Local Climate Action Planning

The U.S. Global Change Research Program’s June 2009 report to the president and Congress clearly establishes the nature of the global warming problem:

Getting started can be the most challenging step of any new planning process. Although climate action planning includes many of the traditional steps in a comprehensive planning process, it presents a set of challenges distinct from other types of plan development. The climate action plan (CAP) requires not only identification of GHG emissions sources and reduction strategies, but also a quantification of their magnitude and a forecast of future change. If the plan addresses climate adaptation, it should include a local vulnerability assessment. Plan development requires technical expertise and detailed data from a variety of sources not usually drawn upon for other types of local plans, which places an added informational and organizational burden on planning efforts.

Climate action planning should include public participation. The United States is a democracy in which the public has a right to participate in the activities and decisions of the government. On a more practical level, many aspects of CAP implementation require community members to voluntarily change behavior in areas such as choice of transportation mode and indoor energy usage, and local organizations are needed to support these changes. As a result, successful implementation of GHG reduction strategies in a community will rely on direct engagement with the public and other community entities throughout the planning process. Public participation can result in a better plan, legitimize the plan in the eyes of the public, gain “buy-in” from the public, and ultimately build social capital in the community. Public participation has become standard practice in the preparation of CAPs. In many communities, public task forces are the main drivers behind the preparation and adoption of a CAP.

The technical definition of a community greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) inventory is an accounting of GHGs emitted by a community to (and in some cases, removed from) the atmosphere over a period of time, usually a calendar year. The inventory provides the baseline or existing condition from which to measure progress toward a GHG reduction target. This approach of quantifying a problem is not novel for most communities. Transportation studies that quantify the amount of traffic on roadways or housing studies that quantify the housing stock and assess its affordability are just two examples of gathering quantitative data in support of planning.

Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions form the core of a climate action plan (CAP). The emissions reduction strategies (also frequently called mitigation strategies) are the actions, programs, and policies that a community undertakes to reach its GHG emissions reduction targets. Common examples include constructing new bicycle paths, providing incentives for installation of solar panels, and requiring that new development meet strict energy efficiency or “green” building standards. The development of these strategies is an iterative process that should balance the GHG reduction potential, upfront and ongoing costs, and social and political feasibility. Most reduction strategies have benefits beyond emissions reduction; these are called co-benefits. For example, reducing GHG emissions can also lower ground-level ozone concentrations in a community, which will yield public health benefits, especially for those who suffer from asthma or other respiratory conditions. The development of reduction strategies should be seen as an opportunity not only to reduce GHG emissions and the progression of climate change but as a chance to position a community to become more economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable.

Adaptation strategies prepare a community to be resilient in the face of unavoidable climate change impacts. Climate impacts such as sea level rise, temperature changes including extreme heat events, and change in precipitation patterns can have a variety of secondary impacts on community conditions from human health and safety, to economics, to ecosystem integrity. The challenge of developing effective community adaptation policy is the need to apply the evolving science that describes a global phenomenon at a regional and local level. The inherent difficulty in projecting global climate change impacts is amplified at these levels; currently, regional and local forecasts of the impacts of climate change are considered to be very uncertain.1 Handling this uncertainty in a policy context requires a combination of flexibility, a willingness to adapt, and careful evaluation of potential climate impacts in the local context.

A plan is only as good as its implementation. Too often communities invest considerable effort in preparing a quality planning document only to see little happen because of failure to implement. Climate action plans (CAPs) present an implementation challenge since they are unfamiliar to many, often cut across organizational boundaries, and often lack dedicated sources of revenue. These are all challenges that can be addressed during plan development. This chapter addresses phase III: Implementation and Monitoring of the climate action planning process presented in chapter 2. CAPs should include a section that addresses how the plan will be implemented. The section should answer the following questions:

This chapter presents six cases of communities that have prepared climate action plans (CAPs) and are now in the process of implementing those plans. The cases are chosen for their diversity of experiences and lessons learned. They illustrate many of the principles outlined in this book and demonstrate that climate action planning is possible in all types of communities. The City of Portland and Multnomah County, Oregon, have been in the business of developing and implementing CAPs since the early 1990s and show how to construct a successful program over the long term. The City of Evanston, Illinois, shows the benefits of building “social capital” in the community that creates a grassroots capability for doing community-based climate action planning. The City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, demonstrates the power of local partnerships among public, private, and nonprofit entities to develop and implement plans. The City of San Carlos, California, shows how a city-led planning process integrated into an update of the city general plan can ensure that a CAP will have the authority and backing to be successfully implemented. Miami-Dade County shows that counties can do climate action planning and that it can be integrated with a larger effort of achieving sustainability. And finally, the City of Homer, Alaska, demonstrates that big ideas can come from small places and that implementation is where the real work takes place. Communities beginning to work on their own climate action plan can look to these communities for insights on how to best prepare a CAP.

Strategic local plans focusing on the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increasing a community’s resilience in the face of unavoidable climate impacts are being pursued nationwide. The development of these climate action planning strategies, which are either included in a stand-alone plan or incorporated into comprehensive land use plans or sustainability plans, is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Development of these plans represents a unique opportunity for communities not only to contribute to solving a global problem but to position themselves to thrive well into the future. Climate action planning should be seen as a chance for communities to control their own destiny in the face of shifting conditions, and to act as leaders in the formation of effective, innovative climate policy.