Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

This phase involves mobilizing for climate action. We want to hear how residents, neighborhoods, businesses, and community organizations can help activate the plan and accelerate climate action in Kansas City and beyond.

The final Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan has been adopted and is available here!

We reviewed over 700 comments to create the final plan. Thank you for your input and advocacy Kansas City.

Plan appendices and supplemental documentation are currently being updated. The draft versions of these documents can be accessed through the "Important Links" section to the right.

Next Steps For Plan Activation

1) Get the word out about the Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan to your friends and neighbors. If your organization would like a presentation about the CPRP, contact the Office of Environmental Quality at

2) If you are an organization wishing to partner with the City on climate action initiatives or have an idea for a program or project, contact the Office of Environmental Quality at

3) Attend meetings of the Climate Protection Steering Committee and other city boards and commissions. You can sign up here by subscribing to the City Clerk's Office notifications.

This phase involves mobilizing for climate action. We want to hear how residents, neighborhoods, businesses, and community organizations can help activate the plan and accelerate climate action in Kansas City and beyond.

The final Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan has been adopted and is available here!

We reviewed over 700 comments to create the final plan. Thank you for your input and advocacy Kansas City.

Plan appendices and supplemental documentation are currently being updated. The draft versions of these documents can be accessed through the "Important Links" section to the right.

Next Steps For Plan Activation

1) Get the word out about the Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan to your friends and neighbors. If your organization would like a presentation about the CPRP, contact the Office of Environmental Quality at

2) If you are an organization wishing to partner with the City on climate action initiatives or have an idea for a program or project, contact the Office of Environmental Quality at

3) Attend meetings of the Climate Protection Steering Committee and other city boards and commissions. You can sign up here by subscribing to the City Clerk's Office notifications.

