Governing Climate Change Post-2012: The Role of Global Cities Case-Study: Los Angeles
Governing Climate Change Post-2012: The Role of Global Cities Case-Study: Los Angeles
Governing Climate Change Post-2012: The Role of Global Cities Case-Study: Los Angeles
September 2008
Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are commented on by Tyndall researchers,
they have not been subject to a full peer review. The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the
responsibility of the author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre.
“This mayor said if you stake out a goal what you do is you
then rally the city’s agency and the public behind that goal that you can accomplish this.”
(Interview excerpt)
Abstract
In May 2007 Los Angeles adopted an Action Plan to Lead the Nation In Fighting Global Warming. The plan includes a
CO2 emissions reduction target of 35 percent by 2030 of 1990 levels. The approach Los Angeles is taking is one of
simultaneously addressing future energy and water security by investing in decentralised renewable energy and
decreasing per-capita water use. Additional areas include waste management, greening of buildings and open space and
addressing emissions from the transport sector. The emphasis has so far been on the supply, rather than the demand,
side. While political leadership has been very important in pushing through this action plan, a mature local
environmental community and membership in transnational city networks such as C40 have been instrumental in
working out the details of this plan. The impact on LA’s actions on climate change will likely reach beyond city limits
given the United States’ continued obstruction of international efforts to address climate change and given Los Angeles
ability to act as a significant role model both domestically and internationally. This could be crucial at a time when the
international community is faced with the need to translate scienitific recommendations into political action and forge a
post-Kyoto deal.
1. Introduction
While negotiations towards an international framework for climate change action continue, there is increasing
recognition that a range of activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are taking place ‘beyond’ the formal arena of
international negotiations. The purpose of Tyndall Research Programme 1 – Informing International Climate Policy – is
to examine the significance of the activities of ‘non (nation) state’ actors in addressing climate change, and to assess
how they are affecting and will be affected by the post-2012 international policy framework.1
International climate change policy has developed significantly over the past twenty years. In 1992, the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted at the Rio Summit with countries pledging to prevent
‘dangerous interference with the climate system’. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol gave industrialised countries mandatory
targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 2008-2012, together with a range of economic instruments designed
to assist with this goal. Over the past decade, negotiations have continued as the finer details of the Kyoto Protocol, the
economic instruments – the Clean Development Mechanism, Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation – and issues
of enforcement were hammered out. Although not all countries are on track to meeting their targets under the Kyoto
Protocol, and the USA remains outside it, negotiations are now under way to develop a ‘post-2012’ agreement. To date,
most analysis has focused on the role of nation-states in the design, promotion and implementation of various ‘post-
2012’ policy architectures and instruments. This Tyndall Centre Programme suggests that there are other, non (nation)
state actors who may be critical in both shaping the post-2012 climate agreement and in its implementation.
This research project focuses on one such group of actors: global cities. Cities across the world have been responding to
the challenge of climate change for over a decade (Betsill and Bulkeley 2007). Recent years have witnessed an
increasing importance of urban responses to climate change, with the gradual involvement of urban political leaders
(e.g. the US Mayors Climate Change Agreement and the Bali World Mayors and Local Governments Climate
1
For further information see http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/programme1/.
1
Protection Agreement) and major, global and mega-cities in climate change policy (e.g. through the networks
Metropolis and C40). This shift has been accompanied by the growing recognition of cities as the predominant source
of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions – perhaps as much as 78% by some accounts (Stern 2006) – and as places
where vulnerability to climate change may be acute. For the world’s major cities, climate change is therefore becoming
an issue of increasing political and environmental significance. Critical questions remain, however, about how far such
concerns are being translated into action and how the international policy framework facilitates or impedes action at this
level of governance. As the international negotiations unfold, we have identified four areas which may be significant for
urban level climate policy, and where global cities may have an impact on the implementation of future climate policy:
Targets and timetables: the inclusion, level and nature of targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases
Membership: which nation-states do or do not sign up to a new international agreement
Carbon finance and markets: access to the CDM and/or emissions trading schemes for municipalities and/or
carbon financing for urban projects
Adaptation: access to finance for adaptation for cities in the Global South
In this context, the research project seeks to address three central questions:
1. What action is taking place in global cities on climate change and why?
2. What barriers and opportunities have been encountered?
3. How relevant is post-2012 climate policy for global cities, and how in turn might developments at the urban
level affect international climate policy?
In order to address these questions, the project focuses on four case-studies: London, Los Angeles, Mexico City and
Melbourne. These cities were chosen to represent cases from an early Kyoto-ratified, a recently Kyoto-ratified and a
non-ratified country as well as a case from a non-Annex I country. This report documents the experience of Los
Angeles. It is based on the analysis of policy documents, media reports and interviews with 14 representatives of the
public and private sectors in Los Angeles conducted from September to October 2007.2
The next section outlines the research context for Los Angeles, including the federal and state policy contexts and the
history of climate policy in the city. It provides an overview of the actions taking place and the drivers behind policy
development. Section 3 provides details on some specific initiatives and of the opportunities and challenges which they
have encountered. Section 4 considers the opportunities and challenges arising from working with other public and
private sector actors. Section 5 focuses on the question of the role and importance of the relation between post-2012
international climate policy and Los Angeles. Section 6 provides a short conclusion.
