Search

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type A1 (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type A1) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Around the world, cities are creating local climate change mitigation strategies and combining strengths in international efforts. In addition to making the strategies, it is important to follow, how they work in practice. The aim of the study is to examine, how climate change mitigation policies and other events affected the consumption-based household carbon footprints in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (HMA) from 2006 until 2012. The cities of the HMA launched an ambitious climate change mitigation strategy in 2007. Furthermore, the study analyses the changes in the carbon footprints of six different types of urban zone within the HMA: the central pedestrian zone, the fringe of the central pedestrian zone, intensive public transport zone, public transport zone, car zone and the pedestrian zones of subcentres. The results of the study reveal that the average carbon footprint decreased 7% from 2006 to 2012, despite 1% increase in expenditure, which is encouraging. Emissions caused by housing energy consumption and motor fuel consumption decreased the most. Among the urban zones, public transport zone and car zone, which are the two outermost zones of the HMA, had the strongest emission reductions. Cleaner electricity and the improved energy efficiency of buildings had a strong effect. The regression analysis of the study suggests that the central pedestrian zone and the car zone, the two most affluent zones of the HMA, have higher carbon footprints than all the other zones have between them. However, this is only true when income is controlled, not when expenditure is controlled. The economic crisis in 2008, and changes in consumption behaviour because of it, seem to explain the result. The reduction of the average carbon footprint in the HMA was not only due to steered mitigation actions. Increased housing costs seem to have contributed to the decline of consumption-based emissions. The results of the study suggest that to achieve the ambitious international, national and local climate change mitigation targets, stronger measures are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This study examines the factors that explain cross-sectional variations in per capita emissions of one of the primary greenhouse gases (GHGs), carbon dioxide (CO2), in major Asian cities. Why do individuals in Bangkok, Thailand, produce an average of 6.1 tons of carbon dioxide annually, but individuals in Shanghai emit 9.7 tons of CO2? Why do CO2 emissions per capita vary across twenty-two major Asian cities? To what extent are relevant environmental indicators associated with CO2 emissions? To answer these questions, we begin by reviewing the climate co-benefits of existing environmental indicators (waste, green space, water, public transport and energy use) and climate change. Based on a literature review, we hypothesize that cities with higher resource use and wealth will have higher CO2 per capita emissions. To test the hypotheses, we analyze the relationship between tentative co-benefits of existing environmental indicators and CO2 emissions per capita using regression analysis. We find that a city's energy inefficiency, waste generation per capita, and GDP per capita are positively associated with CO2 emissions per capita, while we control for a battery of variables such as population and industrial structure. Our findings suggest that enhancing energy efficiency and reducing waste generation are effective ways to mitigate climate change while also realizing climate co-benefits. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]