necessary to stabilize global temperatures requires capital investments in both new and retrofitted assets, with more environmental intent than historically observed (World Bank, 2010a, 11). Regardless of marginal abatement curves, inertia and lock‐in to infrastructure investments with lower capital costs and excessive emissions can be expected to continue as long as conventional rationales for prioritizing investments predominate (Vogt‐Schlib et al., 2011, 14‐15).

Climate change is just one of many challenges faced by local governments. Scarcity of funds, competing interests in government investment, demands for economic growth and employment, the pitfalls of political self‐interest, public responses to inequities in fees and taxes, shortages of technical expertise, and lack of access to financing are just a few potential challenges. In the context of rapid urbanization, demands and desires for capital projects outstrip the capacity of the local government to fund them. For this reason, as well as the long‐range nature of infrastructure projects and their tendency to lock‐in a specific development path, it is necessary for local governments to make transparent, well‐defined choices about what projects to implement, when to implement them, and how to pay for them. These issues are brought to the forefront during the annual (or biannual) budgeting process. While many forms of public rule‐making can be useful to combating climate change on a local level, much of the opportunity for local governments to act depends on their willingness and ability to prioritize climate‐ smart investments within their budgeting process.

# **3 Finding a Low Carbon Path**

Currently a number of cities are actively supporting investments in low‐carbon infrastructure. However, many local governments have not yet incorporated climate issues in their planning processes or do not have access to the right tools to understand what needs to be considered. Capital investment planning processes have the potential to steer cities to take a low‐carbon path. The adaptable nature of the multi‐criteria analysis as a decision‐making tool could present an opportunity for cities to mainstream climate mitigation considerations into their existing planning processes and build on current efforts.

## _Long‐range planning: City‐scale approaches_

Master plans, be they citywide or sectoral, are one means by which governments could encourage investment in infrastructure projects that can help mitigate, versus contribute to, climate change. Stating in these long‐range plans that climate change is an important issue encourages government officials to take climate change into account when making decisions, and may reduce barriers to information between departments. However, these master plans, and even climate action plans, do not always translate into action (Millard‐Ball, 2012, 4‐5). This is likely because when it comes time for decisions to be made, short‐term financial considerations are given sway over broader long‐term goals. Moreover, many climate action plans are developed as special initiatives in isolation from general infrastructure planning and budgeting processes of the local government. Climate change is occurring, but people generally perceive its dangers in the distance, 20 years or more down the road (Hulme and Turnpenny, 2004, 105). As the capital investment plan is the document where master plan elements can be translated into actual infrastructure projects, incorporating climate criteria into the capital investment planning process can ensure that these long‐range goals are realized (Elmer, 2014, 137).

Page | 4