Issues around climate change adaptation.

Adaptation to climate change is a complex task since vulnerability and adaptive capacity are determined by diverse factors. Extensive research has been developed to understand global vulnerability based on geography, biophysical hazards etc. but relatively little attention has been paid to contextual social issues. Growing literature on social vulnerability has depicted relevant determinants of vulnerability such as gender, race, class, age or financial capacity. Unfortunately, policymakers keep responding with traditional ad hoc responses (e.g. provide irrigation system to a small community). Understanding social determinants of vulnerability implicitly require local-level research. A better understanding of local characteristics (not only biophysical, geographical) would lead to better formulation and implementation of adaptation policy.

Is it possible to prescribe the correct “medicine” without asking the “patient” condition?  Why are social aspects being “assumed” when implementing responses? Tackling the symptoms without considering the underlying causes will hardly be an effective response to climate change hazards. There is a pressing need of focusing on understanding local social characteristics before moving into implementation. I would then suggest prioritizing analysis of the linkages between social dimensions at the local level in order to enhance the ability to address more accurately responses in both rural and urban contexts.  

Dear All,

As a ngo climate change advocate I urge you all to take action on climate change. Everyone not only key stakeholders must plan for a #NetZero carbon urban development. The missing link is science and facts which again need to be highlighted in every H3 Declaration and Policy paper. Also in the New Urban Agenda to cope directly with a healthy relationship to our planetary boundaries. With regards to overlapping, crosscutting-sectorial and multilevel-disciplinary holistic approach, which is important and notable in our fast changing society.

I also urge you policy makers paving the road to the 2030 agenda for our future leaders. Simply refer to and measure carbon emissions numbers for all new infrastructure, buildings and transportation.

‘Green belts and urban growth boundaries seem like an excellent way to limit growth and preserve open space.
Indicators for consumption is another big issue that should be facilitated and tackled within the outcome of the Habitat 3 agreement. As stated in Prague “European Habitat Conference” Mr Joan Close~”Cities are responsible for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions”. Uncontrolled consumption is a subject Habitat III must deal with. There is still some response time for this before prepCom3, to bring out the best of our #urbanthinkers.

What I’m referring to is the Carbon budget, which is not in the Paris agreement.

This planet has a limit to how much carbon dioxide it can hold from the usage of fossil fuels.

SIMPLE Climate Paris Agreement Truth in Facts and Numbers

Paris Agreement = 42 G tonnes of CO2 x 10 years = 420 (GTy-1)
420> than 400 Limite = >1.5 Degrees = Paris Agreement lies and says looks to , 1.5 Degrees

This contempt for Life will risk the future of humanity and our vulnerable earth, for something that we don’t need to do. To turn away from the truth is to risk the future of all children. We can’t avoid the rapid change coming to everything we are used to. Habitat III is now the body to inspire and make important decisions, for rational, radical and bold urban climate action.

In order to slow down rise in temperature and runaway climate change, echo the Carbon budget everywhere from local motion to planetary framework.

I think cities could benefit from urban decoys to predict and guideline citizenship within “Threshold of originality”.

“Focus on cities alone cannot tackle issues & challenges we face..we also need to consider the rural-urban continuum”.

Time is not on our side. I can only do this now – go bigger, think bigger n’ act greater.

/Thank you

• Each Policy Unit worked out good draft papers containing a lot of recommendations. Having said that, I cannot be fully satisfied with such outcomes because there is not a big paradigm shift and something specially new in the New Urban Agenda.

• Let’s think about a paradigm shift from Habitat I to Habitat II in connection with Urbanization. In Habitat I, we were in a position to negatively consider urbanization trend since it give only heavy burden to cities. Majority wanted to stop or at least slow down the urbanization. As Dr. Clos stated at the first day, there was various discussion and research on the relationship between urbanization and development until Habitat II. Then, conclusion appeared in Habitat II by saying that we can positively consider urbanization because cities are “engine of growth”. This was the dramatic paradigm shift from negative consideration to positive one. However, I cannot find this kind of big paradigm shift in our New Urban Agenda.

• Although I myself don’t have concreate idea on the paradigm shift in Habitat III, for example, it seems that debate on climate change and global warming is most serious issue in relation with urbanization last twenty years. Now, question is whether or not urbanization is good for our planet? Twenty years ago, answer was clearly NO. But, now we should say YES by changing our urban life style, reducing consumption and waste and using non-fossil fuel. We have to shift our life style from mass consumption and waste to less consumption and waste. It is the next urbanism. I want say that urbanization is good for our future planet. Such big paradigm shift must be needed in New Urban Agenda.