2. Research Context
After ratifying the UNFCCC in 1994 and signing the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, the Bush Administration withdrew from
the Kyoto process in 2001 on the grounds that it is too costly and unfair given developing countries are not included in
the commitments. The most significant policy measure taken by the federal government to date is the creation of an 18
percent reduction of GHG intensity by 2012, which is assessed to be close to a business-as-usual scenario (Bang,
Tjernshaugen and Andresen 2005; Harrison 2007). The most recent attempt to introduce a federal-level cap-and-trade
system – the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act – failed to receive the required majority in the Senate in June
2008. It was designed to reduce GHG emissions by 63 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It is likely that with either a
2
We are grateful to all those who gave their valuable time and insights to the study. We thank the rest of the Tyndall Programme 1
team – Chuks Okereke, Alex Haxeltine, Duncan Russell, Diana Liverman and Heather Lovell – as well as Juan Arredondo and
Elizabeth Anderson for their comments on a draft of the report. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors alone.
2
Democratic or Republican president from 2009 the United States will adopt an amended version of this scheme in the
coming years. (Pew Center 2008)
As of the April 2007 US Supreme Court ruling (Massachusetts vs. EPA case), carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant
under the Clean Air Act, enabling the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to regulate it. Given California
has the authority to enact environmental regulations that are stricter than federal standards under the Clean Air Act,
tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide can now be regulated by the State of California under AB 1493 (see below). Under
the Clean Air Act, other states are empowered to adopt California's tougher environmental standards if they so choose,
and so far about a dozen are planning to do so, once the EPA waiver situation is resolved. California filed a lawsuit in
early 2008 after its waiver application was denied in late 2007 on the grounds that climate change is defined as a global
issue and therefore does not pose compelling and extraordinary effects on the state compared to the rest of the country
(EPA 2008).
In addition to already existing building and appliance codes, the state has recently passed several important pieces of
legislation: In 2006, it passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which, through an economy-wide
regulatory programme, mandates reductions in GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (equalling a 25-30 percent
reduction from current emission levels). The act includes a package of policies to be put in place by state agencies. In
Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-3-05 of 2005 he establishes a reduction of GHG emissions to 2000
levels by 2010, a reduction to 1990 levels by 2020 and a reduction to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 1493,
passed in 2002, has made California the first US state to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. It
mandates that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop and implement emission caps for vehicles
beginning in model year 2009. California enacted a Renewable Energies Act in 2005, which requires that 20 percent of
the electricity sold by investor-owned electric utilities in the state come from renewable sources by 2010 (SB 107 – the
target year was initially 2017 and accelerated by the CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)). It is currently under
consideration to be strengthened further – possibly to 33 percent by 2020 (CPUC 2005). SB 1368 of 2006, the
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Performance Standard, requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the
CPUC to set a GHG emissions standard for electricity used in California, regardless of whether it is generated in state or
purchased from plants out of state. These laws taken together constitute the most ambitious and comprehensive effort to
mitigate climate change presently in the United States. (Hanemann 2008)
LA’s emissions of carbon dioxide amounted to some 51.6 million metric tons in 2004, a third of which were municipal
(including electricity use and generation, sea and air ports). Despite high emissions from transport due to Los Angeles’
urban sprawl, the city’s emissions are about two-thirds of the US average. This is mainly due to below-average
emissions in the housing sector (heating/cooling) thanks to the region’s moderate climate, but also California’s
comparatively stringent building and appliance codes (e.g. Title 24). While the population of LA grew by about 10
percent during the last 15 years, per capita emissions decreased by around 13 percent during this period.
The City of LA is governed by a mayor-council system with 15 city council districts. It owns and operates its electric
utility, the LA Department of Water and Power (LADWP), which is the largest publicly owned municipal utility in the
US. LADWP provides water and electricity to the entire population of LA. It is a proprietary department, which means
that it does not rely on tax payer money. The city also owns its sea and air ports and manages their on-the-ground
operations. The Boards of Directors of the LADWP and LA’s sea and air ports are selected by the mayor and confirmed
3
by the 15-member City Council for a four-year term. Some major sources of GHG emissions are therefore largely
controlled by the mayor.
Figure 1: LA’s carbon dioxide emissions (City of Los Angeles 2007, p. 14)
Four aspects turned climate change into a priority issue for the city. First, the mayor and his staff recognised that
“everything was kind of related and that the kinds of strategies that we would consider to reduce the city’s greenhouse
gas emissions were also things that would benefit us on all of the other environmental problems that Los Angeles
faces”. A Resource Management Blueprint and a Renewable Portfolio Standard (see Table 1 below) were already in
place. Second, it was realised that climate change will likely have significant adverse effects on Los Angeles and that
climate change is not just a global and future problem, but a local and high-risk one for Los Angeles. Third,
interviewees reported that the mayor has ambitions to run for the office of Governor of California. Given California’s
leadership position on climate change, it is suggested that developing a profile as a leader on climate change would put
him at an advantage during a possible run for the governor’s office. Fourth, early on is his tenure, the mayor was
contacted by the City of London to become part of their C-20 network, providing opportunities to further raise his
profile as a leader on climate change. While measures to mitigate climate change on the whole do not seem to have
direct impacts within or across levels of governance, the mayor’s motivation seems to have been at least strengthened
by action in other global cities and at the state level, thereby being indirectly affected by them.