Plan Comments

Use this tool if you have a few comments you are okay with sharing publicly

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

I am an architect and green building expert, living in City Council District 6. I applaud the work that has gone into developing an update for the City’s Climate Action Plan, and have some overall and specific suggestions to improve the impact of the plan before it is adopted.
Overall / high-level feedback:
I’d like to see specific mention and description of the Regional Climate Plan near the front of the publication. This can acknowledge the KCMO has been a regional leader since 2005, but should be clear about the larger impact possible when the other 137 municipalities in the 10 counties represented begin to adopt similar Climate Plans. This is a glaring omission currently.
Action B-3.1 gets into building codes. This is such a critical piece, I’d love to see it emphasized earlier and with stronger language:
1. I strongly suggest adding succinct, strong, and clear language stating something to the effect that “Kansas City Missouri will update Energy Code without amendment, provided that future energy codes maintain or improve efficiency in residential and commercial properties.”
2. To take this a step further, I recommend this also state “the City will adopt the updated energy code on the 3-year code cycle, while the remainder of the IBC code will remain on the current 6-year cycle in coordination with regional municipalities and to maintain current frequency of staff training”.
There are a few missing opportunities in the overall approach. The simplest of these is to re-iterate existing programs and requirements, such as the City requirement for LEED Gold certification for municipal buildings and projects accepting City funding. This has largely gone un-enforced in recent years, and bears repeating.
• The pie chart on page XX is very hard to read and understand. Maybe clean this up and also show it as a bar chart? Show the information a couple of ways to make it easier to comprehend.
• Strategy pages – the summary text at the top of the page gets lost in these text-heavy pages. Recommend making the strategy (grey-bar), summary, and impacts part of a single rectangle graphic at the top, maybe with a different background color behind the summary text.
The following are specific suggestions for the measures noted:
Emphasis on transportation (page 34) is misleading, as it states this is the largest source of GHG emissions. However, if you broke these emissions into "truck" and "car", similar to how "buildings" are broken into "residential" and "commercial", then buildings would be the clear majority of the emissions - not transportation sources.
Strategy M-2: M-2.2. Suggest changing sentence to read “Continue to implement the Vision Zero strategy of adding 15 miles of protected bike lanes each year, while maintaining existing lanes, paint, and signage, and enhancing visibility of existing…”
Strategy M-4: Short term actions. Suggest adding “Conduct local air pollution studies in LMI communities within ¼ mile of trafficways, boulevards, and highways. Prioritize zones with unhealthy exposure to emissions for improved urban tree canopy and other linked mitigation strategies.”
Page 43, Rooftop solar paragraph. Check numbers – it appears to be saying the solar generation is 1.5 MW and 2.1 MW – which is it. Suggest changing text to read “Kansas City has 60 solar panel installations of 25 kW or more on 58 City buildings, generating…”
Strategy E-2.1. Suggest modifying “…recruitment from multicultural and LMI communities.”
Strategy E-2.3. Suggest modifying “Develop regulations requiring any project leveraging City funds to achieve net-zero energy using on-site renewable energy, or in the case that roof area is insufficient, on-site combined with utility renewable power.”
Strategy E-3. MISSING RESILIENCY STRATEGY – many older and LMI communities have above-ground power-poles and wires, which are often the culprit for power outages in winter or high-wind situations, as branches fall on power lines. A step the City could take would be to work with the utility to identify specific areas of the City that frequently lose power, prioritize LMI and vulnerable communities, and to develop an incentive or other mechanism to bury residential powerlines between the pole and the meter. This could be a requirement for landbank properties or new / infill construction.
E4.3 Suggest modifying the term “community choice”. This is typically a term used to disguise a requirement that fossil fuels be included in any utility mix and/or to remove energy efficiency requirements. This terminology is a wolf in sheep’s clothing for the purposes of this plan.
Natural Systems:
Strategy N-1.3. Suggest expanding this strategy to include language for City permitting to include consideration for engineered green infrastructure in place of required tank water storage. Currently projects are required to install large pipes or concrete vaults to store site stormwater for 48 hours. Engineered soils could accomplish this and more, but are not allowed by the Planning and Permitting Department currently. This strategy could be applied to both public and private land for much lower costs and improved hydrology, plant and tree health, and stormwater impacts.
Strategy N-3. Suggest adding an immediate item for “municipal properties using cooling towers and evaporative condensers to establish a water analysis and measurement program to optimize the use of potable water according to the measures recommended by LEEDv4.1 WE credit 4.2” The City can use this simple program to demonstrate savings to private property owners.
Homes and Buildings:
Introduction – in the summary, is the 2010 vs 2019 data available as a per-capita number? I think the plan should acknowledge anticipated population growth, which will have an impact on this overall number.
B-1.1 Perfect. Yes. Do it.
B-1.4 Change the title of this strategy to “leading by example” and I’d suggest adding something about “transparent reporting of municipal utility performance”. I suggest a commitment to use operational reporting through Arc or similar public-facing multi-attribute performance measurement systems to inform the public of performance progress including energy, water, and waste at a minimum. The Arc system is free, aligns with the City’s commitment to LEED certification in municipal buildings, uses Energy Star Portfolio Manager, and provides comparison to similar buildings and is easier for the public to read.
B1.5 Add “such as the Zero Code” to this narrative.
B-3.1 Yes! So glad to see this here, though it’s way under the radar (maybe that’s okay). I’d suggest some strengthening language to give future Building and Codes officials a more stringent directive:
“Increase frequency of review and update to building health and performance codes and standards. Review building code every three years and update new construction buildings codes based on outcomes of the review, with the goal of (at minimum) adopting the most recent IECC building performance standards without weakening amendments.”
B-3.5: Yes! Another great action. Suggest some minor adjustments to language to include retrofits of existing facilities and more specific performance thresholds:
“Develop net-zero 48 hour (min) off-grid energy community resilience hubs to act as centers for climate resources and education, and climate/natural disaster recovery. Prioritize retrofits of existing public facilities such as libraries and community centers located in communities found to be especially vulnerable to extreme heat and frequent black-out/brown outs. Examples of co-located resources include….”
B4.2 Great measure. Very hot-topic, but maybe change up the language to be more generally about electrification and utility optimization. Suggest:
“Build community awareness of heat pump technology and electrification opportunities for household equipment. Create an education campaign to help building community awareness about air and ground-source heat pumps encouraging building owners that are replacing end of life gas systems to choose all electric options instead. In addition to heat pumps, develop education and resources focused on other household equipment such as induction cooking, heat-pump dryers and water heaters, water-sense labeled clothes washers and dishwashers, energy star refrigerators, and LED lighting.“
B-4.5: Note: Vicinity is ideally located for a methane extraction system on the site of the old coal pile on 2nd street. The engineer who runs other methane extraction programs around the US is based at this plant. I worked a few years ago to develop the list of nearby industrial by-products that would be needed to make this conversion, and would be happy to re-visit this with the new owners. This conversion could create a new demand for restaurant and residential compost, waste products from breweries, and nearby dairy farms. One of the by-products of the methane digester include excellent fertilizer, which could be offered back to farmers at the farmers-market, Roots for Refugees, or other urban farming organizations. This link to the City Market could be connected with vendor and public education and improvement of the current compost collection program at this location.
F-1.1 Add: “…community gardens, vertical farming, green houses, food forests, and soil…”
F-1.4 Add “…gardening, food production, co-cropping, rain-gardens, soil microbes,…”

