Policy Levers for Sustainability: The Local Level
5 For the purposes of this text, we define local as consisting of dense urban areas. These cities, both large and small, are capable of achieving substantial efficiencies and scale that can enhance the sustainability of built environments. City governments have emerged as laboratories for sustainability and as leaders in designing and implementing sustainability action plans. While environmental performance and sustainable development have been measured at the national level for decades, cities (and some U.S. states and other sub-national regions) are beginning to measure and manage their own impacts. Localities are aggregating sustainability actions at the micro level—in households, local businesses, and municipal operations—and incorporating those measures into strategic policymaking. Adopting sustainability has become central to urban vitality and to making cities desirable places both for businesses and residents. Cities were once considered to be environmentally unfriendly, but now they are turning to sustainable solutions that will attract new residents, stimulate economic growth, and encourage lifestyles based on renewable resources. This chapter describes why innovative, local level policies are growing in the United States. Local initiatives are happening globally, but this chapter will generally (although not exclusively) focus on the United States. We discuss why localities are ideally suited for sustainability planning, including examples of successful city-led sustainability action. Many of these examples are from New York City, the authors’ hometown, which is also one of the best examples of urban revitalization and resiliency when it comes to sustainability. In the U.S. alone, over 83 percent of people live in cities and their surrounding metropolitan areas (NRDC, 2014). Cities are implementing a variety of sustainability plans, programs, and initiatives, from water policies to climate action to resiliency plans. They are increasingly important sustainability agents due to their considerable population size and environmental impact. According to Lamia Kamal-Chaoui and Alexis Robert, “Roughly half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and this share is increasing over time, projected to reach 60 percent by 2030. Cities consume a great majority—between 60 to 80 percent—of energy production worldwide and account for a roughly equal share of global CO2 emissions” (2009, 9). As we noted in Chapter 1, cities directly manage important public services that deal with water and wastewater, solid waste and recycling, public transit, and building and zoning codes. And because we live in an increasingly urban world, city level impacts, when aggregated, become major global impacts. One reason American cities lead on sustainability policy (particularly climate change policies) is that they fill a gap where the federal government has failed to act. More often, they exercise competencies relevant to sustainability strategies, particularly emissions reductions. Cities are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and are reacting to these threats. Municipalities often serve as innovation centers and laboratories for policies. They have also been less ideological on these issues than political actors at the federal level. U.S. local governments have emerged as sustainability leaders in part because national institutions have not. Despite recent energy and climate proposals from the Obama administration in the United States, most notably the greenhouse gas regulations proposed in June 2014, the most significant activity associated with climate change policy has occurred at sub-national levels (Dierwechter, 2010, 60). Local and regional actors in the United States have attempted to “fill the void left by the absence of leadership at the federal level” (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007, 449). While acute in the United States, this policy void is not unique to this country, as many cities throughout the world have taken proactive sustainability action prior to federal mandates—or taken steps that go further than national requirements. Local governments often have greater control over a wide variety of key actions that affect sustainability directly than do state and federal governments. According to James Svara: “City and county governments are uniquely positioned to make a significant contribution to the effort. They are directly involved in providing or regulating many of the human activities that affect resource use, promote economic development, and affect the protection and inclusion of persons from all economic levels and racial and ethnic groups” (Svara, 2011). Cities can influence climate change mitigation and adaptation through their responsibilities over land use zoning, transportation, natural resources management, buildings, and waste and water services. Cities also have significant power over public transportation systems, the built environment, renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, and the sustainability of services delivery (Kamal-Chaoui and Robert, 2009, 11). Mayors and other local officials can set out a vision and then drive an overall policy agenda (Arup and C40 Cities, 2014, 18). Local governments are often more willing to tackle issues like climate change because they deal directly with the consequences illustrated by disasters like 2010’s flooding in Pakistan