In May 2007, the mayor’s office published an action plan, titled “Green LA: An Action Plan to Lead the Nation In
Fighting Global Warming”. The plan also incorporated several already established measures targeting air pollution,
water conservation and energy decentralisation, as they are also reducing GHG emissions. It was put together with the
help of the coalition Green LA (different from the city’s action plan, also called Green LA), consisting of over 60
environmental and community-based organisations focusing largely on climate change issues. Green LA was formed in
2006 in response to the then new mayor’s commitment to addressing environmental issues in the city, expressed in
several speeches over the course of his first year in office. Green LA provides “environmental guidance and expertise to
the City of Los Angeles in an exciting model of collaboration between decision-makers and advocates, helping to
inform City policies and programs”. (Green LA 2006, p. 3)
4
Table 1: Los Angeles’ climate policy milestones
The city’s Green LA action plan commits the city to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 35 percent by 2030 of
1990 levels. It is, however, viewed as mainly a marketing tool by members of the environmental community and
officials outside government offices. Its deadlines are seen as too weak and adequate staffing to implement the actions
laid out in it is lacking. As mentioned above, the action plan is to some extent also a repackaging and synthesis of
already existing measures. For example, it includes a Renewable Energy Goal of 20 percent by 2010 and 35 percent by
2030, adopted in December 2005, which should translate into a 17.5 percent reduction of emissions by 2030. The target
goes beyond the requirements under the California Renewable Energy Act. To coordinate the various actions
promulgated under this plan, the mayor initially created a sustainable practices cabinet and later a climate action team,
which includes members of each department.
The transport sector, which is responsible for around half of Los Angeles’ emissions, was left largely untouched by the
Green LA action plan. A major barrier was the cost of building a transit system comparable to other major cities around
the world and the perception that the support base was not yet strong enough. The investment required was estimated by
5
interviewees to be around USD 25 billion. Funding for transit in California “goes to the CA Transport Commission, and
their mission, along with that of CALTRANS, is to build more roads” (Interviewee, September 2007). While it is
possible for cities in other states, such as Portland, Seattle, Denver or Chicago, to share the financial burden of
expanding public transit systems with the state, in California 90 percent of the funds have to be generated locally. A
new countywide sales tax may be put on the ballot in November 2008 of half a percent to fund transportation
infrastructure improvements. Counties in California are able to place local option sales taxes before its voters, requiring
a two-thirds majority. The revenue, estimated at around USD 40 billion over 30 years, would currently include both
transit and road improvements. Debate is ongoing as to which projects would get funded. Surveys currently show
overwhelming public support for this measure (METRO 2008), despite being in a recession. There is no indication,
however, how voters differentiate their support for new rail lines versus new freeway lanes. Talks are also underway
regarding public-private partnerships on public transit.
The most important drivers and motivations behind this policy shift in Los Angeles include the commitment of critical
individuals (mayor and his staff, a green-minded City Council, leaders in LA’s environmental community), past/interim
policy success (addressing, above all, air pollution), a diverse but positive climate of public opinion (reflected, for
example, in the tone of articles in the LA Times), a lack of overt opposition from key interest groups (evident through
business culture in California), the emergence of new market opportunities in the carbon economy (renewable energy,
water, waste management) and environmental advocacy (Green LA, a network of environmental organisations) (Table 2
below).
Driver/motivation Examples
Critical individuals “Let’s dare to imagine Los Angeles as the cleanest and greenest big city in America…The great
/ competitiveness cities of the 21st Century will…be places where residents are at home in vibrant, clean, and
sustainable communities.” (Mayor Villaraigosa, “City of Dreams” Remarks, 9 November 2005)
Past/interim “Air quality is a big concern in Southern California; we’ve always had the worst air quality in the
successes United States. Our combination of our climate plus all of the sources of pollution has made air
quality probably the highest priority pollution problem to deal with in Southern California for
pretty much the last 40 years.” (Interviewee, October 2007)
-- For example, cap-and-trade schemes for local nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions
Public opinion “California and Los Angeles are different to the rest of the United States and have always been
different when it comes to environmental issues - there’s always been very strong support within
California for addressing environmental problems and a lot of support in the public for
increasingly stringent environmental regulation.” (Interviewee, October 2007)
Business consensus “The business community does fight but those businesses that are California based or have a
large presence in California have come to accept that they would always be asked to do more in
California.” (Interviewee, October 2007)
“The people who fight hardest in California when California decides to go out there are big
national or international companies like auto companies in particular. To some extent the oil
companies as well, although they have learnt long ago that you don’t fight it but shape it the best
way you can because they cannot pick up and move from California.” (Interviewee, October
2007)
Market opportunity “To grow green technology, to be a centre for renewable energy, to be an economic engine.”
