The City of St. Petersburg and Climate Change

The City of St. Petersburg and Climate Change

6.1 Climate Change Politics and Governance

• The politics and policies of climate change operate at both global and local levels.

• Global Efforts to Address Climate Change:

  • United Nations' 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):

    • Aimed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

  • 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP):

    • Defined specific greenhouse gas emission limits for 37 industrialized countries/economies and the European Union.

    • The United States signed but never ratified or joined the Kyoto Protocol.

    • Source: Bernauer (2013)

  • The Paris Climate Accord:

    • Required participating nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

    • The United States has entered, withdrawn, and re-entered the agreement (re-entered in 2021).

    • Source: Cho (2021)

• American Response and Challenges:

  • American political institutions have debated climate change for a long time.

  • The absence of comprehensive climate legislation has hindered progress.

  • A significant obstacle is the distribution of costs and benefits.

    • Policies like a carbon tax require actors to internalize costs, which are significant and felt across the economy.

    • Benefits accrue globally and are dispersed.

  • Discounting:

    • Investments in climate change mitigation yield long-term benefits rather than short-term gains.

    • Source: Bernauer (2013)

  • Partisanship:

    • The growing political divide has accelerated, diminishing incentives for bipartisan solutions.

    • Source: Dunlap, McCright, and Yarosh (2016); Klyza and Sousa (2008)

  • Risk Perception:

    • Climate change is not random, its impacts aren't sudden, and its effects are not directly visible, depressing risk perceptions.

    • Uncertainty among scientists about the extent to which climate change causes specific weather events further complicates risk evaluation.

    • Risk perceptions interact with social, economic, and political attitudes.

    • Source: Slovic (1987), Bosso (2005)

Federal Climate Change Stops and Starts (Table 6.1)

• 1992:

  • The U.S. Senate approved the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change.

  • President Bush declared the U.S. would be the world leader in protecting the global environment.

• 1997-2001:

  • Lawmakers debated the Kyoto Protocol.

  • The Clinton Administration negotiated and signed it in 1997, but it was never submitted to the Senate.

  • President George W. Bush declared in 2001 that the United States would not join.

• 2003-2007:

  • Several bipartisan efforts were made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they didn't pass into law.

• 2006:

  • The United States Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, held that greenhouse gases fit the definition of 'air pollutant' under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles.

  • §7602(g)

• 2007-2016:

  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started rulemaking procedures to address climate change, such as publicly reporting greenhouse gas emissions.

• 2008-2010:

  • U.S. Lawmakers actively debated cap-and-trade legislation that would have allowed emissions trading.

  • The legislation passed the House but was defeated in the Senate.

• 2014-2018:

  • The Obama Administration began rulemaking for the Clean Power Plan, which would have established national carbon emission limits.

  • In 2017, the Trump Administration announced it was reviewing the Clean Power Plan and began drafting rules to replace it in 2018.

• 2016:

  • Formation of the Climate Solutions Caucus in the House of Representatives by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL).

  • Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (2021).

Partisan Divides (Table 6.2)

• Effects of global warming have already begun:

  • Percent difference between Democrats and Republicans:

    • 2001: 12

    • 2008: 34

    • 2016: 34

• Global warming due more to human activities:

  • Percent difference between Democrats and Republicans:

    • 2001: 17

    • 2008: 32

    • 2016: 41

• Global warming exaggerated in the news:

  • Percent difference between Democrats and Republicans:

    • 2001: 21

    • 2008: 42

    • 2016: 47

• Most scientists believe global warming is occurring:

  • Percent difference between Democrats and Republicans:

    • 2001: 10

    • 2008: 21

    • 2016: 35

• Global warming poses a serious threat in lifetime:

  • Percent difference between Democrats and Republicans:

    • 2001: 13

    • 2008: 23

    • 2016: 33

• Personally worry a great deal about global warming:

  • Percent difference between Democrats and Republicans:

    • 2001: 22

    • 2008: 29

    • 2016: 35

• Source: Dunlap, McCright, and Yarosh (2016).

Infrastructure Needs (in billions) (Table 6.3)

• Infrastructure Sector, Planned Investments 2016-2025, Estimated Needs, Estimated Gap 2016-2025:

  • Surface Transportation:

    • Planned Investments: 941

    • Estimated Needs: 2,042

    • Estimated Gap: 1,101

  • Water/Wastewater:

    • Planned Investments: 45

    • Estimated Needs: 150

    • Estimated Gap: 105

  • Electricity:

    • Planned Investments: 757

    • Estimated Needs: 934

    • Estimated Gap: 177

  • Airports:

    • Planned Investments: 115

    • Estimated Needs: 157

    • Estimated Gap: 42

  • Inland Waterways and Marine Ports:

    • Planned Investments: 22

    • Estimated Needs: 37

    • Estimated Gap: 15

• Source: ASCE (2016).

