The IPL newsletter: Volume 10, Issue 206

INTRODUCTION

This newsletter is published by The Innovation Policy Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, and sponsored by the Ministry of Research and Innovation. The views and ideas expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ontario Government.

White Paper on Science and Technology 2009

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
This report addresses the issue of how Japan should weather the gathering storm of fierce international competition intensified by the emergence of China and the other BRICs countries. Faced with a growing economic crisis, many countries are seeking to generate employment by investing in environment- and energy-related fields, giving impetus to what may be called the
“Green New Deal.” By generating and productizing innovative technologies in such fields, an accelerating shift is afoot toward a low-carbon society, which, in turn, will spawn significant socioeconomic changes. Concurrently, new trends of open or global innovation are coalescing along with the increasing mobility of and intensifying competition among talented researchers to draw Japan into a full-fledged period of global transformation. This paper addresses future modes of science and technology expected to advance solutions to the environmental and other global issues while endeavoring to preserve sustainable socioeconomic development among the world’s countries; strengthening the competitiveness of Japan’s Monodzukuri and service sectors; and meeting a diverse set of public needs for a safe and secure living environment

Competitive Cities and Climate Change

Lamia Kamal-Chaoui and Alexis Robert, OECD
Cities are part of the climate change problem, but they are also a key part of the solution. This report offers a comprehensive analysis of how cities and metropolitan regions can change the way we think about responding to climate change. Cities consume the vast majority of global energy and are therefore major contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the exposed infrastructure and prevalent coastal location of many cities makes them common targets for climate change impacts such as sea level rise and fiercer storms. This report illustrates how local involvement through “climate-conscious” urban planning and management can help achieve national climate goals and minimize tradeoffs between environmental and economic priorities. Six main chapters analyse the link between urbanisation, energy use and CO2 emissions; assess the potential contribution of local policies in reducing global energy demand and the trade-offs between economic and environmental objectives at the local scale; discuss complementary and mutually reinforcing policies such as the combination of compact growth policies with those that improve mass transit linkages; and evaluate a number of tools, including the “greening” of existing fiscal policies, financing arrangements to combat climate change at the local level, and green innovation and jobs programmes. One of the main messages of this report is that urban policies (e.g. densification or congestion charges) can complement global climate policies (e.g. a carbon tax) by reducing global energy demand, CO2 emissions and the overall abatement costs of reducing carbon emissions. To inform the groundswell of local climate change action planning, the report highlights best practices principally from OECD member countries but also from certain non-member countries.

Cities and Climate Change: A Two-Way Relationship

• Cities are major contributors to CO2 emissions: Roughly half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and this share is increasing over time, projected to reach 60% by 2030. Cities consume a great majority – between 60 to 80% – of energy production worldwide and account for a roughly equal share of global CO2 emissions.
• Climate change poses key threats to urban infrastructures and quality of life: The tendency for cities to be located in coastal areas increases their vulnerability to water-related calamities, increasing the risk to property, livelihoods and urban infrastructure. Rising sea levels are a critical issue for major cities – for example, in Europe, 70% of the largest cities have areas that are less than 10 meters above sea level.

Cities are not to be blames – urban form, lifestyle and energy sources are what count

• How cities grow and operate matters for energy and demand and for GHG emissions: Energy use, and thus carbon emissions, are chiefly driven by how electricity is produced, use of energy in buildings and to move around the city. Urban density and spatial organization are key factors that influence energy consumption, especially in the transportation and building sectors. Increasing density could significantly reduce energy consumption in urban areas. For instance, Japan’s urban areas are around five times denser than Canada’s, and the consumption of electricity per capita in the former is around 40% that of the latter.
• Lifestyles, in particular the way in which people commute, are also crucial in the generation of emmissions: Cities’ emissions can vary depending on their lifestyles, spatial form and public transport availability. In other words, it is not cities, or urbanisation per se, that contribute to GHG emissions, but rather the way in which people move around the city, the sprawl that they produce, the way in which people use energy at home and how buildings are heated that make cities the great consumers of energy and polluters that they are. As urban areas become denser and rely more on public transport, carbon emissions are reduced.
• Cities’ energy sources matter: The impact of energy consumption on GHG emissions depends not just on the amount consumed, but also on the GHG emissions generated by the energy source, which in turn depend on the mode of energy production. For example, Cape Town has comparatively low per capital electricity consumption than Geneva, but its consumption has a higher GHG emissions factor, due to South Africa’s use of coal for 92% of its electricity generation whilst Geneva relies on hydropower. Technology also matters: urban areas relying on inefficient or wasteful energy sources contribute more GHG emissions then than those that consume the same amount from more efficient sources.

Urban Policies Can Contribute to a Global Climate Agenda

• Costs of delaying action on climate change are high: While climate change mitigation and adaptation policies require significant investment, delaying action can increase future costs and limit future options for adapting to climate change impacts or reducing emissions in cities. Direct costs from climate change impacts can be staggeringly high, especially when related to natural disasters and sea level rise. For example, shoreline retreat in the United States is projected to cost
  between USD 270 billion to 475 billion per metre climb in sea level.
• Urban policy can contribute to national emmissions reduction targets: Findings from a general equilibrium model (CGE model) with an urban module demonstrate that urban policies such as increases in spatial density and congestion charges can lead to a reduction of total OECD global energy demand and, consequently, of CO2 emissions.

The Urban Climate Agenda Requires a Smart Mix of Policy Instruments

• Cities serve as policy labs for action on climate change: Many cities and metropolitan regions around the world are taking action on climate change – even in the absence of national policies and commitments – not only out of recognition of cities’ contributions to and risks from climate change, but also of the opportunities to lower the potential tradeoffs between economic growth and environmental priorities.
• Cities have key competencies to act on climate change: through their responsibilities over urban sectors such as land-use zoning, transportation, natural resources management, buildings, waste and water services. Urban authorities make decisions that determine or influence public transportation systems, the built environment, renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, and the sustainability of services delivery. Cities and metropolitan regions are well positioned to
  develop policy and programmatic solutions that best meet specific geographic, climatic, economic, and cultural conditions.
• Effective climate policy packages should seek policy complimentarities: among and within urban sectors to implement policies that enhance each other’s effectiveness. For example, landuse zoning policies that allow for higher densities and greater mixing of residential and commercial uses can enhance transportation climate goals by reducing trip distances and
  frequency while strategic mass transit linkages can attract development and thus promote compact growth.
• Action on climate change should optimize existing urban modes of governance: Climate action on the urban level happens through local regulations, urban services, programme administration, city purchasing and property management, and convening of local stakeholders.
• Successful compact cities policies rely on well-designed strategic plans: Policies to increase the concentration of urban areas in the long term and manage outward expansion have gained popularity across the OECD, particularly in the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Japan, which has initiated an “Eco-Compact City” policy. While the higher residential densities targeted by these policies have the most direct effect on GHG emissions, transportation linkages – particularly between employment centres and residential zones – are crucial to ensuring that increases in density translate into reductions in personal vehicle use.
• National governments can play a role in supporting and removing barriers to greater urban governance: and enhance cities’ capacity to act on climate change issues. Key roles include providing funding and technical assistance to cities and regions, such as in Finland and Sweden. Climate mandates in national urban and regional policies in Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the United Kingdom, and in the Korean “Green New Deal”, can advance local climate action. Strong national targets for adaptation and GHG emissions reductions can help prevent regional competition based on environmental regulations and even promote a “race to the top” through incentives, such as Japan’s “Environment-Friendly Model City” award.