From the POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH (PIK) and the “buying from Amazon.com causes climate change” department comes this pointless paper that basically says people in cities should get their stuff at the corner store, and walk, [rather ] than relying on goods that require transport. Meanwhile the authors are oblivious to their own unnecessary carbon footprint created by COP23 to announce this paper, where they could have used teleconferencing instead.
Cities can cut greenhouse gas emissions far beyond their urban borders
Greenhouse gas emissions caused by urban households’ purchases of goods and services from beyond city limits are much bigger than previously thought. These upstream emissions may occur anywhere in the world and are roughly equal in size to the total emissions originating from a city’s own territory, a new study shows. This is not bad news but in fact offers local policy-makers more leverage to tackle climate change, the authors argue in view of the UN climate summit COP23 that just started. They calculated the first internationally comparable greenhouse gas footprints for four cities from developed and developing countries: Berlin, New York, Mexico City, and Delhi. Contrary to common beliefs, not consumer goods like computers or sneakers that people buy are most relevant, but housing and transport – sectors that cities can substantially govern.
“It turns out that the same activities that cause most local emissions of urban households – housing and transport – are also responsible for the majority of upstream emissions elsewhere along the supply chain,” says lead-author Peter-Paul Pichler from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “People often think that mayors cannot do much about climate change since their power is restricted to city limits, but their actions can have far-reaching impacts. The planned emission reductions presented so far by national governments at the UN summit are clearly insufficient to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, the target agreed by 190 countries, therefore additional efforts are needed.”
Housing and transport cause most city emissions, locally but also upstream
Cement and steel used for buildings take a huge amount of energy – typically from fossil fuels – to be produced, for instance. If a city instead chooses to foster low carbon construction materials this can drastically reduce its indirect CO2 emissions. Even things that cities are already doing can affect far-away emissions. Raising insulation standards for buildings for example certainly slashes local emissions by reducing heating fuel demand. Yet it can also turn down the need for electric cooling in summer which reduces power generation and hence greenhouse gas emissions in some power plant beyond city borders.
In transport, expanding public facilities can minimize local emissions from car traffic. This reduces the number of cars that need to be built somewhere else, using loads of energy. So this is a win-win. But, again, more can be done. Cities can decide from which sources they procure the power needed to run, for instance, their subway trains or electric buses. By choosing energy from solar or wind, city governments could in fact close down far-away coal-fired power plants.
Comparison of New York, Berlin, Mexico City, Delhi – applicable to cities across the world
Interestingly, while the greenhouse gas footprint in the four cities that the scientists scrutinized range from 1.9 (Delhi) to 10.6 tons (New York) of CO2 equivalent per person and year, the proportions of local to upstream household emissions as well as the relative climate relevance of housing and transport turn out to be roughly the same. The international reach of upstream emissions is vast but varies. In terms of emissions, Berlin’s global hinterland is largest, with more than half of its upstream emissions occurring outside of Germany, mostly in Russia, China and across the European Union. But also around 20% of Mexico City’s considerably smaller upstream emissions occur outside Mexico, mainly in the US and China.
“Measuring indirect emissions of urban populations so far has often been considered to be unfeasible, at least in a way that makes it possible to compare different cities,” says Helga Weisz, senior author of the study and a research domain co-chair at PIK. “We show that it is possible, but you have to invest the effort to actually do it.”
Her team analyzed huge amounts of existing data on economic input and output of different regions and successfully combined these with data on emission intensity of production in a lot of different sectors. The methodology that the scientists put together is in principle applicable in any place, enabling more effective collaboration between cities to reduce greenhouse gas emission footprints.
“The power of cities, open interconnected systems of great density, to tackle climate change even in times of uncertainty on the national and international level has been underestimated by both many local decision-makers and most of the international community,” says Weisz. “Cities must be encouraged and enabled to focus on their full emission spectrum – local and upstream – as they continue to develop their climate mitigation plans.”
