State of the Southeast How Cities are Addressing Climate ... · State of the Southeast How Cities Are Addressing ... on how major Southeastern cities are addressing climate change—or

NICHOLAS INSTITUTE REPORT

NI R 10-03

July 2010

State of the SoutheastHow Cities are Addressing Climate Change

Amy MorschSoutheast Climate Resource CenterNicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions

Nicholas Institute

3

State of the Southeast How Cities Are Addressing Climate Change

State of the SoutheastHow Cities Are Addressing Climate Change

Amy MorschSoutheast Climate Resource Center

Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions

ContentsIndicators� 6

Local Government Office or Initiative 6

Climate Agreement Signatories 7

Sustainability Networks and Memberships 7

Climate Change Mitigation: Greenhouse Gas Inventories 7

Climate Change Mitigation: Emission Reduction Targets 11

Climate Change Adaptation Plans 12

Discussion� 13

Sustainability of Sustainability Offices 13

Role of Federal Government Funding 13

Multilevel Governance and Municipal Climate Action 13

Influence of City Size on Climate Action Planning 14

Opportunities for Climate Action 14

Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy SolutionsReport

NI R 10-03July 2010

NICHOLAS INSTITUTEFOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SOLUTIONS


Nicholas Institute

4

Nicholas Institute

5


The Southeast faces unique challenges in attempts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. It is one of the fastest-growing regions of the United States. The region also

enjoys cheap energy relative to other regions in the U.S., which likely factors into its disproportionate energy use. In addition, a number of recent reports have detailed the ways climate will change in the Southeast, revealing significant vulnerabilities and risks.1 But the region’s leadership at the state and federal level has often voiced opposition to climate action. These contradictions make local efforts to mitigate emissions and prepare for climate change both difficult and imperative. This report aims to shed light on how major Southeastern cities are addressing climate change—or whether they are at all.

This report focuses on seven indicators that are used to compare the voluntary institutional efforts made by major Southeastern municipalities with regard to climate change awareness, analysis, and planning.2 These indicators were chosen because they showcase the common ways communities have addressed the issue of climate change and because they tend to reflect the priority level of the issue for local governments. The indicators include: 1) the presence of an office or initiative, 2) signatory status of the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, 3) membership in ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, 4) membership in the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, 5) completion of a greenhouse gas inventory, 6) determination of an emissions reduction target, and 6) completion of a climate change adaptation plan. This report serves only to show what cities have done in terms of these indicators, with some analysis of trends. The quality and success of such efforts is not analyzed, but remain important questions for future research. Because cities are taking new actions every day, the Southeast Climate Resource Center plans to consistently update this report over the coming year.

Table 1. Southeastern cities with 2006 population over 100,000.

Birmingham, AL Fort Lauderdale, FL Pembroke Pines, FL Augusta, GA Shreveport, LA Winston-Salem, NC

Huntsville, AL Gainesville, FL Pompano Beach, FL Columbus, GA Jackson, MS Charleston, SC

Mobile, AL Hialeah, FL Port St. Lucie, FL Savannah, GA Cary, NC Columbia, SC

Montgomery, AL Hollywood, FL St. Petersburg, FL Lexington, KY Charlotte, NC Chattanooga, TN

Little Rock, AR Jacksonville, FL Tallahassee, FL Louisville, KY Durham, NC Clarksville, TN

Cape Coral, FL Miami, FL Tampa, FL Baton Rouge, LA Fayetteville, NC Knoxville, TN

Clearwater, FL Miramar, FL Athens, GA Lafayette, LA Greensboro, NC Memphis, TN

Coral Springs, FL Orlando, FL Atlanta, GA New Orleans, LA Raleigh, NC Nashville, TN

The study region consisted of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. There are 48 cities in this region with populations estimated to at over 100,000 in 2006. These cities, listed in Table 1, are the focus of this report.3

1 See, for example, J. H. Christensen et al., “Regional Climate Projections,” in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. S. Solomon et al. (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).2 In this report a “major” city is any city whose population is 100,000 or greater. Action steps represent a third step of climate action planning and include implemented policies that are based upon the local awareness and analysis efforts. Although the presence of comprehensive climate action plans was considered for this analysis, it was not included due to their highly variable nature and the tendency of a large number of localities to address climate change in incremental and unsystematic ways.3 Data collection involved review of city and membership websites and (when necessary) communication with local sustainability officials if contact information was available.

