Transcript Local Climate Change and Energy Saving Initiatives

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 Network
United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG)
Metropolis
European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign
Energie-cités
Eurocities
The Climate Group
Mayors Climate Protection Center
Reset net
Cities Development Initiative for Asia (CDIA)
Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network
C40 Large Cities
(http://www.c40/seoulsummit.com/)
cities alone consume approximately threequarters 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
8,160,552
Beijing, China
15,380,000
Delhi NCT, India
17,000,000
Dhaka, Bangaladesh
6,700,000
Hanoi, Vietnam
3,399,000
Hong Kong, China
6,985,000
Jakarta, Indonesia
8,389,000
Karachi, Pakistan
16,500,000
Mumbai, India
13,000,000
Seoul, South Korea
10,300,000
Shanghai, China
18,450,000
Tokyo, Japan
12,800,000
Asian Cities in ICLEI
China: Shenyang
Taiwan: Kaohsiung, Taipei City, Taipei County
Japan: Aichi Prefecture, Fujisawa, Hiroshima, Hokuto, Itabashi City, Kanagawa
Prefecture, Kasai, 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, Yogyakarta
Philippines: Baguio, Batangas, Bohol Province, Dagupan, General Santos, Iloilo,
Linamon, Makati, Munoz, Muntinlupa, Naga, Puerto Princesa, Quezon, San
Fernando, La Union, San Fernando, Pampanga, Tubigon, Tuguegarao
Thailand: Bangkok, Muangklang, Phuket
Bangladesh: Rajshahi
India: Ahmedabad, All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bhubaneswar,
Coimbatore, Delhi, Greater Visakhapatnam, Guntur, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Jabalpur,
Kalyan Dombivali, Madurai, Mumbai, Nagpur, Rajkot, Shimla, Thane, Vadodara,
Vijayawada
Nepal: Kathmandu, Municipal Association of Nepal, Pokhara
Sri 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