New research strengthens evidence that Windsor’s climate action plan is “too simplistic”

No 231 Posted by fw, July 27, 2011

About a year ago I posted a piece titled, Windsor’s climate action plan: too little, too late? In that post, my partner, Helga WIntal, wrote a critical assessment of the city of Windsor’s prospects for success in dealing with climate change by following Canada’s Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program. The post’s subtitle – too little too late? — reflected her concerns.

A recent news item, Greenhouse-gas inventory calculations ‘too simplistic‘, published in environmentalresearchweb, (July 18, 2011) adds to Ms Wintal’s initial concerns.

Since the findings and recommendations from this new research study may have implications for Windsor, and any other cities following the PCP program, this post may be of more than passing interest. 

Here is a re-posting of this news item, with minor formatting changes, added sub-headings and text highlighting. (NOTE: this news item provides a summary only of the original study. For the full report, including the names of the US cities surveyed and graphs of the results, click on the linked title shown below).

Greenhouse-gas Inventory calculations ‘too simplistic’ by Nadya Anscombe

Many US cities need to improve the way that they calculate their greenhouse-gas (GHG) inventories and their climate action plans, say researchers from the University of Texas and Carnegie Mellon University, US.

The practice of relying on a single baseline year for action planning is flawed

In a paper, [Preparing US community greenhouse gas inventories for climate action plans] published in Environmental Research Letters, Michael Blackhurst and his colleagues warn that the way in which many US local governments calculate their GHG inventories is over-simplistic. They believe that the common practice of using a single baseline year for action-planning may lead to unrealistic reduction targets, misrepresentation of progress and obscure local-emissions profiles. 

Research method

The researchers reviewed GHG inventories and climate action plans for 18 US cities. The locations were chosen based upon the availability of community-level energy consumption and emissions estimates by sector, and for geographic diversity. GHG inventories were reviewed for clarity, transparency, scope and major sources of uncertainty and variability. The study addressed only emissions from electricity and natural-gas consumption in commercial and residential building and emissions from on-road personal transportation.

Findings

• The researchers found that community GHG inventories are most often reported by broad energy-use sectors – such as residential or commercial buildings – which is too open-ended to plan for effective GHG mitigation
• They also found three main sources of uncertainty and variability – 1) weather impacts on building energy use; 2) measurement and sample errors associated with on-road personal transportation; and 3) the inability to accurately specify which fuels are used to meet local electricity demands
• “We have not done any modelling or any complex maths,” Blackhurst told environmentalresearchweb. “But we found that the uncertainty inherent in a single year’s GHG inventory was often greater than 50%. This is well within the reduction goals of some communities and, as a result, communities could claim credit for reductions not due to action-planning but instead due to mild weather, for example.“
• Blackhurst believes that a core issue is the software that many cities in the US use to calculate their GHG inventories. “Calculating GHG inventories involves more than just accounting,” said Blackhurst. “Most of the cities we studied used climate action-planning guidance and a software tool developed by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). This software is too simplistic and there is considerable room for improvement by, for example, modelling the impact of the weather and including some simple quality-assurance factors in the software.“

Recommendations

• The researchers recommend that, in the short term, inventories could be supplemented with annual or seasonal heating and cooling degree day data or use existing regression studies to adjust for weather. 
• In the long term, community GHG inventories would benefit from more formal treatment and awareness of major sources of variability and uncertainty, such as in electricity-consumption emissions.
• “We also found that many of the inventory practitioners were working in isolation and not sharing lessons learnt with other practitioners from other communities,” said Blackhurst. “Many of the community GHG inventory recommendations in our work could easily be incorporated into common community inventory software tools, lessening the burden on inventory practitioners.”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing

Windsor’s climate action plan: too little, too late?

No 42 Guest post by Helga Wintal, with background by fw, on August 11, 2010

Background

Windsor, Ontario has been a member of Canada’s Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program since December 2002. PCP was established to help Canadian municipalities to respond to climate change challenges. Eight years after joining PCP, Windsor has released its first progress report: Partnership for Climate Protection Program: Milestone 1: Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (Click on the title to read and download the 18-page report from the City’s website. As an aside, neither the author’s name nor publication date appear anywhere in the report, although we subsequently learned that it was completed in 2008/2009. Is it City policy not to date its reports or to identify authorship responsibility?)