Table 2. Results.

City Population(2006)

Local Government Office or Initiative

Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement

SignatoryICLEI

MemberUrban Sustainability

Directors Network Member

GHG Emissions Inventory

GHG Emissions Reduction

TargetClimate Change Adaptation Plan

Birmingham, AL 229,424

Huntsville, AL 168,132 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◉Mobile, AL 192,830 ◉Montgomery, AL 201,998

Little Rock, AR 184,422 ◉ ◆Cape Coral, FL 151,389 ◉ ◆ ◆Clearwater, FL 107,742 ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆Coral Springs, FL 129,805 ◉ ◆Ft. Lauderdale, FL 185,804 ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉Gainesville, FL 108,655 ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉Hialeah, FL 217,141 ◆Hollywood, FL 145,794 ◉ ◆Jacksonville, FL 794,555 ◆ ◉ ◆Miami, FL 404,048 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉ ◆ ◉ ◉Miramar, FL 108,072 ◉ ◆Orlando, FL 220,186 ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆Pembroke Pines, FL 150,064 ◆Pompano Beach, FL 104,402 ◆Port St. Lucie, FL 143,868 ◆St. Petersburg, FL 248,098 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◉Tallahassee, FL 159,012 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉ ◆ ◉Tampa, FL 332,888 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆Athens, GA 111,580 ◆ ◆ ◆Atlanta, GA 486,411 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉Augusta, GA 189,366 ◉ ◆Columbus, GA 188,660

Savannah, GA 127,889 ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆Lexington, KY 270,789 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆Louisville, KY 554,496 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◉ ◆ ◉ ◉Baton Rouge, LA 229,553 ◆Lafayette, LA 114,214

New Orleans, LA 223,388 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉ ◉Shreveport, LA 200,199

Jackson, MS 176,614 ◉Cary, NC 112,414 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆Charlotte, NC 630,478 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉Durham, NC 209,009 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉ ◆ ◉Fayetteville, NC 168,033 ◉Greensboro, NC 236,865 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◉ + ◉Raleigh, NC 356,321 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆Winston-Salem, NC 196,990 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉Charleston, SC 107,845 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉ +Columbia, SC 119,961 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆Chattanooga, TN 155,190 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉ +Clarksville, TN 113,175

Knoxville, TN 182,337 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉ +Memphis, TN 670,902

Nashville, TN 552,120 ◆ ◉ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◉ ◆ ◉PERCENTAGE 75% 75% 46% 23% 42% 25% 13%

Key◆ = office or manager

◉ = initiative or committee

◆ = yes ◆ = yes ◆ = yes ◆ = gov't◉ = community

◆ = gov't◉ = community+ = proposed

◉ = plannedor suggested


Nicholas Institute

6

Nicholas Institute

7


Indicators


Sustainability and energy officesThe establishment of offices and dedicated staff demonstrates a strong commitment by local governments to insti-tutionalize the issue of climate change. In doing so, governments benefit from centralized organizational resources capable of providing leadership, tools, and guidance to other departments and community members. For the purposes of this report, a sustainability and energy office was defined as a local government office whose main task is to promote sustainability, climate, or energy issues. Staff members that are solely tasked with these issues were also counted if an office was not present.

A 2008 nationwide survey of 209 cities found that 36% had an office or staff member dedicated to sustainable devel-opment.4 A 2010 study of 20 cities in Florida uncovered a similar trend, with 35% of municipalities having an office or personnel dedicated to sustainable development.5 The Southeast region demonstrates a striking correspondence with these studies. Twenty-two of the 48 cities studied—46%—have an office or dedicated staff whose main focus is sustain-ability or energy. While conventional wisdom might suggest the Southeast lags behind the rest of the country with regard to climate action, the region seems to be on par in the establishment of offices and staff positions.

Offices and staff are based in a variety of locations within city government, including in the Mayor’s or City Manager’s office, or within existing departments, such as environmental quality and compliance, administrative services, planning, or policy and communications. Several offices break from this trend with stand-alone departments.

