From the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Global survey: Climate change now a mainstream part of city planning
CAMBRIDGE, MA — An increasing number of cities around the world now include preparations for climate change in their basic urban planning — but only a small portion of them have been able to make such plans part of their economic development priorities, according to a unique global survey of cities released today.
The Urban Climate Change Governance Survey (UCGS), based on responses from 350 cities worldwide, underscores the extent to which city leaders recognize climate change as a major challenge — even as they are trying to figure out how their responses can create jobs, growth, and cost savings in areas ranging from cities’ transportation networks to their distribution of businesses.
“Climate change isn’t an isolated issue,” says Alexander Aylett, a postdoc in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), and the lead author of today’s report. “It has large implications for all other aspects of urban life. What we are seeing is cities starting to build it into the DNA of how they approach urban planning.”
According to the findings, 75 percent of cities worldwide now tackle climate-change issues as a mainstream part of their planning, and 73 percent of cities are attempting both climate mitigation and climate adaptation — that is, they are trying both to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and to adapt to long-term changes that are already in motion. But only 21 percent of cities report tangible connections between the response to climate change and achieving other local development goals.
Aylett calls it a “cliché” that environmental and economic progress cannot coexist, citing a number of cities where jobs and growth have derived from climate-change efforts. Portland, Ore., he observes, developed incentives, training, and regulations to help sustainable construction firms grow, while a pilot program called Clean Energy Works Portland employed 400 workers to reduce home energy use, reducing carbon emissions by 1,400 metric tons annually.
Urban planners in Alberta, as Aylett notes, have studied the cost savings associated with limiting metropolitan sprawl and concluded that denser development could save $11 billion in capital costs over the next 60 years, and $130 million in annual maintenance. But most cities, he suggests, have simply not yet identified ways to link climate planning and economic development in the first place.
“It isn’t so much that it’s hard to reconcile economic and environmental priorities,” Aylett says. “It’s that we’re not trying.”
Regional differences remain
The new report is a companion to a survey conducted in 2012. This year’s results revealed continuing regional disparities in urban climate planning. Compared with the global average of 75 percent, U.S. cities lag in planning for both mitigation and adaptation, with just 58 percent of cities addressing both. This echoes the 2012 survey, which revealed that a smaller portion of U.S. cities were doing basic climate-change planning, compared with those in other regions — 59 percent in the U.S., for instance, compared with 95 percent in Latin America.
Globally, 63 percent of cities say they have between one and five employees dedicated to climate-change planning; North American cities are most likely to have just one staff member focused on the topic. As the report’s executive summary notes, “A lack of funding to hire sufficient staff to work on climate change is a significant challenge for 67 percent of cities.”
On a different note, about 85 percent of cities have conducted an inventory of local greenhouse-gas emissions, and 15 percent, as part of that effort, have tried to track the emissions that stem from goods and services consumed within that city. As Aylett points out, “Beginning to address these upstream emissions is crucial if cities are really going to help bring down global emissions.”
The results also reveal that local industries and businesses are relatively disengaged with urban responses to climate change: About 25 percent of cities say that local businesses have been crucial to creating and implementing their climate mitigation plans, whereas 48 percent of cities report that local civil-society groups, such as nonprofits or other organizations, have been involved in climate planning.
The survey is a collaboration between DUSP and ICLEI, the world’s largest association of cities. Today’s report is being released in conjunction with an ICLEI-backed conference on urban planning, being held in Bonn, Germany. To conduct the survey, questionnaires were sent to officials in more than 700 cities worldwide, with 48 percent of them responding to a set of 69 queries.
Written by Peter Dizikes, MIT News Office
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I may have missed it but what percentage of the cities are in the industrialised “west”.?
Climate change is happening whatever the cause, it seems proper to plan ahead. Coastal cities need to plan for about 12″-18″ of sea level over the next 100 years.