###
Article: Peter-Paul Pichler, Timm Zwickel, Abel Chavez, Tino Kretschmer, Jessica Seddon, Helga Weisz (2017): Reducing Urban Greenhouse Gas Footprints. Scientific Reports [DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-15303-x]
Weblink to article: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15303-x
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this would be a perfect opportunity to buy something from Amazon right now, and have it delivered to your door, just for spite. This book in which I have a chapter would be a good start.

😉
One just loves those clear concise sciency words!
e.g.: “huge”, “different”, “successfully”, “is in principle applicable in any place”.
Summation?
They tortured data until they got the results they wanted.
Notice, the lack of examples?
Presumably, they mean less steel, alloys, concrete, stone, mortar, fossil fuel derived materials, etc.
Of course, those not fossil fuel dependent materials must be more efficient, too.
Serious attempts at super insulating buildings have uncovered other problems; perhaps the least of which is the “sick building” syndrome.
Super insulated structures require substantial powered ventilation to offset the sick building syndrome. Whether hyper-filtered air is recycled or external air is brought in, heating and cooling that air is required.
Super insulated structures trap heat, all year. Office equipment, building equipment e.g. elevators and air handlers, and even people raise the buildings’ temperatures.
Heavily insulated buildings are required to cool internal air over greater portions of the year.
One side effect is that while heating costs may be reduced, overall air conditioning costs remain the same.
Another excellent example of confirmation bias research. Their assumptions are proven by their data manipulation and tailored models.; where any correlation is automatically accepted at causation.
Well, I have one example – mud brick. Pretty good insulator, too.
Not all that good for the urban lifestyle, though – the penthouses for the elite end up only about 10 meters above the peasantry. Not far enough, I’m sure.
????
Mud brick, as used in adobe housing are large thick bricks and for extra insulation they can be double stacked with some sort of insulation in between, typically straw.
Mud brick is mud mixed with straw and often hair, then dried in the sun.
Without the double stack and extra insulation, mud brick is heated all day long by the sun and radiates that heat for hours; much as fired brick buildings radiate heat after long sunny days.
Mud brick houses have an adobe layer slathered on the outside. That adobe layer is mud mixed with straw.
Mud bricks are not viable where rain is frequent. Unless you mean modern adobe mixtures which contain asphalt or cement for permanence.
The modern adobe is definitively produced with CO2 intensive processes. The old adobe can be produced without substantive CO2 emissions. If that straw is from hand sown hand reaped wheat and the mud mix is mixed by people power, i.e. feet and hands.
Where dry or out of the rain mud brick walls last for thousands of years.
In Arizona visiting some cliff dwellings in a State Park, it was amazing to see hand prints and even fingerprint patterns of ancient peoples still in some of the mud mortar layers.
purchases of goods and services from beyond city limits
=====!!!!!.
BS. where you purchase is irrelevant. what matters is where they are produced. globalization ensures that almost nothing will be produced locally.
QUESTION: Anyone have any idea what this bit refers to:
Back to stick-built hotels? bamboo houses? loose-laid stone foundations?
What “low carbon construction materials”?
Dunno but wood is not precisely low carbon.
I know! Dugouts!!
Straw!
I’ll huff and I’ll… Oh, never mind, that was enough…
There is a certain bleak humor in proclaiming Delhi and Mexico City to be more environmentally sound than New York or Berlin. Go to all four places and tell me that is true. Delhi now has the least breathable air in the world.
Where do these people think local city stores get their products? They come from outside the city and have to be ordered and shipped in. They don’t manufacture their merchandise or grow their groceries in back of their stores. If Amazon sends out a truck to deliver products to you and your neighbors, is that really much different than you and your neighbors all driving your cars to various stores around town to look for the products you need? When they don’t have what you want or are out of it, you waste time and fuel needlessly.