Waste + Materials
There was a big study between MARC, KCMO, and KCDC in 2016, which includes a lot of data analysis and recommendations for improving waste diversion in KCMO. I recommend reviewing the executive summary (pp6-12) linked here at minimum.
Page 71: the image includes block Styrofoam being placed in a KC Recycles truck. This is not recyclable in our community and represents a big source of contamination in our recycling stream. Suggest showing a different image – maybe something from a Bridging the Gap collection center.
W-1.4 The other missing aspect here is that City recycling collection has typically not included collection at multifamily facilities.
W-1.5: There is a missing action in this section, which is that most people in KC don’t know what is and is not recyclable and contaminate the recycling stream at very high rates (I did a masters degree focused on this in KC). One of the biggest steps needed is for more public education efforts around improving access to and clarity about how to recycle and compost.
Missing action: Recommend establishing a permit requirement for waste collection and diversion for all permitted events (marathons, parades, etc). Events should provide separate collection for waste and recycling (minimum), and have volunteers/staff positioned at each collection point to answer questions and control contamination.

Add near term goal:
W-2.2: Connect compost to the circular economy and stormwater control strategies
Review and adopt minimum organic matter requirement in all public right-of-way planted areas, tilled to a minimum depth of 6”. One of the challenges to increasing compost collection is a limited market for the final product. Soils with 1-5% added organic matter (refined compost) can store enormous amounts of rainwater per acre, increasing plant drought-tolerance, tree survival rates, and more. According to the KCMO/MARC-SWD/KCDC Study conducted in 2016 ( - pp 8-9), KCMO has 708 acres of pervious right-of-way, and tilling up to 5% OM into the top 6” of this soil would capture approximately 30 MILLION gallons of rainwater, alleviating 40% of the City’s stormwater retention quota, reducing the burden on City stormwater infrastructure.
Add near term goal:
W-2.3: Expand organic matter soil amendment option to private land owners and developers.
The City’s stormwater control requirements result in new developments and major renovations adding extremely costly rainwater storage “vaults” underground to slow impervious impacts on stormwater during a heavy rain. Planning and zoning will review and adopt an alternative compliance path to allow for using engineered soils with up to 5% added organic matter with a maintenance and testing contract in place as proof of long-term stormwater control impact. Storage above and beyond the tank-storage could be incorporated to provide deeper impacts while still saving developers money. Other municipalities across the US have similar policies that could be built on for KCMO’s policy. This compliance option would reduce costs to private developers, improve the local market for refined compost, and reduce stormwater and flash flooding impacts from new developments and major renovations.
Add near term goal:
W-3.3 Develop a by-product synergy program to bring together local and regional manufacturers, waste haulers, and other industries to explore opportunities to develop industrial waste reduction opportunities.
W-3.4 Recognize developments and businesses who certify zero-waste, such as Hallmark, Pasty-Cards, Boulevard, and others.
Implementation roles:
• Cultivate KC – add to land-use category
• Add “Climate Action KC” – across all categories
• Grow food not lawns – add to land-use
• Habitat for Humanity – add to buildings category
• Missouri Organic recycling – add to materials category
• USGBC Central Plains – add to all other categories (holistic focus, not just buildings)
• Vicinity Energy – add to energy category and waste category

JKnoll 10 months ago

The Kansas City Labor Council is one of nearly 500 state and local labor councils of the AFL-CIO and we are the labor movement. We are democratically elected bodies dedicated to representing the interests of working people at the state and local level. While advocating for policies that will support economic development in the region, we also strive to balance large policy changes with a realistic transition period. We are commenting on the KC Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan to voice concerns about the plan to completely electrify Kansas City.

Natural gas is an important source of energy for businesses across the city. They need the ability to choose electricity, natural gas, or both to meet their energy needs. Limiting the choice could lead to higher costs and less opportunities for workers.

