Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal

Emerald Article: US environmental governance and local climate change mitigation policies: California's story Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen

Article information:
To cite this document: Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen, (2011),"US environmental governance and local climate change mitigation policies: California's story", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss: 3 pp. 317 329 Permanent link to this document: Downloaded on: 11-12-2012 References: This document contains references to 16 other documents To copy this document: This document has been downloaded 321 times since 2011. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *
Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen, (2011),"US environmental governance and local climate change mitigation policies: California's story", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss: 3 pp. 317 - 329 Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen, (2011),"US environmental governance and local climate change mitigation policies: California's story", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss: 3 pp. 317 - 329 Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen, (2011),"US environmental governance and local climate change mitigation policies: California's story", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss: 3 pp. 317 - 329

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH PACIFIC For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit for more information. About Emerald With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

and development of community input processes and planning committee membership and structure. Design/methodology/approach – The research: analyses documents relating to localities’ climate change mitigation planning activities. and relationships with other sub-state entities working on climate change mitigation. 3.htm US environmental governance and local climate change mitigation policies California’s story Lauren C. the authors found that even the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) must work continuously and with imperfect data to compile a list of the state’s local-level mitigation planning general plan elements. decentralized collaboration does not prevent.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www. state and local. USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate local climate change mitigation planning in California with the goal of understanding how the relationships between the state. the local air agencies. or official resolutions supporting mitigation planning. 22 No. the lack of a national Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal Vol.emeraldinsight. Kentucky. It also involves measurement and descriptive analysis of variables capturing: local air agencies’ institutional character. and localities’ mitigation planning processes and policies. Heberle and Isabella M. Global warming. Practical implications – Findings might enable advocates of local-level climate change mitigation planning to target their resources for maximal returns in terms of geographic policy coverage and pledged GHG emissions reductions.1108/14777831111122897 . This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge of local planning policy innovations in California and highlights the importance of leadership from the regional scale for city-level engagement with mitigation planning. 2011 pp. policy harmonization through localities’ widespread reliance on the technical assistance from specialized non-governmental organizations. Economic planning Paper type Research paper US environmental governance 317 Received 21 May 2010 Revised 30 October 2010 Accepted 20 December 2010 1. Theoretically. establishment of partnerships with other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Louisville. Christensen University of Louisville. In fact. Furthermore. and the potential solutions to. institutional and demographic characteristics. Findings – Intergovernmental partnerships can powerfully impact localities’ technical and financial capacities for pursuing climate change mitigation planning. orientation regarding climate change policymaking. national. Originality/value – Climate change mitigation planning in the USA is in a formative stage. and the localities within their jurisdictions shape the willingness and capacity of local communities to plan for climate change mitigation through greenhouse gas emissions reduction. 317-329 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1477-7835 DOI 10. Governance. Introduction The causes of. including the production of action plans. In the United States. and may encourage. This exploratory study points to the potential for strong leadership by air quality control agencies to greatly influence the decision of localities within their jurisdictions to engage in voluntary mitigation planning. Keywords Climate change. United States of America. this study contributes to discussions on the relationship between the quality of policy outputs and various forms of environmental governance. emissions inventories. climate change involve governments on every level – global. and mitigation planning activities and programs.

