Search

Urbanisation is truly a global phenomenon. Starting at 39% in 1980, the urbanisation level rose to 52% in 2011. Ongoing rapid urbanisation has led to increase in urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Urban climate change risks have also increased with increase in climate-induced extreme weather events and more low-income urban dwellers living in climate sensitive locations. Despite increased emissions, including GHGs and heightened climate change vulnerability, climate mitigation and adaptation actions are rare in the cities of developing countries. Cities are overwhelmed with worsening congestion, air pollution, crime, waste management, and unemployment problems. Lack of resources and capacity constraints are other factors that discourage cities from embarking on climate change mitigation and adaptation pathways. Given the multitude of problems faced, there is simply no appetite for stand-alone urban climate change mitigation and adaptation policies and programmes. Urban mitigation and adaptation goals will have to be achieved as co-benefits of interventions targeted at solving pressing urban problems and challenges. The paper identifies administratively simple urban interventions that can help cities solve some of their pressing service delivery and urban environmental problems, while simultaneously mitigating rising urban GHG emissions and vulnerability to climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the UK, there now exist hundreds of low-carbon community groups (LCCGs) that aim to decrease collective resource consumption and/or generate renewable energy through diverse social and environmental interventions. These groups have in recent years become the subject of political attention and funding schemes, underpinned by beliefs that LCCGs are key to fostering resilience to climate change and meeting national-level greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. While previous research into LCCGs has focused on drivers, barriers and outcomes of LCCG action, there is now growing policy and academic interest in groups' capacities for, and uses of, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes and tools. However, little is known about the experiences, opportunities and potential challenges for LCCGs undertaking M&E. In response, this paper draws on a Knowledge Exchange project that explored M&E processes and tools with a sample of UK LCCGs. It outlines the benefits and drawbacks of groups' attempts to achieve change and to account for their outcomes and/or impacts, individually, and as part of a wider movement. It argues that, while M&E could be one way for groups to “scale up” their impact without losing their grounding in place and community, issues of capacity, resources and utility remain paramount. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) is taking significant steps towards climate change mitigation, including a carbon tax on fossil fuels and legislation that mandates greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions within public sector organisations and GHG reduction targets for municipalities. This paper carries out a preliminary scan of the GHG emissions of BC communities using the provincially mandated Community Energy and Emissions Inventory reports. We map trends in energy consumption and emissionsper capitawhile uncovering correlations between these variables and land-use planning, geographic, and demographic variables. These data have shown that: (1) energy consumption in BC is an adequate proxy for GHG emissions; (2) transportation, more than buildings, is a strong driver of overall GHG emissions; (3) building emissions are not likely to be strongly influenced by dwelling type, but density of buildings is crucial; (4) geographic location influences emissions; and (5) population size and age do not appear to influenceper capitaemissions. These findings are particularly important as they suggest that the potentially intransigent factors of income and population size need not be barriers to achieving significant GHG reductions. The policy onus thus falls squarely on transportation planning, land-use, energy conservation, and fuel switching. This in turn highlights the importance of deeper underlying sociocultural and political preferences, which shape the behaviours that have a strong bearing on emissions profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]