Repowering Cities: An Interview with Sara Hughes
Interviewed by Katie Uva
Today on the blog, Katie Uva speaks to Sara Hughes about her recent book, Repowering Cities: Governing Climate Change Mitigation in New York, Los Angeles, and Toronto. The book examines how each of these cities have set climate change mitigation goals and how each city’s ability to achieve those goals has evolved over the past decade.
Repowering Cities: Governing Climate Change Mitigation in New York, Los Angeles, and Toronto
By Sara Hughes
Cornell University Press, 2019
224 pages
At the beginning of the book, you identify an “inversion” of policy, “in which solutions to many of the world’s most pressing problems are being pursued by, and channeled through, cities.” What gave rise to that shift?
I think there are two big reasons for this shift. The first reason is primarily demographic: more than half of the world’s population now lives in cities. More than 80% of Americans live in urban areas. As our population has urbanized, so have our policy solutions. Issues like inequality, immigration, education, and climate change increasingly have to be solved in urban contexts because that is where people live.
The second reason for this policy inversion is more political. In the U.S. (as well as other countries) we are going through a time in which the federal government is playing a less active role. Some people refer to this as a “hollowing out” of the state. Republican and Democratic administrations have both worked since the 1980s to pull back from programs initiated through the New Deal. This has essentially decentralized decision making in many realms, including the environment. Growing polarization and Congressional gridlock have also made it difficult to achieve environmental gains at the federal level. For climate change policy in particular, many policy makers and stakeholders have grown frustrated with the lack of federal response and have shifted their efforts to cities instead.
Many see this shift as a welcome one. I think with our growing urbanization we have also become newly enamored with cities and the entrepreneurial approach of local government. City governments are often seen as pragmatic, responsive, relatively nimble bodies of government. Urban enthusiasts emphasize the nonpartisan nature of local politics and the tendency of local decision makers to focus on results rather than respond to special interests. City governments are viewed as more nimble, less bureaucratic, and able to experiment with new ways of doing things that other levels of government may find difficult or cumbersome. Perhaps most importantly, many cities are simply demonstrating a level of political will and leadership that is lacking at other levels.
This inversion is occurring; whether it leads to effectively solving problems like climate change is yet to be seen, and is the question that motivates the book.
How did you select Toronto, Los Angeles, and New York as the three cities to focus on?
These cities have a lot in common in terms of the goals they have set for reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also have some very interesting (and analytically useful) differences in terms of where their emissions come from and the amount of authority they have over those emissions.
All three cities released ambitious climate change mitigation plans in 2007, committing themselves to specific timelines for reducing their GHG emissions. New York City released the original “PlaNYC,” pledging to reduce emissions 30% by 2030; Los Angeles released “GreenLA,” pledging to reduce emissions 35% by 2030; and Toronto released “Change is in the Air,” pledging to reduce emissions 30% by 2020. Eventually all three cities also adopted the target of reducing emissions 80% by 2050. These were three of the largest cities in North America, all making similarly ambitious pledges to reduce GHG emissions in 2007. They were early actors, and it provides enough time to reasonably examine implementation outcomes.
Fortunately, the cities also have some interesting institutional differences in terms of their relationship to their GHG emissions. This lets me look at how cities with different levels and types of authority address the challenge of reducing emissions. For example, New York City has a very strong mayor but relatively limited jurisdiction over its energy and transportation systems; Los Angeles is a weak mayor city but has a municipally-owned energy utility; Toronto has a very weak local government system in general. These cities also have slightly different emissions profiles: most of NYC’s emissions come from building energy use, while in Toronto and Los Angeles it is more of a mix between building energy use and transportation.
The framework I develop in the book tells us that the specific policies and programs cities do (and should) develop to reduce GHG emissions will be tailored to their particular mix of emissions sources and authorities. But there is a set of shared governance strategies that work in any city government: building capacities, coalitions, and institutions that mobilize resources and actors toward the task of climate change mitigation.
What climate mitigation goals did you examine for New York City?
I focused on the goals laid out in PlaNYC released in 2007 under the Bloomberg administration. This committed the city to reducing GHG emissions 30% by 2030.
What obstacles has New York faced in achieving those goals, and what strategies has the city developed for overcoming them?
Reducing citywide GHG emissions is a totally new undertaking for any city, and cities are experimenting with how to take this on.
I think the challenge for New York City is that the area where they have the most control, and have the potential to make the biggest impact, is reducing building energy use. This is a challenge because achieving the kind of city-wide improvements in energy efficiency and replacement of infrastructure needed to produce measurable GHG emissions reductions takes a long time. The city has been a real leader in completely overhauling the city’s building code; banning dirty heating oil; incentivizing efficiency and upgrades in buildings; and providing the data and training needed for these programs to succeed. Retrofitting thousands of buildings just takes a long time, and it will be difficult to detect significant GHG impacts for several more years.
