Mobilize

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

This phase involves reviewing the draft plan and getting ready to mobilize for climate action. We want to hear what community members think about the draft plan so we can refine the plan further. Additionally, 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 Draft Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan public comment period has ended. Thank you for your patience while we review the over 500 comments received!

You can still view the draft plan here

(Note that the online plan is interactive. For the best experience we recommend reviewing the online version.)

Plan appendices and supplemental documentation can be accessed through the "Important Links" section to the right.


Next Steps For Plan Adoption

1) The Office of Environmental Quality, the Climate Protection Steering Committee, and our consultant team will work on reviewing the draft comments received and use them to refine the plan document.

2) The final plan will go to the city Executive Team and City Council for review.

3) The plan will go before a City Council Committee (date and committee to be determined) for discussion. At this point the public can also comment on the plan in front of council. The committee will either recommend edits to the plan or forward to full City Council for adoption. Show your support!

4) City Council will vote on adopting the plan.

5) Once the plan is adopted, we mobilize for climate action!

This phase involves reviewing the draft plan and getting ready to mobilize for climate action. We want to hear what community members think about the draft plan so we can refine the plan further. Additionally, 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 Draft Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan public comment period has ended. Thank you for your patience while we review the over 500 comments received!

You can still view the draft plan here

(Note that the online plan is interactive. For the best experience we recommend reviewing the online version.)

Plan appendices and supplemental documentation can be accessed through the "Important Links" section to the right.


Next Steps For Plan Adoption

1) The Office of Environmental Quality, the Climate Protection Steering Committee, and our consultant team will work on reviewing the draft comments received and use them to refine the plan document.

2) The final plan will go to the city Executive Team and City Council for review.

3) The plan will go before a City Council Committee (date and committee to be determined) for discussion. At this point the public can also comment on the plan in front of council. The committee will either recommend edits to the plan or forward to full City Council for adoption. Show your support!

4) City Council will vote on adopting the plan.

5) Once the plan is adopted, we mobilize for climate action!

Plan Comments

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

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

As a Kansas City resident I have serious concerns about the current draft of this plan. How will the all-electrification be implemented? Currently it is not feasible to rely on wind and solar to provide enough electrification to power our homes and business. The increased demand electric vehicles will add to the power grid will not be sustainable without fossil fuel powered electricity generation.
Our energy bills will sky rocket with this plan. We need a balanced energy policy that includes natural gas to keep energy affordable.
Remember the Evergy rolling blackouts during last years polar vortex in February? Natural gas didn't fail us during that time.
Were there individuals on the action plan committee other than climate advocacy groups? All sides need to be involved in the committee in order to create a more balance approach.
I understand the importance of a healthy future for our residents. But a plan needs to be put in place that offers a feasible path forward for all residents toward reducing carbon emissions, not a rushed plan that will have more negative impacts than positive. We deserve a balanced energy approach that includes energy options that match the needs of all people and businesses in our community.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns.

Mike about 2 months ago

I support the Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan. The city and our citizens need to move away from use of natural gas, coal, gasoline, and oil and toward renewable energy sources. We need to create more opportunities to sequester carbon through new soil regeneration methods that do not make use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. We can especially benefit from the Department of Parks and Recreation modeling soil regeneration methods that help to sequester carbon. More and more electric wherever possible! The sun powers our solar system. We can learn better and better ways to channel its power into our electricity generating systems. We are thinking and acting for our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren's future. Thank you.

Rev Scott Myers about 2 months ago

Hello, my name is karly johnson and I am from the 6th District. I’m 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. Specifically, I really support to degree of change and timeline that sunrise has presented. We need to take a swift and socially informed approach to climate justice, and I can see Kansas City being a leader for that movement. You can view the rest of the demands at: https://bit.ly/pcthdemands
Learn more about Sunrise Movement KC
Follow us on social media: @Sunrisemvmtkc

karlyjohnson about 2 months ago

I wish as much time and energy were being invested in fixing the problems that are of most concern to the majority of citizens. That would include the rising crime rate, high inflation that is threatening to push thousands of more families into poverty (admittedly more of a federal problem since government policies are causing the diminishing value of the dollar), and property taxes that are rising with increased housing values, endangering the ability of many home owners to make their increased mortgage payments.

