HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0279.084 2022-2024 P/Courlcif
bill u8
MAK21Q
From: Georjean Adams
Sent: Tuesday,June 20, 2023 10:28 AM _'
w Com:,
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Testimony on Bill 48 Draft 2 for June 21, 2023
I do not support Bill 48 as currently drafted. It is overbroad and duplicative. It's not clear what,the
primary purpose of this new office would be. I believe the focus should be climate change risk
management and not the vague and all-encompassing responsibilities of county-wide`';
sustainability, equity/environmental justice, and resilience to any risk.
. Bill 48 would create yet another department under the managing director called the Office of
Sustainability, Climate, Equity and Resilience (OSCER). A lot of the bill sounds like climate
change, but then elevated to the same mission ("duty") level are equity, justice and the
granddaddy of all goals, "sustainability." I believe these high level principles should be at the core
of how the government does everything, rather than be assigned to a small new county
"office." In fact, I've long held that the approach to sustainability should be as an ADVERB: do
whatever you do "sustainably." I.e., to think about the potential life cycle consequences of your
decisions and try to minimize risk before you act. The same is true of equity and justice. Shouldn't
every county department's major programs and decisions be grounded in principles of
sustainability (including climate change), equity and environmental justice? Don't let them say
those issues are OSCER's responsibility, not theirs.
I could support a policy facilitator (or Sustainability or Climate "Guru") who works across agencies
and advises the mayor. But do not burden the head with creating and managing numerous
operational projects. Focus the effort solely on coordination and communication toward a well-
defined goal (e.g., climate change risk management). Don't staff it with a lot of experts and
responsibilities; use experts in other departments such as R&D, DEM, Planning, etc.
The name and scope of the new office is overloaded and overlapping in areas of
responsibility. Each term in the title is defined extremely broadly in scope:
- Adaptation "means the process of observing changes in social, environmental, and economic
systems and adjusting operations to meet present and anticipated future needs" —whether they
are related to climate change or not? Homelessness? Poverty? Marine contamination by
cesspools, fertilizer runoff? Over-tourism, inflation? Focus on expected climate change impacts
and how we can best adapt to avoid massive failure/high risk to our current infrastructure and
processes in ways that are sustainable/equitable and just.
- Sustainability has a broad definition of managing present and future social, economic and
environmental needs and "harmony" between economic growth, environmental systems and
1164
1 Comm.No. 2'l `•
Ref.Tor : WUnu
Ref.Date XIIyZ 1 202
social Y well-being. I'm also not sure what a "healthylifecycle" is supposed to mean. "Sustainability"
gpp Y
is whatever you want it to be, with endless scope. As noted above, I think a more meaningful way
to consider sustainability is as an adverb that indicates you are thinking about how to avoid
adverse consequences now and for the future before acting. (I note that the head of OSCER is
called the "Sustainability Administrator" in 37-1-4. Is that intentional?)
- Environmental Justice—you forgot "regardless of ...sexual identity."
- Equity—this has been narrowed to cumulative impacts and not just for county residents. I don't
understand why this is needed in the title. As with sustainability, every county department should
view its programs and decisions through the lens of equity and not delegate it to a separate
entity.
-Resilience—This is not how I'd define the term. It's not just "withstanding" but coming back—
maybe even better. Furthermore, the gamut of "shocks" from all directions cannot be handled by
a single office. Define resilience, if you must, in terms of surviving and thriving in the face of
climate change. Nevertheless, this is another term not needed in the title, as every county
department should view its programs and decisions through the lens of keeping our island and its
people thriving. If the scope of this office is focused on climate change, placing resilience -
achieved through adaptation - as the top priority makes practical sense because Hawaii County is
not going to be able to prevent climate change on its own. (Reducing emissions through
mitigation is good life cycle practice, but not where to spend all our resources.)
Section 37-2-21 lays out the wide-ranging policy and program "duties":
(a)(1) Deal with climate change adaptation and mitigation and resilience: good. Make sure
everyone in the county government is not making matters worse by ignoring potential adverse
impacts of a worsening climate or wasting resources by duplicating efforts. But then it adds
"other natural and human caused hazards" that are presumably not caused by climate
change. What are these - volcanic eruptions/emissions? toxic spills? arson set wildfires?
earthquakes? mass shootings? Is this office to take over emergency planning and preventative
actions being handled by other departments? Stick with climate change.
(2) "Improve" environmental justice and equity does this mean the office is to correct existing
issues unrelated to climate change (eg - lack of sewers or transportation)? I have no problem with
directing the office to practice "equity" and "environmental justice" in designing its programs, but
to cover all inequities is huge. Considering equity and injustice should be the responsibility of
every office in the county in addressing whatever its charter is.
(3) Engaging the wide range of stakeholders should be the primary focus of the climate change
guru.
(b) Metrics - That's a lot of metrics. If the scope is focused to climate change, maybe. But this
could be within R&D to deal with data management.
2
(c) Coordination, collaboration, education - kudos. But within a narrower scope of areas -
preferably focused on climate change.
(d)(1) Infrastructure recommendations - Avoid duplication and have the office work with other
departments to generate these.
(e) Grants and funding. R&D appears to have the lead on these and there certainly is a need for
timely expertise in applying for grants and selecting financing tools. R&D or Finance need to
supply the office technical support, but don't have redundant staff.
In conclusion, I think the proposed Bill 48 is too broad in scope and should be focused on
coordinating county programs to deal with risks from climate change.
Georjean Adams
Kamuela
3