• In addition to 10 policy papers, now, we have to work out new paradigms of Habitat III as chapeau of New Urban Agenda, which can conbine several new aspects appeared in 10 policy papers. Otherwise, New Urban Agenda cannot attract the international community.

The behavior and outcome changes you describe as desirable cannot be acheived without a fundamental change in our relationship to land, including urban land. Every parcel or tract of land has some potential annual rental value based on locational advantages, the highest values normally found in the financial district of a city. Every public expenditure to improve conditions is capitalized into higher land values.  The problem is that few cities collect this value via taxation. Not only does this result in the hoarding of land and in land speculation, but the costs of providing public goods and services are imposed on the wages of workers, on owners of actual captial goods and on commerce. This fundamental fiscal problem must be resolved before cities can become population centers that work for all residents and with sustainability of the planet’s resources.  

• Each Policy Unit worked out good draft papers containing a lot of recommendations. Having said that, I cannot be fully satisfied with such outcomes because there is not a big paradigm shift and something specially new in the New Urban Agenda.

• Let’s think about a paradigm shift from Habitat I to Habitat II in connection with Urbanization. In Habitat I, we were in a position to negatively consider urbanization trend since it give only heavy burden to cities. Majority wanted to stop or at least slow down the urbanization. As Dr. Clos stated at the first day, there was various discussion and research on the relationship between urbanization and development until Habitat II. Then, conclusion appeared in Habitat II by saying that we can positively consider urbanization because cities are “engine of growth”. This was the dramatic paradigm shift from negative consideration to positive one. However, I cannot find this kind of big paradigm shift in our New Urban Agenda.

• Although I myself don’t have concreate idea on the paradigm shift in Habitat III, for example, it seems that debate on climate change and global warming is most serious issue in relation with urbanization last twenty years. Now, question is whether or not urbanization is good for our planet? Twenty years ago, answer was clearly NO. But, now we should say YES by changing our urban life style, reducing consumption and waste and using non-fossil fuel. We have to shift our life style from mass consumption and waste to less consumption and waste. It is the next urbanism. I want say that urbanization is good for our future planet. Such big paradigm shift must be needed in New Urban Agenda.

• In addition to 10 policy papers, now, we have to work out new paradigms of Habitat III as chapeau of New Urban Agenda, which can conbine several new aspects appeared in 10 policy papers. Otherwise, New Urban Agenda cannot attract the international community.

In India there is a National Mission on Sustainable Habitat that focuses on various sustainable energy, resilience and climate change adaptation options which  inter alia include:

–          Promoting energy efficiency as a core component of urban planning

–          Emphasising urban waste management and recycling.

–          Enforcing automotive fuel efficiency by applying the instrument of pricing to encourage use  of efficient vehicles.

–          Incentivising use of public transportation

There is a felt need to prepare for sustainable urban plan in India to improve the quality of urban life for its citizens and enabling them to be more energy efficient.

 On average about 30% households in each city in India live in dilapidated houses. Providing decent shelter for this huge number of people is a major challenge faced by the construction sector in India. Developing energy-efficient and environmentally sound residential and commercial buildings in Indian cities is the need of the hour. The activity would involve bringing in energy efficient low cost housing technologies to meet the increasing demand for shelter for the low-income population.

 There is also a greater need for energy conservation in Indian Cities as they become industrialised and their populations grow. The need for increasing amounts of energy places a heavy burden on energy-supply systems.

 With the given conditions of Indian Cities, energy conservation in the production and maintenance of buildings can be achieved by promoting the use of Solar Energy and Natural Cooling in the Design of Buildings in various cities. Solar Cities programme in more than 60 cities in India are pursuing this strategy. Similarly, energy efficiency can be promoted in the built environment through:

–          Enforcing the compliance to the Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) through awareness creation, training and demonstration projects;

–          Training architects and engineers on green building designs;

–          Creating or strengthening existing green mortgage systems to accelerate the market uptake of green buildings;

–          Integrate green building design in the University curriculum of building practitioners;

–          Promote the adoption of resources efficiency measures in the built environment;

–          Mainstreaming energy efficiency within commercial operations;

–          Encouraging the use of renewable energy systems;

–          Promoting energy rating for commercial buildings;

–          Mandatory annual energy audits for commercial buildings;

