350loudoun 350loudoun, October 25, 2015
Road Sign that reads: Change Ahead
Sustainable Loudoun and 350 Loudoun view the upcoming November 3th election as an opportunity to elect candidates who will lead Loudoun on a path towards a resilient community and a robust/vibrant economy. A Climate Change Survey was sent to all candidates running for the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors. (Survey questions are listed below list. Links to survey response details are at the end).
Eight responses were received. In order to avoid the most severe impacts of human-caused climate change, the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report indicates that humans have to begin cutting fossil fuel consumption by 7% per year starting now*. The following candidates demonstrate the leadership needed to address Climate Change:
• Phyllis Randall, Chair
• Mike Turner, Ashburn District
• Craig Green, Catoctin District
• Andrew Resnick, Algonkian District
• Anjan Chimaladine, Dulles District
• Kristen Umstattd, Leesburg District
• Koran Saines, Sterling District
• Richard Jimmerson, Blue Ridge District
The survey included the following questions:
1. Do you agree climate change is real? Yes/no. Comments:
2. Do you agree that humans are the primary cause of climate change? Yes/no. Comments:
3. Have you, on a personal, local, or regional level, taken steps to mitigate climate change? Yes/no. Comments:
4. Will you combat climate change if elected? Yes/no. How?
5. Loudoun County is a member of MWCOG. Did you know that in 2008, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Board of Directors adopted The National Capital Region Climate Change Report? Yes/no
6. This climate change report, https://www.mwcog.org/…/pub-docume…/zldXXg20081203113034.pdf, includes an Executive Summary on p. 8, and action steps that are summarized in Table 17 Recommendations: Summary and Qualitative Assessment on pages 85 – 87. Please identify the top 5 recommendations you would support if elected.
7. Did you know that in 2009 the Loudoun Board of Supervisors adopted the Loudoun County Energy Strategy, loudoun.gov/energy, a comprehensive, 30 year road map that was recognized by the National Association of Counties? Yes/no
8. The Loudoun County Comprehensive Plan,http://www.loudoun.gov/index.aspx?nid=1066 , that guides development over the next 20 years, will be updated next year. Would you support incorporating the Loudoun County Energy Strategy into the Loudoun County Comprehensive Plan? Yes/no. Comments:
9. Would you support the Board of Supervisors reinstating it’s Energy and Environment Committee? (for an example, see the 2009 Committee Action Summary http://lfportal.loudoun.gov/LFPortalinter…/…/Electronic.aspx) Yes/no. Comments.
10. Did you know that in 2007 the Virginia General Assembly amended the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 58.1-3221.2 which permits a different local tax for buildings that exceed the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code energy efficiency standard by 30 percent? Yes/no. Would you support a local legislation for a special tax for such buildings? Yes/no. Comments:
11. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) is a way to finance energy efficiency upgrades or renewable energy installations on commercial buildings that lowers up-front costs. Did you know that in 2015 the Virginia General Assembly signed into law legislation enabling localities to create PACE Districts? Yes/no. Notably, the loan is attached to the property, rather than an individual, making it more attractive for upgrades or installations. Would you support local legislation for creation of PACE districts in Loudoun?
Survey response details can be found at the Sustainable Loudoun website by following the links below:
1. LC BoS Candidates who answered / who didn’t –https://www.sustainableloudoun.org/…/55-2015-350-and-lcss-l…;
2. Survey responses matrix comparing candidate answers –
https://www.sustainableloudoun.org/…/56-2015-350-and-lcss-b…;
* By reducing fossil fuels use by 7% per year we have a 67% chance of staying under 2 degrees Celsius of warming. We are setting aside the fact that many scientists believe that 1.5 degrees represents a better target if we want to avoid severe consequences of climate change. These results are derived from the IPCC report found here: http://ipcc.ch/…/assessmen…/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf (specifically Table 2.2) as well as from more recent results on the estimated carbon cycle feedback as explained by climate scientist Andy Skuce herehttp://www.skepticalscience.com/CCFBRCP85.html and in Anthony Noerpel’s articles here http://brleader.com/?p=15810 andhttp://brleader.com/?p=17757