Opinion
Climate Plans Haven't Paid Off. So Why Are Greens Claiming "Success"?
“‘We are entering a new era in street lighting,’ Superintendent Jorge Carrasco said. ‘LEDs use 40 percent less energy and last three times longer than the high-pressure sodium lights that have been the standard for the past 30 years.’ ” – Seattle City Light
“In terms of their stated objectives, however, there has been little evidence to date to contradict the…view that climate plans are largely rhetorical, and have minimal impact on decisions by local policymakers, firms or households. Indeed, most early work concluded that any impacts have been limited to small-scale energy efficiency programs with short paybacks, such as the installation of LED traffic signals” – “Do City Climate Plans Reduce Emissions?”, Adam Millard-Ball
Last week, K.C. Golden of Climate Solutions objected to the finding of a study by Adam Millard-Ball of the McGill School of the Environment. The study found that there is “little robust evidence that climate plans play any causal role in implementing greenhouse gas reduction strategies.”
Golden argues that local climate-action plans have, in fact, been successful, saying "cities, in the face of an epic national failure of responsibility to tackle the climate challenge, are actually accomplishing significant emission reductions…”
What is missing from Golden’s claim, however, is any evidence. The reason is simple – the data show Seattle and Washington state are both failing to make progress in reducing carbon emissions.
Washington’s record is particularly bad. Data from the federal Energy Information Administration show Washington ranked 44th in 2004-2009, the most recent years available, in cutting carbon emissions.
Seattle’s record is similarly dismal. This year, the city’s Office of Sustainability admitted it is in no hurry to learn whether Seattle met the target set in the Kyoto Protocol of reducing CO2 emissions seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012. OSE director Jill Simmons candidly admitted the Kyoto promise “was powerful from a political standpoint.” From an environmental standpoint, however, it has accomplished little. The city’s latest analysis found officials will likely fall short of meeting the promised Kyoto targets.
Officials report most of Seattle’s emission reductions occurred in the 1990s when people, due to what the city calls “economic forces,” switched from expensive oil heat to inexpensive natural gas. The trend had nothing to do with climate plans.
Why aren’t emissions declining in Seattle or statewide? After all, we’ve done a tremendous amount of planning. The reason is city climate plans are more about creating a political image than protecting the environment. They substitute rhetoric for effective action. Millard-Ball specifically notes this, finding the projects actually undertaken are typically feel-good efforts like replacing street lights with LED bulbs – just as the city recently announced.
Some people might argue we are only at the beginning of the process. That wasn’t what Seattle leaders said when they promised to meet the Kyoto targets. It isn’t what state and federal politicians promised when they spent billions on programs that provide negligible environmental benefit. Now that they’ve failed, they find it more convenient to now claim more time is needed.
We should move away from the political climate plans and focus on small, everyday changes each of us can make – the very thing free market forces are best at. The market, not government, achieved Seattle’s emissions decline during the 1990s. If Seattle truly cares about reducing carbon emissions, it will take the findings of Millard-Ball's study seriously and replace symbolic plans with real free market incentives.
“In terms of their stated objectives, however, there has been little evidence to date to contradict the…view that climate plans are largely rhetorical, and have minimal impact on decisions by local policymakers, firms or households. Indeed, most early work concluded that any impacts have been limited to small-scale energy efficiency programs with short paybacks, such as the installation of LED traffic signals” – “Do City Climate Plans Reduce Emissions?”, Adam Millard-Ball
Last week, K.C. Golden of Climate Solutions objected to the finding of a study by Adam Millard-Ball of the McGill School of the Environment. The study found that there is “little robust evidence that climate plans play any causal role in implementing greenhouse gas reduction strategies.”
Golden argues that local climate-action plans have, in fact, been successful, saying "cities, in the face of an epic national failure of responsibility to tackle the climate challenge, are actually accomplishing significant emission reductions…”
What is missing from Golden’s claim, however, is any evidence. The reason is simple – the data show Seattle and Washington state are both failing to make progress in reducing carbon emissions.
Washington’s record is particularly bad. Data from the federal Energy Information Administration show Washington ranked 44th in 2004-2009, the most recent years available, in cutting carbon emissions.
Seattle’s record is similarly dismal. This year, the city’s Office of Sustainability admitted it is in no hurry to learn whether Seattle met the target set in the Kyoto Protocol of reducing CO2 emissions seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012. OSE director Jill Simmons candidly admitted the Kyoto promise “was powerful from a political standpoint.” From an environmental standpoint, however, it has accomplished little. The city’s latest analysis found officials will likely fall short of meeting the promised Kyoto targets.
Officials report most of Seattle’s emission reductions occurred in the 1990s when people, due to what the city calls “economic forces,” switched from expensive oil heat to inexpensive natural gas. The trend had nothing to do with climate plans.
Why aren’t emissions declining in Seattle or statewide? After all, we’ve done a tremendous amount of planning. The reason is city climate plans are more about creating a political image than protecting the environment. They substitute rhetoric for effective action. Millard-Ball specifically notes this, finding the projects actually undertaken are typically feel-good efforts like replacing street lights with LED bulbs – just as the city recently announced.
Some people might argue we are only at the beginning of the process. That wasn’t what Seattle leaders said when they promised to meet the Kyoto targets. It isn’t what state and federal politicians promised when they spent billions on programs that provide negligible environmental benefit. Now that they’ve failed, they find it more convenient to now claim more time is needed.
We should move away from the political climate plans and focus on small, everyday changes each of us can make – the very thing free market forces are best at. The market, not government, achieved Seattle’s emissions decline during the 1990s. If Seattle truly cares about reducing carbon emissions, it will take the findings of Millard-Ball's study seriously and replace symbolic plans with real free market incentives.
