Low carbon development in global cities by Peter Erickson


Published on

Peter Erickson of the Stockholm Environmental Institute presents on low carbon development cases in global cities.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Low carbon development in global cities by Peter Erickson

  1. 1. Low-carbon development inglobal citiesPeter Erickson, Stockholm Environment Institute (U.S.)Cape Town, South AfricaApril 23, 2013
  2. 2. Global Context – Pathways for <2° CSource: WBGU. 2009. “Solving the Climate Dilemma: The Budget Approach”. German Advisory Council on Global Change.http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2009_en.pdf.
  3. 3. Cities Are Important to Global ClimateChange Mitigation• “C40 Cities have the potential to reduce[greenhouse gas] emissions by one fullgigaton” Bill Clinton, former President of the UnitedStates, announcing SEI research for C40Cities, Rio+20, June 2012• “What the world needs is the samescience based foundation for cities thatthe Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) provides for nations.” Cynthia Rosenzweig, NASA, “Cities leadthe way in climate change action”, Nature467 (2010)
  4. 4. What are the most significant sourcesof urban GHG emissions?• Depends on what youcount and why: Production and / orconsumption Ability to influence Measurability…Source: SEI-US. 2012. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in King County.Seattle, WA: http://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2026.
  5. 5. Where are the greatest (average) urban-scale GHG abatement opportunities?Sector SampleTechnologies2020Abatement2050AbatementLocal InfluenceEnergy Supply Low-carbonelectricityBuildings &infrastructureBuilding retrofits,designTransport “Avoid, shift,improve”Industry &goodsLow-GHG goodsAg & food Low-GHG dietsForestry Avoided clearingWaste RecyclingSource: Erickson et al. 2013 (Forthcoming). Technologies, practices, and measures for GHG abatement at the urban scale. Greenhouse GasMeasurement and Management. Work funded by C40 Cities. Note: dark circle means >5% of city GHGs. White circle <1%.**
  6. 6. Transport sector analysisTechnology /practicePolicies andmeasures2020Abatement2050 Abatement Local InfluenceEfficient vehiclesVehicleregistration feesLow-GHG fuelsSystem efficiency(e.g., traffic mgmt.)Traffic / demandmgmtMode shift Mass transit;road pricingTrip avoidance Land useplanning; roadpricingSource: Erickson et al. 2013 (Forthcoming). Technologies, practices, and measures for GHG abatement at the urban scale. Greenhouse GasMeasurement and Management. Work funded by C40 Cities. Note: dark circle means >5% of city GHGs. White circle <1%.
  7. 7. Example Policies and Measures• Energy Supply Low-carbon electricity• Building Energy Retrofit disclosure requirements and financing• Transportation Vehicle charges & public transport Combined transport and land use planning
  8. 8. Putting it all together:Seattle example
  9. 9. Energy Supply –Examples• Seattle (USA) has a publicelectricity utility, Seattle City Light Divested in coal in 2000 Committed to carbon neutralelectricity in future (but starts from>90% hydro)• Cities tied to national / regionalgrids have it harder; commonstrategy is to focus on distributedlocal generation Sydney goal of capacity for 100%local electricity generation by 2030with GHG reductions of 70% London goal of 25% by 2025Source: Seattle City Light. 2010. “2010 Integrated Resource Plan.”
  10. 10. Building Energy – Melbourne Example• Mandatory energy disclosure -Building Energy EfficiencyDisclosure Act 2010 (AustralianGovernment)• Low interest bank loans Secured by municipal charge onthe property (improvements andcharges stay with the building);tenants contributeSource: Mayes, David. 2013. The opportunities and lessons from the City of Melbourne’s implementation of building energy policies. City ofMelbourne, Australia. Presentation to World Bank / CLC / C40 Workshop. April 2013.
  11. 11. Transportation – Singapore Example• Shift to rail-based transit Following initial plan developed in early1970s Current 62% mode share for public transitduring peak times; goal of 75% by 2030 Expanding rail; giving buses road priority• Quotas on total car ownership• Financial incentives for low-GHGvehiclesSource: Poon, Joe Fai. 2013. Transport: Opportunities and Lessons. Land Transport Authority, Singapore. Presentation to World Bank / CLC / C40Workshop. Singapore. April 2013.
  12. 12. Transport / Land Use – Stockholm• Building towards the city centre; usingold industrial sites• Integrating with transit• Integrated planning; lots of stakeholderinputSource: Gustafsson, Thomas, 2013. Urban Planning and Climate from a Land UsePerspective. Presentation to World Bank / CLC / C40 Workshop. Singapore. April2013.
  13. 13. Metrics for Tracking ProgressSector Driver Units Common localdata sourcesBuildings Building energyintensityMJ or kwh per m2or employeeUtilities; surveys;city buildingsdepartmentsTransport Vehicle energyintensityLiter / km or MJ /kmVehicle registrationdepartmentsShare of publictransit, non-motorized trips% of trips by mode Local vehicle /travelsurveysAvoided trips and/orreduced trip lengthPkm and tkm perresidentLocal vehicle /travel surveysSome international default data exist; e.g. UITP, ITDP, World Bank
  14. 14. Conclusions• Building energy, personal vehicle travel, and diet tend tohave greatest GHG abatement potential, influence• Interactions between government, stakeholders critical• If data are available, simple metrics can help trackprogress, understand trends