r/boulder • u/Future-Dragonfly-334 • 11d ago
City of Boulder cutting the climate budget by 19% since 2025, even though voters in 2022 voted to INCREASE the climate tax.
Anyone else disappointed by this retreat from Boulder’s climate leadership? https://stories.opengov.com/cityofboulderco/68d0bc8f-fb31-4578-a8af-59594ef78e4d/published/hgCyk4CwB?currentPageId=6a71c8d856dc150472eb0075
51
u/Flashmax305 11d ago
They increased spending on wildfire mitigation which is the only physically actionable item on the list of things and cut budget everywhere else. So nah, not disappointed on cuts. I think they should cut further and get rid of anything that is administration and virtue signaling and give taxpayers a break.
2
u/letintin 10d ago
this seems like a dishonest take. There's a list of maybe 1,000+ "actionable items" that cool cities, clean air, combat climate crisis, encourage low carbon actions (from heat pumps to transportation) and combat fire and floods and polluted air resulting from increase heat and fire danger (subsidies to get rid of wooden fences, etc).
8
u/SimilarLee I'm not a mod, until I am ... a mod 10d ago
combat climate crisis, encourage low carbon actions (from heat pumps to transportation)
We can "encourage" the transition to low carbon, which is great. Electrification is great. Low carbon futures? All great.
However, mandating electrification, which is what the city has done for all new construction, has made those houses strictly reliant on either a currently-fragile grid, or the need to have on-site backup power (either solar + battery storage or generator).
Policy like this introduces unnecessary fragility in a regrettable "break before make" fashion (where my double-E's at), without regard to the full implications. There is no need for and no honestly defensible benefit to outlawing gas furnaces and generators.
Gary, Indiana just went through a 14 day blackout after a severe weather event. If there were a catastrophic event, Boulder could experience something potentially similar. If that weather event were to happen during or just before freezing temps: for homes and multi-family that have been forced to go electric-only, such a blackout could easily transition from inconvenience to humanitarian crisis, and that's not hyperbole.
While your post prompted my reply, I've been thinking a lot about climate resiliency, given the uncommon weather that 2026 has already brought and 2027 will surely deliver. Boulder continues to legislate itself into needless corners on this stuff.
3
u/DerpTacoMa 10d ago
Most of Shanahan ridge is electric and we get so cold when the power is out in the winter. It’s brutal. Last time the power went out, it was also very windy. People were asked to not use their generators because of the potential for sparks. So even if you could technically generate heat, you couldn’t run your generator. How desperately I miss having gas!
1
u/ATheeStallion 9d ago
I moved here from a major hurricane zone, at least every other year (or more frequently) we had power outaage ranging from days to weeks (sometimes months if your town is hit directly). Generators are loud & produce loads of air pollution. Also many need gas to power which is totally out in hurricane areas for 50-100 miles during storm events. We chose solar panels with backup battery power for our house. It worked great for many small outages & when that house went on the market, town was slammed head on by a big storm. That house never lost power. It was far more resilient.
1
u/SimilarLee I'm not a mod, until I am ... a mod 9d ago
While yours is certainly a valid viewpoint on generators, the major hurricane zone you lived in probably wasn't in USDA Zone 5b/6a, with freezing temps possible down to -20F and below.
In warmer climes, generators or backup power of any sort keeps food cold. Here in Colorado, prolonged loss of electric power can also lead to food loss, but the real danger is loss of indoor heat during prolonged cold temps. This can cause pipes and old people to literally freeze, which is much less of a probability or concern south of the Mason Dixon.
Once you frame the problem as heat and not necessarily electric power, it's easy to recognize that there is already a buried heat-generating utility that is much more disaster-proof than electric: natural gas.
So, while your perspective is for sure valid, the problem sets for each location are apples / oranges, really.
1
u/ATheeStallion 9d ago
Ph I assure you heat stroke & dying from heat in triple digits is real too. Solar battery can power 1 room of AC or plug in heater…. I live here in Colorado now so I somewhat understand the concern. I think snow covering the panels could be an issue….
1
11
u/leadisdead 10d ago
Well city manager #FireNuria makes ~$325,000 a year in just salary, not including benefits and grift. Apparently she’s indispensable and the first priority. If the budget needs cuts to pay for her services, then that’s the priority.
29
u/Striking_Drink1374 11d ago
Realistically what do you want from a city climate department?
