explaining local commitment to climate change policy in the united states samuel d. brody, texas a...
TRANSCRIPT
Explaining Local Commitment Explaining Local Commitment to Climate Change Policy in to Climate Change Policy in
the United Statesthe United StatesSamuel D. Brody, Texas A & M University Samuel D. Brody, Texas A & M University
Sammy Zahran, Himanshu Grover & Arnold VedlitzSammy Zahran, Himanshu Grover & Arnold Vedlitz
Environmental Planning and Sustainability Research UnitEnvironmental Planning and Sustainability Research UnitHazard Reduction and Recovery Center Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center
Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning Texas A & M University Texas A & M University
Microsoft Office Outlook.lnk
Role of Local JurisdictionsRole of Local Jurisdictions
Internet sources of Photographs : http://tiki.oneworld.net; http://www.foe.co.uk; http://www.oxfam.org.uk ; http://news.bbc.co.uk ; http://www.asahi.com ; http://www.ucar.edu
Cities for Climate ProtectionCities for Climate Protection
Launched in 1993 International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
More than 691 local governments globally
112 U.S. localities joined the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)
10 local governments in Florida
Localities recognize climate change as significant local concern
Conduct an energy and emissions inventory and forecast
Establish an emissions target
Develop and obtain approval for the Local Action Plan
Implement policies and measures
Monitor and verify results
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
Counties Party to the CCP Counties Party to the CCP CampaignCampaign
Four Reasons Not to Join CCPFour Reasons Not to Join CCP
Reducing local emissions will not fully insulate a locality Reducing local emissions will not fully insulate a locality from the adverse transboundary effectsfrom the adverse transboundary effects
The costs of climate change mitigation may be greater than The costs of climate change mitigation may be greater than the expected benefitsthe expected benefits
The collective benefits of climate protection are non-The collective benefits of climate protection are non-excludableexcludable
No federal mandate or assistance for the implementation of No federal mandate or assistance for the implementation of climate change protection programsclimate change protection programs
Why would a U.S. locality commit to the CCP campaign Why would a U.S. locality commit to the CCP campaign when there are strong incentives to do otherwise? when there are strong incentives to do otherwise?
Place as a Source of Selective Place as a Source of Selective IncentivesIncentives
Selective incentives to participate in the CCP Selective incentives to participate in the CCP campaign spring from two major sources:campaign spring from two major sources:
1) 1) The extent to which a locality is vulnerable to the The extent to which a locality is vulnerable to the risks of climate change and variabilityrisks of climate change and variability
2) 2) The socioeconomic capacity of or opportunity for The socioeconomic capacity of or opportunity for a a locality to commit to emission reduction targetslocality to commit to emission reduction targets
Climate Change Risk Climate Change Risk IncentivesIncentives
Coastal proximity and sea level riskCoastal proximity and sea level risk
Expected temperature changeExpected temperature change
Extreme weather eventsExtreme weather events
Socioeconomic Capacity Socioeconomic Capacity IncentivesIncentives
Carbon intensive activities and industriesCarbon intensive activities and industries
Political and civic compositionPolitical and civic composition
Environmental concernEnvironmental concern
Factors Influencing CCP Factors Influencing CCP AdoptionAdoption
Climate Change Risk Variables Extreme Weather Casualties Temperature Change Coastal County
Socioeconomic Capacity Variables Net Percent Democrat Percent Recycled Percent Solar Use Non-Profit Environmental Groups Carbon Emissions Per Capita Percent Carbon Employment
Control Variables Percent Urban Percent College Educated
Drivers of Climate Change Drivers of Climate Change PolicyPolicy
Climate Change Risk Variables Extreme Weather Casualties Temperature Change Coastal County
Socioeconomic Variables Net Percent Democrat Percent Solar Energy Percent Recycled Non-Profit Environmental Groups Carbon Emissions Per Capita Percent Carbon Employment (-)