However, all the money and effort being misdirected at foolish attempts to “control” climate by reduince “dirty CO2 pollution” are a criminal waste of funds that could be better spent in other ways to protect human welfare and the environment.
The enviro movement is doing more to prevent effective environmental action than to advance it.
“Urban Climate Change Governance Survey ”
Watch out for the word governance. It usually indicates an agenda for non elected government.
Greg says:
May 30, 2014 at 12:58 am
Sea levels fall in an ice age.
I am all for anybody doing this voluntarily. I am 100% against anybody forcing anyone to do anything, or to spend my tax dollars.
When we see some reason (actual real-world evidence) to act, by all means, let’s act. Until then, I’ll leave it to the deluded.
‘Compared with the global average of 75 percent, U.S. cities lag in planning for both mitigation and adaptation, with just 58 percent of cities addressing both. This echoes the 2012 survey, which revealed that a smaller portion of U.S. cities were doing basic climate-change planning, compared with those in other regions — 59 percent in the U.S., for instance, compared with 95 percent in Latin America.’
‘To conduct the survey, questionnaires were sent to officials in more than 700 cities worldwide, with 48 percent of them responding to a set of 69 queries.’
So 48% of 75% of 700, globally? and then so on down the line.
The move to involve cities worldwide in the global warming scam has been in progress for more than 15 years. The World Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Development Bank and most other international development banks and national aid agencies are in on the game.
These agencies have recast their development strategies so that “sustainability” is now the main objective of development efforts, the assumption being that nothing is sustainable without planning and investment for mitigation of and adaptation to global warming.
Whoever you are in the developing world, your taxes go to paying for grants that promote this agenda. Thanks to you, grants support technical assistance for preparing the plans, programs and projects to achieve sustainability..
Your tax-supported grants create the plans and thus pave the way for the development banks to make sector and project loans based on fear of global warming. The countries have to repay these loans but often get no economic benefit from the climate-related studies and investment.
Why not? As Richard Tol and others have explained in their critique of the Stern Review, the low discount rate used for cost-benefit analysis (CBA) allows uneconomic projects to pass review by national planners.
Why do the countries take the loans? Essentially, national decision-makers benefit by corrupt practices. For example, in Indonesia, the National Planning Agency is now probably the most corrupt institution in the country.
As you can imagine such agencies are courted by both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank and other grant and lending agencies.
In reality, the campaign against corruption would better be focused on the multilateral development banks, their lending practices and their local staff because the development banks have become the foxes and the client countries have become the hen-houses.
Disclaimer: The author does not intend to disparage efforts to develop education, industry, agriculture health or the environment, all of which benefit from grants and loans from the same agencies and banks that promote climate-rated projects.
It is a manifestation of the Chicago thugocrat way of governing.
Create a whole new layer of well paid jobs for cronies to do nothing constructive.
The old days of simply designing new levees, drainage upgrades, wharves and bulkheads, and then building them has past. Now the plans will be called “climate change emergency responses”, and on top of the actual capital costs, a huge expense to pay the cost of parasitic “climate experts” will be created.
In the climate obsessed mind, levees don’t need upgrades from time to time. For them, CO2 causes levees to degrade and must be changed. Same for storm sewers, bulkheads, docks, etc.
Even better, the climate obsessed’s pals in big green can force the delay of improving infrastructure until it fails, like in Katrina or Sandy, or California’s water shortage. Then the fault is not lazy governments bowing to enviro-extremists. It is instead the fault of Big Oil and Koch Brothers paying their den^alist minions to harm the climate. So fat cats in government get to pretend they are boldly doing something while not doing their job, their friends get more money, and those who object are part of an eeevil conspiracy.
What’s not to like?
While they’re at it, why don’t they make plans for the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West in the evening. Shouldn’t cost too much, 200 – 300 billion should cover it.
What are these “long-term changes that are already in motion”?
