Sustainable Cities: Lessons in Bottom-Up Climate Action
by Kirsten Drehobl, (Director of Communications, COP25 Delegate)
When discussing the living spaces of people around the world, there is usually a sharp contrast between cities and rural areas. The ways that various climate problems must be addressed are entirely different; not only they are two different environments, but because each location is different, due to the nature of the people that live there. Cities are a particularly challenging topic to discuss because of the high population density, and therefore high emissions in a smaller space. For cities to contribute to climate action, their infrastructure must be completely changed, or they will be unsustainable.
American cities in particular need to reform the way that they deal with city sustainability because reform is uneven amongst regions and incongruent with the targets that the U.S. has set for reduced climate emissions in 2030 and 2050. While some companies are redesigning various parts of the structures of cities, this requires initiatives from the cities to employ them and money and desire to change. First and foremost, legislation needs to come from a federal level, and money amassed so that local governments can take action to implement climate policies. In a panel that I attended, put on by “America’s Pledge”, from the U.S. group “We Are Still In”, American speakers showed that the projected difference between government intervention (and thus funding) and continuing with our current plan is the difference between 59% reduction and 26% reduction.
If the U.S. is able to create a “Bottom-Up” policy, we will experience the greatest amount of positive change, because every city is unique and has innate characteristics that cannot be accounted for through a more general policy. Local leaders, businesses, and grass-roots organizations know their cities and also using local solutions and materials cuts the carbon used from shipping and production. If buildings and materials are being recycled and reused to create new sustainable spaces, and not just creating new from scratch, energy outputs and costs can be saved. I had the chance to hear Mahendra Singh speak about his company, Dalvia cement, at a round table on circular economies and sustainable cities. Dalvia is the highest-earning cement company in the world and also has a negative carbon footprint because they reuse waste materials from other local companies. Dalvia has also brought down carbon footprints in cities by capturing carbon dioxide in waste, a technology that is not feasible on a large scale, but can be implemented at a local level. Technology, in particular, is difficult to assess, because it is always changing, but investing in local innovators funds city economies and encourages sustainable development.
The mindset behind technological advancement is also troubling because so often there is an attitude focusing on the life span of such products and how they will be disposed of, rather than how they can be reused and given a new life. William McDonough, an American architect and head of the green global consulting firm, McDonough Innovation, is the co-creator of the cradle to cradle model. This model advises that all technologies and items should have a second purpose and should break down to technical and biological nutrients. He sees cities as living organisms and incorporates natural elements and designs in buildings and systems. Natural light, increased green space, solar energy, and water catchment systems are only a few elements that he employs to improve the health and sustainability of the city. There is no better example of the cradle to cradle model than the city of Turku, in Finland. Turku is on track to be net negative in emissions by 2029, which their mayor, Minna Arve, attributes to collaboration. Turku has found a use for its liquid waste, or sludge, by capturing the methane found in liquid waste, that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, which can create energy in place of natural gas. This also purifies the water that is released back into the ocean, reducing water contamination. Mayor Arve says that they could not have reached this level of success without the cooperation from municipalities, sectors, universities, and private businesses. When these groups work together, there are several different perspectives and approaches which can be applied. Arve also shared that Turku modeled some of their programs off of existing programs in cities of similar size and makeup. This is something that I hope to implement in my own city of Indianapolis. Collaborating with a city that has already has developed sustainability programs will give us insight into funding, development, and implementation of green initiatives, and will also help us avoid potential problems that may arise. Having a distinct goal and model in mind will give citizens a vision of what we can become and how we can get there.
In Indianapolis, one of the biggest emissions problems that we face is gas burned from transport. Globally, carbon emissions from automobiles account for 15% of total carbon pollution. Cities with established forms of public transit have been successful in reducing their emission production. (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions). Because Indianapolis is very spread out and lacks public transportation, nearly everyone drives a car. This is bad not only from an environmental point of view, but it also limits lower-income residents who cannot afford cars to a bus system that is not well executed. Having a bus and train system that is naturally integrated into the layout of the city is essential in encouraging public transit use, and ultimately reducing emissions.
Attending an event with so many experts was intimidating at first, coming from a city with limited sustainable systems. However, I came away with a myriad of different solutions and approaches to green city development from regions that are similar to and different from mine. Above all else, cooperation between sectors, businesses, and even between other cities are essential to success, because as I heard so many times this week, everything is interconnected. The health of cities is tied to green spaces, equity among citizens, and holistic solutions. While reducing emissions is the ultimate goal, we must do it in a thoughtful way that involves the entire community and contributes to the well-being of all its inhabitants.