While the size and source of office budgets was not the focus of this report, some information was obtained and provides further insight into the local government’s willingness and ability to address climate change. Office budgets vary drasti-cally. Some cities allocate only enough for staff salary; others provide additional operational funds. Apart from regular municipal budget allocations, private donations and federal government grants provide localities with crucial funding. The most recent example is the support offered by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)—a part of the ARRA—made more than $120 million available to these cities, and encouraged the establishment of local sustainability or energy offices.

Programs, initiatives, and commissionsThirty-three cities (69%) have established a separate program, initiative, interdepartmental or citizen commission to explicitly promote climate action and sustainability practices.6 These efforts are usually based outside of municipal departments but sometimes operate within existing departments such as public works or environmental services. Employees that run the programs or serve on commissions often do so voluntarily. Half of the programs and com-missions coincide with and likely complement the work of sustainability offices. While substantial progress towards sustainability and climate goals may be achievable through programs and initiatives, those that are not accompanied by an established office or guiding commission may be more vulnerable to challenges stemming from a lack of authority, accountability, and direction.

Twelve of the 48 major Southeastern cities appear to have no dedicated office, staff member, program, initiative, or commission. In some of these cities, fragmented efforts that reduce emissions or improve resiliency to climate change are taking place in well-established departments. These programs include recycling, green building, and smart growth efforts, among others.

4 D. Saha and R.G. Paterson, “Local Government Efforts to Promote the ‘Three E’s’ of Sustainable Development: Survey in Medium to Large Cities in the United States,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 28 (2008): 215 N. Upadhyay and R. Brinkmann, “Green Local Governments in Florida: Assessment of Sustainability Performance,” Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 6 (2010): 1.6 One-time events or annual events were not counted.

Climate Agreement Signatories

A public commitment to climate action is indicated by whether a city has signed the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement. This could also be considered evidence of a city having a local “environmental champion”. The Mayor’s Agreement was introduced in 2005 by Seattle Mayor Mike Nickels and has become the leading public commitment to climate action U.S. local leaders can make. The pact is a public pledge to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. By the summer of 2010, 1,026 mayors had signed the Agreement nationwide. In the Southeast, 36 of the 48 mayors of major Southeastern cities have become signatories.

Correlation to actionMost cities in this study whose mayor has signed the Agreement have an office, program or staff member tasked with reducing climate impacts. However, five signatory cities (Baton Rouge, Hialeah, Pembroke Pines, Pompano Beach, and Port St. Lucie) do not show evidence of a sustainability or energy office or initiative. Three cities (Fayetteville, Jackson, and Knoxville) have offices or initiatives, but have not signed the Agreement. In addition, of the 36 signatories, 18 (50%) have completed a greenhouse gas inventory. The Agreement is often cited in inventory reports, which suggests its influence on localities.

Sustainability Networks and Memberships

Participation in membership organizations such as ICLEI and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network provides an important network of support, innovative ideas, and guidance.

ICLEI – Local Governments for SustainabilityICLEI is a membership organization that provides best practices in climate action and technical assistance to member cities for a yearly fee. ICLEI’s most notable program is the Five Milestones for Climate Mitigation (formerly known as the Cities for Climate Protection Program). This program is a voluntary five-step process that guides localities through the process of conducting emissions inventories and forecasts, creating reduction targets, developing a local action plan, implementing that plan, and finally, monitoring and verifying the results. In addition, ICLEI promotes practices that result in improved air quality and cost savings, which may also motivate cities to become members. Annual in-person meetings are organized in an effort to facilitate information sharing among members.

Nearly half of the major Southeastern cities have a membership with ICLEI. Like signatories of the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, ICLEI members also demonstrate action in other climate action indicators. All members stud-ied in the region have related local government offices and programs. Sixteen of the twenty-two members (73%) have completed a greenhouse gas inventory.

Urban Sustainability Directors NetworkThe Urban Sustainability Directors Network is a national membership organization that connects sustainability direc-tors through recurring conference calls, meetings, and working groups. Discussions and projects cover topics ranging from green building, waste reduction, and climate and energy programs, among others. Ten Southeastern city employ-ees are Core members of this Network, and one is an Associate member. While the number of Core members is capped at 70, Associate membership is unlimited, which provides an opportunity for many more cities to benefit from the Network.