(Interviewee, October 2007)
Environmental “We have a fairly sophisticated and well-organized community with a long history of
advocacy environmental advocacy amongst non-governmental organizations.” (Interviewee, October 2007)
On the basis of these drivers and motivations, Los Angeles has begun to develop a comprehensive approach to climate
change. It is based on “what the city has under its control” (Interviewee, October 2007), leaving out for now the
transport sector, which accounts for around half of GHG emissions.
6
many, but not all, areas of emissions. For example, cities cannot themselves regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions (see
above). Energy supply in the US is mostly regulated by state governments, except in the case of cities which own their
utilities, such as Los Angeles.
The actions in response to climate change in Los Angeles can be divided into three categories: an emphasis on
leadership; attempts to reconfigure energy infrastructures within the city; and a focus on changing the practices of
individuals and corporations. Below we consider the initiatives in more detail in order to examine the opportunities and
barriers they have encountered (Table 3; Research Question 2).
Table 3: Los Angeles’ climate change policy measures and initiatives under Green LA
7
AIRPORT - LAWA, Fully employ the Sustainability Air-borne emissions have to be
Green the LADWP Performance Improvement regulated internationally
Airports Management System as requested by
City Council
Meet green building specifications,
improve recycling, use alternative
fuel sources, use recycled water, etc.
Purchase approximately 10 percent
green power
OPEN SPACE City of LA, Create 35 new parks by 2010 The public needs to get involved more
AND Environmental Revitalise the LA River as naturalized and become a partner in these endeavors
GREENING - Affairs river (1 million trees can not be planted by a
Increase green Department, Plant 1 million trees - 1999-2010: single person alone)
space LADWP, 48,000 trees or 4,000 trees per year City agencies are not yet working
TreePeople, (half EAD-sponsored programs and together sufficiently
Friends of the half DWP Cool Schools Program) to
Los Angeles result in a reduction of 7,521 tons of
River CO2 per year
Manage the city as an ecosystem
GREEN City of LA Identify and promote locations for Some industries are still undermining
ECONOMY - green businesses these efforts
Promote the Collaborate with private sector to
green economic offer effective incentives for the
sector growth of local green businesses
Certify green businesses
Adaptation/ City Planning Improve capacity to respond to Not yet a higher priority
climate proof Commission emergency through education and
LA outreach
Develop comprehensive plans to
prepare for climate change effects on
the city
3.1 Leadership
The impetus to provide leadership on the issue of climate change, both within the city and at national and international
levels, is a characteristic of the way in which LA’s approach to climate change has developed. This is evident in three
ways. First, as outlined above, it has been the political leadership of Antonio Villaraigosa and his staff, addressing
climate change comprehensively and placing it on the political agenda of the city. This political high-level support has
let to the development of climate change strategy and ambitious targets for emissions reductions for Los Angeles and to
the widespread recognition of climate change as a policy issue for the city. As noted above, motivation to do so is based
on multiple drivers, including personal ambitions. It is embedded in the context of the State of California, which has
adopted progressive policies on climate change, such as the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).
Second, Los Angeles has drawn on business and civil society leadership in the area on climate change to further support
its strategies and plans. While “there is a lot of industry fighting and undermining” policy (Interviewee, October 2007),
other segments of the business community have shown some leadership in terms of promoting sustainable business
conferences and green business solutions. The local environmental community responded to the mayor’s initial
indications of prioritising the environment by forming a coalition and offering their expertise in the process of drawing
up an action plan (see Section 4 below).
Third, national and international leadership has been a key element in LA’s strategy. According to an interviewee
(October 2007), “LA's impact is far greater than just our footprint because we inspire market places around the world.
We inspire people to aspire to consume and do more damage probably than any other city.” Action is also motivated by
the aspiration to become the largest green city in the US. Given the city’s multicultural makeup, it sees itself as a
potential model for cities around the world. Importantly, LA is collaborating internationally as part of the C40 network
“aiming to share emergent best practices and develop a common municipal agenda to address climate change” (City of
Los Angeles 2007, p. 28). The C40 network, which emerged from the earlier C20 network, was announced in Los
Angeles in August 2006 by the Clinton Foundation, the mayors of Los Angeles, San Francisco and London, Prime
Minister Blair, President Clinton and UCLA. Los Angeles is in the C40 steering committee and “very engaged in the
process” (Interviewee, October 2007). It displayed its leadership by hosting a workshop on airports in April 2008.
8
Here, LA’s role has primarily been one of enabling – establishing a network through which advice, knowledge and
finance can flow (see Table 4 below).
“The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is embarking on the most ambitious
transformation of any utility in America. In 2005, Mayor Villaraigosa challenged the department to accelerate
plans to generate 20% of its electricity from clean, renewable sources from 2017 to 2010. Since then, LADWP
has more than doubled its portfolio of renewable energy by purchasing wind, solar, and geothermal power.”