Helga Wintal has studied Windsor’s report. As well, she has carefully examined a 29-page critique of the PCP program itself, prepared by University of Toronto PhD student, David Gordon. His report, which was based on his earlier 168-page Master’s dissertation, was published this year by the Canadian Political Science Association under the title, Lament for a Network: A Comparative Case Study of the Impacts of the Partners for Climate Protection Network on Climate Change Policy in Two Canadian Cities. Click on the title to read and download this study. Alternatively, a review of Gordon’s report is available on this blog in two parts: here and here.

Using Gorden’s critical assessment of the PCP program as a contextual framework, Helga wrote her evaluation of Windsor’s prospects for success in dealing with climate change by following PCP’s program.

Helga Wintal’s response

(Note: On August 5, 2010, Helga emailed the following response to the City of Windsor’s Environmental Coordinator who, in a generous spirit of cooperation, had directed us to the City’s progress report, cited above, and has responded promptly and politely to our emails. The coordinator promptly acknowledged receipt of Helga’s response with thanks).

Thanks for directing us to the City of Windsor’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory, completed in 2008/2009. Frank White and I welcome your questions and comments to our response, which follows.

Institutional Limitations: We appreciate the limitations within which you are operating, as you work on the next milestones in the process (target-setting and action plans). These include: the abdication of strong federal leadership on climate issues, a city council that is preoccupied with economic diversification and job creation, a low level of knowledge among councillors and city administration regarding the horrific consequences of anything less than an aggressive emissions reduction program, the low priority given to environmental issues generally, which is reflected in your budget, staff support,  lack of line authority and a reporting relationship which is not sufficiently visible (should have been directly to the Mayor).

Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program weaknesses: The City is following the five-milestone framework developed by the PCP – the inventory being the first milestone achieved. It is important, therefore, to acknowledge the weaknesses inherent in the program, as identified in the case study by David Gordon, which Frank cited in his earlier email and in his two-part blog post.

The major weakness, for anyone who seriously follows developments in climate science, is that the emissions reduction target recommended for PCP members – a reduction of corporate emissions by 20% below 2000 levels and a reduction of community emissions by 6% below 2000 levels within ten years of joining the network – is simply too low to avoid the catastrophic consequences of global warming.  According to recent estimates from the Integrated Global Systems Model at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the median forecast is for a climb of 9 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end, in the absence of effective countermeasures. Warming on that scale would be truly devastating. According to world-renowned climate scientist, Stephen Schneider, heat waves and extremely high temperatures could be commonplace in the US by 2039, spelling widespread loss of life and a significant reduction in crop yields.

This current summer has given us a tiny glimpse into the future:  the worst flooding in 80 years in Pakistan, with 1500 deaths and 4 million homeless; a  heat wave in Russia which has taken 40 lives to date and reduced wheat yields by 25%; and the increased heat and tornado activity which Essex County has experienced this season. Nine nations have so far set their all-time temperature records in 2010, including Russia (111 degrees), Niger (118), Sudan (121), Saudi Arabia and Iraq (126 apiece), and Pakistan, which also set the new all-time Asia record in May: a hair under 130 degrees.

Recommendation:  Given the severity of the problems humanity faces, and a moral imperative to relieve the suffering of others, place a high priority on completing phases 2 and 3 of the process – to set emissions reduction targets and to develop an action plan to achieve them.  In setting emission reduction targets, be guided by the most recent scientific recommendations and do NOT simply adopt the PCP-recommended minimum targets.

A second potential weakness arises from the separation of corporate and community emissions.  Although this has its advantages, it also provides an opportunity for the corporate sector to give a false impression of progress by moving emissions from the corporate balance sheet to the community sector.  With the City engaged in offloading services such as garbage collection, daycare and provincial offences enforcement, you will need to account for staff reductions and a reduced building and vehicle inventory in assessing whether emission reduction targets have been met by the slimmed-down corporate structure. In your report, you mentioned that the PCP-designed spreadsheets allow for the use of indicators to compare emissions by various criteria including population, floor space etc. We believe that indicators such as these are the only effective means of measuring progress.

Recommendation:  That you use appropriate indicators (floor space, staff size, etc.) to ensure that progress in achieving targets can be effectively measured. Among these, we suggest that you use per capita emissions to compare Windsor’s emissions record to that of other Canadian cities and to measure Windsor’s progress in reducing those emissions. According to your figures, our per capita contribution was 17.78 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per person (210,000/3,734,649) in 2005.

Corporate awareness and accountability:  We are pleased that your report acknowledged the important role of cities in mitigating climate change, since up to half of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are under the direct control or influence of municipal governments.  (However, we noted that the Mayor, in all of his State of the City addresses (2006-2009), made no mention at all of climate change as a consideration in assessing opportunities for reinventing Windsor and creating jobs.)

