The Fate of the Inflation Reduction Act in the Second Era of Trump

The United States of America’s second withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord under the Trump administration has enormous implications for both international and local climate efforts - and the Inflation Reduction Act is also potentially under threat. If the IRA is even partially repealed, it would be a huge step backwards in the fight against the climate crisis. But all is not lost - engaged individuals and organizations are striving to ensure the it stays and place, and more broadly, cities, mayors, and subnational entities are playing a critical role in continuing climate action amidst federal challenges. This coalition of actors are leading the growing resistance movement stateside and globally, proving the importance of local level engagement in the bid to halt climate breakdown.

Image credit: Chelsea Matson Photography

Featured guests: 

Kate Johnson, C40 Regional Director for North America

Amy Turner, Director of the City's Climate Law Initiative at the Sabin Center, Columbia University

Links:

Trump signs order to withdraw US from Paris climate agreement for second time - The Guardian

Elon Musk Says DOGE Aims to Finish $1 Trillion in Cuts by End of May - Bloomberg

The Data Hoarders Resisting Trump’s Purge - The New Yorker

Inflation Reduction Act Archives C40 website

Climate action and the Inflation Reduction Act: A guide for local government leaders - C40 Knowledge Hub

One Year After Trump Decision to Withdraw from Paris Agreement, U.S. Cities Carry Climate Action Forward - C40 website

Appeals Court Keeps Order Barring Federal Funding Freezes in Place - New York Times

If you want to learn more about the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy, please visit our website: https://jccpe.utpjournals.press/

Cities 1.5 is produced by the University of Toronto Press and Cities 1.5 is supported by C40 Cities and the C40 Centre for City Climate Policy and Economy. You can sign up to the Centre newsletter here. https://thecentre.substack.com/

Our executive producers are Calli Elipoulos and Peggy Whitfield.

Produced by Jess Schmidt: https://jessdoespodcasting.com/

Edited by Morgane Chambrin: https://www.morganechambrin.com/

Music is by Lorna Gilfedder: https://origamipodcastservices.com/

Transcript

[Cities 1.5 theme music]

David 00:01

I am David Miller and you’re listening to Cities 1.5, a podcast exploring how cities are leading global change through local climate action.

Donald Trump 00:14

The United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.

[applause]

Donald Trump 00:21

Thank you.

David 00:23

[whimsical music] This episode is about the United States of America. It had to be, didn’t it? But it’s not about the havoc the United States is unleashing on the world through threats and intimidation with its closest allies, although as a Canadian this moment is incredibly unsettling and frightening in its implications. The new US administration has arbitrarily imposed significant tariffs on Canada, tariffs that are completely contrary to the relevant trade agreements between our countries. Agreements signed and negotiated by President Trump during his previous term of office. The tariffs don’t just cause significant economic damage, they fracture the entire relationship between the countries. If we can’t trust the written word of the United States of America on trade, how can we trust it on any other agreements like defense? This episode, though, is about the damage the new administration is trying to do to the planet, not just to Canada, Ukraine, Gaza, or elsewhere. And this isn’t new. The news clip you heard at the top isn’t from last month. It’s from 2017. Because the United States of America and the world have been here before, the first time Trump was elected. Ushering in a chaotic four years, he pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, the international accord to halt climate breakdown. At that time, many US cities and their mayors were outspoken in their continued commitment to the Paris Agreement, publicly defying their national government. This time around chaos has been supplemented by big tech moguls and billionaires, both center stage and behind the scenes. There’s an apparent roadmap created by far-right ideologues to gut the government and an even more extreme rollback on climate action research and legislation. The threat to both the USA and to the whole world cannot be overstated. The dismantling of USAID and defunding of its programs is being condemned for putting the lives of some of the world’s most vulnerable people at risk. Leaving the World Health Organization at a time when zoonotic diseases are on the rise in the USA seems nothing short of foolhardy. Threatening to shut down programs such as the landmark Inflation Reduction Act would be particularly damaging for cities in every state, because it mobilized trillions of dollars to do almost everything to combat the climate crisis. Unfortunately, despite being the world’s most important climate legislation ever, the IRA is little known, even in the United States. According to a 2024 report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, pre-election about 40% of US voters had not even heard of it. From a climate perspective, we cannot let something as substantial as the IRA be dismantled. There is hope. Determined people are standing up quietly and sometimes loudly. Academics, lawyers, librarians, park rangers, archivists, scientists, economists, mayors, and many more are speaking, acting, and defying the Trump doctrines. Many of these people live in cities. Mayors are voicing their concerns with many European urban leaders speaking out on behalf of their colleagues and city residents everywhere. A substantial pushback is starting, and with it so are compelling narratives offering pathways to alternative futures that embrace and uphold truth, science, and unity, which will protect our planet instead of destroying it. [music ends]