It’s worse than you thought. Not only have many municipalities bought in and require a “climate change” analysis for projects but so have some professional associations:
The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC have jumped right in, as they have to given the position of the government of BC, an engineers obligation to serve the public, and consider how the BC “carbon” tax will affect their projects given the “carbon” extends to public buildings like schools and hospitals resulting in the government capturing tax money back to their “revenue neutral carbon fund” from the very agencies they fund for health and education. This looks a whole lot like the “transfer of wealth” that the UN wants to see. Perhaps BC is practising giving the taxpayers money away.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Announcement:
January 27, 2014
APEGBC Releases Position Paper on Climate Change
APEGBC has published a position paper on climate change as it relates to the professional practice of engineering and geoscience. The position paper, developed by APEGBC’s Climate Change Advisory Group (CCAG) outlines the association’s position on the changing climate in BC, as well as the implications for practicing professionals. APEGBC members play a key role in providing guidance and advice to decision makers on how to respond to climate change, given their technical expertise and commitment to public safety. http://apeg.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT0zNzY3MDE1JnA9MSZ1PTEwMDk1MjgxOTgmbGk9MjA5NjkwNjA/index.html
APEGBC’s position statement on climate change is as follows:
A. APEGBC recognizes that the climate is changing and it commits to raising awareness about the potential impacts as they relate to professional practice and to providing information and assistance to members in managing implications for their own professional practice.
B. APEGBC members (professional engineers, professional geoscientists, provisional members, licensees, limited licensees, engineers-in-training and geoscientists-in-training) are expected to keep themselves informed about the changing climate, and consider potential impacts on their professional activities.
In addition to existing professional practice guidelines and professional development courses, APEGBC will be developing further tools and resources to assist members in understanding and addressing the potential impacts of a changing climate on their professional practice. Current resources include: Professional Practice Guidelines, CPD courses, and the National Survey of Canada’s Infrastructure Engineers about Climate Change.
The Position Paper on Climate Change was approved by APEGBC Council and developed by APEGBC’s Climate Change Advisory Group (CCAG), following consultation with a number of APEGBC committees. The CCAG is responsible for advising APEGBC Council on matters related to climate change based upon the duties and objects set out in the Engineers and Geoscientists Act.
The Position Paper on Climate Change is available on APEGBC’s website: http://www.apeg.bc.ca/climate-change.
For more information, please contact Tony Chong, P.Eng., Chief Regulatory Officer and Deputy Registrar at ccag@apeg.bc.ca or 604.412.6058.
This e-mail was sent by:
The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC
#200 – 4010 Regent St., Burnaby, BC V5C 6N2
Ph: 604-430-8035 | Toll-free: 1-888-430-8035 | e-mail: apeginfo@apeg.bc.ca
http://www.apeg.bc.ca
Twitter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some of you may have seen a post I did a while back containing historical temperature and rainfall information from some BC communities. I have been doing them to see if the BC policy is based on anything but models from the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, BC (oh dear – read in Andrew Weaver here).
Regional Analysis Tool:
PCIC UVic provide MODELS to assess the future climate to determine design parameters stating that climate is rapidly WARMING in BC. Admittedly I have only downloaded a few sites so far, and from what I see is that there is not much change in most locations I have looked at to date. The MINIMUM temperatures have not been as extreme as early in the century and have shown an upward trend in some areas, while the MAXIMUM temperatures have remained flat or declined. That does not change the design parameters for me because if I have 80 to 100 years of data as I do in the stations I have looked at, I am going to look at how often it has been 30 below C, and how often it has been 40 above C (like where I grew up in the southern interior); and I will look at the precipitation. So far, the trends are not out of the expectation of design for most things and the temperature and rainfall changes appear to be somewhat tied to the Pacific Ocean, which should not be a big surprise to anyone living in BC.
Here is their “Regional Analysis Tool:
http://www.pacificclimate.org/analysis-tools/regional-analysis-tool
Now the survey:
Two things about the surveys if you look at them. 1. The response rate was very low in some regions possibly indicating a lack of concern in those regions. 2. They added “strongly agree” and “somewhat agree” together. Look at the results for somewhat agree and subtract the strongly agree and you get a pretty small number in each category. The survey results presentation appear to be done with a particular objective in mind but I am not an expert in surveys so who knows.
