2023_0425_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

committee members criticized some frameworks as not appropriately reflecting the urgency and gravity of climate change. We endeavored to develop a program that had a friendly, approachable presentation, but also didn't downplay the seriousness of climate change. We also tried not to use language that asserted that climate change is an imminent threat to cities or utilize "doom speech." We present climate change as a serious issue here; however, we recognize that not all communities have climate goals. • Bias toward climate mitigation. Many advisory committee members pointed out that the early stages of program development showed a bias toward carbon emission reduction ("climate mitigation") over other forms of climate action such as building resilience and involving community members. While a primary goal of this program is carbon emission reduction, they encouraged the program to address other forms of climate action as well. Focusing on mitigation can prevent some communities from action when they don't have a supportive local government. However, presenting mitigation as a way to achieve multiple community benefits may increase participation in areas where current elected members have not committed to climate action. • Prioritizing resources. City staff, especially from cities in greater Minnesota, reported that even if they currently have or were to receive financial or technical resources, they may not be able to prioritize climate action over other urgent matters. Daily work, repairs, and other more immediate needs must be met first before diverting resources toward climate action. • Open to all GreenStep communities. The advisory committee did not believe that this program should only be open to Step 5 GreenStep communities. Regardless of where a community is at in their sustainability journey, it should be able to participate in this program. Differences from GreenStep "steps" One particular concern raised by the advisory committee was that this program would be too similar to the current GreenStep "steps" to be worth developing. If the similarities are too many, the program would be redundant and subsequently communities would not be interested in participating. We validate this concern and decided to specifically define the ways in which we sought to make this program differ from the GreenStep core program. • Prioritizes high -impact actions. Any action that increases sustainability is good action, no matter how big or small that action may be. GreenStep recognizes sustainability actions of any size, but for this climate program we sought to increase the challenge of typical GreenStep actions. This was done to re-engage Step 5 communities, challenge communities that have more resources, and create the opportunity for meaningful climate action. To do this, we attempted to include specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time -bound language (or, SMART) that provide participants with the details need to take meaningful action. Gold Leaf Program Proposal I www.MNGreenStep.org Page 58 of 185