Recommendation:  The key to achieving emission reduction targets will be to integrate these targets into corporate decision-making processes at all levels.  To that effect, we recommend that the Mayor, Councillors and Department Heads receive an orientation on climate change, potential local impacts and City of Windsor targets and plans, with regular updates as appropriate.  Department Heads should be held accountable for achieving their Department’s emission reduction targets.

Involving the community:  Your report demonstrates that the bulk of the work needs to be at the community level as residential, commercial and industrial emissions account for almost 98.8% of Windsor’s total emissions.  Your response is to suggest that a community task force be struck to help develop a community climate change action plan

Recommendation:  Recognizing that the key to success is a supportive community, committed to bold action, we recommend the following:

First and foremost is education. We need a concerted effort to inform Windsor residents of the importance of greenhouse gas emissions reduction and to offer practical sessions on what they can do.  We recommend that the City promote a series of public seminars for the community, held at various accessible venues such as community centres.

Engage the community. We recommend that the City invite city staff, community groups, educators, industry and business leaders and citizens to come forward with ideas for an effective and integrated climate change action plan, including ideas for how the City, through its policies and programs, can offer assistance or incentives for the community to achieve emissions reduction targets. Instead of one community task force, we recommend separate task forces – one for the commercial sector, one for the industrial sector, one for the education sector – and ward-level task forces for the residential sector.  The more involvement, the better as it is these community sectors that are the biggest emitters and it is their actions that will have the greatest payoff in terms of emission reductions.

Including Aircraft emissions:  We were disappointed that the Airport was not included in the emissions inventory, as aircraft emissions during takeoff and landing are a significant source of greenhouse gases.

Recommendation: Aircraft emissions must be factored into the inventory, particularly as the Mayor seems determined to attract more air traffic to Windsor.  It should be possible to estimate the emissions in 2005 from records of the number of takeoffs and landings, the type of aircraft and the average emissions generated during these activities.

We hope that our comments and observations are helpful, and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding our recommendations.

Lament for Canada’s Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program. Pt 2/2: The “lamentable” evidence

No 37, Posted by fw, Aug 1, 2010

Lament

This two-part post is a summary of David Gordon’s research study of Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program. PCP was created to help over 200 Canadian municipalities engage in effective climate Change policy. Part 1 sketched the origins, institutional context, and core functions of PCP, and briefly explained how sub- and non-state players like PCP influence municipalities to engage in climate change policies.

Recall Gordon’s research question: How and how much has the PCP program impacted on local climate policy in Winnipeg and Toronto? Part 2 reviews his findings.

On paper, the PCP program looks robust. However, the empirical component of Gordon’s paper — case study analyses of two PCP member cities, Winnipeg and Toronto – reveals the reasons for his lament.

Toronto was an obvious case study choice: it has a long history of climate change policy engagement dating back to the 1990s, an international reputation as a leader in climate change policy, and an institutionalized commitment to climate policy within the city bureaucracy. In striking contrast, Winnipeg would make an interesting comparative case study precisely because it could not match Toronto’s track record of past accomplishments.

Gordon evaluated city performance in terms of the extent to which PCP was successful in leveraging  the four governance functions — regulating, networking, guiding, and enabling — to “steer” the two cities’ climate change policy developments.

Findings

Regulating (creating, implementing, and enforcing rules)

PCP developed a number of “rules” that apply to its member cities, including GHG emission targets and prescribed reductions within 10 years of joining. The rules and norms are intended to “guide members’ behaviour.” However, over the past decade PCP has downgraded the emphasis on mandatory emission reduction targets. There is no mention at all now of mandatory targets. Interviews with PCP and ICLEI staff confirmed that the targets were intentionally dropped as a means of lowering barriers to engagement, increasing membership, and acting as an entry level system.

Winnipeg’s action plan, which finally emerged in 2006, contained no mention at all of community emissions. As for corporate emissions, the current target of a 20% reduction by 2018 (below a 1998 baseline) conforms to the PCP “rule” of 20% reduction within 10 years. However, Winnipeg’s reductions are being approached by the shifting of emissions off the corporate ledger, which does not signify a true translation of the PCP targets into “real” actions. This raises concerns regarding the city’s willingness to overcome the implementation gap and achieve meaningful reductions on a community-wide basis.