[fast rhythmic music] This week’s episode sees Cities 1.5 exploring the rapidly changing political landscape of the USA under Trump, and the future of climate action in the US, as well as what the world can do to support its mayors, cities, and their residents to deliver climate action in this most tumultuous of times.

I’m joined for a round table discussion with two exceptional experts, Kate Johnson, the C40 Regional Director for North America, and Amy Turner, Director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at the Sabin Center, Columbia University. Whether they plan to be or not, in the age of Trump, the second coming, they’re a fount of knowledge about all things cities and climate related and experts in how to fight back. [music ends]

Amy Turner 05:29

[phone rings] [whooshing] Amy Turner. I’m the director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, and I’m dialing in from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [handset clicks]

Kate Johnson 05:42

[phone rings] [whooshing] I’m Kate Johnson. I’m the regional director for North America for C40 Cities, and I’m calling in from Washington, D.C.. [handset clicks]

David 05:54

Kate, Amy, thanks so much for being with us today. Before we start, can you both just introduce yourselves and tell us a little bit about who you are, what you do, and how you came to work together?

Amy Turner 06:06

Okay. Like I said, my name is Amy Turner. I work with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, and I direct our city’s local government work. So I work with local governments, cities and other municipalities across the United States on a range of climate law and policy topics. I don’t know that I remember meeting Kate, but we have been working together for several years. Kate just has such a huge wealth of knowledge about federal policy as it relates to the local level, federal funding opportunities, and how to really rally cities around the important federal action that has happened in the climate space.

Kate Johnson 06:46

Uh, that’s great. And I’m Kate Johnson. So, as I said, I am the regional director for North America for C40, that means I get to work with all of our cities in the United States and Canada. And I can’t remember exactly when I met Amy either, although I can recall the first time she sort of came to our aid was—You know, we work with a lot of cities, we get a lot of questions, many of which we can answer, but some of which we cannot and we have to phone a friend and call in some experts to help us, you know, make sense of. I think in that case, it was a Supreme Court decision that we were trying to figure out what the implications were for cities. And then certainly with all of the new policies and programs that the Biden administration introduced, we had a lot of explaining to do to cities and that’s why it was so great to have a partner like Amy who understands what cities know and what they don’t in terms of, you know, talking about pretty complex issues, but in a way that is super approachable and understandable, you know, for the practitioners in cities that we’re working with.

David 07:56

If you’re in the climate world, you’ve heard a lot about the Inflation Reduction Act. A landmark legislation passed by the Biden-Harris administration, although parenthetically, and unfortunately, a lot of Americans never even heard of it. A tremendously important legislation. Could you explain what the Inflation Reduction Act is, why it matters for the planet, and its importance to cities, the mayors who lead their governments, and the people who live in them?

Kate Johnson 08:30

Yeah. So the Inflation Reduction Act most simply is the single largest investment in climate and clean energy in United States history, and we think probably the world. So it is a really unique set of initiatives that incentivizes climate action by state and local governments, by individuals, by businesses. And I can say, you know, I’ve been in Washington, D.C. now for 20 years working on climate policy, and it was really a watershed moment and a breakthrough. You know, it’s the first time a significant national legislation on climate was able to be adopted. There are a lot of different nuts and bolts. There’s a little something for everyone in the Inflation Reduction Act, and I actually think that is part of the secret sauce that enabled it to get passed. So it’s a combination of direct to consumer incentives. So if you purchase an electric vehicle, you can get essentially a rebate back for certain vehicles. If you’re a business that’s looking to install solar panels, you can get money back. And then there’s a whole variety of programs that, you know, provide grants to local and state governments for a wide variety of projects. So there’s a little something for everyone, I think, in the Inflation Reduction Act and in some of the other programs—complimentary programs that were established around the same time.

