I wanted to like this @awalkerinLA piece more than I did. The headline was written just for me, and the Biden administration *is* really good news for cities & their climate commitments. But there’s much more to why cities haven’t reached their targets. https://www.curbed.com/2020/12/biden-climate-team-gina-mccarthy.html

Few city leaders have argued that they are the one-and-only solution to climate change. Yes, they cite lack of federal leadership on climate - undeniably true now but not untrue at any point in the 2010s. And they point to their nearness to drivers of GHGs and residents’ needs.

Cities are missing their GHG targets for a number of reasons. Funding, of course, is always a gating item. But so is the very unclear authority cities have to actually DO the things they’d need to do to reach those targets.

This isn’t just about Trump administration regulatory rollbacks or our exit from the Paris Agreement, awful as those things are for US climate policy. Cities are subject to complex overlays of federal and state law that make GHG policy advances difficult.

Transportation is an instructive area to highlight. We are in total agreement that any highway widening project deserves scrutiny and so does a mayor that green lights one. And, of course, mayors have some authority to change how street space is used (see 2020's "open streets").

But in many other ways, local transport GHG relies heavily on state and local law and decision-making. Cities at best have authority over state and local roads, many only for local. Federal roads, which crisscross cities like NYC in unexpected ways, are subject to fed control.

And the Clean Air Act, EPCA and FAAAA mean that cities have absolutely no authority over what type of vehicles use their roads, beyond basic size and weight limits. No ability to require vehicles driven by private cities be electric.

All this makes comparisons like London and Paris a bit inapt. Mayors could definitely implement *some* of the changes made to streets in these cities, and more legal study could definitely help push the policies that have shaped those cities in recent years.

Congestion pricing and a low emissions zone are the 2 main strategies used in London. NYC’s experience shows how dependent on the feds CP is & it’s not clear what form a LEZ would need to take to pass legal muster. (I wrote more about this earlier in 2020). http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2020/02/10/legal-tools-for-achieving-low-traffic-zones-ltzs-new-sabin-center-white-paper/

Biden’s climate cabinet is definitely good news for cities. But its work will need to be additive to what cities are genuinely well placed to do - streamlining legal requirements, clarifying state/local authority, and regulating in areas traditionally in the federal domain.

I wrote about this in November - that the new administration could set floor requirements that still allow cities to innovate climate policy, step in to green the grid and electrify vehicles, and protect frontline communities. And provide $$. Always $$. http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2020/11/13/what-bidens-climate-plans-might-mean-for-cities/

(Not satisfied with 2,000 words, I also tweeted a thread.) https://twitter.com/amyturner/status/1327267784691216384

Anyway, I think we can all agree we’re running out of time to rely only, or even primarily, on either local or federal climate leadership. Biden's team is GREAT news for cities, but it's because the admin can support cities in what they're good at, not save them from themselves.