Toronto, on the other hand, has moved well past the PCP targets, and has already adopted more aggressive EU targets: 6% reduction by 2012, 20% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. It’s too early to tell if Toronto’s aggressive performance will permeate throughout the city-network to influence other PCP municipalities.

Networking (creating linkages along which information, knowledge, expertise and norms can flow)

The networking function, which one would expect to be central to a city-network, receives little mention on the PCP web pages or in its annual reports.

PCP perceives itself as being primarily a “network of pioneers for pioneers”. This is the core strength of the program. The presumption is that if city A is having a problem, PCP will be able to put A in touch with cities B and C that have experienced a similar difficulty.

Interview responses from Winnipeg indicated significant perceived value in networking, especially when it came to preparing an action plan, developing an emissions inventory, and resolving implementation challenges. The impact of PCP’s network hub was characterized as “important and influential”. Unfortunately, there was no hard data to measure the extent to which best practices do indeed move along network pathways, measures which might have backed up subjective impressions.

In Toronto’s case, evidential support for the perceived impact of network linkages is scarce. Interviewees there saw little benefit from network membership. In fact, the linkages between PCP and Toronto have weakened to the point where there is a general sense of disconnection between the two parties. This is reflected on the PCP website: despite having completed all five PCP milestones, Toronto is listed as having only completed three. On climate change mitigation, Toronto was directing most of its attention towards major international cities with which it had a greater affinity. On the plus side, PCP’s recent publication, Municipal Resources for Adapting to Climate Change contains numerous references to Toronto’s adaptation efforts, and may represent efforts to draw Toronto back in from the cold.

Guiding (norm creation and dissemination)

Norm creation refers to the extent to which PCP is perceived to have influenced a shift in normative behaviour and attitudes among a city’s elected officials and its resident population towards an expectation that GHG emissions should decline over time.

In Winnipeg, there is significant evidence in support of the uptake of the norm of city participation in the governance of climate change:

“Interviews revealed that PCP is perceived to have played a major role in the creation of the local action plan, and in the general shift in attitudes within City Council that has allowed for climate change concerns to begin to become entrenched in the local policy decision making process.”

Although PCP was instrumental in getting climate change onto the local agenda, the extent to which norms have diffused from the few to the many is debatable:

“The modest nature of [Winnipeg’s] current targets, in concert with the means through which they are being achieved – [by shifting emissions off the corporate ledger] — significantly weaken any argument made for the impact of the PCP to foster a norm of aggressive emissions reduction.”

Toronto shows similar evidence regarding the uptake of the norm of city participation in climate governance. Toronto has adopted very aggressive reduction targets and appears to have internalized the norm of taking strong local action. But the linkage between Toronto’s norm creation and PCP’s “steering” efforts are tenuous. Owing to the weakened links between the two, PCP’s impact on the promulgation of norms is difficult to discern in Toronto’s case.

Enabling (encouraging action through provision of ideas, best practices, and resources whether logistical or financial; capacity building through provision of tools to engage in policy)

The bulk of activities undertaken by PCP are of the enabling kind, including: the mandatory five-milestone policy engagement framework; access to technical tools and resources; and access to the Green Municipal Fund in order to support the preparation of emissions inventories and action plans. Enabling influence can also be found in the splitting of emissions into corporate and community segments. Treating corporate emissions separately is a way to get climate change on the local political agenda. And the show of support for the reduction of community emissions will help to bring local policy entrepreneurs and concerned public citizens on board.

In Winnipeg — even in the face of political resistance within City Council and in the Mayor’s Office — there is a strong perception that PCP enabled the city to create and pass corporate emission targets, begin integrating sustainability and climate change impacts into the regular decision-making process, and has helped to “normalize” the issue. Access to the GMF has provided a source of funding that has facilitated capacity building used to create an emissions baseline, an action plan, and raising emissions awareness in the policy process. (Note: GMF funding actually takes place outside of PCP channels and does not, therefore, embody the “steering” through enabling function). It’s too early to tell if Winnipeg’s initial small steps forward can be converted into a broader plan embracing a community-wide emission reduction plan.

Toronto, under the enabling governance of the Urban CO2 Project, succeeded by Cities for Climate Protection, had already taken its first emissions reduction steps before PCP arrived on the scene. Evidence of the impact of the early adoption of capacity-building initiatives in Toronto featured a heavy emphasis on corporate actions: civic building retrofits; streetlight upgrades; fleet right-sizing; and landfill emissions capture and re-use. In the words of one interviewee:

“The best thing that somebody can do from a policy point of view is not to spout rhetoric, but it’s to put in programs that work. Because that diminishes resistance and it also increases information.”

