66
to remake almost any policy—free trade, continued oil exploration, economic growth—into being part of the solution.
A similar critique has been levelled against the entire sustainable development discourse, in a debate too vast to enter into here (but see While
et al. 2010).
At the urban scale, these trade-offs and conflicts of interests may be
harder to conceal. Yet even here, scholars have pointed to the contrast
between rhetorical aspects of governance and substantive transformative
interventions. In terms of rhetoric, cities generate and circulate highprofile stories and “best practice” narratives that highlight claims about
achievements and successes (Bulkeley 2006; McCann 2011). In terms of
substantive change, however, real effects may be more elusive. Grandin
and Sareen (forthcoming) describe urban governance arrangements as
“often characterised by voluntary action, weak institutions, non-binding
commitments and uncoordinated efforts,” and argue that it can be difficult to determine the substantive and enduring transformative impact of
their interventions.
More concretely, researchers have also criticised the targets that cities
are operating with. Leal and Azevedo (2016) reviewed the targets for local
energy planning for a number of case cities, and found them to show a lack
of standardisation of methodologies, “leading to a diversity that may not
only hamper the comparison between different municipalities’ action but
also prevent a consistent assessment of their global impact.” In similar
vein, Kramers et al. (2013) found a wide variety of accounting methodologies, system boundaries, time frames and source of emissions included
behind relatively similar targets. There is moreover limited awareness of
these methodological limitations among city administrators.
In short, one can find grounds for deep scepticism against the practice
of target-setting in the climate governance literature. In an abstract sense,
these targets are often part of a post-political and techno-managerial climate governance discourse that simultaneously appears climate-friendly
without addressing the underlying contradictions that produce the climate
problem in the first place. At the urban level, target-setting can be seen as
a part of the circulation of “best practice” and rhetorical competition to be
the most sustainable city, while the actual commitments remain largely
non-binding and voluntary.
In this sense, target-setting registers on several of the types of legitimation Sareen outlines in Chap. 2 of this book, but perhaps particularly discursive legitimation. These are legitimation practices that normalise
H. HAARSTAD
to remake almost any policy—free trade, continued oil exploration, economic growth—into being part of the solution.
A similar critique has been levelled against the entire sustainable development discourse, in a debate too vast to enter into here (but see While
et al. 2010).
At the urban scale, these trade-offs and conflicts of interests may be
harder to conceal. Yet even here, scholars have pointed to the contrast
between rhetorical aspects of governance and substantive transformative
interventions. In terms of rhetoric, cities generate and circulate highprofile stories and “best practice” narratives that highlight claims about
achievements and successes (Bulkeley 2006; McCann 2011). In terms of
substantive change, however, real effects may be more elusive. Grandin
and Sareen (forthcoming) describe urban governance arrangements as
“often characterised by voluntary action, weak institutions, non-binding
commitments and uncoordinated efforts,” and argue that it can be difficult to determine the substantive and enduring transformative impact of
their interventions.
More concretely, researchers have also criticised the targets that cities
are operating with. Leal and Azevedo (2016) reviewed the targets for local
energy planning for a number of case cities, and found them to show a lack
of standardisation of methodologies, “leading to a diversity that may not
only hamper the comparison between different municipalities’ action but
also prevent a consistent assessment of their global impact.” In similar
vein, Kramers et al. (2013) found a wide variety of accounting methodologies, system boundaries, time frames and source of emissions included
behind relatively similar targets. There is moreover limited awareness of
these methodological limitations among city administrators.
In short, one can find grounds for deep scepticism against the practice
of target-setting in the climate governance literature. In an abstract sense,
these targets are often part of a post-political and techno-managerial climate governance discourse that simultaneously appears climate-friendly
without addressing the underlying contradictions that produce the climate
problem in the first place. At the urban level, target-setting can be seen as
a part of the circulation of “best practice” and rhetorical competition to be
the most sustainable city, while the actual commitments remain largely
non-binding and voluntary.
In this sense, target-setting registers on several of the types of legitimation Sareen outlines in Chap. 2 of this book, but perhaps particularly discursive legitimation. These are legitimation practices that normalise
H. HAARSTAD