Dear Editor:
In the course of discussion by the City Council and Planning Commission whether to approve Hotel Project Sonoma, the construction of a new up-scale hotel in downtown Sonoma, the issue of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from air travel by tourists staying at the hotel was never mentioned. The level of emissions from air travel to one hotel may seem trivial in the context of global emissions. However, the impacts of this local land use decision must be considered in combination with all other like projects. The nature of cumulative impacts analysis is that the contribution of an individual project may in itself be relatively insignificant, but is cumulatively significant when considered in combination with other like projects.
On page 13 of the ruling overturning Sonoma County’s approval of its Climate Action Plan and EIR, the court quote’s the State Supreme Court:
“First, because of the global scale of climate change, any one project’s contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself. The challenge for CEQA purposes is to determine whether the impact of the project’s emissions of greenhouse gases is cumulatively considerable, in the sense that the incremental effects of the individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
Air travel is carbon intensive. Nothing we do pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than air travel. Cancel a couple long flights, and you can halve your carbon footprint. Schedule a couple, and you can double or triple it. Global emissions from tourist air travel are significant.
In all likelihood, thousands of metric tons of GHG emissions and other heat trapping emissions are generated by hotel guests traveling by air from global points of origin to a Sonoma hotel. The GHG emissions from global air travel to up-scale wine-country hotels are a reasonably foreseeable, intended consequence of their operation. It is the commercial purpose of wine country hotels to attract global as well as regional patronage. The CEQA Guidelines and case law are clear that such readily foreseeable consequences of a project must be accounted for and mitigated if significant.
There are established protocols for calculating and attributing GHG emissions to a global tourist destination. Sonoma County Tourism documents a direct link between new hotel rooms and increased air travel. The ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, section T.R.6.D.1 “Attribution of Emissions from Air Travel” presents a protocol for calculating GHG emissions based on origin and destination information. Hotels typically keep detailed records of guests who have stayed at their property, including the guest’s name, email, address and contact details. Emissions can be apportioned when there are multiple destinations from one point of origin.
The value of requiring applicants for hotel development to account for emissions from air travel to their hotel is that it stands as an example of what should be common practice. As long as communities like Sonoma rely on the rationale that emissions generated by their local hotel are inconsequential, despite the intention to attract global patronage, there will be no accountability for local land use decisions that contribute significantly to global warming emissions. We are on course to reach the point of no return for irreversible global warming. Local officials must think beyond immediate local concerns, like traffic congestion, when they evaluate the effects of projects with global impacts.
Jerry Bernhaut, Oakmont
Be First to Comment