This is why we cannot rely on cities alone to tackle climate change
A lot of faith is vested in cities to tackle climate change, and with good reason. A day after the June 1 declaration that the US would exit the Paris Agreement, 82 American "climate mayors" committed to upholding the accord.
By August 4, when the US gave of its withdrawal, there were representing 67 million Americans.
In Australia, too, national intransigence has led to greater expectations of local actions. The Climate Council's declares that deep cuts in cities' greenhouse gas emissions can achieve 70% of Australia's Paris goals.
The report notes that a majority of Australian cities have adopted climate policies. Many are committed to 100% renewable energy or zero emissions. One of the report's authors argues that, even without national leadership, Australian cities can "just get on with the job of implementing climate policies".
Many European cities have ambitious emission-reduction targets. Copenhagen plans to be the world's . Stockholm aims to be .
So, at first glance, cities do appear to be leading the way.
A word of caution
We support local decarbonisation and the desire for cities to be progressive actors. Yet there are ample grounds to be dubious about cities' ability to deliver on their commitments.
Sam Brooks, former director of the District of Columbia's Energy Division, has laid out on the reality of climate action in US cities.
Brooks supports stronger local action rather than "press releases" and "mindless cheerleading". He shows that most emission cuts in US cities can be attributed to state and federal initiatives such as renewable portfolio standards or national fuel-efficiency rules.
365 are stepping up to as Trump turns his back on the
— The Climate Mayors (@ClimateMayors)
America's narrative of climate-friendly cities relies heavily on California's leadership to make it credible.
By May 2015, California had built the of cities, states and countries committed to keeping the global temperature increase below 2°C. California Governor Jerry Brown was prepared for the June 1 White House announcement, quickly . Days later Brown between China and his state to collaborate on cutting emissions.
California's activism sets a benchmark. But Brooks details how New York, Boston, Washington DC and other "frequently lauded cities" often do not use the powers they have.
No US city reports its electricity consumption more than annually. Many do not report it at all. Poor monitoring is a key reason they have not cut consumption, in spite of enormous scope for efficiency.
Cities have not added much to national trends
It isn't just American cities falling short, as Benjamin Barber's new book, makes clear.
Like Brooks, Barber championed urban action against global warming (he died in April 2017). Yet he looked past the hype to point out shortcomings in the mitigation measures of such exemplary cities as London and Oslo.
London's stated goal is to . It seems likely to fail, with blame falling on and inadequate policies .
Oslo is committed to a 100% cut in emissions . But its emissions have risen from 1.2 million tonnes in 1991 to . One complication is that oil and gas production comprise 22% of the Norwegian economy. The nation's emissions are .
Even the progress of climate superstar cities such as Copenhagen, Stockholm and Berlin is, on close examination, subject to important caveats.
makes much of having cut emissions 21% by 2011 . Yet the city admits that 63% of its goal of becoming carbon-neutral relies on for its emissions.
National policy is a crucial context for urban action. For instance, Copenhagen has benefited greatly from a 27% fall in Denmark's emissions between 1990 and 2015. Unfortunately, Danish emissions are expected to without new policies.
has cut emissions by . This is mainly a result of changes to building heating – transport emissions have .
As in Copenhagen, Stockholm's achievements rely greatly on a national target – – backed by a robust policy framework.
As for Berlin, its goal is an 85% cut in emissions by 2050, compared to 1990. By 2013 the city had . Yet most recent data indicate that emissions have begun to rise slightly. Berlin is at risk of achieving only of a 40% cut by 2020.
Berlin is not responsible for a national policy that remains lax on coal and unduly favours automobiles, the source of . But civic leaders in Berlin to nudge a car-centred culture towards sustainability.
What must cities do?
The urgency of real action is clear from the on sustainable urban energy systems. It warns that business as usual in cities could mean emissions increase by 50% by 2050.
The IEA notes that 90% of the growth in primary energy demand is . At the same time, climate science tells us deep emissions cuts . We have to accelerate decarbonisation, which means demanding greater ambition and transparency from cities. The following steps need to be taken:
- Every city should have accurate, timely and transparent data on their performance across a range of indicators. These include emissions, electricity consumption, energy efficiency and renewable energy availability.
- We need more robust comparative frameworks to make sense of the data. The 2014 was a valuable start, but has to be expanded.
- Cities should be more global when calculating their emissions. At present, they tally up emissions from their own territory and production, leaving out emissions from consumption of traded goods and (often) aviation. The differences can be significant. Were Copenhagen's emissions measured on a consumption basis, the total would be four to five times higher.
- Cities need to differentiate between emission cuts resulting directly from their own actions and those derived from state or national programs. We need to see what cities themselves are doing.
- Cities too often advocate climate neutrality rather than zero emissions. The more a city relies on credits for offsets elsewhere, the greater the risk of failing to cut actual emissions within the city.
- There should be less cheerleading all around. City mayors need to lobby their state and federal counterparts to ensure co-ordinated action at all levels. And citizens must throw out mayors - not to mention regional and national leaders - who don't accept the urgency of climate mitigation.
Sadly, many cities are dangerously complacent about the need for speed in decarbonisation. No press release can obscure the fact that time is not on our side.
Provided by The Conversation
This article was originally published on . Read the .
