tag:theconversation.com,2011:/nz/topics/c40-39386/articlesC40 – The Conversation2019-10-15T12:58:51Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1252822019-10-15T12:58:51Z2019-10-15T12:58:51ZMayors of 94 cities are taking the Green New Deal global, as states fail to act on climate crisis<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/297129/original/file-20191015-98670-1up8mw5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C28%2C2723%2C1505&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Copenhagen hosts the C40. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/copenhagen-denmark-central-historical-part-city-1529353604?src=TWPP37fEs3DJplNijLe_Zw-2-2">Maykova Galina/Shutterstock.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the seventh World Mayor’s Summit in <a href="https://c40-production-images.s3.amazonaws.com/other_uploads/images/2397_Copenhagen_to_be_the_world%E2%80%99s_first_carbon_neutral_city.original.pdf?1570589012">Copenhagen</a>, leaders of 94 cities embraced a <a href="https://www.c40.org/press_releases/global-gnd">global Green New Deal</a>, in an attempt to make the 2020s the defining decade in the fight against climate change. The major new initiative commits to limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, halving emissions by 2030.</p>
<p>Cities matter enormously for the battle against climate change, because while they are a major source of the problem, they also offer the resources to tackle it. Most people live in cities, and they <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html">are expected</a> to house almost 70% of the global population by 2050. Already, 75% of global energy demand, and 80% of greenhouse gas emissions <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-century-of-the-sustainable-city-15263">come from hungry urban hubs</a>. So any solution to the climate emergency must include a vision of a global network of low carbon, sustainable cities. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.c40.org">C40 Cities</a> – which convenes the World Mayor’s Summit each year – is a transnational municipal network that coordinates the efforts of member cities to protect the environment. Inhabitants of the <a href="https://www.c40.org/cities">C40 cities make up</a> a twelfth of the world’s population, and their economic power represents a quarter of the global economy. So the Global Green New Deal augments the C40’s work since 2005 with a central ideological vision, to shape their agenda in the coming decades. </p>
<h2>Driving climate action</h2>
<p>This coordinated action by the C40 mayors is an attempt to drive forward a practical green agenda, as the actions of state governments continue to fall short of what’s needed to address the climate crisis. The move comes on the back of yet another disappointing failure of states to agree effective measures to meet the global warming targets set out by the Paris Agreement, at the UN Climate Action Summit in September 2019.</p>
<p>A range of other actors, including business and civil society, as well as youth climate activists, have also endorsed the global Green New Deal. The significant emphasis upon youth at the Copenhagen summit – including the announcement of a new <a href="https://www.c40.org/press_releases/mayors-vow-to-work-together-with-youth-climate-activists-to-deliver-global-green-new-deal">C40 Global Youth Initiative</a> - suggests an intriguing link between the hopes of a new generation and the leadership and political potential of cities.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1183208617379393537"}"></div></p>
<p>In my recent book, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/global-cities-and-global-order-9780198744016?cc=gb&lang=en&">Global Cities and Global Order</a>, I describe how cities are making use of new channels offered by <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/give-cities-a-seat-at-the-top-table-1.20668">transnational networks</a> to act collaboratively where states have failed. Through these mechanisms they have the ability to take the Green New Deal global in ways that states do not. The C40 has helped to drive cities towards such a future in the last decade: figures released to coincide with the Copenhagen summit suggest that 30 cities, including London, New York, Athens, Venice and Lisbon, <a href="https://www.c40.org/press_releases/30-of-the-world-s-largest-most-influential-cities-have-peaked-greenhouse-gas-emissions">have now peaked</a> their emissions and are making progress towards a net-zero target.</p>
<p>But what is particularly notable about the C40’s decision to embrace the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/11/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey">Green New Deal agenda</a> – with its ambitions to eradicate greenhouse gas emissions from electricity, transportation, manufacturing and agriculture within the next decade - is that it offers a different political vision to the predominantly market-based neoliberal model of the past. </p>
<h2>Conflicting agendas</h2>
<p>As its name implies, the Green New Deal draws inspiration from the New Deal programs of president Franklin Roosevelt in the post-depression United States of the 1930s, which were driven by heavy state investment and intervention in the economy. Many progressive politicians, such as rising democratic star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who gave a keynote address at the C40 Summit, are championing these ideas as a way forward.</p>
<p>Embracing the Green New Deal may put cities at odds with the states they are located within, which show little sign of committing to such an approach. Indeed, in the United States, the Green New Deal has been vehemently opposed by Republicans and some Democrats.</p>