and heat wave in Moscow, and 2012’s Hurricane Sandy on the U.S. East Coast. According to Jan Corfee-Morlot and her colleagues: “Metropolitan regions are particularly vulnerable to climate change, given their relatively large populations, exposed infrastructure, high degree of economic activity, and concentration of poor populations” (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009, 7). Sea level rise, flooding, and increased storm surges can heavily damage local infrastructure. Most of the largest cities in Europe (70 percent) have neighborhoods that are less than 10 meters above sea level (Kamal-Chaoui and Roberts, 2009, 9). Precipitation changes can also have serious impacts on critical water supplies to urban areas. Further, as climate change begins to take its toll, climate refugees could flood into cities, increasing the strain on local infrastructure. Ellen Bassett and Vivek Shandas have written that cities can create “robust place-based strategies that reflect local biophysical, political, and economic realities rather than needing to conform to federal standards that may not be applicable to each location” (Bassett and Shandas, 2010, 436). Individual municipalities can address challenges and identify opportunities using tools and programs matched to their local needs. Because their policies are implemented at the local scale, cities have more freedom to experiment with policy options and test out different strategies (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009, 11). Finally, political reasons often allow city governments to take greater risks in designing policies and strategies than the federal government. Cities tend to be free from the heightened political polarization seen at the federal level. Local policies typically do not draw the media frenzy that can contribute to the partisan bickering that stagnates progress at the federal level. To paraphrase former New York mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, there is no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage. There are a number of key features that are critical to successful urban sustainability policy: 1) networks for information sharing and partnerships; 2) political support from the top; and 3) holistic policymaking, linking sustainability and the high quality of life that comes with a clean, safe environment to local efforts at economic development. Getting technical knowledge right is a critical foundation for successful sustainability policies. Networks facilitate this type of information exchange. For climate, transnational networks invest heavily in creating tools through which local authorities can create emissions inventories and forecasts, to determine where policy interventions are likely to have the most success (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007, 450). Knowledge sharing provides baseline information and lays the groundwork for important working relationships and partnerships. This interaction allows the experts (scientists, legal and insurance professionals, and risk specialists) to engage with stakeholders and policymakers and benchmark the efforts of other cities (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, 47). One indication of the growing importance of sustainability planning is the sheer number of coalitions that have formed to address sustainability and climate challenges, both domestically and internationally. Climate change provides an excellent example. In Copenhagen in December 2009, while United Nations (UN) talks to negotiate an international climate treaty were disintegrating, the Copenhagen Climate Summit for Mayors delivered calls to action, with cities pledging greenhouse gas reduction targets and offering climate action plans. Climate change is often considered a global issue to be solved by national obligations in international treaties, and yet, as international negotiations remain at a standstill, cities have taken many steps forward. The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group is a strong global coalition on climate change. It is a network of 63 of the world’s megacities (11 in the U.S.) that are taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase urban resilience to address climate change both locally and globally. This network facilitates exchange of information and collaboration across major cities worldwide. The C40 provides technical, project, and purchasing assistance; financial advice; network access; and analytical and measurement tools for cities to lower their GHG emissions (C40 Cities, 2014). Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has played a leadership role in the C40 group, and even after his term as mayor ended, he continued to devote time, energy, and resources to its work. C40 Cities is one of the most wide-reaching networks, but it’s not the only one. The Urban Sustainability Directors Network is a coalition of municipal members that share information, network, and build projects around sustainability. This network was started in 2008 by a small group of sustainability directors, and by 2013 it had 120 members. Members work together to do things like expand funding streams for bike sharing, better integrate climate preparedness into city departments, improve communication about sustainability, and implement best practices for reporting metrics and outcomes (USDN, 2014). Another organization, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), is