Oh, joy, climate waste on the local level now

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John F. Hultquist
May 30, 2014 9:19 am

glenncz says:
May 30, 2014 at 8:28 am
Gary Pearse says:
May 30, 2014 at 3:52 am
Okay, recycling is good

————————————
Generally ‘glenncz’ is correct, with a few exceptions. When I was young, recycling beer and pop bottles from roadsides was the major recycling activity. Two beer bottles earned us 5¢. In the current century, locally the “planners” thought recycling glass would be a good idea. [See cullet]. Glass makers and the economics of processing and shipping a heavy low value material provide insurmountable problems in most places. Thus, the city provides collection containers into which some glass (and much other crap) gets tossed. Then the material is crushed and distributed over the actual waste/garbage to prevent the wind from blowing things off-site.

Michael C. Roberts
May 30, 2014 9:20 am

Let’s not forget the elephant in the room regarding this subject, is the ICLEI.
http://www.iclei.org/
Newly-elected Mayor with no prior experience? Join ICLEI and your roadmap is there for planning a “sustainable” future for your city or town. City or county council with no real plan for the 21st Century? ICLEI to the rescue.
ICLEI was initially begun as a sub-division of the UN. Please consider the source, but scan Wikipedia for background and history of the ICLEI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICLEI
The main basis for ICLEI is our friend, neighbor, and insidious cancerous infestation – Agenda 21.
No tin-hat off-the-wall conspiracy theory – it is all there for you to see. Just check the cities that have signed on with ICLEI at the website above. An eye-opener for sure. I know many that frequent WUWT are well versed in the connection of the ICLEI to the UN and Agenda 21. Let’s start the conversation. Knowledge and understanding of the political mycelia that have infested and are feeding off our cities in the form of ICLEI agenda must be promulgated to those most affected – the local taxpayer. In my mind, I see ICLEI as a forced form of governance that by-passes the federal, state, and local voting system – and installs Agenda 21 right there in your city through adoption of the plan without representation.
A chilling scenario, for sure.

James at 48
May 30, 2014 9:35 am

Question for state/province/canton/etc and local officials: What is your contingency plan for the end of the Interglacial?

James at 48
May 30, 2014 9:40 am

As an aside, I am immensely enjoying that fact that “The Fifth Discipline” has gotten a mention on this thread. If we had more brain power on this thread we’d have to name it Planet Vulcan. LOL!

Steve Oregon
May 30, 2014 11:19 am

Here in the Portland area our regional government has all of the local politicians lined up to follow orders.
Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project
Choices we make today about how we live, work and get around will determine the future of the Portland metropolitan region.
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/public-projects/climate-smart-communities-scenarios
It’s pure insanity by the biggest fools people could possible elect or get appointed.

DD More
May 30, 2014 12:59 pm

MJB says: May 30, 2014 at 6:08 am
Surely this is a typo:
Clean Energy Works Portland employed 400 workers to reduce home energy use, reducing carbon emissions by 1,400 metric tons annually.
So that’s 3.5 tonnes per worker?
Or if you take Portland’s population of 603,000 it is an astounding 2.3 Kg or less than a gallon of gas.
Are they trying to push the LEED buildings where in Washington DC
LEED Exposed determined energy consumption by comparing the weather-normalized, source energy use intensity, or EUI (a unit of measurement that represents the energy consumed by a building relative to its size), for both buildings certified by the USGBC as “green” and those that have not gone through the USGBC’s expensive permitting process. For LEED-certified buildings, their EUI was 205, compared to 199 for non-certified buildings. Ironically, USGBC’s headquarters (which has achieved the highest level of LEED certification) is even worse at 236.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/leed-certification-fails-to-increase-energy-efficiency-says-environmental-policy-alliance-247899251.html
But at least it is okay to smoke, as long as it is MJ, in the LEED buildings.
http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/2014/04/articles/leed-1/marijuana-smoking-is-allowed-in-leed-buildings/

jim south london
May 30, 2014 1:14 pm

“cities around the world now include preparations for climate change in their basic urban planning”
What are coastal cities expecting land prices to do. good time for the property sharks start circling.Climate Change panic evacuate inland .Lots of left over Cheap Beach Front property going . ,

more soylent green!
May 30, 2014 2:37 pm

Greg says:
May 30, 2014 at 12:58 am
Climate change is happening whatever the cause…

The fact that climate change is happening shouldn’t be news to anyone. The climate is always changing, has always changed and is supposed to change. For the non-scientifically illiterate, it would be news if the climate wasn’t changing.

