Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of literature suggests that an economic case may exist for investment in large-scale climate change mitigation. At the same time, however, investment is persistently falling well short of the levels required to prevent dangerous climate change, suggesting that economically attractive mitigation opportunities are being missed. To understand whether and where these opportunities exist, this article contrasts macro-level analyses of climate finance with micro-level bottom-up analyses of the scale and composition of low-carbon investment opportunities in four case study developing world cities. This analysis finds that there are significant opportunities to redirect existing finance streams towards more cost-effective, lower-carbon options. This would mobilize substantial new investment in climate mitigation. Two key explanations are proposed for the failure to exploit these opportunities. First, the composition of cost-effective measures is highly context-specific, varying from place to place and sector to sector. Macro-level analyses of climate finance flows are therefore poor indicators of the micro-level landscape for low-carbon investment. Specific local research is therefore needed to understand the opportunities for cost-effective mitigation at that level. Second, many opportunities require enabling governance arrangements that are not currently in place. Mobilizing new low-carbon investment and closing the ‘climate finance gap' therefore requires attention to policy frameworks and financing mechanisms that can facilitate the exploitation of cost-effective low-carbon options. Policy relevance The importance of increasing investment in climate mitigation, especially in developing nations, is well established. This article scrutinizes four city-level studies of the scope for cost-effective low-carbon investment, and finds that significant opportunities are not being exploited in developing world cities. Enabling governance structures may help to mainstream climate considerations into investments by local actors (households, businesses and government agencies). While climate finance distributed through international bodies such as the Green Climate Fund may not always be a suitable vehicle to invest directly in disaggregated, local-level measures, it can provide the incentives to develop these governance arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Fast-growing cities in the global South have an important role to play in climate change mitigation. However, city governments typically focus on more pressing socioeconomic needs, such as reducing urban poverty. To what extent can social, economic and climate objectives be aligned? Focusing on Kolkata in India, we consider the economic case for low-carbon urban development, and assess whether this pathway could support wider social goals. We find that Kolkata could reduce its energy bill by 8.5 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions by 20.7 per cent in 2025, relative to business-as-usual trends, by exploiting readily available, economically attractive mitigation options. Some of these measures offer significant social benefits, particularly in terms of public health; others jeopardize low-income urban residents’ livelihoods, housing and access to affordable services. Our findings demonstrate that municipal mitigation strategies need to be designed and delivered in collaboration with affected communities in order to minimize social costs and – possibly – achieve transformative change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The assumption that climate mitigation can only be afforded at a particular level of income is implicit in global climate negotiations. This suggests that middle-income countries may reach a tipping point in their development process where low-carbon investment becomes more viable. In order to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, this tipping point needs to be brought forward in time: upper-middle-income countries are already responsible for 37.8% of global CO2emissions. We explore the scope for large-scale investment in climate mitigation in Johor Bahru, a fast-growing industrial city in Malaysia. We find that the city could reduce per capita emissions by 10.0% by 2025, relative to 2014 levels, through cost-effective investments. If the returns could be recovered and reinvested in low-carbon measures, Johor Bahru could reduce per capita emissions by 35.2% by 2025, relative to 2014 levels. This result suggests that the tipping point may be a function of political will and institutional capacity as well as income. This has substantial implications for global climate policy discussions, particularly the opportunities and responsibilities of middle-income countries. If comparable savings can be delivered across cities in middle-income countries, this would equate to a reduction in global emissions of 6.3% with the exploitation of cost-effective options and 11.3% with the exploitation of cost-neutral options. Investing in economically attractive low-carbon measures could also provide cities in middle-income countries with an opportunity to build the political momentum and institutional capacities necessary for deeper decarbonization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]