Taking away our low-cost natural gas for heating our homes and water and for cooking our food, and thinking it will be simple to replace that with all-electric homes without causing increased costs for homeowners is naive. It's also untenable to propose replacing gasoline powered vehicles with electric ones when there are not enough rare earth minerals in the world to supply the expensive batteries that they require in order to replace all or most current vehicles. Electric cars create their own environmental disasters in their manufacturing process, battery replacements, etc., and how could we possibly keep up with the number of charging stations that would be necessary to handle tens of thousands more electric vehicles - not to mention generating enough electricity to keep those stations functioning.

I see a man-made disaster coming that will cause more grief and poverty than any natural disaster would if we follow through with some of the proposals in this playbook.

wpalcher7 about 2 months ago

Close the hawthorn plant, expand and improve bus lines, update apartments to improve energy efficiency, and public investment, not for-profit involvement, in vision and projects

Zzzz about 2 months ago

Kansas City needs climate action now. There is no time to waste. According to the latest IPCC report, to keep global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, greenhouse emissions will have to peak by 2025. Kansas City must do its part to ensure the world meets this goal.

I support a strong Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan because I am concerned about the effects of climate change on my daughter's future and the future of all children in our community.

I am happy to see the work Kansas City has put into developing this plan, but I want it to be stronger. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

-Kansas City should aim for zero carbon by 2040, not “net zero."
-The City should advocate for Evergy to close its Hawthorn coal plant by 2025. All remaining coal plants should be closed by 2030.
-Ratepayer money should be spent on clean energy and helping to modernize households and buildings, not building more obsolete gas infrastructure.
-Natural gas should be phased out of all municipal buildings by 2030.
-The City should not support renewable natural gas
-Green development from this plan should be carried out in a way that does not cause gentrification and displacement
-The plan should prioritize good-paying jobs for frontline communities (particularly low income Black and brown communities) in carrying out the green transformation of our city's infrastructure
-The plan should include green buses that come every 5-10 minutes, more East/West service
-The City should adopt the bike plan and put more funding toward making it safer and easier to bike and walk

Thank you for your consideration of these additions to the plan. It is critical that this plan be as strong as possible to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

meckelmi about 2 months ago

My name is Dawson Sims, and I'm joining the many public voices who are advocating in support of the People's Climate Town Hall demands (https://bit.ly/pcthdemands).

Additionally, I would like to express my concern with how this plan discusses climate migrants. The only mention of climate migrants in the plan comes under the section titled, "What Are Our Biggest Climate Risks?" Is this really how KCMO sees migrants who are victims of the fossil-fueled climate disasters, as risks to be mitigated? The language used here is deeply dehumanizing and suggests a failure to think critically about the intersections between migration and climate.

The city should go back to the drawing board on the issue of climate migrants and refugees, working with the many immigrant and refugee advocacy groups that already exist in the community to come up with a plan to welcome and support people displaced by climate disaster, both regionally and globally, with social housing,
affordable utilities, good union jobs, clean air and water, robust public transit, and so on -- everything that we should be striving to secure for all members of our community. We should understand this as part of the United States' responsibility to the world as the largest historical emitter of planet-warming gases -- this is one of many ways that the city can put its stated goal of "climate justice" into action.

dawson_sims about 2 months ago

Having read the draft of the climate resiliency plan, I’m extremely concerned and feel Kansas City can do better. 2040 is NOT soon enough to reach “net zero” - we need to do everything in our power to reach actual zero as soon as possible.

What disappoints me: Lack of detail and clarity in the plan. How does this plan address systemic environmental racism in Kansas City? How will this plan provide education and employment to Kansas City’s most vulnerable? How do you plan to transition to clean electricity? Who will get this clean electricity? Who will get solar panels? How will you take the rapid gentrification of KC neighborhoods into account? I don’t believe this plan’s writers have considered the reality of MOST Kansas Citians, who live at the whim of energy companies, landlords, and police. This plan does not reflect our interests or wellbeing.

How KC can do better: Include diverse voices and experiences on the Steering Committee. Energy companies’ profit motives do NOT represent citizens’ climate interests and concerns. Consider Climate Protection a social issue and an opportunity to give Kansas Citians what they need: social housing, union jobs, accessible transportation (to name a few). Listen to the people’s demands. We will not stand for a plan that maintains the status quo of profits over people and the environment. https://bit.ly/pcthdemands

gabriellegw about 2 months ago

Kansas City needs climate action now. I support a strong Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan because I am concerned about the effects of climate change on my children’s future. I am happy to see the work Kansas City has put into developing this plan, but I want it to be stronger. Here are my suggestions for improvement

This plan should have more specific and measurable goals with deadlines. Right now the goals are ambitious, but too vague. We need ways to know if we are on the right track in meeting our goals.

