Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
April 20, 2010
Summary: As comprehensive
federal-level climate legislation stalls
in the U.S. Congress, cities and
regions across the United States
are responding to the challenge
of climate change through local
action and policies. As CDP fellow
Anne Mariani posits in this policy
brief, Climate Action Plans are a key
element of these efforts, as they
provide both the goals and methods
for achieving carbon emission
reductions at the local level.
By closely examining the plans of
Pittsburgh, Denver, and Seattle,
the author outlines a number of
lessons for other cities and regions,
especially those in Europe, attempt-
ing to complement national policy
with local action.
1744 R Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
T 1 202 683 2650
F 1 202 265 1662
E info@gmfus.org
Energy and Climate Change: A New Driver for Local
Policy and Action?
An overview of three American initiatives
by Anne Mariani1
Introduction
In recent years, local climate leaders
have emerged throughout the United
States taking bold initiatives on climate
protection to demonstrate the capacity of
cities in effectively reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. The U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection agreement, perhaps the best-
known of these initiatives, has more than
one thousand members after five years,
and recently inspired the European Com-
mission to launch a similar initiative for
European cities. The early commitment
of these local leaders has helped advance
the idea that metropolitan areas play a
key role in addressing energy and climate
issues.
In France, at a time when local
climate action plans are about to become
the rule as a result of the “Grenelle de
l’Environnement” bill, what can we learn
from the U.S. experience? In light of their
successes and challenges, what do we
know about local climate action that can
be replicated in the French context?
These are the questions I looked to
answer as a fellow with the German
Marshall Fund’s Comparative Domestic
Policy (CDP) Program. Between October
1
Anne Mariani is in charge of air quality, climate and energy programs and policies at the Regional Council of Brittany, France.
Currently on leave from that position, Ms. Mariani is working as an environmental planner at the Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments. In the fall of 2009, Ms. Mariani was a fellow of the German Marshall Fund’s (GMF) Comparative Domestic Policy
program. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of GMF.
and December 2009, I conducted field
research on U.S. climate action plans at
the city and regional level. This policy
brief summarizes my findings and the
lessons learned from the cities of
Pittsburgh, Denver, and Seattle. This
sample is certainly not exhaustive, but it
did offer me the opportunity to discover
a variety of approaches, perspectives, and
commitments to climate protection in
U.S. cities.
Pittsburgh: A poly-nuclear climate
initiative, a process in early stages
Among all post-industrial cities in the
American Rust Belt, Pittsburgh is well-
known for its capacity for regeneration,
thanks to a strong local coalition of pub-
lic and private stakeholders. The recent
adoption of the Pittsburgh Climate Initia-
tive makes Pittsburgh an interesting city
to investigate how climate protection may
be a part of a broader project to ensure a
city’s future development.
The development of a climate action
plan for the city of Pittsburgh was initi-
ated in 2006 by the previous mayor, Bob
O’Connor, and by City Councilman
William Peduto. A Green Government
Task Force (GGTF) was formed to
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
develop the plan. At first, its mission was mainly focused on
reducing emissions from government operations. But it soon
became clear to GGTF members that the process needed to be
open to other stakeholders, in order to tackle community-wide
emissions.
The task force developed recommendations that were formally
adopted by the City Council in June 2008 with a goal to reduce
emissions by 20 percent by 2023, compared to 2003. Several
committees gathered under a single brand name, the Pittsburgh
Climate Initiative (PCI), to oversee the plan in its implemen-
tation phase. Surprisingly—at least from a French perspec-
tive—the Initiative’s overall management and evaluation was led
not by the city itself, but by the Green Building Alliance, a local
non-governmental organization (NGO).
Indeed, nonprofit organizations and foundations play a central
role in the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative, at a scale that would be
unusual in France. Pittsburgh was thus an interesting place to
observe how non-governmental stakeholders representing civil
society can be involved in local climate protection in the United
States by providing critical influence and funding as well as
education, coordination, and support for implementation.
Another important group of key stakeholders in Pittsburgh are
the academic institutions. Prestigious universities and research
centers, such as Carnegie Mellon, Duquesne University, and the
University of Pittsburgh, are strongly involved in PCI through
technical assistance and the Higher Education Climate Consor-
tium (HECC), through which the ten main universities in the
region implement the higher education portion of PCI.
