I’m telling you this because I’m writing this post (and probably one or two more) on the topic of climate change which, in my opinion, is the public policy equivalent of jungle movie quicksand. I have avoided this topic over my past 52 posts partly because of my irrational fear, but mainly because most cities have successfully been able to tip-toe around the topic. I think that is going to be increasingly difficult in the future, so I’m going to jump into the topic with both feet and hope there is a handy vine that I can use to extract myself.
Roughly two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is real and see it as a threat that needs to be addressed. However, only 37 percent believe it should be a top priority for the government. Overall, climate change ranks 17th out of 21 national issues in terms of importance. [1] Hence the conundrum for local government: what exactly should be done? Should local governments move aggressively toward a net-zero carbon footprint, take only token actions, or something in between? I’m going to focus on the middle ground which is where I think most communities will end up, but I will touch on some paradigm-shifting issues before I am done.
The Quicksand Nature of Climate Change
Most of you probably still think I’m being irrational by trying to avoid the climate change discussion. But this is a topic where the degree to which local governments can “move the needle” is unclear, the cost of effective action is unknown, and the odds that you will irritate more people than you please is high. Precisely the set of characteristics that politicians try to avoid. Here are the reasons this is so:
Fanatics on both sides. Climate change is a discussion that tends to be dominated by the extremes. There are those who see the issue in apocalyptic terms and who demand extreme action that is often politically and financially unworkable. The Just Stop Oil movement, for example, wants to end the extraction and burning of fossil fuel by 2030. [2] No mention is made of how the world economy is going to continue to function. This may be the lunatic fringe, but there are people in most communities who are sympathetic to that point of view.
On the other side are climate science deniers who think in terms of world conspiracy. They see climate change as an attempt to use “fictional” science to enslave society, end capitalism and take away their gas-powered SUV. This typically takes the form of rejecting any data that indicates the climate is warming, or claiming that any warming trend is just part of a natural cycle rather than something influenced by human actions. The mountain of scientific data to the contrary is just proof that experts can’t be trusted because they will manufacture data to support whatever story will give them the power to control our lives.
Although climate science deniers make up less than a third of the population, they have gained political power because of the recent election of President Trump who downplays climate change at every opportunity. I suspect that deep down he believes that climate change is a real issue, but he has found it to be politically expedient to take the opposite point of view. The foundation of the MAGA movement, after all, is the rejection of societal change that is being forced down the throats of the common man by the leftist elites. Climate change fits neatly into that scenario.
Climate science is both settled and unsettled. People have been tracking the weather for a long time. There are global records of temperature, for example, going back over a hundred and fifty years. There are decades of data on ocean currents, atmospheric jet streams, greenhouse gas concentrations, and numerous other climate indicators. High-tech satellites now measure ocean levels, glacier extents, and surface reflectivity to the nth degree on essentially a continuous basis. Thus, the level of certainty regarding climate trends over the relatively recent past is quite high.
Unfortunately, climate change questions can span not just decades or centuries, but thousands and thousands of years. To go back in time, scientists use “proxy records” such as ice cores, tree rings, coral reefs, ocean sediments, and fossil records. These data provide strong clues to past climatic conditions but are obviously less precise and less thorough in their geographic extent than the direct measurements of today.
In addition, the most contentious climate questions often involve the future which can only be answered through climate modeling. The factors which influence climate are numerous and the way factors interact is complex. No model can guarantee that all of the factors and interactions are correctly interpreted. Backward testing on historic data is obviously helpful, but that doesn’t necessarily account for future events which might alter weather trends, feedback loops that might accelerate change, or tipping points which might change the behavior of a particular factor when it passes a key threshold. Advances in computing power and artificial intelligence allow climate models to be continuously refined, but ultimately there is no way to precisely measure the accuracy of a climate projection decades into the future.
Confusion between weather and climate. Weather is the near-term atmospheric condition at a localized geographic scale, while climate refers to average weather patterns over a long period of time (typically decades or more) and over a large geographic area. These are two related and yet very distinct things that are frequently confused – often leading to observations that a local heatwave is proof of climate change or that a cold snap proves that global warming is a hoax. Weather conditions are the result of a variety of factors interacting in complex ways. Long term climate trends are one of those factors, but not necessarily the predominant one.