In 2007, Toronto released its 31-page Change is in the Air action plan:

“Change is in the Air: Toronto’s Commitment to an Environmentally Sustainable Future is the City’s framework to engage the public on the issue of climate change, and determine how the City will meet its greenhouse gas and air pollution reduction targets. The framework provides ideas on the strategies, policies, programs and projects needed to meet the City’s ambitious reduction targets and identifies 27 potential actions that the Toronto Government, residents, businesses and industry can take to tackle climate change and improve air quality.”

Given Toronto’s advanced progress, PCP’s enabling effects appear to have declined dramatically. The perceived benefits of PCP membership are non-existent in the eyes of Toronto’s city policy officers: they were completely unaware as to what resources PCP offered and did not consider PCP as a resource for technical or policy support. Toronto has benefited from access to GMF funding as a means of facilitating investments in energy efficiency, brownfield redevelopments,, and building retrofits. (Note: GMF funding actually takes place outside of PCP channels and does not, therefore, embody the “steering” through enabling function).

Evaluating the evidence

PCP’s weak targets, the unwillingness to engage in attempts to enforce compliance, and downgrading of targets within the PCP framework can all be understood as attempts to expand membership by making participation as painless as possible.

The perceived and observable impact of PCP on local climate change policy appears to be inversely related to levels of city resources allotted to the issue. In Winnipeg there has been a minimal amount of funding, staffing, and resources allotted to the development of climate change policy. In these circumstances, it’s understandable why Winnipeg’s interviewees value PCP membership as a way of giving climate change an air of legitimacy. There is a sense that the city might not have progressed as far as it has without PCP’s “steering” support. Toronto, on the other hand, by-passed PCP, acted as an independent agent, and, with abundant staffing and funding resources and a strong level of commitment, has made rapid progress on the climate change issue.

The PCP city-network appears not to be a “network of pioneers for pioneers” but a “network of baby steps for beginners.” The reasons for this lamentable result are not clear. One suggestion is that the extent to which network pathways are used depends on the existence of local leadership, jurisdictional authority and bureaucratic capacity, recognition of potential local benefits, and political will. Another possible explanation is an inability to fully utilize the experience of head-of-the-pack members such as Toronto. As well, PCP has no authority to prompt, cajole, or provide extra support for laggard municipalities. One interviewee may have hit the nail on the head: “What is lacking is the time to network the network.” And PCP’s capacity to engage in “steering” activities is severely limited: “In the early days . . . we had 2 people and 30 municipalities, now we have [half a person-year] and a lot more [members]”.

Engagement with PCP is strongest at the early stages as members prepare local inventories, select targets, and prepare local action plans. Barely 7% of members have moved beyond milestone three, preparation of a local climate action plan. A mere 1% has attained milestone five. Compare this with the Australian CCP network where 56% of members have completed milestone five.

Although Winnipeg has been a member of PCP since its inception in 1998, this early commitment did not translate into quick, nor aggressive, climate change policy action. When compared to Toronto, Winnipeg as a mid-sized Canadian city (population, 675,100 in 2009) has had weaker levels of political will, struggled through to the early years of the 2000’s to institutionalize engagement with climate change, and has had more limited access to financial and logistical resources. Winnipeg has not lived up to expectations that it would be an exemplar of PCP’s ability to exert influence in conditions that were unlikely to be favourable.

As a relatively new entrant into the climate change arena, PCP has been severely constrained by the lack of federal interest in municipalities. In response to a question to an FCM representative to push for greater federal support for the PCP program, the blunt answer was “when we send our people out . . . to talk to MPs . . . this just isn’t one of the things that we’re going to push.” The experience of PCP is part of a broader North-American reality — sub- and non-state players are operating in a context of federal government apathy and inaction.

To summarize

Based on the empirical evidence from the case studies of Winnipeg and Toronto, PCP appears to have the greatest relevance for mid- and small-sized cities, which need the “steering” support to develop and implement a climate change action plan. Lamentably, in order to get buy-in from these municipalities, PCP has had to water down its expectations to the point where the action plans may be too little, too late.

RELATED READING

The study cited in this post is a 29-page revision of Gordon’s original 168-page MA thesis published under the same title in 2009. For more information about the availability of this dissertation, go to ProQuest’s Dissertations & Theses website. Gordon is currently a PhD student at the University of Toronto.