Memorandum To: Nick Goldsmith, Coordinator for the City and Town of Ithaca

From: Naomi Crimm CC: Jennifer Minner, Associate Professor; Susan Holland, Director of Historic Ithaca Date: May 8th, 2020 Re: Equity Indicators for Ithaca’s GND Related to Carbon Offsets and

This memo outlines potential indicators to track equity as a result of carbon offset and sequestration programs that the City or Town of Ithaca might implement as a part of local resolutions. I pay attention to procedural, distributional, and structural equity throughout. The questions that Ithaca will need to consider in implementing programs for carbon offsets and sequestration will ultimately depend on the type of program initiated. If the program is for a mission-linked offset programs, then the City and Town should focus on investing in local and regional projects that reduce carbon and have positive economic impacts. Alternatively, the city might consider purchasing offsets, either through Credits, or by purchasing third-party certified offsets, to invest in projects at the national or international level (Cornell University Senior Leaders Action Working Group, 2016). Questions that emerge from this, therefore, include: - How can the City and Town track who has the ability to access offsets? - How can the City and Town track who receives the offsets—i.e. who is paid for their carbon sequestration actions? - How can the City and Town track the extent to which carbon offsets promote wealth redistribution? - How can the City and Town track the extent to which frontline and vulnerable communities are included in the process of creating carbon sequestration and offset programs? In addition, it will be useful to consider how local government actions export inequities elsewhere in determining who is benefiting from offset money, and whether the program further engrains power dynamics and wealth concentration in receiving places. How can the City and Town of Ithaca avoid outsourcing emissions reduction responsibility? McDermott et al (2013) point out that tensions can arise between equity at different scales, as there are often tradeoffs between temporal, geographic, and social scales social (individual vs. household vs. community vs. ecosystem vs. intergenerational). Thus, the scale at which equity is considered is an important place to start thinking about how to assess changes. Carbon Free Boston’s 2019 Social Equity Report outlines equity considerations in the use of offsets relevant for Boston, but which can also be applied to Ithaca. These considerations include: 1. Establishing standards that ensure the emissions reductions are permanent, additional to what would have been done otherwise, verifiable, enforceable, and real. This should include provisions to prevent exacerbating social inequities by allowing facilities to continue to emit . 2. Ensuring that raising and allocating revenue for the purchase of offsets does not exacerbate existing income inequality. 3. Offset purchases should be socially responsible and enhance equity, whether from local, national, or international projects (Carbon Free Boston, 2019). Much of the discussion in the literature on social equity in relation to carbon offsets and sequestration focuses on the implications of countries in the Global North outsourcing emissions reduction responsibilities to the Global South. Studies have found that some U.S. funded carbon offset projects have resulted in adverse social outcomes. Wittman and Caron (2007) found that to be the case in Guatemala and Sri Lanka, as offset programs caused resources to be redirected away from poverty alleviation towards carbon offset accounting, extension work shifted to include larger and wealthier farmers, and ethnic conflicts over distribution of resources became exacerbated. To avoid this, the authors suggest the inclusion of additional measures such as mandating education as part of offset contracts, requiring monitoring, and ensuring that funding is provided for administration of projects. While there is a lack of precedents of specific indicators for assessing equity in carbon offsets and sequestration programs, the City and Town of Ithaca could consider using traditional poverty metrics to evaluate the impact of a particular policy on low- income residents. It is important to keep in mind, however, that these types of changes cannot necessarily be attributed solely to one program, and are likely due to a combination of factors. For example, Casillas and Kammen (2012) evaluates the social impacts of mitigation strategies by the use of several measures. They look at poverty headcount (ratio of the population below a certain income or consumption cutoff), Gini coefficient (level of income/consumption inequality), and the Kuznets ratio (level of inequality between the wealthiest and the poorest) to assess the impact of different carbon mitigation measures for the electricity sector like CFL or meter installation, or biogas generation in two rural communities in Nicaragua. This could be implemented for both mission-linked and national/international offset programs by comparing these indicators of poverty and inequality either in Ithaca, or in the region receiving offset funds. This could be augmented by looking at the proportion of different populations living in poverty, as the Atlanta Equity Atlas does. Data for this can be found through the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, and Cornell’s Program on Applied Demographics.