(City of Los Angeles 2007, p. 4)
The LADWP is faced with the challenge that existent transmission lines cannot meet projected future energy demand at
present, projected to increase by 43 percent over the next two decades (LA Times, 24 March 2008). The utility is
addressing this problem mainly in two ways. First, it is raising electricity prices while at the same time introducing
pricing structures to reward those who conserve energy, such as tiered, seasonal, and time-of-use pricing
(control/compliance mode of governing – Table 4). Second, it is shifting its power mix away from coal, which currently
accounts for about 60 percent of the power source, to renewable energy (provision mode of governing). The question of
transmission lines to transport renewable energy is an unresolved problem. Both these strategies respond to the desire
on the part of the LADWP governing board to green its operations. In the words of an LADWP representative,
“One of our specific barriers to whether or not we can actually reach our greenhouse gas mandates is our
ability to bring transmission, to develop adequate transmission to bring the green power in. So we are working
with various groups in the environmental community to see if we can figure out corridors or some other way
that allows us to build transmission, address these concerns of conservation, and habitats and even
developments.”
The current emphasis is on the latter strategy, shifting the city’s energy mix away from coal. There is a sense that this is
politically the more viable option, even if the significant challenge of building additional transmission lines remains
unresolved. The new pricing structures are too conservative to make a significant impact on GHG emissions. The
requirement by state law that Californian utilities supply 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2010
(SB 107) is another reason for why emphasis on shifting power supply is currently prioritised, even if it appears that
several California-based utilities may not meet California’s renewable portfolio standard. Given that many of the
current solar and wind farm projects are based out of state, the intricacies of interstate commerce further complicate the
situation. An additional hurdle is that existent transmission lines cannot be used given the new projects’ locations and
new transmission lines would have to pass through protected areas where it is a question of relative gain between
9
protecting nature and wildlife versus reducing emissions through expanding renewable energy. Furthermore, the
LADWP labour union and its protection of jobs in the traditional power infrastructure has made it difficult for the city
to move ahead with restructuring.
As to the second part of the LADWP’s portfolio, water, the department is faced with the challenge of securing water for
a growing population in a geographic area where demand from other part of the region is increasing and water resources
are depleting. In addition, an increase in droughts is expected to further exacerbate the situation. For Los Angeles, water
is a crucial issue in the context of climate change because water is imported into the city, which generates significant
emissions of GHGs and negatively impacts habitat. 85 percent of water is imported from Northern and Eastern
California (the Colorado River). From Northern California, water is transported partly by a water lift over the Tehachapi
Mountains, which constitutes a huge expenditure of energy (State Water Project). According to the CA Energy
Commission, about 19 percent of total electricity of all sectors combined is related to water, the biggest single source.
20 percent of electricity in Los Angeles is expended merely on the transportation of water into the city. Reducing the
amount of imported water to Los Angeles would therefore have a noticeable effect on its emissions level.
Previously, Los Angeles has successfully reduced extraction of water through efficiency improvements and reuse when
required to do so in response to environmental harm at Mono Lake, in the Owens Valley system and in the Eastern
Sierras. Currently, the LA action plan envisages a decrease in per capita in water consumption by 20 percent through
water conservation and recycling, including capture and reuse of storm water (City of Los Angeles 2007, p. 6).
Regarding transit, the city is developing several transit-oriented developments (TODs). While relatively successful in
other cities such as Portland or Washington, DC, TODs in Los Angeles are facing a number of obstacles. A study
reported on by the LA Times has found that TODs are not yet reducing traffic, rather they seem to increase congestion
at such developments as they attract others to their urban infrastructure (shops etc.). It was found that transit is not yet
efficient and built out enough for a significant shift from vehicle use to public transport. Jobs and schools are usually
not close to transit lines, making it difficult for TOD residents to leave their cars behind. (LA Times, 30 June 2007)
Interviewees shared the impression that California-based business is generally more amenable to a culture of
sustainability than companies coming in from out of state; this applies in particular to automobile companies.
Companies are said to have adapted to California’s more progressive stance: “They have learnt long ago that you don’t
fight it but shape it the best way you can because they cannot pick up and move from California” (Interviewee, October
2007).
To “help Angelenos be ‘energy misers’”, as the LA action plan puts it (City of Los Angeles 2007, p. 5), measures have
been adopted ranging from customer rebates and a fund to acquire energy savings to distribution of energy efficient
refrigerators and compact fluorescent light bulbs. In addition, the city requires that all new buildings exceeding 50,000
square feet or 50 plus units become LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified. LEED is a US
Green Council award, covering five areas: site; materials; energy efficiency; water consumption; and interior air quality.
As building stock turns over every 80 years in Los Angeles, targeting new builds will slowly yield emissions reduction
results. This is extremely short compared to the UK’s 1000 year building stock turnover. Importantly, for the housing
sector the LA Department of City Planning is developing a Green Building programme focusing on the nexus between
transit and housing. To this end, the department is developing a standard of sustainability for new building projects in
the city, which it intends to regularly strengthen in accordance with technological development. Many interviewees
have referred to the substantial cultural barrier around transit. In the words of one (September 2008):
“There have also been efforts around reducing LA’s carbon footprint by putting housing and jobs closer to
transit and by increasing housing density in the past ten years. Given the cultural barrier around connecting
high-income, single-family districts to the public transportation grid, progress has been slow and the focus has
been on creating residential units in commercial quarters and increasing density there. This, however, also
requires developing infrastructure (schools, etc.) to encourage families to come into these areas.”
