Not According to Plan: Exploring Gaps in City Climate Planning and the Need for Regional Action

Are the U.S.’s 50 biggest cities well-positioned to do their part to achieve climate action and decarbonization goals?

This report was co-authored by Jamal Russell Black at PIC and our Brookings Metro colleagues.

As the country’s primary economic and population centers, cities drive most greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and will absorb most climate-related costs. And the growing frequency of floods, fires, droughts, and heat waves puts cities of all sizes in greater danger.

To reduce these costs and amplify benefits, cities need to reduce emissions (or “decarbonize”) their built environment. Eliminating fossil fuel consumption from their transportation, building, and electricity sectors is essential; collectively, these sectors produce nearly two-thirds of national GHG emissions. However, achieving those reductions will require more than simply relying on new federal rules and funding, including those in the Inflation Reduction Act. Local planners, policymakers, and practitioners need to coordinate on new infrastructure investments.

One of the first steps cities have taken is the drafting of “climate action plans”—many of which pledge specific carbon reductions. Yet even as these plans proliferate, city leaders are struggling to hit their targets. One gap in city climate planning and action is internal, with cities often failing to specify detailed strategies that will advance their goals. The other gap is regional: Individual cities do not have the fiscal, technical, or programmatic capacity to single-handedly drive decarbonization across their metropolitan regions, and often they do not coordinate with other jurisdictions.