What you will find on this page: city planning needs to change (video); LATEST NEWS; making cities work; new resource guide for advanced learning on climate change and cities; Paris climate package: Basic Guide for Local and Sub-national Governments; local govt & climate policy; ICLEI tools for change; cities cutting emissions; Australian cities committing to action; 100 Resilient Cities (video); global cities get together; US cities policy & program efforts; also refer to pages: population & consumption, food & water issues, people stress and downsizing plan B as the issues are closely related
Cities need to lead the way
UN-Habitat: The effects of urbanization and climate change are converging in dangerous ways. Cities are major contributors to climate change: although they cover less than 2 per cent of the earth’s surface, cities consume 78 per cent of the world’s energy and produce more than 60% of all carbon dioxide and significant amounts of other greenhouse gas emissions, mainly through energy generation, vehicles, industry, and biomass use.
At the same time, cities and towns are heavily vulnerable to climate change. Hundreds of millions of people in urban areas across the world will be affected by rising sea levels, increased precipitation, inland floods, more frequent and stronger cyclones and storms, and periods of more extreme heat and cold. In fact, many major coastal cities with populations of more than 10 million people are already under threat. Climate change may also negatively impact infrastructure and worsen access to basic urban services and quality of life in cities.Read More here
Latest News 2 May 2018. Bloomberg, …..Until recently, the guiding philosophy behind attempts to protect U.S. homes and cities against the effects of climate change was to build more defenses. Houses can be perched on stilts, surrounded by barriers, buttressed with storm proof windows and roofs. Neighborhoods can be buffered by seawalls for storm surges, levees for floods, firebreaks for wildfires. Defenses are an instinctive response for a species that’s evolved by taming the natural world. But sometimes the natural world won’t be tamed. Or, more precisely, sometimes engineered solutions can no longer withstand the unrelenting force of more water, more rain, more fires, more wind. Within 20 years, says the Union of Concerned Scientists, 170 cities and towns along the U.S. coast will be “chronically inundated,” which the group defines as flooding of at least 10 percent of a land area, on average, twice a month. By the end of the century, that category will grow to include more than half of the communities along the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf Coast—and that’s if the rate of climate change doesn’t accelerate. In their less guarded moments, officials in charge of this country’s disaster programs have begun to acknowledge the previously unthinkable: Sometimes the only effective way to protect people from climate change is to give up. Let nature reclaim the land and move a neighborhood out of harm’s way while it still is one. But even when all the most obvious ingredients are in place—from federal money and local buy-in to cheap, dry land right next door—moving is hard. Sidney has yet to remove more than a few dozen homes from the flood plain or break ground on land away from the river. Its failure so far illustrates how unprepared the U.S. is politically, financially, and emotionally to re-create even a single community away from rising waters in an organized way, preserving some semblance of its character and history. Read more here 5 March 2018, Renew Economy, Victoria town’s breakthrough deal on network tariffs as it pursues 100% renewables. A small Victorian town that is hoping to achieve 100 per cent renewable energy as early as 2020 has achieved what appears to be a groundbreaking deal on network charges that could pave the way for similar projects around the country. Newstead, a town of less than 1,500 people in central Victoria, has negotiated new network charges with its electricity distributor, Powercor, that will remove some of the hurdles of building a small solar farm and sharing the output with the community. The two-year trial on new network fees will mean that the community can install solar and share the output without being hit by further network charges for each kilowatt they consume. Equally importantly, they appear to break the nexus between lower energy use and soaring grid charges, and will help ensure that everyone benefits from a local renewable energy transition, and not just those who can afford it. The Powercor tariffs – specially constructed for the people of Newstead, but with a broader energy market transition in mind – introduce a fixed daily network charge of $1 day, and a monthly “demand” charge of $2/kW. It completely removes fees based on kilowatt-hour consumption. Tosh Szatow, from energy consultants Energy for the People, which has been advising the Newstead community group, Renewables Newstead, says the new tariffs will have two significant benefits. One is the way it will make community-owned solar farms, and sharing that solar output, more attractive, because it will eliminate the perverse incentive for individuals to preference rooftop solar, over a shared solar farm, despite the latter option having a lower $/kW installed cost. Read More here 11 January 2018, The Conversation, A month in, Tesla’s SA battery is surpassing expectations. It’s just over one month since the Hornsdale power reserve was officially opened in South Australia. The excitement surrounding the project has generated acres of media interest, both locally and abroad. The aspect that has generated the most interest is the battery’s rapid response time in smoothing out several major energy outages that have occurred since it was installed. Following the early success of the SA model, Victoria has also secured an agreement to get its own Tesla battery built near the town of Stawell. Victoria’s government will be tracking the Hornsdale battery’s early performance with interest. Generation and Consumption Over the full month of December, the Hornsdale power reserve generated 2.42 gigawatt-hours of energy, and consumed 3.06GWh. Since there are