We should aim for zero carbon by 2040, not “net zero."

A Max line should run east-west.

Kdev about 2 months ago

On behalf of Cultivate KC, we appreciate the Climate Protection and Resilience Plan’s commitment to improve opportunities for all community members to grow and eat healthy, fresh, locally grown food. We support the Food strategies and actions outlined in the Draft Climate Protection and Resilience Plan and Short-Term Implementation Plan and offer the following suggestions to strengthen this section:

- Action F-1.3 (p. 55 short term plan): Add Land Bank as an implementation partner/leader. Land Bank lots should be accessible (available and affordable) for people and neighborhood organizations, especially those who live nearby, to purchase and use to grow food and create community green spaces. Explore other tools to protect urban farm and garden land from development, such as an urban land trust dedicated to food production.
- Funding considerations (p. 53 short term plan): Add public investment to support the food strategies. This is one of the only sections of the plan with no public investment indicated. When pursuing private investment, the City should use its unique position to bring in new funds rather than compete for limited local funding available to organizations, farms, and gardens.
- Action F-1.1 (p. 54 short term plan): Make sure codes officers understand food production and use of native plants in landscaping. Reword existing code language for “Urban Agricultural Zone” to remove requirement for zone to located in a “blighted area.”
- Action F-1.2 (p. 55 short term plan): Think big as far as incentives go – converting a vacant urban lot to a thriving urban farm or garden takes a large investment of money and time, so the more we can do to incentivize and support, the more successful farms and gardens we will see throughout the city.
- Action F-1.5 (p.57 short term plan): We strongly support the creation of a coordinator to work on food systems at the city level and appreciate the first note in Equity Considerations under this action.
- Action F-1.4 (p. 56 short term plan): Add NRCS as either an implementation leader or supporting party.
- Action F-2.1 (p. 58 short term plan): Implementation Steps: Explore a funding mechanism to allow food pantries to purchase fresh, local food directly from local farmers.
- Action F-2.3 (p. 58 short term plan): MARC should be listed as the Supporting Party instead of Cultivate KC; Cultivate’s relationship is with farmers markets, whereas MARC does outreach to grocery stores.
- Action F-2.4 (p. 59 short term plan): Add MARC as Implementation partner and Nourish KC as supporting party

Thank you for your consideration.

afreeberg about 2 months ago

My name is Be'Yond Gatson and I am a KCMO resident. I support the Green New Deal, which is why the CPRP must listen to the demands of the people as set forth in Sunrise KC’s People’s Climate Town Hall. Please Read the full list of demands by the COMMUNITY here: bit.ly/pcthdemands

Be'Yond Gatson about 2 months ago

Think it's great your making bike lanes but does that mean you no longer service the roads cars travel on since potholes have become terrible and sidewalks are in disrepair? I will say it is obvious you are only resurfacing those roads you are taking away car lanes and putting a bike lane in it's place. Seems all your emphasis is currently on only these bike lanes while giving no thought to the fact you making traffic worse and unsafe. With Main torn up do you really believe it was the appropriate time to make traffic so much worse on Gillham? There needs to be a balance and right now it's obvious your tunnel vision is only focused on bikers. For the few months a year they will be used, you seem to be forgetting the rest of us that pay taxes.

Mike about 2 months ago

As a worker in the metro construction community, the current KC Climate Action Plan is a good example of mob-think from outside influences who have little concern for those of us in this region. I believe there is room to responsibly utilize multiple energy sources while working towards higher levels of renewables, but the transition away from coal and gas needs to be smart, graduated, and affordable for all citizens of Kansas City.

A basic Google search reveals that MO energy generation is comprised of ~9-10% renewables…mainly wind and hydro, with the rest being coal, natural gas, and nuclear. All energy sources have their warts. Wind and solar are no exception, as the resources to mine, build, and transport solar panels & windmill blades require substantial energy output. Environmental impacts from their power generation are ongoing to wildlife…while disposing of end-of-life panels & blades create toxic landfills.

KC is neither Arizona, nor California. The extreme cold weather we often experience in a Midwest winter can result in fatal conditions like Feb ‘21 storm Uri, which caused frozen equipment and overloaded power grids down South. There were 246 deaths in Texas alone…the majority of those from hypothermia. Natural gas kept flowing in KC and those with hot water tanks, fireplaces, and cooktops were able to use them when the power was out, providing a sense of comfort and security in extreme conditions.

