Transporting Climate Change

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BECOME a very local problem for the Inuit. In the Arctic, average temperatures are increasing around twice the average global rate. The results have included increasing precipitation, thawing permafrost, melting glaciers, and rising river flows and sea level. These environmental changes threaten Inuit hunting culture, food security, and health. For example, the wildlife herds and marine and freshwater fisheries, from which they obtain food, have significantly diminished in size.

Climate change has a devastating impact on vulnerable populations around the world–not just on those who live in the Arctic. Island states face rising sea levels, changes in rainfall patterns and prevailing winds, and variability in wave action. Alpine communities, such as those in and near Nepal’s Sagarmatha [Everest] National Park are endangered as melting glaciers create alpine lakes that overflow their boundaries. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that although some areas might experience beneficial impacts from climate change, most parts of the world will likely experience detrimental effects. 

In December 2005, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights claiming that the U.S. approach to climate change violates their human rights. The petition argues that the United States contributes a substantial portion of the world’s greenhouse gases, but is not taking adequate measures to limit its emissions..

The Inuit have grounds for concern over U.S. emissions. In his 2001 speech discussing the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush acknowledged that the United States produces almost 20% of the world’s manmade greenhouse gases. Moreover, the U.S. contribution to climate change is predicted to grow. The U.S. Climate Action Report — 2002, submitted by the United States as part of its obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, projects that between 2000 and 2020, the country’s net greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 42.7%.

The Inuit petition is just one of a wide range of activities by communities and entities around the world reacting to the failure of national and global entities to address climate change effectively. While these measures–whether in the Arctic Circle, the Pacific Northwest, or Australia–may seem too small-scale to address such a transnational problem, combating climate change effectively requires an engagement of its local dimensions. Suing Over Climate Change

Litigation over climate change has used many different strategies in local, national, and international tribunals. At the most local level, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Australia required a panel reviewing environmental effects of the development of an additional coal field for a power station to consider greenhouse gas emissions from the continued operation of the plant. Similarly, a Minnesota state court was asked to consider whether carbon dioxide should be a substance included in an environmental cost valuation scheme.

A wide range of actions have been brought in U.S. federal courts. Advocates have attempted to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate motor vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions. Another suit challenged the funding of overseas fossil fuel projects without an assessment of their contribution to global warming or other environmental impacts. Eight states and New York City brought an action against six major power companies arguing that their massive carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, constitute a public nuisance. Most recently, an action filed under the Endangered Species Act focuses on the effect of global warming on polar bears.

Similar actions have been brought in other national courts. Germanwatch and Bund filed a lawsuit against Hermes, the German export credit agency, to require it to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the projects it supports. Citizens in Argentina have used a combination of domestic law and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to force the government to provide evidence that its failure to respond to climate change worsened the loss of life and property damage of the 2003 Santa Fe floods. Nigerian citizens have obtained an initial favorable decision in a case claiming that the impacts of gas flaring by oil companies violate their constitutional rights. The case focuses on both the immediate localized effects and the vulnerability of these communities to the resultant global climate change.

In addition to the Inuit petition, nongovernmental organizations have brought petitions and a report to UNESCO to try to address climate change. As a result, UNESCO is examining climate change’s impacts on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the Belize Barrier Reef, Peru’s Huarascán National Park, and Nepal’s Sagarmatha National Park. The petitions argue that these sites–all on the World Heritage List–should be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger due to the effects of global climate change.

Municipal Approaches to Reducing Emissions from Transportation

These lawsuits and petitions, taking place in many different fora, highlight the multi-layered nature of the climate change problem. Each action has local, national, and transnational dimensions. At a policy level as well, the smallest units of government–localities–are increasingly serving on the front lines of the battle to stem the tide of climate change.

In the United States, municipalities play a lead role in developing policies to reduce the national contribution of greenhouse gases. Former Mayor Paul Schell of Seattle summarized the importance of local participation–even before the U.S. withdrawal from Kyoto–after the Seattle City Council took measures to meet Kyoto standards: “Every city and every individual can take steps to reduce global warming. Cities are where most emissions occur–and where solutions must begin. We can’t afford to wait for the federal government to do this.”

Local leadership around the country has taken action in the face of this need. In 2003, forty U.S. cities and counties were participating in the global Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Two years later, in 2005, there were 152 municipalities involved. These U.S. cities form part of the five hundred participating local governments from around the world, which together govern territory producing 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

As part of this effort, localities have begun reexamining their approaches to transportation. These decisions greatly influence the quantity of emissions: An inventory by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency noted that transportation activities provided 32% of the 2003 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, and that 60% of those emissions came from gasoline consumption by people using personal vehicles. The 2003 transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion represented a 22% increase over 1990 levels. By 2003, 37 states had initiated or completed a greenhouse gas inventory to help them understand their pattern of emissions, and 44 states had initiated or completed greenhouse gas plans for achieving reductions. The plans of both states and cities vary, however, in their comprehensiveness and approaches to transportation.