Another impediment to building out LA’s public transportation system is, as one interviewee (September 2007) noted,
“that Southern California disposes of an especially virulent dose of NIMBYism – not in my back yard attitude. There is
a sense of entitlement among especially rich Americans where they feel they can act in their narrow self-interest if they
want to.” One prominent example is that plans for building a new light rail line are being upheld by one particular
neighbourhood community because of the associated noise.
1
0
There have been requests from members of the business community to the city to put in place codes and regulations on
green buildings, but at the same time, there is resistance to such measures from other segments of the community. As a
compromise, measures have started low and are being strengthened over time to obtain the buy-in from a larger segment
of commerce.
Business behaviour is targeted through a number of initiatives including a green business certification scheme,
incentives for the growth of local green businesses and identification and promotion of locations for green businesses.
Over 50 buildings are being designed to LEED standards in the private sector and 48 buildings in the public sector have
already been completed. (LA Times, 16 November 2007)
4. Working together?
Urban responses to climate change can not be neatly contained within the boundaries of the city limits or the corridors
of municipal government. Rather, cities such as Los Angeles are required to work together with a range of partners,
with local and national government, and in the context of international policy. These interactions can provide additional
barriers and opportunities for action at the city level (Research Question 2), as we discuss below.
4.1 Partnership
Partnership has been an important element in Los Angeles’ approach to climate change. First, Green LA, the coalition
of the major environmental organisations in LA, was contracted by the mayor to help with the details of the LA action
plan, providing broad expertise and contributing new policy ideas. Green LA is made up of some 60 environmental
groups and a large part of its activity focuses on climate change. For the first time, the issue of climate change has
brought together previously opposing environmental groups, such as environmentalists and new urbanists as they
realised that increased urbanisation has environmental benefits in terms of the positive effects on transport of denser
housing. Second, to help with the implementation of this plan the mayor has set up a climate action team with
representatives from every city department. Collaboration with the 15-member City Council, deemed to have the
greenest credentials of any to date, has also been important. Third, organisations such as ICLEI and the Clinton
Foundation have played important roles in terms of raising visibility and identifying best management practices.
“The barrier is politicians are afraid people won't support the policy changes. And so the partnership that has
to happen, from non-governmental to governmental, and the ones involving corporations as well...because big
players like this country and this city, even though there is Kyoto and other protocols, there is arrogance and
resistance to ever going along.”
More than on energy, water and housing do efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the transport sector rely on partnership.
Because LA’s transportation system is financed differently than in most places, the city has to raise 90 percent of the
funds locally and would receive only 10 percent from the state, as mentioned above. Building a comprehensive public
transportation system is key to significantly reducing emissions from the transportation sector, which make up around
50 percent of LA’s emissions. A new tax will be put to the vote in November of this year to finance new rail and metro
lines as well as widening existing freeways, requiring a two-thirds majority. Debate among members of the LA County
Metropolitan Transit Agency’s Board of Directors, including LA County Supervisors, the Mayor of LA and city council
members of LA County cities, is currently ongoing about which projects would be included in the proposal. A
significant drawback is the length of time – 30 years – it will require to have in place a comprehensive transit system for
the city that would present a real alternative to the car.
1
1
The withdrawal on the Kyoto Process by the Bush Administration in 2001 is seen mostly as a catalyst for local action,
although at some level this is creating more a barrier than a driver as policy measures are hierarchically related. Where
the lack of support from the federal government has been most limiting has been in terms of leadership and funding,
especially for research, development and commercialization of technology. In addition, segments of interstate
commerce are being federally preempted. The current number of lawsuits between private, subnational and federal
entities is an indicator for the extent of competition between segments of society in terms of setting the country’s policy
agenda. For the atmosphere, this is bad news, because “if we had the support of the federal government we could
certainly accelerate the pace at which we are actually able to implement” (Interviewee, October 2007).
Despite the potential importance of the international climate change policy in providing a framework for action, one
striking finding was the way in which the failings of the federal and international level to address climate change were
providing impetus for action. As one interviewee (October 2007) put it, “it's a clear sense from anybody in the
progressive mindset that our national actors, and internationally we're not doing enough.” Instead, urban responses to
climate change were viewed as more dynamic and effective given the fit with where a large share of emissions is being
sourced. The LA climate change response is remarkably autonomous from other levels of governance. Leaders in LA
have framed climate change as a local impetus for action and are focussing attention mainly on where there are the
biggest opportunities and where mitigation is at the same time adaptation to climate change.
