The Utility of Municipal Climate Plans
In absence of federal action, cities across the United States adopt climate plans that commit themselves to goals and strategies for a greener future. Climate plans outline the potential changes identified by city leadership to mitigate the detrimental impacts of climate change and build greener and more resilient cities. Given that each city council represents communities with diverse needs and values, no climate plan mirrors another. I explore how well cities adhere to their goals and understand the impact of such plans. Cities set emissions reduction goals — reflective of ideology and ability — and report diverse levels of progress, even compared to peer cities. Given the voluntary nature of climate plans, these documents fail to create reliable environmental policies.
Data illustrating how many individual cities have met their goals reflect the diversity among local commitments to their climate plans. The Climate Disclosure Project (CDP) collects data from cities across the globe to measure progress to creating a more sustainable planet. The US cities reporting to the CDP met an average of 28.24% of their emissions reduction targets by 2019. Further analysis reveals that nine cities accomplished 85%+ of their goal. Seven of the nine committed themselves to reduce emissions by 50% or less, just under the average goal of 52.16%. Far more cities accomplished 15% or less of their objective; however, many under-accomplishing cities set high targets with ambitions to reduce 80%+ of their emissions. Few set goals under 50%. The data illustrate a scene of cities setting high goals without proper enforcement mechanisms or commitment to fulfilling the objectives set in their climate plans, while more successful cities fulfill realistic goals.
The cities’ partisanship suggests political makeup may influence commitment to fulfilling the goals set in their climate plan. The climate crisis is politicized in many ways, and major parties split on its existence and intensity. As city councils participate in broader political trends, the partisanship of communities bears an impact on their commitment to fighting climate change. Average partisanship determined by the Cook Political Report’s analysis of Congressional districts, wields a loose correlation to goal accomplishment. Cities that met 85%+ of their climate goals by 2019 on average lean D+17.78. However, the cities that achieved 0% average D+5.1, with a large range of R+26 to D+26. The variance between under-performing cities suggests liberal communities may pursue their climate plans with a stronger commitment, but partisanship does not guarantee success.
External factors further limit how much individual cities can act. City councils act within broader communities and must respond to external forces. For example, the City of Atlanta’s inability to change Georgia Power’s energy source reveals a restriction imposed on plan implementation. In 2017, the Atlanta City Council resolved to convert all City operations to renewable energy by 2025 and the entire community by 2035. However, the City lacks jurisdiction over Georgia Power. Under state mandate, Georgia Power must pursue the cheapest and most reliable energy options, so they provide natural gas to the City of Atlanta, regardless of Council votes for greener energy. Cities lack the authority and resources to pursue ambitious climate goals. External forces further contribute to a city’s implementation and can limit their success, regardless of their partisanship and ideological commitment to climate policy. As parts of larger wholes, cities must compromise their climate goals.
A variety of factors influence what goals cities adopt. Given the geographic diversity of the United States, cities across the nation face different environments and needs. For example, The City of Houston faces threats of hurricanes, while the City of Austin has a more immediate concern of wildfire damage. Local authority on climate crisis policy empowers city governments to address the environmental concerns most relevant to their location. However, climate plans exist in the broader context of each city’s goals and the values of its representatives. Some cities adopt climate plans as a means to accomplish larger goals of racial and economic equity. The City of Cleveland identifies that communities of color are more likely to face negative health impacts because of climate change, and thus develops their plan to achieve equity, not just climate goals. Other cities exclude equity from their climate plans. The Seattle 2018 Climate Plan instead stems from a long commitment to carbon neutrality, and the enumerated goals exist to pursue a more aggressive strategy. Overall, environmental needs and broader values shape these goals.
Since there is no requirement to adopt a climate plan, municipal governments lack the enforcement mechanisms and authority to guarantee their implementation. Cities pursue climate plans for a variety of reasons, some to ignite change and protect communities, to codify their values, or to publish a history of their past and anticipated actions. Climate plans illustrate action without a binding promise to act. Partisanship trends explain this to an extent, as left-leaning cities may feel urgency to provide tangible actions beyond their climate plans. Furthermore, right-leaning cities may pursue a climate plan for a variety of reasons — to participate among leading cities or to respond toward growing public concern. Partisan divide on belief in climate change influences this commitment. Liberal populaces may pressure their government to take action because they place importance on it; however, more conservative cities may believe it wasteful spending to pursue climate goals. Amidst political pressures for more climate policy, city councils can deflect meaningful policy changes by rolling out large documents with nonbinding goals to appease advocates. Climate plans are displays. While cities can resolve to try to meet their goals, there is often no requirement to make an effort.
Climate plans state values in the form of goals, which shirks actual policy change. The effectiveness of a plan depends on the will of local leaders, state regulations, partisanship, and many other factors. The political character of an area can shed light on how well a city may accomplish its goals. However, previous research suggests that external influences, such as energy markets, can derail progress. Climate plans yield varied success and produce no guarantee of meaningful policy action.
Bibliography
Millard-Ball, A. (2013). The Limits to Planning: Causal Impacts of City Climate Action Plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X12449742
Samuel, M. (2017, October 24). “Atlanta Is Working on Climate Change, But There’s
More to Do.” WABE NPR. https://www.wabe.org/atlanta-working-climate-change-theres/
Samuel, M. (2019, May 29). Cities Are Making Big Climate Promises. Keeping Them Can Be Tough. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/724985884/cities-are-making-big-climate-promises-keeping-them-can-be-tough
Ward, P.T. (2012, August). “Local Climate Plans in Practice: Evaluating Strategies and Measuring Progress in Five U.S. Cities.”
(2018). “Cleveland Climate Action Plan 2018 Update: Building Thriving and Resilient Neighborhoods for All.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z3234sMp7S7MjaXvMgcZtcAaYs4x2oHE/view
(2018). “Seattle Climate Action.” http://greenspace.seattle.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/SeaClimateAction_April2018.pdf
(2019, May 13). “43 Cities Score an A Grade in New Cities Climate Change Ranking.”
Climate Disclosure Project. https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/43-cities-score-an-a-grade-in-new-cities-climate-change-ranking
(2020, November 2). “2020 House Ratings.” Cook Political Report. https://cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings
(2020). “Cities.” Climate Disclosure Project. https://www.cdp.net/en/cities
“Planning for Climate Change Adaption.” Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/planning-climate-change-adaptation