At this stage, while clearly demonstrating the capacity of local
stakeholders to mobilize themselves on climate protection, the
Pittsburgh Climate Initiative still has challenges to address in
order to be able to affirm itself as a major political effort that
shapes the city’s future. One of the key challenges is that, at the
moment, the city and county governments are not leading the
initiative. There appears to be a lack of confidence in their ability
to do so and a fear, if local governments did take it on, that the
initiative would suffer from being politically “appropriated.”
The Pittsburgh Climate Initiative relies heavily on a strongly
engaged but limited number of key partners. Going forward,
it may be beneficial to engage new stakeholders in the process.
More direct involvement from organizations in charge of local
economic strategy could, for example, be beneficial. Moreover,
some actions are still quite vague and “lack teeth,” especially
those related to urban planning, urban design, and transporta-
tion policies. In the future, these issues will need to be connected
to climate protection, both at the local and metropolitan levels.
PCI partners are aware of these limits. In that context, there is no
doubt that PCI will build on the partnerships that now exist and
quickly evolve. From a political perspective, the recent re-elec-
tion of Mayor Ravenstahl will also be an opportunity to push the
Pittsburgh Climate Initiative to grow in stature.
Denver: A climate plan embedded in a broader initiative for
urban sustainability
Coordinated by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, Greenprint
Denver and Denver Climate Action Plan are two initiatives cre-
ated by the mayor of Denver, John Hickenlooper. Greenprint
Denver is a broad sustainability initiative not limited to climate
protection for the next five years. It is also a “brand name”
under which any city/county initiative related to sustainability is
publicized. On the other hand, the Denver Climate Action Plan
focuses only on climate protection and is more a community-
wide plan, involving decisions and actions not only from the city
government but also from other stakeholders such as the state
and utility companies. It was developed by the same committee
in 2006-2007, after the Mayor of Denver signed the U.S.
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. It sets the goal of reduc-
ing emissions 10 percent per capita by 2012 compared to 2005,
and to return to 1990 emission levels by 2020 and identifies ten
strategies to reach these goals.
One striking characteristic of the Denver Climate Action Plan
is its reliance on a long-term partnership with local academics,
which has proven to be very successful. A group of researchers at
the University of Colorado formed a cross-disciplinary program
called Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
(IGERT), whose expertise has been instrumental in supporting
climate strategy design.
This kind of collaboration between local government and uni-
versity researchers is a win-win learning process for both parties.
The growth of the IGERT program demonstrates its success; it
now provides support to more than ten cities in Colorado and
beyond.
2
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
Denver has also created an efficient way to reach out to the
community and to convince residents to take action on energy,
climate, and sustainability through a city-NGO partnership
called the Neighborhood Energy Action Partnership (NEAP).
While many nonprofit and community organizations in Denver
were already very active on environmental issues, a lack of
coordination and organization limited their efficiency and
efficacy. NEAP was, therefore, created to provide a “chain of
services” within the nonprofit community to make it as easy as
possible for residents to take action. The NGO community
receives funding from the city to support these activities and
they in turn serve as a “grassroots army” for Greenprint Denver.
In addition to working with the academic and nonprofit com-
munities, Denver has also reached out to the business sector,
especially those companies working in the energy industry.
The energy sector, traditionally a significant part of the Denver
economy, has mainly been based on fossil energies thanks to
the reserves of coal, natural gas, and petroleum in the Rocky
Mountains. But in recent years, diversification of the energy
sector has become a priority for economic development
organizations, with support from state and local governments.
Attracting new businesses, especially in the renewable energy
sector, is now a major component of the regional economic
development strategy. The Metro Denver Chamber of Com-
merce is in charge of implementing this strategy, with support
from the city of Denver’s Office of Economic Development.
As shown by the examples above, Denver’s Climate Action is
based on a number of partnerships with a wide range of stake-
holders. The plan does not include many mandates or require-
ments (although cities in Colorado have quite extensive power
and freedom in that matter). An explanation may be that Green-
print Denver is primarily a mayoral initiative. The City Council
is supportive of the initiative through its Greenprint Committee
but has been relatively inactive, as legislation and mandates are
considered a last resort for Greenprint Denver to reach its
objectives.
Being a consensus-based initiative is a strength of Greenprint
Denver. But at some point, and considering the ambitious targets
set up in the Denver Climate Action Plan, one wonders if this
approach will be sufficient to achieve large-scale results. As the
climate action plan is revised and recommendations are added
to reach the city’s 2020 goals, Denver will have to move
progressively to achieve a new balance between voluntary and
mandatory approaches.
