In the lead-up to the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December this provides us with plenty of food for thought on city-level strategies to deal with global warming. The cities have good reason to address the problem in order to improve the local environment for their residents.

What is happening sooner than expected is that the mega-cities of the developing world are already rivaling or even exceeding the CO2 footprint of major cities in the developed world, both in terms of total output and per capita.

The UN-backed Bangkok Assessment Report on Climate Change 2009 found that the Thai capital emitted 43 million tons of CO2 in 2005, lower than the figure for New York (58 million tons) but almost the same as London (44 million tons). In per capita terms, Bangkok residents were responsible for producing 7.1 tons of CO2 per year in 2007, the same level of emissions as New Yorkers and significantly higher than Londoners (5.9 tons per capita).

Transportation, electricity generation, solid waste and waste water account for about 90 per cent of the emissions in Bangkok.

The transport sector alone is responsible for 38 per cent of the yearly CO2 emission, reflecting a massive expansion in the use of passenger vehicles. The number of motor vehicles registered in Bangkok rose from 600,000 in 1980 to 4,163,000 in 1999, a sevenfold increase, and by the end of 2007 the figure had reached 5,614,294.

Let us not forget how vulnerable developing cities are to climate change. Bangkok gets its water supply from the Chao Phraya and Mae Klong rivers, both of which are fed by Tibetan glaciers, as are almost all the rivers of mainland Asia. So a rise in temperature, resulting in the further melting of the glaciers, would increase the likelihood of floods in Thailand.

The double-whammy for Bangkok is that it is also vulnerable to a rise in the sea level. Almost 55 percent of the city would be vulnerable to floods if the sea level rose by 50 cm, and 72 percent would be threatened by a rise of 100 cm.

So it is clear that Bangkok is primary example of a developing world city that needs to adapt to and mitigate climate change, not only as part of an international strategy to combat global warming, but also because of the immediate threat to its own residents.

The measures to be implemented by Asia’s growing metropolises to cut their CO2 emissions and improve the quality of life for residents include investing in public transport in order to achieve a modal shift away from private vehicles, appropriate road pricing to deter vehicles from entering city centers, as has been adopted in Singapore and London, and better public information on travel options as well as education on the health costs of poor air quality because of increased use of private vehicles. Similar measures need to be implemented in the energy and waste management sectors.

In Copenhagen, alongside the formal procedures of the conference of the parties, which are predominately nation states, there will undoubtedly be a lot of focus on what cities can contribute to humanity’s battle against climate change because the environmental impact of the world’s major cities is much greater than that of many nation states.

Indeed, capital cities in the developed and developing worlds both often dominate their national economies, with Bangkok acting as the economic hub of Thailand’s economy in a way that is not dissimilar to the role of London in the UK economy.

This does suggest that major cities should also be made into parties to the conference, legally bound to any future agreement and commitments. There could also be instances where cities and their regions may agree to many of the changes that their nation states’ representatives reject. This is what happened in the US when the Bush administration refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which many American cities and regions, such as San Francisco and the state of California, signed.

While opt-outs should be discouraged, this more flexible approach could be useful in any developing nation that refuses to sign an international agreement on the grounds that the developed world has failed to accept its responsibilities.

Published in China Daily, 22 October 2209

During my recent trip to China to attend a conference on air quality in Shanghai it became quite clear to me that, while the first phase of the recession has not yet come to a close in the UK, with possible further economic gloom still ahead, along its east coast China is still booming. That is not surprising given that China’s annual GDP growth rate stands at 6-8 per cent while our economy is undergoing potentially a 4 per cent contraction.

From what I saw during my brief stay there, street life in the evenings in Shanghai seemed very lively, and the confidence in evidence on the street was also expressed by the politicians l met on the trip. They pointed out how we had been forced to bail out our banks when they did not have to, despite years of western complaints about the lack of transparency in China’s banking system. This is a clear sign that the world is moving away from the Washington consensus to a new paradigm of development where state intervention is more acceptable.

