We Almost Had Paris

By Daniel C. Vock

Tens of thousands of New Yorkers took to the streets during September's global Climate Strike. Photo by Enrique Shore/Alamy Live News.

The Trump administration announced in November plans to abandon the Paris Climate Agreement, a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The formal withdrawal, slated for later this year, would make the U.S. the first of 185 participating countries to do so.

The departure represents a significant setback in the agreement's goal of limiting global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. The U.S. is the world's second-largest producer of carbon dioxide pollution, trailing only China.

In 2016, the Obama administration promised that, by 2025, the U.S. would reduce its economy-wide GHG emissions by 26 to 28 percent of 2005 levels. While some progress has been made over the last decade, it has slowed over the last three years, with carbon dioxide emissions actually increasing in 2018. To get back on track, the U.S. would need to reduce emissions by an average of 2.6 percent a year, according to the Rhodium Group.

"That's more than twice the pace the U.S. achieved between 2005 and 2017," the group warned last January, "and significantly faster than any seven-year average in U.S. history."

But even if the U.S. maintained its commitment to the agreement but failed to meet its goals, no punishment would follow. The Paris Agreement has no enforcement mechanisms; it relies on a "name and shame" strategy for compliance.

Planners and climate advocates have largely condemned the withdrawal, wondering if the lack of federal support for climate goals will impact work at the local level. Without federal direction, says Oregon planner Brian Campbell, FAICP, states will be less inclined to help local efforts, too. And that would mean that "local governments are more or less on their own."

"It very much sends the wrong signal to the world and to policy makers, agencies, and folks on Capitol Hill about the priorities of the United States," says Jason Jordan, APA's director of policy. "We don't want to have federal policy work against what's happening at the local level to mitigate carbon emissions."

Impacts on federal policy

"Local communities across the nation have been working to combat the climate crisis," APA President Kurt Christiansen, FAICP, said in a statement after the announcement. "While these local and regional innovations are making an essential contribution, national leadership and federal support remain essential. More action is needed from Washington, not less."

"The rejection of our international commitments on climate change is both deeply disappointing and dangerous, putting our future at risk," he added.

"This is a global problem. Even if Houston, LA, or Norfolk does their level best to address [climate change], it's going to take more than localized efforts."
— Jason Jordan, Director of Policy, APA

Planners are primarily worried about how the withdrawal affects federal policy. The Trump administration has already tried to repeal a number of Obama-era initiatives that attempt to limit GHG emissions, such as carbon-reduction goals for power plants and fuel efficiency standards for cars. Without the guidance of the Paris Agreement, Congress will struggle to incorporate GHG reduction goals into the surface transportation funding bill, which lays out spending levels over several years for highways, transit, and some pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure. The current version, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, expires in September. The forthcoming update could either "help communities or be another obstacle" in preparing for climate change and mitigating it, Jordan says.

'A kick in the pants'

"The impacts of climate change play out at a local level, whether it's with rising sea levels, more flooding, or more dangerous storms," says Campbell, who is leading an effort to update APA's climate change policy guide. "Every community is being affected in some way by the global change in climate."

This back-and-forth over the Paris Agreement demonstrates why cities should set their own priorities rather than chasing federal goals and money, says Daniel Herriges, a planner and senior editor for advocacy group Strong Towns. Cities should redirect resources to their urban core and their most productive neighborhoods, he says.

"Rather than seeing the Paris Agreement as a blow to environmental policies, cities should see it as a kick in the pants to go it alone," he says. "And not just for environmental reasons: Environmental sustainability goes hand in hand with financial sustainability. The suburban model doesn't pay for itself; it leads to colossal carbon emissions with ballooning maintenance costs."

But local efforts only go so far. "This is a global problem," Jordan says. "Even if Houston, LA, or Norfolk does their level best to address this issue, it's going to take more than localized efforts. What [planners] are looking for is a partner at the federal level."

Daniel C. Vock is a public policy reporter based in Washington, D.C.