losses associated with energy storage, it is a net consumer of energy. This is often described in terms of “round trip efficiency”, a measure of the energy out to the energy in. In this case, the round trip efficiency appears to be roughly 80%. The figure below shows the input and output from the battery over the month. As can be seen, on several occasions the battery has generated as much as 100MW of power, and consumed 70MW of power. The regular operation of battery moves between generating 30MW and consuming 30MW of power. Read More here 4 December 2017, Inside Climate News, Microgrids Keep These Cities Running When the Power Goes Out. Borrego Springs, California, is a quaint town of about 3,400 people set against the Anza-Borrego Desert about 90 miles east of San Diego. Summers are hot—often north of 100 degrees—and because it lies at the far end of a San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line, the town has suffered frequent power outages. High winds, lightning strikes, forest fires and flash floods can bust up that line and kill the electricity. “If you’re on the very end of a utility line, everything that happens, happens 10 times worse for you,” says Mike Gravely, team leader for energy systems integration at the California Energy Commission. The town has a lot of senior citizens, who can be frail in the heat. “Without air conditioning,” says Linda Haddock, head of the local Chamber of Commerce, “people will die.” But today, Borrego Springs has a failsafe against power outages: a microgrid. Resiliency is one of the main reasons the market in microgrids is booming, with installed capacity in the United States projected to more than double between 2017 and 2022, according to a new report on microgrids from GTM Research. Another is that microgrids can ease the entry of intermittent renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, into the modern grid. Utilities are also interested in microgrids because of the money they can save by deferring the need to build new transmission lines. Read More here 2 May 2018. Bloomberg, …..Until recently, the guiding philosophy behind attempts to protect U.S. homes and cities against the effects of climate change was to build more defenses. Houses can be perched on stilts, surrounded by barriers, buttressed with storm proof windows and roofs. Neighborhoods can be buffered by seawalls for storm surges, levees for floods, firebreaks for wildfires. Defenses are an instinctive response for a species that’s evolved by taming the natural world. But sometimes the natural world won’t be tamed. Or, more precisely, sometimes engineered solutions can no longer withstand the unrelenting force of more water, more rain, more fires, more wind. Within 20 years, says the Union of Concerned Scientists, 170 cities and towns along the U.S. coast will be “chronically inundated,” which the group defines as flooding of at least 10 percent of a land area, on average, twice a month. By the end of the century, that category will grow to include more than half of the communities along the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf Coast—and that’s if the rate of climate change doesn’t accelerate. In their less guarded moments, officials in charge of this country’s disaster programs have begun to acknowledge the previously unthinkable: Sometimes the only effective way to protect people from climate change is to give up. Let nature reclaim the land and move a neighborhood out of harm’s way while it still is one. But even when all the most obvious ingredients are in place—from federal money and local buy-in to cheap, dry land right next door—moving is hard. Sidney has yet to remove more than a few dozen homes from the flood plain or break ground on land away from the river. Its failure so far illustrates how unprepared the U.S. is politically, financially, and emotionally to re-create even a single community away from rising waters in an organized way, preserving some semblance of its character and history. Read more here 25 April 2018, Bloomberg, The Fighting Has Begun Over Who Owns Land Drowned by Climate Change. One April morning in 2016, Daryl Carpenter, a charter boat captain out of Grand Isle, La., took some clients to catch redfish on a marsh pond that didn’t use to exist. Coastal erosion and rising seas are submerging a football field’s worth of Louisiana land every hour, creating and expanding ponds and lakes such as the one onto which Carpenter had piloted his 24-foot vessel. Suddenly, another boat pulled up beside Carpenter’s. “You’re trespassing,” the other driver declared, before chasing him and his clients down the bayou. The sheriff’s office later threatened to arrest Carpenter if he ever returned to the pond. There was just one problem: Under Louisiana state law, any waterways that are accessible by boat are supposed to be public property, argued Carpenter—even what was previously unnavigable swampland. Carpenter sued the sheriff, as well as Castex Energy Inc., which owns the property around the pond, for interfering with his business. A district court decided against him in March, noting that an earlier ruling found that the territory was unnavigable swampland when the state sold it into private ownership in the 1800s. Carpenter is appealing that ruling. Carpenter’s suit reflects a legal and political dilemma that’s beginning to reverberate around the country: As seas rise and coasts wash away, who owns the land that goes underwater? Read more here 27 March 2018, SMH, ‘A risky experiment that has no parallel among developed nations’. No one living, working or travelling in Sydney today needs to be reminded of the costs of the unprecedented growth the city has been undergoing. With close to 100,000 people being added each year, we all experience the clogged roads, crowded trains and endless delays. And as we stare out of the window, we can see the face of the city literally changing before our eyes. Apparently congestion costs the Sydney $6 billion every year, and this is only getting worse. Infrastructure Australia warns we will need to spend billions more just to make up for our current planning failures – let alone what’s coming. “If you can imagine adding two more cities the size of Melbourne or Sydney to Australia by 2047, you’ll appreciate the enormity of the challenge,” says Infrastructure Australia chairwoman Julieanne Alroe. Except she’s got it wrong. We aren’t building new cities, we are squeezing more and more people into the cities we have. Mostly that means Sydney and Melbourne which together absorb 60 per cent of Australia’s rapidly growing population. And what does our infrastructure guru recommend? Her report suggests that more people should be encouraged to move to Wollongong and Newcastle. Read More here 13 March 2018, Munich RE, Natural disasters in 2017 were a sign of things to come – New coverage concepts are needed. 