Seattle: Long-term leadership and high degree of climate
integration
Environmental protection is well established in Seattle’s munici-
pal government. Energy conservation and water conservation,
for instance, have been major components of the municipal
electricity and water utilities’ strategies for many years. This
environmental leadership in the city government reflects a
traditionally strong responsiveness in the community to
environmental issues.
Given its dependence on natural resources (electricity genera-
tion relies on hydro sources and water supply depends heavily
on the snow pack from surrounding mountains) and its poten-
tial vulnerability to future climate changes, climate protection
became a crucial issue for the city, and a priority for its mayor,
Gregg Nickels. This local challenge became a national movement
in 2005, when, frustrated by the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol
in the U.S. Congress, Mayor Nickels initiated the famous U.S.
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Mayor Nickels’ call for climate action on a national scale raised
the bar for GHG emission reduction in Seattle, so a real strategy
needed to be designed to meet the ambitious targets. To that
purpose, Mayor Nickels appointed the “Green Ribbon Com-
mission,” composed of civic and business leaders, to develop
a climate strategy that led to the adoption of Seattle Climate
Protection Initiative in September 2006.
Five years later, Seattle seems well on its path to meeting its 2012
goal: the last update of the GHG inventory shows that 2008
emissions are 7 percent below 1990, despite a 16 percent growth
in population. Only transportation emissions grew by 7 percent.
Less quantifiable, but no less an achievement, is the fact that
climate protection has been effectively institutionalized within
the city government.
The Seattle Climate Protection Initiative is based on an aggres-
sive communication strategy to convince residents and key
stakeholders to take action along with the city. It is promoted
through a campaign called “Seattle Climate Action Now,” or
Seattle CAN, which was launched three years ago. Its message is
basically “working together, we can make a difference: be a part
of a community-wide challenge to address climate change.”
3
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
Because of its specific geographical context and its reliance on
vulnerable natural resources, the Seattle region is at the forefront
of a movement to include adaptation strategies in local climate
plans. Adaptation to climate change is progressively considered
along with mitigation efforts in the whole Pacific Northwest
region at the city, county, and state levels. The Climate Impacts
Group (CIG), a cross-disciplinary research group based at the
University of Washington and supported by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), plays a key-
role in making this possible, by providing scientific resources
to local policymakers. Its work with local institutions on vulner-
ability assessments and adaptation strategy design has been
instrumental in the region’s adaptation initiatives.
As in Denver and Pittsburgh, climate protection in Seattle is well
integrated with economic development, innovation, and work-
force development. At the state level, the “Climate Action and
Green Jobs” bill (HB 2815) adopted in March 2008 sets a cap on
greenhouse gas emissions for the state of Washington. This bill
clearly links climate action and the economy, and establishes a
statewide effort on workforce training to achieve these goals.
The Seattle Climate Protection Initiative is not an isolated pro-
cess in the Seattle area. Climate is also a priority for King County
and for the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which en-
compasses the four counties around Seattle. At the regional level
especially, PSRC does an impressive job to connect transporta-
tion, land use, and climate policies in its comprehensive Regional
Growth Strategy “Vision 2040” and in its transportation plans,
as a response to a state law establishing benchmarks for reducing
per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) statewide. PSRC seized
this opportunity to put climate change on the agenda with the
objective of determining the potential contribution of the Puget
Sound region to statewide goals, and developing a regional
strategy to reduce GHG from transportation in line with the
2040 vision.
Using advanced modeling tools, PSRC was able to model and
quantify the impacts of different scenarios of policy options.
Based on this extensive work, a consensus has emerged at the
regional level that GHG emission reduction implies a balanced
mix of land use policies, road pricing policies, expanded trans-
portation choices, and technology (electric vehicles, increased fuel
efficiency, low-carbon fuels). This process is interesting because
it demonstrates how well-used expertise contributes to educating
policymakers and making it possible to advance regional climate
goals that are both progressive and consensus-based.
Key themes and policy recommendations
Climate initiatives in Pittsburgh, Denver, and Seattle are built on
diverse local contexts and experience, and are therefore follow-
ing different paths. Clearly there is no single model for tackling
climate change at the local level. Climate initiatives are the prod-
uct of political will, popular acceptance, local energy stakes, and
opportunities. However, a few key themes can be identified from
the three case studies and research on other local climate initia-
tives in the United States. The following section highlights key
lessons from these examples on how local governments can plan,
act, and partner for climate protection in cities and regions.
■ Establish a results-oriented climate strategy through people
and tools
Political leadership is the very basis of a successful climate effort.
