Andrew Sudmant

The economic case for low carbon waste management in rapidly growing cities in the developing world: The case of Palembang, Indonesia

The provision of appropriate waste management is not only an indicator of development but also of broader sustainability. This is particularly relevant to expanding cities in developing countries faced with rising waste generation and associated environmental health problems. Despite these urgent issues, city authorities often lack the evidence required to make well-informed decisions. This study evaluates the carbon and economic performance of low-carbon measures in the waste sector at a city level, within the context of a developing country. Palembang in Indonesia is used as a case of a medium-sized city in a newly industrialized country, with relevance to other similar cities in the developing world. Evidence suggests that the waste sector can achieve substantial carbon emission reductions, and become a carbon sink, in a cost effective way. Hence there is an economic case for a low carbon development path for Palembang, and possibly for other cities in developing and developed countries facing similar challenges.

Exploring the economic case for early investment in climate change mitigation in middle-income countries: a case study of Johor Bahru, Malaysia

The assumption that climate mitigation can only be afforded at a particular level of income is implicit in global climate negotiations. This suggests that middle-income countries may reach a tipping point in their development process where low-carbon investment becomes more viable. In order to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, this tipping point needs to be brought forward in time: upper-middle-income countries are already responsible for 37.8% of global CO2 emissions. We explore the scope for large-scale investment in climate mitigation in Johor Bahru, a fast-growing industrial city in Malaysia. We find that the city could reduce per capita emissions by 10.0% by 2025, relative to 2014 levels, through cost-effective investments. If the returns could be recovered and reinvested in low-carbon measures, Johor Bahru could reduce per capita emissions by 35.2% by 2025, relative to 2014 levels. This result suggests that the tipping point may be a function of political will and institutional capacity as well as income. This has substantial implications for global climate policy discussions, particularly the opportunities and responsibilities of middle-income countries. If comparable savings can be delivered across cities in middle-income countries, this would equate to a reduction in global emissions of 6.3% with the exploitation of cost-effective options and 11.3% with the exploitation of cost-neutral options. Investing in economically attractive low-carbon measures could also provide cities in middle-income countries with an opportunity to build the political momentum and institutional capacities necessary for deeper decarbonization.

Uncovering blind spots in urban carbon management: the role of consumption-based carbon accounting in Bristol, UK

The rapid urbanisation of the twentieth century, along with the spread of high-consumption urban lifestyles, has led to cities becoming the dominant drivers of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing these impacts is crucial, but production-based frameworks of carbon measurement and mitigation—which encompass only a limited part of cities’ carbon footprints—are much more developed and widely applied than consumption-based approaches that consider the embedded carbon effectively imported into a city. Frequently, therefore, cities are left blind to the importance of their wider consumption-related climate impacts, while at the same time left lacking effective tools to reduce them. To explore the relevance of these issues, we implement methodologies for assessing production- and consumption-based emissions at the city-level and estimate the associated emissions trajectories for Bristol, a major UK city, from 2000 to 2035. We develop mitigation scenarios targeted at reducing the former, considering potential energy, carbon and financial savings in each case. We then compare these mitigation potentials with local government ambitions and Bristol’s consumption-based emissions trajectory. Our results suggest that the city’s consumption-based emissions are three times the production-based emissions, largely due to the impacts of imported food and drink. We find that low-carbon investments of circa £3 billion could reduce production-based emissions by 25% in 2035. However, we also find that this represents <10% of Bristol’s forecast consumption-based emissions for 2035 and is approximately equal to the mitigation achievable by eliminating the city’s current levels of food waste. Such observations suggest that incorporating consumption-based emission statistics into cities’ accounting and decision-making processes could uncover largely unrecognised opportunities for mitigation that are likely to be essential for achieving deep decarbonisation.

Can low-carbon urban development be pro-poor? The case of Kolkata, India:

Fast-growing cities in the global South have an important role to play in climate change mitigation. However, city governments typically focus on more pressing socioeconomic needs, such as reducing urban poverty. To what extent can social, economic and climate objectives be aligned? Focusing on Kolkata in India, we consider the economic case for low-carbon urban development, and assess whether this pathway could support wider social goals. We find that Kolkata could reduce its energy bill by 8.5 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions by 20.7 per cent in 2025, relative to business-as-usual trends, by exploiting readily available, economically attractive mitigation options. Some of these measures offer significant social benefits, particularly in terms of public health; others jeopardize low-income urban residents’ livelihoods, housing and access to affordable services. Our findings demonstrate that municipal mitigation strategies need to be designed and delivered in collaboration with affected communities in order to minimize social costs and – possibly – achieve transformative change.

Low carbon cities: is ambitious action affordable?

Research has begun to uncover the extent that greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to cities, as well as the scope for cities to contribute to emissions reduction. But assessments of the economics of urban climate mitigation are lacking, and are currently based on selective case studies or specific sectors. Further analysis is crucial to enable action at the urban level. Here we consider the investment needs associated with 11 clusters of low carbon measures that could be deployed across the world’s urban areas in a way that is consistent with a broader 2°C target. Economic assessment of these low carbon measures finds that they could be deployed around the world with investments of c

The Economics of Climate Mitigation: Exploring the Relative Significance of the Incentives for and Barriers to Low-carbon Investment in Urban Areas:

1 trillion per year between 2015 and 2050 (equivalent to 1.3% of global GDP in 2014). When the direct savings that emerge from these measures due to avoided energy costs are considered, under the central scenario these investments have a net present value of c

Exploring the economic case for climate action in cities

16.6 trillion USD in the period to 2050. However, discount rates, energy prices and rates of technological learning are key to the economic feasibility of climate action, with the NPV of these measures ranging from -

Cities and climate change mitigation: Economic opportunities and governance challenges in Asia

1.1 trillion USD to

The economic case for low-carbon development in rapidly growing developing world cities: A case study of Palembang, Indonesia

65.2 trillion USD under different conditions.

Climate change mitigation in Chinese megacities: A measures-based analysis of opportunities in the residential sector

Achieving net zero emissions by 2050, as envisioned in the Paris Agreement, will require radical changes to urban form and function. Securing the necessary commitments and resources will be easier in the presence of a compelling economic case for mitigation. Focusing on Recife in Brazil, this article evaluates a wide range of low-carbon measures under different discount rates and energy prices. It finds that under less favourable conditions (high discount rates, constant energy prices), the city could reduce its emissions by 15 per cent, relative to business-as-usual (BAU) trends, through investment which would generate returns at market interest rates. Under more favourable conditions (low discount rates, increasing energy prices), the city could reduce emissions by 25 per cent with market-rate returns. That these opportunities have not been exploited indicates that barriers to low-carbon investment, including poor provision of information, transaction costs and capacity deficits may be of greater importance than the scale of direct incentives for raising climate investment. Decision makers therefore need to prioritise the dismantling of these obstacles to low-carbon investment and fostering of norms of environmental citizenship within cities.