2017 was a wake-up call. After a number of relatively benign years, natural disasters in 2017 caused overall losses of US$ 340bn. This was the second-highest annual loss ever and almost double the previous year’s level – a figure roughly equivalent to the annual GDP of Denmark, Egypt or Israel. Insurers had to pay out a record US$ 138bn in losses. It is crucial that insurers and reinsurers take account of statistically rare loss events in their risk management calculations. One such rare event was the torrential rainfall and severe flooding that Hurricane Harvey brought to the Houston area in August. The series of three extreme hurricanes that struck within the space of just a few weeks – Harvey, Irma and Maria – is also indeed rare but by no means impossible, especially as experts predict that certain types of extreme weather events are likely to become more frequent in the future as a result of climate change. 2017 therefore gave us a foretaste of what we can expect in the future. Once again, significantly less than half the losses were covered by risk transfer solutions: the share of insured losses was higher than the previous year, but at 41% still well below the 50% mark. And this even though more than four-fifths of all losses were in North America, with its high level of insurance density. Read More here 21 May 2018, Renew Economy. AGL rejects Alinta bid for Liddell, Coalition goes nuts. AGL Energy has – as expected – firmly rejected a bid from Alinta Energy and its Chinese owner Chow Tai Fook Enterprises to buy the ageing and decrepit Liddell coal generator in New south Wales, despite intense pressure from the Coalition government to do so. In a statement on Monday, AGL described the $250 million Alinta offer as an “unsolicited, non-binding, highly conditional indicative offer” – and most observers would say highly opportunistic, inadequate and unrealistic too. AGL came to the same conclusion on the latter, saying the proposal significantly undervalued the value of Liddell and the site it operates. It told them they’re dreaming. “AGL has completed a thorough assessment of the Offer and, after careful consideration, has advised Chow Tai Fook and Alinta that it will not proceed any further with the Offer,” the company said in a statement. “The AGL Board has determined that the offer is not in the best interests of AGL or its shareholders. The offer significantly undervalues future cash flows to AGL of operating the Liddell Power Station until 2022 and the repurposing of the site thereafter.” AGL says it had again sought third party expert advice about the reliability and safety of keeping Liddell open longer than its planned closure in 2022 – and has reaffirmed its decision to close it at that time, and replace it with gas, renewables and storage. It notes that the Australian Energy Market Operator has confirmed that completion of its plan for the Liddell site will address the capacity shortfall that may occur as a result of Liddell’s closure. The decision follows intense pressure from the Coalition government to try and force AGL to sell the power station, despite the government insisting at the same time that it only ever wanted to leave the fate of the sector to the market. Read more here 18 May 2018. The Conversation. Senate report: climate change is a clear and present danger to Australia’s security. The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade yesterday presented its report on the national security implications of climate change. The report makes several findings and recommendations, noting at the outset that climate change has a range of important security implications, both domestically and internationally. Tellingly, none of the expert submissions questioned the rationale for this inquiry, nor the claim that climate change challenges Australian national security. The report concludes that: the consensus from the evidence (is) that climate change is exacerbating threats and risks to Australia’s national security. Significantly, it also notes that climate change threatens both state and human security in the Australian context. Here are some of the key security implications. Read More here 17 May 2018, Climate Home News.UN to investigate mysterious emissions of banned ozone-damaging CFCs. The UN will assess evidence of mysterious emissions of prohibited ozone-damaging chemicals, officials have said. A study published in scientific journal Nature on Wednesday found higher than expected levels of CFC-11 in the air, a human-made chemical known to deplete the ozone layer. It pointed to new sources coming from East Asia. CFCs, which were once found in aerosols, refrigerants, solvents and other products, were banned in 1996 under the Montreal Protocol. Aside from their ozone impact, they are potent global warming agents. The scientific assessment panel of the Montreal Protocol (SAP), which monitors the state of the ozone layer, is set to examine the findings and report to national representatives by the end of the year. “We know it is coming from East Asia,” said Paul Newman of Nasa and co-chair of the SAP. But Newman warned against leaping to the conclusion there had been illegal production. The emissions could be a byproduct of an industrial process or leaked from transit or waste sites. Li Shuo, a campaigner with Greenpeace China, told Climate Home News it would be hard to produce CFC-11 illegally. “You do need a proper factory with sizable upfront investment for its production. It is not a business you can shut down overnight, hide, and pop up tomorrow.” He added: “There were only a handful of installations in