Climate Change Mitigation: Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Climate change mitigation requires greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts. While greenhouse gas inventories are certainly not the only indicator of such efforts, they are an important starting point for strategic mitigation planning and provide an accounting mechanism for a recurring monitoring process. The 2008 nationwide survey mentioned earlier found that two-thirds of cities that have “indicators projects” (such as greenhouse gas inventories) note a direct linkage between the project and inclusion in the comprehensive plan. Moreover, the survey found that indicators projects are accompanied by action plans two-thirds of the time.


Nicholas Institute

8

Nicholas Institute

9


By the summer of 2010, 42% of the 48 cities had completed a greenhouse gas inventory, and many have updated their inventories several times. Figure 1 summarizes the baseline inventory emissions totals. Twenty-eight cities have not completed any greenhouse gas inventory.7

Inventory strategiesLocal emissions are typically reported in two parts: government operations and community-scale emissions. While ICLEI and the Climate Registry have jointly established a protocol for government operations inventories, there is currently no national standard for conducting inventories of community emissions.8 Many cities use ICLEI’s Clean Air Climate Protection Software, which is available free of charge to ICLEI members. Nearly all current municipal invento-ries focus solely on a suite of common emission sources and steer clear of measuring local carbon sinks (such as forest land) and other pertinent factors, such as agricultural practices.

Table 3. Greenhouse gas baseline inventory characteristics.

Baseline Inventory

Year

Individual or Group Who Conducted Baseline Inventory

University (Student and or Professor)

City Employee, Department or

CommissionConsultant

Energy Provider

Huntsville, AL 2005 ◆Clearwater, FL 2007 ◆Ft. Lauderdale, FL 2008 ◆Gainesville, FL 2008 ◆Miami, FL 2006/2007 ◆St. Petersburg, FL 2008 ◆Tallahassee, FL 2008 ◆Atlanta, GA 2007 ◆Savannah, GA 2006

Louisville, KY 2006 ◆New Orleans, LA 2007 ◆Charlotte, NC 2006

Durham, NC 2005 ◆ ◆Greensboro, NC 2007

Raleigh, NC 2007 ◆Winston-Salem, NC 2006 ◆Charleston, SC 2006 ◆Chattanooga, TN 2006 ◆Knoxville, TN 2005 ◆Nashville, TN 2005 ◆ ◆

Inventories are completed by local government employees, graduate students, and academic researchers, consultants (including ICLEI staff), and energy providers as shown in Table 3. City size may have an influence on who completes the inventory. Figure 1 shows that cities with a population of 100,000–299,000 have the strongest preference for inventories conducted by university partners and city employees, likely due to cost constraints. Not surprisingly, costs to conduct a baseline inventory are highly variable. For example, Tampa’s city budget allocates $70,000 of EECBG funding for its planned greenhouse gas inventory, whereas cities that have leveraged the help of student interns pay considerably less.

7 Tampa is planning its first with EECBG funding.8 In June 2010, ICLEI announced plans to develop a community inventory protocol over the coming year.

Figure 1. Baseline inventory authors by city size.

Baseline years and updatesThe baseline inventories in Figure 2 reflect emissions from 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008. Figure 2 summarizes the baseline emissions totals of greenhouse gas inventories that have been completed. As the chart shows, emissions from govern-ment operations are quite low when compared to community emissions.

Updates to baseline inventories are common and provide evidence of program success or continuing needs. Because greenhouse gas inventories are a new accounting tool, the inventory process is dynamic and continues to evolve. Cities that frequently update their inventories note improvements in data collection methods, energy mix calculations, and even their own government’s energy use accounting. Improvements can result in increasingly accurate inventories and utility cost savings.

0

1

2

3

4

5

University (Student and or Professor)

City Employee, Department or

Commission

Consultant Energy Provider

Num

ber o

f Cit

ies

100-199,000

200-299,000

300-800,000


Nicholas Institute

10

Nicholas Institute

11


Figure 2. Reported government and community greenhouse gas emissions.

