240 likes | 418 Views
Environmental Governance and the Role of Local Communities. Need to go beyond National/Federal ComparisonsNeed to consider local, state-/prefectural level initiativesDivergence at national level can be mitigated by action at local levelImportance of Local Level Leadership for making a differen
E N D
1. Top Down, Bottom Up, and Horizontal Linkages in Climate Change Policy Making: Transatlantic Perspectives Miranda A. Schreurs
2. Environmental Governance and the Role of Local Communities Need to go beyond National/Federal Comparisons
Need to consider local, state-/prefectural level initiatives
Divergence at national level can be mitigated by action at local level
Importance of Local Level Leadership for making a difference
3. EU Action on Climate Change The EU aims to cut CO2 emissions:
by 8% on 1990 levels by 2008-12 (Kyoto)
by 20% by 2020 (30% if other developed countries commit to comparable reductions)
(tied to a goal of saving 20% of energy consumption through energy efficiency improvements by 2020)
EU-wide CO2 emissions trading scheme operational since January 2005
4. Germany December 2007, German cabinet adopts Climate Package (a set of policies and measures to help the country achieve its target of a 40% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020 relative to 1990 levels).
-renewable energies, energy efficiency, higher energy standards for buildings…
5. European Green Capital award Stockholm and Hamburg: the first recipients of the European Green Capital award
Stockoholm: Public Transport carries more than 700.000 passengers every day, with the underground running on renewable energy and 50% of the buses to be fuelled with renewable sources by 2011. Along with Congestion Charges, car use has been reduced by 20%. The city achieved a 25% decrease in CO2 emissions per capita compared with 1990.
Hamburg: CO2 reduction goal of 40% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels
6. Conference of New England Governors & Eastern Canadian Premiers
adopted a resolution recognizing climate change as a joint concern.
August 2001 regional Climate Change Action Plan (each must reduce GHGs to 1990 levels by 2010 and 10 % below 1990 levels by 2020)
7. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade scheme for CO2 from major power plants beginning January 2009
Goal: stabilize CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2015
annual cuts in CO2 emissions by 2.5 percent per year after this (total 10 % reduction by 2019 in each state )
Includes: Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware
8. RGGI Must by permit for each ton of CO2 emissions
During the first three years, states will supply enough permits to release 188 million tons of CO2 a year. ( 9 percent more than 2007 emissions in the region)
Number of permits will drop 2.5 percent a year from 2015 through 2018.
18 December 2008 Auction
sold 31.5m allowances at a price of $3.38 per short ton
10. Western Climate Initiative September 2008
released plans for a cap-and-trade system
Covers nearly 90% of the region’s emissions, (electricity, industry, transportation, and residential and commercial fuel use)
begins in 2012.
11. California Pavley Bill (AB1493) plan for achieving “maximal feasible reduction” of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, effective 2006.
Car makers given until 2009 to meet the new standards.
Rejected by Bush administration in December 2007
Jan 26, 2009 Obama orders US EPA to revisit ruling
12. California: AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
sets a state-wide CO2 emission target: stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 (which is equivalent to a 30 percent below business as usual projection given California’s rapidly expanding population)
13. State Level global warming legislation
Maine (2003), Connecticut (2004) passed legislation that states it shall be a goal of the state to stabilize greenhouse gas levels at 1990 levels by 2010 and to reduce them by 10 percent of 1990 levels by 2020.
New Jersey adopted legislation mandating a series of emission reduction targets: stabilization at 1990 levels or lower by 2020 and 80 percent below 2006 levels by 2050.
14. CA Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (2002)
aim of achieving 20 percent of its energy come from renewable resources by 2017.
15. U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement As of 2009
over 900 mayors of U.S. cities, representing over 80 million Americans, have agreed to strive to meet or exceed the Kyoto Protocol targets.