<p>This highlights a weakness of cities, which are particularly dependent on state policies when it comes to their own budgets. At present it is unclear whether the political will exists for states to support the 21st century Green New Deal. So it’s unclear how C40 cities will finance the commitments that come with this new agenda.</p>
<h2>A practical approach</h2>
<p>The timescale for effective action on climate change is short, and practical steps urgently needed. But mayors are practical people. They are able to act on the ground, and to implement successful policies more quickly than slow moving and prevaricating states. If cities find that a particular policy or measure works in one place, the global networks that cities have formed offer the opportunity for success to spread quickly around the world. </p>
<p>In that coming decade, the role of mayors – and the capabilities offered by transnational urban networks such as the C40 – will play an increasingly prominent role in bridging the local, national and global scales to act decisively on climate change.</p>
<p>Mayors can’t save the planet by themselves. But they do have unique abilities to convene different actors, to shape private sector investment, to coalesce civil society around specific agendas, to influence the work of international organisations such as the UN, to interact with local populations, to act quickly on the ground and to unite collectively in globe-spanning networks. As states continue to fail on climate change, the leadership shown by mayors of global cities offers a spark of hope.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125282/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Curtis is a Senior Fellow on Global Cities at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. </span></em></p>Cities represent an increasingly powerful force in global politics – but they’re still constrained by the agendas of slow-acting states.Simon Curtis, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, University of East AngliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823752017-09-03T20:07:43Z2017-09-03T20:07:43ZThis is why we cannot rely on cities alone to tackle climate change<p>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.</p>
<p>By August 4, when the US gave <a href="https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/08/273050.htm">formal notice</a> of its withdrawal, there were <a href="https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climate-mayors-commit-to-adopt-honor-and-uphold-paris-climate-agreement-goals-ba566e260097">372 “climate mayors”</a> representing 67 million Americans. </p>
<p>In Australia, too, national intransigence has led to greater expectations of local actions. The Climate Council’s <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/cpp-report">July report</a> declares that deep cuts in cities’ greenhouse gas emissions can achieve 70% of Australia’s Paris goals. </p>
<p>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 <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-absence-of-national-leadership-cities-are-driving-climate-policy-81108">argues</a> that, even without national leadership, Australian cities can “just get on with the job of implementing climate policies”.</p>
<p>Many European cities have ambitious emission-reduction targets. Copenhagen plans to be the world’s <a href="http://talkofthecities.iclei.org/how-copenhagen-aims-to-become-the-worlds-first-carbon-neutral-capital/">first carbon-neutral capital by 2025</a>. Stockholm aims to be <a href="https://cleantechhogdalen.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/stockholm-a-fossil-fuel-free-city-2040.pdf">fossil-fuel-free by 2040</a>. </p>
<p>So, at first glance, cities do appear to be leading the way. </p>
<h2>A word of caution</h2>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Sam Brooks, former director of the District of Columbia’s Energy Division, has laid out <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hard-truths-about-city-failures-with-clean-energy">sobering evidence</a> on the reality of climate action in US cities. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"893896547091468289"}"></div></p>
<p>America’s narrative of climate-friendly cities relies heavily on California’s leadership to make it credible. </p>
<p>By May 2015, California had built the <a href="http://under2mou.org">Under2 Coalition</a> 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 <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/01/jerry-brown-trump-climate-deal-california-china-239035">detailing why it was “insane”</a>. Days later Brown <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/336537-california-signs-deal-with-china-to-combat-climate-change">signed a deal</a> between China and his state to collaborate on cutting emissions. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<h2>Cities have not added much to national trends</h2>
<p>It isn’t just American cities falling short, as Benjamin Barber’s new book, <a href="http://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300224207/cool-cities">Cool Cities</a> makes clear. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>London’s stated goal is to <a href="https://www.compactofmayors.org/cities/londonjoinus/">cut emissions by 60% by 2040</a>. It seems likely to fail, with blame falling on <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/london-set-to-miss-mayors-climate-change-targets-as-population-booms">rapid population growth</a> and inadequate policies <a href="http://www.modbs.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/17133/Developing_a_roadmap_for__a_zero-emissions_London.html">in the building sector</a>. </p>
<p>Oslo is committed to a 100% cut in emissions <a href="https://www.compactofmayors.org/cities/oslo/">by 2050</a>. But its emissions have risen from 1.2 million tonnes in 1991 to <a href="http://oslo.miljobarometern.se/state-of-the-environment-oslo/climate-and-energy/total-greenhouse-gas-emissions/">1.4 million tonnes in 2014</a>. One complication is that oil and gas production comprise 22% of the Norwegian economy. The nation’s emissions are <a href="http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/12/16/carbon-emissions-rise-once-again/">up 4.2% since 1990</a>.</p>