Climate Change & Infrastructure Investments:

• Climate-friendly infrastructure involves additional upfront, ongoing, and repair costs.

• These costs are often assumed by cash-strapped state and local governments.

• A 2016 study estimated a 1.4 trillion gap between infrastructure needs (3.3 trillion) and planned investments (1.8 trillion).

• Climate change necessitates infrastructure investments in:

  • Shifts toward infill and denser housing.

  • Shifts toward public and mass transit.

  • Shifts away from fossil fuels and toward renewable options.

  • Shifts in consumption patterns.

• Source: Landy (2010)

6.2 Arguments for Local Control

• Climate change has global causes and mechanisms, but local impacts.

• Activists support an all-hands-on-deck approach that considers local variability.

• Local governments are well-positioned to engage in place-based climate action planning due to their role as service providers, intergovernmental partners, and first responders.

• Source: Azevedo de Almeida and Mostafavi (2016); Fisk (2019); Measham et al. (2011)

• Florida's coasts face critical climate-related challenges like:

  • Flooding

  • Erosion

  • Saltwater intrusion

6.3 Arguments for State (and Federal) Control

• State and federal involvement in climate change mitigation offers several benefits for local governments:

  • Minimizes coordination costs among stakeholders.

  • Important for regional planning, multi-jurisdictional infrastructure projects, cost-sharing, and information dissemination.

  • State and federal entities possess greater organizational capacity and expertise.

  • Necessary for mitigation projects, planning, and mapping, requiring expertise in hydrology, ecology, engineering, administration, planning, and resource economics.

  • Reduces the incentive for localities to free ride through statewide/region-wide performance standards and regulatory minimums.

  • Enables cost-sharing and distributing costs among all beneficiaries through loan/loan guarantee programs, bonds, intergovernmental transfers, and grants.

• Source: Fisk (2019)

Coastal Impacts (Tables 6.4 and 6.5)

• Risks and their Impacts:

  • Flooding:

    • Beaches and nearby areas may become flooded and submerged, impacting infrastructure, properties, and transportation.

    • Areas near or below sea level may also flood.

  • Erosion:

    • Surface-level beach erosion threatens roads and buildings.

    • Subsurface erosion can expose underground infrastructure.

    • Erosion may exacerbate flooding.

  • Saltwater Intrusion:

    • Can damage underground drinking water networks and corrode utilities and pipelines.

• Climate Change Impact and Anticipated Impacts to Infrastructure

  • Sea Level Rise

    • Impacts to ship clearance heights below bridges

    • Impacts to transportation include railroad and subway tracks

    • Sand and sediment on bridge structures and infrastructure

    • Corrosion of track and other equipment due salt water exposure

    • Increased flooding of assets, facilities, and rights of way

  • Coastal Flooding and Storm Surge

    • Inundation of electrical equipment leading to power failures and/or structural damage

    • Inundation of vehicles, equipment, machinery, and facilities

    • Saltwater intrusion leading to corrosion to impacted equipment, structures, machinery, wiring, and electronics

    • Inundation of plants, equipment, machinery, substations, and power distribution systems

    • Soil erosion in facilities and yards, tracks and line structures, and rights of way

    • Excessive debris

    • Overloading of drainage systems

  • Extreme Winds

    • Damage to above ground infrastructure systems

    • Excessive Debris

  • Heavy Precipitation

    • Water damage throughout infrastructure systems

    • Increased runoff entering into below ground assets

    • Increased water intrusion

    • Potential impact power distribution systems

    • Flooding

    • Overloading of drainage systems

Common Coastal Infrastructure Options (Table 6.6)

• Option, Costs:

  • Infrastructure Relocation:

    • Costs vary based on the type, specialization, and size of the infrastructure.

    • Larger infrastructure will be more expensive than simpler infrastructure

  • Storm Surge Barriers:

    • Costs vary from 100 million to several billion, depending on scale and complexity.

    • Construction costs range from 0.7 to 3.5 million per meter, with additional maintenance costs based on NOAA data.

  • Beach Replenishment:

    • Costs typically range from 300 to 1,000 per linear foot, plus maintenance.

  • Sea Walls:

    • Costs range from 150 to 4,000 per linear foot, requiring significant maintenance and may reduce tourism.

  • Levees:

    • Costs are likely between 1,000 and 1,500 per linear foot.

  • Sandbagging:

    • Comparatively low costs, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimating around 3,100 for a 100-ft long, 3-ft high barrier, but they are temporary.

Florida's Climate Change Politics & Local Coordination

• Florida's climate change politics mirror national debates.

• Activists argue the state, led by Republican governors, hasn't acted fast enough to protect against climate change and has left cities to act alone.

• Miami Beach has invested in raising roads and resilient stormwater infrastructure without state assistance, facing coordination challenges with neighbors.