CARB can monitor and regulate GHG emissions in several ways: by developing reporting requirements for GHG emissions. and strategies for achieving GHG emissions reductions. state and sub-state institutions in addressing climate change has thrown these institutions and their relationships to one another into a state of flux and creative disharmony. On one hand. How do the relationships between the state. CARB monitors the regulatory activity of California’s 35 local air quality agencies (see Figure 1). CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) as its AB 32 compliance framework (CARB. in large part. with every locality in the state under the jurisdiction of one of California’s 35 air agencies (see Figure 1). that together create a governance model in which the state air pollution regulatory agency enjoys not only considerable control over the allocation of state funds for local air pollution control activities but also a final say in local land use planning. and the localities within their jurisdictions shape the local communities’ willingness and capacity to plan for climate change and green house gas reduction or mitigation? California provides an ideal context for studying local-level variations in mitigation planning. NGO access is even throughout the state. following a number of public workshops and comment periods. 2006. California is now pursuing internal policy coherency by utilizing increasingly tough legislation as well as generous incentive systems to influence the policy agendas of its sub-state governments. the local air agencies. the localities experience the same larger economic and political context. Background The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in September. 2. and by meeting numerous strategy adoption and emissions reductions interim deadlines. These variations permit us to analyze the impact of inter-governmental relationships and local capacity on the production of local climate change policy. 2008). California continues to strengthen its leadership position in the national climate change mitigation policy arena. and local air agencies have varying areas of expertise and capacity. and the institutional relationships are dense.MEQ 22. One the other hand. or just AB 32. California provides important variation: localities have differentiated political and economic characters. One clear example of this strategy is the landmark AB 32 and its companion bill. Complicating the situation further is the fact that the form and function of environmental governance vary across US local governments depending. 2008. In December. the law establishes state greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals (1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050) and charges the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with identifying and implementing the measures for achieving these reductions within a specified timeframe. by devising rules. Known as Assembly Bill 32. regulations. it offers consistency: the state actively supports policy innovations at the sub-state levels. Each of the air local districts has statutory authority under federal law (the Clean Air Act enables local agencies to regulate local stationary air pollution sources) and under state law (the Mulford-Carrell Air Resources Act provides local air . having positioned itself as an environmental policy innovator among the US states.3 318 framework specifying the roles of federal. local air agencies and localities have the freedom to opt in or out of climate change planning. on the scope of state-granted authorities and the capacities of the city and county governments. SB 375.

although they are primarily concerned with stationary sources. furthermore. including automobiles” (CAPCOA. Location of California’s 35 local air districts districts with primary responsibility for controlling non-vehicular sources of air pollution). 2010).US environmental governance 319 Figure 1. “local districts do have authority to implement control measures which affect transportation sources. The California Air .

and the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords. Local government leaders are also uniquely positioned to influence citizen behaviors – their transportation options. Given the lack of a defined role for the local air agencies. 2010) claims that “local governments are integral to the success of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)” because: Local governments control the day-to-day activities that determine the amount of energy used and waste generated as well as the long-term planning for the community – from land use and zoning decisions to control over building codes and licenses. others dispense multi-million dollar loans to encourage and support local governments to engage in GHG mitigation planning. and technical and financial capacities of the district. 2010). monitoring. California’s state and regional organizations have taken numerous actions to ease the administrative. rule propagation for emissions control. municipal service delivery and management of schools. both in their internal operations and in their outreach efforts to other agencies and governmental units is to be expected. CARB. the California Climate Action Registry. Hundreds of these localities have committed to climate change mitigation planning by becoming signatory members of non-binding emissions reductions agreements such as the US Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (USCMCPA). infrastructure investment. The authors ask how the air agencies’ policy positions interact with the interests and efforts of other sub-state entities. None of the agencies is required to monitor or control stationary sources of GHG emissions: neither AB 32 nor the Scoping Plan has (yet) articulated any responsibilities of local air agencies in GHG regulation. and ICLEI (The Climate Registry. historical experience of the agency (considerable in the case of the Butte County Air Quality Management District which dates from 1967 and formative in the case of Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District which splintered from the South Coast Air Quality Management District in 1997). planning and research. a tool to help local governments inventory and report municipal GHG emissions that was jointly created by the Climate Registry. the extreme variation in the extent to which the individual agencies have voluntarily developed policies and programs to address GHG emissions. despite the interest among local governments in mitigation planning. . the Local Governments for Sustainability (or ICLEI. for example). outreach and compliance enforcement (CAPCOA. relatively few of California’s well-intentioned localities have translated voluntary GHG reduction commitments into comprehensive policy or hard action. California has 58 counties and 480 incorporated cities.MEQ 22. energy consumption patterns and general consumer decisions (ICLEI. This is particularly vexing since local-level interest in mitigation planning is well-supported by California’s leadership. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) Cities and Counties for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign. 2010b). Certainly. technical and financial burdens of mitigation planning on localities. Unfortunately. ICLEI (2010a) (AB 32 and Local Governments. 2009). 2010). One example is the Local Government Operations Protocol. parks and recreation areas. an acronym crafted from the organization’s former name.3 320 Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) lists local agencies’ activities as permitting. While some do not even mention climate change on their web sites. every one of which is located within a local air agency jurisdiction (League of California Cities. The precise program of activities varies by agency according to jurisdiction air quality issues (which differ for rural and urban areas.

