Any mention of climate change planning leads to discussion of uncomfortable subjects such as:
Obviously areas where rising sea level can be observed readily and where damage already is apparent may feel a greater urgency than others where folks who aren't reading the data discount perceived change as just part of something unpredictable anyway, namely the day to day weather. However, climate (meaning the broad patterns of the weather, not the daily changes) impacts our water systems, plant and animal life, building integrity, the necessity of and expense for certain public infrastructure items, lifespan of streets and bridges, economic viability, agricultural patterns, public health, and the safekeeping of important cultural landmarks and artifacts.
So we think every city should undertake some to a vast amount of climate change planning, and every town, village, and rural county should join with nearby locations in climate change planning.
After you have just a few conversations about the above questions, you may have a clue as to whether your likely impacts will be severe enough to warrant a separate climate action plan, or whether you should weave climate into your already fairly long list of considerations in each and every type of city and neighborhood plan you prepare. Next let's look at how other cities respond.
Depending partly on location, local governments and civic groups have taken these four different approaches to current climate issues:
We think each of the three latter approaches has merit, and in this page we will analyze how community members, activists, community organizations, and local governments might go about incorporating the best features of each.
The balance among the approaches will vary widely, based on differing climate risk assessments. Some villages, towns, and cities will see much more severe impacts than others, just as some areas are already much more likely to experience hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, snowstorms, flooding, and storm surge than others. Some economies will be seriously disrupted as farmers must seek alternative crops, beachfront tourist businesses must retreat, or Main Streets must be relocated to higher ground.
As you can guess already, we do not think it makes sense to ignore the threat. You can consult this summary of worldwide climate data in map and chart form. Yes, it is possible that scientists can be wrong. After all, science is the process of formulating and testing hypotheses to approximate the truth more closely. And predictive science is more likely to be wrong than empirical science. But we don't think it is wise to ignore the broad agreement among scientists of many backgrounds and persuasions that there is a strong trend toward global warming. It's really not worth arguing about whether we will see this as only a blip on the chart in 100 years, since none of us expect to be functioning adults then. Meanwhile, our communities may suffer and change drastically for the worse. So let's get busy.
When public awareness of global warming began to increase in the early parts of the millennium, many of the local governments that did respond began with the assumption that if they accentuated their projects and policies to reduce fossil fuel consumption, the worst of the climate trends could be stalled.
Typical efforts to lower the emission of greenhouse gases, which we applaud, include the following examples:
We could make a long list for you, but that would derail this page. The emphasis is on decreasing greenhouse gases through known and now comfortable technologies and action steps, some of which cities had long been pursuing for both fiscal and environmental reasons.
Occasionally a local government or regional consortium would be braver and investigate ways to encourage more transit-oriented development, introduce measures to control urban sprawl and thus reduce driving and the destruction of trees and plantings that serve as carbon sinks, and promote and require greater housing density when new developments are approved.
The evolution of climate change planning and action at the local government level then moved toward a recognition that this problem is bigger than we are ever going to stem through our local public and private actions, so instead of and in addition to mitigation, we are going to have to become realistic about appropriate actions in view of the likelihood that our own mitigation efforts will not be universally adopted and may prove insufficient anyway.
Adaptation approaches emphasize that nature is going to win, that worldwide behavior and not just ours will determine our future, and that in addition to addressing the root causes of fossil fuel use, we will have to take some medium-term actions to protect our own community.
The advantage of this type of thinking is that it brings along more pragmatic people who believe we should adopt a local action plan that recognizes that national and international action won't be enough to prevent important local negative impacts.
However, the disadvantages of a municipal adaptation approach to climate change planning become immediately apparent once concrete proposals start to be discussed.
For example, in areas bordered by oceans, gulfs, bays, and rivers, what is called "retreat" of buildings and facilities from close proximity to the sea or river bank is a first and obvious step.
But this immediately raises some very loud voices. Living with a waterfront view usually comes at a cost, and many of those who value their beach cottage or high-rise condo will fight vigorously to maintain the status quo if the flooding impacts that they personally have experienced are minor.
In historically flood-prone neighborhoods, the residents are disproportionately poor and disadvantaged, and advocates for these neighborhoods typically will sound a loud alarm if you talk about forced relocation. The poor and minorities who have few other choices of affordable housing are not prepared to weather an increased frequency and magnitude of storms, due to sometimes mediocre or low quality of housing construction and maintenance, lack of funds to deal with a disaster and the minor or major life changes that it leaves in its wake, and limited options to relocate due both to systemic racism and lack of housing equity.