–          Establishment of advisory centres – at the municipality level – for energy efficiency;

–          Developing programmes to eliminate unnecessary and inefficient Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems;

–          Establishing fiscal incentives/subsidies/penalties;

–          Capacity development of stakeholders;

–          Setting targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy;

–          Making energy efficiency compulsory for renovation and redevelopment plans  

 Urban Transport: Preparation of Sustainable Urban Transport Plans

 There is a need to develop plans which minimize dependence on hydrocarbons and make the transport sector environment friendly. The Government of India has plans for electrification of the road transport sector and implementing creative solutions aimed at improved traffic demand management, non-motorized transport, low-emission vehicles, etc.    Governmental policies are also focusing on adoption of low-carbon measures in the mobility sector that inter alia include the following actions:

–          Promoting modal shift from private to public transport;

–          Adopting low-carbon transport practices such as electric vehicles, non-motorized transport modes (walking and cycling): Modal shift from energy intensive modes (cars) to walking, cycling and public transport.

Municipal Services

 The main focus areas consist of:

• Management of Water Resources
• Urban Energy Planning
• Municipal waste and sewage to Energy.
• Promote waste to energy initiatives: Energy from Municipal Waste                                             

         In India 55% to 60% of waste generated is organic and can be transformed into energy.  MSW has the potential to play an active role in the generation of sustainable energy.  Per capita waste generation in Indian cities is 0.4 kg per person per day in cities with populations of more than 100,000.  This is scheduled to rise by 1.3% per annum further straining the resources of Urban Local Bodies which spend around Rs 500 to Rs1500 per ton on solid waste management.  The per capita waste can be transformed into an asset that can produce additional revenue for the local authority. A city with a population of 100,000 generates approximately 40,000 kilograms of waste every day of which 24,000 kilograms is organic and can be anaerobically digested to produce 4.2 million KWh of electricity annually.

In India, there is scope for energy saving potential of 30% through efficiency improvements in public lighting.

 Developing Water Demand Management Strategies and action plans to help them minimize water losses and also to improve energy efficiency in water supply are necessary.

Formulation of sustainable urban energy plans for Indian cities is necessary to confront the challenges of increasing energy costs and rapid climate change, it is inevitable to develop and implement urban energy management solutions for their sustainable future.

The best community planning is done with input from all “stakeholders” and the broad needs of the community. From the perspective of efficient use of resources and the creation of livable communities, the issues are complex. With land-rent taxation in place, owners of land will either develop land to its highest, best use or put it on the market so that someone else can. Highest, best use is determined, in large part, by permitted uses and restrictions placed on development. For example, what provision is made for off-street automobile parking? Is there a requirement for some minimum green space within the proposed development? Are there height restrictions? Are there set-back requirements regarding the streetscape? What materials are required (e.g., solar panels on buildings, roof-top plantings to capture rainfall to reduce runoff, etc.).

I represent the Cities Footprint Project (www.citiesfootprint.com), which promotes low-carbon and climate-resilient development in 11 cities in Latin America, with the support of CAF-Latin American Development Bank, and the implementation of Servicios Ambientales S.A. (SASA). It aims to achieve this goal with the use of Carbon and Water Footprints as urban management tools.

The mitigation and adaptation challenges encountered in these diverse cities are common but different. In Andean cities, climate change has led to melting glaciers, which compromise the ecosystems’ capacity to provide water for human and animal consumption, electricity generation, agriculture and farming, industrial use, among others. A couple measures to react to this adverse effects can be: 1) retrofit of water appliances – by replacing all existing water-consuming appliances in the cities by local government-led programmes, with the support of international cooperation for funding, greater resilience can be achieved; 2) PPPs for watershed protection – involving the private sector to fund protection of water sources for the cities can help to increase private companies’ visibility and commitment towards sustainability in the city, while acheiving their own sustainability goals, such as obtaining corporate water footprint neutrality. 

I reside in a suburban community near Philadelphia. Some buildings are equipped with solar panels, but not (yet) that many. There are no wind farms in the region that I am aware of. Our local government has opted single-stream recycling, which has dramatically reduced the among of waste sent to land fills. On the negative side, this region is heavily-dependent upon automobile travel, with major highways in all directions. There is limited but important public rail transit into and out of Philadelphia, without which travel would be endless gridlock. The area is losing open space to sprawling development, which has the additional side-effect of limiting absorption of water during rainstorms and increasing the risk of flooding in low lying areas.