Editor’s note: This story is part of Governing’s ongoing Q&A series “In the Weeds.” The series features experts whose knowledge can provide new insights and solutions for state and local government officials across the country. Have an expert you think should be featured? Email Web Editor Natalie Delgadillo at ndelgadillo@governing.com.In Brief:
- There was uncertainty regarding the future participation of the U.S. at the recent meeting of parties to the Paris climate agreement.
- Negotiations between national governments have implications for the scope of local government action in member countries.
- The director of ICLEI USA, an association of hundreds of local governments committed to sustainability, shares takeaways from the meeting.
Parties to the Paris climate agreement met in Baku, Azerbaijan, in mid-November. The U.S. is likely to withdraw from the accord when the new president takes office, but climate challenges faced by local governments will remain.
Local governments throughout the world (“subnational governments” in the language of international diplomacy) bear the brunt of climate impacts, from extreme heat and drought to floods and sea level rise. National governments' policies determine the resources localities have to safeguard their communities.
A delegation from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), including mayors from cities in California, Arkansas, New Mexico and Minnesota, traveled to Azerbaijan. They were joined by ICLEI USA’s new director, Saharnaz Mirzazad.
In a conversation with Governing, Mirzazad discussed the implications of the meeting for local governments in the U.S., and current priorities for ICLEI’s city, county and regional government members. The conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
What are some of your takeaways from the conference in terms of what lies ahead for local governments?
It was obvious that change in the federal government in the U.S. had a big impact on negotiations, especially from the finance perspective [a major item was the question of funding from developed countries to help poorer countries address climate impacts]. It was making it challenging to talk about any deal and how it will work.
But at the same time, we are seeing more and more interest in involving subnational governments to ensure that work is being done on the ground. Our delegation wasn't very big, but it was very impactful. We had a lot of interest from different stakeholders and players to hear what their plans are. That was probably the silver lining of the situation in the United States.
What we're hearing from members and elected officials who have been dealing with the impacts of climate change is that they want to stay away from the politics and just do the work. They're trying to step up to put more energy into this space, making sure that regardless of whether you like the words “climate change” or you don't, progress is moving forward.
What do you expect to be near-term priorities?
There are Inflation Reduction Act funds that have already been allocated [to climate initiatives], and local officials will focus on making sure that those funds are maximized to help their communities. I really doubt that those funds will be impacted [by the new administration], especially the ones that have been already allocated. Even from the process perspective, it would be a nightmare for federal governments to claw that money back. And 60 percent of those funds are in red states, so there is not much to gain from a political standpoint to claw those back.
Additionally, there will be more focus on resiliency work. Those kinds of projects are easier to communicate, communities understand them better and funds for them are more tied to FEMA money. There will be focus on work that has co-benefits. Reducing CO2 emissions benefits health — how can we look from that perspective and find other sorts of funding for projects?
We need to address emissions from the transportation sector. We are a country of single homes. If we can do more infill development, it will help economic growth and also help our public transportation pencil out. In many cases, we have to subsidize public transportation, but if we have enough density, public transportation will make more sense.
In some areas, they are trying work on different types of funding. A huge state bond was passed in California to address climate issues. Some state governments probably will try to see if they can have this type of bond passed.
Are there other trends?
ICLEI membership is growing significantly in red states. I don't think that's a coincidence. Many are seeing the impact of climate change in really challenging ways. They know that it's happening and it's happening now. They need to have plans.
I think this will become less red versus blue states. We just might see people using words that they are more comfortable with, to align with their political views.
Climate education is really important for our members. We have been partnering with the Climate Reality Project, [former] Vice President Al Gore's project, and many other organizations to make sure that this communication happens.
What will ICLEI be looking at in the year ahead?
(ICLEI)
Our agenda is set by the local governments who are our members. We have different pathways [frameworks for designing policy solutions] that support our members. We have a zero-emission pathway, a climate adaptation and resilience pathway, a circular economy pathway, a nature pathway and a cross-cutting equity pathway.
Our members are very interested in the zero-emission pathway. One of the things that we'll be doing in that area is to help move our members to the next generation of tools for greenhouse gas emission accounting. We are partnering with a technology provider called ClimateView to move our information from our ClearPath tool [an emission inventory and modeling dashboard] to ClearPath 2.0, which will offer new technology.
We have seen a lot of uptake in our members’ interest in the nature pathway. We just had COP16 [meeting of parties to a biological diversity convention] in Colombia. We saw a huge delegation of subnationals from the United States there.
Any last thoughts?
The COP process might be confusing for many people. What's the point of this? I hear that a lot. I think we should not forget how important it is to have that collective energy and a platform to bring people together to hear from each other.
I went to one of the subnational negotiation meetings with one of our member mayors. Hearing from developing countries about their challenges, and why they can’t address them without the support of other countries, was very eye opening for the mayor.
It’s very important to have opportunities for people to understand why we are all in this together.