2009). the county must perform an inventory of current and projected GHG emissions. 2009 list. As a result. In addition to noting the general characteristics of California’s local mitigation policies. a group of so-called “climate change lawsuits” have utilized the reductions targets established by AB 32 in concert with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). amend the general plan update to reflect mitigation planning. as the following discussion makes clear. SB 375 further requires that: funding decisions for regional transportation projects be internally consistent with the strategy. California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed such a suit against San Bernardino County. to challenge decisions by sub-state actors that can be expected to increase GHG emissions and therefore require mitigation plans. localities that are not independently motivated to pursue mitigation planning are wooed and even forced into the fold by state actions. In essence. create and implement a stand-alone GHG Reduction Plan. A less litigious yet equally bold strategy for achieving local action in support of state emissions reductions goals is Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) which requires some of the state’s metropolitan planning organizations to create a so-called Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that will “align regional transportation. this discussion explores whether the localities that are actively creating or executing a . Recent history has demonstrated that. SB 375 ties state transportation funding decisions to land use and links regional planning efforts for transportation and housing. housing. and establish reduction targets and mitigation actions to address GHG emissions “attributable to the County’s discretionary land use decisions and internal government operations” (Marten Law. the state environmental review statue. charging that the county’s comprehensive land use plan update failed to quantify and mitigate GHG emissions or “explain how population growth predicted under the plan would impact the State’s ability to attain the GHG reduction targets” established by AB 32. it is possible to use a number of pieces of state legislation to effectively limit local autonomy where local actions threatens to interfere with the state’s emissions reductions goals.. although 75 percent reported some sort of climate change work in progress. 2007). 2009.Furthermore. In an extreme example. 2009). This report also states that localities cite lack of clarity on the state level as a principal reason for delaying the creation of a mitigation plan (Hanak et al. while California legislation does not mandate local action to reduce GHG emissions. the situation is even less dynamic than OPR’s list might suggest. In fact. Attorney General Brown has given other formal comments under CEQA to several other localities (Office of the Attorney General.. Local governments will play an important role in designing and meeting these requirements in their land use and transportation plans (City of Santa Monica. US environmental governance 321 Despite the many state-level strategies and the apparent interest of local governments. and land use plans to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled and thus attain the regional GHG reduction target” (Garrett et al. The next section closely examines the localities on OPR’s October 30. only 43 localities claimed a GHG reduction policy or program. The list of sub-state governments engaged in climate change planning compiled for and by OPR indicates that. In addition. 2008). California’s localities have been slow to generate climate change mitigation policies and programs. The Public Policy Institute of California published the results of a 2008 survey of cities and counties that found that only 7 percent of the responding 280 cities and 30 counties had a completed plan. as of October 30. Similarly. 2007).