China, concentrated in the wealthier eastern side of the country which tends to have a better compliance record. These installations were regularly inspected.” Read more here 16 May 2018, COSMOS, If it’s not one thing, it’s another: the challenge of compound weather events. The deadly Russian wildfires of 2010, the Brisbane floods of 2011 and the inundation of New York by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 were all “perfect storms”, devastating combinations of weather and climate conditions that no-one saw coming. “Compound events” such as these – where drought amplifies a heatwave, or one storm comes hard on the heels of another – could have been foreseen, according to one group of climate scientists, who argue that most analysis of the hazards of climate change underestimates the real risks. In a paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the group – made up of Swiss, Dutch, American and Australian researchers – make the case that “most major weather and climate-related catastrophes are caused by compound effects”, and call for turning climate risk projections upside down. After disastrous events such as fires and floods, says Michael Leonard of the University of Adelaide in South Australia, one of the authors of the paper, people sometimes want to think they were unavoidable: “You’ll often hear phrases like ‘We didn’t see it coming’,” he says, “when, actually, maybe we could have seen it coming. I guess there’s a public need for people to excuse themselves a bit, but from a professional point of view planners and modellers can do better.” Read more here 21 May 2018, Renew Economy. AGL rejects Alinta bid for Liddell, Coalition goes nuts. AGL Energy has – as expected – firmly rejected a bid from Alinta Energy and its Chinese owner Chow Tai Fook Enterprises to buy the ageing and decrepit Liddell coal generator in New south Wales, despite intense pressure from the Coalition government to do so. In a statement on Monday, AGL described the $250 million Alinta offer as an “unsolicited, non-binding, highly conditional indicative offer” – and most observers would say highly opportunistic, inadequate and unrealistic too. AGL came to the same conclusion on the latter, saying the proposal significantly undervalued the value of Liddell and the site it operates. It told them they’re dreaming. “AGL has completed a thorough assessment of the Offer and, after careful consideration, has advised Chow Tai Fook and Alinta that it will not proceed any further with the Offer,” the company said in a statement. “The AGL Board has determined that the offer is not in the best interests of AGL or its shareholders. The offer significantly undervalues future cash flows to AGL of operating the Liddell Power Station until 2022 and the repurposing of the site thereafter.” AGL says it had again sought third party expert advice about the reliability and safety of keeping Liddell open longer than its planned closure in 2022 – and has reaffirmed its decision to close it at that time, and replace it with gas, renewables and storage. It notes that the Australian Energy Market Operator has confirmed that completion of its plan for the Liddell site will address the capacity shortfall that may occur as a result of Liddell’s closure. The decision follows intense pressure from the Coalition government to try and force AGL to sell the power station, despite the government insisting at the same time that it only ever wanted to leave the fate of the sector to the market. Read more here 18 May 2018. The Conversation. Senate report: climate change is a clear and present danger to Australia’s security. The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade yesterday presented its report on the national security implications of climate change. The report makes several findings and recommendations, noting at the outset that climate change has a range of important security implications, both domestically and internationally. Tellingly, none of the expert submissions questioned the rationale for this inquiry, nor the claim that climate change challenges Australian national security. The report concludes that: the consensus from the evidence (is) that climate change is exacerbating threats and risks to Australia’s national security. Significantly, it also notes that climate change threatens both state and human security in the Australian context. Here are some of the key security implications. Read More here 17 May 2018, Climate Home News.UN to investigate mysterious emissions of banned ozone-damaging CFCs. The UN will assess evidence of mysterious emissions of prohibited ozone-damaging chemicals, officials have said. A study published in scientific journal Nature on Wednesday found higher than expected levels of CFC-11 in the air, a human-made chemical known to deplete the ozone layer. It pointed to new sources coming from East Asia. CFCs, which were once found in aerosols, refrigerants, solvents and other products, were banned in 1996 under the Montreal Protocol. Aside from their ozone impact, they are potent global warming agents. The scientific assessment panel of the Montreal Protocol (SAP), which monitors the state of the ozone layer, is set to examine the findings and report to national representatives by the end of the year. “We know it is coming from East Asia,” said Paul Newman of Nasa and co-chair of the SAP. But Newman warned against leaping to the conclusion there had been illegal production. The emissions could be a byproduct of an industrial process or leaked from transit or waste sites. Li Shuo, a campaigner with Greenpeace China, told Climate Home News it would be hard to produce CFC-11 illegally. “You do need a proper factory with sizable upfront investment for its production. It is not a business you can shut down overnight, hide, and pop up tomorrow.” He added: “There were only a handful of installations in China, concentrated in the wealthier eastern side of the country which tends to have a better compliance record. These installations were regularly inspected.” Read more here 16 May 2018, COSMOS, If it’s not one thing, it’s another: the challenge of compound weather events. The deadly Russian wildfires of 2010, the Brisbane floods of 2011 and the inundation of New