I believe that most rational people will agree in a diverse energy mix until (if?) a truly feasible solution for our energy needs is realized. Remarkably, many of the comments I’ve read on this site suggest panicked shuttering of coal plants and turning off natural gas pipelines. This is not the answer. For those in a hurry to remove these critical sources from the mix, try to “survive” without the affordable infrastructure used to charge your phone, heat & cool your home in extreme weather, prepare your favorite meal at a local restaurant, or brew that IPA at your neighborhood brewery…and then report back after experiencing a 9-10% reliability rate. Hospitals, and coal power plants, use natural gas for back up and during peak generation periods. And let's not forget cannabis grow operations, which consume large volumes of electricity and...natural gas.

We live in a free & open society, with most of us wanting CHOICE in practically everything we do. Removing the option of natural gas from future construction projects in KC strips away that choice, increases building costs and consumer usage rates, resulting in less comfort, reliability, and efficiency. Instead of promoting less freedom…the KC Climate Plan Steering Committee might be better off educating us correctly, and honestly, about the critical need for a diverse energy mix…so our citizens can continue to choose what’s most feasible, affordable, and reliable in their everyday lives.

B Jones about 2 months ago

This plan should have more specific and measurable goals with deadlines. Right now the goals are ambitious, but too vague. We need ways to know if we are on the right track in meeting our goals.
We should aim for zero carbon by 2040, not “net zero."
Clean energy:
The City should advocate for Evergy to close its Hawthorn coal plant in Indian Mound Neighborhood by 2025. All remaining coal plants should be closed by 2030. Ratepayer money should be spent on clean energy and helping to modernize households and buildings, not building more obsolete gas infrastructure.
Natural gas should be phased out of all municipal buildings by 2030.
The City should not support false, expensive solutions like renewable natural gas.
Environmental justice:
The City should plan ways to make sure low income residences can access improvements like rooftop solar and better building insulation.
A Max line should run east-west.
Active Transit
The City should adopt the bike plan and put more funding toward making it safer and more enjoyable to bike and walk.

MsJayPea about 2 months ago

Hello, my name is Caitlin and I am from the 4th District. I’m 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. Specifically, I support directing public investing into the frontline communities and neighborhoods that have been bearing the weight of the climate crisis and creating community-drive green renewable energy. The CPSC and City must listen to the demands of the community along with Sunrise Movement KC as set forth by A People's Climate Town Hall. Here is the full list of demands bit.ly/pcthdemands

ckogulan about 2 months ago

Kansas City needs climate action now. I support a strong Climate Protection and Resiliency Plan because I am concerned about the effects of climate change on my children’s/ grandchildren’s future. I am happy to see the work Kansas City has put into developing this plan, but I want it to be stronger. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
This plan should have more specific and measurable goals with deadlines. Right now the goals are ambitious, but too vague. We need ways to know if we are on the right track in meeting our goals.
We should aim for zero carbon by 2040, not “net zero."

The City should advocate for Evergy to close its Hawthorn coal plant in Indian Mound Neighborhood by 2025. All remaining coal plants should be closed by 2030. Ratepayer money should be spent on clean energy and helping to modernize households and buildings, not building more obsolete gas infrastructure.
Natural gas should be phased out of all municipal buildings by 2030.
The City should not support false, expensive solutions like renewable natural gas.

The City should plan ways to make sure low income residences can access improvements like rooftop solar and better building insulation.
A Max line should run east-west.

The City should adopt the bike plan and put more funding toward making it safer and more enjoyable to bike and walk.

Anna Wolf about 2 months ago

The city needs to ambitiously strive toward the goal of Diamond or Platinum Bicycle Friendly City designation by the League of American Bicyclists. A bump to Silver by 2024 is a good short-term goal, but this plan needs to identify longer-term goals elaborating on its commitment to developing the future of Kansas City as a cyclist and pedestrian-friendly city for citizens of all ages and abilities. Let's commit to advancing our BFC rank at least once every two years until we reach Diamond level. Maybe D-level is a 2040 goal.

There are vast resources at our fingertips to help us understand what's needed to create safe, healthy, active, connected communities that improve nearly every outcome identified in this plan -- and then some. Cities on both sides of the Atlantic ocean have been striving toward these ends for decades, many with great success. Let's learn from them.