Blaming climate change for every natural disaster. Hurricanes, torrential rains and wildfires existed long before global warming became a concern and yet virtually every such event is seemingly linked by the media to global warming as a primary cause. It might be plausible to say that global warming increases the likelihood of such events or increases the severity of such events, but blaming climate change for each natural disaster is so far-fetched that it actually undermines climate science and legitimate concerns about weather volatility. Exaggeration leads to greater polarization of opinions, not consensus on how to move forward.
Linking climate change to other political positions. Perhaps because climate activists have called for massive federal spending programs and invasive government mandates, climate change has been equated with other liberal causes that also call for federal spending and regulations. In recent elections, conservatives have felt compelled to downplay climate concerns and liberals have taken the opposite point of view. This makes a rational discussion on climate change almost impossible because it is immediately laden with baggage from immigration, health care, foreign aid and a dozen other issues.
No wonder local politicians tend to tip-toe around climate change as if it were an unexploded bomb, and yet the issue has clear public safety ramifications for many cities and many citizens see climate change as a stewardship issue for future generations. My goal with this post is to lay out an approach to climate change action at the local level that is as pragmatic and non-confrontational as possible.
In this post I will focus on incremental steps that can reduce the carbon footprint of local government operations, but it is impossible to have a discussion of climate change action without the flooding in Asheville, North Carolina, the wildfires in Los Angeles, or some other natural disaster being raised as a major concern. Although I cautioned against blaming climate change for a specific event, it is highly likely that climate change is making extreme weather more common and more severe, and that climate change is setting the stage for related disasters such as wildfires or water shortages. I will tackle those issues in the second part of this series. For this initial post, I will focus on broader strategic issues that might shape a municipality’s approach to a climate change program.
Read the Room
Before any strategic plan is put into place, cities need to know how to align that plan with the general perception of the issue in their community. Opinions, of course, are likely to be all over the place but cities need to have a general sense of how important this issue is to the local citizenry. Absent that general understanding, any initiative is likely to be hijacked by climate activists or scuttled by climate skeptics.
Most cities with a population over 100,000 should have a regular program of community surveys that could be used to gauge how high a priority climate action should be. These surveys are typically used to measure citizen satisfaction with government services and they are designed to be a statistically valid representation of the population. The question list should include a ranking of the importance of climate action compared with other city programs. Ideally, climate priority questions should be included in several consecutive surveys so that trends, if any, can be determined. If done properly, the answers from community surveys can provide guidance for a reasonable plan of action and political cover if the issue becomes a hot potato.
Don’t Get Bogged Down in the Data
Local governments are not staffed with climate science experts (and shouldn’t be). As a result, it is probably best to keep things simple. In fact, it might be best to avoid the term “climate change” entirely and use something more generalized like “environmental sustainability.” That may sound cowardly, but discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to politically sensitive topics. If the topic is unavoidable, stick to the basics that are likely to be generally accepted:
1. 2024 was the hottest year globally on record (over the past 150 years) and the top 10 hottest years on record have all occurred within the past 10 years. [3]
2. A warming planet can have negative consequences for the health, safety and welfare of our citizens.
3. It is simply prudent for the community to think about how best to adapt to a warming world and to take reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood that we are making the problem substantially worse.
Focus on Low-Hanging Fruit
This probably sounds so obvious as to be worthless, but do the simple things first. These types of actions are going to fall into two general categories: things that reduce the amount of energy the organization consumes, and things that exchange fossil fuel energy sources for sources that (at least in theory) have minimal or no impact on greenhouse gases. A simple example would be switching to LED streetlights. Modern LED fixtures use less than half the electricity of high-pressure sodium fixtures and have a longer life span to boot. It costs money to make the switch, of course, but the typical payback period is two to three years.
A more aggressive community might want to put solar panels on the roof on community buildings and replace backup power generators with battery storage. Many municipal buildings have large, flat roofs that are ideal for solar panel installation and the typical payback period is five to ten years. For buildings that need backup power capability or where existing generators need to be replaced, a battery storage system can provide emergency power during outages as well as increase the savings from rooftop solar panels.
