Comparing London and Seattle’s Climate Change Plans

Jamund Ferguson
Comparing London and Seattle’s Climate Change Plans
CEP 498
April 29, 2008

Overview

Climate change is a serious problem that affects cities around the globe. Many government bodies are taking a serious look at how to address climate change. London and Seattle are two cities that are leading the movement for a city-based approach to the issue. They both have similar climates and they both seem to have the social and political will to take on this challenge, yet they have chosen to do so in vastly different ways. This paper seeks to compare and contrast their different approaches to addressing climate change in light of various publications on the matter.

London’s Climate Plan: A Good Practice Guide to Sustainable Communities

One thing that is an immediately obvious about London’s Climate Plan is its focus on adaptation. It is a very practical plan that promotes adjusting our infrastructure to support the eventual reality that the world is going to change. The guide also seeks to look at what ways the climate might change.

Included are case studies from three areas: Bedford, Queensborough, and the Isle of Dogs demonstrating how they might be prepared for raising temperatures and precipitation. The case study of the Isle of Dogs includes specific suggestions for adapting to climate change such as building design (48), rainwater collection and reuse (49), shading (52), flood prevention (58), using water to cool (52), green roofing (56), and more. This practical advice seems to show those people who would be effected why they could benefit from these improvements and lays them out simply.

The plan contains a summary of anticipated changes in areas such as temperature, rainfall, storm intensity, and sea level rise. These summaries provide useful information and allow interested parties to make informed choices. This helps particularly in areas that are not explicitly covered in the rest of the plan. For example, we could use the information to make decisions about what type of dog house we might want to have for our pets. Providing this kind of helpful information makes it an extremely accessible document.

There is also a checklist for preparing any property for climate change. This would be helpful for builders and potential home owners who want to understand what difficulties they might be facing and how to address them early on.

In summary, London’s Climate Plan is a thorough look at how London can adapt to a warming climate. It heavily promotes green building techniques and provides practical examples instead of ideology. Its main goal seems to be buy-in from the public and developer community. Its great strength is its practicality, which will make it a popular tool for developers.

Seattle’s Climate Action Plan

The subtitle of the Plan, “Meeting the Kyoto Challenge”, gives away the Seattle Climate Action Plan’s over arching theme. In stark contrast to the London climate change initiative the Seattle Climate Action Plan is focused mainly on reducing carbon emissions and reducing ecological footprint. Ultimately, this different focus provides a special opportunity for Seattle to lead.
The plan begins with a list of specific areas where GHG reductions can be made. Under each item sub-headings outline action items that will help achieve the larger goal of meeting Kyoto targets by 2012. For each category a numeric goal is given for a GHG reduction goal in that category over the next 6 years. The main categories the city chose to focus on were public transportation, fuel efficiency and biofuels, efficiency and clean energy for both homes and businesses, leadership, and sustainability of the program.

Within the document action items are numbered and laid out with clear indicators to measure success. Many of the suggestions are bold in scope and in line with popular research on the subject. A plan to research and possibly implement a toll to reduce traffic in strongly encouraged in this outline. Other ideas for building sustainable communities are already being to be implemented:

“As part of the NBDS, the City is revising policies and regulations to ensure ‘transit oriented development’ –- compact, mixed-use developments in which walking, biking and transit access are safe and easy –- occurs at and around light rail stations.” (9)

This forward reaching and thorough look at climate change and sustainability gives Seattle’s Plan a unique leadership role. As the first major city to put in writing many of these ideas, we can give leverage to others hoping to join the movement. Ultimately what is great about the Seattle Plan is its reach. It seems interested in changing not only the city, but the world. Occasionally vague and weakly worded suggestions or politically impossible ideas may prevent some of Seattle’s CAP from taking root. However, its ideas are powerful and it seems to be a starting point for any city seeking to apply sustainable principles.

What do the Readings Have To Offer?

Energy efficiency, building efficiency, and transportation are three major themes covered in Alex Steffen’s WorldChanging, Lester Brown’s Plan B 3.0, and Douglas Farr’s Sustainable Urbanism. Another important emphasis of sustainable cities that was mentioned was that of livability. In some ways there is kind of rift between those two ideas. One focusing on technical solutions and another focusing on human-scale solutions. This could possibly explain the different approaches to London and Seattle’s plans. Livability vs. technology’s ability. Seattle’s CAP really looks at using technology and policy to create solutions to climate change. London’s Climate adaptation plan is more a practical guide to dealing with climate change. It heavily emphasizes livability. They both seem to borrow heavily from popular texts, but are missing some important pieces.

Compostable toilets are hailed as a massive way to reduce water consumption. These toilets provide a clean, effective alternative, claims Lester Brown, in his book Plan B 3.0, to the energy and water intensive sewer system we currently use. These toilets should be part of any city’s sustainability plan. One particular benefit is that of providing compost for gardens and farms. This could be linked with urban gardening to provide a massive source of fertilizer. The free fertilizer could spur rapid growth in the urban farming movement and further increase the greenness of a city.

Other areas which could have been more thoroughly addressed were land-use planning for transportation. Though some suggestions were made in the Seattle CAP, no specific analysis was given that would demonstrate its benefits. London’s plan, in contrast, rarely discussed renewable energy production, while that was a large point of the Seattle document. Without taking into account transportation and energy production we cannot fully address climate change. Surely we cannot live in a sustainable world and still depend on the same inefficient transportation and energy technologies. We must have both a livable world and sustainable one.

Sustainability is an extremely holistic approach to planning. Neither plan really can say it addresses all aspects of sustainability. When the targets of the current plans are reached there are many more avenues that need to be explored.

Conclusions

Seattle’s Climate Action Plan is a visionary document that outlines some important contributions the City can make to reduce its carbon footprint. This kind of document promotes radical action to address climate change. It provides a real world example of leadership at the city level, which will in turn inspire other cities to take initiative.
While Seattle’s Plan focuses primarily on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, London’s Plan is centered on how to adapt to the effects of those emissions. The London Plan may lack the lofty of goals as Seattle’s Climate Action Plan, but it does provide needed practical advice needed for developers and residents to start building the structures of tomorrow. It contains simple explanations and drawings. London’s Plan seems to promote sustainability as a healthy response to a changing climate rather than to use green design and sustainable living as a way to keep the climate from changing. Together, it is a more practical guide that keeps its focus on creating the type of sustainable society we would all like to live in.

London and Seattle have been leaders in seeking to address climate change and they are addressing it differently. Seattle is looking to change the world by leading a climate movement, while London is hoping to provide a decent experience for its citizens. Both approaches are needed and even more must be done to prepare for and prevent the consequences of a warming world.

Bibliography

Brown, Lester R. Plan B 3.0, Earth Policy Institute, 2008.
Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism, Wiley, 2008.
London, City of. London’s Climate Plan: A Good Practice Guide to Sustainable Communities, 2007.
Newman, Peter. and Kenworthy, Jeffrey. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming
Automobile Dependence, Island Press, 1999.
Nickels, Greg. Seattle, A Climate of Change: Meeting the Kyoto Challenge, City of Seattle, 2006.
Steffen, Alex (editor). WorldChanging: A User’s Guide to the 21st Century, Abrams, 2007.

Extras

Me In Reading, UK