a network of more than 1,000 cities and local governments around the world. Officials of these cities have signed onto initiatives such as the Resilient Communities for America Agreement and the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The National League of Cities, a membership of 2,000 municipalities of various sizes, contains a Sustainable Cities Institute arm, to give guidance and information to local governments on sustainability issues. These types of coalitions are evidence of the increasing emphasis that cities of all sizes are placing on sustainability planning. Buy-in from prominent leaders at the local level can improve the chances that sustainability plans and goals are implemented. Leadership is needed to take action. The presence of local champions and the political will to address emerging conflicts was a key factor affecting the extent to which the rhetoric of climate policy was translated into local realities (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007, 452). Leadership from city mayors was important in developing climate action plans in New York City, London, Mexico City, Rotterdam, and a host of others. As Ellen Bassett and Vivek Shandas observed: “A political champion appears critical to the decision to plan and, among the climate action plans we reviewed, we found mayors’ names all over the plans, even in their titles, as in Denver or Chattanooga” (Bassett and Shandas, 2010, 441). In the spring of 2013, a group of graduate students in Columbia University’s master’s program in environmental science and policy analyzed sustainability efforts in 30 American cities and 6 cities outside the U.S., specifically examining the impact of political transitions on sustainability initiatives. They found that while these programs might change shape or direction under a new mayor, they nearly always continued and very often advanced to a new stage of institutionalization. So, while a political leader can be important in launching sustainability plans and programs, once established, they often continue their paths, further advancing local initiatives (Earth Institute ESP Workshop Group, Spring 2013, 54). Sustainability programs must compete for local support against economic and social issues, like education and health policy. Cities that most successfully communicate sustainability emphasize the co-benefits that matter to different audiences (such as green job creation, utility-bill savings, green space, or transit availability). Effective programs focus on policy integration, incorporated holistically into broader goals involving other aspects of authority and planning. This means recognizing that the environmental sector alone will not be able to secure climate and other sustainability objectives (Lindseth, 2004, 333). Utilizing a holistic or systems-based approach incorporates the co-benefits that are important to local residents. Linking city transportation infrastructure decisions to public health objectives by creating walking and cycling lanes may create significant co-benefits to human health and traffic congestion. In addition to these local impacts, reductions in traffic and outlays for new roads reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a co-benefit related directly to global climate change (Bai et al., 2010, 130). Cities are beginning to bring elements of sustainability into normal planning operations, and are building roadmaps to achieve sustainable operations and, ultimately, sustainable cities. While they vary by city, one survey identified 12 common sustainability activity areas across U.S. cities: recycling, water conservation, transportation improvements, energy use in transportation, social inclusion, reducing building energy use, local production and green purchasing, land conservation, greenhouse gas reduction, building and land use regulations, workplace alternatives to commuting, and alternative energy generation (Svara et al., 2013, 130). What most of these long-term sustainability plans have in common is the emphasis on the close connection between environmental sustainability and economic development (Geary, 2011, 1). Local leaders see sustainability as critical to long-term growth. They are investing in their future by supporting these efforts. They have taken steps in sustainability as a strategy for financial savings and are explicitly tying sustainability measures into broader economic goals (AIA, 2009, 5; Zborel, 2011, 1). According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, “creating a smart and sustainable city means ultimately attaining a high level of economic efficiency, a high quality of life, a highly desirable place in which to live and do business, and a meaningful commitment to environmental responsibility” (Epstein, 2013). Research has also found that a sustainability approach can be beneficial to every major urban area, rich or poor (Newman, 2006, 293). As of November 2009, 56 cities, towns, and counties in the United States had completed or were in the process of completing a sustainability plan, while 141 had completed or were in the process of completing a climate action plan (ICLEI, 2009). We expect that number has already grown and will continue to grow. According to a survey by Living Cities, a collaboration of 21 large foundations and financial institutions, four out of five cities are reporting that sustainability is among their top five priorities, with over half of the large