Will Mayors Hit Climate Targets?

• Author: Linda Breggin
• Position: Senior Attorney in ELI's Center for State and Local Environmental Programs
• Pages: 10-10

Page 10 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2011, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, July/August 2011

By Linda Breggin

Will Mayors hit

Climate Targets?

Over a thousand mayors have

signed the Climate Protection

Agreement unanimously endorsed by

the Conference of Mayors in 2005.

ese 1053 mayors of small and

large cities across the U.S. agreed to

“strive to meet or exceed” the Kyoto

Protocol targets for reducing global

warming emissions. Specif‌ically, the

mayors’ target is to reduce emis-

sions to 7 percent below 1990 levels

by 2012 — through actions in their

own operations and in their com-

munities. ey also agreed to urge

the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan

greenhouse gas reduction legislation.

e agreement provides for achiev-

ing reductions in global warming pol-

lution by taking actions such as inven-

torying emissions and creating action

plans. Other potential measures ref-

erenced include: adoption of land use

policies that reduce sprawl; promotion

of transportation options such as public

transit; increased use of clean, alterna-

tive energy; adoption of energy ef‌f‌icien-

cy measures; and increased recycling.

Although the mayors’ pledges have

garnered substantial media coverage,

the upcoming 2012 milestone has re-

ceived only limited attention. With

2012 around the corner it seems fair

to ask how much progress the may-

ors have made. Yet, this question ap-

pears dif‌f‌icult if not impossible to an-

swer, because there is no uniform or

centralized system for reporting and

measuring progress. While cities such

as Seattle already have documented at-

tainment of the 2012 target, most are

not reporting progress in quantitative

terms.

In fairness, the mayors only pledged

“to strive” to reach the target and no

city should be punished for stepping

forward voluntarily. Nevertheless, the

pledges should be taken seriously, be-

cause of the critical role local govern-

ments can play in addressing climate

change, particularly in the absence

of federal action. e Conference of

Mayors recognizes that cities are f‌illing

a gap left by federal inaction, stating

that “mayors recognize the need for a

federal partner in this ef‌fort,” but “they

cannot and will not wait to act until

Washington is ready to move on this

problem.”

Interestingly, cities are forging ahead

despite a continuing academic debate

over the appropriate role of cities and

other “subnational” entities, such as

states, in addressing climate change.

In fact, cities have not only signed the

agreement but are par-

ticipating in myriad

other climate-related

ef‌forts, including

global initiatives.

For example, 600

U.S. cities are mem-

bers of ICLEI – Local

Governments for Sustainability, which

sponsors a range of climate-related ini-

tiatives. In addition, several U.S. cities

have joined the Cities Climate Leader-

ship Group, or C40, an international

group of large cities collaborating on

climate change mitigation. Last year,

four U.S. cities (Des Moines, Los

Angeles, Burnsville, and Little Rock)

were among the over 150 cities glob-

ally that signed the Mexico City Pact.

e pact not only provides for volun-

tary emissions reductions but, unlike

the Climate Protection Agreement, it

also provides for registering emissions

inventories, commitments, and miti-

gation actions in a “measurable, report-

able and verif‌iable manner.” ICLEI

and C40 subsequently announced

plans to develop a global standard for

accounting and reporting community-

level greenhouse gas emissions that is

intended in part to allow for accurate

monitoring of progress in reaching

emissions targets.

Even though a system does not exist

for measuring progress in achieving the

agreement’s targets, cities continue to

provide a plethora of examples for cli-

mate mitigation actions. In 2007, the

U.S. Conference of Mayors conducted

a survey of over 100 mayors who signed

the agreement and found that many re-

quired new city government buildings

to be energy ef‌f‌icient and most used

energy-ef‌f‌icient technologies, such as

photovoltaic street lights. Numerous

case studies and award programs also

highlight local ef‌forts to address climate

change.

Despite ample anecdotal evidence

that progress is being made, it is time

to pay attention to the numbers. More

information is needed about whether

cities are making progress toward the

2012 target. is information should

not be used to sanction those who

fall short or to deter

other cities from set-

ting goals. Rather,

this information is

needed to increase

understanding of the

approaches that work

best and whether they

are replicable, as well as to identify and

address impediments. If nothing else,

the information may encourage federal

and state governments, as well as the

citizens of these cities, to ramp up sup-

port as the target date approaches.

We can only hope that these may-

ors who have taken a leadership role

in addressing climate change will be

more successful in reducing their cities’

emissions than they have been to date

in achieving another goal of the agree-

ment — convincing the U.S. Congress

to enact federal legislation to address

climate change.

Linda Breggin is a Senior At torney in ELI’s

Center for State and Loc al Enviro nmental

Programs. S he can be reached at breggin@

eli.org.

A  S

e pledges should be

taken seriously beca use

of the critical role of

local governme nts