Focusing on the payback period is helpful because it speaks to economic stewardship as well as environmental stewardship. Who is going to object to actions that save money and help the environment? It is a little misleading, however, because local governments do not make a profit in the way that private businesses do. The key economic measure for cities is balancing annual revenues and expenditures. If cities have to borrow money to implement climate actions then the whole economic rationale gets shakier. Ideally, climate actions should stay consistent with the resource limits and the broader needs of the organization. For example, adding solar panels to the roof might be best accomplished when the roof needs to be replaced anyway, and should be paired, if possible, with incentives from the local electric utility or federal grant programs.
Beware of the Limits of Change
As I have pointed out in several previous posts, one of the biggest challenges that our society faces is the ability to adapt to the constantly escalating pace of change. While most people accept some change as being inevitable, having change pushed on you when you don’t agree with or understand the underlying rationale is particularly difficult to accept. That is the situation that most cities face with the most aggressive climate change actions.
The limits of climate change has two dimensions. The first is the limitation on implementing change within your particular local government organization. You don’t want to implement change faster than your organization can handle it because it will be cost inefficient, less effective than intended, and will harm employee morale. Programs that look great on paper but which are too ambitious for effective implementation are bound to either fail or at least underperform. Start with a pilot project to (1) prove that the change will not undercut the city’s mission, (2) identify any support programs needed for long term maintenance, and (3) allow city staff to get some hands-on experience without mandating that they change the way they do their work. If the pilot project is successful, then full rollout will be easier. If problems appear, then you can either make adjustments or cancel the program with minimal cost.
The second dimension is the capacity for change within the broader community. Hopefully, the survey questions from the Read the Room section will help gauge that capacity. The general rule to keep in mind, however, is that the more that a city initiative requires behavioral change the less popular it will be. People might question the wisdom of spending tax dollars on rooftop solar panels, but they are unlikely to get too irate because it won’t impact their daily lives. But ban propane grills on backyard patios and tempers are likely to flare. New York City is currently implementing a ban on natural gas furnaces, water heaters, and appliances in new buildings less than 7 stories in height. There are reasons behind this program and New York is a pretty liberal place that generally supports climate change action, but this is likely to be viewed as overly invasive by a significant number of people.
Don’t Over-Promise or Over-Reach
Climate activists who see the issue in apocalyptic terms are likely to push for municipal programs that are heroic in scale or technical ambition. In justifying these programs, proponents will often underestimate the costs, or estimate benefits that would only happen in a perfect world. Examples might be an extensive carbon sequestration program or a requirement that all new public buildings receive Platinum LEED certification. While they might provide a short-term public relations opportunity, the potential for cost overruns and long-term maintenance headaches is enormous.
Most cities, in my opinion, should just say “no” or at least should dramatically simplify the proposal and value-engineer whatever remains to be as cost effective as possible. An extensive tree planting program, for example, is a low-tech way to remove carbon from the atmosphere that is relatively low cost and readily integrated into the city budget. Most cities already have the staff expertise to implement such a program and to provide the minimal maintenance required to keep the trees healthy. It won’t be as sexy as a technology based solution that extracts carbon from the air and injects it into underground aquifers or geologic formations, but it is also less likely to fail.
Similarly, it is fairly easy to build buildings that are energy efficient, have low water usage requirements, and have low life-cycle maintenance costs. Doing so makes a great deal of economic sense, but the LEED certification process is expensive and time-consuming, and provides little long-term benefit beyond the PR value. Proponents will argue that certification demonstrates environmental leadership, but that is a tough sell when many worthwhile projects are competing for limited tax dollars.
The Bottom Line
Climate activists may call me a coward for my conservative approach on this issue, but given the current political environment I think it is the prudent course of action. Racking up some simple wins that have both climate and economic benefits isn’t likely to get a staff member fired or a council member voted out of office.
The trickier issue is dealing with the life safety and property security concerns that can accompany climate change scenarios. Torrential flooding, wildfires and infrastructure failure are all reasonably foreseeable outcomes from a warming planet. Tune in next month as I wade even deeper into the quicksand.
Notes:
1. Alec Tyson, Cary Funk and Brian Kennedy; “What the data says about Americans’ views of climate change;” August 2023; Pew Research Center; https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
2. “The Spark: Just Stop Oil Strategy 2025”; https://juststopoil.org/our-strategy/
3. “2024 Was the Warmest Year on Record”; NASA Earth Observatory; https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/153806/2024-was-the-warmest-year-on-record