Amy Turner 09:59

[whimsical music] Well, Kate’s totally right. The IRA has a little bit of something for everyone. There’s lots of opportunity in it, but with that comes a lot of complexity. So, for example, one of the really new things that was introduced in the Inflation Reduction Act was an ability for cities, local governments, as well as a range of other non-taxable entities like community groups to claim the value of certain climate and clean energy tax credits as a cash payment. So that’s tax law. All of a sudden we’re in tax law land in a way that cities haven’t really been before. So it was, you know, in part my job to help cities navigate that. To understand this new complexity and figure out how they were going to manage it and move forward. There are a whole range of other things in the IRA that, you know, have other new complexities, but I feel like that’s probably the best example of how the IRA sort of changed the landscape for cities.

You know, more broadly when I think about the IRA, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law to some extent, this was really a change in the paradigm for how the federal government and local governments worked together on climate. So, we’ve had Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, but we have never had the strong model that we had in the Inflation Reduction Act in which cities acted as really essential implementers of the federal Inflation Reduction Act. So the Inflation Reduction Act set lots and lots of money aside for grant programs, tax credits, green loans, rebates, a handful of other things. But the law didn’t do a whole lot in and of itself. What it did was, you know, appropriate or delegate or make money available to subnational entities like cities to implement this law. [music ends]

So it was really like a critical change in paradigm, and that was something that cities needed a lot of guidance about, right? So Kate and I and others, you know, in our space had to really figure out what this was going to look like from the local level. What should local governments care about? What sorts of opportunities should they be pursuing? What sorts of hurdles should they be mindful of? It’s really just like a whole new landscape for us to map.

David 12:16

For everyone who follows the news, the Trump administration immediately pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement for the second time, by the way. It’s also pulled the United States out of the World Health Organization and has unilaterally taken many other steps to challenge the current international arrangements. What’s been the impact of this so far and what happened the last time that President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement?

Amy Turner 12:51

Kate and I are sleeping less than we used to, I think.

Kate Johnson 12:54

That is definitely for sure

Amy Turner 12:55

[laughs]

Kate Johnson 12:57

Yes. You know, obviously as a climate movement, we prepared for a lot of different scenarios around the election, and we certainly understood that if Trump won re-election that a lot of the Biden administration climate initiatives would be at risk. I, at least—and I think I can speak for others—didn’t fully appreciate the speed and scale at which the administration would move to cut off not just new funding, but existing funding, and not just on climate. And so I think that’s something that adds to keeping me up at night, is that our cities are now being challenged not just on, you know, moving—continuing to move their climate initiatives forward, but they’re being—they’re fighting battles on a lot of different fronts all at the same time. We understand there’s some intention behind that, and so that, you know, makes it—it’s hard to keep up, to be honest.

Amy Turner 13:52

Yeah. The lawlessness of what the administration has been doing has been quite surprising. We knew that the Trump administration was going to have different policy priorities than the Biden administration. That was no surprise. We knew that the Republican Congress would probably have different policy priorities than the previous Congress, but we thought we had a roadmap for how things might unspool based on certain legal guardrails. And, you know, what we have found in the last six or eight weeks is that the administration has not abided by those guardrails and has really thrown a lot of things into chaos. And like Kate said, has really forced cities among others to play defense along, you know, a whole number of battle lines.

David 14:36

We’ve also heard on the news that the Trump administration has been cutting federal funding for USAID and many other sectors. Can you give us some examples of the impact these cuts have had so far on climate projects and elsewhere?

Kate Johnson 14:52

[fast rhythmic music] Yeah, obviously the cities in the US are seeing grant funding cut off and, you know, I guess also for the other global impact that we’re seeing is on the impact of the tariffs in this really unprecedented trade war that we’ve entered into with our allies. So, you know, I work closely with our Canadian cities, and as David knows, the unprovoked trade war that the US has picked with Canada is already starting to have an impact as cities are planning for an economic downturn that they weren’t anticipating this year and having to think about new investments and programs, you know, accordingly. So, while I think Amy and I are certainly really focused on how, you know, these rollbacks are impacting cities in the US, there are cities around the world that are being impacted. [music continues then ends]