In the United States, this political commitment is definitely the
mayors’ turf. Mayor Hickenlooper in Denver, Mayor Nickels in
Seattle, and many others personify their city’s climate action.
Charismatic figures whose political boldness was decisive in ini-
tiating climate action locally, they speak not only for their cities,
but have used their local actions to let the voice of U.S. mayors
be heard on the national stage.
Political commitment is the starting point. Soon after cities need
to involve external stakeholders beyond the city government. To
develop their climate action plans, the three cities I studied relied
on a comprehensive dedicated task force, with members of the
civic, business, and academic communities appointed directly
by the mayor. Generally speaking, U.S. climate initiatives appear
to be quite “results-oriented,” both in terms of environmental
and economic benefits, and financial cost. During the planning
process, they often use cost-efficiency and cost-benefits analysis
to set priorities within their climate action plans, although the
practice varies widely among cities—usually when local exper-
tise is available (for example, Denver’s reliance on the University
of Colorado and Pittsburgh’s on Carnegie Mellon University).
When it comes to implementation of the proposed recommen-
dations, it appears successful to have a small dedicated team in
the mayor’s office that focuses on coordination, outreach, and
4
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
evaluation of the climate plan. The proximity to the mayor gives
this team good political leverage for the overall process. Imple-
mentation of specific projects remains the responsibility of each
related department though. Particularly in Seattle and Denver,
city departments appeared to have developed a “climate and
sustainability culture,” perhaps because they had been effectively
empowered and made accountable for implementation and
outcomes.
American cities have institutionalized the evaluation of climate
action through two primary means: at the macro level, they
regularly produce an updated GHG inventory; and at the micro/
internal level, reporting procedures are well-established and, on
average, seem to run quite smoothly. Annual reports include a
flood of figures, metrics, etc., which make a point of mentioning
progress in the city’s strategy.
Beyond the short-term objectives codified in the U.S. Mayors’
Climate Protection Agreement (to which all three cities have
signed on) and supported by results-oriented plans, climate
action plans must also support a long-term vision and projects
to build better communities, improve quality of life through
green strategies, and make people proud of their city. In that
regard, the visioning processes led by the metropolitan planning
organizations in Denver and Seattle are interesting efforts. In
these instances, climate protection becomes an additional
component of a comprehensive strategy for a sustainable
development of the region.
This ability to juggle between short and long term, to be both
strategic and operational was striking in Denver and even more
so in Seattle. However, in Pittsburgh, this strategic vision still
needs to be developed.
■ Foster innovative policies and programs
Communicate and reach out to the community on energy
and climate
Emissions from government operations typically represent less
than 5 percent of total urban emissions. There are other sources
of emissions that governments can influence, through their
policies and programs. But to achieve significant GHG
emissions reductions city-wide, the challenge is to engage the
whole community in climate protection. For that, outreach and
communication are the keys. This is an area where U.S. cities
excel and where French cities can find inspiration for their own
programs.
With their climate initiatives, Seattle, Denver, and Pittsburgh
have definitively swept aside the traditional institutional com-
munications tools. Each of them has developed an elaborate
outreach campaign. At the very minimum, these campaigns
include a dedicated website, and often a presence on web-based
social media.
Often, in the U.S. context, the more effective communication
strategy is to talk about the co-benefits of climate protection.
Cities, therefore, develop a resolutely optimistic rationale to
“sell” climate protection, highlighting the benefits on health, air
quality, energy security, savings on energy costs, avoided infra-
structure costs, green jobs, and improved quality of life. Others,
like Denver, chose not to focus narrowly on climate, but more
broadly on sustainability, which is a way to include all these
aspects.
Based on the examples of Greenprint Denver, Seattle CAN and
the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative, a framework for energy and
climate outreach strategies can be sketched, based on a brand
name, challenge and competition programs, grassroots action
in partnership with civic and community-based organizations,
stakeholder engagement, and transparent city action that makes
it visible for the public in order to convince them to take action
too.
Although this is not a turnkey strategy, this framework may be
adapted to the French context, with the following caveats: the
challenge/reward concept works very well in the United States,
where competition is highly valued, but may not be as success-
ful in France for cultural reasons. Also, and local civic/grassroots
organizations in the United States are much more active and
professionally organized than in France.
