When it comes to anti-fossil fuel policies, few cities have pursued them with as much gusto as Boulder, Colorado. In 2006, Boulder became one of the first local governments in the nation to adopt emission reduction targets. [some emphasis, links added]
Then in 2019, the city went into a full-blown panic over emissions, declared a “climate emergency,” and exponentially increased its targets.
While progressive cities feel good about setting targets to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, achieving those targets is another thing entirely. Just the News analyzed Boulder’s progress toward its goal of being at net-zero emissions by 2035.
Based on its current rate of emissions reductions, the city would need to nearly double the pace at which it is reducing emissions to meet that goal.
The town is going to find it much harder to achieve reductions going forward. Much of its progress so far has been from reducing emissions associated with electricity generation.
The U.S. as a whole has seen a drop in emissions, largely due to a transition from coal to natural gas.
Yet, the grid still needs those coal plants. A new report by Xcel Energy, the utility that supplies Boulder’s electricity, warns that if it shuts down its coal plants as scheduled, there will likely be blackouts in Colorado.
More than that, even if Boulder — a city of only 25 square miles with a population of approximately 106,000 people — were to reach net-zero by 2035, it would have no meaningful impact on global warming due to rising emissions everywhere else.
‘Ridiculous’ Proposal, Ambitious Targets
The city of Boulder has long shown hostility to fossil fuels. It was one of the first local governments to file a lawsuit against oil companies claiming to be owed damages stemming from climate change.
That lawsuit is now before the Supreme Court, which will consider whether such cases belong in state courts at all.
In 2024, Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., challenged Boulder to demonstrate the potential to eliminate fossil fuels by becoming a fossil fuel-free demonstration city.
Despite fervent plans to eliminate all use of fossil fuels in a very short timeframe, Boulder City Councilman Mark Wallach told Wyofile, a left-leaning nonprofit publication based in Wyoming, that Hageman’s proposal is “ridiculous.”
With its policies based on the belief that fossil fuels are creating a terrifying emergency, it’s not clear why Wallach considered such a proposal to be unreasonable, other than such a demonstration would create hardships that come with giving up the benefits of fossil fuel use.
At the time, Just the News reached out to Wallach, who was reelected the following November, and he didn’t respond.
Whatever the case, the city remains committed to its climate goals.
Boulder’s plan today is to have 100% emissions-free electricity by 2030, reach net-zero emissions by 2035, and then it plans to be carbon-negative — meaning it sinks more greenhouse gas emissions than it puts out — by 2040.
For comparison, San Francisco, California, plans to reach net-zero by 2040. Boston, Massachusetts, plans to reach net-zero by 2050, as do Phoenix, Arizona, and Miami, Florida.
Boulder’s goals may be the most ambitious of any city.
Read rest at Just The News