Additionally. The data are therefore limited to those localities that have a web presence and reflect the extent to which relevant information was made available to the online public. 2009).000) (State of California. motivated by internal and unique sets of characteristics or circumstances. 2009. and other state and federal agencies as needed. 2009). A majority (60 percent) of the cities operates under a charter while the remainder formed under general law. There are several data and methodological limitations that merit discussion. air agency data were current as of October 2009. various institutional characteristics of the localities. in other words. (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. US Census Bureau.3 mitigation plan are anomalies. more importantly. but is not comprehensive”. 2009 revision of OPR’s list of “plans and initiatives adopted by California cities and counties to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” (see Figure 2) (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. the non-random sample is drawn from a list of cities and counties that is conservative. First. the majority of the cities in the dataset were incorporated under their own charter rather than under state laws. varying data collection timeframes. Using the websites of the 43 localities. 322 . Most of the localities (53. all of the data for this study were collected from a locality or agency web site. Finally.1 percent have a city council – city manager form of government. 4. 2010 in order to capture the last full month preceding the change of administration accompanying President Obama’s inauguration. 72. charter cities “have broader powers to enact land use regulations than do general law cities” (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. the 35 air agencies. the authors examine the localities’ mitigation planning documents.5 percent) are urban areas that meet the US Census classification for a Metropolitan Statistical Area (having a population of more than 50. and the relationship of the localities to their local air agencies. Data and methods The 43 cases in this study include the 37 cities and six counties from the October 30. there are several. 2009). Population Division. Except where otherwise noted. only those localities that responded to OPR’s request for information are included in the sample.MEQ 22. 3. GHG inventories. The authors did not randomly survey California’s 480 cities and 58 counties to determine the prevalence of climate change planning since the response was anticipated to be similar to that obtained by the OPR. which described its list as representative “of local government plans. like San Luis Obispo which had completed and publicly presented a GHG inventory draft that apparently did not ask to be named on OPR’s list despite meeting the requirements for inclusion (City of San Luis Obispo. Locality characteristics Of the 43 local governments that reported climate change planning activities and policies. or beneficiaries of an effective and replicable governance model. while locality information (including plans and policies details and demographic and political information) was compiled as of January 1. 2005). when the OPR published its list revision. The authors are aware of several more. 2010). All of California’s largest cities are charter cities and.

US environmental governance 323 Figure 2. Spatial distribution of studied localities and local air districts 5. technical assistance means knowledge of climate change science and policy or expertise with emissions . (Herein. Network characteristics The authors are interested in the context in which these plans have developed and whether localities accessed external resources in the form of technical or financial assistance during the mitigation planning process.

stand-alone agencies that are not located within a larger municipal department or agency. therefore.0 324 Table I. (Of the remaining 23 air agencies not included in this analysis. the following discussion examines localities’ connections to their state and sub-state air agencies.1 Connections to air agencies A total of 12 of California’s 35 air agency jurisdictions are represented in this data set.3 quantification or other planning software. The remaining 21 localities are distributed among the other 11 air agency jurisdictions. the authors classify these counties and their plans as belonging to air district jurisdictions that are distinct from the South Coast and Bay Area districts.3 4.2 2. and programmatic autonomy. Thus.7 4. While it is possible that the more proactive air districts (South Coast in the case of San Bernardino County and Bay Area in the case of Sonoma County) influenced these counties to engage in mitigation planning. though there is significant variation across plans produced within the BAAQMD jurisdiction. the clustering indicates that special attention should be paid to BAAQMD and SCAQMD (see Figure 2 and Table I). economic. external NGOs and. they enjoy a certain amount of political.) The majority of the 12 air agencies had (as of February 2010) established internal policies to mitigate emissions from their own operations and facilities. 5.3 percent (four) of the localities received technical assistance from Air district jurisdiction Bay area Mendocino County Monterey Bay unified North Coast unified Sacramento Metro San Diego County San Joaquin Valley unified Santa Barbara County South Coast Yolo-Solano Mojave/South Coast Bay Area/Northern Sonoma Total F 22 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 7 1 1 1 43 % 51.3 16.3 2. Interestingly. nine are located within a municipal department and 14 are independent.7 2.3 2. Local or county plans within air district jurisdictions . in the case of cities. In addition.7 4. Two of our 43 cases are counties that each straddles two air agency districts: San Bernardino County crosses the Mohave and South Coast Air Districts and Sonoma County crosses the Bay Area and Northern Sonoma Air Districts. their counties.3 100.7 2.MEQ 22.3 4. with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) containing the next highest number of localities with plans (seven). there is no evidence to support this idea. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) contains the majority of the studied localities (22). only 9. The 12 air agencies included in this data set are all independent. This clustering effect presents a problem for analyzing variation across air agency jurisdictions.) Therefore. 86 percent (37) of the 43 localities fall within the jurisdiction of an air agency that advertised a formal policy or program providing outreach and support to localities engaged in mitigation planning. Importantly.3 2.

