Search

Problem: Basing local climate action plans on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories has become standard practice for communities that want to address the problem of climate change. Communities use GHG emissions inventories to develop policy despite the fact that there has been little theoretical work on the implications of the assumptions embedded within them. Purpose: We identify elements and assumptions in emissions inventories that have important policy implications for climate action plan formulation, aiming to help planners make informed, defensible choices, and to refine future GHG emissions inventory protocols and climate action planning methods. Methods: We conducted a content analysis of 30 city climate action plans selected as a stratified random sample. We collected data on 70 different factors and used summary and trend statements, typologies, and descriptive statistics to link our findings to our research questions. Results and conclusions: Climate action plans obviously vary in many details, but most contain all of the core GHG emissions elements suggested in common protocols. We found GHG emissions inventories to be technically accurate but found their reduction targets to fall short of international targets. We also found exogenous change and uncertainty to be unaccounted for in emissions forecasts and reduction targets. The plans generally do a poor job of linking mitigation actions to reduction targets. Takeaway for practice: GHG emissions inventories supporting climate action planning are reasonably standardized, but documentation of data and assumptions should be improved and GHG reduction targets should be justified. The effect of future changes that are beyond the direct control of the community plan should be accounted for in GHG emissions forecasts and reduction targets. Rapid anticipated population growth should be acknowledged and taken into account, both in GHG emissions forecasts and in setting reduction targets. Effects of mitigation may be difficult to predict reliably, yet can be partly offset by effective monitoring that evaluates progress and changes course when necessary. Research support: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problem: In the absence of U.S. federal action to address the problem of climate change, a diverse array of nonfederal policy entrepreneurs and climate action planners has produced an impressive body of plans and policies to fight climate change at the regional, state, and local levels. Their actions are highly laudable, but have they actually reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? Purpose: This article evaluates the work of a group of innovative state-level policy entrepreneurs whose actions were chronicled by Barry Rabe, and a set of 29 state climate action plans systematically analyzed by Stephen Wheeler. It compares states with and without climate policy entrepreneurs and states with and without climate action plans, asks if either plans or entrepreneurs have been successful in reducing CO2 emissions, and identifies the elements within plans that are associated with the greatest reductions. Methods: The analysis uses multiple regression models to explain changes in per capita CO2 emissions attributable to residential, commercial, transportation, and total nonindustrial end users from 1990 to 2007. A package of control variables accounts for political, social, climatic, economic, and urban form factors, while policy variables isolate the effects of climate policy entrepreneurs, climate action planners, and specific policy recommendations within climate action plans. Results and conclusions: State-level climate actions reduce GHG emissions by a measurable but modest amount: about one half metric ton per person per year. This represents 2-3% of the average American's 24-ton annual total GHG emissions. The reduction is small in comparison to the magnitude of the problem, but a substantial tax increase or population shift away from sprawling areas would be necessary to achieve the same reduction. Specific policies I find to be associated with lower emissions include: building efficiency in both residential and commercial sectors, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) policies in the commercial sector, and California's vehicle efficiency standards in the transportation sector. Takeaway for practice: It is encouraging that we can already identify emission reductions related to state climate action. However, the observed reductions remain small com-pared to the scope of the problem. These findings should persuade states without plans to begin the planning process while encouraging states with plans to encourage more entrepreneurship aimed at developing a second generation of policy options for stabilizing our planet's climate with or without federal action. Research support: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]