoax or a scam, and the Green Plan the product of "Ivory-tower elites."

Supporters of the plan, many of whom were volunteer members of the Green Committee during the past two years, sought to portray it as a non-political issue. "This is not an issue of left or right, but of right and wrong," said Dennis Knight, who chaired the building subcommittee.