Search

While the urban is identified as a productive site for addressing climate change, the ‘post-political’ critique dismisses climate policy as a vacuous discourse that obscures power relations and exclusion, defends the established neoliberal order, and silences challenges. This paper argues that rather than consensus, there is a conflict between urban climate policy and the need to reignite economic growth in the context of austerity urbanism, but also that we should not assume that challenges to neoliberal understandings of the ‘sensible’ will always be disregarded. Rather, urban climate policy can be progressed through partnership processes utilising ‘co-production’ techniques which entail significant agonistic, if not antagonistic, contestation. The argument is illustrated with a case study of climate policy making in the context of austerity urbanism in Liverpool, UK. While ‘low carbon’ is conceptualised by elite actors in Liverpool in neoliberal terms as a source of new low carbon jobs and businesses, with an emphasis on energy security and fuel poverty, this view is not unchallenged. The paper recounts how an ad hoc group of actors in the city came together to form a partnership advocating for more strategic decarbonisation, which should be progressed through a bid for the city to be European Green Capital. The disputes that emerged around this agenda suggest that in the context of austerity urbanism the need for cities to act to mitigate against dangerous climate change is not as uncontested as conceptions of the post-political suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coastal megacities pose a particular challenge for climate change adaptation and resilience planning. These dense concentrations of population, economic activity, and consumption—the majority of which are in the Global South—are often extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts such as sea level rise and extreme weather. This paper unpacks these complexities through a case study of Metropolitan Manila, the capital of the Philippines, which represents an example of “double exposure” to climate change impacts and globalization. The city is experiencing tremendous population and economic growth, yet Manila is plagued by frequent natural disasters, congestion, inadequate infrastructure, poverty, and income inequality. The need for metro-wide planning and infrastructure transformations to address these problems is widely recognized, but governance challenges are a major barrier. Drawing on fieldwork, interviews, and other primary and secondary sources, I argue that climate change and globalization, in combination with Manila’s historical and physical context, critically shape metro-wide infrastructure planning. Focusing on electricity and green infrastructure, I find that the largely decentralized and privatized urban governance regime is perpetuating a fragmented and unequal city, which may undermine urban climate resilience. This study extends the double exposure framework to examine how global processes interact with contextual factors to critically shape urban infrastructure planning, and how the resulting system conforms to theorized characteristics of urban climate resilience. In doing so, I help to connect emerging literatures on double exposure, urban infrastructure planning, and urban climate resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]