Scope of inventoriesOf the cities that have completed inventories, the majority have done so for both government and community opera-tions. To date, Raleigh, Clearwater, St. Petersburg, and Lexington have completed only the government inventory. Atlanta’s community inventory is expected later this year. Tallahassee—which has inventoried emissions for more than a decade—does not separate government from community operations.

Another point of variation stems from the collaborative efforts of local governments. The Durham, Louisville, Nashville, and Tallahassee inventories have included both city and county emissions in the calculations for government operations.

Per capita measuresFigure 3 depicts the per capita emissions estimates for the cities that have completed a community greenhouse gas inventory. In most cases, an inventory report specifies the per capita emissions. For those that do not, a per capita emissions estimate has been generated by dividing the reported community emission total by that year’s population (indicated by an asterisk in the chart). Comparisons of per capita emissions are difficult to draw due to variations in inventory methods, baseline years, energy mixes, local economies, and land-use patterns. Nevertheless, communities seem to find per capita numbers indicative of their place in a broader context.

0

5

10

15

20

Mill

ion

Tons

of C

O2e

Em

issi

ons

Government Baseline Community Baseline

Figure 3. Per capita emissions of reported baseline year inventories.

Climate Change Mitigation: Emission Reduction Targets

Greenhouse gas inventories and emission reduction targets are typically accompanied by recommended action policies and are an integral piece of a climate action plan. Many cities adhere to the reduction target set forth in the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, which set a target of 7% below 1990 levels by 2012.9 However, 12 of the major South-eastern cities have publicly proposed or established a goal that differs from the Mayor’s Agreement. Reduction targets are formulated by city staff and community members using the local emissions baseline year and (if available) forecast data. In addition, targets often reach further into the future than 2012, as shown in Table 5. Chattanooga’s reduction targets appear to be the most comprehensive in the region. The city has established near-, mid-, and long-term goals (based on emissions from the year 1990) which adhere to the percent reduction recommended by the IPCC 2007 report. An important area for further research would be to determine whether the reduction goals adopted by these cities are achievable and whether they will result in the reductions in line with those recommended to avoid catastrophic climate change.

9 This strategy is typically a result of the lack of emissions information for the year 1990. Conducting accurate greenhouse gas inventories for that year is often impos-sible, so cities have chosen to use a more recent inventory baseline year.

3

Figure 3. Per capita emissions of reported baseline year inventories.

Figure 4. Indicator summary by city size.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Tons

of C

O2e

Em

issi

ons

Per

Capi

ta

*****

*

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Local Government

Office or Initiative

Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement Signatory

ICLEI Member Urban Sustainability



GHG Emissions Reduction Target

Climate Change Adaptation Plan Recommended

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cit

ies

100-199,000

200-299,000

300-800,000

*


Nicholas Institute

12

Nicholas Institute

13


Table 5. City-determined greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

Baseline Year

Government Reduction Target

Community Reduction Target

Total Reduction Target

Cape Coral, FL 2008–10% by 2012 –25% by 2017 –40% by 2025

Miami, FL2006/ 2007*

–25% by 2015 –25% by 2020

Tallahassee, FL 2008 –5% by 2009

Atlanta, GA 2007–7% by 2012

–80% by 2050Savannah, GA 2006 –15% by 2020

Louisville, KY 2006 –12% by 2012

Durham, NC 2005 –50% by 2030 –30% by 2030

Greensboro, NC† 2010 Stabilize emissions by 2020

Charleston, SC† 2002–30% by 2030 –83% by 2050

Chattanooga, TN 1990–7% by 2012

–20% by 2020 –80% by 2050

Knoxville, TN† 2005–12% by 2012 –15% by 2015 –20% by 2020

–20% by 2020

Nashville, TN 2005–7% by 2012

–20% by 2020 –80% by 2050

* The baseline for the community reduction target is 2006; the baseline for the government reduction target is 2007.† Targets are those proposed in the city's Climate Action Plan.