0 0 0. while the air agencies seemingly have good experience with establishing internal policies.2 Connections to other sub-state entities The data used for this study do not indicate whether localities made use of county climate change outreach programs. The contradiction here is that. Air district climate change planning resources Not complete Plan status Complete N/A Total Home county offers a climate change mitigation program? No Count 8 % within plan status 44.0 0 0.8 37 100. and only 23.0 Table II. it does not appear that localities are receiving technical assistance from their air agencies. the authors note that 21 of the 37 cities with climate programs or plans in the sample were located in counties with a climate change outreach program and five of the six counties in the sample offered outreach to the cities within their boundaries.4 In process Count % within plan status Yes Count % within plan status Total Count % within plan status 1 5.6 9 50.0 4 25.3 percent (ten) of the localities received financial assistance from their air agencies. 75 percent were located in counties with a climate change outreach program (see Table III). Most (81.0 86. of those cities that completed plans as of January 2010.3 18. and the UN Urban Environmental Agenda. 5. The majority of the localities are signatory members of GHG reduction programs sponsored by organizations like ICLEI.0 15 40.0 3 100.0 0.0 18 100.0 0 0. Status of plan by existence of climate change outreach program in Home County .6 100. with 6 of these in the BAAQMD jurisdiction (see Table II).1 9.0 16 100.6 100.0 Table III.0 3 100.4 percent) have connections to ICLEI and 67.3 25. Even so.0 12 75.0 Financial assistance received % 58. including three within the BAAQMD jurisdiction.their air agencies. the USCMCPA. Furthermore.7 21 56.5 1 2.1 23.0 100.4 Technical assistance received % 65.0 US environmental governance 325 Received by locality No Yes NA Total (n ¼ 43) Home air district has formal mitigation outreach program % 14. with the exception of those in the BAAQMD.

3 percent of the localities began mitigation planning efforts prior to the passage of AB 32.2 9.2 11. offer localities a set of templates and best practices can be expected to contribute to the degree of policy harmonization among California’s sub-state plans.6 percent) did. Finally.3 percent had not yet begun the planning process and thus did not discuss the intended form of any policy output (see Table IV).0 Table IV.e. Furthermore. transportation.7 percent of the localities stated that their mitigation planning processes were meant to yield guidance documents or general plan elements rather than a stand-alone policy. etc. Additionally. The remaining 9. Interestingly. the influence of external organizations that. and whether they specified institutional changes. although a sizeable percentage (32. Nearly half of the localities (46. implementation plans.8 percent of localities posted process documents on the web.) and only 16. Plan status Incomplete/intended only as a guideline Incomplete/in process Completed but not adopted/stalled Completed and adopted NA Total F 2 13 5 19 4 43 % 4.6 44.3 326 percent received technical assistance from ICLEI during the mitigation planning process. The 23 percent that did begin planning prior to AB 32 passage can be considered innovators.2 percent of localities indicated that their mitigation plans were completed and adopted. The fact that cities with completed plans are likely to be located in counties with a climate program and to have received technical assistance from ICLEI suggests that external resources and support matter for local mitigation planning decisions. 4. 5. a fact that suggests that most localities began mitigation planning efforts in response to perceived state pressure or in anticipation of state or federal policy changes.6 percent posted completed plans to the web without indicating whether the plans had been adopted. utilities.7 30. A sizable number (30. waste. about 79 percent used ICLEI’s format for reporting GHG emissions by activity sector (i. water.3 Community involvement The authors examined localities’ web sites and plans for references to any sort of planning activity.5 percent) did not document any community involvement efforts.3 percent discussed climate change adaptation planning. For example. only 23. Only 44. like ICLEI. Status of plan . precursor campaign. 48. 6.3 100. Plan and policy characteristics With an eye to understanding what process factors determine the form of a final policy. or other efforts to mobilize or involve the community in the mitigation planning.2 percent) were under development. or funding sources.MEQ 22. while another 11. the authors focus on the status of the plans. whether they utilized a best practice or template. fulfilling basic requirements of public disclosure.