Many provisions in the Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan will benefit Kansas City, but it must also include a broad energy policy that supports local economic growth. Please consider the benefits of both electricity and natural gas as you finalize the plan

Duke 10 months ago

Missouri is one of many states that recently passed fuel choice legislation that protects our residents' and businesses' right to choose their energy source. This plan contradicts this bill and would negatively impact Kansas Citians' ability to affordably heat and cook our homes with natural gas. Homes using natural gas for heating, cooking and drying clothes saved an average of $874 per year compared to those using other energy sources.

As a member of the gas fireplace industry, I work with natural gas and propane products every day. If this plan were to be enacted, I will be unable to continue providing a home heating source to Kansas Citians' thus severely hindering my business.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and for your consideration.

MPadgitt 10 months ago

I am totally against this plan!!! Gas is cleaner than electricity and more reliable. It is 91% efficient opposed to the 36% efficiency of electricity. Gas doesn't go out during a rain storm. Gas doesn't rely on wind.
And considering gas generates electricity, what will power the generators for large industrial buildings and even residential properties who have backup generators. A lot of elderly people have generators so they can make sure they stay warm in the winter if their electricity goes out. Are you willing to be sued when someone dies because they had no heat when they could have?
KC should allow it's residents to have a choice. I don't want to heat my house with electricity. I can't afford that. I've had electric heat before and it never keeps the house as warm as gas does. Additionally, it's never smart to have only one source of anything. You'd think everyone would have learned that by now with gas prices.

Please DO NOT take the option of gas away from KC residents. I would seriously consider moving if this happens. If nothing else, it should be left for voters to decide - not the city.

Sunnyd82764 10 months ago

1. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 is 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
2. Natural gas and petroleum systems are the second largest source of CH4 emissions in the United States. Methane is the primary component of natural gas. Methane is emitted to the atmosphere during the production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas and the production, refinement, transportation, and storage of crude oil. Coal mining is also a source of CH4 emissions. For more information, see the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks sections on Natural Gas Systems and Petroleum Systems.

Dist6 10 months ago

My name is Mark Hensel and I live in the 6th district of KC. I'm glad KC is updating the Climate Protection Plan but I'm a supporter of the Green New Deal and I believe the plan should go further and adopt the demands from the People's Climate Town Hall. Specifically:
-KC should aim for zero carbon by 2040, not carbon neutrality
-KC should advocate for Every to close its Hawthorn coal plant ASAP
-KC should not support any new coal, gas, or oil plants or leases
-KC should add an East/West Max bus line and an East/West street car
-KC should guarantee housing for all
-KC should fund retrofits and rooftop solar installations that benefit frontline communities first
You can view the rest of the demands at

mphensel 10 months ago

The draft plan proposes we embrace “all-electric” and “electrification” without explaining exactly how that will be implemented and without really taking into account the unintended consequences, higher emissions and increased costs for our community and our city’s residents.

spearhunter06 10 months ago

The Greater Kansas City Building & Construction Trades Council

The Greater Kansas City Building & Construction Trades Council represents approximately 25,000 men and women in the Construction Trades within Kansas City and surrounding areas. Our membership includes bricklayers, cement masons, electrical workers, and plumbers to name a few. We take pride in providing local trades and their memberships expertise in construction by advocating for policies that support economic growth, dedicating resources to recruitment and retention, and working to ensure that our workforce is prepared for construction jobs.

The draft Kansas City Climate Protection & Resiliency Action Plan represents important efforts to make our community more sustainable and environmentally conscious to ensure a better future for all. While much of the draft will greatly benefit Kansas City, the move to shift to electricity as the only source of energy could have unintended negative consequences for the economy and our membership.

Businesses need different sources of energy to meet their needs. They rely on both electricity and other fuels, like natural gas, to build, manufacture, and operate their businesses. Officials must embrace a balanced energy policy that allows for electricity and natural gas to be utilized. Limiting choice could hurt investment opportunities in Kansas City, which could leave our membership without jobs.

The draft Kansas City Climate Protection & Resiliency Action Plan should be amended to include natural gas as an energy source along with electricity.
Alise Martiny, Business Manager

Greater KC Building Trades 10 months ago

A resilient and reliable energy infrastructure will always require multiple sources of power. Electric grids will fail periodically. We need natural gas as a backup now and in the future.

