Do cities have tools to meet their climate targets? The limits of soft governance in climate action plans.

While cities have been widely considered to be key sites of ambitious and transformative climate action, it is time to question whether they have adequate tools and mandates to reach their goals in time. In this paper we provide a comprehensive assessment of planned measures in major cities, assessing the distribution of persuasive (soft) versus direct regulatory (hard) and material measures using an urban systems perspective. Examining 1079 climate measures of 19 cities in the global C40 network we find that the majority of measures can be considered as soft measures , focused on raising awareness, incentivising businesses, engaging citizens, and developing new plans. Our cases suggest that cities in the Global South are more focused on hard and material measures and less prone to voluntarism than cities in the Global North. Generally, showing that strategies for sustainability transformations in cities are heavily reliant on voluntarism and persuasion, the article expresses concern for the ability of cities to meet its ambitious targets. The research literature on urban climate governance should expand from its current focus on collaborative, network-based and experimental governance, to reconsider the roles of regulation and control in meeting climate targets. • Provides a comprehensive assessment of planned climate measures in 19 major cities • Analyses 1079 climate measures and categorises into soft, hard and material modes • We find that the majority of measures (more than half) can be considered as soft. • We critically discuss the viability of ambitious climate targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]