But what does China’s boom mean for London? Clearly Shanghai is a serious challenger to our status as a global financial centre and will be even more so after the Shanghai Expo, which will take place between May and October 2010. Some 70 million people are expected to attend this event, which is being promoted around the theme of “Better City and Better Life”.

The sad thing is that the UK is not part of China’s boom nor are we likely to be, a reflection of the global shift in economic power from the West to the East (see Anthony Hilton’s recent article in the Evening Standard). We certainly need to be out there promoting ourselves during the Shanghai Expo at the very least. We also have to be prepared to learn from China, as l did on the environmental front from their use of electronic street signs to inform the public about levels of noise and air pollution. This is something l hope we can duplicate on the streets of London.

The creation of a “low carbon” economy that will provide jobs and clean up industry is now a crucial policy objective for countries trying to spend their way out of the world economic downturn. A recent report by HSBC calculates that the United States is allocating 12 per cent of its fiscal stimulus to the green economy and China, 34 per cent.

There is a compelling scientific, economic and strategic case for low carbon development and the first movers have a lot to gain with worldwide investment in renewable energy having grown by 65 per cent a year since 2004, and projected to reach $600 billion a year by 2020.

China’s 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-10) includes a target to reduce energy intensity by 20 per cent during that period. This would translate to a saving of emissions around four times greater than the European Union’s current commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.

But despite these ambitious objectives China’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are already on par with those of the US and rising fast. This is clearly driven by the imperative of economic growth for China’s 1.3 billion people. China thus faces a qualitatively different challenge to the one that faced by industrializing nations in the past: of combining rapid industrialization, urbanization and poverty reduction with the transition to a low carbon economy.

No country has ever done this before, but the Chinese appreciate that carrying out the work of energy conservation and emission reduction and coping with climate change is a requirement of the Scientific Development Concept.

In response to the challenge of achieving a low carbon economy in China, a number of research institutes working with Chatham House in London have developed the concept of low carbon zones (LCZs). These will aim to stimulate transformational regional political leadership in a similar fashion to the special economic zones (SEZs) in the early 1980s, which gave certain regions the power to introduce more liberal economic regulations than the rest of the country, with some spectacular results.

Under the LCZ scheme, designated regions could be granted similar powers to experiment with a low carbon policy. To qualify for the LCZ status, regional leaders would have to commit to low carbon standards beyond the existing benchmarks at the national level.

These LCZs could then attract hi-tech foreign direct investment through measures such as strong patent protection, tax incentives and targeted recruitment of skilled workers. They could attract new types of carbon finance, too, by building the institutional capacity required to support local emissions trading schemes, drawing on international experience and underpinned by strong monitoring and reporting systems.

Furthermore, allowing them to pilot harmonization of standards with Europe in key low carbon sectors such as vehicle emissions, energy using products and construction would help facilitate Chinese exports and enhance trade and investment flows in the LCZs.

A second variant of the LCZ can be found in the UK, where there are similar proposals but on a smaller scale and mainly in the context of local rather than regional government. Cities are massive producers of carbon dioxide not just from traffic, but also from more energy use in buildings. So it is not surprising to hear calls to introduce a rolling program of LCZs aimed at dramatically improving the energy efficiency of all buildings — public and commercial premises and especially houses.

Here a precedent exists in the smokeless zones of the 1950s, which reduced pollution arising from the use of coal after the smog of 1952 killed 4,000 people in London. These LCZs could be rolled out across the country incrementally, with local authorities declaring an area to be an LCZ. Private sector partners would then be invited to deliver the actual service.

These partners would assess each building or house for energy efficiency and design and implement individual energy saving regimes. Within a specified time, it would become mandatory for all properties in the zone to reach the minimum ratings of energy efficiency.

A range of technologies and measures is available to ensure that energy efficiency addresses the whole property, and many of the measures will pay for themselves through lower bills. Focusing the zones on neighborhoods has great advantages because there are economies to be made from concentrating on defined areas and scope — for example, by introducing combined heat and power plants. This second form of LCZ was proposed by the last administration at London’s City Hall by the then deputy mayor.