David 15:49

[soft rhythmic music] This episode of Cities 1.5 is produced by University of Toronto Press, with generous support from C40 Cities. Want more access to current research on how city leaders are approaching climate action? We also publish the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy. Our mission is to publish timely evidence-based research that contributes to the urban climate agenda and supports governmental policy towards an equitable and resilient world. The journal serves as a platform for dynamic content that highlights ambitious near-term climate action, with a particular focus on human-centered solutions to today’s most pressing climate challenges. To read the latest issue, visit jccpe.utpjournals.press or click on our link in the show notes. [music ends]

You know, many people would say the IRA is the most important piece of climate legislation passed by any democratic country in the history of the world, and certainly from a Canadian perspective we found it odd that the Biden administration didn’t trumpet its achievements more. Evidence so far is that it’s not very well liked by the Trump administration. How much at risk is the IRA and are some parts of it less at risk than others?

Amy Turner 17:15

Well, it always feels like a little bit of a moving target. The IRA is over 700 pages long. There is a lot of stuff in it, so there’s no one singular rollback or repeal of the IRA. When I think about the things that are particularly important to local governments in the US, I think about grants, tax credits and the green banking program, all of which are at risk in different ways at the moment. As you have likely heard, the Trump administration has instituted a very wide scale freeze on the disbursement of federal funds. That’s taken different shapes over the course of the last six or eight weeks, but in various ways federal agencies have been cutting off awardees, including local governments, from their federal grant funds. So, a lot of those grant programs are very much at risk right now. They likely won’t be repealed, but rather these are federal agencies that are gumming up the work, so to speak, making it more difficult for these grantees to access their funds.

David 18:16

But is that even legal?

Amy Turner 18:18

[chuckles] It’s a good question.

David 18:19

Oh, I’m glad I ask good questions. That’s the whole point of a podcast.

Amy Turner 18:23

There are a number of courts considering that very question right now in different forms. As soon as the federal funding freeze started, we had a couple of really big lawsuits right out of the gate. There were 23 states, plus the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration for the federal funding freeze. A coalition of non-profit groups sued the Trump administration over the federal funding freeze. And what those courts—the courts in those cases have said so far is that it is likely unlawful for the administration to be doing this, and so courts have issued temporary restraining orders. However, those temporary restraining orders only address categorical pauses in funding. So essentially the courts are saying, “The administration is not allowed to just hit pause on all federal funding that it doesn’t like,” so we’ve got a little bit of protection there. What we’re seeing now is plaintiffs that are bringing cases that take issue with some of the agency actions to implement that funding freeze. So, the administration is moving away from that really categorical or blanket pause on funding towards these individual agency actions, to either terminate grant awards or cut off grantees from their funding or, you know, go dark. You know, have a lack of communication. So now we have a couple of new cases where courts will be considering the legality of those actions, but we don’t have decisions from those courts just yet.

David 19:49

Well, it sounds complicated. One might have thought they can’t do indirectly what they can’t do directly, but I guess we have to wait for the courts. Or is this one where the legal community has a pretty clear opinion on it?

Amy Turner 20:04

So, the two temporary restraining orders that we’ve had in the first two lawsuits are pretty clear that federal agencies can rely on sources of funding other than these executive orders to make decisions about individual grant awards. So, whether any particular decision or action is lawful, is sort of a case-by-case question. But the temporary restraining orders have left quite a bit of room for interpretation by the agencies, and obviously the federal agencies are happy to take that latitude as much as they can.

Kate Johnson 20:37

And I think it’s important to point out that, you know, even if there are wins in court, the practical implications for cities who have these grants is there’s a lot of risk and uncertainty in them proceeding with projects. And, you know, making the order for the solar panels or the EV chargers, because there’s some uncertainty about whether or not they’re going to get paid back for those investments, you know, in the way that they would, you know, in normal circumstances with the federal grant. So, even if the funding freezes are on hold because of the court orders that Amy described, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re proceeding at pace, you know, in the meantime.

David 21:18

So, there’s a chilling effect even where grants have been agreed and signed?

Amy Turner 21:23

Kate and I are talking about grants that have been agreed and signed.

Kate Johnson 21:27

And some that are underway—like well underway already. Yeah.

David 21:31

What’s the reaction to cities and mayors to this, Kate? I’m in Canada, we’re experiencing a similar thing. We have a signed legally binding agreement, which is a trade agreement which has been completely ignored, and it’s very, very unsettling for us as Canadians, let alone our elected officials. You know, how are the mayors reacting and how do they feel?