6. Conclusion
Although it is too early to evaluate the success of the particular approach Los Angeles has taken to addressing climate
change, it is noteworthy that Los Angeles is acting remarkably autonomously and is focusing on the supply side of
emissions which city administrators have control over. That is greening urban infrastructures: energy and water supply
as well as housing and ground operations at air and sea ports. At the same time, this focus constitutes a strategy of
reducing vulnerability from climate change in the future. Where measures are modest at best is in the area of
conservation and transport. Partnership is largely focussed locally, while interplay with state and federal policies is
either not sufficiently addressed (state) or constitutes a significant barrier to further reductions (federal). While mayoral
leadership has been instrumental in coordinating and pushing city-wide initiatives, LA’s mature environmental
community is providing crucial social capital in implementing the city’s action plan. Impetus to act on climate change
has been driven by state leadership, horizontal (C40, ICLEI) structures and individual aspirations. Currently, measures
reap ‘low-hanging fruits’ but may have to be significantly strengthened in the next phase of activity and in the context
of an emerging global prerogative under a post-2012 climate framework.
The failings of the global community to address climate change are providing a significant impetus for action. In
contrast to the seemingly unending arguments at the international level, urban policy is seen as more dynamic, and, as
the source of a significant proportion of carbon dioxide emissions, potentially more effective. Los Angeles has a
particularly significant role to play in the context of the United States’ continued obstruction of international efforts to
address climate change. Given its size, economic weight and multicultural makeup, it acts as a significant role model,
both domestically and internationally.
Regarding the impacts of, and influence on, the post-2012 international climate policy framework, this report draws
three conclusions. First, any agreement will be better than none as it provides direction and a framework for action. The
specific details of the international agreement are less important than its general features. Second, the international
agreement is likely to have an indirect impact on Los Angeles, in particular because of its importance of climate policy
positions of the United States and the nature of business engagement on the issue. Third, Los Angeles’ influence on the
international policy framework is also rather indirect. Through its leadership position in the C40 network, Los Angeles,
together with London and other global cities, may be affecting the tenor of domestic climate politics in several countries
which will be critical in the make-up of the post-2012 policy framework. In this manner, a non-nation state actor such
as Los Angeles may be significant beyond its jurisdictional realm.
1
2
Bibliography
Bang, G., A. Tjernshaugen and S. Andresen (2005), “Future U.S. Climate Policy: International Re-engagement?”
International Studies Perspective 6, 2, 155-305
Betsill, M. and H. Bulkeley (2007), “Looking Back and Thinking Ahead: A Decade of Cities and Climate Change
Research”, Guest Editorial, Local Environment 12, 5, 447–456
Depledge (2005), “Against the grain: the United States and the global climate change regime”, Global Change, Peace
& Security 17, 1, 11-27
EPA (2008), “Notice of Decision Denying a Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California’s
2009 and subsequent model year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles”,
Federal Register 73, 45
Green LA 2006, A Green Los Angeles, Recommendations to the City of Los Angeles from Green LA, a Working
Group for a Just and Sustainable Future,
http://www.libertyhill.org/common/publications/Greenla/GREENLA_to_print.pdf
Hanemann, M. (2008), “California’s New Greenhouse Gas Laws”, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2,
1, 114–129
Harrison, K. (2007), “The Road not Taken: Climate Change Policy in Canada and the United States”, Global
Environmental Politics 7, 4, 92-117
METRO (2008), “Metro Survey Shows Overwhelming Support for Proposed Half-cent Sales Tax”,
http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/metro_113.htm
Stern, N. (2006) The Stern Review on the economics of climate change HM Treasury, London
Villaraigosa, A., “City of Dreams”, Remarks of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Town Hall Los Angeles, 9
November 2005, http://www.lacity.org/mayor/myrspeeches/mayormyrspeeches280948898_11092005.pdf
1
3
Tyndall Working Paper series
2000 - 2008
The Tyndall Centre working paper series presents results from research which are mature enough to
be submitted to a refereed journal, to a sponsor, to a major conference or to the editor of a book.
The intention is to enhance the early public availability of research undertaken by the Tyndall family
of researchers, students and visitors. They can be downloaded from the Tyndall Website at:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml
The accuracy of working papers and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the author(s)
alone and not the Tyndall Centre.
• Dawson, R.J., et al (2007) Integrated • Klein R.J.T, Erickson S.E.H, Næss L.O,
analysis of risks of coastal flooding Hammill A., Tanner T.M., Robledo, C.,
and cliff erosion under scenarios of O’Brien K.L.,(2007) Portfolio screening
long term change: Tyndall Working to support the mainstreaming of
Paper No. 110 adaptation to climatic change into
development assistance: Tyndall Centre
• Okereke, C., (2007) A review of UK Working Paper 102
FTSE 100 climate strategy and a
framework for more in-depth analysis • Agnolucci P., (2007) Is it going to
in the context of a post-2012 climate happen? Regulatory Change and
regime: Tyndall Centre Working Paper Renewable Electricity: Tyndall Centre
109 Working Paper 101
• Gardiner S., Hanson S., Nicholls R., • Kirk K., (2007) Potential for storage
Zhang Z., Jude S., Jones A.P., et al (2007) of carbon dioxide in the rocks beneath
The Habitats Directive, Coastal the East Irish Sea: Tyndall Centre
Habitats and Climate Change – Case Working Paper 100
Studies from the South Coast of the
• Arnell N.W., (2006) Global impacts of
UK: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 108
abrupt climate change: an initial
• Schipper E. Lisa, (2007) Climate assessment: Tyndall Centre Working
Change Adaptation and Development: Paper 99
Exploring the Linkages: Tyndall Centre
• Lowe T.,(2006) Is this climate porn?