York by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 were all “perfect storms”, devastating combinations of weather and climate conditions that no-one saw coming. “Compound events” such as these – where drought amplifies a heatwave, or one storm comes hard on the heels of another – could have been foreseen, according to one group of climate scientists, who argue that most analysis of the hazards of climate change underestimates the real risks. In a paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the group – made up of Swiss, Dutch, American and Australian researchers – make the case that “most major weather and climate-related catastrophes are caused by compound effects”, and call for turning climate risk projections upside down. After disastrous events such as fires and floods, says Michael Leonard of the University of Adelaide in South Australia, one of the authors of the paper, people sometimes want to think they were unavoidable: “You’ll often hear phrases like ‘We didn’t see it coming’,” he says, “when, actually, maybe we could have seen it coming. I guess there’s a public need for people to excuse themselves a bit, but from a professional point of view planners and modellers can do better.” Read more here 21 May 2018, Renew Economy. AGL rejects Alinta bid for Liddell, Coalition goes nuts. AGL Energy has – as expected – firmly rejected a bid from Alinta Energy and its Chinese owner Chow Tai Fook Enterprises to buy the ageing and decrepit Liddell coal generator in New south Wales, despite intense pressure from the Coalition government to do so. In a statement on Monday, AGL described the $250 million Alinta offer as an “unsolicited, non-binding, highly conditional indicative offer” – and most observers would say highly opportunistic, inadequate and unrealistic too. AGL came to the same conclusion on the latter, saying the proposal significantly undervalued the value of Liddell and the site it operates. It told them they’re dreaming. “AGL has completed a thorough assessment of the Offer and, after careful consideration, has advised Chow Tai Fook and Alinta that it will not proceed any further with the Offer,” the company said in a statement. “The AGL Board has determined that the offer is not in the best interests of AGL or its shareholders. The offer significantly undervalues future cash flows to AGL of operating the Liddell Power Station until 2022 and the repurposing of the site thereafter.” AGL says it had again sought third party expert advice about the reliability and safety of keeping Liddell open longer than its planned closure in 2022 – and has reaffirmed its decision to close it at that time, and replace it with gas, renewables and storage. It notes that the Australian Energy Market Operator has confirmed that completion of its plan for the Liddell site will address the capacity shortfall that may occur as a result of Liddell’s closure. The decision follows intense pressure from the Coalition government to try and force AGL to sell the power station, despite the government insisting at the same time that it only ever wanted to leave the fate of the sector to the market. Read more here 18 May 2018. The Conversation. Senate report: climate change is a clear and present danger to Australia’s security. The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade yesterday presented its report on the national security implications of climate change. The report makes several findings and recommendations, noting at the outset that climate change has a range of important security implications, both domestically and internationally. Tellingly, none of the expert submissions questioned the rationale for this inquiry, nor the claim that climate change challenges Australian national security. The report concludes that: the consensus from the evidence (is) that climate change is exacerbating threats and risks to Australia’s national security. Significantly, it also notes that climate change threatens both state and human security in the Australian context. Here are some of the key security implications. Read More here 17 May 2018, Climate Home News.UN to investigate mysterious emissions of banned ozone-damaging CFCs. The UN will assess evidence of mysterious emissions of prohibited ozone-damaging chemicals, officials have said. A study published in scientific journal Nature on Wednesday found higher than expected levels of CFC-11 in the air, a human-made chemical known to deplete the ozone layer. It pointed to new sources coming from East Asia. CFCs, which were once found in aerosols, refrigerants, solvents and other products, were banned in 1996 under the Montreal Protocol. Aside from their ozone impact, they are potent global warming agents. The scientific assessment panel of the Montreal Protocol (SAP), which monitors the state of the ozone layer, is set to examine the findings and report to national representatives by the end of the year. “We know it is coming from East Asia,” said Paul Newman of Nasa and co-chair of the SAP. But Newman warned against leaping to the conclusion there had been illegal production. The emissions could be a byproduct of an industrial process or leaked from transit or waste sites. Li Shuo, a campaigner with Greenpeace China, told Climate Home News it would be hard to produce CFC-11 illegally. “You do need a proper factory with sizable upfront investment for its production. It is not a business you can shut down overnight, hide, and pop up tomorrow.” He added: “There were only a handful of installations in China, concentrated in the wealthier eastern side of the country which tends to have a better compliance record. These installations were regularly inspected.” Read more here 16 May 2018, COSMOS, If it’s not one thing, it’s another: the challenge of compound weather events. The deadly Russian wildfires of 2010, the Brisbane floods of 2011 and the inundation of New York by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 were all “perfect storms”, devastating combinations of weather and climate conditions that no-one saw coming. “Compound events” such as these – where drought amplifies a heatwave, or one storm comes hard on the heels of another – could have been foreseen, according to one group of climate scientists, who