Chad Wozniak
May 30, 2014 3:38 pm

Anthony –
In case you haven’t seen this, the Inspector General of the EPA issued a report yesterday stating that the EPA may be using “fraudulent data” as the basis for very costly climate regulations.
The report is Report No. 14-P-4270, dated May 29, 2014,

Eamon Butler
May 30, 2014 4:10 pm

And when all of this tax payer’s money is spent tackling climate change, we will have the perfect Global climate. Right?
Eamon.

May 30, 2014 7:13 pm

Michael Roberts is exactly right – It’s right out of Agenda 21’s handbook.
– Agenda 21 stands for “The Agenda for the 21st century”
– Put forth at UN “Earth Summit” in Rio in 1972
– Bush 41 signed the US as an Agenda 21 supporter in 1992 without input from Congress
– Consists of 5 sections – one of which references ICLEI
– How many have heard of ICLEI – “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives”
Founded in 1990
– Even though ICLEI is not an official UN agency it partners with all of the UN’s environmental groups and it partners with such groups as:
C 40 – “Cities Climatic Leadership Group” – partner with Clinton Climate Initiative
Resilient Cities – NYC & Bloomberg major players in this org. – this was program behind
Recent non-smoking, no salt, “healthier” directives
World Mayors Council on Climate Change
CCP – “Cities for Climate Protection”
UCLG – “United Cities & Local Government”
ICLEI is charged with implementing Agenda 21’s agenda and its plan of action calls for circumventing the world’s national governments and going directly to local Govts.- both cities & counties
– 1200 cities worldwide are members – over 500 in US – over 200 in CA
– It charges that changing unsustainable patterns of consumption & production is an essential requirement for ‘sustainable’ development
– Aim is to “anchor” sustainability principles within all municipal decision-making
– Provides MGT tools for local Govt sustainability initiatives including budgeting
Software called ecoBUDGET ( includes ‘Sustainability’ principles in preparing budgets)
TBL – Triple Bottom Line ( best practices in ‘Sustainability’)
Sustainability Inventory system
Melbourne Principles – a planning kit for Local Govts to use to ensure ‘Sustainability’ is included in all planning processes.

May 30, 2014 7:50 pm

One thing I see being good is energy conservation, especially via more efficient electrical devices, more efficient road vehicles, more efficient climate control, and better building insulation and design. Even in the likely event CO2 increase is not a catastrophic problem, I see this as good. And, municipal governments do not need to do a whole lot here. This is more the province of national government standards and model building codes, and organizations & businesses conducting energy audits (which are not mandatory) of homes and other buildings to find savings.
The main benefits I see are:
* Reduced need to import energy, meaning lower trade deficit (in energy importing countries)
* More energy available to export (in energy exporting countries)
* Less money wasted due to less consumption, and lower prices from lower demand
* More time to develop better alternatives to nonrenewable energy sources
* Cleaner air
* Reduced or eliminated need to build electric power plants, and associated expensive regulatory and court battles with environmentalists and NIMBYs (that seem to oppose building anything industrial).
* Reduced need to build energy transmission facilities, and to endure associated expensive battles with environmentalists and NIMBYs
* Reduced probability of energy shortages, price spikes, etc. due to demand increasing while the supply chain’s carrying capacity is stagnated by environmentalists and NIMBYs

NZ Willy
May 30, 2014 8:48 pm

We had a lunatic city council here in NZ deciding that all its coastal homes would be threatened by rising sea levels, so gazetted them as threatened and so drove their property values way down. There was of course a popular revolt against the idiocy and in the end the whole regulatory exercise was tossed out. The story is here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10101657/Property-owners-win-war-on-hazard-lines

May 31, 2014 1:08 pm

Local government green goons is why I don’t comment using my real name.