Transcript Urban responses to climate change Fred Lee Department of

Urban responses to climate change
Fred Lee
Department of Geography
The University of Hong Kong
March 15, 2012
How (and why) could cities address climate change?
What have cities done to address climate change?
Why many cities have not done much?
What is the nature of the climate change problem?
What is climate change?
~ mean annual surface temperature 
~ atmospheric concentration of GHGs 
> CO2; methane; CFCs; N2O
~ concentration of GHGs  (1750- )
[CO2: 280 ppm/ 388 ppm/ 450 ppm]
> sea level rise: 01.-0.2 m  (20th C)
> snow cover: 10%  (1960s- )
> El Nino episodes  (1970s- )
> droughts  (Africa, Asia)
What is the nature of the climate change problem?
~ discernible human influence (IPCC)
~ global: needs international negotiation (debates)
~ CC: not only a global issue, also a local issue
The global politics of climate change
~ UNFCCC (1992)
> objective: stabilize GHG concentrations
> debate: industrialized countries commitments
* US: opposed binding targets & timetables
~ The Kyoto Protocol (1997)
> objective: reduce GHG emissions
> rules for implementation (2001)
* post-Kyoto negotiations: highly contentious
The Kyoto Protocol negotiation: 3 key issues
~ who should reduce GHG emissions?
> “common but differentiated responsibilities”
~ the extent of reduction?
> US: stabilization
> EU: bubble approach (15% below 1990 levels by 2010)
> Jap/ Can/ Aus/ NZ: differentiated approach (3-5% )
~ how to reduce GHG emissions?
> emissions trading
> Clean Development Mechanism
Cities: significant role to address climate change
~ cities: high energy consumption/ waste production
> 50% world population; 80% global CO2 emissions
~ Local Agenda 21: global rhetoric  local practice
> influence day-to-day lives; more effective than state
~ small-scale demonstration projects
> illustrate costs & benefits of controlling GHGs
~ considerable experience in energy, transport, planning
> innovative measures to reduce impact on climate
Local actions to address global climate change
~ energy
> renewable energy/ CHP systems/ district heating
> building code: energy efficiency & conservation
~ transportation
> reduce the use of cars
* alternative modes of transport
* planning: reduce the need to travel
[Car Free Day: Sept 22 ]
~ solid waste management
> methane recovery/ recycling
Transnational networks of sub-national governments
~ Climate Alliance
> +1,000 local authorities in Europe
~ Sustainable Cities [UNCHS + UNEP]
> linking environment & development
~ Cities for Climate Protection [ICLEI] (1993; 1990)
> +650 local governments
~ C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (2005)
> reduce GHG emissions/ enhance energy efficiency
Why many cities have not done much?
~ the “scale” argument
> global env issues beyond reach & concern of city gov’t
~ the “readiness” argument
> LDC cities: more urgent & pressing local env issues
The “scale” argument (1)
~ spatial scale: “Not on my turf”
> climate change: global change
> international treaties: national gov’t/ UN agencies
~ reality
> atmospheric concentrations of GHGs: global
> driving forces/ impacts/ responses: local
> urban env problems: multi-scaled
* regional & global consequences
The “scale” argument (2)
~ temporal scale: “Not in my term”
> accumulation of industrial era GHGs: +200 years
> IPCC projection/ CO2 emissions by 2100: +100 years
> Kyoto Protocol negotiation: +20 years
> a mayor’s term of office: ? Years
* global issue: too remote/ indirect
~ reality
> a mayor’s decisions: very long-term impacts
* infrastructure: +100 years
* land use planning: +1,000 years
The “scale” argument (3)
~ institutional scale: “Not my business”
~ vertical autonomy (vertical jurisdictional divide)
> local gov’t capacity
* constrained by level of local autonomy
* city actions need state/ federal policy support
~ horizontal autonomy
> local gov’t capacity
* constrained by local stakeholders (industry)
* stakeholders need to be aware of global concerns
The “readiness” argument
~ developing cities: not ready to deal w/ global issues
> stage of economic development
> financial/ human capacity/ people’s awareness
~ developing cities: premature to tackle global issues
> most pressing env issues: poverty-related issues
> top env agenda: local pollution/ public services
The “readiness” argument: Reality
~ CO2 emissions  [Beijing, Shanghai, Bangkok]
> rapid motorization/ rising living standards
~ developing cities env issues: complex
> poverty-related + industrial pollution-related +
consumption-/ lifestyle-related
[compressed & telescoped]
~ strong external forces
> int’l GHG emission control regime
> resource constraints [China: “circular economy”]
Localizing global concerns in practice
~ transform global concerns into local issues
> “think locally, act locally” [why?]
* GHG emissions  air quality/ urban planning
* financial savings/ improved quality of life
~ limitations of localizing strategy
> existing policies: repackaged as CC measures
> localized strategy: no net benefits on global scale
* push problems out of the city [how?]
* might increase GHG emissions [how?]
Future prospect
~ obstacles: perceptions, concerns, interests, priorities
> crucial to raise city leaders’ awareness
~ increasing int’l pressures  local actions
> bottleneck: financial mechanism
~ “think locally, act locally”: does not always work
> need to expand local officials’ horizon of concern