Exploring the economic case for climate action in cities

Gouldson, Andy; Colenbrander, Sarah; Sudmant, Andrew; McAnulla, Faye; Kerr, Niall; Sakai, Paola; Hall, Stephen; Papargyropoulou, Effie; Kuylenstierna, Johan

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.009

Cited by 80 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mitigation and adaptation actions (or portfolios of actions) are assessed against their costs and benefits or by multiple objectives and criteria, whereas trade-offs between different objectives can be also identified and assessed, a process often called prioritisation (Grafakos et al 2018). To conduct these, economics-based approaches, including cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis can be applied (Cartwright et al 2013;Gouldson et al 2015), as well as integrated approaches such as multi-criteria analysis and integrated modelling (Haque et al 2011;Walsh et al 2013;Scrieuciu et al 2014;Grafakos et al 2016) and sectoral approaches (Charoenkit and Kumar 2014).…”

Section: Envisioning and Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate adaptation and mitigation in cities

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reduction of carbon emissions and climate-resilience in cities are becoming important objectives to be achieved in order to ensure sustainable urban development pathways. Traditionally, cities have treated climate mitigation and adaptation strategies in isolation, without addressing their potential synergies, conflicts or trade-offs. Recent studies have shown that this can lead to inefficiencies in urban planning, conflicting policy objectives and lost opportunities for synergistic actions. However, in the last few years, we have observed that cities are increasingly moving towards addressing both mitigation and adaptation in urban planning. Cities need to pay particular attention and understand the rationale of both policy objectives whilst considering the integration of the two policies in urban planning and decision-making. This study presents an analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate mitigation and adaptation in cities' local climate action plans. We tested this framework in nine selected major cities, representatives from all inhabited continents, which are frontrunners in climate action both in their regions and globally. We applied the framework in order to evaluate the level of mitigation and adaptation integration in cities' CCAPs and further explored the different types of mitigation-adaptation interrelationships that have been considered. A scoring system was also devised in order to allow comparing and ranking of the different CCAPs for their level of integration of adaptation and mitigation. The paper draws good practices to support cities in developing climate change action plans in an integrated way.

show abstract

Section: Envisioning and Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate adaptation and mitigation in cities

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such an approach not only has benefits at the international level, but also at a subnational level, for example for businesses and cities. 74 Whilst companies currently are not mandated to calculate their offsite supply chain emissions, monitoring them would provide them with a better understanding of the potential risk of resource and carbon price fluctuations on their business/service provision activities, both related to their upstream purchasing and loss in sales. 75 CB accounting could therefore raise awareness allowing organizations to realize efficiency improvements along their global value chains and to manage aspects of risk.…”

Section: The Spectrum Of Implementation Possibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumption‐based carbon accounting: does it have a future?

Afionis

Sakai

Scott

et al. 2016

WIREs Climate Change

Self Cite

150

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internationally, allocation of responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is currently based on the production-based (PB) accounting method, which measures emissions generated in the place where goods and services are produced. However, the growth of emissions embodied in trade has raised the question whether we should switch to, or amalgamate PB accounting, with other accounting approaches. Consumption-based (CB) accounting has so far emerged as the most prominent alternative. This approach accounts for emissions at the point of consumption, attributing all the emissions that occurred in the course of production and distribution to the final consumers of goods and services. This review has a fourfold objective. First, it provides an account of the logic behind attributing responsibility for emissions on the basis of consumption instead of production. Issues of equity and justice, increased emissions coverage, encouragement of cleaner production practices, and political benefits are considered. Second, it discusses the counterarguments, focusing in particular on issues of technical complexity, mitigation effectiveness, and political acceptability. Third, it presents the spectrum of implementation possibilities-ranging from the status quo to more transformative options-and considers the implications for international climate policy that would accrue under various scenarios of adopting CB accounting in practice. Fourth, it looks at how CB accounting may be adjusted to fit with current political realities and it identifies policy mechanisms that could potentially be utilized to directly or indirectly address CB emissions. Such an approach could unlock new opportunities for climate policy innovation and for climate mitigation. © 2016 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. How to cite this article:WIREs Clim Change 2017Change , 8:e438. doi: 10.1002 INTRODUCTIONF or nearly two decades, the international community has been struggling to find a strategy to allocate responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Equity and justice concerns have been of paramount significance in international negotiations on climate change ever since the adoption of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Underwriting the UNFCCC is the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), which acknowledges that countries have contributed by varying scales to the mounting problem of climate change, will be exposed to different levels of impacts, and have different capabilities (e.g., financial and technological) to mitigate emissions. Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, developed countries agreed to take on legally binding emissions reduction targets for 2012, recognizing their dominant role as historic polluters. However, as emission targets by developed countries alone would evidently be insufficient to address climate change, the 2011 Durban Platform recast equity and differentiation in the climate regime by calling for a roadmap toward an agre...

show abstract

“…There is some evidence on the economic and environmental implications of specific low‐carbon measures that can be deployed in cities, including energy‐efficient lighting in Cameroon (Enongene, Murray, Holland, & Abanda, ), bus networks in Nigeria (Gujba, Mulugetta, & Azapagic, ), solar photovoltaics in Kenya (Ondraczek, ), and waste‐to‐energy technologies in Ghana (Oteng‐Ababioa, Arguello, & Gabbay, ). However, there are no appraisals of the wider economic case for low‐carbon investments in sub‐Saharan African cities as there are for several middle‐income countries (Gouldson et al, ). This paper seeks to address this gap.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The scope for low‐carbon development in Kigali, Rwanda: An economic appraisal

Colenbrander

Sudmant

Chilundika

et al. 2018

Sustainable Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban plans and infrastructure investments in sub-Saharan Africa need to support human and economic development, while also helping countries and cities stay within the global carbon budget. To date, however, no analyses have focused on the economic costs and benefits of pursuing less carbon-intensive urban growth in sub-Saharan African cities. This is significant as the perception that low-carbon urban development is more expensive than higher-carbon alternatives can be enough to preclude consideration of opportunities for more sustainable development, especially in highly resource-constrained contexts. This paper examines the validity of this perception through an economic appraisal of the scope for low-carbon development in Kigali, Rwanda. We find that the city of Kigali could theoretically invest 0.6% of its GDP each year for 10 years in economically attractive mitigation measures. This would generate annual energy savings equivalent to 1.5% of its GDP and reduce city-scale emissions by 39% by 2032 (relative to business-as-usual trends). The economic case for urban climate action is therefore substantial, and although the city is in some ways unique, this suggests that promising opportunities also exist in other sub-Saharan African cities. However, few national or local governments in the region have the political will and institutional capabilities necessary to realise this mitigation potential. We also find that although potentially significant in the short to medium term, these economically attractive measures would not be sufficient to decouple economic development and greenhouse gas emissions in Kigali in the longer term.

show abstract

Exploring the economic case for climate action in cities

Cited by 80 publications

References 32 publications

Analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate adaptation and mitigation in cities

Analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate adaptation and mitigation in cities

Consumption‐based carbon accounting: does it have a future?

The scope for low‐carbon development in Kigali, Rwanda: An economic appraisal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About