Working Paper 107
How does climate change
• Okereke C., Mann P, Osbahr H, (2007) communication affect our perceptions
Assessment of key negotiating issues and behaviour?, Tyndall Centre Working
at Nairobi climate COP/MOP and what Paper 98
it means for the future of the climate
• Walkden M, Stansby P,(2006) The
regime: Tyndall Centre Working Paper
effect of dredging off Great Yarmouth
No. 106
on the wave conditions and erosion of
• Walkden M, Dickson M, (2006) The the North Norfolk coast. Tyndall Centre
response of soft rock shore profiles to Working Paper 97
increased sea-level rise. : Tyndall
• Anthoff, D., Nicholls R., Tol R S J,
Centre Working Paper 105
Vafeidis, A., (2006) Global and regional
• Dawson R., Hall J, Barr S, Batty M., exposure to large rises in sea-level: a
Bristow A, Carney S, Evans E.P., Kohler J., sensitivity analysis. This work was
Tight M, Walsh C, Ford A, (2007) A prepared for the Stern Review on the
blueprint for the integrated Economics of Climate Change:
assessment of climate change in Tyndall Centre Working Paper 96
cities. : Tyndall Centre Working Paper
104 • Few R., Brown K, Tompkins E. L,
(2006) Public participation and climate
• Dickson M., Walkden M., Hall J., (2007)
Tyndall Working Papers 2000 - 2008
change adaptation, Tyndall Centre implications of sea-level rise. Part 3:
Working Paper 95 wave modelling, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 88
• Barker T., Qureshi M, Kohler J., • Wittneben, B., Haxeltine, A., Kjellen,
(2006) The Costs of Greenhouse Gas B., Köhler, J., Turnpenny, J., and Warren,
Mitigation with Induced Technological R., (2005) A framework for assessing
Change: A Meta-Analysis of Estimates the political economy of post-2012
in the Literature, Tyndall Centre Working global climate regime, Tyndall Centre
Paper 89 Working Paper 80
• Lowe, T., Brown, K., Suraje Dessai, • Peters, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2004)
S., Doria, M., Haynes, K. and Vincent., K Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future II,
(2005) Does tomorrow ever come? Tyndall Centre Working Paper 64
Disaster narrative and public
perceptions of climate change, Tyndall • Few, R., Ahern, M., Matthies, F. and
Centre Working Paper 72 Kovats, S. (2004) Floods, health and
climate change: a strategic review,
• Boyd, E. Gutierrez, M. and Chang, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 63
M. (2005) Adapting small-scale CDM
sinks projects to low-income • Barker, T. (2004) Economic theory
communities, Tyndall Centre Working and the transition to sustainability: a
Paper 71 comparison of
• Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003). • Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K.,
Country level risk measures of Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002).
climate-related natural disasters and Adaptation to climate change: Setting
implications for adaptation to climate the Agenda for Development Policy
change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 26 and Research, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 16
• Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins,
N. and Strbac, G. (2003). An • Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run
investigation of Network Splitting for technical change in an energy-
Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall Centre environment-economy (E3) model for
Working Paper 25 an IA system: A model of Kondratiev
waves, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 15
• Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and
Strbac, G. (2002). Impact of • Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002).
Integrating Renewables and CHP into The Use of Integrated Assessment: An
the UK Transmission Network, Tyndall Institutional Analysis Perspective,
Centre Working Paper 24 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 14
• Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002). • Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M.,
Justice and adaptation to climate (2002). Technological Change,
change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23 Industry Structure and the
Environment, Tyndall Centre Working
• Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T., Paper 13
Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy
and Combined Heat and Power • Dessai, S., (2001). The climate
Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre regime from The Hague to Marrakech:
Working Paper 22 Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12
• Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables
and CHP Deployment in the UK to • Barker, T. (2001). Representing
2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21 the Integrated Assessment of Climate
Change, Adaptation and Mitigation,
• Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11
organisational use of scenarios: Case
study - evaluating UK energy policy • Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley,
options, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 20 S. (2001). Burying Carbon under the
Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public
• Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., Opinions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
(2002). The role of hydrogen in 10
powering road transport, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 19 • Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001).
Climate Dangers and Atoll Countries,
• Watson, J. (2002). The Tyndall Centre Working Paper 9
development of large technical
Tyndall Working Papers 2000 - 2008
• Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital • Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001).
and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre How High are the Costs of Kyoto for
Working Paper 8 the US Economy?, Tyndall Centre
• Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Working Paper 4
Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 7 • Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan,
A. J. (2001). Socio-economic futures in
• Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and climate change impact assessment:
Osborn, T. (2001). The identification using scenarios as 'learning
and evaluation of suitable scenario machines', Tyndall Centre Working Paper
development methods for the 3
estimation of future probabilities of
extreme weather events, Tyndall • Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated
Centre Working Paper 6 Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 2
• Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of
'Adverse Effects and the Impacts of • Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A
Response Measures' in the UNFCCC, Country-by-Country Analysis of Past
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5 and Future Warming Rates, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 1
© Copyright 2008