Portland, for example, has been at the leading edge of municipal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 1993, Portland became the first U.S. city to join an ICLEI-coordinated project to reduce urban carbon dioxide emissions, and its 2001 Local Action Plan on Global Warming set the goal of carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 at 10% below 1990 levels. The transportation-focused segment of the plan aimed to reduce vehicle emissions through decreasing vehicle miles traveled to 10% below 1995 levels and improving fuel economy from 18.5 to 26.5 mpg in Multnomah County. In so doing, it relies on the city’s well-developed public transportation system, and focuses on making the city even more bike and pedestrian friendly.

In contrast, the city of Los Angeles’s Climate Action Plan, despite winning an award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, addresses transportation emissions without addressing the deficiencies of the city’s public transportation options. The plan includes an extensive system of bicycle patrols, alternative-fuel city fleet vehicles, and the use of green power at Los Angeles area airports. Under the plan, emissions in 2010 from municipal operations would decrease 30% from 1990 levels. With respect to private vehicle emissions, however, the plan focuses primarily on improving traffic surveillance and control and encouraging bus ridership. It does not deal with the lack of an extensive metro, light rail, or bike lane system in Los Angeles.

Evaluating Impacts of Municipal Transportation Initiatives

If the municipalities implementing climate action plans achieve their goals, the transportation emissions reductions will be substantial. Portland’s plan predicts that 1.35 of a total 3.10 million metric tons reduction in emissions will result from its approaches to transportation, telecommunications, and access. Due to its larger size, each step that Los Angeles takes has a massive potential impact; its plan forecasts a reduction by 1.01 million metric tons just from its implementation of the automated traffic surveillance and control system at 4,497 intersections.

Unfortunately, these goals are often difficult to achieve. Even aggressive climate change reduction plans, such as the much-touted one in Portland, often result in more limited reductions than forecasted. There, although per capita emissions decreased–from 16.9 to 15.6 metric tons between 1990 and 2001–population growth and other factors resulted in an overall emissions increase of 6%. The transportation efforts were impacted particularly severely by this growth. Despite a 65% increase in public transportation use since 1990 and a doubling of bicycle commuters since 1993, both total and per capita vehicle miles traveled continue to grow.

Federal policy decisions also impact local efforts. Portland’s transportation plan relies upon increased use of fuel efficient vehicles, but federal fuel efficiency requirements have not increased since 1985. Without a national-level effort to change the types of vehicles on the road, Portland will be fundamentally hampered in its plan to reduce transportation emissions.

Despite these obstacles, municipalities are producing fewer emissions than they would without these plans. Cities participating in the CCP campaign are more likely to take global warming effects into account as they make decisions. For example, as San Francisco explored expanding its passenger ferry service, CALSTART did a detailed study on the extent to which such an expansion could result in fewer emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area. The study found significant sub-regional differences in the emissions effect, even with ferries using low emissions technology, based on the alternative choices passengers would make. The ferries could help air quality on the shorter, slower routes studied. On a faster, longer route, however, few passengers reported that they would drive if the ferry was unavailable and thus emissions impacts would be much lower. Understanding nuances such as these are critical to structuring local transportation options that maximize emissions reductions.

Concluding Reflections: From Local to Global to Local

The details of cities’ efforts to reduce transportation-related emissions only reinforce the complexities of addressing global climate change meaningfully. Given the proportional emissions contribution from municipal transportation, local action is critical. But even the “model” efforts cannot occur in a vacuum. They are impacted by larger scale demographics and policy decisions at other levels of government.

Suits pending in U.S. courts and the petition by the Inuit help to create pressure on the United States federal government that is crucial to the success of local emissions reductions plans. Even if these cases do not force legal changes, the publicity that they generate helps to raise the level of public awareness and put pressure on the national government to take constructive steps.

For vulnerable populations, however, even the most aggressive efforts will likely be too little too late. None of the approaches discussed go far enough to actually reverse the trend of human impact on climate change; they simply slow the pace slightly. Given the rapidity of the physical and social transformation in the Arctic and other severely impacted locales, the benefits of greener municipal transportation policy will most likely be felt by those not yet at the devastation’s front line.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. ACIA Scientific Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Bush, George W. “President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change.” 11 Jun 2001.

CALSTART. Passenger Ferries, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gases: Can System Expansion Result in Fewer Emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area? 23 Jul 2002.

Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting, Department of Transportation. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Through State and Local Transportation Planning. Sep 2003.

City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Dept. Energy Climate Action Plan. Mar 2001.

City of Portland Office of Sustainable Development. See in particular Sustainable Technologies and Practices, “Local Action Plan on Global Warming” (Apr 2001), and “Portland Climate Change Efforts” (Apr 2003).

Climate Justice, Cases Already Underway.

Gibson, Campbell. “Population of the 100 Largest Cities and Other Urban Places in the United States: 1790 to 1990.” United States Census Bureau. Jun 1998.

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Cities for Climate Protection.

McCarthy, James J., et al. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability : Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

U.S. Department of State. Climate Action Report 2002. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2003. 15 Apr 2005.