<p>Even the progress of climate superstar cities such as Copenhagen, Stockholm and Berlin is, on close examination, subject to important caveats.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.c40.org/profiles/2013-copenhagen">Copenhagen</a> makes much of having cut emissions 21% by 2011 <a href="https://stateofgreen.com/files/download/1901">from 2005 levels</a>. Yet the city admits that 63% of its goal of becoming carbon-neutral relies on <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/copenhagen-striving-to-be-carbon-neutral-part-1-the_us_589ba337e4b061551b3e0737">buying carbon offsets</a> for its emissions. </p>
<p>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 <a href="https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analyser/denmarks_energy_and_climate_outlook_2017.pdf">increase after 2020</a> without new policies.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.compactofmayors.org/cities/stockholm/">Stockholm</a> has cut emissions by <a href="http://international.stockholm.se/globalassets/rapporter/strategy-for-a-fossil-fuel-free-stockholm-by-2040.pdf">around 37% between 1990 and 2015</a>. This is mainly a result of changes to building heating – transport emissions have <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stockholm-pursues-climate-holy-graila-fossil-fuel_us_591246d0e4b0e070cad709d6">barely changed</a>. </p>
<p>As in Copenhagen, Stockholm’s achievements rely greatly on a national target –
<a href="http://www.dw.com/en/sweden-to-end-net-carbon-emissions-by-2045/a-39280147">net-zero emissions by 2045</a> – backed by a robust policy framework.</p>
<p>As for Berlin, its goal is an 85% cut in emissions by 2050, compared to 1990. By 2013 the city had <a href="http://www.berlin.de/senuvk/klimaschutz/politik/index_en.shtml">cut emissions by about one-third</a>. Yet most recent data indicate that emissions have begun to rise slightly. Berlin is at risk of achieving only <a href="http://www.berlin.de/senuvk/klimaschutz/bek_berlin/download/BEK_2030_Senatsbeschluss.pdf">half of its mid-term goal</a> of a 40% cut by 2020. </p>
<p>Berlin is not responsible for a national policy that remains lax on coal and unduly favours automobiles, the source of <a href="http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1099550_greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-cars-in-germany-getting-worse-actually">18% of German emissions</a>. But civic leaders in Berlin <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/berlin-pedal-pushers-demonstrate-for-cyclists-rights/a-39200358">could do more</a> to nudge a car-centred culture towards sustainability.</p>
<h2>What must cities do?</h2>
<p>The urgency of real action is clear from the <a href="http://www.iea.org/etp/etp2016/">IEA’s 2016 report</a> on sustainable urban energy systems. It warns that business as usual in cities could mean emissions increase by 50% by 2050. </p>
<p>The IEA notes that 90% of the growth in primary energy demand is <a href="https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/june/etp2016-cities-are-in-the-frontline-for-cutting-carbon-emissions.html">in non-OECD countries</a>. At the same time, climate science tells us deep emissions cuts <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201">must begin by 2020</a>. We have to accelerate decarbonisation, which means demanding greater ambition and transparency from cities. The following steps need to be taken:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>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.</p></li>
<li><p>We need more robust comparative frameworks to make sense of the data. The 2014 <a href="http://www.c40.org/programmes/the-global-protocol-for-community-scale-greenhouse-gas-emission-inventories-gpc">Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories</a> was a valuable start, but has to be expanded.</p></li>
<li><p>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 <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/2/31/pdf">four to five times higher</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>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.</p></li>
<li><p>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. </p></li>
<li><p>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.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>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.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82375/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s a good thing that cities aspire to lead the way in acting on climate change in the absence of stronger national action. But a closer look reveals the limitations of current city-based efforts.Brendan Barrett, Senior Lecturer, Program Manager, Masters of International Urban and Environmental Management, RMIT UniversityAndrew DeWit, Professor, School of Policy Studies, Rikkyo UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/788392017-06-07T04:21:11Z2017-06-07T04:21:11ZWhile nations play politics, cities and states are taking up the climate challenge<p>Last week, Donald Trump entered the White House Rose Garden and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord">announced</a> that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord. In doing so, he fulfilled his campaign promise to “<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174">cancel</a>” the Paris deal, a move that calls into question the <a href="https://theconversation.com/president-trump-could-kill-the-paris-agreement-but-climate-action-will-survive-68596">future of the entire agreement</a>. </p>