We can do this. But when it comes to producing a shift toward active mobility, there's a critical threshold we have to cross before any sort of sustained changes are going to be observed. To be specific:
1. The city sidewalk program needs to be fast-tracked. At ~$250/linear foot reconstruction cost, the current sidewalk replacement budget is woefully inadequate. Walkability for everyone should be priority 1.
2. A legit, city-wide Complete Streets policy should be implemented no later than 2040 -- sooner if possible.

Isolated bike lanes -- i.e., the lack of a comprehensive cycling infrastructure -- limit cycling feasibility for most riders, for obvious reasons.

First, if points A and B aren't at the end points of the bike lane, you're forced to use other pathways -- namely, the roadways, which have unfortunately been designed primarily (exclusively?) for cars, or sidewalks, which are dangerous and illegal for all but our youngest citizens to ride on.

Second, cyclists riding in bike lanes are particularly (and gravely) vulnerable at intersections that are not designed to prioritize cyclist visibility to motorists. Without a comprehensive infrastructure, motorists will not be conditioned to stop at the appropriate place, and instead will most often pull into the bike lane crossing the intersection, putting oncoming cyclists (often invisible to the motorist until it's too late) at risk of collision. Crossing over right turn lanes as well as crossing traffic to get into left turn lanes (because cyclists have to make left turns just as often as motorists do) is also precarious without careful design.

In short, spotty cycling infrastructure, while it will encourage a slight uptick in ridership and temporary confidence, ultimately puts cyclists at risk at intersections and during turns. A full commitment to Complete Streets is the only thing that will force motorists to accept cyclists' place alongside them as legitimate users of our roadways.

mattstephenskc about 2 months ago

Please make it a rule that I can put enough solar on my roof to replace my usage.... I am in process now and evergy is making things more difficult than it should be. Why do they get to control how much green energy I can offset? If I want to not use any of their power I should be able to do so.

James about 2 months ago

Thank you for seeking input from residents on the updated Climate Protection & Resiliency Plan. I am happy to see the work that has been put into developing it, however I think it needs to be stronger.

I believe it is imperative that we end our reliance on fossil fuels including natural gas. Natural gas is predominantly methane which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Natural gas leaks methane all along its supply chain from extraction, transport, and even in our homes, not only contributing to climate change but causing health risks including increased asthma rates. We should stop calling it “natural” gas as that is greenwashing what it truly is, hazardous methane gas. As such, I believe the City should phase out “natural” gas from all municipal buildings by 2030. Additionally, the City should not support false, expensive “solutions” like renewable natural gas.

To mitigate the health risks to frontline communities as well as tackling climate change, the City should advocate for Evergy to close its Hawthorne coal plant in the Indian Mound neighborhood by 2025 and all remaining coal plants should be closed by 2030. Ratepayer money should be spent on clean energy and helping to modernize households and buildings, again not building more obsolete gas infrastructure. Further, to ensure frontline communities are not left behind, the City should plan ways to make sure low-income residents can access improvements like rooftop solar and better building insulation. The plan should create incentives for greater efficiency and, in particular, the Pay As You Save (PAYS) system for financing efficiency upgrades. Many property owners can make upgrades with no upfront cost, and then repay their utility over time with the money they've saved on their gas and electric bills. The result: no net increase in monthly outlay for those customers. The City should push Evergy to make this available to all customers.

Lastly, the plan should include more specific and measurable goals with deadlines. Right now the goals are too vague. We need ways to know if we are on the right track in meeting our goals. As well, we should aim for ZERO CARBON by 2040, not NetZero. It is disappointing to see that the plan outlines our future progress to "net zero" relies on future technologies and carbon sequestration. We already have all the technologies we need to get to ZERO CARBON. We just need to use them. "Future technologies and carbon sequestration" can be used as an excuse to continue polluting while relying on a future invention to save us.

According to the April 2022 IPCC report on Mitigation of Climate Change, we are not on track to limit warming by 1.5 degrees unless there are immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors. I thank you for taking the climate crisis seriously and seeking ambitious, equitable solutions. I know we can create a livable climate for my child and all KC kids.

mcgintymk about 2 months ago

The people need the right to choose there own energy source and I for 1 choose Natural Gas as it is cleaner and more affordable!

Wes about 2 months ago
Page last updated: 13 Apr 2022, 12:47 PM