Revised climate actions endorsed by RDCK board

A revised list of climate actions was endorsed by the Regional District of Central Kootenay board of directors at its April 18 meeting.

The new document is two pages and lists 23 climate actions, whereas the controversial 2023 draft plan and accompanying workbook were each more than 30 pages and provided details on 99 climate actions.

The revisions focus on resident-supported actions with the most direct benefit to local communities. Actions that did not have resident support were removed completely, and content was simplified.

Staff prepared two different documents for the board’s consideration. The first option, which was the one recommended by staff but not approved by the board, was six pages and included climate actions required by senior governments, climate actions already approved by the RDCK board, as well as new actions that had resident support. The second option, the one the board approved, listed only the new actions with resident support – not the ones required or approved/underway.

The revisions were made in response to the 3,518 comments received during the public engagement process last year, and by individual feedback from the board of directors via a survey earlier this year.

Neither of the options was called a ‘plan,’ unlike the 2023 draft ‘Climate Action Plan.’

“Staff agree with the feedback from the engagement which made it clear that it is not a plan, as it does not contain explicit timelines and associated funding,” write Paris Marshall Smith, Sustainability Planner and Dauna Ditson, Community Resilience Coordinator, in their report to the board.

The first option was called ‘RDCK Climate Actions’ and the second, approved option is called ‘RDCK Ideas for Climate Action.’

Living document

‘Ideas for Climate Action’ is just that – a list of ideas.

Before any items can move forward into action, staff will need to conduct a feasibility study. If the analysis proves the idea is a good fit for the region and its residents, staff would then prepare a full report for the board, including how the action would be funded. The board of directors would then vote for or against the action during one of its regular public meetings.

“Some of the ideas could move forward if they prove to be a good fit for our region. Other ideas could be removed from the list if further research shows they are not feasible. As other ideas arise (for example, when new technology is developed), they could be added to the list and brought forward for the board of directors to consider,” states the document.

There are nine headings, with one to five ideas each. Here’s a sampler.

Transportation and mobility: Work with the provincial government to connect communities through increased regional active and public transportation options.

Planning for Growth: Consider a regional approach to land use planning and support municipalities and neighbouring areas in planning for growth together.

Energy Efficiency: Support community organizations in switching to renewable energy sources.

Supporting farmers: Help farmers and those in the agricultural industry who would like to prepare for wildfire emergencies.

Improving water access for farmers: Look into ways to support farmers who want to capture and store more water on their farms.

Protecting and conserving water: Support the region in conserving water.

Mitigating risks from floods and geohazards: Increase education and awareness of how the conservation of riverbanks and shorelines supports flood mitigation and healthy aquatic systems.

Wood chipping: Explore mobile chipping program options (such as wildfire fuel mitigation, yard waste, landfill wood stream, construction and demolition, etc.).

Investing: Review RDCK investment portfolio to be sure it is divested from fossil fuel creators.

Public input

Before the board made its decision, it heard a delegation from three representatives of Kootenay Freedom, a volunteer group formed in 2020 “in response to unconstitutional COVID-19 mandates and increasing government overreach,” according to the group’s Charter, published on its website.

Karyn Shaundell, Kevin Shaw, and Brian McLachlan presented a petition with almost 800 signatures.

The petition had five requests of the board: that it acknowledges that there is no valid scientific consensus regarding ‘man-made’ climate change; that it drops the ‘net-zero emissions by 2050 goal’ and bases the RDCK’s actions on its own merits and not arbitrary and unrealistic climate goals; that it commits to protecting farmers’ lands from zoning changes, water restrictions, and livestock quotas; that it stops using hyperbolic language like, ‘The world is in a global state of climate crisis’; and that it commits to keeping local government local, and protects residents’ rights to privacy, land ownership, and freedom to travel.

“Let’s get on track,” said McLachlan, “by making policy to lower poverty, not emissions, by increasing living standards for residents and helping families be healthier, self-empowered, and more resilient. Don’t buy electric cars; buy good soil. Grow food, not your bank accounts. Biodiversity is bio-security. Better irrigation methods. Less chemical fertilizers. Support local backyard farming… Together, we have the power to make this happen. Let’s do it.”

The board also heard from RDCK residents, both in-person and online, during an extended 45-minute public question period.

“I want to know whether you feel the RDCK plan is doing enough on the emissions reduction side… I think you could be a little more ambitious about the ways transportation and home heating can reduce local emissions,” said one individual.

“We need more small businesses. If the RDCK wants to squeeze more money out of people, they have to let the people earn more money,” said another.

A few expressed anxieties for their children and grandchildren’s futures.

“I’m very, very concerned about water, about drought,” said a resident. “How much time will it take for this to be implemented?”

“New actions require a level of investigation,” replied Marshall Smith. “Depending on the urgency, depending on availability of staff, depending on where the priorities are, we can’t say explicitly [how long it will take] until we have direction from the board. But we’ll try to keep our communication open and you’ll see [the new items] come back to the board as we start to move forward.”

Rachael Lesosky, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Valley Voice