Syndicate content

GHG Emissions

Carbon banking helps families reduce CO2 emissions in Gwangju

Chisako Fukuda's picture

Dr. Kwi-gon Kim, February 2014How can green growth policy be translated into local action? The average household has an important role to play, as was demonstrated in Gwangju, a city of 1.5 million people located 270 km south of Seoul. With an ambitious goal to become carbon-neutral by 2050, the city implemented a carbon banking system which encourages households to act green – resulting in 54% of participating households reducing consumption of electricity, gas and water in four years. Dr. Kwi-gon Kim, Professor Emeritus of Urban Environmental Planning at Seoul National University and Secretary General of Urban Environmental Accords Secretariat, who played a key role in launching the program in Gwangju, explains how and what others can learn from the city’s experience to realize green economic development.

Carbon banking doesn’t sound like something families can do. Why are you targeting households?

Cities act on climate change: Thoughts on the C40 Summit in Joburg

Stephen Hammer's picture

If you go to a conference on cities and climate change, you inevitably hear the statement that “countries talk…but cities act”. This message was loud and clear at the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Summit in Johannesburg last month, where a new report released by the C40 and ARUP detailed the 8000+ initiatives that C40 member cities are undertaking to either reduce GHG emissions or increase their climate resilience. Since the first such report came out in 2011, more cities are reporting on their efforts, and those reporting are doing ever more, expanding the array of initiatives they have launched.

Peak Waste and Poverty – A Powerful Paradox

Dan Hoornweg's picture

Urbanization is the most powerful force shaping the planet today. This can be good news as urbanization is the best bet we have to meet our global poverty reduction targets. Cities generate our wealth, our culture, and our innovation. This is also bad news since cities generate the lion’s share of the world’s GHG emissions, and cities are responsible for most of the planet’s current decline in biodiversity. Cities also generate solid waste; lots of it and the amount is growing fast.

‘Peak waste’ – that point in time when all the waste from all the cities finally plateaus around the world, and then slowly starts to decline, is not on track to happen this century. Estimates are that it will peak at three-times today’s current waste generation rate. Peak waste is an excellent proxy for humanity’s cumulative global environmental impact; therefore we are on track to triple today’s overall global environmental impact. Our ‘assault on the planet’ will start to subside on the other side of peak waste. Therefore we must move peak waste forward and reduce its intensity when it finally does arrive.

Insights from the Urban “Oscars”

Stephen Hammer's picture

Boris Johnson, Mayor of LondonIt had all the trappings of a major awards ceremony; a “green carpet” (of actual grass), a scrum of paparazzi chasing the celebrities (in this case, the mayors) entering the building, a laser light show, and a striking (and heavy) trophy for the award winners.

The City Climate Leadership Awards held at the Siemens Crystal building in London on Thursday, September 4th, brought together a “who’s who” of urban experts to recognize cities leading the way in urban climate change governance and performance. Sponsored by the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and Siemens, the ten award winners were:

  • Bogota’s Transmilenio bus rapid transit system
  • Copenhagen’s plan to make the entire city carbon neutral by 2025
  • Melbourne’s energy efficient buildings finance initiative
  • Mexico City’s ProAire program, which has dramatically improved local air quality
  • Munich’s 100% Green Power program
  • New York City’s Climate Adaptation and Resilience strategy
  • Rio de Janeiro’s Morar Carioca Urban Revitalization strategy
  • San Francisco’s Zero Waste program
  • Singapore’s Intelligent Transport system
  • Tokyo’s cap & trade scheme

Make a Wish: Climate Change or Energy Poverty

Mats van Kleef's picture

Make a WishIf you could have just one wish, would you choose to solve climate change or energy poverty?

Resolving these two calamities is fundamental to the wellbeing of the planet and people. Climate change is caused mainly by the consumption of energy and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. Energy poverty is the lack of access to modern energy services. Helping 1.3 billion people access electricity and 2.6 billion people to have clean cooking facilities will greatly increase the world’s energy consumption and resulting GHG emissions. Spending money to mitigate climate change uses valuable resources that could more directly benefit the poor who have so little energy and such unhealthy cooking facilities. How do we address both energy poverty and climate change? This is as much an ethical dilemma as a technological challenge.