• The Tampa Bay region collaborates among local officials (without state involvement).

• This has contributed to hiring a climate scientist and creating a multi-county climate network for planning, coordination, and information sharing.

6.4 The City of St. Petersburg, Florida

• St. Petersburg is in Florida's Tampa Bay region, led by an elected mayor and eight districted council members.

• The city markets itself as a tourism hotspot, green leader, and community open to growth, with a high quality of life.

• Census data shows the city is growing, exceeds the state in educational achievement and civilian labor force percentage (Table 6.7).

• Office of Sustainability & Resiliency (OSR):

  • Created in 2015 to address the city's greenhouse gas footprint.

  • Collaborates with various stakeholders to design and implement policies, programs, and partnerships.

• St. Petersburg joined the Tampa Bay Regional Resiliency Coalition (24 other jurisdictions).

• The coalition seeks to coordinate climate adaptation and mitigation activities.

• The city participates in networks like the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate Change.

• The city's climate-mitigation plan is in its Integrated Sustainability Action Plan (ISAP).

City of St. Petersburg, Florida Socio-Demographic Characteristics (Table 6.7)

• Measure, State of Florida, City of St. Petersburg:

  • Population estimates, July 1, 2018 (2018):

    • State of Florida: 21,299,325

    • City of St. Petersburg: 265,098

  • Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 (estimates base) to July 1, 2018 (2018):

    • State of Florida: 13.3

    • City of St. Petersburg: 8.1

  • Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2012-2016, percent:

    • State of Florida: 64.8

    • City of St. Petersburg: 58.1

  • Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2012-2016:

    • State of Florida: 178,700

    • City of St. Petersburg: 165,000

  • Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2013-2017:

    • State of Florida: 28.5

    • City of St. Petersburg: 33.1

  • In civilian labor force, total, percent of population age 16 years+, 2013-2017:

    • State of Florida: 58.4

    • City of St. Petersburg: 62.8

  • Median household income (in 2016 dollars), 2012-2016:

    • State of Florida: 50,883

    • City of St. Petersburg: 50,622

  • Persons in poverty, percent:

    • State of Florida: 14.0

    • City of St. Petersburg: 15.9

• Source: United States Census (2018).

City's Climate Mitigation Plan

• Retrofit city facilities for energy efficiency and conservation

• Design and deploy a building challenge for the private sector

• Design and implement a new utility planning process

• Implement new solar programs and collaborations with Duke Energy

• Support electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure and incentives, reduce vehicle miles traveled

• Adopt policy addressing building energy benchmarking and disclosures

• Create more consumer-friendly financing mechanisms for clean energy projects

• Fleet replacement with fuel-efficient vehicles

• Enact new building code provisions encouraging energy efficiency and electric vehicles

• Source: City of St. Petersburg (2019)

6.5 The Story of Rising Sea Levels and St. Petersburg, Florida

• Coastal communities in the Tampa Bay region (including St. Petersburg) face increasing vulnerability to climate change and sea-level rise.

  • Scientists project water levels in the Bay will rise six inches to over two feet by mid-century and up to nearly seven feet by the end of the century.

  • Lands around Tampa Bay are naturally sinking, which exacerbates sea-level rise challenges.

  • The area has experienced significant economic and population growth, especially in low-lying areas.

• Leaders are aware of these risks.
  * If a category four or five hurricane hit the region, there would be widespread damage and residents would be advised to leave (Henry 2017).
  * Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn warned that a category three storm would likely mean approximately 15 feet of standing water in areas near Tampa's city hall (Henry 2017).

• Even less intense storms stress stormwater infrastructure and cost local governments millions.

• Local officials note an increased vulnerability and severity of floods.

• Floodwaters take longer to drain and recede, filling outfall pipes and pushing water back onto streets

• Since 2015, St. Petersburg reported three major sewage spills.

  • A September spill involved 120 million gallons of partially treated human waste.

  • Mayor Rick Kriseman blamed climate change, noting that heavier rains and storms overwhelmed the city's aging wastewater treatment system.

• The city's mitigation plan recognizes the need to adapt planning and operations to rising sea levels and more intense precipitation.

• City leaders pursue a multi-pronged effort that includes:

  • Data collection and analysis

  • Collaboration

  • Financial investment (Table 6.8)

Rising Sea Levels and Adaptation (Table 6.8)

• Type, Action:

  • Data Collection and Analysis:

    • The city collaborated with local experts to develop a sea level rise study for the region.

    • The study includes specific projections for local governments and regional agencies to make informed decisions, allocate resources, and plan strategically.

  • Policy and Financial Commitments:

    • City leaders have invested and/or committed the following to address the challenges associated with storm water, flooding, and more intense storms:

      • Committed more than 60 million for short-term infrastructure upgrades

      • Committed at least 300 million to fix the city's water management system as a whole.