Nevertheless, as a long time retired engineer that doesn’t depend on practicing for income, I have registered my displeasure at their position for now and will add to it when I have finished collecting the temperature and rainfall data for a few more locations this fall.
Within the guidelines, there are some references to BC’s “Carbon Tax” and regulations. That is fair enough as designs will have to consider this insidious tax while it remains in effect.
https://www.apeg.bc.ca/APEGBC/media/APEGBC/Sustainability%20and%20Climate%20Change/APEGBC-Sustainability-Guidelines.pdf
Excerpt:
“Additional benefits to APEGBC professionals and the
public may include:
(items deleted to emphasize the bit one)
· Proactive management of issues such as
carbon emissions, and energy/materials/waste
minimization in advance of government regulation
on these issues (BC’s regulation of carbon, new
building energy codes, etc.)”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I could say more but I have to go back and read the pieces a few times to ensure that it isn’t perhaps all good. Of course, given the very strange (my opinion only) political bent to my ex-province, the “carbon tax”, and their NIMBY attitude about all things while scooting about the country side in their Mercedes SUV’s (Shucks. Better stop typing. Starting to move over into sarcasm).
Anthony’s point is well taken as we have been living with this as a design concern for municipalities for 10 years or so as young politicians and engineers seem to take this a lot more seriously than some old dinosaur engineer who has already seen three good nominal regional climate cycles and my ranching parents and grand parents talked about more. Only they called it weather. Got hailed out, washed out, dried out, grasshoppered out; got one good crop and then the 30’s hit and cows sold for less than wild horses. Course in those days, news didn’t travel very quickly and they just called it weather. Ranchers and farmers did to. The called it “whether” or not we are going to get a decent crop this year.
What can I say?
As always; “La plus la change, la plus la meme chose.”
Thanks for all the posts, @nthony. Keeps my old mind turning over.
PS: Leo G, I am not interested. I know you love it, I just can’t understand why. You at UVic?
Dr Aylett is wrong to interpret the Alberta example as a diminishing cost with a density increase. This is the danger of focusing on single issues.
Social research since the 1930’s, constantly updated and revised, shows a J curve relationship between total real costs and population density. For one example not apparent in Ayletts piece; once the population reaches 250 per square mile any increase in density results in higher per capita costs for public safety. It is a sad fact that there is 20% more crime in high density planned communities than in than low density “sprawl”.
People pay more not to be in high density housing for a reason. It strikes me that Aylette needs to learn a little about the people he proposes to shoe-horn into his denser developments. Otherwise he is planning the next generation of slums.
Oh, I forgot to add this little piece of information that is part of the driving force – and remember the organization has self governance at the pleasure of the provincial government:
“Another driving force behind the need for the Association to provide support for members on this issueis that the Government of British Columbia has made climate change a priority. To this end, it hasprescribed maximum GHG emission levels through new legislation such as the RevenueNeutral‐ Carbon Tax Act , Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act and Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act. It has also enacted new codes and laws aroundadaptation such as the greening of the BC Building Code. APEGBC members need to have the knowledge to comply with these new codes and laws.
https://www.apeg.bc.ca/APEGBC/media/APEGBC/Sustainability%20and%20Climate%20Change/APEGBC-Climate-Change-Task-Force-Report.pdf
The Egyptians put their idle labor to work building pyramids. At least they have something to show for it. Why not emulate them and build a Mars colony?
Limiting metropolitan sprawl?! Pfft. If there’s a demand, the land will be developed.
…denser development could save $11 billion in capital costs over the next 60 years
Capital idea. Bring back the northwest Indian longhouse. Give us each a stall. Portland can lead the way….
“Climate change is happening whatever the cause…”
Really?