Frick and Fracking

Chelsea Martin's picture

Fracking in New South Wales

New fracking practices have increased the availability and decreased the cost of natural gas. This is having an enormous impact on energy systems around the world. There are numerous potential applications for natural gas including, but not limited to, use for transportation fuel, residential use, and electricity generation. Since the economic potential of exploiting this resource is so large it is likely that Canada, along with the US, will continue to ‘frack it all’ and reap the economic benefits on the global market. Other countries like China are joining in as well.

The largest increase in use of natural gas is for electricity generation. Natural gas fired power plants are appealing for many reasons. They can supply reliable base-load as well as peaking power. Also, they can be planned and built in less time than say, nuclear power stations, and for lower capital cost. Since fuel is available and cheap, natural gas power plants will continue to be built, and existing plants will continue to operate.

Bus Rapid Transit Comes to Washington, DC

Duncan Gromko's picture

Bus Rapid Transit in Delhi, IndiaA Bus Rapid Transit – BRT – system is coming to Washington, DC in the spring of 2014. The proposed corridor will connect Crystal City in Arlington with the Potomac Yard in Alexandria.
 
This is good news for DC residents, who are currently dealing with the worst traffic in the country. DC commuters lose an average of 67 hours per year because of congestion, resulting in an additional 32 gallons per year per commuter of gasoline wasted.
 
BRT systems address traffic problems by creating dedicated lanes for buses. As shown in the above photo of Delhi, cars are physically restricted from bus lanes. This allows buses to travel faster than cars, making them a more attractive transport option for commuters and reducing car usage. Basically, a BRT is an aboveground subway, except that it costs 1/10th the price.

A Fourth ‘R’ ?

Kevin Wagner's picture

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle…  Recover.  As the population in large cities worldwide grows, waste management becomes an even bigger challenge.  Recycling programs can divert large amounts of materials from landfills but some garbage still needs to be disposed of in landfills or Energy From Waste (EFW) sites.  EFW facilities are capable of recovering energy from garbage that would otherwise be unused in landfills.

EFW and landfill gas capture systems operate on similar principles:  produce steam to turn a turbine which generates electricity.  The difference is the fuel used to produce the steam.  Landfill gas based electricity generation relies on methane from the decomposition of organic material, while EFW facilities combust the solid waste.  Both are good options as they prevent methane gas from escaping into the atmosphere.  Methane has a global warming potential 72 times that of carbon dioxide.  Both options sound good, so which is better?  The better question is:  ‘How much land and money do you have’?

Preparing Cities for Climate Change – Initial Lessons from Sandy

Ming Zhang's picture

NYC subway station damaged by seawater flooding during Hurricane SandyNew York City has been a global leader in proactively planning and preparing for climate change under Mayor Bloomberg and the city’s civic leaders. PlanNYC sets out clear goals and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30% and to increase the resilience of our communities, natural systems, and infrastructure to climate risks. It already started the process of adapting to climate change, including elevating infrastructure such as wastewater treatment plant, and expanding “green infrastructure” like marshes along the coast to buffer and limit flooding impacts.

But the events triggered by the unprecedented hurricane Sandy haven shown that what has been done is still not sufficient. What can we learn from the disaster? There will be a lot of valuable lessons coming out in the months ahead, as emergency responses are still ongoing and reconstruction are yet to start. Here are three early lessons:

Shades of Green Cities

Yue Li's picture

Seoul, KoreaWhen it comes to urban development, “green” has become the buzzword. Among the public, “green” is often understood to be synonymous with reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In policymaking, “green” has much broader implications. It can range from preventing, treating, and abating pollution, to preserving and restoring environmental quality. It may simply be providing basic urban services which improve the cleanliness of streets. Apparently, there are different shades of “green” — we could define interventions targeting global public goods as dark green and those focusing more on local public goods as light green. Among them, what is the right one for South Asian cities?

Practitioners and government officials from the region had intensive discussions on this question throughout a recent workshop on urbanization in Korea, organized by the World Bank in collaboration with the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.

Pages