Climate Change Adaptation Plans

The creation of adaptation plans can signify that a community aims to be truly sustainable in the long term. They require that a city has assessed its vulnerability and risk to climate change impacts and in turn create a strategy to increase or maintain climate resilience. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Southeast will continue to experience rising temperatures, disruptions in water availability, sea-level rise, and intensifying hurricanes. These changes will test ecological thresholds and impact quality of life.10

No major Southeastern city has completed a climate change adaptation plan, although several have planned or recom-mended that such an effort be executed. Miami, St. Petersburg, New Orleans, Louisville, Atlanta, and Greensboro have intentions to address adaptation or have climate action plans that recommend adaptation planning as a next step.

10 The U.S. Global Change Research Program report of Regional Climate Impacts can be found at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts.

Discussion

Sustainability of Sustainability Offices

Sustainability offices have emerged in a variety of ways and because they take different forms, the sustainability of the office itself is an important consideration. City leaders that are scrutinized for spending choices or for accepting the real-ity of climate change have at times approached the establishment of new offices cautiously. As a result, many offices are instituted with the odds stacked against them. Offices or staff are given short time horizons, are underfunded, and can be located in strategically disadvantageous places of city government. These institutional factors create an atmosphere that conveys a high degree of uncertainty and impermanence. This dynamic could have serious implications for the success of staff and offices. It is too soon to know the long-term fate of the sustainability offices and staff positions, but the Southeast is poised to become a national leader by continuing to create and build this aspect of local government.

Newly established offices given an inadequate budget are likely to pursue opportunities that result in municipal cost savings in the near term to build a case for their existence. If a city has not pursued projects that produce savings, there may be a good deal of “low-hanging fruit” for a new office to focus on. But if a city has already examined municipal spending and addressed the easy opportunities, a sustainability office may struggle with producing immediate monetary benefits—especially with little to no capital. Moreover, continuously producing enough savings to fund the office stands to be increasingly difficult as opportunities become scarce or require different types of expertise. This funding structure may incentivize sustainability and energy offices to become the “fiscal watchdog” of the local government, but this is likely not the purpose of the office in the first place.

Role of Federal Government Funding

As stated earlier, the ARRA is providing a substantial amount of funding to Southeastern localities. The EECBG alone is channeling over $120 million to these 48 cities to jumpstart efficiency and renewable energy programs and projects that may have never occurred otherwise. A number of cities have used a portion of the EECBG funds to build stron-ger sustainability offices. For example, the existing Sustainability Office in Durham, North Carolina, hired an energy program specialist to oversee its neighborhood residential retrofit program. Charlotte, North Carolina, has directed a portion of its grant to fund a new Energy and Sustainability Manager for 2.5 years.

Other federal grants have also provided assistance to municipal sustainability programs. The Department of Energy’s Solar America Cities program has provided significant funding and technical support to Knoxville, Orlando, and New Orleans.

As stated above, the basic structure of many sustainability and energy offices is lacking, often because of funding. It is not likely that states across the region or the municipalities themselves will increase funding for the offices and initia-tives in the near future. Therefore, it is imperative that the federal government continue to play a role in nurturing and sustaining these offices in their infancy.

Multilevel Governance and Municipal Climate Action

A 2010 study of local climate action plans suggests that state climate action and mandates can be a determinant in the level of local government action.11 The evidence presented in this report would appear to support this assertion. Six of the ten states in the Southeast region have completed a climate action plan. In these states, 47% of the cities studied have completed a greenhouse gas inventory, compared to a 31% completion rate for cities in Southeastern states without a state climate action plan.12

11 Z. Tang et al, “Moving from Agenda to Action: Evaluating Local Climate Change Action Plans,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management vol. 53, no. 1 (2010): 41–62.12 Significance was not determined.


Nicholas Institute

14

Nicholas Institute

15


Assessing the influence of county action on city efforts is more difficult. In some cases, county and city actions take place in concert—several joint greenhouse gas inventories attest to this. In other cases, county and city action levels vary drastically. Broward County, Florida, has taken a very active role in climate action planning—even documenting measurable successes towards its government emission reduction goals. Interestingly, Broward County is home to sev-eral cities in this study that have taken less action (including Pembroke Pines, Pompano Beach, and Hollywood), but is also home to Fort Lauderdale, which has taken greater initiative. Similarly, Miami-Dade County (which is nationally recognized for its climate adaptation planning) is home to the active City of Miami and the less active City of Hialeah.

