Search

Abstract Cities, the core of the global climate change mitigation and strategic low-carbon development, are shelters to more than half of the world population and responsible for three quarters of global energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG). This special volume (SV) provides a platform that promotes multi- and inter- disciplinary analyses and discussions on the climate change mitigation for cities. All papers are divided into four themes, including GHG emission inventory and accounting, climate change and urban sectors, climate change and sustainable development, and strategies and mitigation action plans. First, this SV provides methods for constructing emission inventory from both production and consumption perspectives. These methods are useful to improve the comprehensiveness and accuracy of carbon accounting for international cities. Second, the climate change affects urban sectors from various aspects; simultaneously, GHG emissions caused by activities in urban sectors affect the climate system. This SV focuses on mitigation policies and assessment of energy, transport, construction, and service sectors. Third, climate change mitigation of cities is closely connected to urban sustainable development. This SV explores the relationships between climate change mitigation with urbanization, ecosystems, air pollution, and extreme events. Fourth, climate change mitigation policies can be divided into two categories: quantity-based mechanism (e.g., carbon emission trading) and price-based mechanism (e.g., carbon tax). This SV provides experiences of local climate change mitigation all over the world and proposes the city-to-city cooperation on climate change mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type A1 (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type A1) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biomass plays a dual role as an energy source and a solution for climate change mitigation. There are complexities surrounding decentralized electricity generation, and Ghana could not achieve its 10% renewable energy target in 2020. The paper assesses the greenhouse gas mitigation potential and economic impact of electricity from major food crop residues subjected to anaerobic digestion technology in 16 regions and 88 districts in Ghana from 2017 to 2020. Buswell equation was applied to calculate the biogas and methane yield. The environmental impact assessment was expressed as global warming potential, and the economic feasibility was conducted. The results showed that crop residues' annual theoretical and technical potential was 28.92 Mt and 17.24 Mt. The top four residues with the largest share of technical potential were maize (5.41 Mt), yam (3.58 Mt), plantain (3.05 Mt) and cassava (2.39 Mt). Biogas and electricity potentials were 1,912.74 Mm3 and 3,068.34 GWh, which could offset 15.56% of electricity consumption in Ghana. The Ashanti (478.18 GWh), Eastern (430.20 GWh), Bono East (318.29 GWh) and Northern (314 GWh) regions demonstrated the highest electricity potential. Ghana could generate the highest electricity potential of 46.52 GWh in the districts and a minimum potential of 0.89 GWh annually. Power generation potential from anaerobic digestion had a diesel displacement capacity of 923.35 × 10 6 L with a GHG emissions reduction of 2,507.35 kt CO 2 eq. The largest GHG reduction potential was 38.15 kt CO 2 eq at the district level. The findings show that the project is economically viable, with an average net present value of $ 10,105,904 per region and an electricity cost of $ 0.0321/kWh. The study provides critical insights to policymakers and industry developers for decentralized biomass-based electricity generation in Ghana. • A sustainable crop residue assessment is conducted in Ghana. • The total biogas-based electricity is 3,068.34 GWh. • Ashanti region has high electricity (478.18 GWh) than Greater Accra (9.82 GWh). • The total GHG mitigation is estimated as 2507.35 kt CO 2 eq. • The project is economically viable at a cost of $ 0.0321/kWh. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Finance has become a crucial agenda in climate change negotiations in recent years. Meanwhile, multilateral negotiations on climate change as a whole are making meager progress, and increasingly observed are activities by national governments and transnational non-state actors. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how investment towards low-carbon development could be materialized in Asia. A thorough review of current financial assistance for developing countries in Asia was conducted, and the amount of funding proved to be relatively modest to achieve the aim. We then examined financial policy instruments that could be implemented in the region. We estimated that USD125–149 billion per year would be needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region by 2035. We also estimated that more than a half of this amount of funding could be achieved by public sector if several key policy instruments were agreed upon and enacted at regional and national levels in Asia. The role of private sector investment was also found to be indispensable in fulfilling all the long-term investment needs related to climate mitigation in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geoengineering, which is the intentional large-scale manipulation of the environment, has been suggested as an effective means of mitigating global warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In this paper, we will review and assess technical and theoretical aspects of land-based, atmosphere-based, ocean-based and space-based geoengineering schemes as well as their potential impacts on global climate and ecosystem. Most of the proposed geoengineering schemes carried out on land or in the ocean are to use physical, chemical or biological approaches to remove atmospheric