On the flip side, many cities have seen large reductions in GHG emissions by converting to more renewable energy supplies. This is something NYC mayors and councils have consistently supported, but is largely outside of the city’s control. Here the city has to focus on “enabling” and “facilitating” strategies, meaning doing what they can to help other actors, like Consumers Energy and state and regional governments, make the right decision when it comes to renewable energy.
Many cities, including New York City, are struggling to make the changes needed in the transportation sector. These are capital intensive projects, and require a lot of public buy-in. New York City’s first attempt at congestion pricing shows just how politically contentious transportation interventions can be, how much the public distrusts transit agencies, and how much state and regional governments influence the outcomes. Cities around the country are facing similar challenges.
At one point you describe climate change mitigation as “building the plane while flying the plane.” What are some examples of how plans and predictions have shifted for New York?
This really speaks to the experimental nature of a lot of what is happening in the urban climate change policy space. Cities are setting ambitious goals for themselves, and often figuring out afterward how to reach those goals.
One of my favorite examples of this from NYC is when the city first took up the challenge of reducing energy use in buildings. One staff member told me that city leadership described it as “entering a data free zone.” It is incredibly difficult to develop new policies for energy efficiency when you don’t know how energy is being used in the city. This realization led the city to develop an energy benchmarking program, which requires building owners to report on their energy use in a central database. A version of this tool has subsequently been adopted by more than a dozen U.S. cities and the province of Ontario.
What does your research suggest is the role of citizen participation and grassroots advocacy? Do you feel New York’s government is being led by residents or challenged effectively?
Perhaps more than other levels of government, city decision makers respond to the demands and priorities of their residents and constituents. When it is clear that residents want and expect climate change action by city leaders, they usually get it. One example of this is from Toronto. During a round of budget cuts, the city’s Environment office came under the spotlight. There were threats of eliminating many environment and climate change programs. In response, hundreds of residents came to City Hall and testified in support of these programs in a session that went late into the night. This mobilization saved the programs.
Another important role for citizen participation and grassroots advocacy is in building coalitions and capacity for implementation. Many of the changes that are required to significantly reduce GHG emissions occur at hyper-local scales. Our neighborhoods, streets, and houses will all be different. People will need to make different decisions about commuting and consumption. Engaged and involved community organizations will be key to making many of these changes.
New York City is lucky to have had significant commitment and leadership from its city council on climate change since the early 2000s. Many of the city’s climate change bills pass unanimously through council. There are steps the council has taken to institutionalize climate change goals and planning to ensure continuity through mayoral administrations. I think much of this commitment is a reflection of the priorities and commitments of New Yorkers.
The challenge New York and many cities face is connecting ambitious climate change goals with growing levels of inequality and other pressing issues facing city residents. Addressing climate change cannot take precedence over meeting people’s housing needs or ensuring a social safety net. Many cities, including New York City, are beginning to make the link between building a city that is prepared for climate change and building a city that meets the needs of all residents. Many are rebranding these efforts as a Green New Deal. My colleague Matthew Hoffmann and I have written about this under the term “just urban transitions.” I think the increasing incorporation of justice and equality in urban climate change policy is in large part attributable to effective citizen and grassroots advocacy.
Are there areas in which New York is serving as a leader and exemplar when it comes to climate change mitigation? What can New York learn from other cities?
New York City has really been a leader on policy innovation. They have developed some flagship programs like the Mayor’s Climate Challenge, Energy Benchmarking, and have completely revised the city’s building code. Many of these initiatives are being replicated by cities around the country and around the world. Bloomberg and now de Blasio’s active engagement with international communities like the C40 Cities for Climate Change means that many cities around the world are learning from these initiatives. New York City is attracting some of the best and brightest to work on its sustainability and climate change initiatives.
I think the challenge or learning for New York City will be in bridging between high level policy successes and community scale challenges. Other cities are doing a better job of engaging residents in developing sustainability priorities, and helping people feel invested in the process of transitioning to a more just and sustainable future. New York is a huge city, and so of course it is challenging to engage and mobilize millions of diverse residents. But in order for a just transition - or Green New Deal - to really take hold in New York there has to be greater attention to not just policy development but also creating the structures and processes needed for residents to trust and engage with and help to formulate the vision.
Sara Hughes is Assistant Professor in the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan. She is co-editor of Climate Change and Cities.