Influence of City Size on Climate Action Planning

City size may influence the pursuit and achievement of climate action indicators. As depicted in Figure 4, the nine Southeastern cities with a 2006 population over 300,000 have taken more action than smaller cities in all areas consid-ered. Although there are a few exceptions, the 27 cities with a population of 100,000–199,000 show greater action than the 12 cities with a population of 200,000–299,000. The smallest of the Southeast’s major cities seem more inclined to have an established office or initiative, be members of ICLEI, and to have established an emission reduction target, when compared to those with a population of 200,000–299,000.13 Conversely, this tier of cities has shown no indication of comprehensive adaptation planning.

Figure 4. Indicator summary by city size.

Opportunities for Climate Action

Non-actorsWith respect to the seven indicators discussed here, seven cities appear to have made no public move toward climate action; they have no office, staff, or initiative to promote climate action, have not collected data or set goals, and are not involved in a related membership program. These cities include Birmingham, Montgomery, Columbus, Lafayette, Shreveport, Clarksville, and Memphis. Hialeah, Pembroke Pines, Pompano Beach, Port St. Lucie, and Baton Rouge have also displayed a similar level of action. These five cities have signed the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement and seem to have done little else to institutionalize climate action. Mobile and Jackson both provide energy efficiency and sustain-ability information to the public on the city’s website but show few signs of a more comprehensive program. Naturally, these cities have a great deal of opportunity for climate action and can benefit from the experiences of their neighbors.

A 2008 study on the motivating factors for local climate change policy identified several barriers that Southeastern cities may face. Cities that have not recently experienced extreme weather events (and therefore perceive less risk), face high mitigation costs due to a carbon-intensive local economy, and are not influenced by environmental nonprofits are less

13 This trend may indicate an effort to galvanize local actors towards emission reduction achievement. On the other hand, the largest Southeastern cities are most likely to have a reduction target—which may be a product of competition with national peer cities.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Local Government

Office or Initiative

Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement Signatory

ICLEI Member Urban Sustainability




Climate Change Adaptation Plan Recommended

Perc

enta

ge o

f Ci

ties

100-199,000

200-299,000

300-800,000

likely to engage in ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection Program.14 A 2010 analysis further identified the barrier created by citizens and private sector leaders that do not support sustainability pursuits and are active participants with their local governments.15 While this report did not focus on motivational factors, the findings of the 2008 and 2010 studies may provide some insight as to why nearly one-third of Southeastern cities have not meaningfully engaged in climate action planning. Climate action efforts in these cities could be designed to recognize and dismantle current barriers.

AdaptationClimate change presents many challenges to localities. Not only do cities give rise to complex political landscapes that are highly variable from city to city, local actors must also interpret global issues and translate them into local actions. In the U.S., these actions have focused on mitigation, but efforts to adapt to changes will likely become more common-place. In 2006 nearly 12 million people lived within the city limits of the major Southeastern cities, and more than 53 million lived in the surrounding metropolitan areas.16 Growing populations and economic instability will increase the risk to climate change impacts and therefore make climate adaptation planning a necessity.

Several notable weather-related disasters have struck the Southeast in recent years, including floods in Atlanta, Nash-ville, Clarksville, and Little Rock. At the same time, droughts have deeply impacted local economies and lifestyles in Durham, Raleigh, and Atlanta. Looking ahead into the near future, it does not appear that struggles with climate events will relent. The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season is forecasted to be considerably more active than average. While a single weather event is difficult to connect to climate change, the current trends of intensifying floods, droughts, and tropi-cal storms are in line with regional projections produced by climate scientists. Furthermore, scientists anticipate slow changes like sea-level rise, which will pose a growing, daily threat to the Southeast’s coastal communities. The 2008 report of motivating factors found that the perception of climate risk—namely due to high-profile impacts like sea-level rise and tropical storms—can be a strong predictor of local climate mitigation action. Yet the Southeast’s 17 coastal cities with more than 100,000 people, do not seem to be motivated by such risks.17 As shown in Figure 5, on average, Southeastern coastal cities show little difference in the level of climate action compared to inland cities.