Develop connections between smart growth and climate
protection
From advocacy to the real world, the principles of the Smart
Growth movement, which grew to prominence in the United
States over the past 30 years thanks to the efforts of leaders like
Peter Calthorpe and Andrés Duany, are now taking shape in
5
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
the three cities included in this study, through the adoption of
mobility plans and the revision of zoning ordinances to allow
mixed-use, compact, and transit-oriented development. What is
perhaps even more interesting is what is happening at the met-
ropolitan regional level, where climate is becoming a full-fledged
objective of regional visioning processes and comprehensive
plans.
This is supported by complex urban system modeling tools
such as the ones used by the Puget Sound Regional Council or
the Denver Regional Council of Governments. These integrated
land-use and transportation models are used to evaluate differ-
ent mixes of policy options with regard to their impact on GHG
emissions. They help in conducting learning processes, and in
designing long-term growth management strategies that
integrate climate protection.
These strategies can be inspiring for similar processes in France,
especially to spur extended consideration of climate protection
in French metropolitan plans, called “Schema de Coherence
Territoriale.”
Consider energy and climate as an opportunity for economic
development
Building on their local strengths, these three cities have each
linked their climate initiatives with business opportunities:
Pittsburgh on green building technology, Denver on renewable
energy, and Seattle on electric vehicles and smart grids.
Although it doesn’t appear in all cases as a deliberate strategy,
but rather a question of opportunity, it is clear that the “green
jobs/green economy” factor is much more developed in the
United States as a supporting argument for local and regional
climate initiatives. Because climate change on its own is not
always viewed as a sufficient reason to take action, there is always
a strong emphasis on the economic benefits of any climate-
related decision.
Foster the adoption of local climate change adaptation policies
Climate change adaptation strategies must be developed at the
grassroots level since the impacts of climate change will be felt
mainly locally and regionally. Local governments therefore have
a crucial role to play because of their jurisdictional powers over
transportation, water, infrastructure, natural resources, and of
course on planning. In the United States, local adaptation
policies are still in the early stages of development. But local
leaders—such as those in Seattle, Chicago, New York, or cities in
South Florida are leading the way, mainly in the regions that are
most at risk from the effects of climate change. Emphasizing the
local impacts of climate change also reinforces the argument that
local climate action is critical.
To foster development of local adaptation policies and encour-
age local governments to take a proactive approach to climate
risk preparedness, reliable local and regional scientific data are
essential, as well as outreach and training for elected officials and
government staff on climate change impacts and adaptation.
This is a long and ongoing process, given that the science con-
tinues to evolve, and there are not many “best practices” on how
to integrate climate risks into local policies. Pilot programs and
early leadership should therefore be encouraged. At the nexus of
research and practical application, they can lead the way toward
comprehensive local adaptation policies.
■ Develop partnerships
Establish vertical and horizontal partnerships with surrounding
governments
From Pittsburgh to Denver, and even more so in Seattle, there
is an obvious progression on how well different levels of gov-
ernment within a region cooperate on climate protection. This
alignment of city, region, and state climate initiatives is a key
factor of success.
Energy and climate initiatives are very transverse, technically,
but also functionally. They are a subtle mix between regulation,
strategic planning, policymaking, leadership, and improvement
of governmental operations. Because these functions are more
or less fragmented in several institutions, cross-jurisdictional
collaboration is an imperative to create a regional “climate
governance.” This will be reinforced in the French context, where
governments are very fragmented.
Increase partnerships with non-governmental stakeholders
The ultimate goal of the climate action plan at the city level is to
engage all stakeholders in a shared project for climate protection
under the city’s leadership. To do so, local governments develop
tight partnerships with a wide scope of organizations, generally
6
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
representing four main sectors: businesses, utilities, nonprofits,
and universities. Each of the three cities surveyed demonstrated
innovative ways to engage these organizations, whether it was
providing technical assistance and public recognition to busi-
nesses that commit to “green” their operations or promoting
renewable energy usage with the local utility through a partner-
ship like the city of Denver and Xcel Energy’s “Denver Energy
Challenge.” But among these collaborations set up by local
governments, one is especially striking and interesting from an
European perspective: collaboration with local universities.
Seattle (University of Washington), Denver (University of
Colorado), and Pittsburgh (Carnegie Mellon University) have
all built partnerships with local academic institutions to support
the design and implementation of their climate action plans.
These partnerships allow local governments to access expertise
and tools they wouldn’t have otherwise. Because they are built
on confidence and long-term planning, the transfer of
knowledge and expertise from researchers to government staff
becomes feasible and effective. Inversely, universities benefit
from rich topics for research and educational purposes. In
Denver, the IGERT program on urban sustainability is especially
notable for its cross-disciplinary approach, an approach that is
particularly well-suited to energy and climate considerations.
