Top Down, Bottom Up, and Horizontal Linkages in Climate

Change Policy Making: Transatlantic Perspectives

Miranda A. Schreurs

Environmental Governance and the Role of Local Communities

Need to go beyond National/Federal Comparisons

Need to consider local, state-/prefectural level initiatives

Divergence at national level can be mitigated by action at local level

Importance of Local Level Leadership for making a difference

EU Action on Climate Change• The EU aims to cut CO2 emissions:

• by 8% on 1990 levels by 2008-12 (Kyoto)• by 20% by 2020 (30% if other developed countries

commit to comparable reductions)

• (tied to a goal of saving 20% of energy consumption through energy efficiency improvements by 2020)

• EU-wide CO2 emissions trading scheme operational since January 2005

Germany

• December 2007, German cabinet adopts Climate Package (a set of policies and measures to help the country achieve its target of a 40% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020 relative to 1990 levels).

• -renewable energies, energy efficiency, higher energy standards for buildings…

European Green Capital award

Stockholm and Hamburg: the first recipients of the European Green Capital award

Stockoholm: Public Transport carries more than 700.000 passengers every day, with the underground running on renewable energy and 50% of the buses to be fuelled with renewable sources by 2011. Along with Congestion Charges, car use has been reduced by 20%. The city achieved a 25% decrease in CO2 emissions per capita compared with 1990.

Hamburg: CO2 reduction goal of 40% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels

Conference of New England Governors & Eastern Canadian

Premiers

adopted a resolution recognizing climate change as a joint concern.

August 2001 regional Climate Change Action Plan (each must reduce GHGs to 1990 levels by 2010 and 10 % below 1990 levels by 2020)

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative• cap-and-trade scheme for CO2 from major power

plants beginning January 2009

• Goal: stabilize CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2015

• annual cuts in CO2 emissions by 2.5 percent per year after this (total 10 % reduction by 2019 in each state )

• Includes: Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware

RGGI

• Must by permit for each ton of CO2 emissions

• During the first three years, states will supply enough permits to release 188 million tons of CO2 a year. ( 9 percent more than 2007 emissions in the region)

• Number of permits will drop 2.5 percent a year from 2015 through 2018.

• 18 December 2008 Auction sold 31.5m allowances at a price of $3.38 per short

ton

The Western Climate Initiative• represents 20% of U.S. economy

(California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, and Utah)

• 70% of Canadian economy (British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario)

• reduce emissions by 15% of 2005 levels by 2020 and between 50 and 85% by 2050

Western Climate Initiative

September 2008

released plans for a cap-and-trade system

Covers nearly 90% of the region’s emissions, (electricity, industry, transportation, and residential and commercial fuel use)

begins in 2012.

California Pavley Bill (AB1493)

• plan for achieving “maximal feasible reduction” of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, effective 2006.

• Car makers given until 2009 to meet the new standards.

• Rejected by Bush administration in December 2007

• Jan 26, 2009 Obama orders US EPA to revisit ruling

California: AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

sets a state-wide CO2 emission target: stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 (which is equivalent to a 30 percent below business as usual projection given California’s rapidly expanding population)

State Level global warming legislation

• Maine (2003), Connecticut (2004) passed legislation that states it shall be a goal of the state to stabilize greenhouse gas levels at 1990 levels by 2010 and to reduce them by 10 percent of 1990 levels by 2020.

• New Jersey adopted legislation mandating a series of emission reduction targets: stabilization at 1990 levels or lower by 2020 and 80 percent below 2006 levels by 2050.

CA Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (2002)

aim of achieving 20 percent of its energy come from renewable resources by 2017.

U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement

As of 2009

over 900 mayors of U.S. cities, representing over 80 million Americans, have agreed to strive to meet or exceed the Kyoto Protocol targets.