Kate Johnson 21:54

You know, David, as a former mayor I think you’ll understand that mayors are reacting by being as practical as they can be, right? So, in some instances, there might be other funding that they can tap into in the meantime to make these investments and keep these projects going, especially ones that are, you know, delivering real benefits to their residents, whether it’s cleaner school buses or lower energy bills. But I think there is a real understanding among mayors that, you know, this administration has shown a willingness to come after their political opponents. And so mayors want to get work done and deliver for their residents, and—but not in a way that’s going to, you know, draw the ire of an administration that has, you know, shown its willingness to make things difficult.

David 22:45

[slow rhythmic music] So they’re keeping their heads down. Is that fair or? Because it’s interesting. Last time around mayors spoke up very strongly against the climate agenda of this administration.

Kate Johnson 22:56

I don’t know if keep—they’re not keeping their heads down, maybe they’re keeping their heads straight ahead, if that makes sense. You know, they’re just trying to be practical and make progress and let the actions they’re taking do the talking when it comes to, you know, continuing to move forward on climate.

David 23:15

Amy, I wanted to ask you. So, you parsed the Inflation Reduction Act into certain elements, the grants we’ve been talking about a fair bit. There’s also a huge reliance on tax breaks. My understanding is that there are actually Republican elected officials who support these. Some. Can you speak from your perspective whether that part of the Inflation Reduction Act is—seems to be—Or maybe Kate, seems to be less politically at risk or what’s the status of the fight there? [music ends]

Amy Turner 23:52

The tax credits are at risk. However, they’re not at risk through the executive branch, they’re at risk in Congress. So, Congress will be negotiating budget bills, tax bills this year. And in particular the—you know, the Congress would like to extend the Trump era tax cuts, and to do so we’ll need to find a lot of money to pay for that. One of the places they could look is these tax credits. Now, there are a lot of tax credits that are either established or extended by the Inflation Reduction Act, and I think we can expect that they’re all on the table but it’s really difficult to predict which ones might prevail. It seems like things like the electric vehicle tax credits are really politically unpopular among Republicans, but some of the other tax credits around clean energy manufacturing, some of the renewable energy credits do seem to have a bit more Republican support and might make it through this round of Congress.

David 24:48

Sound about right, Kate?

Kate Johnson 24:50

Yeah. And I think, as we were saying before, you know, the Inflation Reduction Act has a little something in it for everyone, that includes Republicans and Democrats. And we have seen some really interesting champions emerge for various programs and pieces of the Inflation Reduction Act. So just as one example, the Republican senator from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito, has spoken out publicly in support of the programs to invest in clean electric school buses in cities. Not necessarily just because cities in West Virginia are benefiting from this program, but because the manufacturing company that builds those electric school buses is in West Virginia. And so I think one of the features of the Inflation Reduction Act that [will 25:35] see how this plays out, is that it spreads the investments very widely and especially in, you know, more conservative areas that are seeing investments in clean energy manufacturing, and it’s really challenging for elected officials to see those rolled back.

David 25:53

So, that gives a little bit of hope. I want to go back to the mayors, because it’s clear the Inflation Reduction Act, this incredibly important piece of climate legislation globally, is really under attack. In 2016, there was a strong voice of mayors. It’s been quieter at the moment for the reasons you’ve said, I’m sure Kate and others. Do we foresee sort of a broader coalition along the lines of America Is All In starting to form or is this time really different?

Kate Johnson 26:29

I think what’s different this time is that all of those coalitions and networks are already there, and so we’re tapping into the ecosystem that was built in response to the first Trump administration to deliver support to cities that they need now. You know, I think we have stronger partnerships between organizations like C40 and the Sabin Center to help respond to all of the legal challenges that are coming up in a way that we didn’t necessarily have all of those connections going into the first Trump administration. So I think that’s—we are more ready for this fight in a way, even though the fight looks a little bit different this time than we were, say, in 2017.

David 27:13

That’s a really interesting point. We can build on what was built, but the role of mayors and cities will still be pretty significant going forward. Am—is—am I correct in assuming that?