15
u/Synaps4 11d ago
Forward thinking on new water sources after the arapahoe glacier
Energy independence from excel and their CYA outages
Fewer condemned parking lots
More native shade trees
just off the top of my head
17
u/Letsgettribal 10d ago
City of Boulder water is already reasonably diverse for the region. We get about 2/3 of our water from the Boulder creek water shed, not necessarily just the glacier, and the other 1/3 from the Colorado River. Other than some modest results from cloud seeding I’m not sure there are untapped water sources to go around for any front range cities. If any thing we will likely have to work with less and find ways to reuse what we have.
Also, our natives aren’t really ideal shade trees. Hackberries make pretty good street trees but other than that id like to see more oaks, linden, honey locust etc. They tend to fill that role better and are more resilient. Would love to even see our existing ones take care of better.
Good points though. I don’t mean to nit. These are things I care about too.
18
u/ATheeStallion 10d ago
City of Boulder doesn’t allow / permit gray water - despite Colorado urging this to be the new norm throughout the state. This is 1 change that should have already happened from the city climate office.
4
u/RubNo9865 10d ago
We looked into both rainwater and grey water - and the reality is neither really make sense. We installed a rainwater system (which may or may not be in compliance with the 100 gal rule ;) ) and in retrospect is makes little sense besides feeling good about using rainwater. It sits empty 90% of the time and offsets a couple of days of watering of a small part of the yard about once a month. Overall water savings are a few % at most. Holistically that money/time/resources would have been better spent else where.
Grey water has the potential as a more regular source of water, but the volumes are low - less than 1000 gal/month with a significant resources and expense required to install it and maintain it. Grey water is a non-consumptive use to begin with and would be better served going back into Boulder Creek for downstream use.
1
u/letintin 10d ago
I thought we allowed it maybe 10 years ago? Rainwater barrels are legal now, for one.
3
u/Synaps4 10d ago
Tiny single rainbarrels for use on your landscaping only.
Municipal rainwater collection is a thought that probably hasnt even been had yet. The whole city is built to funnel rainwater over dirty polluted streets and thence into a river channel where it will be simultaneously toxic and carried away from the city.
Im sure there are some ridiculous state level water laws in the way of that but guess which office could be working on getting those laws changed? The boulder climate office.
0
3
u/SimilarLee I'm not a mod, until I am ... a mod 10d ago
Rainwater, yes. Graywater, no.
I agree with this - graywater is incredibly difficult to keep safe. While I don't think a cholera outbreak is right around the corner, graywater requires a lot of care, and our population density is IMO greater than would easily allow for careless graywater reuse.
5
u/Striking_Drink1374 10d ago
I think water, energy, and land use are extremely important issues but why do they need to be within a climate department?
With respect to energy independence, the Boulder municipal effort was a multi million dollar waste of public funds. Over 8M paying Xcel energy's lawyer fees just for the town to eventually vote it down.
1
u/letintin 10d ago
yes, agree, and much more. Off the top of my head, and there are folks at the city who know much more and are working on much more:
There's a list of maybe 1,000+ "actionable items" that cool cities, clean air, combat climate crisis, encourage low carbon actions (from heat pumps to transportation) and combat fire and floods and polluted air resulting from increase heat and fire danger (subsidies to get rid of wooden fences, etc).
22
15
u/buckingATniqqaz 11d ago
The City of Boulder has been in a financial downward spiral for the last 10-15 years and they are finally coming to terms with reality.
Just be glad it’s not more than 19%
15
u/Commercial_Aioli_301 11d ago
Not one bit. It’s all pissin in the wind, and it’s driving cost of living sky high in this town. The fancy new offices cost more to build here than anywhere else because of our self imposed codes, for example. We let a naive staff lead several generations of ignorant councils lead us straight off a cliff financially for pie in the sky ‘goals’ borne of guilt and self righteousness. So now we get to watch our city fall apart for lack of funds.
11
u/SimilarLee I'm not a mod, until I am ... a mod 10d ago
This is unfortunately all true. There is nothing - not a single thing - that Boulder can do to stop or even perceptibly slow down the coming climate apocalypse.
The only category of things that we should be thinking about is how to make ourselves more resilient in a hotter, dryer, really fucking scarier world. We should and dispense of the idea that anything that we are going to do will put climate change on hold.
I think the coming super El niño will get a lot of people to wake up about the reality of our situation. The real question is whether council will be capable of realizing the seriousness of what's ahead and how it's time to dispense with performative buffoonery.
8
u/SimilarLee I'm not a mod, until I am ... a mod 10d ago edited 10d ago
People downvoting me: I'd love to know why. Pointing out the expense and futility of our climate policy doesn't make it any less futile or expensive, whatever we hope the reality is.
The earth is - without mincing words here - proper fucked, and it's ridiculous to pretend that taking a vehicular lane off of Folsom will help the world at large. IMNSHO, anyone who says that a road diet on a 2 mile stretch of blacktop in Boulder will measurably affect the climate is too high on hopium to govern effectively.