argue that most analysis of the hazards of climate change underestimates the real risks. In a paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the group – made up of Swiss, Dutch, American and Australian researchers – make the case that “most major weather and climate-related catastrophes are caused by compound effects”, and call for turning climate risk projections upside down. After disastrous events such as fires and floods, says Michael Leonard of the University of Adelaide in South Australia, one of the authors of the paper, people sometimes want to think they were unavoidable: “You’ll often hear phrases like ‘We didn’t see it coming’,” he says, “when, actually, maybe we could have seen it coming. I guess there’s a public need for people to excuse themselves a bit, but from a professional point of view planners and modellers can do better.” Read more here End latest news Changing Climate, Changing Cities NEW YORK TIMES SERIES: How climate change is challenging the world’s urban centers. 15 June 2017, New York Times, The Dutch Have Solutions to Rising Seas. The World Is Watching. In the waterlogged Netherlands, climate change is considered neither a hypothetical nor a drag on the economy. Instead, it’s an opportunity……No place in Europe is under greater threat than this waterlogged country on the edge of the Continent. Much of the nation sits below sea level and is gradually sinking. Now climate change brings the prospect of rising tides and fiercer storms. From a Dutch mind-set, climate change is not a hypothetical or a drag on the economy, but an opportunity. While the Trump administration withdraws from the Paris accord, the Dutch are pioneering a singular way forward. It is, in essence, to let water in, where possible, not hope to subdue Mother Nature: to live with the water, rather than struggle to defeat it. The Dutch devise lakes, garages, parks and plazas that are a boon to daily life but also double as enormous reservoirs for when the seas and rivers spill over. You may wish to pretend that rising seas are a hoax perpetrated by scientists and a gullible news media. Or you can build barriers galore. But in the end, neither will provide adequate defense, the Dutch say. And what holds true for managing climate change applies to the social fabric, too. Environmental and social resilience should go hand in hand, officials here believe, improving neighborhoods, spreading equity and taming water during catastrophes. Climate adaptation, if addressed head-on and properly, ought to yield a stronger, richer state. This is the message the Dutch have been taking out into the world. Dutch consultants advising the Bangladeshi authorities about emergency shelters and evacuation routes recently helped reduce the numbers of deaths suffered in recent floods to “hundreds instead of thousands,” according to Mr. Ovink. Read More here 3 April 2017, The Conversation, This is the first article in our series Making Cities Work. It considers the problems of providing critical infrastructure and how we might produce the innovations and reforms needed to meet 21st-century needs and challenges. New Resource Guide for Advanced Learning on Climate Change and Cities 19 December 2016: As part of its advanced learning series UN CC:Learn launches a new Resource Guide for Advanced Learning on Climate Change and Cities, produced with technical advice from the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). The learning resources presented in this Guide are drawn primarily from within the UN and partners to UN CC:Learn, designed to inform interested groups in learning more about climate change in urban areas. This material complements the UN CC:Learn Introductory e-Course on Climate Change, as well as the Specialised Module on Climate Change and Cities, The PDF and Interactive versions are both available online at UN CC:Learn Resource Guides for Advanced Learning on Climate Change. November 2016, The fight against climate change will be won or lost in urban areas. A vast majority of the European population lives and works in cities, consuming an estimated 80% of the energy used in the EU. Local administrations, as the closest government level to citizens are ideally placed to address climate issues in a comprehensive manner. More and more cities are thus deciding to take up the challenge, as shown by the growing number of Covenant of Mayors signatories.The commitments for Covenant Signatories are linked to the European Union’s Climate and energy policy framework. These include the European Union’s climate and energy package for 2020 for signatories who have joined between 2008 and 2015 and the European Union’s 2030 climate and energy framework as well as the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for signatories joining after 2015. As of October 2015, Covenant signatories commit to adopting an integrated approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation. They are required to develop Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans with the aims of cutting CO2 emissions by at least 40% by 2030 and increasing resilience to climate change within the first two years of adhesion. More details and the list of cities that have signed up to the Covenant of Mayors can be found here The Paris Climate Package reflects this position by recognizing and committing to engage local and subnational governments in fast tracking transformative climate action. This paves the way for local leaders to raise global ambitions, accelerate action and leverage resources unlocked through the new climate regime. Using the Paris Climate Package as a guide, local leaders can shape and sustain the global transition toward low carbon and resilient development, slashing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing local resilience, adaptive capacity and climate impact emergency preparedness. It is essential that all actors now use the Paris Climate Package as a compass for future action, yet its implications require further unpacking to understand what it means at the local and subnational levels. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) has developed this guide for local and subnational governments to address four key questions: Good reasons why local government should be shaping climate policy 6 January 2015, The Guardian, Five reasons why local government should influence climate change plans. Local authorities are closer to communities and often more innovative than national governments. Cutting them out of climate negotiations is a big mistake. Unless we, as an international community, significantly reduce our carbon emissions by the year 2100, temperatures could soar by 4.8°C. The impact is unimaginable. This is why all eyes are on the next UN climate talks in Paris in 2015 and expectations are high. During the UN preparatory talks in Lima in December 2014, I represented the Committee of the Regions – the EU’s assembly of local and regional authorities – and demanded that local government be formally recognised as a key player in all future climate negotiations. The initial talks were promising but the final text was disappointing, with the reference to local government being removed. But why should local government shape international climate change agreements? Here are five reasons: 1. The buck stops here: Local government is on the front line and is responsible for taking a wide range of decisions that can make or break the success of any international strategy on climate change. 2. Local leaders are more innovative and ambitious: The economic and social impact of climate change on communities cannot be understated. Local governments are leading the fight against climate change, taking decisive action on transport emissions, urban biodiversity, urban regeneration and waste management. 3. No one is better placed to get the public on board: One of the key roles local government can play in contributing to a global climate agreement is public engagement and stimulating local action. What is striking at many international climate conferences is how cut off citizens are from the negotiations and decision-making process. 4. Strong local leadership can mobilise communities: Strong local leadership and forging partnerships between local governments will cut costs and improve policy delivery. But local government needs support and investment to mobilise communities, businesses and civil society to reduce the impact of climate change. It is these representatives that can bring together economic operators and civil society to turn good ideas into tangible results – cooperatives for local energy production are a good example of this. 5. Think local, act global: Local governments can make a difference in international negotiations. While the international process of intergovernmental negotiations has almost ground to a halt, local governments around the world are agreeing on priorities for action. Decentralised cooperation arrangements have been established between regions and towns and cities. This is vital in establishing trust that national governments need to reach an ambitious global agreement. Read More here ICLEI: Tools dedicated to sustainable local change The ICLEI Virtual Library provides access to over 100 publications, including reports, flyers, case studies, posters. Access library docs here City Talk – A blog by ICLEI: Access ICLEI’s latest enewsletters with stories of sustainability-related news and commentary from around the globe. ICLEI Oceania is the Regional Secretariat for ICLEI. The ICLEI Oceania Head Office is hosted by the City of Melbourne and was established in 1999. The ICLEI Oceania Water Campaign – Australia Office is hosted by the City of Melville, WA. ICLEI Oceania provides support to Member councils and the Local Government sector that we believe adds value to our work to build sustainable communities. Our role is complemented by our World Secretariat based in Bonn Germany. The range of offerings is targeted at councils who not only wish to be leaders locally but to play their part globally. We in the Oceania Secretariat continue to build our capacity to advocate, partner, network and disseminate information. A list of Australian Councils which are members of ICLEI Oceania can be found here. Cities commit to cutting emissions First Round – MELBOURNE’S RESILIENCE CHALLENGE: Vulnerable to extreme weather events, this Australian city has already made huge steps toward increasing its resilience. Second Round – SYDNEY’S RESILIENCE CHALLENGE: Growth and aging infrastructure, combined with frequent heat waves, are spurring innovation in this bustling metropolis. Yet another report on the importance of building resilient cities – we know what and how to do it but it still seems a lot more talk than action 2013: BOUNCE FORWARD Urban Resilience in the Era of Climate Change (A Strategy Paper from Island Press and The Kresge Foundation): In an era rocked by climate change and other large-scale disruptions, our cities must be resilient in order to survive and thrive. But what does that mean, exactly? What is known about urban resilience, and what remains to be explored? And how can we put thinking into practice to create the resilient cities of the future? To help answer those questions, Island Press launched the Urban Resilience Project in 2013, with support from The Kresge Foundation. We began with a survey of the existing literature on resilience and reached out to a diverse group of organizers, researchers, planners, and other urban change agents. In a series of interviews and an all-day assembly, we listened deeply to what they had to say. This report endeavors to capture what we learned. Access PDF here Other sites for global cities’ get togethers The Covenant of Mayors is the mainstream European movement involving local and regional authorities, voluntarily committing to increasing energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources on their territories. By their commitment, Covenant signatories aim to meet and exceed the European Union 20% CO2 reduction objective by 2020. The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, now in its 10th year, connects more than 75 of the world’s greatest cities, representing 550+ million people and one quarter of the global economy United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) represents and defends the interests of local governments on the world stage, regardless of the size of the communities they serve. The World Mayors