Is Austin Really a Sustainable City?
Right before I moved to Austin, I read Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything, which argues that the reality of climate change fundamentally undermines the logic of the political and economic structures of the 20th century.
Not just a tomb of bad news, but also a survey of hopeful enterprises, the book highlights exciting trends around the world. Austin, Texas made it into that bracket, with its municipally owned energy provider, Austin Energy:
Though rarely mentioned in climate policy discussions, there is a clear and compelling relationship between public ownership and the ability of communities to get off dirty energy. … In the U.S., some of the cities that have set the most ambitious green energy targets also happen to have public utilities. Austin, Texas, for instance, is ahead of schedule for meeting its target of 35 percent renewable power by 2020 . . . (pg. 99 of This Changes Everything).
And who isn’t proud of that? As a rate-paying customer of Austin Energy, I certainly am. And I admire all of the forward-thinking incentive programs they offer us rate payers (e.g., did you know that you can get a $300 rebate for purchasing an e-bike!?).
Austin certainly likes to pat itself on its back regarding Austin Energy’s ambitious goals, as seen by the many accolades our city council representatives give it. Seriously, do a google search for “Austin city council, climate change,” and you’ll find articles that have messages along these lines:
Mayor Adler signs mayoral pact to reduce GHG emissions
Mayor Adler at C40 Mayors Summit commits to Paris Climate Agreement
Mayor Adler co-pens letter to President Trump on climate action
Leslie Pool and Mayor Adler head to Paris for climate talks
City Council gets a shout-out for caring about the planet
City Council ups the ante, going after 51% renewable energy by 2020
Council ups, ups the ante again, with 65% renewable energy by 2027
City of Austin municipal operations aims to be carbon-neutral by 2020
Austin Energy names utility of the year by smart city group for its ambitious targets
Environmentalists cheer on Austin Energy’s ambitious goals
Kudos (and I really mean this) for Austin Energy. You rock. However, I cannot help but ask the question,
“Can your city fuel itself with 100% renewable energy but still be a climate change atrocity?”
Consider this analogy. What if I told you, “Hey, I want to tell you about this person I know. She thinks the body is sacred, and that our diet habits should reflect that. She eats a balanced diet that mimics the dietary behaviors of the Okinawan and Mediterranean peoples. Nothing processed, only organic, everything made at home, very balanced among all the food groups. She jogs a 5k every single day. What do you think?” “Oh, she sounds like a very enlightened person,” you say. “Yea, she is. Too bad she’s an arms-smuggler for central American drug-lords.”
Let me translate: can Austin consume the purest, cleanest, most renewable energy, only to power the beast of habitat-destroying, lawn-watering, car-commuting, ironically-affordable suburbia? Maybe.
Enter my back-of-the-napkin data dive into two variables that contribute to GHG emissions, with one simple question: does Austin’s growing population of car commuters completely negate its GHG emission reductions for energy production? I’ll save you the suspense; the answer is, sadly, yes.
Despite the noticeable reduction in total CO2 emissions for Austin Energy (quite the feat given how much Austin’s population grew between 2006 and 2016), the increased number of car, truck, and van commuters in the Austin-Round Rock MSA completely cancels out that reduction. In fact, with just these two variables, GHG emissions have actually increased. I.e., we are losing the climate change battle.
Full disclosure, y’all: the above analysis is not a deep dive into the data underlying Austin’s collective CO2 emissions. I have simply looked at two factors that contribute to GHG emissions — electric energy production and commuting behavior for work. I’ve ignored the GHG emissions and the carbon sequestration activities stemming from a host of other aspects of our collective, daily lives — residential natural gas consumption, food waste, residential and commercial construction waste, suburban sprawl, but also city-wide composting, planting trees, and carbon offsets purchased by various actors throughout the city. My cursory analysis above is the start, I hope, of a larger question — is Austin really on track to be a sustainable city?