Control Variables Percent Urban Percent College Educated
Drivers of Climate Change Policy
• Coastal county (percent of land area in coastal
watershed) is 81.7% more likely to commit to the CCP
• Increase in casualties increases the probability of CCP involvement by 43.7%
• For every projected degree Celsius increase in temperature there is a 26 % increase in the odds of CCP commitment
Drivers of Climate Change Policy
• County almost 3 times more likely to join the CCP for every additional environmental non-profit
• Unit increase in carbon intensive industries decreases the odds of CCP enactment by 44 %
• Unit change in the risk and opportunity factors corresponds to approximately a 90 % increase in the likelihood of joining the CCP campaign
Geography of Climate Geography of Climate Change RiskChange Risk
Legend
-1.45945 - -0.64479
-0.64478 - -0.37238
-0.37237 - -0.06522
-0.06521 - 0.49810
0.49811 - 20.74817
±0 190 380 570 76095
Miles
Geography of Socio-economic Geography of Socio-economic Capacity Capacity
Legend
-8.13260 - -0.74191
-0.74190 - -0.30012
-0.30011 - 0.07238
0.07239 - 0.64926
0.64927 - 9.03097
±0 190 380 570 76095
Miles
Scatter Plot of Risk and Scatter Plot of Risk and Capacity by CCP Status Capacity by CCP Status
-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Structural Readiness Dimension
-10.00
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Ris
k D
imen
sion
CCP Status
Non-Committed
Committed
Socioeconomic Capacity Dimension
Conclusions and Policy Conclusions and Policy ImplicationsImplications
Decisions makers appear sensitive to physical risks of Decisions makers appear sensitive to physical risks of climate changeclimate change
Socioeconomic make-up of a jurisdiction is a primary Socioeconomic make-up of a jurisdiction is a primary motivator of adoptionmotivator of adoption
CCP Recruitment opportunity: High-High quadrant as CCP Recruitment opportunity: High-High quadrant as “low hanging fruit”“low hanging fruit”
Regional Hotspots of Climate Risk
Regional Hotspots of Climate Stress
Regional Hotspots of Climate Opportunity
Conclusions and Policy Implications
• Confluence of high risk-low stress-high opportunity characteristics offers greatest potential for CCP recruitment
• CCP participation may rest more on civic composition and perceptions than physical reality
• Visible disconnect between climate change stressor communities and those most vulnerable to adverse impacts
• Hotspot maps reveal regional boundaries for potential collaboration
Scatter Plot of Risk and Scatter Plot of Risk and Capacity by CCP Status Capacity by CCP Status
-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Structural Readiness Dimension
-10.00
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Ris
k D
imen
sion
CCP Status
Non-Committed
Committed
Socioeconomic Capacity Dimension
Scatter Plot of Risk and Capacity Scatter Plot of Risk and Capacity by CCP Status- Floridaby CCP Status- Florida
Florida High Risk-High Capacity Counties
Alachua & Marion vs. FL
Alachua vs. Marion
Climate Change Risk
CC RiskNational Rank
CC RiskFlorida Rank
AlachuaCounty
0.43674 676 / 3146 62nd
Marion County 1.60220 147 / 3146 21st
Climate ChangeCapacity
CC CapacityNational Rank
CC CapacityFlorida Rank
AlachuaCounty
2.01920 99 / 3146 4th
Marion County 0.67482 606 / 3146 33rd
Alachua County
• Compared to U.S.: high risk, high capacity, low stress
• Compared to FL: less risk, high capacity, less stress
• Compared to Marion: less risk, more capacity, less stress
Marion County
• Compared to U.S.: high risk, high capacity, low stress
• Compared to FL: less risk, less capacity, more stress
• Compared to Alachua: more risk, less capacity, more stress
Policy Options
• Mitigation = transportation sector• Mitigation not as important as adaptation• Need regional and super-regional collaboration• Adaptation strategies are priority
– Protect vulnerable areas (wetlands, floodplains)– Protect vulnerable populations– Relocation and in-migration– Structural techniques– Education programs– Land use/comprehensive planning– Visualization/decision support systems
http://epsru.tamu.edu
Research supported by the U.S. National Oceanic Research supported by the U.S. National Oceanic
Atmospheric AdministrationAtmospheric Administration & the Institute for Science, & the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy at Texas A&M UniversityTechnology and Public Policy at Texas A&M University