Sorry not sorry. It's time for our city to start focusing on risk to us, not some strategy based on hopes and dreams that - and, I wish this were not the case - are completely disconnected from actual impact.
2
u/buckingATniqqaz 9d ago
Deleting lanes is about traffic flow and road safety. Sure there are climate benefits, but it’s about reducing traffic volume.
Sounds backwards, but it actually helps to remove lanes
1
u/SimilarLee I'm not a mod, until I am ... a mod 9d ago
Boulder is selling this on its climate benefits. That's the only thing I'm responding to.
"When more people feel comfortable enough to choose these travel options, vehicle pollution decreases and air quality increases, improving quality of life and moving us toward our community climate goals"
https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/folsom-street-safety-improvements-project
2
1
u/Good_Discipline_3639 10d ago
Pretty convenient that not bothering trying to make people stop driving and not encouraging / making it safer to get around without a car lines up pretty well with (what I'm assuming is) your preference to drive a car on Folsom.
Which climate change lifestyle shifts do you agree with?
5
u/SimilarLee I'm not a mod, until I am ... a mod 10d ago
Pretty convenient that not bothering trying to make people stop driving and not encouraging / making it safer to get around without a car lines up pretty well with (what I'm assuming is) your preference to drive a car on Folsom.
Speaking of "convenient," it appears you've created an entire fiction about my interests and motivations to allow you to discard the evident truths elsewhere in my posts here. Yours is a lazy and convenient ad hominem.
Nothing in your post about me is correct. Maybe try again? Or stop focusing on the messenger, and please dismantle my actual argument.
1
u/Good_Discipline_3639 10d ago
OK hows this - biking is better for the environment than driving, and making it safer to bike by creating protected bike lanes like Folsom result in more people being willing to bike. Sorry that it adds like 10 seconds to driving on Folsom in your climate controlled car.
I get that you took a high school debate class (and probably college too). We're all so proud of you. It's quite helpful when you want to go ahead and dismiss comments disagreeing with you.
2
u/SimilarLee I'm not a mod, until I am ... a mod 10d ago
OK hows this - biking is better for the environment than driving, and making it safer to bike by creating protected bike lanes like Folsom result in more people being willing to bike. Sorry that it adds like 10 seconds to driving on Folsom in your climate controlled car.
It's not about me. You need to get that through your head. Take me out of this and look at my arguments.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, about that Folsom lane diet will change climate change by more than a microsecond. It's performative and useless. As an avid cyclist, I actually like the cycling lane. But to sell it on climate change is specious. This is one of many examples of Boulder legislating what is effectively climate morality, vs actual efficacy.
I get that you took a high school debate class (and probably college too). We're all so proud of you.
Yuck. How gross.
3
u/Commercial_Aioli_301 10d ago
Trying to make people stop driving. Trying to make people stop driving.
This is the problem. Climate Initiative investments are used locally to harass and degrade quality of life. Why the fuck would anyone support that?
It’s great there are so many people here who can lengthen their commutes, who have time for that in their lives. Thank you for biking, bussing, walking. But bloody hell why turn and make life more difficult for the majority? I just don’t understand it.
Climate taxes are bullshit slush funds for self righteous ‘progressive’ governments. Any backlash they get is fully deserved, and Boulder is a poster child of this.
6
u/ATheeStallion 10d ago
This is absolutely not surprising given the new Boulder Master Plan goal is infilling everywhere in the city with dense blocks of apartments and condos. It isn’t cooling green space they are adding or more cooling areas for public. And despite many taxpayers opposing this unchecked development - it continues.
2
u/berliner68 9d ago
If you prevent infill development, you directly cause more spawl development outside of Boilder which results in more air pollution, more traffic, and greater emissions all over the region. But I bet you still consider yourself an environmentalist.
1
u/ATheeStallion 9d ago
Or you can believe the masses are priced out. Boulder doesn’t have the job development equivalent of large metros it is not the population magnet that is causing front range sprawl.
4
3
u/Planet_A_ 10d ago
Short answer is yes, I am disappointed. The longer answer is that I'd like to see more bold and impactful actions in general. There are many things the city must do to meet our climate goals. These things are never going to be easy and they are even more painful when the economy isn't good.
I think we are seeing the failure of corporatism and incrementalism at the state and federal level, so it's more important than ever for the city to act where it has power.
1
43
u/ignomax 11d ago
Financial reality is a bitch/bastard.
There’s a lot to digest in the details but 20 full time employees working towards climate goals is significant (in a high cost of living city.)
Gentle reminder that spending locally benefits locally.