Activities that improve resilience to such events can be characterized as adaptation. Adaptation can take the form of incremental adjustments to current municipal activities or take the more comprehensive, all-encompassing approach of a local adaptation strategy. As a comprehensive planning process, urban adaptation planning is in its infancy. A handful of cities and counties in the U.S. are beginning to consider and prepare for the impacts of climate change on their communities. Early adopters and pilot cities will continue to provide an evolving framework for comprehensive local adaptation strategies. As this report notes, no major Southeastern city studied has completed a comprehensive adaptation strategy, and those that are considering them have populations over 200,000. It may be that widespread local adaptation planning will require a similar push as that created by the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement.

14 S. Brody et al, “A Spatial Analysis of Local Climate Change Policy in the United States: Risk, Stress, and Opportunity,” Landscape and Urban Planning 87 (2010): 33-41.15 K. Portney and J. Berry, “Participation and the Pursuit of Sustainability in U.S. Cities,” Urban Affairs Review (2010).16 Population information taken from U.S. Census Bureau State and County Quick Facts page at http://quickfacts.census. gov/qfd/index.html.17 For the purpose of this study, coastal cities are those within 10 miles of the coast.


Nicholas Institute

16printed on FSC-certified, 50% post-consumer recycled paper

Figure 5. Climate action planning: coastal cities vs. inland cities.

CollaborationOpportunities to engage in collaborative partnerships abound and present a number of benefits. Regions share eco-nomic characteristics that result in similar mitigation barriers and opportunities. Local partnerships provide an oppor-tunity to share relevant information, strategies, and lessons learned. Additionally, the impacts of climate change will likely be felt in similar ways for cities that are in the same region or share comparable geographies. Because adaptation needs in such areas could look alike, implementation of effective measures could be accelerated by cooperative efforts.

Municipal sustainability employees have already looked to their counterparts for ideas and support, but a much greater opportunity for regional coordination exists. A Southeastern network could follow the structure of the national Urban Sustainability Directors Network. These connections could increase the efficiency and success of solving common problems unique to the region. Even in the absence of a regional network, a number of cities are not taking advantage of low-cost support from the Urban Sustainability Directors Network and ICLEI. Members of both of these organiza-tions tend to make more climate action progress than nonmembers.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Local Mayor’s ICLEI Member Urban GHG Emissions GHG Emissions Climate Change

Percen

tage

of C

ities Coastal City Average

Inland City Average

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Mayor’s Climate

Protection Agreement Signatory

ICLEI Member Urban Sustainability Directors Network Member



Climate Change Adaptation Plan

Percen

tage

of C

ities Coastal City Average

Inland City Average

the Nicholas InstituteThe Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University is a nonpartisan institute founded in 2005 to help decision makers in gov-ernment, the private sector, and the nonprofit community address critical environmental challenges. The Institute responds to the demand for high-quality and timely data and acts as an “honest broker” in policy debates by convening and fostering open, ongoing dialogue between stakeholders on all sides of the issues and providing policy-relevant analysis based on academic research. The Institute’s leadership and staff leverage the broad expertise of Duke University as well as public and private partners world-wide. Since its inception, the Institute has earned a distinguished reputation for its innovative approach to developing multilateral, nonpartisan, and economically viable solutions to pressing environmental challenges.

the Southeast Climate Resource CenterThe Southeast Climate Resource Center serves the Southeastern United States by providing high-quality, region-specific climate information. The SCRC aims to serve policymakers and interested parties by publishing unbiased written materials and providing an accessible online database of policy documents tailored to the needs of the region. By developing direct connections with state and local officials and connecting them to valuable informational resources, the SCRC will increase awareness of climate issues and create opportunities and strategies to address them.

for more information please contact:

Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy SolutionsDuke UniversityBox 90335Durham, North Carolina 27708919.613.8709919.613.8712 [email protected]

copyright © 2010 Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions

Documents

State of the Southeast How Cities are Addressing Climate ... · State of the Southeast How Cities Are Addressing ... on how major Southeastern cities are addressing climate change—or