Science-based targets aren’t resolutions. They are not optional, and neither are the outcomes.
Every January, we watch people pick a 30-day challenge, test their willpower, and decide whether it “worked” for them. And every year, we watch some version of that mindset creep into climate action.
This week, I sparked a lively conversation on LinkedIn with a simple plea: Can we please stop treating climate action like Dry January?
It’s a timely prompt because we’re hearing a familiar refrain in local government and beyond:
“It’s fine to ditch 2030 GHG reduction targets. They’re not realistic.”
Here’s the thing. Science-based targets aren't like a New Year's resolution. They aren’t aspirational. They are thresholds tied to risk. When we treat them like “nice-to-haves,” we’re choosing more severe impacts and paying for it later in public health, infrastructure damage, emergency response, and household costs. In local government, this is basic risk management.
We’ve seen this movie before
At KLA, our team has been supporting local climate action for more than two decades. We’ve watched target years come and go—2010, 2012, 2020—often treated like deadlines we could renegotiate later.
But the climate crisis isn’t a 30-day challenge. If we treat the targets like they’re optional, we’re treating the outcomes like they’re optional too.
The real problem isn’t “motivation.” It’s infrastructure.
When it comes to GHG emissions reductions, most communities don’t fail because they don’t care. They fail or fall short because the plan isn’t built to survive real-world conditions. If your climate action plan isn’t tied to a budget, capital plan, permitting, staffing, and performance tracking, we know where to find it a year from now: gathering dust on a shelf.
And yes, capacity limitations are real. Staff are stretched. Urgent needs feel relentless. But we can’t default to “lack of funding” as the catch-all explanation. Local governments find ways to align resources with what they prioritize. So here’s the question we keep coming back to:
What’s holding your community back, —and what needs to shift for climate to make the priority list where budgets actually follow?
Dry January does have one lesson for climate action
Dry January is optional. Climate targets are not. But Dry January gets one thing right: structure creates follow-through. If you want your climate action plan to survive post-adoption (and escape the dusty-shelf fate), you need Dry January-level discipline baked into implementation.
Here’s the structure we see in communities that actually move the needle:
-
Budget + CIP alignment
If it’s not funded, it’s not happening. We can’t pretend grants will carry work that’s meant to protect communities from significant threats and hazards. Priorities deserve real budgets—not “maybe funding.”
-
Department owners with real authority
Not “the sustainability office.” Sustainability staff are often under-resourced and under-empowered. Implementation needs owners in the departments and partner organizations that can actually execute.
-
Community action as the core strategy
Let’s be honest: most GHG emissions aren’t in city hall. The biggest sources of emissions are homes, businesses, and vehicles. Many of the highest-impact actions only work when community members implement them directly. A local government’s job is to be the catalyst that makes action easy, normal, and scalable.
-
A public scorecard
Few metrics. Updated consistently. Track progress toward an outcome, but not data for data’s sake. Use what you have, update it regularly, and let consistency build trust.
-
Implementation cadence
A standing monthly/quarterly check-in. Establish a rhythm where departments report progress, unblock barriers, and commit to next steps—so the plan stays alive.
This is how targets become emissions reductions.
What now?
If your community is serious about 2030 (and beyond), the next step isn’t another glossy plan. It’s operationalizing the plan you already have by:
- Funding it
- Assigning it
- Tracking it
- Building a cadence that makes progress inevitable
What would it take for your community to treat climate targets like the risk management thresholds they are? We’d genuinely love to hear what’s working —and what’s getting in the way.
Note: KLA will be revisiting this theme—Empowering Local Governments to Achieve Outcomes—in the coming months as we continue to evolve our services to support implementation with the urgency the climate crisis demands.