This partnership model between local governments and local
universities is significantly different from the French experi-
ence, where research and local policies are still too often separate
worlds, and where there is often not much incentive, especially
for academics, in developing cross-sector connections.
Get involved in energy and climate networks and coalitions
Denver, Seattle, and Pittsburgh are all engaged in several differ-
ent collaborative efforts on energy and climate policy in which
they exchange information and best practices and advocate for
better consideration of the role of local governments in energy
and climate. The most significant of these networks is ICLEI
USA, which offers a wide range of assistance to its members
in terms of tools, technical assistance, training, and exchange
of best practices. Apart from national networks, there is also a
growing trend of organizing collaboration at a smaller scale,
inside regions or mega-regions. These efforts can be initiated by
a regional office of ICLEI, by EPA regional office in some cases,
or at a metropolitan scale by a Council of Governments.
But—and it now tends to be an increasing trend at EU level
too—U.S. local governments are also well structured for
advocacy. This is related to the “bottom-up” history of climate
protection in the United States and it is worth noting that local
climate action plans often include dedicated recommendations
or stated political positions on that matter.
Charismatic elected officials who are not afraid of speaking for
their peers and let their voices be heard definitely play a big role
in advancing energy and climate protection policies, although
this requires a subtle equilibrium between local action and
national commitment in order to avoid creating a disconnect
with the local constituency and partners.
Conclusion
U.S. cities have developed a proactive attitude toward climate
change policies, leading to a “bottom-up” approach, which is
substantially different from the situation in France. This ap-
proach demonstrates that local governments, if given the techni-
cal, legal, and financial possibility to experiment and launch
innovative strategies, can serve effectively as laboratories for
climate action.
At a moment when local climate action plans are on the rise in
France, the research conducted in Pittsburgh, Denver, and Seattle
also highlights a number of characteristics of American urban
climate protection initiatives that raised high interest when I
presented this work to selected cities and regions in France:
■ Climate initiatives as results-oriented, “quantified” processes;
■ Communication and transparency to make the city’s actions
on the issues visible and to engage the community in an effort
that goes way beyond the city’s own capacity to act; and
■ Partnerships, especially with community groups to educate
and engage the public, and the business sector to help climate
be considered an opportunity not only for environmental
protection but also for economic development.
Although the U.S. context, in terms of policy content, available
resources, and public opinion, is far from replicable in France,
the processes used by American cities to develop and lead
climate initiatives are inspiring.
7
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
This is not to downplay the challenges that local governments in
the United States will continue to face. While local leaders have
emerged in recent years to champion action on climate change,
and their achievements as “climate pioneers” are remarkable, to
achieve results that live up to the global climate challenge, it is
imperative to scale up these efforts. For that, a federal regulatory
framework on which to build local climate action as well as a
source for sustainable financial resources for local governments
are absolutely needed and, unfortunately for the moment, still in
limbo.
About CDP
At the turn of the 21st century, metropolitan regions are home to
nearly three quarters of the population of the United States and
Europe and are projected to continue growing. The major economic,
environmental and social transformations shaping these nations over
the next century, as well as the severe economic crisis facing them
today, will necessarily play out in urban contexts. Thus, the
metropolitan built environment, its impact on the natural
environment, and the resources available to citizens will be crucial
for successfully meeting the complex challenges facing the
transatlantic community.
While cities in the United States and Europe face similar policy
challenges in related post-industrial contexts, individual
communities that attempt to implement creative strategies have
limited opportunities to learn from one another’s experiences.
Recognizing the necessity for communities to collaborate in crafting
approaches to local problems that have global implications, GMF’s
Comparative Domestic Policy (CDP) Program provides a framework
for dialogue between individuals who make, influence, and
implement urban and regional policy on both sides of the Atlantic.
At the core of the CDP program is the Transatlantic Cities Network,
a durable structure for ongoing exchange among a select group of
civic leaders representing 25 cities in the United States and Europe.
The CDP program is made possible by the support of the Compagnia
di San Paolo and Bank of America.
About GMF
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a
nonpartisan American public policy and grantmaking institution
dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding
between North America and Europe. GMF does this by supporting
individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by
convening leaders to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes,
and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can
address a variety of global policy challenges. In addition, GMF
supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded
in 1972 through a gift from Germany on the 25th anniversary of the
Marshall Plan as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance,
GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In
addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has seven
offices in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara,
and Bucharest.