Groundhog Day: Anchorage to spend even more taxpayer dollars on yet another Climate Action Plan

The July 30 meeting of the Anchorage Assembly contains an action item that could lead to even more regulations for businesses and residents, as well as increased government carrying costs in the future: Another Climate Action Plan is going to be funded.

Mayor Suzanne LaFrance is requesting $362,750 to pay a private company to plan and provide the Climate Action Plan. The contract with Resource Systems Group, Inc., the group being recommended for the award, would run until June 30, 2026.

1. “The AMATS Climate Action Plan will build on the existing Anchorage Climate Action Plan, inventory transportation greenhouse gas emissions, evaluate strategies to reduce future emissions, update equity data from the AMATS Non-Motorized Plan, and engage a broad array of stakeholders throughout the development of the plan,” according to the LaFrance Administration.

The original climate action plan for Anchorage was adopted by the Anchorage Assembly on May 21, 2019, during the administration of Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, a Democrat who left office early due to a scandal involving a local news reporter.

There’s no explanation given by the current mayor’s office as to why another Climate Action Plan is needed. The goals of the first Climate Action Plan for Anchorage still need to be executed. They include:

1. Continue upgrading street and trail lights to high-efficiency LEDs.
2. Improve energy and water efficiency in municipal facilities.
3. Expand local renewable energy generation and use.
4. Increase opportunities for residents and businesses to implement clean energy technology.
5. Reduce the number of vehicle trips by offering alternatives for getting around by walking, biking, carpooling, and taking public transit.
6. Support infrastructure for electric vehicles.
7. Increase waste diversion.
8. Capture more potential energy in collected refuse.
9. Protect forest, wetlands, waterways and urban green spaces.
10. Prepare for and respond to increased risk of wildfires and other health and safety impacts of climate change.
11. Conduct a financial analysis to assess and plan for the cost of climate actions.
12. Evaluate life-cycle costs in planning and procurement.

The prioritizing of planning for climate change comes at the expense of real-world problems that Anchorage is facing, which include a loss of population as working Alaskans move to the MatSu Valley, and the overtaking of the city by large vagrant-and-criminal encampments, which have made walking the streets and trails an unsafe activity for residents, who may choose to use their cars to get around in order to ensure greater safety.

If an average homeowner pays $6,000 in property taxes to Anchorage, that means the tax payments of 61.3 homeowners are being used to finance this new Climate Action Plan. Just the plan, not the action itself.

Meanwhile, China is building two coal plants per week, according to Reuters, which reported last year that China had 243 gigawatts of coal-fired power either approved or under construction, enough to power the whole of Germany.

China began building coal-fired plants with a total capacity of 37 GW in the first half of this year, and approved 52 GW of new projects, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and Global Energy Monitor, whose dataset shows the Bank of China to be the largest financier of coal plant construction globally, with over $6.5 billions invested, while China Construction Bank has $3.3 billion invested in coal plant manufacturing.

“The climate cult must be celebrating the return of its influence with Municipal leadership,” said Rick Whitbeck, Alaska state director of Power The Future. “Spending $362,000 to refresh a completely unnecessary and cost-prohibitive set of criteria that will lead to increased municipal costs seems counter-productive to rational people. Yet, here we are with doing just that under the two-headed monster of Chris Constant and Suzanne LaFrance. Anchorage needs to focus on crime, homelessness and economic development, and less on trivial matters that only will line pockets of special interests at taxpayer expense.”