Designing and implementing effective policies to drive the transition to a low carbon economy and share the costs equitably is a major political challenge for governments across the world. As we pursue the low carbon route to future economic development, LCZs both in their Chinese and UK variants offer an important means of dealing with the challenges ahead.

Published in China Daily, 5 May 2009

You can also join in the discussion at China Dialogue.

Having been in Beijing for the whole of the very successful 29th Olympiad in August, and then attended the Urban Transportation Management Forum organized by the Shenzhen Municipal Government to talk to their Planning Bureau about the experience of congestion charging in London, during my visit of East Coast cities in China l was struck by the possibility of introducing congestion charging to Beijing itself. Such measures need increasingly to be considered in response to the necessity both to reduce congestion and also to improve air quality in Beijing, particularly after the successful short-term measures undertaken during the Olympics come to an end.

Certainly the clear blue skies at the end of the Beijing Olympics were impressive, particularly after the concerns expressed by some about the possible adverse effects of air pollution on the performance of top athletes. The latter of course did not materialize, as we saw 43 world records and 120 Olympic records shattered in the course of the Games. Credit here should go to the initiatives taken by the city authorities to improve the air quality in Beijing over the period of the Olympics, which has essentially been achieved by providing better and cheaper public transport and by implementing the car licensing scheme. The success of the latter has interestingly led to local people calling for the extension of the two-month odd-even license plate restriction that allows the city’s 3.3 million private car owners to drive only on alternate days. In the case of public transport Zhou Zhengyu, Deputy Director of the Beijing municipal committee during the Olympics, announced that the reduced ticket prices brought in for the duration of the Games would be extended for some considerable time afterwards. Remember that in Beijing there was a cut in the standard price of a bus ticket by 60 per cent for regular passengers and 80 per cent for students. And last October, the price of a single journey subway ticket was slashed by 30 per cent to 2 yuans. So, not surprisingly, as a result of the cheaper fares and traffic control measures introduced for the Olympics, the proportion of Beijing residents now using public transport on a daily basis is up to 45 per cent from 35 per cent.

The national government initiative since the beginning of September to raise taxes on big cars and reduce them on smaller ones, in order to save energy and cut pollution, will also contribute to improving the quality of life in Beijing. Owners of cars with engines above 4 litres capacity will have to pay 40 per cent tax, double the existing rate. The tax for cars between 3 and 4 litres will rise from 15 to 25 per cent, while those below 1 litre capacity will be reduced from 3 to 1 per cent. Furthermore, the tax move is a good first step for the country towards an energy-efficient and environmentally friendly economy, while helping to save fuel and thus increase energy security.

Yet Beijing will still be home to about 3.3 million cars, and the figure is growing by 300,000 a year. The only solution to this challenge is the continuous development of the city’s public transport system along the lines already implemented by the authorities, but with one addition – congestion charging that will ration road space by price, so that the marginal cost of an additional trip by a car owner will be paramount in their minds.

The geography of Beijing, with its various ring roads, would lend itself very easily to congestion charging. A congestion charge zone could be introduced within either Ring Road 2 or 3 at the beginning and then be extended outwards depending on the success of the scheme and public demand for it. As in London, in order to win public support, the funds raised from the congestion charge would have to be seen to be reinvested into public transport, and some exemptions or at least a discount rate might have to be granted to residents within the charge zone. Nevertheless, the scheme could be put into operation very quickly using simple technology like CCTV at the entry points off the ring roads and camera enforcement using a database of car licenses. (Though l understand there is not as yet a national database of car licenses in China, and l am unsure as to numbers of cars that move between the various cities of China, this should not be an insurmountable hurdle for the authorities to overcome.)

So l look forward to one day visiting Beijing again and seeing road congestion charging, or least another variant of road pricing, being implemented to improve the quality of life for Beijingers. This should be the icing on the cake, on top of the outstanding investment already undertaken by the authorities, and would be consistent with the Chinese national authorities’ focus on people-centered and scientific methods of development.