2 The metrics that the Town and City can use will depend on the type of offset project implemented. Generally, offset programs center around forestry, energy efficiency, renewable energy development, capture/avoidance and waste management (Overseas Development Institute, n.d.). In a report on advancing climate equity in California’s climate policy, Zabin et al (2016) suggest limiting the offsets available for purchase to activities that can reduce emissions in environmental justice communities. These activities can include urban , solar energy programs certified to sell offsets, or energy efficiency programs. In a recent article on measuring the implementation of principles Girard and Nocca (2019) compile numerous indicators, some of which could be relevant here. They suggest tracking money saved ($/year) per household for particular policies. Circular London recommends doing this for waste reduction initiatives as a way to track the economic dimensions of a particular policy. The same article also proposes using the number of families using energy powered by renewables to track access, as Malmo, Sweden has done. Energy providers in the area have this data. The Finger Lakes Climate Fund represents a local offset model focused on energy efficiency upgrades for low-income residents. Therefore, if the city decided to funnel resources through this program, a way to measure the equity impacts would be to assess changes in grant recipients’ energy costs after implementing energy efficiency upgrades (net cost savings in dollars per year, as in Brecha et al (2011)), the changes in monthly energy consumption (see Zivan and Novan, 2016 for more detailed methods), and/or the relative reduction of yearly energy consumption (Girard and Nocca, 2019). The U.S. Department Energy Residential Energy Consumption Survey tracks residential energy use. Alternatively, sending out household surveys can help gather this information. The Durham Neighborhood Compass tracks average monthly household electricity use with data from to help inform which areas to target for energy efficiency programs (Durham Neighborhood Compass, 2014, see Appendix Figure 1). The Finger Lakes Climate Fund could be expanded to include other types of carbon mitigation and sequestration projects, such as urban forestry and avoidance of wooded land conversion, as Duke University has done (Duke Office of Sustainability, n.d.). If the City or Town were to go this route, assessing equity for these projects could include using GIS or remote sensing imagery data to do spatial analyses to identify how tree distribution has changed across neighborhoods (Landry and Charaborty, 2009), and to see who is benefiting from those trees. They could also measure trees per capita, and/or temperature in particular areas of the city (Girard and Nocca, 2019). Kabisch et al (2016) suggest measuring the decrease in respiratory disease and obesity, as well as declines in premature deaths during heat waves to assess the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate adaptation and mitigation. This could be applied to local carbon sequestration initiatives in Ithaca. iTree, an online suite of free tools, can help Ithaca quantify the distribution and benefits of tree canopy, and can be used to determine where to target planting in an equitable way(see Appendix Figure 2). The EPA EnviroAtlas is another tool that the Durham Neighborhood Compass used to track the percent of total land cover within block groups that is tree canopy. Addressing the question of who benefits from the offsets might include employment metrics. Girard and Nocca (2019) suggest measuring the number of jobs created through