0 4 44.6 0 0.0 14 100.0 7 50.0 10 100.5 19 44. 32. with 23. close to 63 percent of the plans specified implementation procedures and about 42 percent discussed funding allocations (and one plan actually allocated funding).0 4 40.A second set of questions regarding public involvement in mitigation planning considers whether public participation levels might impact the rate of completion or adoption. As illustrated in Table V. There is evidence of policy diffusion and innovation.2 4 9.0 Table V.0 6 60.0 10 100.0 0 0. Climate change mitigation involves multiple policy arenas and cross-media considerations.3 percent) explicitly acknowledged borrowing some combination of templates and best practices from another locality or NGO. and 80 percent for those that were closed to the public. local institutional structural change is sometimes necessary: 34.0 8 80.4 9 100. The openness of the processes varied among the localities. US environmental governance 327 Status of plan Not complete Count % within type of inclusion Complete Count % within type of inclusion NA Count % within type of inclusion Total Count % within type of inclusion Type of public inclusion Public Officials/ Open to involvement experts only public required 2 20.6 percent of the processes open to the public. Status of plan by public inclusion in planning process . this “borrowing” approach is distinct from defensive planning strategies which evidence an anticipation or perception of state or federal policy changes. Therefore.3 percent required or enacted the change.3 percent of planning processes involving only municipal officials and experts. or tradition.3 percent requiring some level of public involvement.3 43 100. law. Additionally.0 NA 5 55. with completion rates of 40 percent for plans associated with planning processes requiring public involvement. 50 percent for those that were simply open to the public. A large percentage of localities (46.0 0 0.0 0 0. This kind of policy making is not readily suited to the structure of most municipal governments since municipal agencies and departments are often stove-piped.9 percent of the localities’ completed plans recommended some level of institutional change and 16.0 7 50. and 23.0 Total 20 46. there is a relationship between the degree of public participation in the planning process and the status of the plans. this percentage is sufficiently large to suggest that it is common practice in local policy development to examine and adapt existing policy forms and information to local needs. so that policy areas are isolated within distinct bureaucratic structures by ordinance. In terms of process and outputs.