cities surveyed in some stage of a sustainability planning process (Living Cities, 2009). Portland and Seattle were among the first cities in the United States to tackle issues of climate change and sustainability. In the early 1990s Portland recognized the importance of slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases and participated with other local governments around the world in the Urban CO2 Reduction Project, coordinated by ICLEI (City of Portland, 1993). In 1994, Seattle issued a comprehensive sustainability plan called Toward a Sustainable Seattle, to become a more healthy and vibrant city (City of Seattle, 2014). San Francisco started a sustainability planning process in 1995. Sustainable San Francisco is a collaboration of city agencies, including the Planning Department, Recreation and Parks Department, Solid Waste Management Program, Energy Conservation, and businesses, environmental organizations, elected officials, and residents. This team developed goals, objectives, and actions modeled after the European Community’s Agenda 21 Implementation Plan. The Sustainability Plan was finalized in 1997, and acted as a blueprint for actions the city could implement on a regulatory or legislative level; an environmental department was formed to oversee implementation of the plan (Sustainable City, 2014). Denver was one of the first cities to link sustainable and economic development. Sustainability planning in Denver began in 2005 when the Mayor signed a nationwide pledge under the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. When Denver hosted the 2008 Democratic National Convention (DNC), it announced that it would be the greenest DNC ever. These greening efforts were housed in the mayor’s office within the Greenprint Denver Office, established by an executive order (Geary, 2011, 2). The city’s experience with the DNC was able to demonstrate that sustainable practices were good for both the community and for businesses, which eased the transition into green economic development after the convention ended (Geary, 2011, 3). New York City’s PlaNYC 2030 is one of the most notable sustainability plans in the nation. It was developed in response to projections that the city would house another million residents by 2030. Michael Bloomberg, mayor at the time, understood that the city needed to act immediately to initiate plans to accommodate this growth while ensuring NYC remained an attractive place to live and do business. Created in 2006, the NYC Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability brought together more than 20 city agencies to develop PlaNYC 2030’s 10 overarching goals and 127 initiatives to address issues of land use, parks and open space, affordable housing, transportation, air and water quality, energy supply and demand, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Since its release in 2007, PlaNYC has been upheld as a global model for best practices. Some of the key factors in the success of the plan included: New York City’s sustainability agency, the Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, was institutionalized in the city charter through a new local law, which also requires that the office issue both an updated sustainability plan every four years and annual progress updates (City of New York, 2013, 410). PlaNYC has contributed to achieving New York City’s cleanest air in 50 years, planting over 750,000 new trees, and passing the city’s halfway mark of reducing GHG emissions 30 percent by 2030. Cities have focused their limited resources on energy efficiency infrastructure and practices and increased use of renewable energy. These urban energy initiatives tend to be practical and operational, with a focus on short-term results. Increasing energy efficiency reduces energy consumption and saves money. For example, cities can upgrade incandescent signal and traffic lights with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and also develop plans to optimize the timing of traffic signals (C40 Cities, 2011b). LEDs are brighter and last longer than incandescent bulbs, so they require fewer replacements, and save money on both electricity and maintenance costs. Chicago initiated an LED traffic-light program, installing new lighting at 2,900 intersections. Chicago projected this program would generate $2.55 million annually in energy savings and reduce yearly carbon dioxide emissions by 23,000 metric tons (C40 Cities, 2011b). Similarly, Los Angeles (LA) retrofitted over 140,000 streetlights with LED bulbs (City of Los Angeles, 2012). This project will save the city over $7 million annually. The project was made possible by collaboration between the LA mayor’s office, the Bureau of Street Lighting, C40 Climate Group, and the Clinton Climate Initiative. This partnership proved to be particularly important in providing technological and financial advice and public-private implementation models (City of Los Angeles, 2012). The project cost was funded primarily through a loan from the LA Department of Water and Power, which will be paid back through cost savings from the project itself. PlaNYC 2030, New York City’s long-term sustainability plan, specifically targets energy efficiency in large existing buildings. In 2009, the city released the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, an effort that covered 15,000 buildings in the city. These large buildings consumed 45 percent of all energy used by New York