The Campaign Against Climate Action

By Mat Wahlstrom

Two weeks ago today, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its sixth report since 1990, with the appropriate description that it represents a “Code red for humanity.”

Although continued sea level rise is already ‘irreversible’ for likely thousands of years, strong and sustained reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) could make air quality better and stabilize global temperatures within a few decades.

The question is how, per IPCC advice to policymakers, this can be accomplished through ‘sustainable development’ — and what exactly that means.

So it would seem to make sense that we look at all the sources of GHGs and figure out how to reduce them. And that we look at how what those who claim to be agents for climate action fits the bill for achieving this end.

The most well known focus of local climate advocates is the war on cars.

The purity of the cause of eliminating parking both in new developments and in public spaces where it already exists, while paralyzing mobility for personal vehicles by way of dedicated bus and bike lanes, to punish vehicle ownership is considered self-evident.

Yet these do nothing to increase housing equity, and increase GHG emissions by forcing drivers to idle and circle longer.

The current statistics from the EPA of GHG emissions by source puts the transportation sector at 29%. But that includes commercial trucks and buses and aircraft. Factor in the increases in fuel efficiency and the shift to electric vehicles, and it becomes harder to understand the animus against personal automobiles — or justify the permanent changes to our infrastructure.

The war on cars also proposes solutions such as ride share services such as Lyft (an official Climate Action Campaign Business Partner), even though vehicles used for them produce 50% more emissions than personal automobiles.

Besides poisoning the public discourse, the war on cars is Exhibit A in what’s wrong with pro-development masquerading as climate action: by focusing on personal responsibility to save the planet, it distracts attention from the main culprits, the corporations and business sectors that account for the lion’s share of GHG emissions.

So-called pro-growth climate activists push for density-through-demolition as the solution to global warming. Yet this ignores that 39% of carbon emissions are related to building and construction, especially the GHG emissions from concrete itself and the production of steel, copper, aluminum, and glass. And it doesn’t include the GHG emissions from demolished affordable housing and other structures dumped in landfills.

The more density is achieved by height, the worse the situation gets, with skyscrapers producing 140% more GHG emissions than five- and six-story buildings would in the same area.

And housing models used by lawmakers to justify taking the brakes off speculative development have long been subject to criticism as flawed and biased toward pre-determined targets.

So what excuse do these ‘climate activists’ use for aligning themselves with developer interests?

According to the Climate Action Campaign’s co-director of policy, and I kid you not, it’s that we need new housing not simply for local growth, but because San Diego is proposed as a sanctuary for climate refugees — and pesky concerns such as water, traffic, historic preservation, even the impacts of NAVWAR’s redevelopment, deserve nothing but scorn.

This is a ‘code red for humanity.’ And it needs real solutions, not tricked-out versions of the same cheerleading for rampant development but all electric with low-flow faucets and bike racks replacing where people already live — especially communities of color where land is least expensive.

As the environmentalist George Monbiot has said, “This perfectly represents the mistaken belief that a better form of consumerism will save the planet. The problems we face are structural: a political system captured by commercial interests, and an economic system that seeks endless growth.”

Or in the words of the IPCC, we need development that is sustainable.