Governing Climate Change Post-2012: The Role of Global Cities - Melbourne

While international negotiations for a climate change policy framework post-­‐2012 continue, there is increasing recognition that a range of activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are taking place ‘beyond’ this formal arena. This working paper contributes to the research of the Tyndall Centre programme 1 by focusing on a group of non nation-­‐state actors -­‐ global cities – and their role in climate governance. Cities are a critical source of man-­‐made carbon dioxide emissions – accounting for as much as 78% by some accounts (Stern 2006) – and places where vulnerability to climate change may be acute. The project includes four case-­‐studies: London, Los Angeles, Mexico City and Melbourne. This working paper documents the experience of Melbourne. It charts the emergence and evolution of Melbourne’s climate change policy in the period 1998 – 2008. It reports that across metropolitan Melbourne climate policy has become an increasingly important policy issue, marked by the development of initiatives for addressing climate change which fall into three core categories: leadership; infrastructural change; and changing practice. In Melbourne, municipal leadership has been an important driver for action as local politicians and officials have sought to demonstrate their intention to ‘get their own house in order’ despite the recalcitrance of the national government to address climate change at the international level. In terms of replacing or renewing urban infrastructures, actions have also focused primarily on the municipality itself, with actions concentrated on retrofitting energy efficiency measures in municipal buildings and the development of energy efficient street lighting systems, although important secondary areas of work have been in the commercial built environment and increasingly domestic sectors. Seeking to change the ways in which energy is used has been one area in which municipal authorities and other actors within the city have gone beyond the usual boundaries of jurisdictional authority. Here we find two approaches that have been adopted: first, the development and use of data concerning energy use as an instrument to facilitate behavioural change; and second, the development of schemes for engaging communities in new forms of low-­‐carbon practice. These three areas of action have depended on a mixture of governing modes, or approaches, including traditional government functions of control and compliance (e.g. planning codes), providing new forms of service (e.g. home energy audits) and enabling (e.g. partnerships). This is creating innovative responses to climate change in the city, but considerable challenges have also been encountered. First, in terms of leadership, municipalities have encountered resistance to their leadership on climate change in the face of restricted budgets and other policy priorities and have risked the creation of ambitious targets on which it is difficult to deliver reductions of GHG emissions. In terms of infrastructural change, the deep-­‐seated dependence of Australia’s energy networks on coal-­‐based energy generation has meant that developing more energy efficient systems, such as street lighting, or micro-­‐generation technologies has been a slow and complex process. At the same time, a lack of partnership working between the local government and commercial sectors may also have slowed the pace of change with respect to both energy systems and the retrofitting of built environments. Third, as is the case elsewhere in the world, strategies that have focused on seeking behavioural change through the gathering and provision of data