ABSTRACT
Climate policy is at a crossroads, with far-reaching governance consequences. Cities are currently involved in schemes for centrally planned emission reduction, with goals, targets, and means decided centrally, in national plans and laws, and in international agreements. Cities merely help implement, with central control on performance and corrections for underperformance. This now dominant Planning and Control form of governance, extending to cities, optimises climate decisions in a top-down fashion. The question is thus what is best for all, covering all points of view democratically. Institutionalist governance could decide centrally on goals to be transformed into incentives and could leave decisions regarding means to decentral actors, including cities. Institutionalism offers novel means. It internalises external climate effects. It also corrects deficient markets centrally, especially regarding electric power, creating options for such legal frameworks to be used by supplying large-scale infrastructure, but not by giving guidance. It enables cities to act autonomously, with actions emerging through local initiatives, according to local views, and local circumstances. Autonomous cities must take their responsibility proactively in order to achieve climate results and more, creating legitimacy and a good life for their citizens in the process.