      • Committed 800,000 for planning related to climate change.

    • Support and improve existing and new facilities/infrastructure to adapt to rising sea levels, with emphasis on development strategies within high hazard areas.

    • Protect, expand, and/or restore coastal resources within federal, state, and local laws.

    • Promote, support, and implement additional resources to target vulnerable populations and areas of the St. Petersburg community

    • Examples of costs:

      • Costs associated with elevating a new home range between 2,000 to 30,000.

      • Costs to elevating an existing home are likely to exceed 50,000.

6.6 The State Response

• State lawmakers in Tallahassee often deflected or disagreed on anthropogenic climate change questions.

• Critics argue that Governor Rick Scott's policies failed to prepare Florida's coastlines for sea-level rise and that the the Scott Administration hasn't done enough to reduce the state's greenhouse gas footprint or support local governments.

• City leaders have noted that federal and state funding for climate adaptation and mitigation tends to follow storms rather than be proactive.

• Hillsborough County and Tampa tend to be more conservative and reluctant to address climate change compared to other local governments in the Tampa area.

• State leaders have been more proactive and collaborative regarding beach erosion and coastal management.

  • Collaborating with federal and local organizations to construct sea walls

  • Supported dredging efforts across the state. Ron DeSantis has expressed interest in supporting coastal resiliency and water management planning and has taken the following actions:

    • 2.5 billion over the next four years for Everglades restoration and the protection of water resources.

    • Instruction to the South Florida Water Management District to immediately start the next phase of the Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoir Project design and ensure that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approves the project according to schedule.

    • Creation of the Office of Environmental Accountability and Transparency.

    • Appointment of a Chief Science Officer to coordinate and prioritize scientific data, research, monitoring and analysis needs to ensure alignment with current and emerging environmental concerns most pressing to Floridians.

    • Partner with Visit Florida and DEO to identify opportunities within communities and recommend investments in green infrastructure, such as wetland treatment systems, that benefit our natural resources and local economies by increasing recreational and tourism opportunities, while improving water quality.

    • Create the Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection to help prepare Florida's coastal communities and habitats for impacts from sea level rise by providing funding, technical assistance and coordination among state, regional and local entities.

    • Take necessary actions to adamantly oppose all off-shore oil and gas activities off every coast in Florida and hydraulic fracturing in Florida.

• The EO stopped short of explicitly using the phrase climate change instead focusing on sea level rise, storm water management, and resiliency (Florida 2019).

• In 2020-2021, the state has become a more willing partner.

• Awarded the city of Tampa with a 75,000 Florida Resilient Coastlines Program (FRCP) to assess sea level and its impacts on the city as well as to engage in resiliency planning (City of Tampa 2021).

• State lawmakers have also begun focusing on rising sea levels and are trying to pass legislation to spend nearly 100 million annually to address sea level rise.

• The proposed legislation also includes a grant program for local governments and encourage the creation of regional groups (Anderson 2021).

6.7 Summary of Defiance

• St. Petersburg has invested in combating climate change despite state lawmakers' historical skepticism because:

  1. The distribution of costs and benefits means local lawmakers respond to local problems like flood control and rising sea levels.

  2. Support for climate change adaptation follows ideological lines; however, sea level rise has garnered bipartisan support recently.

  3. St. Petersburg's Mayor, Rick Kriseman, is prepare the city for climate change.

• Skeptical state policymakers responded by:
  * Ignoring the issue
  * Limiting state support for local governments
  * Restricting local revenue-raising mechanisms

• However, state lawmakers have protected coastlines/communities, provided expertise/resources, and added flexibility for coastal planning.

A collaborative effort involving federal, state, and local governments would be the most effective approach to governing responses to climate change. Each level possesses unique capabilities and resources that, when combined, can create a comprehensive and efficient strategy.

• Federal Government:

  • Role: Setting national standards and regulations, providing funding and resources for large-scale mitigation and adaptation projects, coordinating interstate efforts, and engaging in international agreements.

  • Should Play: Lead on establishing nationwide emission reduction targets, investing in climate research and technology, developing comprehensive climate risk assessments, and ensuring that all states and localities have access to the necessary resources and expertise.

• State Government:

  • Role: Implementing and enforcing federal regulations, tailoring climate policies to specific regional needs, managing natural resources, and supporting local government initiatives.

  • Should Play: Act as a bridge between federal and local efforts, develop state-level climate action plans, promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, and provide technical assistance and funding to local governments.

• Local Government:

  • Role: Implementing on-the-ground adaptation and mitigation measures, engaging with communities, and addressing local vulnerabilities.

  • Should Play: Focus on local resilience planning, investing in climate-resilient infrastructure, promoting sustainable development practices, and educating the public about climate risks and solutions.