Kate Johnson 27:28

Yeah. I think it’s incredibly important. So as we zoom out from the United States and think about the need to act on climate globally, I think it’s going to be really essential that state and local governments demonstrate that they’re continuing to take action and to implement despite what is happening in Washington, D.C. And I think that’s really what mayors and governors are focused on. Is they want to demonstrate, they want to do more so than just, you know, stand up and say, “We are still in,” as they did, you know, last time around.

David 28:02

So, if this time round is about action, how do we as people who aren’t American, how do Americans best support those who are taking that action, the governors, the mayors, their supporters in the legal community and others? Are there things that people can do or say that help support that really essential action on the ground led by mayors and states and other subnational entities?

Kate Johnson 28:30

Some of it is just getting engaged at the local level, obviously. So there’s been a lot of energy and enthusiasm and activism directed, you know, at the national level over the last four years, because that’s where there was this really big opportunity. And so I think my call to action is to get involved in what your city is trying to do. Help build those coalitions at the local level that we’re so effective at the national level in getting the IRA passed. We’re seeing a lot of interest among mayors in building more partnerships with their local business community, for example, and I think we need to see more of that happen in cities across the country.

David 29:09

Amy, you’re in the middle of all of this fascinating legal landscape, quite frightening, frankly, for those outside the United States. I’m sure it’s equally challenging inside the United States of America at the moment. My question is, in this context, what gives you hope?

Amy Turner 29:28

[whimsical music] Being among cities and being among folks who work with cities just gives me—It really fills my cup. You know, there are really, really wonderful folks working in cities across the country, in mayor’s offices and sustainability offices. They’re incredibly smart and hardworking and want to understand what’s going on at the federal level to direct their local work accordingly. And so being around, you know, folks who are actually doing the work on the ground is always as meaningful for me as I hope it is for them.

David 29:58

I suspect they’re also inspired by your work and advice, so please keep it up.

Amy Turner 30:05

Thank you.

David 30:06

Amy. Kate, thanks so much for being with Cities 1.5 today. You know, the Inflation Reduction Act and the actions of the US government have an impact not just in the United States of America, they have an impact globally and it’s a really important conversation for our listeners around the world. We really appreciate you both taking the time to be with us today.

Amy Turner 30:27

Great. Thank you for having me. [music continues then ends]

David 30:33

[fast rhythmic music] It’s easy to feel overwhelmed and hopeless right now with each new day bringing bad news for the health of people and planet. But this is what opponents of climate action want; to overwhelm, confuse and subdue us all with despair. Science tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and this is no less true in politics. The light in the dark is the action which cities and mayors took between 2017 and 2020 to defy and demonstrate a better way forward, and the rebels who are speaking up now and doing everything in their power to preserve and protect whatever they can. A movement is growing in the United States of America and globally, which can and must inspire all of us to action if the world is to have a chance of surviving, because the darkest hour is always right before the dawn. [music ends]

[Cities 1.5 theme music] On the next episode of Cities 1.5, I speak with two experts who each offer a unique perspective on how cities can serve as living urban labs for developing cutting edge policies to promote economic and social wellbeing for all residents. Angelos Varvarousis is a research fellow at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, where he is also the coordinator of the MA program in Degrowth: Ecology, economics and policy. Takehiko Nagumo is the founder and representative director of the Smart City Institute Japan and a professor at Keio University Graduate School of Media and Governance, and Kyoto University Graduate School of Management. You certainly won’t want to miss it.

This has been Cities 1.5, leading global change through local climate action. I’m David Miller. I was the mayor of Toronto, Canada, and I know firsthand the role cities can play in solving the climate crisis. Currently, I’m the editor-in-chief of the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy, published by the University of Toronto Press in collaboration with the C40 Center for City Climate Policy and Economy, where I’m also the managing director. C40’s mission is to help its member cities halve their emissions within a decade while improving equity, building resilience, and creating the conditions for everyone everywhere to thrive.

Cities 1.5 is produced by University of Toronto Press in association with the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy and C40 Cities. This podcast is produced by Jessica Schmidt and edited by Morgane Chambrin. Our executive producers are Peggy Whitfield and Calli Elipoulos. Our music is by Lorna Gilfedder. The fight for an empowered world is closer than you think. To learn more, visit the show’s website linked in the episode notes. See you next time. [Cities 1.5 theme music continues then ends]