European Covenant of Mayors’ Initiative on climate change

February 2009

400 cities agreed to a, pledging to go beyond the EU’s 20 percent greenhouse gas reduction goal by 2020

International Networks for Climate Change/Sustainability Activities

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (Cities for Climate ProtectionTM (CCP))Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI)- (C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group)World Mayors Council on Climate Change (WMCCC)The Brundtland City Energy Network (BCEN)Sustainable Cities: PLUS NetworkUnited Cities and Local Governments (UCLG)MetropolisEuropean Sustainable Cities and Towns CampaignEnergie-citésEurocitiesThe Climate GroupMayors Climate Protection CenterReset netCities Development Initiative for Asia (CDIA)Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network

C40 Large Cities (http://www.c40/seoulsummit.com/)

cities alone consume approximately three-quarters of the world’s energy and produce about 80 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

CCI and C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group

• a group of 40 of the largest cities that have pledged to speed up their efforts to reduce global warming emissions.

C40 Large Cities in Asia

Bangkok, Thailand 8,160,552Beijing, China 15,380,000Delhi NCT, India 17,000,000Dhaka, Bangaladesh 6,700,000Hanoi, Vietnam 3,399,000Hong Kong, China 6,985,000Jakarta, Indonesia 8,389,000Karachi, Pakistan 16,500,000Mumbai, India 13,000,000Seoul, South Korea 10,300,000Shanghai, China 18,450,000Tokyo, Japan 12,800,000

Asian Cities in ICLEI

China: ShenyangTaiwan: Kaohsiung, Taipei City, Taipei CountyJapan: Aichi Prefecture, Fujisawa, Hiroshima, Hokuto, Itabashi City, Kanagawa Prefecture, K

asai, Kawagoe, Kawasaki, Kitakyushu, Kobe, Kumamoto City, Kyoto City, Musashino, Nagoya City, Sapporo, Sendai, Sumida, Ube, Yamanashi Prefecture

Republic of Korea: Ansan, Bucheon, Buk-Gu, Busan, Changwon, Chungnam Province, Daegu, Damyang County, Gangneung, Gangwon, Geumsan County, Gimpo, Gumi, Gwacheon, Gwangju, Gyeonggi Province, Gyeongsangnam Province, Hadong County, Hoengseong County, Incheon, Jeju Province, Jeju, Jeongseon, Jeonju, Jinhae, Pyeongchang County, Seongnam, Seoul, Sokcho, Suncheon, Suwon, Ulsan, Wonju, Yangpyeong County, Yong-in

Indonesia: Balikpapan, Bogor, Cilegon, Medan, Semarang, Surabaya, YogyakartaPhilippines: Baguio, Batangas, Bohol Province, Dagupan, General Santos, Iloilo, Linamon, M

akati, Munoz, Muntinlupa, Naga, Puerto Princesa, Quezon, San Fernando, La Union, San Fernando, Pampanga, Tubigon, Tuguegarao

Thailand: Bangkok, Muangklang, PhuketBangladesh: RajshahiIndia: Ahmedabad, All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore, D

elhi, Greater Visakhapatnam, Guntur, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Jabalpur, Kalyan Dombivali, Madurai, Mumbai, Nagpur, Rajkot, Shimla, Thane, Vadodara, Vijayawada

Nepal: Kathmandu, Municipal Association of Nepal, PokharaSri Lanka: Matale

Kyoto Climate Change Initiative

• Kyoto City (2003) issued a Proclamation to Stop Global Warming: “Kyoto, as the city where the Kyoto Protocol was created as a promise to work to prevent global warming around the world, is dedicated to supporting efforts to stop global warming.”

• 2004, Kyoto City became the first Japanese municipality to enact a Global Warming Countermeasures Ordinance.

Tokyo Climate Initiative

• Tokyo Metropolitan Government established a 10-Year Project for a Carbon-Minus Tokyo in June 2007.

• The plan calls for a reduction in Tokyo’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from the 2000 level by 2020.

(per capita CO2 emissions in Tokyo are already 20-30 percent lower than in New York and London)

The Barriers to Effective Action

• Financial

• Jurisdictional

• Institutional (communication barriers (vertical and horizontal), information access

• Capacity

• Lack of bench marks, comparable data

• Lack of attention to adaptation