I wouldn’t think a minor 0.7 degree increase in a heavily manipulated global average calculation could in anyway be called “change”. Once adjustments are removed, UHI accounted for etc, there may actually be no change.
Even the calculated global average temp has not changed for the last 17 years.
So.. what has changed ? No much, that’s for sure !!
They should be renaming it ….. “Climate NON-Change “
Greg says:
“Coastal cities need to plan for about 12″-18″ of sea level over the next 100 years.”
That’s too high a figure – nowadays the number is looking more like 7 inches, which should affect no one.
Okay, recycling is good, adding insulation on to your house, turn the lights out when you aren’t needing them…. but we are being set up to swallow Agenda 21. We could save a lot of money by defunding the metastasis of UN “governance”.
Well, I am happy to report that here in Townsville Queensland we now have a planning scheme being introduced that aims to run for 25 years, and neither it nor the State Planning provisions under which it is written include much of the stuff above. There are some sound “climate sameness” provisions, eg there are going to be floods in the places that flooded before, and there are going to be cyclones.
Mr Aylett may be be able to get urban consolidation to work in Alberta, but in tropical climates the cost of urban concentration is significant, and if it involves retrofitting of infrastructure the costs are enormous.
Denver had better get a planning for the Antarctic ice sheet collapse.
Those claims of X number of tons of CO2 avoided by energy conservation methods are not sustainable and, quite frankly , make little sense even if fears of CO2 are somewhat justified, since the production side of the equation is reducing carbon emissions. Here in South Carolina, for example, our power grid will achieve 85% nuclear in a few years, and likely over 95% within the next decade, making any electric energy conservation programs pointless, and the money almost a total waste even if carbon emissions were an evil. One of the biggest flaws in planning is the failure to acknowledge that changes will be occurring. Electric cars, for example, would render any attempts to pack people into sardine cans to avoid long commutes here in our mostly nuclear powered state would be a preposterously stupid action in the long term. Govt officials react to public pressures and generally, are not qualified to plan anything, regardless of ny “Public Planning” sign on the door. Introducing climate change intoo planning I view as mostly another golden opportunity for govt officials to make dumb decisions, followed by claims of victory in the war against climate change.
This reads like a full employment plan for graduates of MIT’s Urban Planning programs. A few years ago I read a series of papers from the Stockholm Environment Institute which also promoted the notion of high density development. The reality is that many people, me especially, do not want to live cheek to cheek, but prefer privacy, light and space. I grew up in a high density environment. The goal of most was to get out into the “country” away from the noisy and nosey neighbors. Implementing plans like Dr. Aylett’s require further and more intrusive restrictions on how people chose to live.
This article has a cart and horse problem. It’s less that Climate Change is being incorporated into city planning and more that Climate Change, plus the need to promote Equity and Diversity and to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing , are all being lumped together to Legally Require planning of all cities.
And I do mean ALL. This is all part of the systems thinking and tech companies like IBM in particular are pushing the idea of the Earth being a System of Systems. They sell their consulting expertise and computing power for all these cities to be Smart Cities.
Interestingly enough the digital learning in the schools initiatives make this planning easier because surveys of elementary school kids attitudes and beliefs track highly with parents’ beliefs without having to interview them. Los Angeles in particular is touting how the new 1:1 laptop initiative will aid its bid to become a Smart City.
This is all a progressive integrated dream. The creator of MIT’s Urban Planning vision as we know it, Donald Schon, actually wrote his PhD dissertation on John Dewey and heavily promoted the idea of Action Research. What Marxists call Theory in Action.
Any excuse, however factually bogus, will do to get the desired action.
I hope this link works.
http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/SUBURB0501?ref=SB10001424052702304672404579182214229099376
[Mods – by all means do your stuff]
Anyway; it has long been known in the UK that higher density = left leaning voters. It seems it is so in the USA as well.
So – why would a left leaning academic try to influence in favor of higher density communities?