It reminds me of Al Gore calling for the end of refrigeration and air conditioning to save the environment. How would inner city stores get or keep fresh milk, meat, and produce without refrigeration? Are there any people in these environmental think tanks who actually know how to think beyond their own short-term political goals?
I’m going to be virtue signalling for a couple of days next week. Riding my electric bike to the local store while my car is being fixed. (Jeep – Just Empty Every Pocket). There might be a problem if someone steps in front of me because I’m an old bloke and they think I’m going slow. (The brakes aren’t that good.) I enjoy the applause I get from the kids at the skateway.
I keep wondering if there is a massive, hidden conspiracy by the teamsters. If no one creates anything for use where they live, then the shippers have HUGE job security!
Here’s an idea: for these idealistic “deep thinkers”, take away ALL their stuff. I mean ALL of it: phones, computers, all electronics, clothing, shoes, coats, etc.. No fridges, no hot water heaters, no household heating, no modern medicine – NO NOTHING. Not even modern plumbing and running water. And no toilet paper, either. Nothing.
Take bets on how long they last. I’d say maybe 5 days, tops. Winter’s on its way in the northern hemisphere. I can hear them pounding on my door : LET ME IN! LET ME IN!! i’LL BE GOOD1 i PROMISE! PLEEEEAAASE, PLEEEEAASE LET ME IN!
5 days tops. Reality, the very harsh mistress, will wait for them.
You all have a good week and do NOT give up.
Sara.
Rather, I would just take away the food, clothing, and water that relies on fossil fuels.
Let them live on only the energy from solar cells on their property, the food they grow without fossil fuels, and the clothing they hand weave. Let them eat the food they grow, the fuel they harvest, the clothes they weave. The goods they can carry.
Forget work, they will be “living” 24 hours a day trying to feed themselves. Just like their ancestors did before 1800.
Yes, but all the things you mentioned (essentially the same as mine) depend on fossil fuel for production, and that includes the very solar cells you refer to.
They’d have to grow cotton, which is a very pickety, pickety plant and herd sheep for fibers to make cloth for clothing, and cattle for leather for shoes. None of them know how to do anything that is termed ‘crafting’, which I believe includes gardening. I don’t think they’d find the bugs very pleasant since most of them have to be sprayed with pesticides if they invade the garden. And remember, gardens only grow in warm weather, which means that winter will be long, cold, and hungry. And most of them don’t eat meat.
No TV, no internet, no telecomm of any kind at all. Yeah, they’d last about 3 days. I said 5. I was mistaken. That herd might thin out more quickly than I thought.
“Sara November 7, 2017 at 7:10 pm
Yeah, they’d last about 3 days.”
3 meals, via a mobile app, if that!
Yes, but no mobile apps allowed, Patrick!! Nada. Hands and feet. Get up and go get it or go hungry.
There was a TV programme a while ago where people had all their stuff taken away and put in a storage cabin, (yes everything except basic food and water) and were allowed to collect one item per day. It got them thinking about what was really necessary for modern life! It made interesting viewing especially on the first day where they had to brave the elements and get their first item of clothing. They mostly went for a duvet or thick coat.
Purchased earlier via Kindle, but let me offer my preferred delivery method:
https://youtu.be/LHI5VHBwIfI
I just took a trip back to my childhood, Neil. When we were kids, we lived about a mile from a rail crossing. We’d go down to the tracks and wave at the engineers when they went by. It was a long time ago, and things weren’t really any simpler. They just seem that way now.
Thanks for the video.
UP 3985 came through Denver back a decade or two ago, on its way to to Cheyenne Frontier Days. I took my nephew down to an industrial area to put pennies on the track. We did, but when 3985 got within a block or two of us we hid behind a building about twenty feet away. To this day it reminded me of how Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad-Gita after witnessing the first atomic bomb test:
“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
Massive, frightening piece of 20th Century technology. It was glorious.
We never did find those pennies.