CO 2 . These schemes are able to only sequester an amount of atmospheric CO 2 that is small compared with cumulative anthropogenic emissions. Most of geoengineering schemes carried out in the atmosphere or space are based on increasing planetary albedo. These schemes have relatively low costs and short lead times for technical implementation, and can act rapidly to reduce temperature anomalies caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The costs and benefits of geoengineering are likely to vary spatially over the planet with some countries and regions gaining considerably while others may be faced with a worse set of circumstances than would be the case without geoengineering. Since current research on geoengineering is limited and various international treaties may limit some geoengineering experiments in the real world, the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) provides a framework of coordinated experiments for all earth system modeling groups to test geoengineering schemes. However, these experiments used on a global scale have difficulty with accurate resolution of regional and local impacts, so future research on geoengineering is expect to be done by combining earth system models with regional climate models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU sector) cover the 24% of global emissions, representing the second hot spot in the contribution to climate change after the energy sector. Thus, the land sector plays a crucial role in the context of climate change, being both a contributor to the problem and part of its solution, particularly thanks to the capacity of soils and biomass to sequester atmospheric carbon. The challenge of this paper is to understand the extent to which sustainable land management can be a valuable solution for increasing the mitigation potential of the land sector, particularly at small-scale rural landscape level.The paper presents and tests a land-based approach to be applied at small-scale rural landscape level, aiming at reducing and offsetting GHG emissions from the livestock activities, one of the main sources of GHG emissions of the whole agricultural sector. The proposed land-based approach builds on an ensemble of methodologies, including Geographic Information System (GIS) elaboration, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and methodologies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that allow estimating livestock GHG emissions and the mitigation potential of sustainable land-use options applied in the same small-scale rural landscape.Results from a case study in Italy show that land-based mitigation options applied at small-scale rural landscape level can reduce and completely offset the GHG livestock emissions of the same area, leading to carbon neutral livestock systems. Thus, this study confirms that the land sector can strongly contribute to climate change mitigation if sustainable land-use options are applied. • Land-based mitigation options at small-scale landscape level can lead to carbon neutral livestock systems. • Land sector can strongly contribute to climate change mitigation if sustainable land-based options are applied. • Land-based mitigation options can be applied in the immediate proximity of the livestock GHG emissions source. • Land-based climate change mitigation contributes also to a wide range of ecological co-benefits at landscape level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural activities and associated land use change are a major contributor to global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making climate change mitigation in the agricultural sector all the more critical. However, farmers' willingness to adopt GHG abatement depends, to a large extent, on the financial implications of new practices. Climate change mitigation is unlikely to be adopted without external (financial, socio-cultural, or other) incentives. The research presented in this paper considers farmers' preferences for financing climate change mitigation practices through public crowdfunding. As a first study of its kind, we investigate farmers' attitudes towards climate change mitigation, knowledge of crowdfunding as a fundraising method, and interest in using public crowdfunding campaigns to finance on-farm mitigation practices. Based on a choice experiment survey with 443 Norwegian farmers, we show that knowledge about crowdfunding as an alternative finance method is generally low. Respondents who are interested in using crowdfunding prefer donation- or reward-based crowdfunding models that cover the full cost of mitigation over a loan-based model or campaigns that only fund a proportion of the costs. A financially secure farming business, previous exposure to crowdfunding, and a strong sense of responsibility to abate climate change are associated with higher farmers' interest in using crowdfunding. We find that farmers in Norway are hesitant to be publicly presented as recipients of crowdfunding, which suggests that crowdfunding is best set up as joint campaigns (e.g. with other farmers) that are run by intermediary organisations (rather than by individual farmers). Our findings highlight that, while opportunities to use crowdfunding as a fundraising method for agricultural climate change may be limited, properly designed campaigns can provide an effective instrument to engage certain groups of farmers in on-farm climate change mitigation. • Crowdfunding can be used to raise funds for agricultural climate change mitigation. • There is currently no research on farmers' interest in crowdfunding. • We conduct a choice experiment survey of Norwegian farmers. • About 25% of farmers would be interested in crowdfunding to finance mitigation measures. • Donation- or reward-based models, and campaigns that collaborate with other farmers are preferred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]