available at: www. and access to best practice information will be crucial tools as localities develop their own capacity to create and implement plans. available at: (accessed 25 April 2010). available at: www.opr. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2009).ca. While innovators are important for establishing a path. and GHG estimation tools) from a county government. More systematic information should be collected from a comprehensive list of localities to provide a better picture of the actual content of the local plans and (accessed 15 April 2010).gov/planning/ publications/California_Planning_Guide_2005. California Planning Guide: An Introduction to Planning in California. grounded studies like this one should be used to inform a larger dialogue about environmental governance of climate change at the local level. Templates. and the lack thereof. a few patterns and ideas have emerged that merit particular attention.pdf (accessed 25 April 2010).MEQ 22. References California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005). available at: www.arb. About Us. Conclusions While this exploratory study did not aim to demonstrate causal relationships. CARB (2008). This study is an initial step in summarizing the state of local climate change planning efforts in a state that is commonly considered an environmental policy innovator. and might encourage.3 328 .capcoa. There is a growing movement to undo the policy stove-piping that occurs at the federal level. will also be important as higher-level policies are put into place. gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument. such change could impact how states and localities access federal resources and create or adjust their own structures to deal with climate change. php?a¼ceqa/index. technical assistance. Improved understanding of existing organizational or institutional relationships.opr. 30 October. air agency. municipalities that completed plans were more likely to have access to external resources (such as technical information. real momentum towards broad policy diffusion comes from those localities that build resources by borrowing best practices from one another and utilizing outside knowledge resources. This exploratory study points to the potential for strong leadership by air quality control agencies to greatly influence the willingness of localities within their jurisdictions to engage in voluntary mitigation planning. Intergovernmental partnerships can powerfully impact localities’ technical and financial capacities for pursuing climate change mitigation planning. First. List of Local Plans and Policies Addressing Climate Change. policy harmonization through localities’ widespread reliance on the technical assistance from specialized non-governmental organizations like ICLEI. Furthermore. The fact that municipalities formally recognize this in their plans bodes well for future implementation. (accessed 1 December 2009). plan templates. “Climate change scoping plan: a framework for change”. This will be important to acknowledge as federal and perhaps international policies filter down to US localities. decentralized collaboration does not prevent. CAPCOA (2010). many municipalities recognize that institutional changes are necessary for implementing plans. or organization like ICLEI. downloads/2009/05/LGO_Protocol_provides_valuable_guidance_to_local_govs_ 063009. University of Louisville. (2009).pdf (accessed 25 April 2010).heberle@louisville. League of California Cities (2010).1: Sustainability and Climate Change.cacities. Brown Announces Landmark Global Warming Settlement. Department of Finance (2009). City of Santa Monica (2009). available at: region/california-region/ab-32-and-local-governments (accessed 25 April 2010).com/newsletter/20070905-ghg-settlement (accessed 25 April 2010). available at: http://ag. Louisville. US Census Bureau.. (The) Climate Registry (2009). ICLEI (2010b). jsp?zone¼locc&previewStory¼53 (accessed 25 April 2010). Population Division (2010).org/programs/climate (accessed 25 April 2010).us/community development/download/GHGInventory. About the authors Lauren Programs: Climate. (2008).edu Isabella Office of the Attorney General (2007). R.census. E. KY. Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). and Klopf. Lauren C.martenlaw. “Settlement requires California County to inventory and mitigate greenhouse gases”.com/reprints . available at: www. Louisville. A. Bedsworth. J. “Addressing climate change through land use and transportation planning: California’s SB 375 and SB 732 – a legislative trend?” Bloomberg Finance LP.html (accessed 25 April 2010). with 2000 Benchmark. and Malaczynski.. available at: www. AB32 and Local Governments. available at: www. available at: www.asp?i¼849 (accessed 28 April 2010). available at: Or visit our web site for further details: www.pdf (accessed 25 April 2010). L.shapethefuture2025. Marten Law (2007). KY. B. US environmental governance 329 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. press available at: www.pdf (accessed 25 April 2010).gov/population/www/metroareas/metroarea. (accessed 25 April 2010). Public Policy Institute of California. Christensen is a PhD candidate in the Louisville School of Urban and Public pdf/ C. Chapter 3. Hanak. available at: www.php?id¼1453& (accessed 25 April 2010).icleiusa. available at: www.City of San Luis Obispo (2009). Counties and the State.theclimateregistry. ICLEI (2010a). State of California. Waterman. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical 2009_documents/3. available at: 2001-2009. Heberle is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: lauren. November. Collins-Burgard. Community and Municipal Operations 2005 Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory..icleiusa. Heberle is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Louisville. Garrett. dof. “Climate policy at the local level: a survey of California’s cities and counties”.emeraldinsight. She is also Director of the US EPA Region 4 Environmental Finance Center at the University of “Facts at a glance”. available at: www. Swanbeck.1_sustainability_and_climate_change. S.pdf (accessed 25 April 2010).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful