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.

how is this plan going to work? Everyone should be concerned about not having options such as natural gas. We all know that without competition/ options they can up charge and we have very little control. #2 how will the power grid ever handle electric cars/ and no other energy source as we have power outages already without that extra power on the grid. We’re not California we have tough winters in kc we need other energy sources like natural gas.

Richard H about 2 months ago

I have noticed no members of the Natural Gas companies were put on the board for these efforts. Why were they not included in these discussions? I personally believe forcing electrification on us residents is not providing energy options to the community. We have seen that solar and wind are not sufficient enough to produce enough energy for the city. Natural gas has a higher efficiency rating (91%) than the 36% efficiency rate of a natural gas powered power plant. Spire has committed to being carbon neutral by 2050, instead of forcing electrification, allow the population to choose their energy sources and include ALL ENERGY OPTIONS to be present when making plans such as this one. I would like to see a Spire, Atmos, Kansas Gas, etc. to have representation on this board. It seems very one sided excluding them. As a KC resident with a natural gas furnace, water heater, and stove, I would like to keep this affordable option. Our electric bill is higher than the gas bill every single month.

kliberty11 about 2 months ago

How do we account for all the added power demand especially during winter. Natural gas is more reliable due not having to rely weather factor for solar or not to mention the toxic burning of coal. Not to mention natural gas is more affordable. Natural gas is 91 percent efficient as compared to electricity only 36 percent. When was the last time you didn’t have natural gas during a storm? And what about electricity? Also we want to have options on who we rely on for our energy choice not to be told and solely rely on electricity and if prices spike we don’t have a choice now because we solely rely on one energy source. This seems like it’s a very driven agenda on this plan.

Lionsnotsheep about 2 months ago

Please adopt a strong plan to address our climate which is in dire peril. Let us be an example for other communities, showing we care about the future of our planet. We need to ensure those who come after us have healthy air to breathe and clean water to drink!

Ann DeFeo about 2 months ago

I'd like to see an implementation matrix added as an appendix where we can see all strategies and their timeline listed out (I see a short-term one is in the works). This would be helpful for easier reference and a way to clearly track progress.

I'm excited that this plan is happening, but I do wish to strive more toward Zero Emissions goals rather than the net-zero we continue to see and for 20 years in the future. The urgency is more than that. Think about where you were 20 years ago - that's a long time! I know it's hard to get approved and is no doubt a challenge but we have to take the climate crisis as a crisis and act with urgency! Net-zero can be a stepping stone but it needs to be closer than 20 years. I'm glad to see city operations at net-zero by 2030

I really like the area summaries and appreciate the effort that went into understanding the unique needs of each community

april about 2 months ago

Reading the other people's comments, thank you all for your input!

I share the concern with the "net-zero" versus "zero-emissions"--zero-emissions would be much better, although it is true that reaching zero-emissions will be a gradual process. Would prefer sooner deadlines instead of 2040 (as in 2030). Also, why is it levels of 2005? Shouldn't it be more recent because perhaps now there are more emissions levels than in 2005?
As one commenter said, actions speak louder than words. Please make sure that residents can install solar panels/have eco trailer homes/etc. much easier (this should create incentives to do eco-friendly actions like these).
Also, recycling rates have gone down, which is very alarming (see Fox4 KC). Perhaps add this issue to the plan? I know personally that the recycling trucks do not recycle, they simply throw recycling away, for a variety of reasons (including residents not recycling the right items).
Yes please do incentives for individual action towards car idling.
Finally, incentives for water-runoff bio areas would be great because this would capture rainwater/stormwater (that has road salt) and prevents the road salt from leaching into the Missouri River ecosystem. This would probably be one of the last priorities though, since energy issues would be first priority.
Communal/community gardens are very important, there should be incentives for those as well.
Relying on solar/wind, etc may not be the best idea because those technologies may cost a lot short-term (although I am not an expert). Are there any renewable technologies that at least some parts of KC can use that can last long term?
More public "announcements" and incentives for individuals to do everyday actions to be more kind to the Earth. Individual action should be encouraged, in other words.

By making KC greener, we won't be stopping climate change (unfortunately). We'll just be doing our part, and hopefully setting an example to other cities. Thanks KC Playbook!

Marialuna 2 months ago

Why not make geothermal a part of the climate plan? Residential geothermal lowers energy consumption and eliminates central air conditioner noise pollution. Finding a way to bring installation costs down is key. Is there a way we could use alleyways for vertical loop drilling (especially in historic neighborhoods where space is limited) and get bulk rates for drilling? Maybe streets could opt in and if a certain number committed then the alleyway could be used. Being able to drill many wells in areas should bring down costs down.

Also, PBS did a really good story on geothermal power plants that seems very promising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-36VWp9Sf4A. Solar is great but panels degrade and have to be replaced over time. This type of geothermal sounds like an endless supply of energy as long as earth is habitable.

brettcreason 2 months ago

I am particularly excited about and committed to the elements of the plan that promise to not only increase our climate resilience and reduce our carbon impact, but also tangibly improve people's quality of life. Making changes like reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing home energy efficiency will save residents' time and money, over the long term, making Kansas City not only a 'greener' place, but a healthier and happier one. I share the concerns raised by some other commenters that there are places this plan can and should be strengthened--particularly emphasizing an insistence on elimination of carbon pollution, rather than its intended mitigation. We can't pretend that we have enough time for scaling back or easing down; this is the moment for urgency and resolute action. There is abundant evidence that we have sufficient technological capability to pivot fully from reliance on carbon emissions. The missing piece is political commitment, and I'm hopeful that this plan can be a decisive move in that direction for Kansas City.

melindaklewis 2 months ago

Removed by moderator.

Stop the Sunshine Movement 2 months ago

There is a lot to like in this plan! Fighting the threat of climate change is reason enough to make changes, but many of these solutions will also make our city a better place to live-- bike and pedestrian infrastructure, transit, reduced air pollution, and native plants are all desirable independent of the climate crisis.

That said, I am concerned that this plan does not take the threat of climate change seriously enough: we should be working towards zero carbon by 2040, not net zero. Net zero allows emissions to continue and will not stop the planet's overheating. We need to find ways to eliminate carbon pollution: the city should advocate for the closure of coal plants within and near its borders by 2030 (the Hawthorn plant should be closed by 2025) and we need to find more ways to facilitate and hasten the transition from fossil/methane gas to electric power for heating buildings. The city should resist the false solution of "renewable natural gas," as it simply extends the life of outdated infrastructure and its embodied carbon.

I was alarmed to see that a piece of graph showing our future progress to "net zero" relied on future technologies and carbon sequestration. We 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. This is unwise given the stakes.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback. I care deeply about this issue. This is the decade when we decide how hot the Earth will be when my children grow up.

Susan Alig 2 months ago

I think is great you are talking about climate enhancements. However, I have been stalled with a solar installation permit from the kcmo permit department. As actions speak loader than words...I am not sure how serious you are on taking action.

Ron 2 months ago

I think the key issue of closing the Hawthorn Coal Plant is missing from this draft. Overall, a more aggressive phasing out of coal is needed for effective address of the climate crisis. Phased out coal needs to be replaced with renewable energy.

Jack E. 2 months ago

My main reservation with this strategic plan as it is ... is that we NEED a specific goal set to get off coal by 2030. The Hawthorn plant needs to close by then, along with a plan to phase in reliance on sustainable alternative energy sources.

This is not just about Kansas City, it's about global responsibility. We have to do our part here locally to be part of what the whole world needs to do to avert irreparable climate damage in the future. This is serious.

Trinidad Raj 2 months ago

With Kansas City being an urban heat island with no shortage of roadways incorporating smaller wind turbines under overpasses and along the highways will ensure the capture of the made-made wind generated from passing cars while keeping the native birds safe.

Incorporating community gardens into every neighborhood in KC provides climate resiliency, food security, biological diversity, environmental richness, improved human health and quality of life, all while improving our ground water, air, environmental, social, and racial justices, economic vitality, with massive increases climate drawdown.

The current design of KC's trash trucks cause them to leave a trail of garbage behind the trucks as they navigate the city streets. I didn't see anywhere in the plan to improve the city's trash pollution issues that are riddling the streets, fence lines, highways, and storm drains. Keeping the streets clean prevents the trash from entering our storm system and eventually into the river where we and all of the southern communities get their drinking water from.

I am an undergrade of environmental science and climate change with focuses in wildlife ecology and sustainable food and farming. I would love to help in any way.

KellyHall22 2 months ago

Every City that has experimented with "green" energy has failed. Remember Texas? Windmills freeze, break and kill wildlife. Solar not yet dependable. Both are an eyesore. Both need a duplicative power-plant system for backup.

With the problems these "green" energies create we will end up throwing more money away to "fix" the problems we created. Moreover, who gets rich off this boondoggle? Are they going to guarantee success or is padding the pockets of politicians considered success enough? Will there be accompanying legislation that bans EVERY entity that contributes to this "green" energy "solution" from contributing to any campaign at every level?

When will the Power & Light district be paid off? Union Station? 18th and Vine? Will the 1% penalty for living in Kansas City ever go away? Is Kansas City again going to produce some pie-in-the-sky projections to fool people into higher taxes for "green" energy?

Kansas City has a crime problem. Have you considered how cheap it would be to get rid of the worthless Mayor and County Prosecutor, replace them with effective leadership, then watch as more people feel free to go out and shop for a tree to plant in their yard? Presto! carbon problem diminished! Is Kansas City leadership aware that most people do not feel safe to do their shopping in Kansas City? Instead, we make the weekly trek to the suburbs.

Taxes are already too high in Kansas City. We are not getting our money's worth the way it is. Good people and families have left for a multitude of good reasons.

Better schools, more police, more jail space, treatment for the mentally ill, non-political prosecutions, fix the streets, reduce taxes. Kansas City needs to go back to the basics.

Reduce the futile cost of not becoming a victim in Kansas City.

The Plan you are proposing asks Kansas Citians to accept this fast-growing dystopia as the "new normal". I will not support it.

Power&LightBoondoggle 2 months ago

I submit the following remarks for your consideration as you consider this plan: Our earth and its climate are approximately 4.5 billion years. During those 4.5 billion years our earth's climate has been hotter, colder, wetter and drier than it is today. Also during those years there has been both more and less CO2 and Methane in our atmosphere. All of these things happened with no influence from man because man had not arrived on the scene yet. No person living on this earth can tell us what the average temperature is or what temperature the earth's climate should be. Climate change IS definitely happening, it has always been happening and it always will be happening. No, I am NOT confusing climate with weather. Weather is short term while climate is long term. Around 10,000 - 12,000 earth's climate began to warm as the earth came out of its most recent ice age. Gigantic 2 mile thick glaciers began to melt until today. There are natural cycles which govern our climate. My input is to say "do nothing in an attempt to influence our earth's climate because nothing you do will have any impact".

jstol3 2 months ago

Would love to see more of a message around how KC citizens can take personal action. We have a car idling issue. In parking lots, school pick up lines, even parks I constantly see people sitting in running cars even on mild days. I suggest a study on the amount of carbon released by idling cars. A public awareness campaign showing by infared how much idling cars release, and a city wide pressure to turn off your car would be a way to engage the public in taking personal responsability. Than k you so much for your work on this!

KCcleanup! 2 months ago

Wind farms and solar panels are short lived and non biodegradable, this is pushed by elite to make money, in 15 years you have to bury all of them. Climate change is a natural event and not brought on by mankind.

History101 2 months ago

We says in M1 That we wish to reduce VMT through coordinated and planned development, but the removal of publicly funded parking garages is not mentioned once, neither is removal of on street parking. If we continue to offer abundant and free/cheap parking we will continue to get higher VMT and less mode shift to bike/walk/bus/streetcar. My home in the central business district is surrounded by 8 surface lots, an 6 parking garages. All of that is incentivizing parking by making it the cheap and easy default option. These surface lots directly contribute to the heat dome and create massive amounts of polluted storm water run-off and quite a few sit empty for 16 hours a day or more. If we aren't serious about removing surface lots then we aren't serious about tackling climate change.

We say in M2 that we want mode shift, but the city isn't funding bus and micro-mobility parking/hubs. Residents of the River Market had to fork out the money for three new hubs via investment from the River Market Community Association, the River Market CID, and the City Market. If the city funded micro-mobility hubs at 1% of current parking garages just downtown we would have hundreds of new on street secure parking facilities for bikes, scooters and other micro-mobility devices.

M5.6 says reduce use of gas powered lawnmowers and landscaping equipment. one leaf blower produces more pollution per hour than nearly any car. If we aren't banning and doing buy back programs that offer wholesale replacement we won't even begin to touch this problem source.

We need to be looking at reducing street widths on every road we possibly can. We should be returning that space to nature. We should be planting more street trees, widening sidewalks, installing benches and seating so that neighbors can hang out, people walking or bicycling can have a place to rest in the shade and creating bio-swells for water runoff capture.

stolivar 2 months ago

Great to see KC doing climate change planning!! Really like planting trees as a natural cool down strategy. This could include rooftop gardens to supply fresh vegetables and herbs for residents and restaurants. Also, institute traffic calming design everywhere. Landscaped medians would address more trees, improve air quality, and slow traffic. Work with MODOT to plant trees/shrubs in medians and on banks of major highways going through and around the city. Save mowing costs and provide natural barriers to lane crossover wrecks.
Finally review road materials currently used to assess the effectiveness. Perhaps spending more upfront on longer lasting materials could prevent so many potholes the very next season after a resurfacing project! Less concrete and asphalt for roads and parking lots and more quality for those we have. Require or incentivize every parking lot to have fast growing trees and shrubs.
Finally, get serious about repurposing older building rather than demolish and build new. For example, the historic church at West edge of the Plaza that is pending destruction. Give tax incentive for the business to reassign and repurpose the building versus tearing it down. We risk destroying the very ambiance and architectural draw that makes the Plaza unique!!
Adopt the goal that KC will be the cleanest, greenest city in the nation!!! Applaud all of the work on this plan and look forward to seeing it materialize into real projects with timelines!

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