64
6.1
IntroductIon
A casual observer of the official fight against climate change may get the
impression that it is primarily about setting quantitative targets for emissions reduction. Who has committed to the 2 °C target? How did the
world’s leaders discuss the 1.5 °C target at the latest high-level meeting?
Who has the most ambitious target for cuts in CO 2 -emissions, or for
growth of renewables? It may seem that setting targets is what climate
policy consists of.
Cities have certainly entered this game. Since the city council of
Freiburg in 1996 decided to cut 25% of its CO 2 -emissions by 2010 (Leal
and Azevedo 2016), cities all over the world have set ambitious and celebrated targets for a range of climate-related challenges such as emission
cuts, renewable energy use, energy efficiency, electric vehicle uptake and
growth of bicycle use and infrastructure. More than 7700 local and
regional authorities have signed up to the Covenant of Mayors and thereby
committed themselves to achieving and exceeding the EU climate and
energy targets. The Covenant of Mayors initiative is one of many examples
of how governance entities are organising themselves in networks rallying
around particular targets.
The key question is, of course, what all this targeting and goal-setting
means for actual climate policy. From a bird’s-eye view of urban climate
policy, it is tempting to conclude that these targets are not followed by
policies that may realistically ensure that they are met.
It is not that cities are ignoring the climate challenge—on the contrary,
many commentators view cities as leading the fight against climate change
(Rosenzweig et al. 2010). Yet, considering the drastic transformations that
many of these targets involve—for example, 72 cities have committed to
the C40 network’s Deadline 2020 programme of cutting CO 2 emissions
in line with the Paris Agreement—one might suspect that the current
practices of target-setting are unconnected to any realistic programme of
delivering on what they promise. It would follow that the ambitious
target- setting are exercises of vanity, wherein cities compete for the most
ambitious targets but not the most transformative policies. And thereby
that targets help politicians appear to be doing something when they are
actually not. In this sense, we are faced with a crisis of accountability in
which politicians can capitalise on climate-sensitive rhetoric but escape
being held to account for that same rhetoric.
H. HAARSTAD
6.1
IntroductIon
A casual observer of the official fight against climate change may get the
impression that it is primarily about setting quantitative targets for emissions reduction. Who has committed to the 2 °C target? How did the
world’s leaders discuss the 1.5 °C target at the latest high-level meeting?
Who has the most ambitious target for cuts in CO 2 -emissions, or for
growth of renewables? It may seem that setting targets is what climate
policy consists of.
Cities have certainly entered this game. Since the city council of
Freiburg in 1996 decided to cut 25% of its CO 2 -emissions by 2010 (Leal
and Azevedo 2016), cities all over the world have set ambitious and celebrated targets for a range of climate-related challenges such as emission
cuts, renewable energy use, energy efficiency, electric vehicle uptake and
growth of bicycle use and infrastructure. More than 7700 local and
regional authorities have signed up to the Covenant of Mayors and thereby
committed themselves to achieving and exceeding the EU climate and
energy targets. The Covenant of Mayors initiative is one of many examples
of how governance entities are organising themselves in networks rallying
around particular targets.
The key question is, of course, what all this targeting and goal-setting
means for actual climate policy. From a bird’s-eye view of urban climate
policy, it is tempting to conclude that these targets are not followed by
policies that may realistically ensure that they are met.
It is not that cities are ignoring the climate challenge—on the contrary,
many commentators view cities as leading the fight against climate change
(Rosenzweig et al. 2010). Yet, considering the drastic transformations that
many of these targets involve—for example, 72 cities have committed to
the C40 network’s Deadline 2020 programme of cutting CO 2 emissions
in line with the Paris Agreement—one might suspect that the current
practices of target-setting are unconnected to any realistic programme of
delivering on what they promise. It would follow that the ambitious
target- setting are exercises of vanity, wherein cities compete for the most
ambitious targets but not the most transformative policies. And thereby
that targets help politicians appear to be doing something when they are
actually not. In this sense, we are faced with a crisis of accountability in
which politicians can capitalise on climate-sensitive rhetoric but escape
being held to account for that same rhetoric.
H. HAARSTAD