You can see that who is forced to relocate and why, who pays for the relocation and subsequent demolition of housing and conversion to usable green space, and where new residences can be constructed will be major public policy discussions and potential sources of conflict in your community.
Equity issues within a metropolitan area are very likely to arise. As the seaside city or suburb reduces the amount of land available for urban uses, what other cities and suburbs will compensate it for loss of tax base? What other suburbs or towns are equipped to expand without aggravating the very urban sprawl that led to the rise in greenhouse emissions in the first place? How are the financial rewards and burdens to be allocated within the metro area? These too are thorny questions.
Similarly, when your city wants to adopt new hurricane or earthquake construction standards, in many cases, this will not go smoothly. A segment of the public will be irate about increasing housing costs. Indeed, even if the public is solidly behind you, you will have to deal with the fallout of these rising housing prices.
All of this strongly suggests that while climate adaptation initially makes cities feel more in control than a mitigation effort that has failed so far to stem global warming, the political, physical, social, and practical difficulties of adaptation will cause plenty of conflict within cities and among cities.
Yet we are convinced that cities with one or more hazard areas or situations must begin now to discuss and resolve politically tricky questions about how to reduce future financial and logistical burdens. These deliberations will be at the heart of climate change planning.
If you are in the position of urging your city government to get busy on adaptation measures, be aware that a resource for them is the American Society of Adaptation Professionals or the BASE project in the European Union.
Some cities have chosen to fold climate change planning into a broader resiliency planning effort. (For those who are wondering what this means, see our page about what resiliency planning is.)
The resilient communities notion is that whatever the major challenge, which could be civil unrest, major earthquake, hurricane, power supply interruption, or epidemic, a city needs to have identified in advance the structures, procedures, and resources it can use to bounce back. Resiliency implies forethought and redundant economic, health, housing, and emergency response systems. We really like this approach, since it recognizes that there are many potential crises that could face a city and that crisis response bears some similarities regardless of the problem involved.
We think this is occurring in part as a response to the political difficulties and moral uncertainties of the other two approaches. In part, Rockefeller Foundation leadership in helping cities identify challenges to their resiliency deserves the credit. Another aspect of the rise of the resiliency framework in climate change planning is the belief that wrapping a difficult issue into a topic where there is more consensus, such as emergency relief, sometimes softens a controversy. Here we should note that at other times, the more controversial aspect of a plan or program, such as climate change, might just serve as a lightning rod attracting almost all of the discussion of the overall resiliency plan.
Ultimately you will have to decide whether the resiliency planning frame will be suitable for your community. Those communities at highest climate risk may want to sharpen the focus on those particular issues, without entanglements with larger questions of resiliency until critical programs to address climate issues are underway.
When you engage in this work at the community level, you will identify possible conflicts between climate change and other priorities. But this is absolutely nothing new for the planning and community development field. We are often looking for the appropriate balance among varying concerns.
We just need to start factoring climate implications into our land use plans, zoning decisions, development approvals, economic development initiatives, and capital improvements plans. We need to pay attention to how rising sea levels and increasing severity and incidence of storms may hasten the decline of certain neighborhoods. We need to challenge previously published flood maps, explore how new or stricter building codes could lower storm damage, and examine how a warmer climate could make our habitat preservation, stormwater management, drinking water supply, and beachfront development initiatives look short-sighted.
It's time for your community to engage actively in climate change planning if our current trajectory would alter your physical development patterns and therefore the social structures of vulnerable groups. Will higher ground see rapid appreciation of real estate values, and if so, what will that mean for housing density and type? Will entire blocks or neighborhoods become major headaches when official flood maps do not alert people to increased flood hazards?
Failure to come to grips with some of these questions now, while there is still time for some communities to act, will only lead to greater expense and frustration later. Postponing difficult conversations usually leads to accelerated conflict as issues are amplified during emergencies.
If your impacts are predicted to be less severe, you still need to add climate to your comprehensive plan contents and think carefully about various scenarios. In fact, you can include several ranges of severity in your plan, just as you might have a high, medium, and low population projection.
To help with all of this, look to examples from other cities. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency has published an online manual, Beyond the Basics, about mitigating all forms of hazards. It includes links to local examples of hazard mitigation plans, some of which deal with climate change extensively.
Climate change planning is indeed a cross-cutting issue that may take on many different shapes depending on each community's unique risks. For example, some communities will face a gentrification risk, but others will find that their first thoughts on climate adaption will only aggravate concentrated poverty. Below are just a few of the possible pages of this website that will be relevant to the physical, social, and economic challenges facing many communities.