The Local Official and Climate Change

• Author: Stephen R. Miller
• Pages: 105-122

105

Chapter 5

The Local Official and

Climate Change

Stephen R. Miller

REBECCA :

He wrote Jane a letter and on the envelope the address wa s like this: It said:

Jane Crofut; e Crofut Fa rm; Grover’s Corners; Sutton Count y; New

Hampshire; United States of America. . .. Continent of North America;

Western Hemisphere; the Ear th; the Sol ar System; the Universe; the Mind

of God—that’s what it said on the envelope.... And t he postman brought it

just the same.

—T  W, O H A ct 1 (1938)

In all but the largest cities, including most fast-growth cities, local ocials

are volunteers that hold other jobs and typically receive little, if any, com-

pensation for their governmental work.1 is fact is true even for those local

ocials, members of the planning commission and the city council, who

most directly control the city’s development, making what are a rguably the

most important long-term decisions that will shape cities’ futures.2 For those

commissioners and council members, merely reading the weekly sta reports

that accompany individual projects that require adjudications and engaging

in the more comprehensive legislative actions related to specic plans, neigh-

borhood plans, or business districts ca n be an over whelming task .3 Further,

public meetings often begin right af ter work and can last into the wee hours

of the morning.4

It is in the hands of these local ocials, however, that the task of forming

the United States’ overall land use pattern rests.5 Indeed, bec ause the coun-

try’s land use pattern relies so heavily upon this patchwork of volunteers,

1. C. G D  ., T P C G 1-3 (2013); see also C  B,

I, C C §2-01-03 (2015) (“Unless otherwise provided in this ordinance, all members of

any Boise City Boards and Commissions shall serve without compensation.”).

2. D  ., supra note 1, at 1-3.

3. Id.

4. Id.

5. Id. at 5-15.

106 Contemporary Issues in Climate Change Law & Policy

most of whom are not experts in development, there has long been a skepti-

cism about whether the country can ever have a coherent land use policy.6

is potential problem is notable in the context of climate change. Although

it is well-known that land use patterns can a ect climate change—particu-

larly regarding the relation between land use development and transportation

infrastruct ure—even the most a ggressive eorts to address climate change

have largely ignored land use. For instance, California’s Global Warming

Solutions Act of 2006,7 the most signicant greenhouse gas (GHG) emission

reduction strategy in force at present, places almost no importance on land

use in GHG emissions reductions, even despite the fact t hat t he state had

adopted the country’s most aggressive mandate to link land u se and trans-

portation planning.8

is disconcerting disconnect—that t hose with the power to alter land

use patterns are those least likely to actua lly eect such change—found its

way into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) most

recent series of reports, which are collectively referenced as the Fifth A ssess-

ment Report (AR5).9 All IPCC reports, of course, remain deeply scientic

enterprises aimed at recording and determining the pace of climate change.10

In add ition to this scientic investigation, however, the IPCC assessments

have also provided detailed, worldwide analyses of major socio-ecological

factors related to climate change and, in particular, addressed how those fac-

tors might assist with mitigation or adaptation to climate change.11 Among

the socio- ecological factors considered in this latest AR5 was a substantial

analysis of why the endeavors to change land use patterns, wh ich hold such

promise for addressing climate change, have failed.12 ese sect ions, while

6. See P G. L, S S: H P I O U D-

 32 (1996).

7. C. A.B. 32 (2006), California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (H  S C

§§38500 et seq.).

8. C. S.B. 375 (2008), Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.

9. e IPCC Fifth Assessment consists of three reports and a synthesis report. See I

P  C C, C C 2013: T P S B (2013) [herein-

after 2013 IPCC P S R]; I P  C C,

C C 2014: I, A,  V (2014) [hereinafter 2014 IPCC

A R]; I P  C C, C C 2014:

M  C C (2014) [hereinafter 2014 IPCC M R]; I-

 P  C C, C C 2014: S R (2014)

[hereinafter 2014 IPCC S R]. Collectively, these four reports constitute the IPCC

Fifth Assessment (AR5). All reports from the Fifth Assessment are available at http://www.ipcc.ch/

report/ar5/.

10. For a summary review of the scientic data related to climate change, see 2014 IPCC S

R, supra note 9, at 2-16.

11. See generally 2014 IPCC A R, supra note 9; 2014 IPCC M R, supra

note 9.

12. See infra Sections II, III, and IV.