Sarah Colenbrander

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.

Making the case for the nexus between resilience and resource efficiency at the city scale

ABSTRACT Global challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity and poverty must increasingly be tackled in cities. While cities can be significant contributors to climate change and resource scarcity, and face considerable risks as a consequence of these, they are also central to the solutions for these challenges. The quality of infrastructure, reliability of service provision and other economic and political conditions in urban areas shape levels of resource use by, and exposure to risks for, residents. This paper – which introduces a special issue on resilience and resource efficiency at the city scale – introduces these two concepts and explores the nexus between them. It uses several case studies from different contexts to illustrate the relationship between these ideas, and describes how the papers in the issue engage with them.

Financing the Inclusive City: the Catalytic Role of Community Savings

Global conversations around financing urban development typically neglect the importance of coordinating the activities of different stakeholders behind a shared vision for their city. In particular, low-income and other marginalized groups must be seen as entrepreneurs and partners in service delivery to enhance the efficacy of resource use and to reduce poverty. This paper explores the creation of non-traditional business models and alliances to invest in informal settlements. It presents examples from India, Kenya, Pakistan, Thailand and Zimbabwe, where local authorities, commercial banks and other formal actors have co-financed and co-delivered urban plans, housing and infrastructure through collaborations with organized groups of the urban poor. These groups make three critical contributions: financial resources, detailed information on the composition of informal settlements, and capabilities for collective decision-making and action. These contributions are underpinned by the financial and social capital developed through collective saving, and enable the delivery of complex urban improvements at scale.

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

Editorial: Finance for community-led local, city and national development:

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 -

Using climate finance to advance climate justice: the politics and practice of channelling resources to the local level

1.1 trillion USD to

Exploring the economic case for climate action in cities

65.2 trillion USD under different conditions.