16. European Covenant of Mayors’ Initiative on climate change
February 2009
400 cities agreed to a, pledging to go beyond the EU’s 20 percent greenhouse gas reduction goal by 2020
17. International Networks for Climate Change/Sustainability Activities
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (Cities for Climate ProtectionTM (CCP))
Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI)- (C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group)
World Mayors Council on Climate Change (WMCCC)
The Brundtland City Energy Network (BCEN)
Sustainable Cities: PLUS Network
United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG)
Metropolis
European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign
Energie-cités
Eurocities
The Climate Group
Mayors Climate Protection Center
Reset net
Cities Development Initiative for Asia (CDIA)
Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network
18. C40 Large Cities (http://www.c40/seoulsummit.com/)
cities alone consume approximately three-quarters of the world’s energy and produce about 80 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
19. CCI and C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group a group of 40 of the largest cities that have pledged to speed up their efforts to reduce global warming emissions.
20. C40 Large Cities in Asia Bangkok, Thailand 8,160,552
Beijing, China 15,380,000
Delhi NCT, India 17,000,000
Dhaka, Bangaladesh 6,700,000
Hanoi, Vietnam 3,399,000
Hong Kong, China 6,985,000
Jakarta, Indonesia 8,389,000
Karachi, Pakistan 16,500,000
Mumbai, India 13,000,000
Seoul, South Korea 10,300,000
Shanghai, China 18,450,000
Tokyo, Japan 12,800,000
21. Asian Cities in ICLEI China: Shenyang
Taiwan: Kaohsiung, Taipei City, Taipei County
Japan: Aichi Prefecture, Fujisawa, Hiroshima, Hokuto, Itabashi City, Kanagawa Prefecture, Kasai, Kawagoe, Kawasaki, Kitakyushu, Kobe, Kumamoto City, Kyoto City, Musashino, Nagoya City, Sapporo, Sendai, Sumida, Ube, Yamanashi Prefecture
Republic of Korea: Ansan, Bucheon, Buk-Gu, Busan, Changwon, Chungnam Province, Daegu, Damyang County, Gangneung, Gangwon, Geumsan County, Gimpo, Gumi, Gwacheon, Gwangju, Gyeonggi Province, Gyeongsangnam Province, Hadong County, Hoengseong County, Incheon, Jeju Province, Jeju, Jeongseon, Jeonju, Jinhae, Pyeongchang County, Seongnam, Seoul, Sokcho, Suncheon, Suwon, Ulsan, Wonju, Yangpyeong County, Yong-in
Indonesia: Balikpapan, Bogor, Cilegon, Medan, Semarang, Surabaya, Yogyakarta
Philippines: Baguio, Batangas, Bohol Province, Dagupan, General Santos, Iloilo, Linamon, Makati, Munoz, Muntinlupa, Naga, Puerto Princesa, Quezon, San Fernando, La Union, San Fernando, Pampanga, Tubigon, Tuguegarao
Thailand: Bangkok, Muangklang, Phuket
Bangladesh: Rajshahi
India: Ahmedabad, All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore, Delhi, Greater Visakhapatnam, Guntur, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Jabalpur, Kalyan Dombivali, Madurai, Mumbai, Nagpur, Rajkot, Shimla, Thane, Vadodara, Vijayawada
Nepal: Kathmandu, Municipal Association of Nepal, Pokhara
Sri Lanka: Matale
22. Kyoto Climate Change Initiative Kyoto City (2003) issued a Proclamation to Stop Global Warming: “Kyoto, as the city where the Kyoto Protocol was created as a promise to work to prevent global warming around the world, is dedicated to supporting efforts to stop global warming.”
2004, Kyoto City became the first Japanese municipality to enact a Global Warming Countermeasures Ordinance.
23. Tokyo Climate Initiative Tokyo Metropolitan Government established a 10-Year Project for a Carbon-Minus Tokyo in June 2007.
The plan calls for a reduction in Tokyo’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from the 2000 level by 2020.
(per capita CO2 emissions in Tokyo are already 20-30 percent lower than in New York and London)
24. The Barriers to Effective Action Financial
Jurisdictional
Institutional (communication barriers (vertical and horizontal), information access
Capacity
Lack of bench marks, comparable data
Lack of attention to adaptation