A local government association’s draft planning document has sparked debate by removing every mention of the term “climate crisis” and replacing it with “climate change.” This change comes from an administrative update to Humboldt County’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), prepared by the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG). HCAOG, a Joint Powers Authority that includes Humboldt County and its seven cities, uses the RTP to guide transportation priorities, funding, and major initiatives—from road repairs and safety upgrades to public transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and plans for zero-emission vehicles.
Environmental groups are pushing back. They view the revised RTP as a signal that urgency is being dialed down, noting the plan’s edits appear to soften language about climate impacts and potentially slow climate-related actions. Their concerns aren’t only about wording; they point to concrete changes they say undermine progress—such as delaying targets for non-car housing, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and other climate measures. They also highlight the removal of a policy called “project funding consistency,” which previously held the region’s funded projects to align with climate and safety goals. In their view, without funding accountability, a plan risks remaining only words on paper.
HCAOG’s staff report confirms the wording change from “Climate Crisis” to “Climate Change.” The intent, according to the Transportation Advisory Committee, was to use language that is more conventional and familiar, hoping to reach a broader audience among stakeholders. HCAOG’s Executive Director reiterated that this is a draft, so the revision is not final and could be revised again before adoption.
But critics like Colin Fiske of CRTP argue that the distinction between terms is not merely stylistic. They note that “climate crisis” has been widely used across government and media for years, and omitting it could understate the severity of climate impacts. They also question the reasoning that “climate change” is more consistent with other documents, and they warn that removing urgency could dampen public support for necessary climate actions. The environmental groups have released a joint statement and shared a link to a separate letter detailing their concerns.
HCAOG invites public input on the RTP draft, with open comment through December 29. People can submit feedback in person, via email, or through an online survey. The agency emphasizes that community input will influence strategies to improve travel safety, efficiency, and accessibility, particularly for vulnerable groups such as seniors, youth, people with disabilities, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.
The draft RTP outlines more than $1 billion in funding needs for local streets and transportation infrastructure—covering road rehabilitation, trails, bridges, interchanges, roundabouts, and bike lanes—and discusses goals to increase public transportation efficiency and modernize fleet vehicles. The core question at the heart of the controversy remains: will revisions like these, including the terminology shift and other programmatic changes, meaningfully advance climate action and accountability, or will they delay progress in favor of more cautious language?
What do you think? Should planning documents use urgent language like “climate crisis” to foreground action, or is it more effective to use conventional terms like “climate change” to reach a broader audience? Share your thoughts in the comments and tell us whether you believe the wording choice matters for real-world outcomes.
