Search

Circular Economy (CE) is presented today as the way forward to achieving a sustainable and carbon-neutral society. Yet, circularity assessment tools such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Material Flow Analysis (MFA), and Supply and value-chain analysis are currently disconnected from the models used to advise bodies that steer sustainability-driven policies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate mitigation models (henceforth climate models) are used in policy discussions and international negotiations to track GHG emissions and identify pathways towards a low-carbon economy. One example is the JRC-EU-TIMES model developed by the International Energy Agency or the PRIMES model, which is the backbone of the energy and climate policy of the European Union (EU). These climate models are inherently suitable for representing only linear patterns of economic activity, where GHG emissions are modelled per economic sector (primary energy resource extraction, final energy generation, energy, and materials used in industry, buildings, etc.). But current climate models lack modelling resolution and flexibility to account for the Green Transition measures required e.g. Fit for 55 or RePowerEU goals. Upstream and downstream supply chains are poorly represented, indirect GHG emissions are seldom included (McDowall et al., 2018), and common CE measures – such as extending product lifetime, resource sharing models, and feedback loops of materials and goods - are not considered. This means that, for example, for the cement sector, GHG emissions associated with the production stage are seen by climate mitigation models as the sole responsibility of the cement industry. However, a reallocation of building materials from concrete to raw materials, for example, can provide carbon storage and sequestration, and consequently pledges a reduction of GHG emissions. In addition, citizen behaviour is poorly understood and quantified regarding construction materials CE

Cities across the globe recognise their role in climate mitigation and are acting to reduce carbon emissions. Knowing whether cities set ambitious climate and energy targets is critical for determining their contribution towards the global 1.5 degrees C target, partly because it helps to identify areas where further action is necessary. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the mitigation targets of 327 European cities, as declared in their local climate plans. The sample encompasses over 25% of the EU population and includes cities of all sizes across all Member States, plus the UK. The study analyses whether the type of plan, city size, membership of climate networks, and its regional location are associated with different levels of mitigation ambition. Results reveal that 78% of the cities have a GHG emissions reduction target. However, with an average target of 47%, European cities are not on track to reach the Paris Agreement: they need to roughly double their ambitions and efforts. Some cities are ambitious, e.g. 25% of our sample (81) aim to reach carbon neutrality, with the earliest target date being 2020.90% of these cities are members of the Climate Alliance and 75% of the Covenant of Mayors. City size is the strongest predictor for carbon neutrality, whilst climate network(s) membership, combining adaptation and mitigation into a single strategy, and local motivation also play a role. The methods, data, results and analysis of this study can serve as a reference and baseline for tracking climate mitigation ambitions across European and global cities.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 degrees 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 Al (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 Al, 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 Al, 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 (Al). 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 tim