Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. 2021-8s2

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Adopting the 2023 Update to "Sustainability 2030: Pierce County's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan" (Sustainability 2030) Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 70A.45.070 and Chapter 19D.280 of the Pierce County Code (PCC); and Amending Chapter 19D.280 PCC, "Sustainability 2030: Pierce County's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan." (Sustainable 2030 - Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan)

Effective: April 25, 2021

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Derek Young, Ryan Mello

Final votes

March 23, 2021
Aye Aye Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye

Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Leroy Ellestad Jr 2/13/21 8:35 AM 2021-8. I am opposed to this ordinance. The focus on electricity is short sighted and detrimental to citizens of Pierce County. This appears to be a rush to join the crowd in Olympia and Washington DC. Being you are new to the council and wish to make an impact on your community standing, please stop and consider your community that elected you.
RICHARD A HAYEK 2/26/21 9:09 PM While I agree with some parts of this proposal, overall I oppose it, because it is based on faulty assumptions that are inconsistent with scientific data. I assume that the term Greenhouse Gasses refers to carbon dioxide. It is not a pollutant. It is an essential food for the vegetation that helps to sustain us. Carbon is the basis of life. If we eliminate carbon from the earth, there will be no more life. Increases in carbon dioxide on the earth are cyclical and caused by the sun. The contribution of mankind to the increase in carbon dioxide is negligible and any effort that has been proposed to reduce it will have insignificant impact on it and not be cost effective. Response to cyclical climate change should be to adjust to it, rather than trying to stop it. The focus of environment policy should be to cost-effectively reduce particulate and poison emissions into the air, land and waters, to sustain our natural resources for both consumption and outdoor recreation, and conserve endangered wildlife species to the extent feasible. Solar energy is not cost-effective in our area. All forms of energy should be made available that are cost effective and do not significantly contribute to particulate and poison emissions. Total reliance on electric energy is not cost-effective, because there are few opportunities to construct more dams, which provide the lowest cost electric energy. Consideration is being given to taking some present dams out of service. Additional electricity will need to come from more expensive sources: nuclear and coal-fired. Solar and wind sources of power are unrealiable and not cost-effective. The terms "underserved", "equity" and "social justice" imply imposing racial discrimination, which is illegal. Services should be provided on an unbiased basis. To the extent that there is a subsidy, it should be based on need, not ethnicity. The preamble to the proposal implies that the local native American tribes own Pierce County. They own the land deeded to them in their treaties. Recycling should be restricted to what the need is for recycled products produced from the recycled materials. Efficiency of consumption of energy and resources should always be encouraged, but not mandated. Bicycles should be restricted to rights of way apart from where cars travel. If this proposal is implemented as currently stated, its principal impact will be to reduce our standard of living.
Nancy Elise Atwood 3/14/21 3:13 PM It is time--past time, really--to take this action. Our children's & grand-children's lives depend on it. Thank you.
Lorrie Peterson 3/14/21 3:41 PM To: Pierce County Council RE: SUSTAINABIITY 2030, ORDINANCE 2021-8s Thank you for thie opportunity to support environmental responsibility in Pierce County. I support this ordinance and encourage you to pass it. Transitions can be challenging, but reducing greenhouse gasses must be done for the sake of us all. This is a step in that direction. Sincerely, Lorrie Peterson
Marian Berejikian 3/23/21 10:26 AM I support reduction of greenhouse gases and encourage the county to pass this ordinance today. It means so much to our environment, economy and communities. It is time to act now for future generations. Thank you.
John Peluso 3/23/21 12:50 PM Simply put, this is not a affordable plan. There are so many assumptions, it can not be carried out. The "science" is misconstrued to fit a agenda. This is just a attempt to comply with wishful thing of Jay Inslee and his directive to act on it. Our economy can not afford this. Our taxes are out of control, and this will put more taxpayers under, especially those of us on fixed incomes. Need to be scaled back to a reasonable planning stage. The technology is not here yet. Resources and jobs are overseas.