Cities make waves with green innovation
November 3, 2009
(4 votes, average: 2 out of 5)
Loading ...When trying to make sweeping changes, it should not be forgotten that some of the world’s mightiest rivers start off as modest trickles. The Amazon comes into life as a gentle glacial stream on the snow-capped Nevado Mismi in the Peruvian Andes before plunging into the Atlantic Ocean at a speed of up to 300,000 m³ per second in the rainy season. The same applies to the fight against climate change. Although many wait for national governments to act, much of the innovation is already taking place at local and regional level.
I was reminded of this last Friday when I received the Sustainable Energy Action Plans drawn up by Barcelona Province. No fewer than 105 of the province’s municipalities are committing to ambitious plans to slash their emissions by nearly one million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2020. This represents nearly a fifth of their current emissions. This will be achieved by improving energy-efficiency in areas such as waste management, water treatment, town planning, building and maintenance, and having detailed requirements for the public procurement of goods and services.
The European Union is encouraging these local initiatives through the Covenant of Mayors. Cities that take part commit to sustainable energy policies which are then translated into concrete measures and projects. It is also possible to participate as a supporting structure, which is what Barcelona Province has done. The action plans delivered by Barcelona Province mark the next stage of the Covenant of Mayors. In the first stage more than 900 cities and 40 supporting structures signed up to rethink their energy policies. These first action plans show the time has now come to move from good intentions to concrete activities.
Cities are helped in this by the Commission, which provides technical and promotional support, including evaluation and monitoring tools, and making it possible to learn from other local authorities. I am proud that we are involved in this as it will not be possible to tackle climate change without the strongest possible commitment from urban centres. Eighty percent of the population lives and works in cities, where up to 80% of energy is consumed. If we manage to cut emissions substantially there, we will have gone a long way to reaching our ambitious climate objectives.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
There are 2 basic ways of looking at the lowering of emissions - in cities as elsewhere.
One is your way, to say “let’s cut down and save” as much as possible
The other way, which I advocate, is to say
“let’s provide whatever energy is needed with whatever emission criteria that needs to be put on it”
(the assumption being made here that emission reduction is necessary, which may apply to emissions as a whole, whatever about CO2 alone)
One way is to force a change of lifestyles.
Another is to keep lifestyles, but to deal directly with emissions that may be involved, as long as deemed necessary or useful.
Notice that that does not exclude fossil fuels (oil coal gas) inasmuch that it may or may not be commercially viable to meet set emission levels
For example, we have the Uckermark (coal) and Lacq (gas) power stations with associated Carbon Capture and Storage,
and the USA Georgia Tech development of substantial CO2 emission reduction for petrol (gasolene) powered cars.
As it happens, if there is to be an emission policy,
Electricity and Transport sectors alone (80% of CO2 emissions) are sufficient to meet emission reduction targets,
with measures advantageous in themselves
(including energy renewability, and that emissions contain much else, whatever about CO2),
long term funded for reduced consumer price impact,
without cap and trade schemes without industrial carbon taxes and without efficiency regulation
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
The argument that your colleagues often repeat,
“It takes too long to deal directly with energy supply and emissions, we must also act on consumption, banning products
(light bulbs, cars, buildings, dishwashers etc)
that don’t meet defined efficiency standards”
doesn’t hold up:
1. Because the lowering of emissions from electricity generation and distribution can be addressed in several ways, not all of which need take time, and some of which need organizational skills rather than money. Grid interconnections can relatively rapidly spread low emission electricity from a specific source. http://ceolas.net/#em1x
2. Because there are numerous disadvantages to consumers of efficiency-defined bans. http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
3. Because energy and emission savings from such bans are not as great as assumed anyway. http://ceolas.net/#cc214x
4. Because -while it should not be needed- appropriate and temporary taxation on products that would otherwise be banned not only raises funds for relevant environmental projects, it quickly limits and redirects consumption for the time required, with more adaptability regarding scope and application than bans. http://ceolas.net/#gg5x
.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
// correction! //
Schwarze Pumpe, rather than Uckermark, is a coal power station prototype with carbon capture and storage
Uckermark power station, as mentioned before, is on the other hand an interesting example of storing wind energy for release at peak power usage.
http://ceolas.net/#ge3x