Further, the plan calls for energy equity here in KC, which is great. But, going all-electric will cause significant inequity elsewhere. Rare-earth metals and other materials will be mined at an incredibly large scale to produce our solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and electric vehicles required for the CRP to work, leading to untold environmental impact (perhaps worse than the gains, e.g. the mining industry alone produces more CO2 equivalent than the airline industry) and humanitarian impact (the mining isn't always done under the best of conditions around the world. Most of these resources will come from places like Russia and China, and we'll become further reliant on countries not friendly to the US. It must be possible to achieve energy sustainability and energy independence simultaneously, this plan currently falls short.

brian 10 months ago

I support the CRP and really appreciate the emphasis on equity centered planning. I hope future discussions consider:
-The pandemic highlighted that indoor ventilation in homes and businesses is lacking and is a public health issue. In general, there is an energy cost in increasing ventilation, which decreases efficiency. When new policy is written to address efficiency guidelines, my hope is we also consider the industrial hygiene/health aspect.
-I support the community choice initiative (E-4.3), but hope any measures are cost-transparent. More wind and solar and less coal sounds great, but that comes with a significant cost that should be part of any community decision.
-Costs to recycle solar panels could be priced into projects up front, with the money perhaps going into a dedicated fund for that purpose. Hoping someone will recycle panels ($$$) at end-of-life in 20 years out of goodwill will not work, and we'll be left with a significant environmental hazard.
-The amount of power currently produced by coal and natural gas in KC is massive. Offsetting that with wind and solar alone will be no small feat and leaves a lot of reliability concerns and storage demands, which have their own negative environmental impacts. The committee would do well to consider nuclear power as an option for electricity generation. The carbon footprint of nuclear is miniscule, and while the upfront cost is high, the lifetime cost for the power generated is on par with solar and fossil fuel sources. Nuclear waste storage is a concern, but arguably less of a concern than the increased mining for materials and rare metals, as well as increased waste associated with the amount of wind and solar required to offset our current fossil fuel use.
-The transition to utility-scale renewable energy will take time but replacing coal power with natural gas is much shorter-term. Eliminating coal is a no-brainer, but natural gas can serve as a transition fuel – with half the carbon output of coal - while en route to renewables/nuclear.

brian 10 months ago

As a KCMO resident, I have serious concerns about the Climate Protection & Resiliency Plan as it stands. There is a lack of clarity as to what the short and long-term plans will be to phase out natural gas an an option for consumers, in terms of how the electricity we will be forced to become solely reliant upon will be generated, most especially in the Midwest. It is not feasible to adopt the same plans as other states that do not have an even somewhat comparable climate. Without a clear and reasonable plan for the generation of electricity, there is no way to confidently label said plan as "Resilient". I recognize and appreciate our local government's commitment to carbon neutrality, however it must be recognized that the gas company shares this commitment, just as it must be recognized that diversified energy options are critical in our part of the country. Additionally, the downstream effects of forced electrification in terms of affordability will harm the most vulnerable residents of our community. Affordable housing options are essential to the livelihood of countless KCMO residents, and those options will dwindle without affordable energy choices being afforded to property owners. I implore the Climate Protection Steering Committee to please consider the detrimental and irreversible effects of forced electrification in a community that cannot thrive in or withstand such plans as they are currently defined.

Alicia Summers 10 months ago

Thank you, Lara, for opening this up for public comments. What an enormous undertaking! It would be helpful to see how this preliminary work has been funded, which area businesses are already working toward these goals, and allow the opportunity for the public to financially invest, if they choose, in the efforts. In addition, there are cities that have implemented many of these mentioned strategies and are dealing with unforeseen results. For example, having streets for just bicycles can cause major congestion on other thoroughfares. In addition, automobile manufacturers may not be able to produce the vehicles needed in a timely manner. I am sure you have thought through all of these things, but I have recently heard from many different sectors about "the other side of this story," and it seems there are so many angles to consider, which takes careful work and time. In my work, I talk every day with people considering a move to our metro area from various cities throughout our country. Many are considering moves to cities like ours simply to escape plans like this in their own. They have seen them result in negative and unforeseen consequences like rising living expenses, the inability to afford to live in their communities, and skyrocketing taxes, all of which are displacing so many citizens from their homes. While the city thought it was going to end up "cleaner," it ended up with more people having to live on the streets, which caused an entirely new batch of issues to contend with. People appreciate Kansas City because it IS clean and people care about people. Let's learn from other cities' experiences! Reach out anytime.

