The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors had a chance last week to demonstrate its seriousness about combating climate change and supporting its own ambitious carbon neutrality goal — or reveal that it’s been engaged in political theater all along.

Unfortunately, the board did what it has done so often on climate action: It kicked the can down the road.

On Tuesday, county staff presented a plan that buried the key functions of the county’s 2020 climate emergency declaration by assigning its most important work to an unfunded, volunteer, citizens’ advisory group — contrary to explicit directions within its own decree.

The declaration stated that “County staff shall evaluate the resources necessary to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, and (…) County staff shall identify gaps and provide recommendations.”

Instead, much of this vital climate work would be assigned to a toothless task force, which could consist of seven voluntary members representing science and academia, air quality regulation, agriculture, climate, economics, energy, environmental justice and transportation. A so-called sustainability manager hired by the county last year, who has several other assignments outside the task force, will provide part-time support.

In December 2020, county supervisors led by Phil Serna and Patrick Kennedy voted to declare a climate emergency in Sacramento County and identified ways the county could adapt. Supervisors Serna, Kennedy and Don Nottoli voted in favor, with noted climate change denier Sue Frost dissenting and then-Supervisor Susan Peters absent.

With the declaration, the board set a goal of achieving carbon neutrality in the county by 2030 and established a 60-day deadline to form a Climate Emergency Mobilization Task Force. The board’s action was lauded by environmentalists at the time.

The supervisors raised hopes but then did nothing. It wasn’t until last fall that a long-promised Climate Action Plan finally materialized, and it was derided by many as weak and over-reliant on environmentally-unfriendly sprawl to provide the county’s much-needed housing.

At that point, a group of local environmental organizations, including 350 Sacramento, the Environmental Council of Sacramento and the Citizens Climate Lobby of Sacramento, called for a deeper environmental analysis of the Climate Action Plan and for “the supervisors to take Sacramento County’s 2020 Climate Emergency Declaration seriously.”

It appears they have not. The task force was roughly a year late and remains half-baked.

The board decided Tuesday evening to push the committee’s creation further down the road and readdress in another two weeks at the next board meeting — hopefully with a better plan from county staff. Serna asked for a stipend to pay committee members and expand the group from seven to 13.

What’s currently being asked of this potentially all-volunteer task force is unrealistic. Through monthly meetings, they’re being told to develop a separate climate emergency plan, refine the new Climate Action Plan, work with the agricultural sector and acquire outside funding to help eliminate carbon emissions by 2030.

For a government that serves more than 1.5 million people, climate change is too important to relegate to a group of well-intentioned volunteers. To ask this much and then shortchange the investment demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the consequences of a letdown.

If the county’s government genuinely intends to commit resources to achieving carbon neutrality by the end of the decade, it owes the residents of Sacramento County much more than a volunteer task force that is already being set up to fail.