If someone has the time, energy, and data, it would be fascinating to know how much CO2 is produced to produce, deliver, and brew the amount of Starbucks coffee consumed in the US each day. I suspect percentage-wise it contributes very little, but the actual amount would sound very large (in the tons).
It would be fun to see the meme, “Help save the planet; boycott Starbucks,” and see the reactions of both the company and SJWs.
“Help save the planet; boycott Starbucks,”
I had a cup of Starbuck’s coffee once.
YUCK !!
No need to ask me to boycott !
And I do my bit to produce as much CO2 as I can reasonably be expected to.
… so yes, I am helping to save the planet.
Never go there. Never will. I get Walmart’s GV brand of plain black tea.
Amazon has and will continue to revolutionize electronic commerce. The entire gist of this piece assumes people buy local. That is the only way it makes sense.
Amazon fulfillment is done by full truckloads. Both inbound and outbound. The use of sort centers in major metro areas coordinates with USPS for the final mile delivery with supplemental contract delivery for oversize packages.
Amazon grows by efficiency. Volume demands it, force majure has no bearing. This is why Amazon is spending large amounts for robotic delivery with autonomous aircraft.
There is also considerable investment in facility product selection to achieve greater complete order fulfillment by a single fulfillment center.
If you believe that the burning of fossil fuels is bad then you should stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels because it is your money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. Your clothes were transported by the use of fossil fuels so take them off and discard them. Do not enter any buildings that involve materials such as lumber, concrete, metal, brick, or anything transported via the use of fossil fuels. To not touch roadways made of concrete, asphalt, brick, or any form of stone that was not transported mannually. Do not eat any food that was transported by the use of fossil fuels or that was in any way produced by the use of fossil fuels. If the electrical grid that your home is attached to has any power generation facilities on it that involve the use of fossil fuels then go out and turn off the main breaker and leave it off.
Surely based on this we should give all the corner shop owners a big fat carbon tax rebate for saving the planet… Go Sikhs!! Of course only if their goods are delivered by mules/horses/camels and we ignore the methane contributions….
When I reincarnate i want to come back as a Climate Change Correspondant… you get free trips to all kinds of cool places and play tourist…. and if you work for the BBC you get the public to pay for it… so egalitarian…
Never mind the environmental impact of my swanning around interviewing non-sientists with a film crew and other hangers on… you get to interefere with wildlife for those cool shots of whales and polar bears… you can dive on restricted zone reefs… you dont have to verify any of the “facts” that you present… why let the truth get in the way of a good doom and gloom story….
Well I am off down to the corner shop to get some of those carbon free cigarettes (the kids love the obscene pictures on the packs) and a can of carbon free coke… zero of course
I really think every blue feeling person needs a sustainable pool to cheer them up-
https://www.realestate.com.au/lifestyle/modpools-unveils-sustainable-pool-of-the-future/
“The shipping container trend is a great one as it helps cut down on the carbon footprint and turns trash into something useful.”….
“The company ships the pools ready to use and all the equipment is built-in. If you have gas access and power, you’re good to go with a little prep work.”
Just don’t let it go too Green
There are people who want a simpler life and who know that they don’t need all the junk that the Warmians and Greenbeans are so enthralled with. They don’t necessarily move off the grid, but they try to keep things as simple as possible for themselves and their families. They also try to be as self-sufficient as possible, because it does make a financial difference, too.
There may come a day when cities are so crowded and unendurable that you have to get a travel permit from the counties outside them in order to commute, or a permit to move away permanently. I think that was the point of the movie ‘Soylent Green’.
It’s about time that the demonization of carbon be taken to the next level, by demanding politicians enact legislation to label the carbon content of all foodstuffs and drinks, so that informed citizens can modulate their intake and thereby help ‘save the planet’.
I live in a small northern city. I need two small oscillating fans, they just had a 2800 km UPS ride, not available locally. Even if available locally, they would have had the same 2800 km ride to the store, not to mention their first ride from somewhere in China to the distribution centre. Go green, buy local.