3 a policy. Tracking the number of high-paying, lower-skilled jobs created from local carbon offset/sequestration projects could help Ithaca assess social equity outcomes of these programs. This could be augmented by tracking earned income growth for full-time wage and salary workers by percentile, or income by race/ethnicity like the Bay Area Equity Atlas. They also suggest keeping track of the number of participants in events, and the percent of the population active in certain initiatives. This can contribute to the question of who has the ability to access offsets, as educational programs will be needed, in particular because the mechanisms behind offsets and sequestration are technically complex. Therefore, the metrics mentioned above, with the additional information of tracking age and Ithaca neighborhood can help to evaluate who educational initiatives have reached. Kabisch et al (2016) advocate for using citizen involvement as an indicator of effectiveness of nature-based solutions: involvement in green implementation (% of citizens involved), ownership and responsibility (% or number of people owning or maintaining green spaces), and sharing/adopting nature-based solutions (use of media like Facebook- number of likes). Some of this data can come from social media platforms, while for others, the city would need to track participation in its initiatives. While there appears to be a lack of equity indicators specific to carbon offsets and sequestration programs, the City and Town can use general indicators to assess the impact of the programs they implement. These can include poverty, employment, energy cost/use/access metrics to assess changes over time in order to evaluate distributional and structural equity. Using spatial analysis can assist in tracking where programs are being implemented and who is benefiting. Tracking who is being reached by outreach and educational programming can also help Ithaca be more equitable in their information dissemination. Making all of this data publicly available through an online open data portal will increase transparency, thereby addressing structural equity. A useful example is found at www.nationalequityatlas.org. Ithaca might also consider an Open Street Maps type of model to enable residents to contribute to knowledge production and tracking. Works Cited Boston Green Ribbon Commission. (2019). Carbon Free Boston Social Equity Report. https://www.greenribboncommission.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/CFB_Social_Equity_Report_WEB.pdf Brecha, R.J., Mitchell, A., Hallinan, K., and K. Kissock. (2011). Prioritizing investment in residential energy efficiency and renewable energy – a case study for the U.S. Midwest. Energy Policy, 39(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.011 Casillas, C. and D. Kammen. (2012). Quantifying the social equity of carbon mitigation strategies. Climate Policy. DOI:10.1080/14693062.2012.669097 Cornell University Senior Leaders Climate Action Working Group. (2016). Options for achieving a carbon neutral campus by 2035. https://sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/2018- 12/Cornell%20University%20-%20Options%20for%20Achieving%20a%20Carb on%20Neutral%20Campus%20-%202016.pdf Durham Neighborhood Compass. (2014). Average Monthly Household Electricity Use. Duke Energy. Duke Office of Sustainability. (n.d.) Carbon Offset Projects.

4 https://sustainability.duke.edu/offsets Girard, L. and F. Nocca (2019). Moving towards a circular economy/city model: which tools for operationalizing this model? Sustainability, 11. doi:10.3390/su11226253 Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., Haase, D., Knapp, S., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Zaunberger, K., and A. Bonn. (2016). Nature- based solutions to mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 Landry, S. and J. Chakraborty. (2009). Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and Planning A, 41. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41236 McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., and K. Schreckenberg. (2013). Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 416-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006 Overseas Development Institute. (n.d.) Types of carbon offset projects. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/6085.pdf Wittman, H. and C. Caron. (2007). Carbon Offsets and Inequality: Social Costs and Co- Benefits in Guatemala and Sri Lanka. Society and Natural Resources, 22(8). https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802046858 Zabin, C., Matin, A., Morell-Frosch, R., Pastor, M., and J. Sadd. (2016). Advancing equity in climate policy: a new social contract for low-carbon transition. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2016/Advancing-Equity.pdf Zivin, J. and K. Novan. (2016). Upgrading efficiency and behavior: electricity savings from residential weatherization programs. The Energy Journal, 37(4). DOI:10.5547/01956574.37.4.jziv

Cited Online Sources Circular London: https://circularlondon.org/ Bay Area Regional Atlas: https://bayareaequityatlas.org/ National Equity Atlas: https://nationalequityatlas.org/ Metro Atlanta Equity Atlas: http://atlantaequityatlas.com/ Durham Neighborhood Compass: https://compass.durhamnc.gov/en EPA EnviroAtlas: https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas iTree Tools: https://www.itreetools.org/

5 Appended Figures

Figure 1. Average Monthly Household Electricity Use (2014) from Durham Neighborhood Compass

Figure 2. Tree canopy coverage in Ithaca Census Block Groups from i-Tree Landscape

6