City buildings and accounted for 74 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions (City of New York, 2014). The plan projected greenhouse gas reductions of 5 percent, a savings of $7 billion, and the creation of more than 17,000 jobs over 10 years (City of New York, 2014). The plan was institutionalized through a series of four local laws, which require energy benchmarking, energy audits and retro-commissioning, and sub-metering. These laws were only one part of New York City’s broader efficiency strategy. In 2008, then-mayor Michael Bloomberg asked the Urban Green Council, the New York chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, to make recommendations on how to make the city’s codes and regulations more sustainable. The New York City Green Codes Task Force included architects, corporate tenants, public health experts, city agencies, and environmental organizations. Their 2010 report made 111 recommendations for changes in the city code; 48 were incorporated into local laws and practices (UGC, 2014). Zone Green amendments were proposed in 2012 by the Department of City Planning based on recommendations from the Green Codes Task Force. Building owners who wanted to install solar panels had faced obstacles such as building height requirements and area-of-insulation requirements; Zone Green amendments removed many obstacles faced in the construction and retrofitting of green buildings (NYC Department of City Planning, 2014). Zone Green supports technologies such as energy efficient building walls, which can better insulate buildings and reduce heating and cooling demands; sun control devices and awnings to reduce cooling and lighting demand; solar energy installations in strategic areas; eased bulkhead rooftop provisions to allow for more equipment to be placed on roofs; and wind turbines that can exceed building height (Larsen, 2012). In 2003, the mayor of Boston and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) formed a task force to study how to encourage green building practices; the group released a set of recommendations under Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code (AIA, 2009, 36). These zoning code changes were an important policy change to encourage greener practices in both commercial and residential buildings. The Boston Redevelopment Authority is now required to review the design of real estate developments and their effects on the community and city. In 2006, Boston became the first major city to require new buildings larger than 50,000 square feet to earn a certain number of construction points from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (BRA, 2014, 5). LEED is a nationally recognized green building certification program that assigns ratings to buildings based on certain criteria. The Boston building amendments also encouraged green building materials as part of an affordable housing program (AIA, 2009, 37). And, since 2013, all projects subject to Article 80 reviews are now required to complete a climate change preparedness and resiliency checklist (BRA, 2013). Seattle is considered a leader in green building programs, particularly for residential buildings (AIA, 2009, 15). In 2000, its High Point neighborhood was one of the first communities in the nation to incorporate sustainable design techniques on a neighborhood-wide scale (AIA, 2009, 58). These standards were rare at the time, but the basic principles used in this pilot neighborhood—such as eliminating lead paint, asbestos, and other harmful materials—are now much more widely incorporated in urban sustainability planning. Seattle also had a green building team as early as 1999, which eventually joined with the Office of Sustainability and Environment in 2012 to combine urban sustainability policy development with the permit and code development functions (C40 Cities, 2011e). Globally, we see similar trends. In 2003, the city of Melbourne, Australia, set an ambitious goal of having net-zero emissions in the city by 2020, and has devoted significant resources to influence improvements in commercial sector buildings, which generate a little over half of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions (City Climate Leadership Awards, 2014). In 2010, Melbourne released the 1200 Buildings Program, which provides a platform for building owners and industry stakeholders to engage and collaborate on the retrofit of 1,200 commercial buildings (approximately 70 percent of the total). The goals of the program include: eliminating 383,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually by 2020; reducing potable water consumption by 5 billion liters (1.32 billion gallons) annually; raising AUD $2 billion in private sector investment; creating green jobs; and positioning Melbourne as a leader in global climate change efforts (NYC Global Partners, 2011, 1). Since the beginning of the 1200 Buildings Program, 43 buildings owned by corporations, private business, government, and nonprofits have committed to undertaking these retrofits.
Policy Levers for Sustainability
The Local Level
Introduction
Why Cities?
Why Are Cities Taking the Lead in Sustainability?
What Makes City Efforts So Successful?
Networks for Sustainability
High-Level Political Support
Sustainability as a Driver of Economic Growth
The Growth of Sustainability Plans in the United States
Urban Energy Initiatives
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Encouraging Renewable Energy