Angie S. 10 months ago

I am a Kansas City resident and am concerned about the possible reduction in access to natural gas due to the KC Climate Action Plan. Residents can save up to $1000 a yr over electricity vs. gas and it costs 1/2 as much as coal to produce. Also, Spire is a big employer of many in the metro and I would not want the impact of the plan to potentially result in the loss of many thousands of jobs, not to mention affordable heating and energy to at risk energy consumers.

BethanyG 10 months ago

Glad to see people on here talking about carbon sequestration and zero emissions and riparian zones (and how they relate to local plant species) instead of just buying carbon offsets like owning a Virginia Elms paper farm is the same thing as "letting nature heal." This is a very ambitious plan that, in most cases, cuts right through to the roots of any given issue. There is no doubt in my mind that Kansas City will be much better prepared for the challenges The Future has in store for us if we enacted even half of this plan (as written). Also excited to see the right to repair skill hubs in the proposal. A plan like this is going to need sustained community involvement for a loooong time if it's going to weather the forces in this world that are going to try to shake it apart, and a village commons where people are free to gather and share ideas and learn from each other (as opposed to being free to buy a hamburger and LEAVE before the meter runs out) will go a long way towards re-establishing the sort of community trust we need to unite people behind any sort of long-term initiative, let alone one as historically smeared and effectively marginalized as meaningful climate action.

achurn 10 months ago

Hi, my name is Lucas. Given the extreme nature of the climate crisis, I’m a supporter of the Green New Deal. That's why I believe we in Kansas City need to implement policies in line with the demands from the People’s Climate Town Hall, especially the adoption of more publicly-available and electric-based mass transit such as expanded streetcar routes and adequately funded buses.
The rest of the demands can be viewed at:

TheWriteLucas 10 months ago

My name is Celesteal "CC" Clark and I am from KCMOs Fourth Council district. I am also a leader with the Sierra Club and a supporter of the Green New Deal, and that's why I believe this plan must adopt the demands from the People's Climate Town Hall. Especially ensuring safe and accessible public transportation, infrastructure, homes, food, water, air, and Union Jobs for all as we begin a Just transition away from polluting fossil fuels ASAP. You can view the rest of the demands at:

Celesteal 10 months ago

I would like to see Kansas City become carbon neutral as soon as possible. Rather than making natural gas a part of our energy profile, we should be expanding in renewable energy sources. Many jobs will be created in the energy sector by pursuing renewable energy.

Robby R 10 months ago

I support a Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan but the current goals seem too vague. This plan should have more specific and measurable goals with deadlines. We should aim for zero carbon by 2040 not net zero. The City should ensure that under-resourced communities have access to rooftop solar and better building insulation. Regarding plans in the Waste & Materials section, the City should implement city-wide composting rather than just building on regional efforts. Boulder (CO) and Portland (OR) are just two cities that have curbside compost programs in place. Kansas City should follow suit and be a leader in addressing the climate crisis in the Midwest. Recycling should be accessible and easy across the metro and there should absolutely be policies for eliminating polystyrene foam containers in schools and restaurants and single use plastic.

BKSresident 10 months ago

My name is Lydia, I am a lifelong Kansas City, MO resident, active Hyde Park community member, and supporter of the Green New Deal. This plan must adopt the demands from the People's Climate Town Hall. Prioritizing closing the Hawthorne coal plant immediately is essential - we have less than 1 year for that action, not 3. No new coal, oil, or gas plants/leases is also a no-brainer. Racial and economic justice go hand-in-hand with environmental action - every demand at must be met.

Lydia DeMonte 10 months ago

If we rush to embrace electrification and drastically limit energy options, we could increase our city’s emissions, energy
costs, and see more outages. It’s a fact that natural gas is the most efficient and inexpensive form of energy for homes
and businesses. Our local electric uses 41% coal to power the grid. A huge impact could be made by the local electric by switching to natural gas to cut down on emissions.

How, without energy options that include natural gas, will we generate the electricity needed for KC residents
and businesses – now, in the short-term and into the future? The wind power options in Kansas City are simply not there. Most of the year the wind does not blow. How do you get wind energy without wind?

Electrical outages occur much more frequently than natural gas outages. If we rely solely on electric, we could see our operations interrupted more often. That harms not only our business, but our employees and their families, and potentially the safety and security of our community.

Happy 10 months ago
Page last updated: 19 Sep 2022, 11:28 AM