<p>In withdrawing, Trump cited the (<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-decision-to-leave-paris-accord-hurts-the-us-and-the-world-78707">arguably short-term</a>) sacrifice the agreement requires of the US. This perspective fulfils the famous prediction made by economist <a href="http://www.anb.org/articles/16/16-03570.html">Garrett Hardin</a> in the 1960s: the “<a href="https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/140407/mod_resource/content/1/Garrett%20Hardin%201968.pdf">tragedy of the commons</a>”. Hardin wrote that self-interest drives individuals to exploit collective resources in the short term, even to their long-term detriment. </p>
<p>Hardin and those following him thought the only way to avoid this tragedy was by securing collective agreements. That is why so many people view the Paris Accord as a vital mechanism for addressing climate change. It is also why the US withdrawal is devastating. </p>
<p>But another famous economist, <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21557717">Elinor Ostrom</a>, saw things differently. Writing after the demise of the Kyoto Agreement but before the Paris Accord, Ostrom said that faith in multinational accords to address climate change was misplaced. Ostrom saw the limits of such collective action. Crucially, Ostrom suggested that we should also recognise the potential of <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1494833">localised collective action</a>. </p>
<p>And already there are examples in both the developed and developing world that this is happening right now.</p>
<h2>The new global leadership</h2>
<p>Ultimately, efforts to reduce global warming are advanced by the pedestrian, daily choices of households, businesses, and sub-national governments. Millions of local choices can have global effects, for good or ill. </p>
<p>It’s clear that Trump is stepping away from global leadership on climate change. But in response, the state governors of <a href="http://time.com/4802590/climate-alliance-paris-accord-new-york-california/">Washington, New York and California</a> declared they remain committed to the Paris climate targets. Since then, <a href="http://governor.wa.gov/news-media/united-states-climate-alliance-adds-10-new-members-coalition-committed-upholding-paris">a further 10 US states</a> have joined the budding Climate Alliance. </p>
<p>In the past two decades, mounting evidence has shown the power of such efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. These efforts have been driven by <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2399654417708440">policy entrepreneurs</a> – people with vision, energy, and the collaborative instincts required to promote collective action. A classic example is provided by the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who in 2005 invited mayors from other mega-cities to join him in <a href="http://www.c40.org/blog_posts/10-defining-moments-in-c40-history">promoting climate change efforts</a>. That <a href="http://www.c40.org/">initiative</a> has spurred many more, with transformative effects.</p>
<p>Looking around the world, we can see the diversity of localised initiatives in place to address climate change. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.itdp.org/city-transformations/sao-paulo/">Sao Paulo</a>, Brazil, traffic congestion and pollution are being addressed by providing better public transport options and more bicycle lanes. </p>
<p>In Ethiopia, the <a href="http://www.c40.org/awards/2016-awards/profiles/107">Addis Ababa Light Rail Transport Project</a> aims to reduce significantly the greenhouse gas emissions from cars.</p>
<p>In India, <a href="http://www.c40.org/awards/2016-awards/profiles/102">Kolkata</a> has implemented the Solid Waste Management Improvement Project, which is reducing the release of methane emissions, while contributing to improved public sanitation.</p>
<p>Across Europe, cities have started emulating <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/?204421/Ghent-meat-free-Thursdays">meat-free Thursdays</a>, which originated in Ghent, Belgium. Aside from other benefits, reducing meat consumption can reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>In the US, leaders in cities and states have done much to reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by cars and coal-fired power plants, for example through the <a href="https://www.rggi.org/">Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative</a>.</p>
<p>Globally, the <a href="https://www.cdp.net/en">Carbon Disclosure Project</a> has significantly influenced actions of businesses and governments alike.</p>
<p>Particularly important for smaller developing countries is the <a href="http://antiguaobserver.com/cartagena-dialogue-encourages-sustained-momentum-in-fight-against-climate-change/">Cartegena Dialogue</a>. It creates opportunities for leaders to share strategies for mitigating climate change and – just as urgently, especially for small Pacific nations – adapting to it. </p>
<p>The Paris Accord is a landmark, multilateral initiative. The withdrawal of the US is appalling, and deserves a strong rebuke. But it does not foreshadow the unravelling of multilateral resolve for addressing climate change. </p>
<p>The backslappers in Washington have had their Rose Garden moment. Elsewhere, energetic policy entrepreneurs are mobilising. Grounded in their communities, they are acting to protect the planet for today’s young people, and for those not yet born. That too, is global leadership.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78839/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Mintrom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the US leaves the Paris accord, how much faith should we put in international treaties? States, cities and local movements are increasingly important players in the fight against climate change.Michael Mintrom, Professor of Public Sector Management, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.