Council on Climate Change is an alliance of committed local government leaders concerned about climate change. They advocate for enhanced engagement of local governments as governmental stakeholders in multilateral efforts addressing climate change and related issues of global sustainability. There are presently over 80 members of the Council, representing a vast network of local governments working to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Membership is open to Mayors and equivalent leaders of municipal levels of government. Through CDP, cities around the world are measuring, monitoring and managing their impact on the environment. Over the past five years, CDP has worked with 207 cities to manage over 1 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. CDP’s cities program demonstrates that cities are better managing their risk and increasing resiliency through more than 2,000 activities to mitigate and adapt to climate change. They hold the largest collection globally of self reported climate change, water and forest-risk data. U.S. cities and their energy efficiency policy and program efforts The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) is a nonprofit, organization,which acts as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments, and behaviors. USA cities energy efficiency scorecard ranking Every other year, ACEEE ranks the largest U.S. cities on their energy efficiency policy and program efforts and provides recommendations for ways that the cities can improve their performance in a variety of policy areas. The City Energy Efficiency Scorecard serves as a benchmark for city efforts, encouraging cities to continue strengthening their efficiency commitments as a pragmatic and effective strategy for promoting economic growth, securing environmental benefits, and increasing their communities’ resilience in the face of the uncertain costs and supplies of the energy resources on which they depend.Also listed are cities and counties that are not included in the City Scorecard. While these cities are unranked they have used the Local Energy Efficiency Self-Scoring Tool to organize information on their efficiency policies and to generate scores equivalent to those presented in the City Scorecard. You can access the most recent City Energy Efficiency Scorecard rankings here. Under each of the cities listed you will find: local govt summary; energy efficiency goals; performance management strategies; procurement & construction; and asset management. Throughout the information there are direct links to documents Local Policy Case Studies: ACEEE also has case study information that describe efforts by local communities across the United States to improve their energy efficiency. Included are examples of notable initiatives across a variety of policy approaches, economic sectors, regions of the country, and community types. This collection is a work in progress and will continue to expand over time as we highlight additional efforts from around the country. Access these case studies here 
Infrastructure: Our cities and regions depend on the critical nodes and arteries that together comprise urban infrastructure systems. This includes energy, food, water, sewerage and communications. The positioning of critical infrastructure is crucial to our understanding of the world we live in and how we see ourselves. It’s our means of survival as Homo urbanis. This means key questions around critical infrastructure need to be better considered. How is it critical, when and for whom? Beyond espionage, sabotage and coercion. Critical infrastructure has received much attention in recent years. The reasons include concerns about exposure to terrorist attack, disruption by disasters, rising awareness of the interdependent nature of urban infrastructure, and changes in ownership and responsibility for infrastructure assets….Infrastructure is defined as critical on the basis of what is at threat should it be destroyed or disabled, and how much that matters. Yet what is critical about critical infrastructure is not just a matter of national security threats. It is also the key linkages between this infrastructure and human and environmental system vulnerability, integrity and equity. Experiences of critical infrastructure are not equal, but highly contingent on political and economic priorities, influence and opportunity. Read More here
3 April 2017, The Conversation, From Smart Cities 1.0 to 2.0: it’s not (only) about the tech. This is the second article in our series Making Cities Work. It considers the problems of providing critical infrastructure and how we might produce the innovations and reforms needed to meet 21st-century needs and challenges. Australia, one of the world’s most urbanised nations, is looking to up its investment in digital technologies to make our cities work better. In coming months, tech companies, local governments and other eligible organisations will be teaming up to apply for round one of the federal government’s A$50 million Smart Cities and Suburbs Program. The program is seeking ideas for prototypes and platforms that can help solve a local urban challenge of some kind. As the draft guidelines suggest, project funding could be used for anything from managing waste better, making local precincts more liveable, or helping citizens become more engaged with their councils, to developing systems that help planners better predict local development impacts. Compared to other areas of federal infrastructure spending – like roads – $50 million for smart city investments may not sound like much. But it’s a bit of a windfall for an area that has struggled to get off the ground in Australia for the past few years. Australia has been in no hurry to become smart. Overseas, many cities have put significant effort into building their profile as smart cities. They have invested in technology acceleration, data analytics, visualisation and instrumentation programs, and so on. Before launching the federal program, Australia had made relatively few investments in smart city programs. Those investments remained relatively modest. Read More here
Covenant of Mayors for climate and energy
May 2016, A Basic Guide for Local and Subnational Governments
