This report reviews the current state of long-term climate action planning in 17 cities which have publicly communicated carbon reducttargets in line with the IPCC recommended 80% reduction by 2050 (80x50) for stabilizing the impacts of climate change at 2°C.  The aim of this report is to provide a foundation of support for cities in achieving their deep carbon reduction goals through a comprehensive understanding of leading climate action plans and the context under which they were created, including current city emissions and demographic data, climate plan reduction strategies and targets, and feedback on plan creation and needs from city planning staff.  By achieving this aim, cities are in a better position to understand where their plans fit in the global context and connect with other cities around common issues, research institutions have a new benchmark analysis of leading action plans to build further research upon, and city-level climate action organizations have a clearer idea of how to focus efforts in helping cities achieve carbon reduction goals.  This aim is achieved through the application of a framework for comparing city plans and targets, an analysis of current city emissions and demographic data, and synthesis of key findings from city planning staff discussions.   Key findings show no clear demographic and environmental biases exist within these 17 cities, indicating long-term climate action planning can be undertaken by cities across the full spectrum of size, climate, and current per capita emissions output, though regional geographic and development bias exists.  Plans for carbon reduction are highly concentrated among a small number of actions, indicating the movement has coalesced around a standard set of strategies for achieving deep carbon reductions.  Finally, the relative newness of plans, with the majority less than 5 years old, and the lack of commonality among cities in emissions methodology and communication of reduction strategies, shifts a short-term focus towards standardization methodologies which enable deeper comparison between cities and plans.

Current research indicates that the potential risks associated with human-induced climate change are likely to increase in frequency and intensity. Although there have been several attempts, no effective international treaty or policy has been enacted by the United States with the purpose of combating this global issue. In the past decade, local climate action plans (CAPs) have emerged as a planning solution designed to reduce greenhouse emissions (GHGs). Previous studies have examined CAP attributes, but no research has focused solely on climate planning in politically conservative jurisdictions. This research finds that of 245 CAPs completed to date nationally, approximately 90 percent are located in communities identified as politically Democratic based on county level 2012 Presidential Election data. In order to expand climate planning in politically conservative communities, it is important evaluate the characteristics of CAPs in these communities. This thesis aims to fill the current research gap by analyzing CAPs and conducting stakeholder interviews in seven conservative communities. The central hypothesis is: Climate action plans adopted in conservative communities differ in motivations, type, and political backing, when compared to climate action plans in general. The findings of this case study indicate that CAPs created in conservative communities do not differ substantially from CAPs in general. However, the findings suggest political opposition is heightened in these communities. In addition, the evidence shows that in conservative communities: economic co-benefits are stressed, cost-saving measures are over emphasized, CAP terminology is altered, business community involvement is crucial, and state mandates motivate CAP creation. The results of this research are distilled into 12 lessons and best practices for planning practitioners, and establish a basis for future research focusing on the political nature of climate action planning.

No description available.